'What British Muslims Really Think'.

[ThirtyNineWeeks]

This Ch4 documentary can't possibly be representative of all British Muslims when only 1081 were polled......can it?

AIBU to think that, for some, this kind of documentary will only ever be seen as evidence of 'Islamophobia'?
And the fact that it is made by Channel 4 will immediately turn lots of folks off..

Aeroflot it was just as an example of people's beliefs crossing the line and them being placed in the public domain and having an effect in the lives of others. In terms of quantity of impact of course blowing lots of people up is rather bigger in terms of scale and impact.

I agree sporting, I have seen very young girls, about 4-5 wearing headscarves. Very sad, men shod not be looking at them in a sexual way that they have to cover to prevent it.

I watched the programme last night as I recorded it, I was expecting a totally anti Muslim programme, I did not get that, it stated the facts from their research, which they tried to be as representative as they could, interviewed many Muslims from different areas.

I'll watch the programme, sounds interesting.

As to young girls wearing headscarves, we put young girls in full swimming costumes and bikini tops when there is nothing to hide.

pointy 2016 is the Islamic year 1437. Let's look at what Christianity was doing in 1437 before we judge. It may be something in human nature that makes people behave like this through the development of a faith.
^^ this is a most ridiculous statement I have read in a long time.
in 1437 - most of the world was savage and 600 years and numerous wars later we have become more or less civilised. The development of a faith is not actually measured on an exact timeline over 100s of years
If you are quoting the programme my apologies as I did not watch it.

I expected to see Nick Griffin from BNP giving his piece, as well as far right racist views, but I did not see that. I felt that it was a well done, and well balanced programme, which showed Muslim population in a positive way. Yes there were extreme views, but they were small or in the minority, mainly by the elderly Muslim population. We do have to be aware of what is going on, especially if it threatens the safety of our country and its values, of freedom, democracy and equality.

I found the programme shocking and worrying. So many people who gave been given achime in Britain having so many dark a d subversive thoughts

I wasn't totally shocked I knew many people around my area most likely think some or all of these things. When you live within an area where this is a majority you can see very clearly the division. It isn't absolute and there are friendships and cross overs but by and large the religion aspect does create an unwritten divide.
I had a Hindu friend and I never felt the same sense of division or any separateness due to religion in the same way.

I think a really good documentary series maybe three programs could be made as its a complex situation and not all Muslims agree, not all are living an Islamic life in the same way

It needs to be discussed why within the Muslim community there are issues that have been allowed to be somewhat ignored FGM (yes I know it's not Muslim practise but the vast majority of girls that are mutialted are Muslim) why many are actively supporting terrorism and why some are taking up a very conservative Islam that is not progressive it's not good for women or society on a whole

Stats can always be manipulated and they are there to grab peoples attention but for the younger generations of Muslims we need to work on integration we need to understand what's happening for everyone one in our society

Just to be absolutely clear about what we are discussing here:

What counts as evidence (anything that is known using our senses, repeatedly and in different times/locations) - repeated observations of things

What does not count as evidence - what somebody may have thought, seen or heard... once... and they may not even be sure (Father Ted and BIshop Brennan's image on the skirting board comes to mind)

For example, take English law on rape. It used to be the case, not so long ago, that in a rape trial, judges had to warn juries about the possibility that the female victim may be lying (sound familiar?). However, repeated observations (in the form of statistical generalisations) have shown that women do not lie about having been raped any more frequently than anyone lies about a crime when they are reporting it (that is, about 2-4% of all reported crimes are false allegations). The old warning is a hangover from pre-Enlightenment, pre-scientific, pre-evidence-based religious dictacts (women are less intelligent than men, more emotional, flighty, likely to change their mind, unreliable), which governed law making at that time. However, we have now got rid of this 'warning'. Something didn't make sense, we gathered evidence and on the basis of that evidence, we changed it. You can see why this is a reasonable way to proceed, and how scientific thought has rescued us. Indeed, it would be pretty silly to base a whole legal system on, for example, an old granny's thoughts about black men and crime or an old man's thoughts about women's slutty and slatternly ways... wouldn't it?

Another example. Take 'breast ironing', putting sand in your vagina during sex in NA cultures to 'dry' them, or, closer to home, smoking when pregnant. Statistical evidence (that is, evidence based on repeated observations) shows that the outcomes are measurable and negative. Not just hearsay or what a single (weird) individual thinks may be the case, but observable and measurable. And they are harmful.

The point is that it doesn't really matter that some people still think that women lie about rape, or still think that it's a good thing to 'dry' your vagina or 'iron' young girls' breasts. Who gives a crap as long as these thoughts go no further than what you think about these issues (Sport's example above). The key factor is that our official agencies do not think this, so that if someone turns up at a hospital wanting their daughter's breasts 'ironed' they'll be told 'No', or if a jury member thinks that the woman lied about being raped, it doesn't matter, because their thinking will not play any role in the official process and outcome (please don't tell me that this does not really happen. We are making these changes and that is all that matters; not how perfect the system is in actuality). .

I am utterly baffled (as somebody upthread has said) as to why we are affording equal credibility to non-evidence based outcomes as evidence-based ones in our legal, health, financial and political systems. I am also baffled at the growing influence of fundamentalist Islam despite ever increasing, sound sources of knowledge being more widely available than ever before. It doesn't take much to note that the striking similarity of ways in which women and their sexuality are and have been viewed in very different cultures, with their different gods, infrastructure and cultural conditions, is more suggestive of the hand of patriarchy, rather than the hand of god - all of which leads to my main point; who or what is allowing this to happen?

fourmummy
what the heck?
are you posting on the right thread?

fourmumm are you on the right thread

Totally on the right thread. Stop accepting superstitious nonsense (whatever these may be) as fact. Keep personal beliefs personal. Don't allow them to spill over into widespread social practices, health systems, legal systems, all societal infrastructure . Don't assume that superstitions and evidence-based statistical generalisations are the same. Don't tell people it's 'OK' to believe this stuff. Actively work toward eradicating harmful beliefs and social practices. What's unclear?

I am Pagan, my personal beliefs at no point impinge on anyone else, or affect my interaction with the law of the land. My beliefs do not affect equality issues, don't break the law in any way.

Whilst the examples fourmummy evidenced such as FGM and breast ironing may not be illegal elsewhere and even a societal norm, it is not here and as such you can expect to be found guilty of an illegal act if you are found to have perpertrated these.

There are a number of other societal norms from abroad whilst not illegal in thought are not consistent with ours. For example for a woman to cover the face, differing treatment of genders, extreme disapproval of homosexuality, extreme lack of tolerance for other faiths/no faith and wanting a parallel legal system. These are not illegal as such but it may cause friction if you expect a country where this is not the societal norm to fit in with what you would like.

As fourmummy says, some practices are also harmful on an evidence based level and perhaps should be eradicated in the name of better health for all sections of society. Certain piercings have been banned because of health concerns, unlicensed tooth whitening has been banned. There are inummerable things we no longer do because we have found better ways. After all if you went to the doctor and he suggested bleeding you, as was common 100 or so years ago, you'd be out of there like a shot and contacting the local PCT to report!

Sport - some practices are also harmful on an evidence based level and perhaps should be eradicated in the name of better health Not perhaps but definitely. I am very concerned, as are others, at the 85+ Sharia courts operating alongside our own legal system in this country, the health aspects operating in parallel with our evidence-based, medical model system, para-financial organisations being put into place, religiously-slaughtered food practices operating alongside our own secularly-orientated ones (there is documented, observable, measurable evidence that religiously-orientated slaughter practices create more stress and anxiety in the animal than using the pre-stunning method). I have encountered all of the examples above, here, in the UK, operating in parallel with our medical model system. I object to any belief system that is practiced on the basis of no observable evidence and measurable outcome (e.g., going to Lourdes might work. By all means, go, but keep it to yourself and do not allow it to influence the secular evidence-based systems that have taken us hundreds of years to put in place). We need to keep talking, for all of our benefit.

fourmummy we need more people in public office and politics who think and argue like you and, most importantly, who influence policy .

I'm kinda bamboozled too.

I did wonder fourmummy in the event of a dispute between a Muslim and a non Muslim what would happen if the former wanted to resolve in a Sharia court and the other did not. Or are they purely used for family disputes etc?

I too have concerns about the religious slaughter aspect as I had heard it causes additional distress. It doesn't personally affect me as I am veggie but if I had meat eater guests I would go out of my way to provide non Halal food (though I'd mostly stick to veggie as it's only in-laws that insist on meat and they don't visit often!).

The thing is with FGM, breast ironing and putting sand in your foof they are actually expected to have negative outcomes for the woman so on that evidence they are actually doing what they are expected to do. The thing is all the negative health effects such as difficulty in childbirth and infections leading to illness and possibly death seem to be accepted by the practitioners of this as acceptable collaterall damage and 'god's will'. Perhaps this is also linked to the low esteem of women in these cultures?

Sport and ThirtyNine - of course, they 'believe' it just like Tony Blair believes that god had a hand in his Iraq debacle (vested interests, benefits, wealth, status are all in there, aren't they?). The thing is, we know that certain things work and some things don't because we have evidence to show this, so somebody's hand is being greased by 'allowing' and perpetuating practices that everyone knows don't work and don't have a hope of ever working. My solutions:

1. Education (religious and non-religious) - once you educate people into evidence, they soon draw their own reasonable conclusions about the world and are able to see religion for what it is. We educate and wait.
2. Zero tolerance on a community level/grassroots level, where ordinary people stop accepting superstitious nonsense, which everyone knows doesn't work, as fact. Personal belief = fine; Beyond personal belief = secular, evidence -based beliefs and practice (law, health, finance, food, housing, education).
3. Work out who is supporting this and why - undermine this support directly (voting) and indirectly (1 and 2 above).

That is essentially what is political Islam which is less concerned with the detail but that all things western are bad. I don't think most of us can identify with being prepared to die for a religion as it's many hundreds of years since it was a part of Christian expectation to die as a martyr.

How to counter this is probably the hardest thing as it provides a certain 'glamour' to many disaffected young men and women. Fighting for a higher cause has always had that kind of draw throughout history, possibly why the crusades got a fair amount of volunteers (could have been the prospect of loot too!).

I suspect some around here have been tempted. After all there is a fairly distinct lack of glamour and excitement around here.

There needs to be a concerted effort within mosques maybe and provision of alternatives it won't stop everybody but it may stop a fair few.

Denial of a problem doesn't make it go away.

...perpetuating practices that everyone knows don't work and don't have a hope of ever working

Fourmummy, can you give an example of these practices and how you would expect to see them 'work'?

I think it's more a case of practices that often have negative consequences or actually no discernable purpose.

Like what?

THirtyNine A lot of things you care to name can be directly measured: having sex with a virgin to cure HIV won't work. Sticking a woman in a burqa does not eradicate coercive sex. Praying does not cure cancer. No evidence that children may be possessed by spirits. No evidence that menstruating women can't fly planes. No evidence that there are 72 virgins in paradise. evidence that a blood transfusion will replenish volume of blood while praying won't, evidence that flu is caused by viruses and not evil spirits, etc.,etc.

On the other hand: FGM has measurably negative consequences in terms of women's physical and mental health; ditto for the other practices. Evidence that chemo has a higher cure rate than praying, evidence that smoking in pregnancy affects foetal growth, etc. etc.

Some random's thoughts or observations are no way to build a society. Fortunately, we have methods to dispense with this. We are still unsure, as a society, where we are heading. We'll get there but it will take a concerted effort on everyone's part to make everyone's life better. We need to push further for secularism - private belief is fine; public belief is not. Evidence-based processes are the only ones acceptable for public life.