While I support Islam, and the Muslims at my local mosque are decent people, almost all Muslims on the internet seem to be complete scum, no different from modern western scum. Because I have known for a while that they are scum, I generally have avoided Muslim forums. But since I recently discovered Slug.com I thought that I could look for one decent Muslim online to start an Islamic free speech group on Slug.com so that I could finally talk to a few decent Muslims online. But no such luck. I posted to 3 places simply asking for a Muslim to start such a group, and all posts were removed by the vile Muslim scum who moderate these places. I asked in /r/Pristine_Islam, /r/Muslim, and IslamicBoard. In all cases, my post was soon removed.
I am forced to reconsider Islam. Who represents the real Muslims, the huge number of Muslim scum that I see online or the few decent Muslims I have met locally? I don't know.
I want to make comment about good manners, something that Muhammad emphasized. I admit that this isn't my strength, but online Muslims are worse than me. It is much worse manners to silently stab someone in the back then to insult them to their face. And all these Muslim moderators stabbed me in the back because they removed me without any explanation. If they had good manners, they would explained their objection to me and discussed it in a civilized manner.
I am forced to reconsider Islam. Who represents the real Muslims, the huge number of Muslim scum that I see online or the few decent Muslims I have met locally?
It's a tricky business.
Modern culture would have groups not reflected upon at all by their members, or have members represent the group selectively. Thus, a group of nice people can be evil with even one evil member, and a group that includes a disproportionate number of terrorists or some other unsavoury factor can be the superior and ultimately more moral group. Example: Muslims are moral, but Christians are evil. Even though not all Christians are intolerant, the few who are will represent the group and the greater number of Muslims who think homosexuality is evil or that females are not equal to males will all be unfortunate outliers we're supposed to ignore.
Evolutionarily we're all hardwired to be statisticians. We avoid groups where we've had disproportionately negative encounters. I'm not saying this is right but it's what we do naturally. If it's wrong it's perhaps because we usually only have small sample sizes to work with and are not incredibly likely to draw conclusions that hold, but the question then would be: Where do I get the bigger sample sizes? Should I just trust people who say they have them? Evolutionarily the answer is no because they're likely to be lying to gain some advantage. Thus we're hardwired to believe what we see with our own eyes instead of the more worldly snake oil salesmen with more experience.
Personally, almost every encounter with a Muslim I have had was negative. So by the latter, I would rightly conclude not to encounter them. But at the same time another person's encounters with Muslims may have been overwhelmingly positive so it would be just as correct for them to conclude that Muslims are disproportionately good.
There's not really a third option that I can see. We either trust modern culture or go by our own experiences.
I admit I worship modern culture. I would give anything to be an anti-racist, BLM moralist. These people are phenomenally moral. They have nigh-universal respect and recognition of their morality as right. They see injustice, and so it is injustice, and the world bends accordingly.