Shootings and Casualties in Central Paris - Page 44

The realization, or the argument, that there is a fundamental problem with Islam shouldn’t automatically be about hate, it shouldn’t automatically be viewed as a statement which condemns all Muslims. The realization that there is a fundamental problem with Islam is no different from any other social problem that involved wildly different viewpoints and conceptions of what society is, what free speech is, the values that people have.

I’ll be the first to condemn what I perceive to be bigotry, and I’m not saying this because I feel like it’s necessary, I’m writing this down out of sheer necessity. There are these classifications of people who have managed to figure out some way to avoid all criticism by labeling their critics as bigots and racists. Now, I wouldn’t presume to think for you, or to speak for you, but I don’t believe myself to be a racist. I criticize everyone and everything, I criticize ideologies, religions, individuals, I criticize governments, organizations, lobbies, interest groups. I criticize Christians, I criticize atheists, and I criticize Muslims, too – who are not immune to criticism just because it’s a religion, or because it’s a minority and a religion.

And to further make my point, I do criticize everything. Christians for their lack of understanding for their lack of understanding of the notion of separation of church and state, Atheists (like myself) for their militant atheism, their condescending tone, their aggressive argumentative methods. I criticize Blizzard, I criticize the big oil companies for fucking our environment, I criticize the big environmental lobbies and interest groups for lying and for bringing false data to support the side of the argument that I believe in. Because I don't think that the people I agree with in an argument should lie to make a point.

If I have not managed to convince you that I'm interested in this debate for legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry and racism, I consider this debate to be completely impossible to have. But let me assure you that I would bring up the same points for any other form of social issue and to me the fact that it has to do with religion doesn't make it any different from any other ideology. The source of the beliefs doesn't interest me nearly as much as the outcome of those beliefs.

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion which is not incompatible with peace, as evidenced by the majority of Muslims who live in western countries and who condemn the senseless violence that our countries have been subjected to in recent months and years. But it can easily be a violent religion. Much like Christianity, there are multiple interpretations of the holy scriptures, and fuck you if you think yours is the correct one. You don’t know shit and nor do I.

Nonetheless, Sam Harris argued that perhaps we’re misrepresenting what Muslims are about. We often speak in terms of extremists vs. moderates in the west, but in the middle lie Islamists, the people who perhaps act like moderates but implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) support the extremist groups. The fact of the matter is, especially in non-western countries, there is LOUD and CLEAR support, by just the normal people there, for ISIS or in some cases for Al ’Qaeda. Not "extremists". Many of the more or less "normal" average folks condone to a varying extent the acts of terrorists in the West.

But the thing is, it’s difficult to say that without being accused of bigotry, which to an extent is understandable. These kinds of arguments are mobilized for nefarious reasons. I look at this « debate » as one that needs to be considered strategically. How can one attempt to explain that there is a disconnect between « reality » and the simplistic dichotomy that people have in their heads (where anyone who isn’t a terrorist is a moderate and everything is cool).

My concern is the following. Due to the fact that I can’t even properly legitimize my place in this conversation, because I feel like no matter what I say I’ll be lumped with bigots, and the same is true with everyone who’s put in my position, this debate is not taking place. The question cannot be discussed, it is dead, it cannot take place. And even if it did, it would naturally attract the worst people have to offer. It would attract hate, and the conversation would be undermined by it. But this is a topic that needs to be discussed like any other, by smart people (much smarter than myself). But it fucking isn’t. It’s quiet, because there is too much to lose. People don’t feel the need to verify whether the comments of a person are racist, they label the person and ask questions later.

In this era of political correctness, academics and intellectuals as well as politicians are muzzled by new norms of what is acceptable to discuss. The misrepresentation of the “women make 73% of what men make for every hour worked” is egregious, but if you point that out, even if you point out that wage disparity between the genders is a thing but the 73% figure is incorrect, you’ll get shunned, you’ll get accused of sexism. I agree that sexism is a problem, but I disagree with the lies that are being mobilized to support this position that I believe in. I agree that most Muslims living in the West are great people, but that doesn’t mean that there is no problem. Of the non-terrorists, there are many who, like I said, implicitly support the actions of extremists, and thus legitimize (in the minds of said extremists) the violent actions that are taken.

So why am I writing all this shit? I don’t know, I don’t know what to do with it. I’m no expert. This is my assessment of the situation, the sociological influence of Islam and Muslims on Western society. I don’t think it’s negligible, I think it must be discussed openly and not just behind closed doors like it is in security meetings in every country. Why can’t we? Why are we fucking blinded by the polarizing effects of this question? Why are the unreasonable opinions that patently take so much of the spectrum of this debate blinding the rest of us? Those of us who are able to see behind the veil that are the obvious conclusions and the obvious simple explanations shouldn’t deprive ourselves from a more enriching debate just because most of the people are stuck at the most basic first steps of the debate.