Better Representing Muslims: A Few Ideas

[PromethianSpark]

What's more a people cannot be judged by individuals within it, but by the people as a whole. A person (single) is fine, but a people, when they all get together and are taken as a whole, is something entirely different. This is the root of sociology, which is really the only way of dealing with or understanding things on a national or cultural level. Liberals, the peace at any price movement, and humanitarians like to try and focus on individuals and put a human face on problems, but that is ultimately counter productive in the large sense because what a person is like when approached in relative isolation as an individual, and what they are like when immersed with others of their own kind is entirely different. As much as people hate sociology in these arguments, it's the real deal and is exploited constantly by advertisers and similar sorts every day, and to great effect.

Having a degree in sociology, I feel I must come to the rescue of the discipline and tell you all frankly, that it can not be, and should not ever be used, to support stereotyping.

I have to question that because sociology by it's definition is to define entire groups of people and then predict trends by doings so. Individual variation being mild compared to what groups of people have in common. It is by definition the science of creating and exploiting stereotypes.

Now granted, you might not like the term "stereotype" due to it's negative connotations, but that is exactly what it is no matter how much you might want to talk around it. Both sociologists and psychologists wind up being hated, or at least disliked, because they take the magic out of being human, being able to predict, define, and alter human behavior, showing we're not quite as special or individual as we want to believe. You see this exploited every day.

As a result I have to question whether you have a degree in sociology or are trying to shoot me down for the sake of doing so, as you would be the first sociologist I've ever met (and I've met quite a few, as well as studied in when I was taking Criminal Justice, albeit with a fairly focused bent by it's nature) who has pretty much tried to dispute the very definition and purpose of the entire science.

Given that I've seen it clearly demonstrated to predict, define, and deal with criminal behaviors as well as explained in detail why someone going into Forensics like I was planning on doing should know this, how it works with corrections, and of course the philosophical arguments about morality vs. reality in terms of things like using sociology as a justification for profiling (ie in the USA morality outweights common sense, and thus we set policies based on potential exceptions rather than by the rule and letting the exceptions work themselves out via associated processes. In the process creating problems whereby we waste tons of money, time, and resources harassing everyone getting on a plane, rather than the groups which are known to present a security risk, in order to make a moral point about being fair).

But by all means, as an expert tell me how you define sociology, and why you think that it cannot be used here, but it can be exploited by advertisers to predict and exploit consumer behavior.

Unless of course what your trying to say is that it shouldn't be used, not that it can't be, and you flubbed in adding that.

Well, I happen to specialise in the sociology of Northern Ireland, and I can tell you with certainty that those working in that area spent a great deal of time dispensing with theories that tend to depict two homogeneous monolithic groups, the catholics and the protestants etc. The problem with approaches like that is that they tend to be too simplistic to have any explanatory value beyond conventional wisdom. Life just isn't that simple.

As for the question of what sociology is, this is not an easy thing to answer, considering that sociologist often ask themselves the same thing. It doesn't help that their are different answers. There is a divide within the discipline which is in many ways centred around the issue of whether sociology is actually a science. Sure there are the 'structuralists' (for want of a better word) who believe that it is, and that the scientific method is applicable to society or culture, and there are the humanists who don't. Structuralist however, can rarely tell you anything that you don't already know, and tend to make generalisations. They often yield in the end to the more nuanced pictures of how things work which emerge from the more humanistic sociologists.

In general, I would say that sociology is more concerned with understanding society/culture, than it is in ascertaining any rigid laws like science. It has very little predictive value in the end, and can not be used to model the future of our society. In the end, it tends to be more of a political project, as it is a vehicle for criticizing society, and attempting to influence it. In that sense, rejecting stereotypes is very much the business of sociology.

Now it should be noted, that I have rather crudely simplified and misrepresented the divide in sociology, but this is due to being lazy. As with anything it is complicated. Suffice to say, it is not just a matter of structuralist and humanists, but you get the idea.

 

[Xdeser2]

Most Muslims aren't exactly on board with the idea of murderizing anybody who isn't Muslim, no matter what their holy book says.

You haven't been following the news in recent months, have you? In all countries of the "Arab Spring", all non-muslims must fear for their lifes. Foreigners and non-muslims get abducted, tortured, persecuted or outright executed on sight. All in the name of Allah. I could post some videos, but that'd get me insta-banned.

You realize thats a common thing for most humans, right? Theres always a fundamentalist vein to society, and when a country is falling apart around people, you bet a large portion of those people are going to join the "Get those foreigners out of our sacred homeland" party and then scapegoat whatever they can for the problem because people like easy answers.

Its not exactly exclusive to Muslim countries lol, just look at the U.S. or any number of European countries ATM.

Damn, just look at how some vocal Europeans viewed others in the middle ages and at the age of discovery, the "Foreign hordes" mentality :/

Im not saying its right, but I'm saying its stupid to blame it entirely on one group, and then say "LOOK EVERYONE WHO FOLLOWS THAT RELIGION IS LIKE THAT" and deny that good folks exist there too, and also ignore how nearly every other society does that too.

 

[Lilani]

I really hope I don't get warned for this post, but I just have to say after reading this, that most of the stereotypes have some grounding in reality. But it's the same for everyone, no matter where you're from. Also, the muslim religion specifically states that followers should convert all non-muslims with refusal meaning death. There's no misinterpretation there, look in the Koran and you can read it for yourself. Should we really, truthfully be tolerant of a religion that wants to kill anyone who isn't a part of it?

What the Koran says ≠ how most Muslims actually behave. If you really think most Muslims have any inclination or desire to kill non-Muslims, then it's clear you haven't talked to very many. My family has a long time Muslim friend. She married a Catholic man, I was the flower girl at her wedding in Turkey, they now have a son, we've gone to Disney World together...really, you need to meet more people before judging them. Neither religion nor people are that simple.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Just look at todays world. Sunni muslims are still killing Shia muslims because they both believe different people become messiah after mohammed died. Thing is, if they cant be tolerant and peaceful and accepting of their own religion, how can western people expect them to accept and be peaceful of us? Fact is, Islam is a violent religion that isnt tolerant and is a danger to world peace. Yes, not all muslims are violent, and being from the UK many are meet are awesome. But in the middle east, its kicking off and could lead to a major sunni/shia war.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Ah yes, "the Muslim World". I've made my point on your use of this term over and over again, so I'll take a different tact. If we're going to talk big and make broad, sweeping generalisations, let's talk about the biggest part of the Muslim World, shall we? So, how do you suggest Indonesia "chill out and change"? Because, to be honest, I find it baffling that the single largest Muslim population on the planet has almost no presence in any Western media that I can think of.

To be fair, the single largest area of the Western World, Latin America, gets arse-all presence in Al Jazeera and such either, despite a massive population of a smidgen under 600 million, larger than the population of America or the EU. This would be because Latin America doesn't really do much outside their own area, at least enough to garner much attention, similar to Indonesia. Both areas, though certainly Western and Muslim in outlook, have significant differences to their parent cultures that make the way they interact with others quite distinct.

 

[Cpt. Slow]

Because that?s not their job, do you see all Christians coming out against the people that kill abortion doctors? If they aren't expected to come together in some unified front then why should Islam and anyway what would it accomplish? It would just be some pathetic show to shut bigots like you up.

Wow, so right from the start you are starting to call names. That's very uncool, but hey; I've learned when people resort to name calling, threatening or otherwise they automatically are admitting 'defeat'. Because they can not resort to a more respectful manner of communicating or just missing a (good) retort.

 

[maninahat]

While I have known a few Muslims that were great people, and I know there are many more out there, I think the onus is on them, meaning muslims as a whole, to improve their overall standing in the world. I am all about personal responsibility and it is unfair to pass of the responsibility to represent these people on our media etc. the greater population of Islamists (there are billions) need to do some in-house self policing and improve their own face that is being shown to the world. At this point, rather than just say "I'm not like that", get off your collective asses and prove it to the world...I am reminded of an MCSE course I took in early 2002 that was taught by an instructor who is Egyptian. He was traveling for work on 9/11/01 and flew back home with a group of co-workers. As he put it "You better believe they had me up against the wall frisking me and to tell you the truth, I didn't mind. In all honesty, not all of Arab Muslims are terrorists, but all of those terrorists were Arab Muslims"...In my opinion, I don't hate muslims, I just feel that globally it is time for them to prove the stereotypes wrong themselves since the most actively vocal among them keep showing the world otherwise. Seems like we have reached that point.

Tell me Frost, what in house policing are personally doing to make America look better? There is a stereotype that americans are fat, jingoistic and ignorant. By your logic, the onus is on you to prove me wrong,rather than the onus bing on me to stop being a presumptive asshole. My Muslim friends should not be expected to launch some kind of conspicuous campaign just to show they aren't fanatical extremists. They aren't hateful idiots, they don't support bigots, and they would probably alert the authorities if they knew anyone who was. I don't see what else they should be doing to "fix Islam's negative image".

Also, your professor is wrong. "All of those terrorists were Arab muslims"...of all the hundreds of terror attacks in Europe in 2006, only six were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. The stereotype that terrorism is mostly perpetrated by Muslims is utterly misleading.

 

[Zeckt]

I dislike these topics because people seem to be a little too afraid to discuss the points that Therumancer brought up. They were literally dancing in their streets when 9/11 happened, we can't say a thing about them without them literally forming mobs in their streets attacking our embassies, and they still refuse to denounce the part of their religion that teaches them to hate and wage war against Atheists. How can change ever happen if you can never get to the root of the problem that teaches the hate to begin with? How can we keep forgetting and forgiving these mobs and the parties celebrating our dead? if we did what they did we would have world war 3 because they would be so hypocritically offended. They hate us THAT much, they have no problem saying it continously yet we can never, ever do such a thing in return. If they are such good people, then may I ask why is that?

I'm sick of watching the news and every time seeing some loon shock killing innocents in our countries and being too afraid to say anything about it without being labelled racist. How long can we play the "they are not all like that" card when the core of the religion continues to spread hate against innocent people yet they all refuse to denounce that? we have mosques that literally teach them that atheists are scum in our own back yard. I cannot respect any muslim who refuses to denounce that part of the qu'ran as they scare the hell out of me.

If they don't denounce it, the hate will continue to be taught to every new generation till our political correctness kills us. And I will continue to fear and distrust them. I think for good reason, considering they think so low of me for being godless and I did absolutely nothing to them.

Also, what about the fact that they continously form lynch mobs and attack known LGBT's simply because it goes against their religious teachings? why can't they live the way they want to without interference? it's getting to the point where being politically correct is costing innocent lives.

 

[PromethianSpark]

Just look at todays world. Sunni muslims are still killing Shia muslims because they both believe different people become messiah after mohammed died. Thing is, if they cant be tolerant and peaceful and accepting of their own religion, how can western people expect them to accept and be peaceful of us? Fact is, Islam is a violent religion that isnt tolerant and is a danger to world peace. Yes, not all muslims are violent, and being from the UK many are meet are awesome. But in the middle east, its kicking off and could lead to a major sunni/shia war.

When I hear this, I can't help but think of Northern Ireland, and the lessons we can learn from that when considering this. I mean some of the things you said sound almost like what people thought about Northern Ireland, that is, catholics and protestants feuding in some archaic religious war. This narrative of events really glossed over the complexity of what was happening, which seldom had anything to do with religion, or nationality for that matter. It is in fact an ethnic conflict, a conflict between groups, not unlike conflicts we see in many modern places (think race conflict and you get the idea). It just so happened that religion served as a convenient marker of ethnic identity.

Now, what is also interesting about this is that the idea of a archaic religious conflict, which depicted the Northern Irish as laughably pre-modern, was not just a misconception but rather a carefully fostered narrative of the Northern Irish conflict, that served the interests of the British government. It goes like this: 'The Northern Irish people are backward and pre-modern, what can one do in the face of such hatred and irrationality?'Thus effectively allowing the British government to refuse responsibility for the region.

When you hear similar narratives, like the one you just mentioned, it helps to ask yourself, who benefits from us having such ridiculously simple and dehumanising conceptions of a people, conflict, or event?

 

[Nymi]

Aaaand the Bible includes a line about stoning gays to death and several about slaves. Should we really, truthfully, be tolerant of a religion that encourages the death penalty for homosexuals and the ownership of slaves?

Except Christians don't actually follow these words as rabidly as the world's muslims follow the Quran. So honestly, no, I don't think we should be tolerant.

 

[CFriis87]

If religious people want to be represented better in media, then maybe they should start representing themselves better in the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctWj-OV4cI0

 

[bjj hero]

Better Representing Muslims: A Few Ideas

Muslims don't always have to be antagonist of the war game.

Read Full Article

I loved this article (Its a shame about some of the following comments). A great write up. What made me laugh was your story "my sister works in Beiruit" to your Iraqi peers.

It might be an American thing (Are you American? Thats a huge assumption I know) but when I lived in America as a Brit (with Iranian heritage) people kept telling me of family they had in France, Germany etc. Yes its the same continent, but its a very different culture that I feel no association with.

I put it down to the massive geography of the USA, Europe must look like the same country. Equally I was often referred to as European which seemed odd to me as I would lead with English or British. do Americans feel the same way about their state? In Texas most of the people I spoke to were "Texans first" so I tend not to bore Americans I meet with "I used to live in Houston".

Id like to actually play as someone from the middle east et al. Even the fucking Prince of Persia was white...

 

[bjj hero]

Aaaand the Bible includes a line about stoning gays to death and several about slaves. Should we really, truthfully, be tolerant of a religion that encourages the death penalty for homosexuals and the ownership of slaves?

Except Christians don't actually follow these words as rabidly as the world's muslims follow the Quran. So honestly, no, I don't think we should be tolerant.

Youve never met a muslim who sleeps around, shaves their beard, drinks beer etc? Not everyone follows everything in their religion. Probably because religion is a personal thing. Unfortunately the ones that adhear to the craziest stuff usually make the press. There are lots of muslims who want nothing like Sharia law governing them as it would conflict with their beliefs and lifestyles.

When people talk about "muslims" as the same group they seem to forget that most people who suffer at the hands of whacko, conservative, muslim extreamism tend to be other muslims. People talk about the horrors of muslim terrorism but in the UK we had much more trouble and have suffered far more deaths from "Christian" terrorists from Northern Ireland. See what I did there?

It doesnt help that most of their funding and weapons arrived from the USA. That was before 9/11 when America learned that terrorism is no fun, something wed been putting up with for decades in the UK.

One muslim is not the same as the next. In their politics, ethnicity, beliefs etc.

 

[Jadak]

Aaaand the Bible includes a line about stoning gays to death and several about slaves. Should we really, truthfully, be tolerant of a religion that encourages the death penalty for homosexuals and the ownership of slaves?

The answer is no. For both religions. I'm waiting for my atheist protagonist game where all of the antagonists are religious crazies.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

I'm not really following the arguments going on this thread.
I'm just wondering, was anyone else bothered by the frequent conflations of "Muslim" and "Arabic" in this article? Contrary to popular belief, only 20% of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are actually of Middle-Eastern descent(link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population]). 62% are from South-East Asia, to which the stereotypes cited in the article don't even really apply.

I find it ironic that the article's author is guilty of the very thing he's lamenting: painting all Muslims with the same brush.