Are you really that unaware?
I'm aware of many things in the abstract, but when it comes to the specific rationale residing in your own mind, I find it best to defer to you in order to properly find out about that.
I'll answer your question. But before I do, I'll contextualize my words. So, I have observed that people who are very obviously intelligent or educated or both somehow have an inherent belief in their ability to rise above prejudice and therefore never see themselves as prejudiced even when they are.
I think you are on to something here, but I might choose to put in in a different way, while reaching a very similar conclusion. My one quibble point with the way you've presented this, is that you appear to be implying that obviously intelligent and educated people ask that others presume the best of them vis a vis prejudice, look at me I'm smart and educated so I don't have to work hard, or I shouldn't have to work hard in order to defend myself from such aspersions. If this is an unfair description of what you meant to convey, please let me know.
Moving on from that starting point- admittedly a tenuous one as I wait to see if that's what you meant to imply- I would suggest that obviously well educated and highly intelligent people actually put a tremendous amount of time and effort into whatever they produce, and they do so with the end goal of making large numbers of people believe their conclusions are reasonable and well defended. They also do so with the explicit goal of avoiding aspersions that would cause their efforts to be cast aside and treated as worthless. Granted, to your point, well educated and highly intelligent people can be and quite often are prejudiced and/or bigoted. I do think they're more likely to at least succeed in being subtle about it, which I think is a point that you've also implied and perhaps stated pretty clearly within your initial response, but in some form or fashion intelligence and education is probably not particularly good at eliminating prejudice.
Now, I will agree with you that highly educated people with well thought out arguments do not like being told they are prejudiced. But I don't think it comes from a sense of laziness, as you seem to have implied. I think that these types of people work very hard at what they do, one part of why they work hard is specifically in order to avoid being labeled thusly, and they want a certain type of reward for the work they've done. This type of person may also have more to lose, especially if we're talking about an actual academic for whom accusations of prejudice- if they land- could have career threatening implications. Your street-level loudmouthed bigot typically doesn't have anything of the sort that could be lost, and quite frankly they don't work as hard in order to form a proper argument.
So, as far as I can tell, I believe I'm making this sort of distinction. On one hand, you have a highly educated person who points to a diploma on the wall and says "I am an expert, I have like 52 advanced degrees or whatever." A Reza Aslan type of argument from authority, if I may make the comparison. There are some people like that, but I would argue it's not that many. On the other hand, you have someone who has these degrees and this expertise, but then with every argument they make and everything they write, they really work hard at what they're doing and they legitimately put forth the effort, and then they feel a bit slighted if someone discards their work for reasons that they specifically worked to avoid giving them. It's subtle and insidious prejudice, it's not heavy handed but it's problematic all the same. That sort of conclusion. Now, by my understanding of smart people- including the prejudiced ones- pointing to a set of diplomas is not the usual course of action. As far as I'm able to tell, the usual course of action is to point to the work they put in, the quality of the work, and then perhaps to the critique of others that might vaguely resemble peer review.
Take, for example, the elective course in law school that I'd taken called something to the effect of "Race, Color, and Crime." In that class, we'd been asked by our professor to take a test on attitudes about race (in terms of white and black) that has been designed by Harvard known as Project Implicit specifically titled "
RACE IAT." I believe we were some 22 students and only 2 students including me showed no negative bias and were neutral. We had also had to include our idea of what would be our results before and after. I'd not been sure if my test results would show bias or not because I had wondered if I might have picked up some unconscious cues and developed bias due to the news media and also because my father is in the habit of making racist remarks about African-Americans. However, what is noteworthy about the test is that almost all the other students had thought they wouldn't have any bias whereas I hadn't been sure and I'd been the one of the two to show no bias; I'm an extrovert in real life, but I have never shied away from spiritual introspection; and I believe that the results for all those other students had been askew probably because in the society we live introspection of any nature is not valued.
I've taken that test, and I failed it. I felt bad about it for a little while, until I found out that almost everyone fails it and that it's not a big deal if you do fail it.
So, what am I trying to tell you? I'm trying to tell you that while you believe Islamophobia exists, you're probably from my understanding at the least (and of course I could be wrong and you certainly don't have to take my word for it) the kind of a person who has at least some Islamophobic attitudes.
Well, that might depend on how you define "Islamophobic attitudes." If that means anything about Islam that is negative, I would say it depends on whether the negative thing is accurate or not. If it's an obviously false or unfounded statement, then fine, that's unfair treatment. But I do think there are some negative things that can be said about Islam that are completely fair, truthful, and accurate.
Do you disagree?
This is most prominent when you're dealing with us on the board as Muslims and also when I notice your throwaway remarks like this: "Now that I'm describing some of the specifics of the show, I'm realizing just how much violence it would precipitate if it were shown on TV in a Muslim-majority country." How do you know this? Why do you think this?
Well, it's rather undeniable that Muslim mobs have turned out with violent intentions on several occasions within recent memory. It's quite well known that certain things are offensive to Islam, and that these things can trigger much violence. There was a thread a couple months back on which both of us participated, it had to do with the Charlie Hebdo thing. You were awfully critical of the Danish cartoonists, do you remember that? I was a bit more critical of the people who chose to be violent, I was also fairly critical of Egyptian newspapers for widely disseminating the cartoons and I had some praise for the US, Canada, and the UK for choosing to censor them in their newspapers and in their TV news cycle. You could also look at the half-dozen countries in which violence erupted as a result of a really rubbish trailer for a super-offensive movie that never got properly made, this led to the ayatollah of Iran increasing the bounty on the head of Salman Rushdie even though he had nothing to do with the movie and he was actually quite critical of it. This actually leads us quite naturally into the Satanic Verses and everything that came with that.
In addition to these more-well-known events, here's a story about violence between Syrian and Afghan refugees over a girl who refused to wear a headscarf.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...refused-wear-headscarf.html?utm_source=akdart
And here's a story about 90 Iraqi students being killed because of their "strange hair and tight clothes" (otherwise known as the "emo" look).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oned-death-having-Emo-hair-tight-clothes.html
Now, full disclosure, I'm not a particular fan of the emo look myself. I never quite understood it. Just a personal taste thing, I guess. But really, killing people because of it? Come on, people.
I could go on and on with the examples, but the point is this. There are certain issues, especially ones that pertain to blasphemy, or insults to Allah or Mohammed or his wives- that are predictable triggers for violence. Not for all Muslims everywhere, but in very conservative countries where a rather large majority of Muslims are residing, there are certain things that will trigger violence if these people- not all Muslims, but these people- become offended by it.
Now, in the specific example you're citing, I believe I identified such a trigger. For the record, I believe the show in question would have been well tolerated almost anywhere up to a certain point. But there was a certain chain of events in the last part of the most recent season that seems like it would have been especially offensive. God- as he's called on the show, although Muslims would naturally read his identity as Allah- had been mysteriously absent for almost the entire series. Then when he finally shows up, his general character is revealed to be rather capricious, morally ambivalent, and he says he did not care about humanity at all for most of the time it's existed. He could just barely be bothered to care about it when he was called upon to save it from total destruction. He was actually reluctant to do so. Additionally, with this portrayal of God he very much enjoys playing the guitar (and does so in a couple of memorable scenes). Even with just this so far, I would surmise a couple of things already: One- the visible, on-screen portrayal of God (or let's say Allah) would be deeply offensive by itself, and Two- the portrayals of God very much enjoying life as a singer songwriter and performer would be just as deeply offensive to a certain subset of Muslims.
But that isn't even the worst part. Prior to God revealing his identity in this show, he pretended to be a prophet. And actual prophet of the Lord, like Jesus like Mohammed like Lot (I think he's a prophet for Muslims? Not for Christians though). God, or Allah, is portrayed as a character who hides in plain sight while pretending to be a prophet. Again, an actual prophet.
Now, until I described just a bit of this on a Muslim forum, I hadn't really thought one bit about what Muslims would think of this show. It's not really marketed toward any sort of Muslim audience, so why would I think a lot about that? As I started to think about it though, I began to realize there are certain communities of Muslims in this world that would have at least four different reasons to be deeply, I mean truly mortally offended by the most recent events portrayed in this show. Not all Muslims everywhere of course, but there are certain Muslim communities where people would truly lose their minds if the back end of the most recent season was made widely available for their public consumption.
So to summarize, we're looking at a situation where God (Allah) is portrayed visibly, without any hint of self-censorship, on screen. He's not very likable in the sum total of his attitude toward humanity, he doesn't have a solid moral compass, he enjoys songwriting and performing on guitar, and for a decent chunk of the show he impersonated an actual prophet. When I consider all of these things within the context of a very Muslim country, I can easily imagine there being some very angry Muslims. Now, you tell me if that is a completely implausible assessment.
Because you probably think Muslims are almost all violent outside of the West or generally likely to easily become violent persons probably whether in the West or East.
Actually, I think that Muslims have triggers that non-Muslims in the West only partially understand. I still don't get why the number 39 is deemed offensive. Where did that come from? No, never mind, this could get discursive rather quickly. The point is, Muslims have triggers. I believe I identified a few of them within a show that I enjoy.
Because you cannot imagine them as people like yourself who can handle a supernatural show.
I think that all, or nearly all, Muslims could have handled this supernatural show (which is called Supernatural) right up until the point where Allah is portrayed on screen. In a less than completely flattering light. And then does some things that some Muslims would consider deeply haram. And then we also realize that the prophet of the Lord character that we'd gotten to know over the last few seasons, was actually Allah pretending to be a prophet. An actual prophet. At that point, I think we've got some triggers.
Again I ask, do you disagree? If so, do you simply think that it's impossible to offend Muslims to a point where you're predictably going to trigger violence within the right kind of Islamic community? And how would you try to help me reach that conclusion, if that's the direction you want to go?
By the way, I already know of one instance in 2014 specific to a supernatural television show created by Muslims for Muslims that aired in Muslim-majority country wherein this hasn't been true; probably there are many more, only I'm unfamiliar with them because I live in the West and have very limited exposure to what type of shows and movies they might create or watch. And also, you fail to realize that Hollywood television shows and movies are globally imported and watched in Muslim-majority countries all the time. Take, for example, my graduate school Muslim female friend, that is, specifically a female geneticist from Saudi Arabia who'd come to do further research here in the U.S. on student visa and we'd met as she'd been my neighbor when I was in law school, who knew more about American television shows and movies that she'd watched in Saudi Arabia than I do because I do not myself like to waste time watching movies or television programs and also hadn't the time in law school to do so even if I hadn't been so inclined. Most Muslims that I know are big Harry Potter fans (books and movie franchise) whether they identify themselves as belonging to the East or the West.
I can't help but wonder, are you aware of any specific examples of Allah being portrayed on screen as a character in any of these shows? And I would like a straight and direct answer to this question, please.
The reason I ask is simple. You accuse me of thinking that Muslims can't handle supernatural shows or magic/supernatural related fiction, in the abstract. I disagree with this assessment, I actually believe there's a lot that Muslims can and do handle. What I am saying, and this is what led to my comment, is that Muslims by and large will be quite offended by an on-screen portrayal of Allah, especially when he's portrayed in some negative manner, especially when he does things that are haram, and I would imagine that any storyline in which Allah pretends to be an actual prophet would be a particular sensitive issue. I think that most Muslims would be offended by this, and if it were seen on a wide scale in the right sort of Muslim community, there is a non-zero chance of triggering a violent reaction.
So again I ask you, within your comprehensive knowledge of entertainment widely consumed by Muslims, are you familiar with any specific examples of God (or Allah) being portrayed on screen, by an actor, in a manner that does not make God's character look particularly good?
Even if Muslims wanted to deny radicalism or extremism, the existence of Daesh in itself is enough to disprove it.
I've been told by some moderators of this forum that these Daesh guys are emphatically not Muslims, and Daesh has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. I acknowledged that they pervert Islam, while also saying they have something to do with Islam. And they told me good job for saying they pervert Islam, now let's all agree that they are not Muslims and they have nothing to do with Islam.
So....it depends who you talk to.
However, the problem with Islamophobic pundits is that they're many times intelligent and educated; so, if they're spouting nonsense like Islamophobia isn't real, they're regarded to more than likely not be telling the wholesome truth, at least in their viewers'/listeners'/audience's minds because there is a pervasive myth that if you're educated and intelligent, you cannot possibly be prejudiced.
I've spent a good bit of time looking into various figures who say things about Islam- and really, it's been fairly targeted since I begin by looking at formal debates and that's how I typically discover people- so in my personal experience, the intelligent and educated people who can go on TV and have a proper debate, just don't spout this sort of nonsense. Now that I've poked around YouTube with specific search terms like "Islamophobia isn't real" and other similar search terms, I can see that some people do say such things. Most of them don't have very many followers. From what I can tell, the typical YouTuber who posts videos saying these sorts of things is in the habit of saying "Mahs-lim" every time the word comes up, and has about 15 followers and 75 views of their videos.
For example, it is easy to dismiss for almost all of us probably any Islamophobic remarks that an uneducated and ignorant
group like the Texans who practice to kill Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs' blood might make because they're so obvious about their prejudice and bigotry. However, the Islamophobic pundits of whom I'm thinking but won't be naming are subtle, sophisticated, and refined about how they present and articulate their bigotry and wrap their prejudice as rational and present denial of Islamophobia; and therefore, their words seem to carry a legitimacy and basis and presence that impress less discerning minds when the other group's remarks wouldn't whereas I note ironically that their entire rhetoric is one big example of Islamophobia and not really any better and probably more poisonous.
Oh boo, I wish you would say what their names are. If their words seem to carry a legitimacy, I may have actually heard of these people and then I could comment on whether I think they are bigoted or Islamophobic. Maybe I wind up thinking they do a good job of making valid criticisms, and then we could parse out what you think is unfair or inaccurate. Sadly, I may never know.
I trust that has sufficiently answered your question.
Well, there is a bit of a follow-up that you didn't exactly cover, and it speaks more specifically to the actual point you brought up.
For the sake of again-clarifying this point, there is this show called Supernatural. I honestly believe that the vast majority of this show would be well tolerated and perhaps mostly enjoyed by basically all Muslims. I do believe, however, that certain things in this world offend Muslims very much, sometimes to the point where they can trigger violence under the right circumstances.
Feel free to jump in there and tell me what you think about that assessment.
Furthermore, there is a particular point in the most recent season of this show where God (Allah) is portrayed on screen, in the flesh. He is not portrayed in the most flattering light, and he does things that some Muslims (not all) would consider very haram, and he does them in such a way that he obviously enjoys himself very much and we are supposed to enjoy his musical performance as an audience. Additionally, he spent a good chunk of the show pretending to be a prophet, yes an actual prophet.
I didn't think of it in these terms immediately as I was watching it, I was actually texting a friend of mine about how awesome the episode was and he's going to enjoy it when he sees it. That was my reaction. Upon further consideration of how this would go over with Muslims though, I think there are some Muslim communities- and they're not too hard to identify- where this exact thing could quite plausibly trigger some violence. And if we change just one thing about the scenario- for example, if we imagine this sort of storyline were created within an Islamic country and widely disseminated there- I don't believe the actor who portrays God in this manner would want to be in the country a the time of its airing, anyone involved in the project would be expelled from the country if they hadn't got themselves out already, and anyone still present who could be held accountable in any way would most likely become the victim of a violent attack.
Now you tell me, is that a truly unfair portrayal of how life works in an actual Islamic state, or is that just a common sense assessment of something that might trigger violence in certain Islamic societies?
Ah, just one more question. As a matter of personal judgment, should I even consider posting any videos of the sequences that I am talking about? You are arguing, after all, that pretty much all Muslims can pretty well handle any sort of supernatural TV show. (Which I mostly agree with, except when Allah is visually portrayed on screen with all these other caveats about the situation). So if I were to link you to videos that I've specifically selected because God is portrayed in them in all the ways that I've described, would this be something that you'd advise? Or should I just assume that I'm right in assessing this sort of thing as being deeply offensive to Islam?
I believe I've correctly identified something that is offensive to Muslims. You just go ahead and tell me if that's wrong.
(Peace be upon you)
.
)