The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Muslim Public Affairs Council Statement of Support for Hamline Professor Who Showed Muhammad Paintings
From the statement:
It is with great concern that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) views the firing of an art professor, Erika López Prater, from Hamline University on the grounds of showing a fourteenth-century painting depicting the Prophet Muḥammad. We issue this statement of support for the professor and urge the university to reverse its decision and to take compensatory action to ameliorate the situation.
News sources report that the matter reached the university administration after a Muslim student complained to them about the professor showing the image in class. Subsequently, undergraduate students at the university received an email from the administration declaring the incident to be "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic." Because the professor was hired as an adjunct, her contract was not renewed and she was effectively fired.
As a Muslim organization, we recognize the validity and ubiquity of an Islamic viewpoint that discourages or forbids any depictions of the Prophet, especially if done in a distasteful or disrespectful manner. However, we also recognize the historical reality that other viewpoints have existed and that there have been some Muslims, including and especially Shīʿī Muslims, who have felt no qualms in pictorially representing the Prophet (although often veiling his face out of respect). All this is a testament to the great internal diversity within the Islamic tradition, which should be celebrated.
This, it seems, was the exact point that Dr. Prater was trying to convey to her students. She empathetically prepared them in advance for the image, which was part of an optional exercise and prefaced with a content warning. "I am showing you this image for a reason," stressed the professor:
There is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture.
The painting was not Islamophobic. In fact, it was commissioned by a fourteenth-century Muslim king in order to honor the Prophet, depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel.
Even if it is the case that many Muslims feel uncomfortable with such depictions, Dr. Prater was trying to emphasize a key principle of religious literacy: religions are not monolithic in nature, but rather, internally diverse. This principle should be appreciated in order to combat Islamophobia, which is often premised on flattening out Islam and viewing the Islamic tradition in an essentialist and reductionist manner. The professor should be thanked for her role in educating students, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and for doing so in a critically empathetic manner.
In a time of rampant Islamophobia, highly offensive and racialized images of the Prophet Muḥammad abound on the internet and on social media. We consider these images to be inappropriate and not dissimilar to "black face" or Anti-Semitic cartoons; even if such images and their makers are protected by law, social opprobrium is due to them by all those who are reasonable and decent. As Muslims, of course, we must respond in a calm and graceful manner as befits our religion:
The servants of the Compassionate are those who walk humbly upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them [with insulting words], they respond, 'peace.'
(Q 25:63)
Given the ubiquity of Islamophobic depictions of the Prophet Muḥammad, it hardly makes sense to target an art professor trying to combat narrow understandings of Islam. There is an unmistakable irony in the situation, which should be appreciated. Additionally, misusing the label "Islamophobia" has the negative effect of watering down the term and rendering it less effective in calling out actual acts of bigotry.
Finally, we stress the importance of education in the Islamic tradition. On the basis of our shared Islamic and universal values, we affirm the need to instill a spirit of free inquiry, critical thinking, and viewpoint diversity in the university setting.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A quandary to the woke: is this alleged Muslim organization as beyond-the-pale as a black Republican? Would be fun to be a fly on the walls as they "discuss" this.
No.
This has been another episode of "simple answers to stupid questions".
The question was rhetorical.
A rhetorical question is one formed to advance an argument. The study and practice of forming arguments is called "rhetoric." One is, in fact, allowed to respond to and criticize arguments even when they are made in the form of a question. Trying to hide a dumb argument by whining that responding is against playground rules is childish and pathetic.
"No.
This has been another episode of “simple answers to stupid questions”
Huh. Is it more or less beyond the pale than a black Republican?
Um, why do you think black Republicans are beyond the pale?
Huh? I don't think that either this organization or black Republicans are beyond the pale.
I'm curious why Zarniwoop thinks one is more beyond the pale than the other.
Uhhhh .... maybe because they literally are not pale?
Criminy. Those of you took that question seriously really need to get a life.
This is an Uncle Tomuhammad organization.
Search the Washington Post for “Clarance Thomas” and you’ll see why.
"Subsequently, undergraduate students at the university received an email from the administration declaring the incident to be "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic."
The administrator who sent the email was the school's vice president of inclusive excellence, an expert in both diversity and inclusivity, yet people without such expertise act as if his authority means nothing.
It's shocking how little deference there is to expertise nowadays.
Here's that "vice president."
https://www.hamline.edu/sites/default/files/styles/1_1__300x300/public/images/profiles/David_Everett_0.jpg?h=ffed8f21&itok=gSdSzLRq
The Titanic was designed and built by experts.
Given religion is a bunch of hoo-ha, Richard Dawkins once questioned if theology was an area of expertise at all.
A libel complaint against David Everett and the Hamline administration is the obvious course of action. If I practiced law in Minnesota, I would handle this case on contingency without a second thought.
A college needs to have a serious financial downside to make it stop this sort of crap. Harvard dumped Summers when alumni became concerned that contributions were going to pay US fines that were incurred by Summers' buddies on the Harvard faculty.
The same principle applies to a bigoted and to fanatic student. A parent will make a kid stop when it becomes necessary to pay a large amount of money to a victim of a kid's bigotry or fanaticism.
"A college needs to have a serious financial downside to make it stop this sort of crap. Harvard dumped Summers when alumni became concerned that contributions were going to pay US fines that were incurred by Summers’ buddies on the Harvard faculty."
I seem to remember it was Summers upsetting the feminists with some thing he said.
"There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference’s papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the — I’ll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are — the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described." (source)
Summers had a unique ability to piss people off pointlessly, but as long as donors were not upset, the Harvard Corporation was not concerned. When information about the Shleifer shenanigans and US government fines began to percolate around major donors, the Harvard Corporation was forced to act. Summers was encouraged to resign, and the Corporation had to reorganize itself to keep major donors happy.
I heard NOTHING about Shleifer and I had excellent sources at the time.
Summers p*ssed off the feminists and a rapper who wanted to be in NJ anyway for family reasons.
It's legal reasoning like that that explains why you don't practice law anywhere.
The only reason I haven't muted Mr. Affleck is because I enjoy your replies to him so much.
As the VP of DIE they are an expert in creating racism, sexism and social division where the reasonable person sees little more than a minor difference of opinion.
Great, cogent and thoughtful response.
I completely agree. And despite many of the comments above, I suspect most people on the left side of the political spectrum, as I am, would feel the same way.
^
Hey, look. More tolerance and recognition of diversity from Muslims than from the DEI enforcers at Hemline.
I’m shocked! Shocked!
Yay MPAC! Also: obviously.
Would you publish a similar statement from a group expressing support for liberals and libertarians censored by the Volokh Conspiracy for criticizing or poking fun at conservatives?
Cowardly, hypocritical faux libertarians are among my favorite culture war casualties.
(If anyone at Hamline is interested in comparing censorship records with the Volokh Consoiracy, let me know. It is remarkable that this blog figures its censorship record positions it to offer pointers on free expression to Hamline or anyone else.)
Thoughtful criticizing, or name-calling?
Yes. We don’t mind being criticized or made fun of, what we object to is not being respected enough to earn more than a nominal level of effort at the task. At least put some zing into it, for pity's sake.
Personally, I think the Rev's musings are getting better over time. There's the occasional slip back into the old bad habits of just raw, ignorant biases, but in the main he's gotten more interesting.
I used to have a drink every time the Rev. said “clingers” but the alcohol bill just became too much.
If you drank every time a hypocritical, faux libertarian law professor nipped misleadingly at the heels of his betters, whining like a toddler for an audience of disaffected bigots, you’d be dead.
You've never had a thought in your entire existence here. You have a rote and you incessantly whine about how put upon you are. You are just so desperate to be a victim!
Put upon? My side has won. My preferences prevail. Victory in the culture war is delicious.
Conservatives must take my word for it, they will never know the feeling of winning at the marketplace of ideas and seeing their preferences vindicated by American progress.
Most liberals are hand in hand with the MPAC. That’s because we know Muslims personally. “Woke” people think of them as pet cobras and conservatives, of course, consider them terrorists.
That's silly. I've known Muslims, had a boss who was one once. Generally a nice guy.
I've noted before that Muslims punch way above their weight in terms of terrorism, and that it's hardly a coincidence that there are only a handful of minimally free countries that are majority Muslim. But that's not inconsistent with almost all of them being nice folks. It's just that the minority of Muslims who aren't nice folks is a bit larger than for most religions. It's still a tiny minority, but it doesn't take much arsenic to make something toxic.
It’s not collective guilt, it’s just you talking about the guilt of a group a whole bunch to explain how the group is not guilty, but actually kinda guilty.
No, Islam is not toxic because terrorism; don't be a bigot.
That's right, it's not collective guilt. One can be aware of statistics, without stupidly assuming the person in front of them is some sort of average statistical representation of the group they happen to belong to.
Assuming one isn't an idiot, anyway.
You say you're not saying anything about individuals, but if not then what exactly are you doing when you indict a group?
What is the practical purpose of using statistics in this case?
Statistics are useful for some policy purposes, but not for arguing for group guilt. Which is what you are doing above.
He didn’t say anyone was toxic and he didn’t indict a group. You’re doing the mind reading thing again and you suck at it. Can’t you ever simply respond to what people actually say?
It’s still a tiny minority, but it doesn’t take much arsenic to make something toxic.
What is that 'something' if not Islam?
Yeah, Sarc used to be quite on top of calling people out for playing this mind-reading game and putting words in others' mouths. He's slipped a lot on that.
My issue is not with his sekret thoughts, it's with his words. That he wrote down. About Islamic collective toxicity.
Your problem is, as usual, with reality. Which drives you to declare an ever expanding range of objective facts unmentionable, on account of your disliking the implications you see.
What's so offensive about the idea that belief systems have effects on the behavior of the people who hold them? Or is the claim that they can only ever have positive effects, never negative?
Though I would say the real issue isn't with Islam in general, but mostly the Wahabi school of it.
You're not usually that facile, Brett.
You even admit that this group generalization has no upshot when it comes to dealing with individuals!
I haven't denied the truth of the stat (though as many note that requires some careful presentism and tailoring what counts as religiously motivated actions).
I have 2 issues:
1) The *significance*. What is the practical reason you care about this group generalization, since as you say it's not to be applied to individuals.
2) Your generalization. You say it's a tiny minority, but then yoy indict the whole group as 'toxic.' Even as, once again, you say individuals you know are fine. You don't seem to be arguing 'one of the good ones among the savages' but then what are you arguing?
1) Are we always and everywhere dealing only with individuals? I mean, if we adopt methodological individualism as a uniform standard, I'd be cool with that, but I haven't noticed that it's that popular.
2) If I say, "This well has arsenic in it, better not drink too much from it!" am I indicting water?
'You don’t seem to be arguing ‘one of the good ones among the savages’ but then what are you arguing?"
Statistical generalizations are typically almost useless in individual cases, but can inform large scale policy. Even if you decide for moral reasons not to act on the information, at least you won't be blindsided.
I am not fond of the reasoning that says one is obligated to remain ignorant, or even deny, true facts that merely might motivate wrongful acts. It's the acts themselves that are wrongful, not the knowledge.
Brett, you switched from what *you* do to what *we* do.
OK, lets say we're talking about US policy alluva sudden not your personal take.
Are you arguing that affirmative action means we should be able to discriminate against Muslims? Or is this about a Muslim ban? Still not seeing the upshot here.
Your second response remains innumerate. The population of Muslims among terrorists tells us *nothing* about the population of terrorists among Muslims.
With bad statistics badly integrated into large-scale policy (using a rationale that also works for affirmative action. BTW), you are be certainly careful not shutting the door on a policy against Muslims generally based on collective guilt.
Even if you decide for moral reasons not to act on the information, at least you won’t be blindsided.
Blindsided by what? 'Oh, I chose not to act, but now I'm not surprised when the thing I deemed unlikely still happened!'
This is nonsense. You're tying yourself in knots to rationalize your own adoption of collective guilt and should stop that.
"Your second response remains innumerate. The population of Muslims among terrorists tells us *nothing* about the population of terrorists among Muslims. "
Your responses here are baffling to me.
The vast majority of murderers - 90+% - are men. There is nothing innumerate or objectionable about saying that.
It's not useful in finding murderers - you can't say 'Well, we're looking for the perp who murdered Fred - hey, there's a man! Let's arrest him!'.
That the fraction of men who are murderers is very small doesn't negate the fact that men murder at much higher rates than women. You seem to have the innumerate side of the argument more than Brett does.
Abrosaka – Brett *is* saying that stat says something about Muslims broadly, though. It makes them toxic, as a group.
You're indicting the well, not just the arsenic in the well.
"Brett *is* saying that stat says something about Muslims broadly, though. It makes them toxic, as a group."
Well, it does. Individual Muslims are almost all nice people, but because a larger percentage of them aren't, than for most other religions, if immigration policy allows their percentage in a society to rise significantly, you ARE going to see problem. Reliably so. Basically every Western nation that's ended up with a significant percentage of Muslims has encountered problems from it. And it's not a linear problem, either.
Now, this varies from sect to sect, I'm over-generalizing here. And Islam isn't as bad as Baal or Thugee, not remotely.
We do not have a good way of dealing with knowledge like this in a context of religious liberty and individual rights. We don't have a solution for the problem, and maybe there IS no acceptable solution.
That really doesn't imply that there is no problem here, that we have some kind of moral obligation to close our eyes and pretend we don't know what we know. I really hate the notion that we should blind ourselves to facts if we don't like their implications.
Well, it does. Individual Muslims are almost all nice people, but because a larger percentage of them aren’t, than for most other religions, if immigration policy allows their percentage in a society to rise significantly, you ARE going to see problem.
You take a comparative statement and use it to make a threshold argument. In other words, your prediction is based on nothing. And all the commenters saying you weren’t bigoted were wrong.
Basically every Western nation that’s ended up with a significant percentage of Muslims has encountered problems from it. And it’s not a linear problem, either. Basically every, eh? Suddenly getting might hand-waivy. Though I will point out that transition issues exist with immigration generally (one of the reasons I don’t go along with Prof. Somin’s open borders). But more importantly, if you decide they’re all toxic, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
And then you go and add a bunch of provisos and maybes (even after the certainty of your WILL be a problem). And then you finish by saying there’s totally a problem but not one we can do anything about.
You have not established a problem. But If you had, then it’d be incumbent on us to change immigration policy. Your true but not actionable thing remains weird and wrong.
Even if the statistics show it, policy won't necessarily follow; e.g. this country would penalize any black man under the age of 30 for possessing a firearm if statistics drove policy.
Following up a bigoted take with 'well this other bigoted take hasn't resulted in bigoted policies' is not really convincing me the utility of bothering to collectively indict a group.
Humans love to pattern-match. But over the history of this country, we have learned that this is not always an impulse we should follow.
What we've learned is that statistical generalizations tell you nothing about individual cases, and so are only useful if you lack any information about the specific case in front of you. And, indeed, sociological studies demonstrate that most people abandon the use of stereotypes as soon as they have any individualized information about a situation.
And often even valid generalizations are pretty useless even if you do lack that specific information, if the association isn't particularly powerful; If Muslims were 10 times more likely to be terrorists than other religions, while this might have extensive societal implications, the odds that any given Muslim you encountered was a terrorist would still be minute, and not remotely worth taking into account.
But liberals are really bad at statistical thinking, I've noticed, as well as really inconsistent about where they want it used.
And often even valid generalizations are pretty useless even if you do lack that specific information, if the association isn’t particularly powerful
What in the world is a valid but useless generalization?!
Not so much. You are overstating your case. If I have 20 red balls and 10 blue ones in an urn and I draw one ball as a sample, I do in fact know something about the individual ball I draw before I look at it and that information is valuable.
The point here is that while Sarcastro’s bad faith buffoonery where he attributes arguments to other people to advance a narrative is fundamentally moronic and is useless for understanding the real world, there is a certain subtlety to statistics. You certainly can make the generalization that knowing nothing else about them. It may be that the Moslem standing next to you is more likely that the Protestant to be a terrorist. That is likely true. It is also true however that with a minimum of work you can gain other information that is more informative.
You agree with my argument, and my interpretation of what Brett's argument is, but say I'm arguing in bad faith?
I may be making a bad argument, but I assure you it's not in bad faith. If you think I'm projecting or strawmanning, by all means point it out - I'm usually reacting to actual language in people's comments, but we all slip up.
I've double checked, and think my confusion about Brett's thesis is pretty well founded on this one.
No, I do not agree with your argument. You have no argument. This is your usual content free slur. The word “bigot” is doing the heavy lifting where you make up what Brett must believe to push your narrative.
One can make both the true statements. “A Moslem is more likely than a Protestant to be a terrorist in the modern world” and “parts of Islam are extremely problematic even toxic”, without running into the moronic Sarcastrian strawman that he must be saying all Moslems have characteristic X. That stupidity is purely you.
I did say the take is bigoted.
What else would you call a fallacious call to generalize negatively about a demographic group?
You agree that's what he did.
“parts of Islam are extremely problematic even toxic”
Do you see how you had to add this proviso to Brett's comment to make it something you could stand behind?
I don't disagree that the word bigot is overused (part of why I was careful to call the take bigoted). But that doesn't mean knee-jerk reject everything so called.
No, you're just having some serious trouble understanding statistics: "What in the world is a valid but useless generalization?!"
Nobody who understood statistics would find that a puzzling concept. Your odds of being struck by a meteor are about 1 in 840,000,000, over your lifetime. Suppose I could tell you that you were ten times more likely to be struck if you were standing outdoors? How will this knowledge alter your behavior?
Low probability events are largely useless to have information about, because a ten fold increase in the probability of an extremely unlikely event is still too unlikely to bother taking into account.
"What else would you call a fallacious call to generalize negatively about a demographic group?"
Well, for starters, something other than what I did. Because I didn't recommend that anybody fallaciously generalize.
Nope, that’s the team moron point. Standard operating procedure for you is to add superlatives that make a caricature of the point that is being made in order to push a specific narrative and then argue: “What you really mean is …” . The proper reaction to this is to note that you are being dishonest, stupid or some combination of those.
Brett correctly gets statistics and quality of information and has completely clarified his position. You feel the need to argue with strawmen to push a narrative.
‘this group is small but makes the superset toxic’ is absolutely a false take, Brett.
What in the world is a valid but useless generalization?!
The question is, Bigot Bellmore, what in the world is the motivation for bringing up a valid but useless generalization?
Bigotry, of course, is the answer.
It's very easy to come up with valid but useless generalizations in order to meaninglessly smear groups. Republicans are overwhelmingly more likely than any other persuasion to be treasonous insurrectionists. Right-wingers are much more likely than any other persuasion to be domestic terrorists. White people are extremely more likely than other races to be white nationalists. Americans are more likely than any other nationality to be mass murderers. All valid. All useless.
And that's assuming your generalization of Muslims even is valid, which I think would require some statistical gymnastics.
And, “It’s bigoted to care about facts!” makes its appearance, the usual resort once the reality of the facts can no longer be denied.
I was responding to captcrisis, who said that, “and conservatives, of course, consider them terrorists.”
I, (A conservative.) pointed out that, despite Muslims being statistically over-represented among terrorists, almost all of them are NOT terrorists.
And you guys got mad because in making this point, I didn’t lie about the underlying facts, but instead pointed out that they didn’t matter.
Nice fuckin try. First, as we established below, you did lie about the underlying facts.
But anyway, this
I’ve noted before that Muslims punch way above their weight in terms of terrorism, and that it’s hardly a coincidence that there are only a handful of minimally free countries that are majority Muslim.... It’s still a tiny minority, but it doesn’t take much arsenic to make something toxic.
is totally consistent with this
conservatives, of course, consider them terrorists.
Your assertion and it’s logical application. If you see bigotry it’s because you are looking in the mirror.
It is young black men that are far and away the victims of gun violence. At the hands of other young black men.
Or are you indifferent to that fact?
Correlation while ignoring confounding variables is true only in the most technical of senses.
You are the one that brought up statistics, not me.
Um, OK. That doesn't mean you get to abuse them with nonsense.
Same with Americans. They've been responsible for, what, at least a million violent deaths in military adentures since the century began? That's punching above their weight in terms of mass deaths. Or is it exactly their weight? But most of them are nice people. Of course it's a free democratic country, but somehow that doesn't make the dead any less dead or the messes left behind any less intractable.
If Europe would quit begging us to come in and clean up their messes 90% of that number would go away.
The US is responsible for lots of military deaths in Europe since 2000?
Read it again.
Nige means Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yeah I missed that.
This century I doubt it’s anywhere a million and taking most of that from the two major wars, one of which should have been avoided. But he’s forgetting that the other was a war conducted in a country that attacked us first. In an act of Muslim terrorism no less.
Using something caused by Muslim terrorism to defend Muslims against statements that they commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism is an odd logical twist.
But it’s Nige, who specializes in odd logic.
The US has agency - blaming 9-11 as the sole cause of our imbroligos in Afghanistan and Iraq is not really going to fly for most.
9/11 was the only cause of Afghanistan. The government of that country sponsored and sheltered the attackers. It’s unreasonable to believe that we should have taken an attack like 9/11 driven by a sovereign country and just let it pass. You’re rewriting history with that one.
I agree with you that Iraq was bullshit with a made up connection to 9/11.
The attack on Afghanistan, sure. I was for it, though in hindsight I don't think it was a useful move.
The ensuing decades of shambles? That's on us.
Iraqi was caused by 9-11 in much the same way breakfast is caused by the alarm clock. Which is not to say I think embarking on an optional war was smart, or that they didn't make a lot of really stupid mistakes given the choice to engage in it.
'The government of that country sponsored and sheltered the attackers'
The government of that country had the perpetrators hiding out in their mountains. A lot of people thought this justified killing lots of completely innocent Afghans. I thought the ethics were dubious at best.
'Iraqi was caused by 9-11 in much the same way breakfast is caused by the alarm clock'
If your alarm clock invented intelligence to show that breakfast was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Nige, as usual you’re completely full of shit. The organization that did 9/11 was openly training in Afghanistan with financial support from the government of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was the country from which the attack originated. That rats nest had to have been cleaned out.
I know America is just awful and all - I mean it’s so obvious that millions of people over the decades have risked everything to get here because they love being oppressed - but it would be helpful to you if you could somehow develop the ability to work with actual facts instead of making shit up.
"The organization that did 9/11 was openly training in Afghanistan with financial support from the government of Afghanistan."
Yeah, technically it was an Afghani organization that had been organized and boosted by Pakistani intelligence services. But we had to cancel our more targeted move against Pakistan, to decapitate their nuke program, when a leak spoiled the surprise.
Weird how everyone forgets the whole Saudi Arabian angle to justify killing lots of innocent Afghans.
And hey, my whole point was that the slaughter and destruction by the US miltary, despite being statistically significant, does not make Americans awful, and if you see one or meet one, you shouldn't worry that they're going to kill you.
The wars were quite pointedly not fought in the country from which the attacks originated. Famously so. But my point is that we shouldn't hold all Americans responsible for the mass murder and wholesale destruction and legalised torture and staggering corruption unleashed by the US because they decided one Muslim country was pretty much the same as any other and one Middle East country that wasn't Muslim was the same as any other even though neither had anything to do with the attacks.
"Same with Americans. They’ve been responsible for, what, at least a million violent deaths in military adentures since the century began? "
Are you an "American"? What responsibility do you share?
Anyone who objected to either of the invasions was labeled as 'un-American,' or 'anti-American,' which is how I think of myself in relation to them.
"No, Islam is not toxic because terrorism; don’t be a bigot."
And fraternities aren't toxic because of the rapes....
Yeah, a fraternity house is basically just like a world religion.
A lot of folk in Greek Affairs sorta believe that....
'but it doesn’t take much arsenic to make something toxic.'
As the prods liked to say about the taigs.
This is an incredibly bigoted take, Brett, and stupid. By this tortured logic, Christians "punch way above their weight" in terms of war crimes. Is that a claim you're willing to make?
You're warping statistics to fit an Islamophobic narrative. You don't even cite any numbers... I suspect you're basing this take on your personal feelings about one or two incidents that happened to impact you {9/11} and not any objective data. There's been a lot of Christian and other terrorism in the world, even recently, in Central and South America, Ireland, parts of Africa... it's just not on your radar. You'd rather ignore all that and go on besmirching Islam.
Terrorism stats are a bit unreliable due to politically motivated criteria for identifying what acts ARE "terrorism", and in acknowledging motivations. However, see this:
FBI: 94% of Terrorist Attacks in the US Since 1980 Are by Non-Muslims
Spoiler: Muslims have only recently reached 1% of the population...
Now do blacks and crime.
Or whites and white collar crime.
This is abuse of statistics - lots of Y are X tells you *nothing* about set X.
You keep projecting your own inability to think statistically on other people, no matter how often it's pointed out.
No, I don't have a good statistical intuition. That's why since my physics days I made it a point to know the traps and fallacies. I may not be the best at statistics, but I am good at spotting bad statistics.
Your statistic above is not material to your thesis.
Quit appealing to your own expertese and address my argument that you are abusing statistics.
Wow, thanks for entirely proving my point, Brett!
First, you’re focusing on the US. It should be unsurprising to anyone that terrorist attacks in the US are disproportionately committed by Muslims given the US’s geopolitical preference for Christianity and Israel. That in no way indicates a predilection for terrorism among Muslims compared to other religious groups. For that, you’d at least have to start with global stats, and even then, a fair analysis would be tricky.
Second, you’re comparing the percentage of US terrorist attacks by Muslims to the percentage of the US population that’s Muslim. Spoiler alert, a lot of the terrorist attacks come from outside the US! If you compare the percentage of US terrorist attacks to the global Muslim population, Muslims look exceedingly peace-loving!
So, just as I suspected, you started with a bigoted take and then pretended it was a statistical analysis.
"That’s because we know Muslims personally. . . . conservatives, of course, consider them terrorists."
Derp a derp.
Ever attended an aqiqah and recitation of the adhan and iqamah into the newborn's right and left ears at the home of Muslim friend?
What a bigot you are . . .
"Misusing the label "Islamophobia" has the negative effect of watering down the term and rendering it less effective in calling out actual acts of bigotry."
Simply stunning. Say it louder for the leftists in the back.
Terms that have been overused to the point that they don’t really have a meaning anymore – racist, transphobe, groomer, fascist, Nazi, communist. Oh, and white supremacy/supremacist. And traitor/treason. Probably some others that I’ve forgotten for now too.
All of those things exist as actions or characteristics or philosophies of course. But the massive overuse of the labels to scream at political opponents has broadened the definitions so much that they’re no longer meaningfully descriptive.
It's (mostly) not a matter of Muslims being offended by humorous or nasty depictions of their prophet. It's about preventing idolatry.
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555
Well, if it's about preventing religious idolatry, then there's even less of a justification for the non-religious to adopt it as a rule for themselves. By way of analogy, imagine you are a non-religious person attending a Catholic church service with your friend and you are offered to participate in one of its sacraments. The respectful thing to do is to not participate because you don't in fact believe. You'd just be going through the motions. Hypocrisy is not honoring.
The same applies here. The respectful thing is to not act as if you are a Muslim who is offended by an image of the Prophet. It is best just to acknowledge that some may be offended and otherwise remain respectfully non-aligned with either position.
If it's about preventing idolatry, Charlie Hebdo should have been perfectly safe, because mockery is the precise opposite of idolatry.
It would be more accurate to say that, theologically, depending on one's sect, it may be about idolatry, but that this isn't a point terrorists much care about.
As I recall Calvin preached against the idolatry of the Catholic church. This is just another sectarian claim within a broader religious tradition that has NO business being treated as a legal matter.
Correct. Many Christians similarly believe that Jesus and/or God should not be depicted in any sort of imagery or statute, or at least caution against such depictions becoming an object of worship or too highly emphasized or believed.
A potential difference, though, is that it’s pretty well ingrained in Christian teaching generally that moral precepts like this are not forced on nonbelievers when the matter does not involve harm to an innocent third party.
Oh a sufficiently bloody-minded Calvinist (not so common these days, but back when they were more invigorated about their beliefs) mightn't have been so circumspect about the application of Jean's wisdom. Point being, stupid people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by one faction within the Muslim world when they wouldn't be at all considerate to a similar concern in Christendom.
One can hypothesize that MPAC might support complaint for libel and for interference with contract against the Hamline Muslim Students Association or against the individual Muslim students that are responsible for this shabby affair.
Unless there’s a lot I don’t know I don’t see a basis for a claim against the individual students or the student organization. As far as I know, all the students said was that the prof displayed an image of Muhammad and that this made them feel disrespected and unsafe. The first claim is true, the second is subjective.
The problem isn’t really that students complained. It’s that the admin didn’t swiftly shoot them down.
Based on their statement, MPAC is worried about the precedent of taking the stance of one strand of Islam and attributing it to Islam as a whole. This is particularly annoying in re terrorism, and how some people think true Muslims are actually terrorists at heart, and their denials show how crafty there are.
If the terrorists actually represented all Muslims, these terrorists wouldn't be railing against apostates, backsliders, etc. Which is how they charmingly refer to the nonterrorist Muslims. So the terrorists seem to know they're in a minority. Though it's an armed minority.
This morning I recalled George W. Bush's September 20, 2001 address to Congress in which he took care not to take issue with Islam in general. (I recalled the speech. I had to look up the date.)
Which was understandable given that,
1) There are a LOT of Muslims,
and,
2) The world economy was dependent on oil from several Muslim countries.
So it would have been tactically smart regardless of what he actually thought.
It's OUR oil, and we have nukes.
Yeah? Fat lot of good it would have done us, radioactive.
The statement is a good one, especially this point:
This perfectly captures all that is objectionable about mass formations such as Islamophobia. It is, at its very core, anti-intellectual; it flattens out distinctions and important differences; it reduces complex issues to simplistic, comic-book levels.
On the left, the "woke" version of mass formation has the added insult on top of injury of naming itself the exact opposite of what it is.
"On the left. . . . "
Nice flattening.
"it reduces complex issues to simplistic, comic-book levels."
In other words, exactly what Hamline administration was doing. Taking the professor's intelligent and complex lesson and reducing it to a caricature. They are the ones demonstrating bigotry.
Indeed. The professor makes this nuanced statement where she’s like “this is a challenging discussion and you can decide for yourselves if you want to join in it. But as responsible adults you should understand the difference between presenting material that may be controversial and attacking someone’s faith.” And the school’s like “Don’t listen to her! There is no difference! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a hateful Islamophobe!”
A very helpful statement. And as the statement very helpfully points out, what Hamline Umiversity is really doing here is surpressing Shiite Muslims and expressions of the Shiite religion at the behest of Sunni supremacist students.
That is, what Hamline is doing here is pretty much what a number of universities across the did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when they expelled or restricted black students after white supremacy regained its footing and white students complained they found them offensive.
While they didn’t call the officials who did this “diversity and inclusion” officers, they could have said the same things Hamline has said. In exactly the same way that Dr. David Everett, Hamline’s Diversity and Inclusion Officer, has declared that Sunni Muslims are offensive and they and artifacts of their religion are not welcome at Hamline because they add “zero value” to the University, Dr. Everrett’s compeers a century ago, based on the very same “diversity and inclusion” ideology Dr. Everett has espoused, were declaring black people and black culture and its artifacts offensive and adding “zero value” to the University.
The similarities between Shiite Muslims today and black Americans a century ago are striking. In exactly the same way Dr. Everett thinks of Muslim culture as Sunni culture and regards Shiites as people who simply don’t belong and aren’t real Muslims, his “diversity and inclusion” fellow-travellers of a century ago were thinking of American culture as white culture and regarding black people as offensive and their culture as having “zero value” and no place.
Indeed, the similarities are so great that there can be little doubt that if the cultural zeitgeist were more that of 1922 than 2022, Dr. Everett would have happily applied the same “offensive” and “zero value” rhetoric he currently applies to Shiite people to black people in order to appease and curry favor with full-paying, high-status, and loud-mouthed folks in the student body.
Indeed Dr. Everett seems willing to pick on, bully, and expel any minority that he thinks is sufficiently defenseless, underrepresented, and disliked in order to curry favor with and appease high-status bullies in the student body, just as he did with Shiite Muslims. And he’d use the same high-sounding “diversity and inclusion” bullshit while bullying and expelling them and shitting on their culture that he used here.
The fact that it’s Shiites and not black people Dr. Everett is picking on and whose culture he is shitting on is solely a reflection of his opportunities, not his character.
The Ministry of Diversity and Inclusion is every bit as well-named with respect to its work as the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Love.
And the Ministry of Silly Walks.
"Trending" in my news feed today: Opinion: The staggering mistake Hamline University made is no isolated incident. David M. Perry argues that the root cause is the preference to hire disposable adjunct lecturers, academia's version of the gig economy. As a tenured or tenure track professor Perry got away with teaching Darwin to a creationist.
John,
"the root cause is the preference to hire disposable adjunct lecturers, academia’s version of the gig economy."
I am afraid that you are correct about this matter. With disposable faculty and with any academic positions in short supply, colleges and universities are free to add to the prevailing politically correct winds
It also frees up budget to expand the administration and after all, what is a university without more administration?
I see this statement as similar to the one that Trump made on the evening of January 6th.
A few specific lines:
In a time of rampant Islamophobia,
Am I missing all the Muslims being murdered & maimed in the streets of the US? No, it's happening to Jews...
highly offensive and racialized images of the Prophet Muḥammad abound on the internet and on social media.
As opposed to something like this?
https://ifunny.co/meme/1876-editorial-cartoon-showing-bishops-as-crocodiles-attacking-public-schools-uED1BRyc2 (Note upside-down flag on school.)
We consider these images to be inappropriate and not dissimilar to "black face" or Anti-Semitic cartoons; even if such images and their makers are protected by law, social opprobrium is due to them by all those who are reasonable and decent.
So now we police the internet.
As Muslims, of course, we must respond in a calm and graceful manner as befits our religion:
We'll behead them with sharp blades....
You are taking a statement supporting the Professor and is fairly balanced, distinguishing what the professor did from behavior they say is genuinely (intentionally) anti-Islamic, and you are cutting out selective quotes to turn it into your stereotype of what you pre-judge an organization like this would say.
You had no interest in understanding their statement. You were interested solely in what disconnected snippets you could carve out of it to use as a weapon in your war against them.
“Muslims evil, so twist anything they say to make them look bad.” That’s pretty much where you’re coming from here.
Frankly, your comment here is evidence the Council is right when they say Muslims are being unfairly maligned in this country.
Thank you for your incisive reply to Mr. Ed
I think it’s some weird meta-satire? Like the idea is ‘Trump’s Jan 6 speech was reasonable and this statement is reasonable but look how silly it is if I am as unfair to this statement as lefties are to Trump’s Jan 6 speech.’ Pretty left field since no one was talking about Trump. But I think that’s what he meant.
When was the last time a Mosque was shot up?
Why do you think that calling for social opprobrium is equivalent to calling for decapitation?
It seems to me that social opprobrium and decapitation are different. In the first instance, you are saying you don’t like what the person doing and you think the person should stop. In the second instance you are causing the person not to have a head or be alive. This is a critical distinction.
Not when a mob starts going....
Good on them
Here's the valid generalization.
If you insult Mormons, I mean really insult them, the odds that some Mormon will try to kill you is near zero.
If you insult Muslims, I mean really insult them, the odds that some Muslim will try to kill you is near certainty.
This is the essence of why Muslims are more respected in many contexts than Mormons.
If you insult Muslims, I mean really insult them, the odds that some Muslim will try to kill you is near certainty.
No, it's not.
Describe a counter example.
Breitbart's
Donald.win
Free Republic
Some commenters around here
All vague. Ineffective. Not real insults to Muslims.
What I’m saying is that a public, identifiable, effective insult of Muslims will be met with an attempt to kill.
And the same effective insult of Mormons will never result in an attempt to kill.
And that this matters in our understanding of how much respect we need to grant to Muslims vs Mormons.
Oh come off it. Rght-wing comment sections are *full* of people publically calling Muslims all sorts of awful, awful things, and yet not getting any attempts on their lives.
You deny this as unestablished to your detriment.
You came in way too hot with your point, and now you're just kinda bulstering there.
Rght-wing comment sections are *full* of people publically calling Muslims all sorts of awful, awful things, and yet not getting any attempts on their lives.
But they don't matter. No one, including Muslims, really cares about rants on the internet.
The do care about Charlie Hebdo.
They do care about draw Mohammad cartoon conventions.
They do care about apostates who write novels showing Mohammad in a dim light.
Because these kind of insults are seen as the kind of disrespect which demands such a response.
One of them will try to kill if a voice becomes effective.
So, what you said above: "If you insult Muslims, I mean really insult them, the odds that some Muslim will try to kill you is near certainty"
Only applies to a select few. And those few are defined in retrospect.
Well, isn't that quite overdetermined!
Only applies to a select few. And those few are defined in retrospect.
Salmon Rushdie was a surprise to me. It indeed took a retrospective analysis to see the problem, which profoundly included Rushdie's apostacy.
Charlie Hebdo did not require a retrospective view. Nor did the draw Mohammad contest. Nor did van Gogh. They all set themselves up to show the problem, and many died.
A Muslim has tried to kill every such target. There are none standing today unscathed.
REALLY Sarcastr0.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day
Again, you guys seem overeager to attribute to religion what is probably better attributed to political circumstances.
An American Muslim is about as (un)likely to try to kill you because of an insult as an American Mormon.
An international Mormon terrorist would probably be as likely to try to kill you because of an insult as an international Muslim terrorist.
Now, you might do like Brett and try to say that the relative lack of international Mormon terrorists compared to Muslim ones somehow reflects on the religions. But again, a better explanation seems to be that the Mormon religion arose relatively recently within the US, whereas Islam is a much older religion that remains prominent in countries that were a) victims of colonialism and b) haven't modernized (aka "liberalized") and that don't mind dabbling in radicalization and state-sponsored terrorism.
So now you're attenuated all the way down to the possibility that the countries haven't modernized because of Islam. But again that seems wrong, or at least hard to support... there are way more non-Muslim countries that also haven't modernized for economic and geopolitical reasons.
An American Muslim is about as (un)likely to try to kill you because of an insult as an American Mormon.
Agreed.
This isn't about how likely the Muslim in front of you is likely to be willing to kill.
Rather, it's about whether some Muslim is likely to be willing to kill.
You're still making shit up though.
Show the counter example.
Name please. A standing, effective insulter of Islam who has not been subjected to an assassination attempt.
I'll give you a name: Theodoor van Gogh
Created a movie critical of how Muslims treat women.
He refused to take the threat seriously, and was promptly killed by a Muslim.
You are using examples of individuals to make a broad and sweeping generalization.
You can't get there from here.
You are using examples of individuals to make a broad and sweeping generalization.
No. I'm not saying anything about any individual Muslim.
I'm discussing Muslims as a whole. Piss them off, and one of them is going to show you what happens when you piss Muslims off. Always.
Go ahead. Show someone who has really pissed Muslims off but hasn't been subjected to lethal attack.
Wrong side of the equation.
You're taking individual victims, and saying that those victims prove Muslims will try and kill anyone who they've decided said really bad things about them.
When I called you on that, you said well only if the Muslims care about you, which is something you can tell based on you immense expertise.
Which is, as I said, overdetermined.
"You’re still making shit up though."
Tell it to Salman Rushdie:
"Failed assassination attempt (1989)
...
Chautauqua attack (2022)...
Rushdie had lost sight in one eye and the use of one hand but survived the murder attempt."
Yes, I know this happens, But this guy is not saying 'boy that was bad' he's saying 'boy that means we're all Salman Rushdie.'
That's just fearmongering nonsense.
We're not Salmon Rushdie. I don't think Muslims much care about us.
Salmon Rushdie was Salmon Rushdie. They came for him.
The next would be Salmon Rushdie is less likely to come. Intimidation is part of the plan.
Intimidation is part of the plan.
You sure seem intimidated.
His thesis seems pretty simple: that doing things some Muslims find offensive can be hazardous to your health. And he's right. For example, the Garland attack. Sure, the organizers were trying to stick their finger in Islam's eye. But you can, generally speaking, insult Catholics or Buddhists or Baptists or Mormons and people don't drive to your podunk town with body armor and 1500 rounds of ammunition. Did Monty Python get death threats for 'Life of Brian' or 'The Meaning of Life'?
Sure, there is Eric Rudolph, but John Cleese isn't in hiding like Rushdie was.
His thesis goes way further than 'can be':
If you insult Muslims, I mean really insult them, the odds that some Muslim will try to kill you is near certainty.
His thesis goes way further than ‘can be’:
Correct. It goes to "will be".
But it matters how effectively you've pissed them off.
As I said. Overdetermined. No true scottsman on full display.
And, of course, massively generalizing about a faith.
And then there is your 'intimidation is the point.'
Is there a Muslim hive mind I should know about?
Rather, it’s about whether some Muslim is likely to be willing to kill.
Yeah, I got that. But read the rest of my post. It’s not because they’re Muslim that they're willing to kill. It’s because of other reasons. You just want to make everything about religions / skin colors you don’t like, when it’s actually about economics, mainly.
It’s not because they’re Muslim that they’re willing to kill.
Mentioning the concept of a 3rd world Mormon avenger doesn't create a record of killing by such.
It's the record of killing, the intimidation, which garners respect for Islam.
it’s actually about economics, mainly.
When a religion integrates economics, why would it be valuable to claim that it's that part of the religion rather than some other part that is motivating killing?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? Throughout history there's been terrorism with religion as the public justification but economics and politics as the underlying factors. Muslims aren't special in that sense.
Islam is unique among modern major religions by incorporating a rigid economic structure.
It’s all Islam.
It also seems that the case has clearly been made that some alternatives to Islam have fared better economically. Some postulate that this has something to do with the willingness of the fervent to violently protect Islam from the infidel. I’m not sure, but bringing economics into the motivation goes that direction.
In other words, you're here:
So now you’re attenuated all the way down to the possibility that the countries haven’t modernized because of Islam.
Possibly, to some extent. But the countries' economic and political circumstances seem more pertinent to me. By an accident of history and geography, a lot of Muslim countries' economies are driven overwhelmingly by resource extraction, a situation which tends to invite authoritarianism. Resource-rich Christian countries (Venezuela, Congo) have similar problems, while more economically diverse Muslim countries (Indonesia, Morocco) not so much.
It seems to me like you have a narrative in your head about Muslims, and you're happy to cherry-pick data and anecdotes in order to confirm your biases to yourself.