Author Topic: "Boy, 6, ‘beheaded for being “wrong” Muslim’ pictured for first time"  (Read 716 times)

spider307 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6540
This was definitely one of those "Muslims are evil" tabloid propaganda articles.

Not sure why it needed reposting here.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18326
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
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.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6540
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.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
I dont doubt that this may have happened. I assume more reputable sources arent reporting on it because there is nothing here beyond a shock tacky news story (usually enough for tabloids) with the added bonus of feeding the biases of their audience who arent known to be great analytical thinkers.

It is not a bias that Saudi Arabia is mistreating its Shia minority.
Nor that the US mistreats its native american minority and that they suffer violence at a great rate.
Im absolutely against the Saudi regime and their racist, sexist, homophobic and genocidal policies.  Im just offering a possible explanation as to why more reputable news sources are not reporting this story.

Your argument is logically fallacious. What the US does or doens't to Native Americans is irrelevant to how Shia Muslims are treated in Saudi Arabia.

But look, what are you doing!? You are invoking the plight of Native Americans in order to divert attention from how the Saudi regime treats Shia Muslims. For real?

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
This was definitely one of those "Muslims are evil" tabloid propaganda articles.

Not sure why it needed reposting here.

And here I thought that Shiites were Muslims, since they self-identify as such. But maybe you subscribe to the Salafist doctrine that they aren't?

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
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...

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6540
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.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5255
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.

Since it was posted here to this skeptics forum, we critically examined it, and provisionally noted it as potential hate propaganda, and denounced it. If it turns out to be true, then we will have other important issues to discuss.

That is the value of having a dialogue as opposed to just sweeping uncomfortable narratives under the rug and pretending they don't exist.


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.

The article did place the story at a mosque in Saudi Arabia, which carries clear implications for anyone with even basic knowledge about what's been going on in the region.

For the past 4 years, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been embroiled in a Sunni-Shia proxy war with Iran. So an informed reader may take this story as a horrific civil outbreak of that conflict, or even a bit of pro-Shia, anti-Saudi propaganda.

At the same time, your typical anti-Muslim bigot would probably just chalk it up to general Islamic barbarism. But just because ignorant readers will come away with that impression, it doesn't necessarily mean that "Muslims are evil" was intended as the central theme of the piece. Of course, that headline does look pretty bad...

Either way, the story cannot be corroborated by any reliable sources, which strongly implies that it's a baseless, politically motivated hack piece.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 02:38:54 PM by John Albert »

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15038
I dont doubt that this may have happened. I assume more reputable sources arent reporting on it because there is nothing here beyond a shock tacky news story (usually enough for tabloids) with the added bonus of feeding the biases of their audience who arent known to be great analytical thinkers.

It is not a bias that Saudi Arabia is mistreating its Shia minority.
Nor that the US mistreats its native american minority and that they suffer violence at a great rate.
Im absolutely against the Saudi regime and their racist, sexist, homophobic and genocidal policies.  Im just offering a possible explanation as to why more reputable news sources are not reporting this story.

Your argument is logically fallacious. What the US does or doens't to Native Americans is irrelevant to how Shia Muslims are treated in Saudi Arabia.

But look, what are you doing!? You are invoking the plight of Native Americans in order to divert attention from how the Saudi regime treats Shia Muslims. For real?
No. You misunderstand me.

I am saying that local prejudices cause violence on marginalised groups everywhere in the world.

I am saying that the source of those prejudices vary from place to place.

I am saying that sadly, the story here is not that unusual except for the physical details.

I am acknowledging that Saudi has a disgusting regime and approach to its minorities.

I am saying that one outlier incident like this does nothing to inform us in any way about anything except perhaps the impunity that violent people in a majority demographic can feel against those deemed to be other.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
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).

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5255
If it's true, then it's a horrific example of the consequences of a brutal religious conflict.

Do we have any reason to believe it is true? If not, then the obvious question would be who's responsible for making up such a horrid lie, and what are their potential motives?

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6540
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.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
If it's true, then it's a horrific example of the consequences of a brutal religious conflict.

Do we have any reason to believe it is true? If not, then the obvious question would be who's responsible for making up such a horrid lie, and what are their potential motives?

Is there any evidence that it's fake? The hashtag is referring to it on Twitter. Mostly Shia Muslims posting about it.

https://twitter.com/mohdfazzy110/status/1094299602092740608

https://twitter.com/Utopia23445467/status/1094326084282318854

https://twitter.com/Aliabba16360616/status/1095035960524300288

https://twitter.com/mohdayannaqvi/status/1095732788270030848

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4283
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.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5255
Is there any evidence that it's fake?

Um... that's not how epistemology works.

You ought to be looking for evidence that it's real. Like, at the very least, maybe some report by a reputable news source?


The hashtag is referring to it on Twitter. Mostly Shia Muslims posting about it.

So, for some reason Shia Muslims are especially incapable of being drawn in by fake news and Twitter hashtags that play on their sense of outrage?

 

personate-rain