Have you ever heard of Rita Panahi? Nope. Neither have I. Not until this morning. She wrote this pretty ridiculous article for the Herald Sun. It was titled ‘Stifling debate empowers radicals’.
You’re probably thinking ‘Oh, great! Someone else who thinks it’s important that we discuss the full extent of issues that lead to the radicalisation of Muslims. What a great woman! How important in light of the Charlie Hebdo attack!
I wish I could tell you to click that hyperlink and read the article to feel a sense of harmonious togetherness; a sense of one, united force standing in the face of terrorism.But really, you’re not going to get anything like that out of it. You’ll see how Rita reckons that all Muslims are to blame for the crimes of a handful.
You’ll see that she thinks that we Muslims are all a bunch of Neanderthals with a ‘permissive attitude towards violent jihad’ which, quite clearly, demonstrates why ‘so many young men raised, and often born, in Western countries have gone to the Middle East to fight alongside terrorists’. (Trust her. She knows us better than we know ourselves).
You’re going to see a bunch of useless, nonsense calculations that show that even 1% of Muslims being in favour of terrorist activities is bad because 1% = x number. Impressively, you’ll see how Rita somehow manages to, for the first time in human history, prove that 99% is in fact smaller than 1%. You read that right. Because clearly, we shouldn’t treat the 99% of Muslims, who are decent, law-abiding citizens, as the majority – oh no – it’s the violent 1% that is the majority. Let’s call it Rita’s law.
Rita Panahi, everyone.
Let’s look at her article properly. She starts with
The overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are a peaceful people but what are their attitudes to the extreme elements within their religion? Just how deep is the chasm between radical and moderate Islam?
She started off great! Most Muslims are just normal people. Unfortunately, she goes on to say
But let’s not be too hasty in dismissing the significance of the 1 per cent of those polled who said the suicide bombers were right to carry out the attack.
There are about 2.7 million Muslims in the UK.
If that 1 per cent is representative, then that’s 27,000 Muslims who saw the utter carnage and devastation caused by the London bombings and thought that the attacks were “right”.
Oh wait, nope. Muslims aren’t normal people. Muslims are crazies. Apparently, not a single other human in the UK thought that the attacks in London were okay. The only people who are categorically insane are Muslims.
Look, you guys. I know you might think that 99% is much larger than 1%, but you’d be wrong, because Rita’s law. That group of almost 2.7 million (rounding properly, Rita) Muslims are a much smaller number than 27,000.
She goes on to blah blah some more about Jihad, Sharia law etc.
Incredibly, after blaming all Muslims for the vile acts of terrorism that we’ve seen in modern history, she says
‘We are never going to be in a position to properly tackle these issues and fully integrate the Muslim community into the mainstream if we refuse to acknowledge unpleasant facts and shy away from openly debating how we can overcome this hatred from within.’
Uh…wait. Waaaaiit. Muslims are supposed to stop the terrorists from within and ‘integrate’ into mainstream society while also being painted with the same terrorist brush using Rita’s law?
Rita, darling. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Even using Rita’s law, that doesn’t work.
The best part of her little conclusion is that she implies that society has to accept us – as though we currently live off in the fringes of laa laa land somewhere. We’re not part of society. She’s part of ‘we’ and we’re the other. I suppose that’s a side effect of Rita’s law.
Amazingly, this morning on Sunrise, Andrew O’Keefe (yeah, the Deal or No Deal guy and also winner or runner up of the Great Celebrity Spelling Bee in 2005, or something) explained to Rita that her law actually doesn’t work in the real world. You can watch him do that here. To make things easier, Andrew tried to make a comparison with Christian fanatics who bomb abortion clinics in the US. He explained how these people do not reflect all Christians. Rita replied ‘that’s such a nonsensical argument’. Rita was there for a debate. Of course, instead of engaging in this debate that she so passionately wants to start, Rita ended the interview talking about women wearing burqas in Saudi Arabia. LOL. What even?
Well, Rita. You’re a pretty nonsensical individual.
Look. Rita is minimally right – there needs to be greater discussion and debate about what is going on in the Islamic community. Problem is that Rita doesn’t even remotely understand the sort of debate and discussion that needs to be happening. She doesn’t seem to realise that the discussion is happening (Rita – Google it. Maybe use keywords like ‘Muslims’ + ‘Condemn + ISIS’ or something. You might find something).
We need a better understanding of what drives someone so far away from feeling like they belong that they can even begin to have these violent thoughts. What needs to be done to help Muslims feel like they belong in their Western homes? (Hint, Rita. Don’t make them feel like they’re outsiders). How do we support Muslims who loudly stand in the face of the extremists? (Rita, you don’t make them feel like terrorists). What needs to be done to quash the bigoted voices of those who see to think that if you’ve seen one Muslim, you’ve seen them all. I mean come on, Rita, this isn’t an Adam Sandler movie.
Rita, stop writing stupid articles about how Muslims are a ticking time bomb – no pun intented – and start doing something productive with your time.
Interestingly, this afternoon, Rita has taken to twitter to say that she’s not racist. You guys, she’s using Rita’s law. Just because 99% of her is racist, it doesn’t mean that she is overwhelmingly racist; just like how 99% of Muslims being good people doesn’t result in Muslims being good people.
Want to keep up to date with new posts?
Follow me on Twitter. Prefer Facebook? Okay, off you go.
Did you see Rupert Murdoch’s tweet two days ago? “Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.” That’s where the attitude of some of his underlings and the general tome of his newspapers originates. Luckily he’s been widely condemned. J.K. Rowling wrote “I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate”.
P.S. Andrew O’keefe used to be a lawyer – no wonder he demolished her arguments!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I saw those! JK Rowling is an incredible individual, and I know that many Muslims would’ve taken refuge in her Tweet. A breath of fresh air after the storm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Considering her childhood in Iran I think she is better versed to comment on the issue than those (even muslims) raised in a western secular country where the will of religious dictators are not forced on everyone living in said country. Yes Rita WAS a muslim she has every right to speak about Islam based on her personal experiences within the religion.
Absolutely she does 🙂
She is only carrying Iranian blood. I promise you she knows nothing (absolutely nothing) about Islam except for deep deep revenge that we may see in many Iranian Migrants. She mustnt have been a columinst ( this key role position) in Herald Sun unless supported by some groups in Australia where many Migrants are forced to change their name in order to apply and accept for a position.
Never forget that she even was unable to speak when their family landed Australia from US, so thete is no experience available.
Isn’t she a Muslim herself?
What a weird woman…she would know better than many Australians what her people are like.
Self hating individual schooled in the same thought with Andrew Bolt and other extremist views.
Does she refer herself in the third person I wonder?
Is Rita Panahi a Muslim? I don’t know. Only just heard of her from this blog post and haven’t read the linked article yet. Are you guessing that based on her name alone? Did Rita say she was or get identified at any point as a Muslim?
Like all of my posts nowadays on WordPress where everyone is published
AWAITING MODERATION – translation: censorship by deteing
Tina, that’s a nice name for a muslim!
J. K. ROWLING????? – a muslim??????
Quote “tina January 12, 2015
Isn’t she a Muslim herself?” (see above)
You wish, J K R is rich and could fund the terrorists.
Andrew Bolt is disliked by those from your so-called religion
because Andrew Bolt is not afraid to speak out against islam.
SOMEHOW muslims have the Australian Govt frightened enough to ban/withdraw from sale and pulp all copies of Martin Chulov’s exposé book “Australian Jihad: ISBN-13: 978 1 4050 3 5723 published by Pan Macmillan, Sydney 2006. Withdrawn within a month.
That book exposed all the goings on inside and outside Australia by well-known Australian personalities.
Imagine what his book would be like written over this past few years!!!!!!
Forgot to say I do not have one of these books – – –
I HAVE TWO COPIES OF IT ! ! ! ! !
I would offer one for you to read except muslims do not like to hear thee truth.
ONCE MORE:- “Awaiting moderation then deleting!!!”
What does JK Rowling have to do with anything? I am incredibly confused!
This post ended up where it belongs!!!
However, I NEVER like to “Reply” from my Home Page!
Well lets be clear!!!! Shes parroting her boss’ views! Yes Rita……you’ll keep your job with Rupperts paper!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Praise be to alalalalalalalala
LET’S FORGET stupid Rupert
(just the one “p”, to be or not to be)
– he still thinks he is an Australian.
Rita on the other hand IS an Australian and. like Andrew Bolt is unafraid to speak the truth.
I just want to thank you for your blogs (I just recently found it and have spent the better part of an hour reading it) so thankyou. (I feel like I’ve learnt so many things that I didn’t even known that I wanted to know)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well thank you! How incredibly sweet of you! That’s what I aim do to – teach you things you never knew you wanted to know. Sort of like how you sometimes can’t memorise things for exams, but useless song lyrics from the 90s just lodge themselves into your brain permanently. I want to be that 90s song 😛
I hope you continue to enjoy yourself here! All the best 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
But – QueerPEndulum – your responses will not last more than a few hours (if you are lucky) because the moment you post something against You Slam it will be censored.
Incorrect. Anyone can say whatever they want, as long as they are not being disrespectful.
It appear, unveiled, that you might have solved one of my concerns – how to get a reply in the correct place. Thank you.
As for being disrespectful, I have had so many (I’ll use a polite word) discussions with mindmadeup my posts are usually blocked immediately I press “Post” or the go “awaiting moderation” then deleted. That is the reason for so many other names. ALL BLOCKED to MMU’s Forums. hen as your Forum has always been receptive to my posts, I NEVER used bad language until once more the same thing began here.
Thanks for your responses.
Pingback: The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword | myzania3350
This is a very misleading representation of (a) Rita’s article and (b) the Sunrise “debate”. It would be a shame if people read your strange interpretations as an accurate representation of either.
Rita based her article on statistics from surveys. You could argue about the accuracy or otherwise of the statistics – and she concedes as much (contrary to your assertions) – “IF that 1% is representative…”. And the point stands (regardless of its accuracy) – it is worrying to think there is a possibility of 27,000 people in your country thinking random attacks targeting civilians are not wrong. I would imagine that this point also stands in countries with a majority Muslim population. At no point did I see in the article (or the Sunrise debate, for that matter) a reference to 1% being greater than 99%. You have attempted to trivialise the article by claiming that this is what it is about, which suggests you either cannot comprehend the article, or just refuse to accept any constructive criticism of any aspect of your religion. I am not sure which is worse.
I would doubt that there exist 27,000 Christians, Buddhists, atheists or any other type of religion in any country of 60 million predominantly Muslim people who would agree with random bombings of the general population designed to kill innocent people. Perhaps there are. Perhaps if there were highly regular instances of violent people committing mass murder who identified with any other religion the statistics would be similar. Who knows? The statistics aren’t gathered because the violence in the name of other religions is not occurring.
In any event, the statistics don’t really matter. There is a level of extremism that does exist in the Muslim population. This extremism is causing deaths at an abhorrent level every single day. There is certainly some acceptance of it by others in the Muslim population. Why shouldn’t all people – including Muslims – expect that all Muslim people, and especially leaders, should be doing everything in their power to wipe out both the violent extremism and the acceptance of it? Perhaps everything is being done. Perhaps there is no solution from inside or outside the religion. But questioning why so much violence is being committed in the name of one religion seems reasonable to me. And suggesting we therefore discuss the religion and its teachings openly seems like a very good idea as well. This is one of the biggest issues of humanity. Irrationally dismissing calls for discussions about (not violence against) Islam because there have been acts of terror (on a much smaller scale) in the names of other religions, speaks volumes about O’Keefe’s ineptitude as a debater, and of his lack of credibility as a journalist.
I agree that most Muslims are moderate, peaceful people – as does Rita in her article (contrary to what your misleading writing states). But just as you don’t want non-Muslims to assume people are violent because they are Muslim, you should not assume that most Muslims are peaceful and moderate because they are Muslims. Most PEOPLE are peaceful and moderate. ALL people have a responsibility, as peaceful and moderate people, to try to curb violence within our community whenever we can. And the fact remains that it is (or certainly should be) easier for other Muslims to identify, halt and even prevent the development of extremism or acceptance of extremism in the name of Islam. It’s the same for any other type of community. Just because 99% of Muslims are good people is no excuse for saying “that’s good enough”.
And FYI, O’Keefe’s analogies WERE nonsensical. Targeted bombing of abortion clinic property by extremists has killed 3 people in the last 25 years (all in the U.S.). There have been several other shootings so the total number of deaths is around 15 in well over 20 years. To compare that with random attacks intended to kill random people is absolutely nonsensical. The fact that O’Keefe thought that the most appropriate way to “debate” was to shout over the top of someone and then spend most of the time on his smartphone, just finding out that the last Australian “abortion clinic” “bombing” was in 2009. The Molotov cocktails caused superficial damage to a medical centre that did not actually carry out abortions. Great input, Andrew.
Hi there. Thanks for your comment.
I wasn’t questioning Rita’s statistics. I’ve read all the studies she has cited because interestingly, they’re the same handful that others quote. My problem is that yes, it may be troubling that 27,000 people in your country think it’s okay to target civilians, but we use these statistics:
a) as though it’s only Muslims who feel that way and
b) as reason to be racist, bigoted and hateful towards the clearly peaceful majority of Muslims.
What is troubling is that 2.7 million people are being represented by the thoughts of 27,000.
Now, you say that she concedes, contrary to my assertions, that the Muslim majority is peaceful. Go back and read my post again. I quoted the fact that she said this. Just because she said that, it doesn’t mean the rest of her article reflected that. You also say that she didn’t 1% is greater than 99%. Yes, that’s right. That’s the point. That’s why I made a funny – because that’s what the implication is. That the actions of the violent 1% somehow reflect Islam, but the actions of the peaceful 99% are not. So, I say the same to you. This ‘suggests you either cannot comprehend the article.’
I am more than open to constructive criticism of anything – Islam, Muslims. I welcome it and do it myself. However, saying that it’s Islam that is the problem by reflecting on the 1% that are violent is ridiculous.
You go on to say that there can’t be 27,000 violent people of any other type of religion who wouldn’t agree with the bombing of a predominately Muslim country. No? Have you forgotten the bombing of Gaza and the fact that Israelis dragged couches up to mountains to watch bombs falling onto the innocent people of Gaza? But let’s go beyond that. You really don’t think there are 27,000 non-Muslims who feel the bombing of people in even non-Muslim countries is justified? There are crazy people everywhere – regardless of race, religion, gender or any other identifiable trait.
You say the stats don’t matter. That’s my entire point. They DO matter. Yes, there are Muslims committing acts of abhorrent violence. There may be some acceptance by a few in the community. The overwhelming majority do not feel that way and it’s ridiculous that we have to pay for it as though we do.
Now – I agree with you. There needs to be great debate about what on earth is going on to lead to these acts of terrorism. That’s what I would’ve thought Rita would call for. She didn’t. She has brought it back to ‘Why does Islam lead to terrorism’. Well, that’s presumptuous and discredits any other factors.
I don’t believe Andrew was trying to say that we should ignore the terrorism we’re dealing with at the moment because people of other religious persuasions also commit acts of violence. What he is saying is that it is absolutely ridiculous to make the rest of the Islamic community pay for the violence of a handful. That’s what he was saying. That violence by people of one religion should not be used to represent the entire religion.
I didn’t try to say that most Muslims are peaceful because they’re Muslim. I’m saying that most Muslims are JUST people.
‘And the fact remains that it is (or certainly should be) easier for other Muslims to identify, halt and even prevent the development of extremism or acceptance of extremism in the name of Islam.’
Yeap. That’s what we’re trying to do. But being labelled as extremists and being grouped with the terrorists really isn’t helping, at all. If you’re expecting us to make the changes, then you have to be willing to accept our assessment of the situation – again, labelling Islam as a religion of terrorism because of the actions of a few is ridiculous. That was Andrew’s point. That is my point. I still think Rita is ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
unveiledthought: “I wasn’t questioning Rita’s statistics.”
You misrepresented them, asserting that Rita had implied “it’s the violent 1% that is the majority. Let’s call it Rita’s law.” This was clearly never said. Read Rita’s article:
“But let’s not be too hasty in dismissing the significance of the 1 per cent of those polled who said the suicide bombers were right to carry out the attack.
There are about 2.7 million Muslims in the UK.
If that 1 per cent is representative, then that’s 27,000 Muslims who saw the utter carnage and devastation caused by the London bombings and thought that the attacks were “right”.”
That’s all she says about the survey that found 1% of Muslims surveyed in the UK thought the London suicide bombers were right. Unfortunately for you, her statements come across largely impartial whereas yours just sound bizarre.
unveiledthought: “My problem is that yes, it may be troubling that 27,000 people in your country think it’s okay to target civilians, but we use these statistics:
a) as though it’s only Muslims who feel that way and
b) as reason to be racist, bigoted and hateful towards the clearly peaceful majority of Muslims.
What is troubling is that 2.7 million people are being represented by the thoughts of 27,000.”
That may be your perception. That was not said in the article. She didn’t say 27,000 “represented” 2.7 million. Perhaps you failed to comprehend this part of the article. Panahi’s use of the word “representative” was, very clearly, saying that if the survey population is representative of the entire population. I really hope you haven’t jumped to your conclusions because of a failure to understand this sentence.
You say “we use these statistics”? Please don’t presume to include everyone in broader society in your own perceptions of how statistics are used. Are you saying I am part of the we? For someone seemingly so threatened by being painted with the same brush as a Muslim extremist, you are quick to paint everyone with the “bigoted and hateful towards peaceful Muslims” brush.
unveiledthought: “Now, you say that she concedes, contrary to my assertions, that the Muslim majority is peaceful. Go back and read my post again. I quoted the fact that she said this. Just because she said that, it doesn’t mean the rest of her article reflected that.”
Nowhere in her article does it read that she is saying most, or even a very high proportion of, Muslims are violent. You just seem to be inferring that there is some message behind an article that is mostly a re-hashing of a series of statistics or quotes. The article is really not that creative, is not a good read and only has a small element of opinion towards the end. Nowhere does it reflect an assertion that Muslims are generally violent. Every reference to violent Muslims is limited to an “element”, or a small percentages, or prefaced with words like “some”. I cannot find any “reflection” to contradict her statement that the majority of Muslims are peaceful.
unveiledthought: “You also say that she didn’t 1% is greater than 99%. Yes, that’s right. That’s the point. That’s why I made a funny – because that’s what the implication is. That the actions of the violent 1% somehow reflect Islam, but the actions of the peaceful 99% are not. So, I say the same to you. This ‘suggests you either cannot comprehend the article.’”
Not funny. No implication – just an absurd inference. Read above – I think you have failed to understand the use of the word “representative”.
unveiledthought: “I am more than open to constructive criticism of anything – Islam, Muslims. I welcome it and do it myself. However, saying that it’s Islam that is the problem by reflecting on the 1% that are violent is ridiculous.”
This wasn’t done.
unveiledthought: “You go on to say that there can’t be 27,000 violent people of any other type of religion who wouldn’t agree with the bombing of a predominately Muslim country. No?”
No. I said I doubted there exist 27,000 of one religion in a 60 million Muslim country who would agree with random extremely violent acts. I also said there “Perhaps there are”. The point, which you seemed to have missed, was then made after that statement. I won’t repeat if you’re going to selectively read/debate what I have said.
unveiledthought: “You really don’t think there are 27,000 non-Muslims who feel the bombing of people in even non-Muslim countries is justified?”
This was not what I said. Re-read my comment and I’ll await an apology. I’m seeing a pattern of failure to understand the writing of other people.
unveiledthought: “You say the stats don’t matter. That’s my entire point. They DO matter. Yes, there are Muslims committing acts of abhorrent violence. There may be some acceptance by a few in the community. The overwhelming majority do not feel that way and it’s ridiculous that we have to pay for it as though we do.”
You have fundamentally misquoted one statement of mine and taken that as the basis of a misdirected rebuttal. That is very O’Keefe.
unveiledthought: “Now – I agree with you. There needs to be great debate about what on earth is going on to lead to these acts of terrorism. That’s what I would’ve thought Rita would call for. She didn’t. She has brought it back to ‘Why does Islam lead to terrorism’. Well, that’s presumptuous and discredits any other factors.”
I scoured the article and can’t find that quote. The closest I could find is a statement that we “should be able to discuss issues surrounding religion and its part in inspiring acts of terror.” This is a fair comment and seems to be exactly along the lines of what you are wanting (“what on earth is going on to lead to these acts of terrorism”), yet you are saying she didn’t say that…
unveiledthought: “I don’t believe Andrew was trying to say that we should ignore the terrorism we’re dealing with at the moment because people of other religious persuasions also commit acts of violence. What he is saying is that it is absolutely ridiculous to make the rest of the Islamic community pay for the violence of a handful. That’s what he was saying. That violence by people of one religion should not be used to represent the entire religion.”
OK. I’m not sure if you’re attempting to reply to my comment here, or just making your own statements. He may have said that, but it was not in answer to the article (which doesn’t suggest making the Islamic community “pay” for the violence of a handful. He mounted his own irrelevant high horse. In any event, he did try to trivialise the thousands of deaths in the name of Islam in the last few years by suggesting it was the same as about 10 deaths by anti-abortion extremists over the last 25 years.
unveiledthought: “I didn’t try to say that most Muslims are peaceful because they’re Muslim. I’m saying that most Muslims are JUST people.”
I didn’t assert that you had. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t going to.
unveiledthought: (me):‘And the fact remains that it is (or certainly should be) easier for other Muslims to identify, halt and even prevent the development of extremism or acceptance of extremism in the name of Islam.’
“Yeap. That’s what we’re trying to do. But being labelled as extremists and being grouped with the terrorists really isn’t helping, at all. If you’re expecting us to make the changes, then you have to be willing to accept our assessment of the situation – again, labelling Islam as a religion of terrorism because of the actions of a few is ridiculous. That was Andrew’s point. That is my point. I still think Rita is ridiculous.”
The problem here is that you have both missed the point. That was not the point. There was no “labelling” in this article. You have both dismissed a call for discussion about the connection between Islam and terrorrism. O’Keefe did so (a) because he arrogantly decided to be self-righteous on a different topic and (b) because he irrationally decided that there is no connection greater than any other religion. You have done so because you have decided the article was about stereotyping all Muslims when it clearly is not.
Curious, unveiled thought how
ALL THOSE WHO CLICK “LIKE” YOUR RESPONSES
are also the same followers of that other prolific Forum-opener and poster
His lordship himself, JM, astrostevo, scott, ramio1983, etc, etc, etc
BTW yes, I too added a “like” simply because your site also
USED TO ALLOW my replies to remain,
your site has now “joined the Club” and has them deleted
That’s because you use multiple accounts to leave some very vile messages for people. I’ve warned you before – you are more than welcome to join the conversation, so long as you’re not insulting my other readers or other Muslims. You know the boundaries that are set here. Either play within the boundaries or find somewhere else to leave your negativity.
@trosticles : “The statistics aren’t gathered because the violence in the name of other religions is not occurring.”
Yes. it is. It just doesn’t get the same level of publicity. Have you heard of the Christian anti-abortion terrorist group, the Army of God perhaps? No? Well, they have encouraged and supported and committed terrorist attacks on US abortion clinics and an Atlanta lesbian bar among other things. Guess you might’ve heard about the Lord’s Resistance Army one of whose leaders is the now infamous Kony. Then there’s the Danish mass-murder and terrorist Anders Behring Breivik who stated he was “100% Christian” and “planned to pray for Gods help” (his wikipedia page) during his murderous attack that killed 77 innocent people. There’s also Tamil extremists who pioneered the use of suicide bombing, Hindu extremists, Israel’s religiously motivated and often violent and murderous fundamentalist Jewish settler’s and so many more counter-examples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The violence” to which I was referring – directly. in the very same paragraph. full stops where they don’t go just to act like I am more authoritative. – was “highly regular instances of violent people committing mass murder”. E.g. London bombings, 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, daily suicide bombings throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc etc etc… Violence is occurring in the name of other religions, but on a much smaller scale, as I also said:
“Irrationally dismissing calls for discussions about (not violence against) Islam because there have been acts of terror (on a much smaller scale) in the names of other religions, speaks volumes about O’Keefe’s ineptitude as a debater, and of his lack of credibility as a journalist.”
Feel free to put your own view forward, but do not misquote me (through omission) to imply I am ignorant of the other smaller scale and generally localised incidents of terrorrism/violence.
The simple point is this – terrorism is committed more often, in more places, and on a far more violent level, in the name of Islam than any other religion. As a result:
a) debating the accuracy or inferences of statistics (as the author of this blog attempts to do) is inconsequential – if there isn’t the level of sympathy towards terrorism in the broader Muslim community that statistics suggest, there is at least a perception that the sympathy is there;
b) dismissing the connection between Islam and the violence – whether it is causation or correlation – and claiming that whomever does so is biased against Muslims as a whole (as the author of this blog has done, without justification) is exhibiting a clear and irrational bias of their own;
c) calling for greater discussion so there is a greater understanding of why the connection between Islam and violence exists is a very simple and rational request.
For the record – I am an atheist, happy for people to believe in whatever they like as long as they don’t try to change my beliefs. I am against the Murdoch media empire and am all for his journalists being cut down to size when they deserve it. This is just not one of those times. Seeing an irrationally defensive standpoint by a number of Muslims on this blog (not least of all the author), is disappointing from a neutral perspective.
Seriously – I think your whole sense of being offended may be just because when Panahi suggested that the 1% surveyed may be representative, you thought she was saying the 1% was representative of the other “99%” when, in fact, she was using an extremely standard statistical qualification – i.e. presuming the 1% in the sample is a representative percentage in the entire population as well.
There may be many qualifications on using sample statistics to represent (there’s that word again!) the population, depending on things like whether the demographics of the sample are broadly representative of the population (including age, sex, location etc) and also just whether the sample was large enough. In any event, Panahi did not assert that it was definitely an accurate percentage.
Did you misunderstand this? I didn’t consider this at first as it seems so absurd, but your continued comments about Panahi somehow saying all peaceful Muslims are responsible for the actions of the violent Muslims only makes sense if you actually think she said it. This is the only vaguely rational explanation I can find.
Ahh I see where you’re coming from now. This is starting to make much more sense.
‘your continued comments about Panahi somehow saying all peaceful Muslims are responsible for the actions of the violent Muslims only makes sense if you actually think she said it. ‘
I’m not saying that Rita thinks that the 99% of Muslims are responsible for the actions of the 1%. Rather that she implies that the actions of the 1% are representative of ISLAM. Sure you could, by implication, stretch that to mean that all Muslims have violent tendencies – but I think that’s a ridiculous stretch.
I’m not saying that she said 99% of Muslims were violent at all (Yes, I recognise that Andrew did seem to think that she said that). It’s rather that Islam is being reflected by the 1% who are violent, rather than the 99% that are not.
I’m not offended, per se. I just thought that the article and the interview were silly.
In any case if a person picks a 1% of a religious group and focuses on that. And then lets see the title, islam has the problem?1% isnt attacked ,the rest of 99% is as well. In current sociopolitical climate with sensitivities heightened such ‘analysis’ is extremely cheap or sensational at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person