This is a good point, and a great example-no, you can't negotiate with Islam like you can a labor union, because labor union is a person-it has defined representatives and mechanisms for binding itself to their acts, like a corporation. Islam isn't a corporate body; it has no officers or structure. It is a word that describes a set of beliefs about the world, not a label for a group like a union or a club or anything remotely similar. There is no "Islamic leadership" or "islamic ruling body."
This may be where our paths diverge. Just because no one leadership or headquarters for something doesn't exist, it does not give it a get out a jail free card for responsibility. If a significant number of people seem to be causing problems or doing bad things in the name of something, be it squirrels or a religion, it seems like that is all the justification one needs to focus on that group as the common thread it unites under. It may not be all inclusive but it would also be no small number.
If we are just talking about what the majority of Muslims believe, then we're reduced to looking at polls, which basically tell us that the vast majority of Muslims want democracy, American style freedoms, and decent wages. There's not much to go on there if you are talking terrorism.
That may be but it also ignores that we have several countries in the world that have a variety of non-human rights friendly practices in the name of Islam. Okay these people don't represent all of Islam nor are they available by writing Islam Central at 200 market street ny, ny but it doesn't seem like that dissolves my abillity to be critical of Islam for this large number of people practicing under that flag. As it relates to the prior point, how can I address my problems with this very significant population of people acting commiting misdeeds based on their religious values if not by those religious values?
Where is the "muslim portion" of a mixed country dangerous? If you could point out some examples, we could discuss them, but I'm not sure what this means. I think if you look at specific examples, your questions would be quite easily answered by an examination of the facts on the ground. This is one of the problems with dealing in generalities that span a category as broad as "Islam" generally-you can't really prove or deny any one claim, because there are so many examples and counter examples that you can cherry pick to make whatever claim you want seem reasonable.
The first that comes to mind is the Philippines with regions like Mindanao. I'll let the reader decide but the words from the residents and muslims themselves seems quite damning
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/84619/69-of-Mindanao-Muslims-say-poll-violence-a-way-of-life---SWSMANILA, Philippines - Almost seven out of every 10 Mindanao Muslims have accepted violence during elections as a "way of life," while eight of 10 prefer a man rather than a woman to represent them in Congress.
These were among the findings of a special survey of Mindanao Muslims by Social Weather Stations (SWS) last February, six months before elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
"Sixty-nine percent of Mindanao Muslims say that violence during elections 'is a way of life' in their province, and 41% say they are more worried about their personal security during election time," SWS said in a statement.
On the other hand, 62% said it is good to have an unopposed candidate, since it reduces campaign violence.
Also, 83% said they prefer to be represented by a male rather than by a female congressman. "The preference is slightly less among women (79%) than among men (88%)," SWS said.
Some 45% of the respondents said a woman should get advice from her husband or father in deciding her vote. The SWS said Muslim women have "similar opinions" as Muslim men in this regard.
With respect to the role of the ulama or a Muslim elder in elections, 83% expect them to become more influential in the coming August 2008 elections in ARMM.
Now that story just relates to elections but the history of violence there is undeniably broad and I think the residents views help illustrate some of the issues I have.
My understanding is that the largely muslim neighborhoods in france that have gained a little fame for their riots and burning of things also suffer safety issues to a greater degree than other areas. That of course ignores the riots and arson.
I would say you are analyzing the question in the wrong light-there is no one to "accept" or "give a pass to" when you are thinking of Islam as a whole, because it isn't a person, or even a unit of people united under some leadership.
Think of it this way: If you wrote a contract to end all violence involving Muslims, and wrote a section that said "Islam sign here", who could even in theory sign that piece of paper with a straight face? Who would you go to in order to have it signed? There isn't any such person, and that's why talk of either condemning or accepting "Islam" without reference to any particular persons who fall under the description will ultimately yield little in the way of understanding.
I guess I don't see why the lack of 1 central authority for everyone means I cannot critique/applaud/etc the beliefs of significant populations who unite under something. Couldn't I speak out against christianity if a significant number of people who identify as christians were teaching their kids that science is rubbish and man rode dinosaurs? Can't I critcize environmentalists if a significant number of people of identify as environmentalists have created a hystertia over the word nuclear that has lead to irrational fears of nuclear power and increased pollution? One I've seen on this site before is criticism of the gay community because a significant number of homo/bi-sexual men practice both unsafe and promiscious sex leading to increased disease rates. I think everyone has the common sense to realize that these people do not represent every last member of their community and that they don't organize under 1 name with a mailing addresses and voting record. It just seems logical and rational and address and discuss a community by name when that community has a significant number of people causing problems.
At what point can I address the problems of Islam (or anything else that people believe)? Is it when a significant number of those self identified people are causing significant problems in the world? Is it when the majority of the population that identifies as such is the actual majority? Super majority? 90%? Never? I can't put a number on it but it seems to me like once a significant number of people start doing a signficant number of bad things in the name of something, we can talk about that thing as a problem. It may not all be a problem, it may not all be the same, but we'll still be addressing a significant portion of it.
In your own view, do you believe that we see a significant number of "bad things" done in the world today either in the name of or in accordance with people's religious beliefs that they describe as Islam?
