Author Topic: "Boy, 6, ‘beheaded for being “wrong” Muslim’ pictured for first time"  (Read 4200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7605
I have looked, and I'm unable to find any news source I consider credible running this story, which is odd because outlets like CNN run stories where a twitter hashtag is the story all the time. This does not make it impossible that the story is true, but it should be enough to give any skeptic pause.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4906
I have looked, and I'm unable to find any news source I consider credible running this story, which is odd because outlets like CNN run stories where a twitter hashtag is the story all the time. This does not make it impossible that the story is true, but it should be enough to give any skeptic pause.

Fair point. Is Metro considered an unreliable source? We have a local-langauge Metro in our metro system here, never heard any fuss about it. They even have a section scanning for fake news, attempting to warn people before they share news items on social media. They even made a short video about the importance of fact-checking online, and were kind enough to make a version of it in English:



So I guess I should have done some research before sharing it. But I thought of Metro as among the good guys.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15814
I would be suspicious of the source, and especially their motives in sharing the story.
Thats why I may have come across as quite negative.

As I said though, this kind of crime is sadly not THAT unusual around the world and the specific way it is reported seems possible to me.
So I am willing to believe it or something like it happened. And if it didnt, I have no doubt that violence against shia people does happen more regularly than to sunni people in that country.

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6836
There has always been a way to discuss Islam critically. But printing unsourced articles about "evil Muslims beheading starry-eyed toddlers" is not critical discussion, it is hate propaganda.

It was not even about Islam, it was about that the Saudi regime mistreats its Shia Muslim minority. Somehow you and Harry Black turned that into being an attack on Muslims as a group. Outstanding logic, or not...

There was no mention of the actions of the Saudi Regime in the original article, just about evil barbarian Muslims being evil barbarians. You turned it from a piece of transparent tabloid hate propaganda into something it certainly isn't.

If you read the article, this can be found:

Quote
Despite an outcry on social media, with hundreds of people sharing the hastag #JusticeforZakaria, it is understood authorities have so far made no arrests. Shia Rights Watch, a Washington DC-based human rights group, said there has been no intervention from the Saudi Authorities so far. They added that the Shia community in Saudi Arabia are in mourning for Zakaria and blamed the government for failing to protect its Shia citizens.

Further, unless you are a Salafist, you'll recognize Shiites as Muslims. That is how they self-identify. In this story, Shiites were victims. Apart from the perpetuators, the Saudi regime is to blame to be indifferent to its Shia minority (and to blame for a lot of other things as well really).

Thanks for your salafist smears, I really deserve it for pointing out that you shared hate propaganda from a British tabloid. The key words, in case you didn't notice, were "Muslims" and "beheaded". That is all a right-wing rag needs for its purposes, and you were used to spread the message that Muslims are evil barbarians.

And I did read the article. One passing sentence about how the regime is indifferent does not make this about the Regime. It's not like they had any direct involvement in this random hate crime. You can't take a tiny, insignificant part of an article and claim it to be the core message, that is delusional.

It is absurd to claim that I am making any statement about any group as a whole being barbarians. Or whatever you are trying to imply.

You won't find a single post (go ahead, try to find any) by me making sweeping statements about any group like that, or making sweeping negative remarks about any ethnic or religious or skin color ("race") group as a whole. That is not the sort of thing I do.

I loathe identity politics, both the left-wing variety and the right-wing variety.

Funny, because I never said you were. Just that you were unvittingly spreading hate propaganda by sharing an article whose aim was to incite fear and hatred.



Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4906
There has always been a way to discuss Islam critically. But printing unsourced articles about "evil Muslims beheading starry-eyed toddlers" is not critical discussion, it is hate propaganda.

It was not even about Islam, it was about that the Saudi regime mistreats its Shia Muslim minority. Somehow you and Harry Black turned that into being an attack on Muslims as a group. Outstanding logic, or not...

There was no mention of the actions of the Saudi Regime in the original article, just about evil barbarian Muslims being evil barbarians. You turned it from a piece of transparent tabloid hate propaganda into something it certainly isn't.

If you read the article, this can be found:

Quote
Despite an outcry on social media, with hundreds of people sharing the hastag #JusticeforZakaria, it is understood authorities have so far made no arrests. Shia Rights Watch, a Washington DC-based human rights group, said there has been no intervention from the Saudi Authorities so far. They added that the Shia community in Saudi Arabia are in mourning for Zakaria and blamed the government for failing to protect its Shia citizens.

Further, unless you are a Salafist, you'll recognize Shiites as Muslims. That is how they self-identify. In this story, Shiites were victims. Apart from the perpetuators, the Saudi regime is to blame to be indifferent to its Shia minority (and to blame for a lot of other things as well really).

Thanks for your salafist smears, I really deserve it for pointing out that you shared hate propaganda from a British tabloid. The key words, in case you didn't notice, were "Muslims" and "beheaded". That is all a right-wing rag needs for its purposes, and you were used to spread the message that Muslims are evil barbarians.

And I did read the article. One passing sentence about how the regime is indifferent does not make this about the Regime. It's not like they had any direct involvement in this random hate crime. You can't take a tiny, insignificant part of an article and claim it to be the core message, that is delusional.

It is absurd to claim that I am making any statement about any group as a whole being barbarians. Or whatever you are trying to imply.

You won't find a single post (go ahead, try to find any) by me making sweeping statements about any group like that, or making sweeping negative remarks about any ethnic or religious or skin color ("race") group as a whole. That is not the sort of thing I do.

I loathe identity politics, both the left-wing variety and the right-wing variety.

Funny, because I never said you were. Just that you were unvittingly spreading hate propaganda by sharing an article whose aim was to incite fear and hatred.

Fair enough.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4906
There does need to be the ability to discuss Islam critically.  This may not be the issue to do it but I struggle with how to present some of what I read from ex-Muslims. No, nothing recent, just something I think about.

I like the motto of the Edinburgh Skeptics: Respect People, Challenge Ideas

That is what I try to live by.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8734
  • Observer of Phenomena
There does need to be the ability to discuss Islam critically.  This may not be the issue to do it but I struggle with how to present some of what I read from ex-Muslims. No, nothing recent, just something I think about.

I like the motto of the Edinburgh Skeptics: Respect People, Challenge Ideas

That is what I try to live by.

Admirable, but in my experience there is very often an issue, particularly where religion is concerned, where an attack on the ideology is perceived as a personal attack on the self. Religion can be so much a part of a person's self-image and identity that it isn't as easy to "love the faithful, hate the faith" as people think it should be.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4906
There does need to be the ability to discuss Islam critically.  This may not be the issue to do it but I struggle with how to present some of what I read from ex-Muslims. No, nothing recent, just something I think about.

I like the motto of the Edinburgh Skeptics: Respect People, Challenge Ideas

That is what I try to live by.

Admirable, but in my experience there is very often an issue, particularly where religion is concerned, where an attack on the ideology is perceived as a personal attack on the self. Religion can be so much a part of a person's self-image and identity that it isn't as easy to "love the faithful, hate the faith" as people think it should be.

I agree with what you write. I think that is one of the reasons that the SGU emphasizes that one should not identify with any ideology (and religion is a subset of ideology).

However, I don't really see what the preferable option would be. And I am not an essentialist. I think, in fact I know, that people can change and adjust their views, even long-held, deeply held beliefs. It's just often a lot harder.

Edit: Spelling.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 02:04:32 PM by Quetzalcoatl »
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15814
Discussion about attacking religion vs individuals has been split off and can be found here:
Does Criticism of Religion Amount to an Attack on the Faithful?

 

personate-rain