1 2 > 
 
   
 

Exposing Muslim Chameleons

 
douglasmurraymint
 
Avatar
 
 
douglasmurraymint
Total Posts:  1
Joined  29-10-2012
 
 
 
30 October 2012 10:31
 

Many high profile Muslims based in the West present a sanitized version of Islam in order to gain acceptance/employment in Western institutions.
However, when presenting to largely Muslim audiences especially in Muslim majority countries they present a more traditional view of their faith, often with quite significant backward steps in views and ideas about the west. My initial research of net based video clips has produced the most remarkable contrast in views, ideas and concepts presented to western versus largely Muslim audiences.

I believe the perpetrators should be exposed and my initial list for investigation would include:
-Salman Hameed
-Tariq Ramadan
-Myriam Francois-Cerrah
-Medi Hansan
-Hamza Yusuf Hanson

I do have a number of video clips which show some of these individuals directly contradicting themselves in order, apparently, to suit local opinon.
Is this exercise worthwhile?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 10:37
 
douglasmurraymint - 30 October 2012 09:31 AM

I do have a number of video clips which show some of these individuals directly contradicting themselves in order, apparently, to suit local opinon.
Is this exercise worthwhile?


Seems like it would be, just as when other fundy types do the same, but the potential consequences are likely a good deal higher in this case.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 12:18
 
Skep - 30 October 2012 09:37 AM
douglasmurraymint - 30 October 2012 09:31 AM

I do have a number of video clips which show some of these individuals directly contradicting themselves in order, apparently, to suit local opinon.
Is this exercise worthwhile?


Seems like it would be, just as when other fundy types do the same, but the potential consequences are likely a good deal higher in this case.

You’re probably right, Skep, but sometimes I think the problem with we western secularists is a lack of courage. I think this has been brought about in part by the pernicious influence of relativism. We need to be more certain of the rightness of our cause and perhaps we need to be braver in advocating for it. Silence, or worse,appeasement, can be a killer in the end and are themselves moral failures. Physicist David Deutsch talks about this in his EDGE piece at http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_deutsch.html which he wrote in response the 9/11. I think he was right on the mark in this piece and I think in the intervening years since that disaster what he said said then has become more and more relevant. Therefore I would say that Douglas’ exercise is very worthwhile and I’d love to help disseminate those videos if they demonstrate what Douglas suggests they do.

[ Edited: 30 October 2012 12:21 by robbrownsyd]
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 12:59
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 11:18 AM
Skep - 30 October 2012 09:37 AM
douglasmurraymint - 30 October 2012 09:31 AM

I do have a number of video clips which show some of these individuals directly contradicting themselves in order, apparently, to suit local opinon.
Is this exercise worthwhile?

Seems like it would be, just as when other fundy types do the same, but the potential consequences are likely a good deal higher in this case.

You’re probably right, Skep, but sometimes I think the problem with we western secularists is a lack of courage ...


I meant that the likelihood of higher consequences is a reason to engage in this “exercise”, as the OP put it.

We don’t avoid the actual consequences through inaction, we just avoid increased odds of being personally targeted.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 13:04
 

Yes, I misunderstood what you said. Sorry. Have you read the Edge peice by Deutsch I linked to, Skep?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 13:23
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 12:04 PM

Yes, I misunderstood what you said. Sorry. Have you read the Edge peice by Deutsch I linked to, Skep?


Yup ... well, a chunk of it anyway—good way to turn the world against us and ensure failure in detail.

He starts from good premises but fails to remain grounded in reality, quite frankly, when he sets off into formulating his plans. He completely ignores social factors. The way to win this culture war is through the mixing of cultures (acculturation—consider the range and distribution of US Muslims vs. European Muslims vs. Pakistani Muslims) and through targeted cultural imperialism. The surest way to fail and to make it as ugly as possible, is to offer fanatics real oppression, a real war of cultural genocide. That, as we’ve been taught time and time again, most recently by W, is the most effective way to ensure growth and the intensification of cohesion and fanaticism in fanatical religious groups.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 13:40
 

But that’s only if you see this as being primarily about religion, Skep. (I used to see it that way) But it is goes deeper than that. At the deepest level it is about how we think about what is right, and what is right depends on progress in understanding a lot of facts about the world which in turn depends on the way of thinking that sprang from the western enlightenment.

Or am I crediting Deutsch with having more prescience than he deserves? I’m not sure anymore.

But it has to be about reason because without reason there can be no progress, material or moral . Muslim and other fundmaentalists cannot be reasoned with. How can progress be made by bowing to their unreason?

You said you read parts of it. Perhaps a more careful reading of Deutsch’s article would clarify things. Deutsch seemed to me to come on too strong when I first read the article but when I looked more carefully, when I’d read it several times,  I began to agree with him. I have also had the benefit of reading his books and so have come to understand how his rational scientific reasoning spills over into his moral reasoning. But, of course, I may have been blinded by the light.

[ Edited: 30 October 2012 15:47 by robbrownsyd]
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 13:53
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

But that’s only if you see this as being primarily about religion, Skep.


Actually I wasn’t thinking in those terms at all. It’s about ideologue ... ism. Religious fundies are dangerous when they’re extreme ideologues, and they’re probably more fanatical than most extreme ideologues. It seems religious fanaticism is the most popular form of extremism at the least. Anti-X can lead to a problematic level of fanaticism as well though—you can be an anti-ideologue ideologue.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 14:00
 
SkepticX - 30 October 2012 12:53 PM
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 12:40 PM

But that’s only if you see this as being primarily about religion, Skep.


Actually I wasn’t thinking in those terms at all. It’s about ideologue ... ism. Religious fundies are dangerous when they’re extreme ideologues, and they’re probably more fanatical than most extreme ideologues. It seems religious fanaticism is the most popular form of extremism at the least. Anti-X can lead to a problematic level of fanaticism as well though—you can be an anti-ideologue ideologue.

Yes, but then, I suppose, you could also be an anti-anti-ideologue ideologue ... and never reach the bottom of the anti-heap.

Maybe Deutsch’s scientific/objective moral nonsense just suites my scientific/objective moral nonsense in the same way as N/A’s nonsense suites the tastes of some other members here. I enjoy Deutsch. And I want/need a quantum computer ASAP.

[ Edited: 30 October 2012 14:15 by robbrownsyd]
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
30 October 2012 14:12
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 01:00 PM

Maybe Deutsch’s scientific/objective moral nonsense just suites my scientific/objective moral nonsense in the same way as N/A’s nonsense suites the tastes of some other members here. I enjoy Deutsch.

Rob, Dr. German’s free use of terms within the ancient good-evil approach, if I were to accept them as being as wonderful as you seem to view them, would cause me to abandon my current work and set myself to the full-time task of bombing the hell out of all major decision-making institutions run by or in support of the U.S. government. Obviously that’s not a productive and beneficial approach to take in attempting to solve life’s most challenging problems. My nation’s behavior in Vietnam alone gives me more ammunition than I need to feel it necessary to spew hatred upon my own government for the remainder of my years. But I don’t. I even spent a year of my life dutifully toiling behind a GS-3 desk in offices of the U.S. Department of State without even once considering blowing up the building. Such an attack would been insane to say the least.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 14:32
 
nonverbal - 30 October 2012 01:12 PM
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 30 October 2012 01:00 PM

Maybe Deutsch’s scientific/objective moral nonsense just suites my scientific/objective moral nonsense in the same way as N/A’s nonsense suites the tastes of some other members here. I enjoy Deutsch.

Rob, Dr. German’s free use of terms within the ancient good-evil approach, if I were to accept them as being as wonderful as you seem to view them, would cause me to abandon my current work and set myself to the full-time task of bombing the hell out of all major decision-making institutions run by or in support of the U.S. government. Obviously that’s not a productive and beneficial approach to take in attempting to solve life’s most challenging problems. My nation’s behavior in Vietnam alone gives me more ammunition than I need to feel it necessary to spew hatred upon my own government for the remainder of my years. But I don’t. I even spent a year of my life dutifully toiling behind a GS-3 desk in offices of the U.S. Department of State without even once considering blowing up the building. Such an attack would been insane to say the least.

I’ll admit, NV, that at first there seems to be some hyperbole in Deutsch’s article. But I do not think he is advocating what you think he is. He’s criticising the jelly-backed relativist reasoning of the likes of Freeman Dyson (also a renowned scientist but no great thinker in ethics).

NV, I had to read Deutsch’s article three times over several days and use a highlighter before I fully understood what he was saying. (I can think deeply but I am slower than some) Deutsch is difficult but good value. Please read the article again and I’m sure you will have no further thoughts in respect of the relative rightness of blowing up your own public buildings.

Maybe the following short contribution to Edgeby Deutsch will make his moral position clearer:

How are moral assertions connected with the world of facts?

“Unlike many ancient philosophical problems, this one has, paradoxically, been made both more urgent and less tractable by the gradual triumph of scientific rationality. Indeed, the prevailing modern attitude towards it is a sort of dogmatic despair: ‘you can‘t get an ought from an is, therefore morality must be outside the domain of reason‘. Having fallen for that non-sequitur, one has only two options: either to embrace unreason, or to try living without ever making a moral judgement. In either case, one becomes a menace to oneself and everyone else.

On the tape of the bin Laden dinner party, a participant states his belief that during the September 11 attack, Americans were afraid that a coup d’état was under way. Worldwide, tens of millions of people believe that the Israeli secret service carried out the attack. These are factual misconceptions, yet they bear the imprint of moral wrongness just as clearly as a fossil bears the imprint of life. This illustrates an important strand in the fabric of reality: although factual and moral assertions are logically independent (one cannot deduce either from the other), factual and moral explanations are not. There is an explanatory link between ought and is, and this provides one of the ways in which reason can indeed address moral issues.

Jacob Bronowski pointed out that a commitment to discovering scientific truth entails a commitment to certain values, such as tolerance, integrity, and openness to ideas and to change. But there‘s more to it than that. Not only scientific discovery, but scientific understanding itself can depend on one’s moral stance. Just look at the difficulty that creationists have in understanding what the theory of evolution says. Look at the prevalence of conspiracy theories among the supporters of bad causes, and how such people are systematically blind to rational argument about the facts of the matter. And, conversely, look at Galileo, whose factual truth-seeking forced him to question the Church’s moral authority.

Why does this happen? We should not be surprised – at least, no more surprised than we are that, say, scientific and mathematical explanations are connected. The truth has structural unity as well as logical consistency, and I guess that no true explanation is entirely disconnected from any other. In particular, in order to understand the moral landscape in terms of a given set of values, one needs to understand some facts as being a certain way too, and vice versa. Moreover, I think it is a general principle that morally right values are connected in this way with true factual theories, and morally wrong values with false theories.

What sort of principle is this? Though it refers to morality, at root it is epistemological. It is about the structure of true explanations, and about the circumstances under which knowledge can or cannot grow. This, in turn, makes it ultimately a physical fact – but that is another story”.


That “other story” Deutsch explores in his latest book, The Begining of Infinity which, if you’re a rationalist optimist and moral objectivist like me will make your toes curl with pleasure.

[ Edited: 30 October 2012 15:06 by robbrownsyd]
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 15:23
 
nonverbal - 30 October 2012 01:12 PM

Rob, Dr. German’s free use of terms within the ancient good-evil approach, if I were to accept them as being as wonderful as you seem to view them, would cause me to abandon my current work and set myself to the full-time task of bombing the hell out of all major decision-making institutions run by or in support of the U.S. government. Obviously that’s not a productive and beneficial approach to take in attempting to solve life’s most challenging problems. My nation’s behavior in Vietnam alone gives me more ammunition than I need to feel it necessary to spew hatred upon my own government for the remainder of my years. But I don’t. I even spent a year of my life dutifully toiling behind a GS-3 desk in offices of the U.S. Department of State without even once considering blowing up the building. Such an attack would been insane to say the least.


He certainly does seem to be thinking in a vacuum—talking about how thinks things should be and theorizing from within that context without much regard at all to how things are and how reality actually applies.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 15:27
 

Could you enlarge on that, Skep? Give some specific examples, maybe?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 15:35
 

The fact that others tend to get involved if one country starts making war with others ... for starters.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
30 October 2012 15:59
 
Skep - 30 October 2012 02:35 PM

The fact that others tend to get involved if one country starts making war with others ... for starters.

He does not suggest otherwise, Skep. At least not as far as I can see. But what has that got to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of a cause? Others usually get involved on both sides don’t they? Just as some sided with Hitler and others did not. Shouldn’t we be glad it is like that and not otherwise? Imagine if one day ‘evil’ became so persuasive, pervasive and overpowering that ‘good’ was left with none on it’s side.

I fail to see how this indicates that Deutsch is thinking in a vacuum. But, then, I often fail to understand things that seem clear to others so perhaps you could indulge me with further specific examples and explanations.

[ Edited: 30 October 2012 16:08 by robbrownsyd]
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
30 October 2012 23:13
 
douglasmurraymint - 30 October 2012 09:31 AM

Many high profile Muslims based in the West present a sanitized version of Islam in order to gain acceptance/employment in Western institutions.
However, when presenting to largely Muslim audiences especially in Muslim majority countries they present a more traditional view of their faith, often with quite significant backward steps in views and ideas about the west. My initial research of net based video clips has produced the most remarkable contrast in views, ideas and concepts presented to western versus largely Muslim audiences.

I believe the perpetrators should be exposed and my initial list for investigation would include:
-Salman Hameed
-Tariq Ramadan
-Myriam Francois-Cerrah
-Medi Hansan
-Hamza Yusuf Hanson

I do have a number of video clips which show some of these individuals directly contradicting themselves in order, apparently, to suit local opinon.
Is this exercise worthwhile?

I’d be very interested in looking over any incriminating evidence you have on Tariq Ramadan.
The fact that he’s banned from a fist full of Islamic states suggests to me that he’s playing the right side of the board.
If I am to be proved wrong, the sooner the better please.

 
 1 2 >