[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

I disagree. Refutation, and public refutation, is very important. A large percentage of American people never question anything they're told by the press or government and don't care to study any topic beyond what they see on the news. This is especially the case with something they perceive as 'foreign,' such as Islam.

At worst, what harm can refutation do? It certainly won't have a negative impact.

Have you seen how CAIR reacts? They look like a bunch of whiny babies. In marketing, the basic construct of successful advertising is to develop a brand by keeping it simple and straight and by sticking out. If you want Islam to truly stick out, let you're opponent make as many smears as he wants. Psychologically speaking, there will always be a group of people who will just look at the fact that you aren't responding and will defend you. This is why you'll find, in any given situation, people that support Islam without having studied it at all.

In terms of polemics, the average person doesn't have the time (or the energy) to keep track of a never ending stream of polemics. Moreover, polemics might actually turn them off since it will make you seem argumentative.

Yes there are times when you argue, but the media is a powerful tool that cuts both ways, so you should only debate under certain situations. If you want to debate, do it in a university environment or some other place that is conducive to real substantive debate. You don't have the time to do it in a newspaper or on a TV show.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Jinnz, I disagree.

This isnt about branding Islam or anything, its about responding to allegations against Imam Siraj - thats what IbnAbuIbrahim was referring to.

[sally]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Have you seen how CAIR reacts? They look like a bunch of whiny babies. In marketing, the basic construct of successful advertising is to develop a brand by keeping it simple and straight and by sticking out. If you want Islam to truly stick out, let you're opponent make as many smears as he wants. Psychologically speaking, there will always be a group of people who will just look at the fact that you aren't responding and will defend you. This is why you'll find, in any given situation, people that support Islam without having studied it at all.

In terms of polemics, the average person doesn't have the time (or the energy) to keep track of a never ending stream of polemics. Moreover, polemics might actually turn them off since it will make you seem argumentative.

Yes there are times when you argue, but the media is a powerful tool that cuts both ways, so you should only debate under certain situations. If you want to debate, do it in a university environment or some other place that is conducive to real substantive debate. You don't have the time to do it in a newspaper or on a TV show.

jinnz you sound a little like some tablighis

anyways..why are you encouraging support of islam by people who havent studied it at all? doesnt that have more potential for harm than good?

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Have you seen how CAIR reacts? They look like a bunch of whiny babies. In marketing, the basic construct of successful advertising is to develop a brand by keeping it simple and straight and by sticking out. If you want Islam to truly stick out, let you're opponent make as many smears as he wants.

I'm not talking about a CAIR-ish reaction where you whine about something unfair (CAIR has basically turned into the AMCLU, which I guess has its own function and use) but fact-based refutation of allegations such as the ones leveled against Imam Siraj, or lies against our deen.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Psychologically speaking, there will always be a group of people who will just look at the fact that you aren't responding and will defend you. This is why you'll find, in any given situation, people that support Islam without having studied it at all.

Yeah, but in the US, that's going to be a pretty small group. The vast majority of the US has been heavily indoctrinated against Islam and people from Muslim countries through popular media.

Poll: Sinking Perceptions Of Islam - CBS News

19% had a favorable view of us. We're viewed less favorably than the freaking Mormons. That's bad.

Why should we rely on a small group, which may or may not be influential or have any impact, to defend ourselves in the court of public opinion?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

In terms of polemics, the average person doesn't have the time (or the energy) to keep track of a never ending stream of polemics. Moreover, polemics might actually turn them off since it will make you seem argumentative.

You're doing a lot of speculating on the psychology of the audience which may or may not be accurate. The best anyone can do is to ensure the facts are available and let the facts speak for themselves. To not bother making the facts available because you hope that people might pity us or because you're worried about appearing argumentative could be potentially fallacious.

Also, even if they don't have the time or energy to keep up, wouldn't the same people (and more) that would be inspired to look into things due to the attacks on Islam also be that did be inspired to do the same to learn more about the argument?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Yes there are times when you argue, but the media is a powerful tool that cuts both ways, so you should only debate under certain situations. If you want to debate, do it in a university environment or some other place that is conducive to real substantive debate. You don't have the time to do it in a newspaper or on a TV show.

You're contradicting your previous statements here. The average person is a lot more likely to see you on a newspaper or TV show than in a university debate. Further, while substantive debate is great & I'm all for it, it's not always necessary to get a favorable point or impression across. Lobbyists and advocacy groups don't primarily rely on substantive debate to gain favorable impressions with the public and the influential.

[Timbit]

I like Imam Siraj.

Anyway, were the ads proselytizing? That should be illegal. For everybody.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Timbit

I like Imam Siraj.

Anyway, were the ads proselytizing? That should be illegal. For everybody.

America is a free country. Unlike you commie canadians!

[Timbit]

We have bus-stop Bible studies on public transit in Toronto. I'm not too comfortable with that, but what I hate even more is the Mormon and NOI preachers. If I'm interested in your religion, I'll read about it and come seek you out. Stop ringing my doorbell and please don't stop me in the street.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

I'm not talking about a CAIR-ish reaction where you whine about something unfair (CAIR has basically turned into the AMCLU, which I guess has its own function and use) but fact-based refutation of allegations such as the ones leveled against Imam Siraj, or lies against our deen.

Well, thats the problem with the polemical methodology, it ends up breaking down into smear tactics and turns everyone off from the entire debate.

Yeah, but in the US, that's going to be a pretty small group. The vast majority of the US has been heavily indoctrinated against Islam and people from Muslim countries through popular media.

Poll: Sinking Perceptions Of Islam - CBS News

19% had a favorable view of us. We're viewed less favorably than the freaking Mormons. That's bad.

Why should we rely on a small group, which may or may not be influential or have any impact, to defend ourselves in the court of public opinion?

Because those people are sincerely looking for truth, thats why. What matters isn't getting people to perceive Islam positively, this has rarely happened in Islamic history. What matters is delivering people to the truth of Islam which is done through dawah. Dawah shouldn't be polemical.

In spite of these extremely low public perceptions of Islam, conversion rates through out the world are extremely high in non-Muslim countries including the US, Germany, Russia, and Africa. The message of Islam speaks for itself, all you do is present it through your actions and a simple explanation of our aqeedah and fiqh.

You're doing a lot of speculating on the psychology of the audience which may or may not be accurate. The best anyone can do is to ensure the facts are available and let the facts speak for themselves. To not bother making the facts available because you hope that people might pity us or because you're worried about appearing argumentative could be potentially fallacious.

Well, I sat in a marketing class a few times and I took a negotiations class and I've tried these techniques a few times and it works. If you look at Obama's strategy in the beginning of the election, he refused to engage in a smear campaign but presented a moralistic dialogue and that made him really stick out from the other candidates. So this strategy is pretty tried and tested in the field of marketing.

Also, even if they don't have the time or energy to keep up, wouldn't the same people (and more) that would be inspired to look into things due to the attacks on Islam also be that did be inspired to do the same to learn more about the argument?

They don't have the time to keep track of all the complex arguments, the masses by definition need simplicity and the Islamic aqeedah is simple enough. When they read up on Islam, whether its through an anti-Muslim or a pro-Muslim source, the aqeedah will stick out and grab their attention. Most of the people I know who converted to Islam said it was the simplicity and obviousness of our basic beliefs that got them thinking about Islam in the first place, even though they were in an anti-Muslim phase.

You're contradicting your previous statements here. The average person is a lot more likely to see you on a newspaper or TV show than in a university debate. Further, while substantive debate is great & I'm all for it, it's not always necessary to get a favorable point or impression across. Lobbyists and advocacy groups don't primarily rely on substantive debate to gain favorable impressions with the public and the influential.

I didn't make the argument that the average person will attend the university debates, I was referring to the polemicists. The media is not the proper forum to have intense debates is what I was getting at. Most of the media outlets today are not really designed to have critical discussions, but to sensationalize certain subjects and ingrain them in people's minds. You're fighting a losing battle if you use the media in that manner, even Christian Evangelicals don't engage in these sort of polemics and when they do, they look like a fanatical fringe.

So if you're going to engage a polemicist, you do so in an environment where he's at a disadvantage: a truly critical environment. You debate with him in peer-reviewed journals, dissertations, and in parliamentary style debate. Thats where you deconstruct their arguments so when they get used in a public venue, other intellectual elites (who may or may not be Muslim) will be able to criticize them as well.

Most of the polemicists we know don't develop their own arguments but get them from other intellectuals who are either lawyers, public relations experts, or work for think tanks. There's a lot of minds that work together to construct a good PR campaign.

[MuslimZ]

Imam Siraj is my homie, and truly an amazing, peaceful and peace-inspiring man. My favorite line I heard him give was at a CAIR dinner about a year or so ago. He stood on stage around Thanksgiving and, while we were all stuffing our faces with banquet steak, declared loudly, "Angelina Jolie has done more for this world than most of you in this room! While you all sit here enjoying your time off with your families, she's in Bangladesh fighting for children's rights! That white kaffir girl is putting you to shame!"


The one issue I have is with how Imam Siraj didn't explicitly condemn or denounce Abdel-Rahman when clearly that's the root of his troubles. Perhaps he is hesitant to offend Muslims but, this dude clearly did the crime and happily confessed to it. And I know for sure Imam Siraj despises any act of violence and is personally against the Shaykh's despicable actions. So why doesn't he just say it and save himself from these ridiculous attacks? It's even the islamic duty to "stand up against injustice, even if it means standing up against yourself and kin".

As long as we have this sort of hesitant attitude to denounce blatant terrorism, we will continue to see opinion of us decline. If we have it in our hearts, then let it come out our mouths.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

Imam Siraj is my homie, and truly an amazing, peaceful and peace-inspiring man. My favorite line I heard him give was at a CAIR dinner about a year or so ago. He stood on stage around Thanksgiving and, while we were all stuffing our faces with banquet steak, declared loudly, "Angelina Jolie has done more for this world than most of you in this room! While you all sit here enjoying your time off with your families, she's in Bangladesh fighting for children's rights! That white kaffir girl is putting you to shame!"


The one issue I have is with how Imam Siraj didn't explicitly condemn or denounce Abdel-Rahman when clearly that's the root of his troubles. Perhaps he is hesitant to offend Muslims but, this dude clearly did the crime and happily confessed to it. And I know for sure Imam Siraj despises any act of violence and is personally against the Shaykh's despicable actions. So why doesn't he just say it and save himself from these ridiculous attacks? It's even the islamic duty to "stand up against injustice, even if it means standing up against yourself and kin".

As long as we have this sort of hesitant attitude to denounce blatant terrorism, we will continue to see opinion of us decline. If we have it in our hearts, then let it come out our mouths.

Even if he condemned him, that wouldn't change the fact that he's an unindicted co-conspirator to the attacks.

[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Even if he condemned him, that wouldn't change the fact that he's an unindicted co-conspirator to the attacks.

word but... it simply can't help your case when all you have to say about a convicted bomber is "he is a scholar of islam" and "he's got great recitation".

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

word but... it simply can't help your case when all you have to say about a convicted bomber is "he is a scholar of islam" and "he's got great recitation".

Word.

:flower power:

[dreamdeferred]

Refutation of the attacks against Imam Siraj Wahaj is something that needs to be done. Image/Crisis management is a core function of public relations and let's face it the Imam is a highly visible public figure. Infact this needs to be done very soon because the impact lessens as time passes. Op-Eds, media-buying, interviews, protest against the New York Post......would all make a difference (I'm sure CAIR is already pursuing this).

Obviously it's true that many people will tune these sorts of efforts out as they've already formed a negative impression of the Imam but that does little to alter to the necessity and usefulness of public relations at this point.