posted
And in France, we don't know you do : so how do you expect to know it if we fight ? Even our medias don't talk much about it !
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is true, then frankly the common French people just don't watch American media. That's unsurprising, since Americans don't want French media, but my point is in response to your statement of basically, "Well, y'all do bad stuff too, and no one's complaining," is to ask: ARE even a vocal minority of French people upset about this law?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
No, I think the people in America realize that when you commit a crime, you get punished, no matter what the color of your skin. We don't have race quotas on executions.
That is not a comparable situation to France's ballooning muslim population, some of which is overtly hostile to Jews.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think it's indicative of the same sort of problem-we as a nation still have issues treating certain minority segments of our population unfairly, yes. I think that's clearly indicated by the disparate execution rates.
But I can at least say with conviction that America is heading in the right direction with regard to that problem. This latest law in France, to me, seems to indicate something much different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that's clearly indicated by the disparate execution rates.
What does that indicate? Does it tell you who committs a disparate amount of crimes? Or does it expose the media driven stereotype that all of US law enforcment is out to get blacks?
If you could show that the rates of crime were different than the rates of execution, then there would be something to discuss.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reasonably sure it has been shown that, proportionally, blacks in particular are more likely to be executed for similar crimes than whites are. I will look it up and be back.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are some pretty good studies that show the race of the victim has the greatest impact on whether a killer is executed, although the statistics are less clear than the studies purport them to be. Race of the defendant has a much smaller effect, although still significant.
The problem with the studies is that it is doubtful that they controlled (or even identified)all the non-race factors correctly. But the correlation is large enough that there probably is some bias in the sentencing.
But considering that the Supreme Court mandates discretion throughout the capital punishment trial process, the bias is very hard to identify, let alone root out.
Dagonee
Edit: The disparity means that a black person convicted of killing a white person has the statistically greatest chance of being executed. A white killing a white has the next greatest chance, a black killing a black the next, and a white killing a black the least. A person in the first category is about twice as likely as a person in the last category to be sentenced to death.
I do not have time to find the studies online, but my recollection is fairly fresh.
posted
I can't find much meaningful information on this topic. It seems as though government sites like Dept. of Justice doesn't like breaking down crimes committed by race.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't say that the French people aren't reacting to this. You can't say they're complicitly agreeing - if you do, you haven't been following French news at all.
The French are far better at political protest than we are. Protests are not something engaged in by those crazy few. There have been marches, there have been rallies - the day after the law was passed, thousands of girls wearing the French flag as a headscarf marched in protest -- and that even made American AP news. Plus, Anna told us earlier that there is a large number of girls, Muslim or not, wearing scarves to school in protest.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, you demonstrated the problem. No source material at all. I want to see some actual studies, with some numbers put to them. Such a study should include numbers from the entire country.
How about some statistics for crime in St.Louis? The city is over 50% black. I would like to know the statistics for the city, but I can't seem to find any hard numbers, only opinions.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Study reports are big business, its no surprise that they can't be found on the web. But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
It doesn't make any difference to me if they exist or not, if I cannot see them. I refuse to rely on someone else's interpretation of the data.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that the studies exist. Parse the sentences again. There's nothing else I could be talking about.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robes, unless you have Lexis or Westlaw access, you're going to have to go to a law library to see the studies, since they're almost all in Law Reviews.
The studies can be divided into those that merely point to racial disparities, which have little probative value, and those that attempt to control for different factors that lead to the death penalty, whose quality varies widely.
For the definitive judicial analysis of such studies, see McCLESKEY v. KEMP, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). You don't get the study, but you get two very well-written discussions of it from both sides of the issue.
posted
You can think of another way to parse these two sentences?
quote:Study reports are big business, its no surprise that they can't be found on the web. But the links above make it quite clear that they do exist.
The "they" in the second sentence clearly refers to "Study reports". There's no other reasonable way to parse it. At all. You misread me, I did not misspeak.
This was partially in response to your statement
quote:Fugu, you demonstrated the problem. No source material at all.
I have amply demonstrated that there is source material. That you are not about to go out and get it due to the time and/or expense involved is not a failing of mine or of the studies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Not everything is on the web, Robespierre. I shall quote here from some of the articles, which you apparently did not deign to read:
quote:The study, which he conducted with Sara Steen, a recent UW doctoral graduate and now an assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, was published in the American Sociological Review.
quote:SOURCE: SAMHSA. (1997). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1996, p. 19 Table 2D; Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1997). Sourceboo of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996. Tables 4.10 and 6.36; BJS. (1997). Prisoners in 1996. Table 13.
quote:A RAND Corporation study in 1983, however, unearthed some disturbing data.
quote: 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains.
quote:The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period.
quote:A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks.
quote:The report, "And Justice for Some," details a double standard that exists in nearly every state's juvenile justice system, including Washington's.
My point is that there's plenty of data out there on the subject, whatever it says. Your assertions about there being a lack of "source material" are unequivocally false.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
This is not my field of interest, but I appreciate the desire to work with source material. It's available in a variety of formats. Enjoy!
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you did notice the numbers and results referenced in some of the quotes I made? And those were just coincidental.
Here are some more:
quote:In the study, Bridges and Steen looked at a sample of 233 juvenile cases from three Washington counties. That study found minority youth, particularly blacks, were more likely to be detained, charged with a criminal offense, tried and sentenced to confinement than were white juveniles.
quote:First, the powder form of cocaine that is preferred by wealthier, usually white consumers, requires 100 times as much weight to trigger the same penalty as the crack form.
quote:In 1986, before mandatory minimums instituted the crack/powder sentencing disparity, the average sentence for blacks was 6% longer than the average sentence for whites. Four years later following the implementation of this law, the average sentence was 93% higher for blacks.
quote:A 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains. Twenty-five percent of whites, 18 percent of blacks, and 12 percent of Latinos got their sentences reduced through bargaining.
quote:The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period. The paper reported in December 1991 that a third of the white adults who were arrested, but had no prior record, were able to get felony charges against them reduced. Only a quarter of the African-Americans and Latinos with no priors were as successful in plea bargaining.
quote:Professor Johnson discovered that white jurors were more likely to find a black defendant guilty than a white defendant, even though the mock trials were based on the same crime and the same evidence.
That one has some particularly relevant results which show racial bias is greatly reduced by having even slightly mixed juries.
quote:In a 1999 survey of studies on discrimination in the justice system, researcher Christopher Stone found that much of the disparity in sentencing could be traced to differences in arrest charges and prior records of those convicted. He concluded: “There is no evidence of disparity that stretches across the justice system as a whole . . . . But studies of individual jurisdictions and specific parts of the court process do find some evidence of race bias in a significant number of cases.”
quote:Stone considered drug offences separately. Some federal mandatory sentences have come under fire for discriminating against minorities. Critics point to different sentences mandated for crack cocaine, a drug popular in poor minority communities, and powder cocaine, a drug used in wealthier communities. Under federal law, dealing five grams of crack cocaine gets a first offender a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. To receive a similar mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in powder cocaine, an offender must possess 500 grams. Stone stated: “Whatever one believes about the rationality of the decision to create special, harsher penalties for crack cocaine, the concentration of these sentences on black defendants is striking.”
States often have similar disparities in drug sentencing laws. In a 1996 study of California drug sentencing laws, researchers found that possession of crack cocaine and heroin, more commonly used by minorities, carried stiffer penalties than possession of methamphetamines, more commonly used by whites.
quote:A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death.
quote:Black youths are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, even when they are charged with the same crimes and have never been in detention before. Those charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile institutions. And on average, when they are prosecuted as adults and sent to prison, they stay there 61 days longer than whites convicted of the same crime.
quote:But yesterday's report, sponsored by the Justice Department and six of the country's leading foundations, showed the problem is nationwide.
Among the findings:
In every crime category, a substantially greater percentage of black youths were detained than white youths.
White youths charged with violent offenses are incarcerated for an average of 193 days, but blacks are locked up an average of 254 days and Hispanics are jailed an average of 305 days.
Black youths are much more likely than white youths to be sent to adult court, even when charged with the same offenses.
Nationally, 7,400 youths were sent to adult prisons in 1997. Three-quarters were minorities.
Isn't the complete lack of numbers and results amazing? How on earth are we supposed to talk about the issue. And if you want the original data in full, you have to go to the source like everybody else.
Yes, I am rather pissed off at your tendency to not bother reading links provided in response to your complaints.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're right. But do people in America really react against the fact that for the same crime, a black guy has more chances to be executed than a white guy ?
Personally, I think this has to do more with economic status than with skin color. A rich black man (O.J. Simpson?) can get off with less, much like a rich white man.
However, since in our country there are more economically disadvantaged blacks than there are whites, it makes statistics seem that it is a racial thing.
my 2 cents Farmgirl
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl -- its worth noting that a number of the statistics I cited above are controlled for economic status.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the study, Bridges and Steen looked at a sample of 233 juvenile cases
What study? Who funded the study? When was it done? Where can I find a copy of the study?
quote: First, the powder form of cocaine that is preferred by wealthier, usually white consumers, requires 100 times as much weight to trigger the same penalty as the crack form.
Hmm, I don't recall of anyone ever being executed for the possesion of crack. How is this relevant? No drugs of any kind should be illegal.
quote: the average sentence for blacks was 6% longer than the average sentence for whites. Four years later following the implementation of this law, the average sentence was 93% higher for blacks.
Interesting, what's the source? What law are they talking about? Does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Who funded the study? Where was it done?
quote: A 1990 study of about 1,000 cases by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that whites did better in plea bargains. Twenty-five percent of whites, 18 percent of blacks, and 12 percent of Latinos got their sentences reduced through bargaining.
What does this imply? Does it have anything to do with death penalties?
quote: “There is no evidence of disparity that stretches across the justice system as a whole..."
Sounds interesting, how was this conclusion reached? Does it apply to death penalty cases?
quote: A study was made of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted by the state of Georgia during the 1970s. It showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times as likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death.
Does this mean that whites are protecting their own? Who was on these juries? Does the nature of the crime have any impact on the case? Were these cases particularly brutal?
quote: Black youths are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, even when they are charged with the same crimes and have never been in detention before. Those charged with drug offenses are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile institutions. And on average, when they are prosecuted as adults and sent to prison, they stay there 61 days longer than whites convicted of the same crime.
Says who?
quote: you have to go to the source like everybody else.
If you find one, I promise you that I will. Sndrake has a good link. Perhaps there are some on the net after all fugu, you just have to look hard for them.
quote: I am rather pissed off at your tendency to not bother reading links
I read your links, and I told you why they are pointless. Make your case or pipe down. The real reason that you are pissed off is because you can't let me say anything without contradicting it. No matter where I post, or about what, you are there to dutifuly disagree. What's your beef?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Farmgirl -- its worth noting that a number of the statistics I cited above are controlled for economic status.
They are? How can we know this? Do you have the source material available? How exactly did they take this into account? Did they mix rural and urban statistics?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Robespierre, when faced with actual statistics that contradict his opinion, will take refuge behind the shield of forcing the person providing the statistics to do literally hours of research to answer some of his questions.
When they do that, he will question everything as though we are in a court of law, accepting no single statistic unless a dozen background questions about it are answered to his satisfaction.
What a joke you are, Robespierre. I don't know why anyone tries to convince you of anything you don't already believe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All those question are answered in the articles, oddly enough (actually some of them aren't, but most of them are, so the point is illustrated). Which you read, and thus know, right? Of course, that makes me wonder why you're asking those questions.
As for them being controlled for economic situation, I am capable of reading. For instance, in the mock trials the situations were exactly the same except for the race of the defendants. Several of the remarks on the juvenile studies specifically mention the youths were from very similar economic backgrounds. That sort of thing.
No, I have specifically agreed with you on some things before, notably economic in nature.
I am not jumping on you, you have been jumping on me. Read this and the courts thread. Who started each confrontation? In the courts thread you jumped on a comment by me. In this thread you ignored data I provided (and are still ignoring it as is obvious by your ignorant questions about some of the quotes I cited to illustrate the presence of data) and then proceeded to accuse me of saying things I didn't by misreading, either deliberately or incompetently, what I said when I disproved your assertion that there was "no source material at all".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you have been part of this discussion before, and you know that I don't put up with hear-say evidence. You are just as jaded and confrontational about these issues as I am.
quote: I don't know why anyone tries to convince you of anything you don't already believe.
I don't know either, Rak.
quote: No, I have specifically agreed with you on some things before, notably economic in nature.
I have no idea what "thing" that would be. It certainly wasn't interest or banking.
Look, I jumped on you in the judical thread because this antagonism between us was coming to a head. Usually, I will jump into a conversation where I have a clearly stated opinion and basis for my opinion. You tend to come in and snipe at me, without really having anything to say. At least this is my perception of it.
Now it has boiled over into whatever this thing is here. I don't want to have a nemesis here. People who disagree with me, good. People who dislike how I write, fine. But most of these people are speaking from a certain point of view that is knowable to others. I don't know how to deal with you, and that tends to make me more aggressive. Just tell me where you're coming from on this, and I will try to calm down and listen.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Even controlled for economic circumstances, the racial disparity appears in these studies.
But you're right - economic class has an even bigger impact on findings of guilt and sentencing than race does.
Much bigger. It's not just the quality of the lawyer - it's access to independent forensic experts, possibility for psychiatric experts, the ability to file lots of motions that require prosecutor response. All this is compounded by the fact that a credible defense team makes the prosecutor more willing to really deal, and a budget-constrained defense team is more likely to push a less advantageous deal on its client.
posted
The problem, Robes, is that the original studies are probably not available online. If you really do care and want to read them you're going to have to go to a library and will likely have to order them. Then, since you said you don't trust anyone else's treatment of the stats, you're going to have to contact the authors and ask for the raw data (if it's not included) and do your own in-depth study on it. If that's what you want to do, you have my whole-hearted respect and admiration. But don't ask fugu to do it for you or claim that he's making unfounded claims when he is unwilling to do it for you.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: They make you pay for your own healthcare? What is medicare?
Since you don't use Medicare yet, I understand that you don't understand the system. First of all, do you know what that "medicare" deduction (coming out of your paycheck) is for? Secondly, monthly payments for medicare insurance are taken out of one's Social Security check each month.
quote: Even if you commit the same crime and have the same record, a white offender is almost 50 percent more likely to get a withhold than you are. Some folks say that's not a function of racism but of socioeconomics. Meaning that whites are more often able to afford private attorneys, less likely to have to rely on some overburdened public defender.
There are two answers to that. One: socioeconomics can't be disconnected from racism where black people are concerned; the disparity in black and white accumulated wealth is hardly an accident. And two: The Herald report shows that, even when you adjust for type of attorney, African-American defendants are still much less likely to receive withholds.
posted
So. To yank this thread back on topic, and to tie it in with the Jackson nipple of doom thread, if these people were in a religion advocating for less clothes of some kind, would you all still be as supportive?
Let's say that we can pull up studies which show that muslim girls raised in traditional households are, say, 50% less likely to graduate from college and 50% more likely to get beaten by their husbands?
The reason that I am mentioning these things is that I think that many people aren't really making an attempt at logical argument here. How we dress and speak is already regulated in America and France. Why should Muslims be any different? Why should religion be any different?
If you look at religious thought and speech as just another kind of speech, and if, as was implied very strongly in the Jackson nipple of doom thread, society has the right to regulate behavior, whether or not any kind of observable, provable effects can be demonstrated as reason for regulation, then who gives a rat's ass about these girls? Why is their fashion display so much more important than Jackson's?
Religion is not a sacred cow. Schools in France and in the US require their students to wear uniforms, or at the very least to conform to some dress code, to leave their individuality at the door. Indeed, many supporters of uniforms go into orgiastic fits of delight in spitting on issues like self esteem which might raise an individual's sense of individuality and devotion to themselves over group, but these same people love the idea of uniforms because it teaches children about 'the real world' and discipline and not standing out. If this is important, then religious symbols are just another form of expression to be regulated. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The issue here isn't about freedom of religion. The issue is about individual and group needs versus national needs and the needs of social convention. It makes no sense to support display of religious iconography, which has no bearing on how students do in school, over any other public display which students find important. If you support uniforms in school and social conformity in dress, then you should support it for religious groups, as well.
posted
I didn't know that yamulkas were now not allowed in schools in France and America. If they are also banned, then so should the girls' head scarves.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yamulkas are certainly allowed in schools in America. And in France, both were banned in the same law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I need a smiley that is laughing so hard, milk is coming out of its nose. Anyway. Pre 9/11 scarf wearing was a worrying symbol of allegiance to fundamentalist/extremists. (I'm basing this on Nine Parts of Desire by G. Brooks) But post 9/11 it is viewed as solidarity with Islam. We who do the viewing may be wrong about that.
If it is found that hats of any kind increase whatever social problem (actually, all hats were banned from my junior high because, the principal said "They cause fights") and all hats are banned, that is fine. But when religiously symbolic hats are singled out, that is not fine. That is the state interfering with religion. At least that would be the case in the US. "Separation of church and state" is a paraphrase of what the bill of rights actually says, and is not a sacred cow unto itself.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Storm Saxon said: Religion is not a sacred cow.
Yes, it is, at least in America. Neither the state nor federal government may hinder the free exercise of religion. Obviously, we don’t let people commit murder in the name of religion. The standard used as to whether a specific regulation can permissibly hinder a religious practice is a “compelling state interest.” Such regulations must also be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet the interest and to restrict religious expression as little as possible.
For better or worse, practice of religion has been given higher protection than any other non-expressive behavior in this country; the protection is integrated into the fundamental structures of our governments.
Your argument ignores the fact that important things can differ in their importance – it sets up a false dichotomy.
It is possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, but not important enough to infringe on religious practice.
quote: Yes, it is, at least in America. Neither the state nor federal government may hinder the free exercise of religion. Obviously, we don’t let people commit murder in the name of religion. The standard used as to whether a specific regulation can permissibly hinder a religious practice is a “compelling state interest.” Such regulations must also be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet the interest and to restrict religious expression as little as possible.
For better or worse, practice of religion has been given higher protection than any other non-expressive behavior in this country; the protection is integrated into the fundamental structures of our governments.
While certainly freedom of religion is an important ideal, as you admit, it can be regulated. Very famously and specifically, it is already regulated in schools.
I'll tell you what, though. I'll tack an 'to me' on the end of where you quote me.
Now, rather than appealing to American constitutional authority instead of replying to my points, I'd appreciate it if you replied to my argument. Please note that I don't care about what the law says. Let's argue on a 'what should be' level. edit: We should anyway since the thread topic is about what's going on in France.
quote: Your argument ignores the fact that important things can differ in their importance – it sets up a false dichotomy.
No idea what you're saying here. I mean, I know, but I'm not sure which part of my argument does this.
quote: It is possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, but not important enough to infringe on religious practice.
O.K. I'm sure it is. What's your point? It's possible to make a cogent argument that the benefits of school uniforms are important enough to require them, and that a sense of national, or local, community supersedes the religious community and ideas.
posted
Fine - at "the what should be level", the government should not require people to choose between following their faith and receiving universal public benefits.
posted
Annie, did you knwo that 63 % of people are ready to believe anything if you give a percentage? It goes up to 87% if you give two. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and as I said on the other thread, it's not only about religion. It's about feminism too. A lot of people here - I didn't said I agree so don't shout on me - see a head scarf as a symbol of the oppression of women. That's why they are with the government on that point.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's about feminism too. A lot of people here - I didn't said I agree so don't shout on me - see a head scarf as a symbol of the oppression of women.
But of course, the law bans all large religious displays on the person. So it either is all about religion, or whoever drafted the law supports limiting religious expression of all to promote their feminist ideals without discriminating against muslims.
posted
I guess they couldn't make a law just against head scarf. But they would have liked to. It was the bigger problem anyway, and the reason why a law is voted.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that limiting personal choice is seen as a legitimate means to promote feminism.
Either the girls are forced to wear scarves or not. If not, then it's not feminist to limit their choice of what to where. If they are forced to where them, then these girls are most at risk for being totally withdrawn from public school and further marginalized as women.
posted
>> So it either is all about religion, or whoever drafted the law supports limiting religious expression of all to promote their feminist ideals without discriminating against muslims. <<
I'd say it's about religion. France is a strongly secular state.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Actually, I need a smiley that is laughing so hard, milk is coming out of its nose. Anyway. Pre 9/11 scarf wearing was a worrying symbol of allegiance to fundamentalist/extremists. (I'm basing this on Nine Parts of Desire by G. Brooks) But post 9/11 it is viewed as solidarity with Islam. We who do the viewing may be wrong about that. 
