Study: Germans see Islam as a threat

[Developereo]

So, it's all a conspiracy? The consumers of the media have a latent hatred against Muslims, and this hatred is global?? The actual behavior of Muslims has nothing to do with the creation of this latent hatred???

Words like 'conspiracy' are a cheap cop-out instead of debating actual facts.

There is a lot of racist and religious bigotry latent; it lies just below the surface and comes to the surface during times of tensions. This has been on display from the poorest corners of the world to the richest.

If one is unscrupulous enough, and with enough media manipulation, these prejudices can be channeled to particular outlets. Like I wrote, every group has skeletons in their closet and a supply of "men of action" who can be coaxed (or cornered) into doing stupid things, and no one is denying that Muslims have their share.

The trick is to keep the spotlight on those activities. If, every time a black man commits a crime and you make sure to highlight that fact in the media, it will affect people's perceptions. It doesn't mean that all black men commit crimes, or that only black men commit crimes, but people will start equating black men with criminals. This is not hypothetical; it was done in the past and the modern media is working overtime to redress those wrongs.

Depends on who is looking.

No. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

The European colonial era was a specific period of time. Several factors combined to end that era and to bring the European colonialists home. As one of the major power brokers after the WW, the US played a pivotal role in "coaxing" the European powers to relinquish their dominions and one of the guiding principles was the right of indigenous peoples.

These principles were applied to extant colonial possessions and the vanquished territories; not to countries which had already incorporated. I have already provided a link to the Wilsonian principles; I suggest you read it.

Next year in Jerusalem.

As usual, you show your ignorance bred from your indefatigable hatred of Muslims. That phrase only reaffirms the colonialists' plans to reconquer their original spoils of war. It does NOT provide justification for the colonization itself, either original or redux.

The rest of your post is your usual opportunistic rant against Muslims which you unload in every thread, quite devoid of context, and not meriting a response.

But why would a Pakistani worry so much about an Arab issue?

You will never understand until you stop viewing everything from a racial and religious prism.

 

[muse]

The trick is to keep the spotlight on those activities. If, every time a black man commits a crime and you make sure to highlight that fact in the media, it will affect people's perceptions. It doesn't mean that all black men commit crimes, or that only black men commit crimes, but people will start equating black men with criminals. This is not hypothetical; it was done in the past and the modern media is working overtime to redress those wrongs.

So it is a conspiracy - after all, as you describe it, diverse groups of editors have been brought together, united by a single idea, a single purpose -- therefore the report that sh_it smells bad, can be viewed as a media creation?

It is certainly true that media effect our perceptions, is it then false that acts and attitudes of Muslims effect perceptions of Muslims?

See post #8 on this thread :
http://www.defence.pk/forums/social-issues-current-events/249962-good-news-attackers-polio-workers-arrested-karachi-cid.html#post4240700

 

[Developereo]

The actual behavior of Muslims

Don't get me wrong.

I completely agree that we need to deal with the lunatics in our midst, since they are causing us more harm than anyone else, but let there be no doubt that we will NOT tolerate opportunistic demonization of the wider Muslim community. There is no justification for a Muslim woman to face harassment for her attire, or for a Muslim worker to face job discrimination because the media has legitimized Islamophobia.

We will fight against this injustice just as much as we fight against the Muslim extremists.

So it is a conspiracy - after all, as you describe it, diverse groups of editors have been brought together, united by a single idea, a single purpose -- therefore the report that sh_it smells bad, can be viewed as a media creation?

It is certainly true that media effect our perceptions, is it then false that acts and attitudes of Muslims effect perceptions of Muslims?

See post #8 on this thread :
http://www.defence.pk/forums/social-issues-current-events/249962-good-news-attackers-polio-workers-arrested-karachi-cid.html#post4240700

You are evidently incapable of understanding the concept of selective media reporting and media bias. The ownership and board of a media organization affects the types of editors and management who rise up the ranks, and their biases get reflected in their reporting.

Does News Corporation have a right-wing bias?
Does Al-Jazeera tilt in certain direction?
Does Springer Verlag have an explicit clause in their contract demanding pro-Israeli bias?

There are innumerable studies about media bias in various global organizations. You might want to read up.

P.S. Did you know that six companies control something like 90% of American national media? A handful, used to be The Big Five, control the lion's share of the global media? Media ownership is far more concentrated than people realize. It only takes a handful of people at the top to affect the tone of global media coverage.

 

[muse]

Don't get me wrong.

I completely agree that we need to deal with the lunatics in our midst, since they are causing us more harm than anyone else, but let there be no doubt that we will NOT tolerate opportunistic demonization of the wider Muslim community. There is no justification for a Muslim woman to face harassment for her attire, or for a Muslim worker to face job discrimination because the media has legitimized Islamophobia.

We will fight against this injustice just as much as we fight against the Muslim extremists.

You are evidently incapable of understanding the concept of selective media reporting and media bias. The ownership and board of a media organization affects the types of editors and management who rise up the ranks, and their biases get reflected in their reporting.

Does News Corporation have a right-wing bias?
Does Al-Jazeera tilt in certain direction?
Does Springer Verlag have an explicit clause in their contract demanding pro-Israeli bias?

There are innumerable studies about media bias in various global organizations. You might want to read up.

You make it seem as if we have supported discrimination - and ask if we are capable of understanding?? Right wing bias? No media is free of bias -- lets approach this in another way, do you think you and others might have the same complaints if Muslims were achievers (in the positive sense)?? Are they? Show me! Can honestly point to anything Muslims have done a great job dealing with the uplift of humanity in our time??

See I understand a sense of injury at what one thinks or feels as unfair, but our response cannot be to dismiss criticisms as being driven by hatred and bias, it does injury to us as it does injury to those who then imagine that we are determined not to be engaged in conversations that while disturbing, hold the hope of liberating us all.

 

[Developereo]

You make it seem as if we have supported discrimination

By not condemning unfair vilification, we are endorsing it. By not fighting it, we are acquiesing to it.

our response cannot be to dismiss criticisms as being driven by hatred and bias

As noted several times, we accept the wrong that Muslims are doing and, in fact, the greatest harm is to ourselves. However, we must differentiate between legitimate criticism and unfair demonization. We must demand the criticisms should be valid and measured. I already gave the comparison of Muslim migrant groups with earlier, and other, migrant groups in the West. The singling out of Muslim migrants is grossly unfair.

Like I wrote, there is absolutely no justification for a 12 year old Muslim schoolgirl to be taunted for wearing a headscarf, or a Muslim graduate looking for his first job to face discrimination just because some lunatic 1000 miles away is peddling Sharia, or another lunatic 5000 miles away is bombing people. These are not melodramatic scenarios: there have been studies by Western organizations showing that applicants with Muslim names face discrimination in European countries. Harassment of Muslim women rises up every time the global media goes on one of its Islamophobic binges.

If we don't fight our own demonization, who will?

 

[muse]

By not condemning unfair vilification, we are endorsing it. By not fighting it, we are acquiesing to it.
The singling out of Muslim migrants is grossly unfair.
If we don't fight our own demonization, who will?

Three interesting ideas - what if the other side were to pose this to us?

What if they asked us, as Solomon2 does, WHAT DID YOU DO, about the discrimination against and persecution of Christians, Hindus, Shia'ah, Ahmadi, or ideas in society that demonize the West and Western Civilization? -- and are they not asking themselves that if they do not highlight these, are they not being complicit??

I trying to say that I follow your sentiment, but I am asking you whether this approach you are taking is the one we should take, because we are not going to win going against the media - that is to say that making the media the enemy is not a smart idea -- getting the media on our side is a better idea, and that also means that instead of making the media our enemy, we may want to make it our friend by being it's friends, by being on it's side.


The real problem is not media gone nuts, it's crazies asserting that they are Muslims, the crazies defining what is Islam, while the vast majority of us, practice quietism

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Because Islam doesn't believe in co-existence with other religions.

The actual problem lies with Muslims not Islam mate.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

it's clear muslims does not attack there masters i.e arabs but they do attack the countries which gives them equal opportunities and treat them as there own and this is what i don't like about muslim communities.
they live in ghettos,send there kids in madarssas and then complain that they aren't doing well because government is biased.
it's not like madarssa is a bad thing but madarsa can't compete with modern day schools.

Pakistan suffers from terrorism the most in the world. It's a Muslim country, mind you.

 

[Developereo]

Three interesting ideas - what if the other side were to pose this to us?

What if they asked us, as Solomon2 does, WHAT DID YOU DO, about the discrimination against and persecution of Christians, Hindus, Shia'ah, Ahmadi, or ideas in society that demonize the West and Western Civilization? -- and are they not asking themselves that if they do not highlight these, are they not being complicit??

Isn't that the question Bin Laden asked of Americans?
What did you do to stop your army killing our people? Members of a democracy, almost by definition, bear a greater burden of responsibility than people in authoritarian regimes.

Does that mean he was justified in his actions?

What I am saying is that the question is a red herring. Muslims born and/or living in the West cannot be held responsible for whatever happens in parts of the Muslim world. The rights of each Western citizen are not calibrated to their "home" countries, in some sort of racist segregation of rights.

instead of making the media our enemy, we may want to make it our friend by being it's friends, by being on it's side.

The media ownership is what it is. We won't change it. Even the Saudi guy buying part of News Corp. didn't affect the content because he came too late in the game and is too powerless by himself.

The only option is to diminish the influence of the Western media by encouraging and supporting alternatives -- as the Chinese and Russians are doing.

 

[muse]

Muslims born and/or living in the West cannot be held responsible for whatever happens in parts of the Muslim world. The rights of each Western citizen are not calibrated to their "home" countries, in some sort of racist segregation of rights.

The only option is to diminish the influence of the Western media by encouraging and supporting alternatives -- as the Chinese and Russians are doing.

Muslims born and living in the West are not held responsible for whatever happens in parts of the Muslim world - however -- one of the tensions that apologists from all sides will agree on is that between universalist and particularist values - here I am referring to the use of words such as Muslims being held responsible for whatever happens in the Muslim world - While most Muslims in the West are not native born and most have deep connections with their home countries, and most identify more with the home country than with the host, and most non-native born take greater offense at what they see as attacks on Islam.

It seems to me that the victim narrative is one what we would do well to discard, and articulate our affinity with universal values and that there is no conflict between these and those of Islam, the religion of faith in God.

 

[Developereo]

Muslims born and living in the West are not held responsible for whatever happens in parts of the Muslim world - however -- one of the tensions that apologists from all sides will agree on is that between universalist and particularist values - here I am referring to the use of words such as Muslims being held responsible for whatever happens in the Muslim world - While most Muslims in the West are not native born and most have deep connections with their home countries, and most identify more with the home country than with the host, and most non-native born take greater offense at what they see as attacks on Islam.

It seems to me that the victim narrative is one what we would do well to discard, and articulate our affinity with universal values and that there is no conflict between these and those of Islam, the religion of faith in God.

That's a speech, not an argument. One that avoids the specific questions I raised.

It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes an egalitarian democratic society.

Not worth wasting time on.

 

[Vinod2070]

Words like 'conspiracy' are a cheap cop-out instead of debating actual facts.

You say the right things many times.

Practicing it is another matter altogether.

No. You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Another right thing to say. No reason to disagree.

And something I have been trying to teach you for years.

Glad that we are making progress finally. Who says there is no hope in this world?

The European colonial era was a specific period of time. Several factors combined to end that era and to bring the European colonialists home. As one of the major power brokers after the WW, the US played a pivotal role in "coaxing" the European powers to relinquish their dominions and one of the guiding principles was the right of indigenous peoples.

These principles were applied to extant colonial possessions and the vanquished territories; not to countries which had already incorporated. I have already provided a link to the Wilsonian principles; I suggest you read it.

I did read it. I am aware of the huge contribution of America in the independence of India by kicking some sense into that old fart Churchill.

I just disagree to look at only European bigotry and not Arab/Turk bigotry just because you want to.

BTW, wasn't Hong Kong occupied and colonized by the British before WW-2 as you mentioned so eloquently yourself. What do you think the Chinese should have done about it?

If the Zionists had decided to set up camp in China, I am sure the Chinese wouldn't have forgotten either. Did China give up on Hong Kong? or Taiwan?

As usual, you show your ignorance bred from your indefatigable hatred of Muslims. That phrase only reaffirms the colonialists' plans to reconquer their original spoils of war. It does NOT provide justification for the colonization itself, either original or redux.

The rest of your post is your usual opportunistic rant against Muslims which you unload in every thread, quite devoid of context, and not meriting a response.

They say that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel.

Guess what is the last resort of the Islamist.

Let's move beyond labels and discuss facts. I don't even have to call you a kaaffirophobe. One doesn't have to say the obvious.

And it won't even matter as far as I am concerned. What you are in your personal life doesn't matter here. The views you express here are your only identity on this anonymous forum. Same is true for me and everyone here.

You know you are on weak wicket when it comes to facts as you celebrate the Arab/Turk bigotry while making demands on others.

That too on issues that the Islamic world neither practices nor even believes in.

As they say in Bengali:

Cholbe na (won't work)

You will never understand until you stop viewing everything from a racial and religious prism.

It would be funny if it was not tragic.

Or may be vice versa.

Who is trying to oust the Jews for religious reasons here? I mean it is so ridiculous I have been rendered speechless.

 

[Vinod2070]

By not condemning unfair vilification, we are endorsing it. By not fighting it, we are acquiesing to it.

As noted several times, we accept the wrong that Muslims are doing and, in fact, the greatest harm is to ourselves. However, we must differentiate between legitimate criticism and unfair demonization. We must demand the criticisms should be valid and measured. I already gave the comparison of Muslim migrant groups with earlier, and other, migrant groups in the West. The singling out of Muslim migrants is grossly unfair.

Like I wrote, there is absolutely no justification for a 12 year old Muslim schoolgirl to be taunted for wearing a headscarf, or a Muslim graduate looking for his first job to face discrimination just because some lunatic 1000 miles away is peddling Sharia, or another lunatic 5000 miles away is bombing people. These are not melodramatic scenarios: there have been studies by Western organizations showing that applicants with Muslim names face discrimination in European countries. Harassment of Muslim women rises up every time the global media goes on one of its Islamophobic binges.

If we don't fight our own demonization, who will?

While you make some good points here, the inability or unwillingness to look at the much higher bigotry in Islamic media and countries makes it much less effective that it would otherwise be.

All racism is bad. The Arabs calling the darker skinned people "Abids" never raises anyone's heckles here.

If you look at what is taught in the official curriculum in the Arab world and other Muslim countries to impressionable minds, things like some people being "pigs and apes", some other being "enemies of Islam and Muslims", the promotion of violent Jihad etc., the media that you are complaining against would seem like saints.

Again, the idea is same.

Charity begins at home.

 

[Developereo]

I just disagree to look at only European bigotry and not Arab/Turk bigotry just because you want to.

I am looking at the time period when Israel was formed -- because someone raised the issue -- and what was the prevailing ideology regarding colonialism at the time.

This is not a debate about the history of military conquests throughout time. If India ever attains the global status that the US enjoys -- and enjoyed at the juncture of the WW -- then you are welcome to form global organizations and redress whatever centuries old grievances you harbor.

BTW, wasn't Hong Kong occupied and colonized by the British before WW-2 as you mentioned so eloquently yourself. What do you think the Chinese should have done about it?

Not sure what you've heard, but I am pretty sure the British handed Hong Kong over to the indigenous people.

Who is trying to oust the Jews for religious reasons here? I mean it is so ridiculous I have been rendered speechless.

Even after the whole discussion about colonialism and Wilsoniasm, you still don't get it.

And, given your obsession with race and religion, you never will.

 

[JayAtl]

The topic is about the integration of local Muslim community in Western countries, not global terrorism.

As for terrorism, that is also a debatable subject. Terrorism has become a convenient label for many governments to repress their citizens and deny them rights. Most of these regions of terrorism deny access to independent media to ascertain the facts.

Also, in the case of Christian or Jewish minorities being persecuted, the dominant West makes sure to highlight and address their concerns, even getting them freedom (South Sudan, East Timor, etc.). India pokes its nose into Sri Lankan affairs at the behest of its Hindu Tamil constituency. But, when Muslim minorities are persecuted -- when Burmese military joins hands with Buddhist monks to lead rampaging mobs against Muslims, or when Gujarat state officials and police use voter records to escort murderous mobs to their Muslim victims -- then there is scant recourse.

As I have always said, if Muslim countries had the economic, diplomatic, military and media clout to redress the legitimate grievances of Muslim minorities, there would be much less global terrorism in the name of Islam.

By far the biggest genocidal killers of Muslims are Muslims themselves and no "more control over media" will take that glaring fact away and spin it. Those numbers put to shame the ill's of other religious sects upon Muslims. You do a Gujarat in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc every week.

Furthermore in your typical religious bigotry you are wrong to say ' Hindu' Tamils. Tamils come in every religion including Muslims. The issue was about 'Tamils' being slaughtered not those of only certain religious persuasion as evident from pulling them into a safe zone designate and then bombing the hell of it.