No. Obama does not make the qualifications you do when he is denying DAESH are Muslim – if he did I wouldn’t have a problem. And I didn’t defend all accounts of those that portrayed the stats the way you don’t like – some of them came across to me as bigoted, and didn’t judge the stats fairly. The one you are obsessed with did judge them fairly imo. And I don’t equate all Muslims who won’t denounce the Charlie Hebdo massacres as Islamists. Many just don’t get freedom of speech – they think blasphemy should be illegal, especially as it relates to Islam – the actions of the International Islamic Council are proof of that.

It’s about people gaining knowledge (of Islam) and therefore a better understanding. I constantly feel like someone as smart as you who is perfectly capable of understanding the nuances of my argument is deliberately misrepresenting me.

I don’t get it Heather. Your post is criticizing Obama for not calling the DAESH terrorism Islamic. Everyone knows that DAESH fighters are Muslim (though most don’t know they are Sunni). Obama was saying DAESH’s practices aren’t truly Islamic as Islam is practiced by the vast majority of Muslims. Now you say, “We need to let people know that Islam isn’t one, big homogeneous group, just like Christianity isn’t.” Isn’t that what Obama was trying to do? He was saying these people (DAESH) are not typical of Muslims. Do you think he is denying that DAESH considers itself Muslim? You say “It’s not about Islam, it’s about Islamism”. But then you say “I just don’t think denying Islamism is a part of Islam is going to work, because it’s simply not true and it gives fodder to the haters”. Obama may not have been using your words, but isn’t that what he was trying to do, say the DAESH are not typical of Islam? He should have identified it as “Islamic Terrorism” so as not to give fodder to the haters? And then you defended blogger and newspaper accounts that emphasized that a significant portion of Muslims will not denounce atrocities like Charlie Hebdo. Isn’t that identifying Muslims with Islamicists in the minds of people and giving fodder to the haters? What am I missing? What would you have said if you were Obama, and how would that have defoddered the haters?

It’s not about Islam, it’s about Islamism. I never said that Islam is barbaric. We need to let people know that Islam isn’t one, big homogeneous group, just like Christianity isn’t. A lot of people don’t understand that, and they equate all Islam with that practiced by DAESH. They’re incapable of recognizing the parallel between the Bible saying lots of awful stuff, but most Christians not behaving like that and the Qur’an saying lots of awful stuff, but most Muslims not behaving like that. There are, however, Christians who do act abominably and use the Bible for inspiration, and there are Muslims who act abominably and use the Qur’an for inspiration. Hate comes from fear and fear comes from ignorance. Get more people to understand that Islamism is not a version of Islam that most Muslims have any time for, and maybe they will be more accepting. When people have a particular prejudice they need a reason to change their mind – give them more knowledge about Islam and Muslims and they will work it out for themselves, which is usually the best way for it to happen.

I just don’t think denying Islamism is a part of Islam is going to work, because it’s simply not true, and it gives fodder to the haters. It’s like saying the Inquisition wasn’t part of Christianity, or slavers didn’t use the Bible as justification.

Yes, it was very interesting who interpreted the survey as glass half full, and who interpreted I as glass half empty. Surveys of these kinds of things are very variable according to the public mood of the moment. But how the results are interpreted demonstrates the bias and political goals of the interpreter.

No religion or other self defining group likes to be mocked, especially by those who hold power over them. Mocking and questioning a minority group in a challenging way are means by which the majority group maintains its power. The most popular entertainments from the civil war to the 1930s in the US was mocking blacks. It contributed to the legal and social oppression of the black community. All in the name of fun and free speech. I don’t know that talking more openly about how barbaric Islam is will likely make Muslims feel less marginalized.

You are right, of course about the obsession with one website as a log in my eye. I’ll try to broaden my perspective. Thanks!

Apples and oranges. That’s more about free speech and how some religions feel their religion shouldn’t be questioned. Besides, if we talked more openly, perhaps so many Muslims in some societies wouldn’t feel marginalized and therefore more in sympathy with such opinions.

There were dozens of articles about that survey in mainstream media, multiple pieces on TV, and hundreds of blogs. Different ones focused on different areas – some negatively towards Muslims, some positively, and some neutral. I read/saw several myself. You are, imo, a bit obsessed with one website. What was that thing about logs and eyes?

Heather, you say: “I think that talking about the extremist views that DAESH hold, means we can make it clear that most Muslims are just as opposed to them as everyone else, and that will reduce the likelihood of a backlash”

But have you not noticed that many want to emphasize just the opposite, i.e. how many Muslims do support terrorism. For example the post “24% of British Muslims say violence against cartoonists who draw Muhammad is justifiable” was making exactly that point. If your purpose is to reduce the likelihood of a backlash, is his to increase that likelihood?

I see exactly your point, but I look at it slightly differently. The problem is, that everyone knows that DAESH are Muslim. Their interpretation is one that most Muslims don’t support. However, most people in the West don’t know much about Islam, so they’re unable to make that distinction in their minds. They therefore associate all Muslims with DAESH. My judgment is (and, of course, I may be wrong) that if we acknowledge that DAESH are following an extreme form of Islamism, people will better be able to separate them in their minds from most Muslims. My opinion is that failing to acknowledge that link makes it look like the link is trying to be hidden. Also, when we acknowledge that DAESH believe they are following true Islam, we can try to address the issue of those imams who are teaching that interpretation. I think that talking about the extremist views that DAESH hold, means we can make it clear that most Muslims are just as opposed to them as everyone else, and that will reduce the likelihood of a backlash. As I said, I could be wrong, but I think the approach I suggest will result in less bigotry against Muslims, which is, imo, the most important thing for those of us living ordinary lives.

It’s about the tactic of terror – there are millions suffering every day in Syria, but I don’t see them. I saw the Jordanian pilot. I agree it’s wrong. Basically, DAESH are very good at terrorism, and creating the reaction they want. The GOP are all currently at CPAC – and they’re all going on about how wonderful it is that the King of Jordan responded by executing prisoners and going on bombing raids, while Obama responded to the same thing by dismissing DAESH. Obama is handling it better – DAESH, revolting as they are, are not an existential threat. They’re more a diversion long-term.

And actually, whenever I remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki I feel sick about what we did. I have a Japanese sister-in-law (and half-Japanese nieces and a nephew). Her father was a child during WWII and lived near Nagasaki. He’s such a lovely man and every time I meet him again I feel guilty about what my ancestors did to him.

** Oh, and BTW, the pilot was drugged, so he didn’t feel as much pain as you probably think he did – and I am not saying this in an apologist or callous way, even if he suffered pain for 10 seconds, that is 10 seconds too many, I am just stating a fact. Of course, the media didn’t report this, because they like sensationalism, and they want to portray ISIS in the worst possible light.

So your whole argument about “political correctness gone mad” is completely wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with the fact that if a very small minority have their own interpretation of an ideology, then that very small minority isn’t considered representative of that ideology. The interpretation ISIS have of Islam is a fringe interpretation, and therefore, ISIS are not Islamic, but radical/fringe Islamic – there is a HUGE difference.

Of course, most people have agendas, and so an Evangelical Christian, or an atheist who is intellectually dishonest, will deliberately ignore this, and say “no, ISIS are Islamic”, because they don’t like Islam and so want to portray the worst of Islam as being the norm of Islam.

So I have a question for you – if a nationalistic New Zealander went on the rampage and killed 20 immigrants in Wellington tomorrow, should we call him a “patriotic New Zealander”, or should we call him an “extremist patriotic New Zealander”?