[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[mijopaalmc]

Yes I am. I criticize those who use Islam (and Christianity) as an excuse to elevate themselves above others and as a tool to oppress others. I have nothing against Christians and Muslims who keep their faith personal and private. I am friends with some of them. Your problem is that you can't see the difference.

Is a Muslim or a Christian "keep[ing] their faith personal and private" the same thing as LGBTs not "shoving their sexuality in other's faces"?

 

[A'isha]

Where?

Here.

And Dawkins has repeatedly stated that agreement with Pat Condell on some issues doesn't necessarily mean he shares his every opinion.

"I don't agree with all of this guy's hateful bigotry, just some of it" is a really lame excuse for approvingly quoting hateful bigotry spread by a hateful bigot.

Ibn Warraq has tried to popularize several critical scholarship views of Islam. Nothing wrong with that.

He has done a good thing in trying to get several early and mid 20th century scholarly works about Islam, particularly from German scholars, translated and reprinted. However, as Angelika Neuwirth called him out for, every time he adds his own "criticism", it's biased and unscholarly at best.

And who is Feisal Abdul Rauf?

The former imam for this Sufi group's mosque and the founder of this organization.

They have posted several critical views of Islam from a variety of aspects and viewpoints. And you have to be really illogical if you think that one person they quoted alsio said some stupid thing (which they certainly don't agree with, as the site contains critiques of Christianity and Judaism as well), it invalidates the entire site.

No, it just makes it no better than a blog site where anyone can post whatever discredited nonsense and garbage arguments they want. If that's one of your go-to cites for "real" criticism of Islam, then you really ought to rethink your sources.

If you are thinking about her, then look who is in her banner...

See the numerous tweets about Hazrat Dawkins that she made at my link above.

I have never posted anything from Spencer or Geller. These people are lunatics.

And yet you use "criticisms" of Islam that are no better than theirs.

Dawkins and Ali however, are seriously criticizing Islam for the ultra-conservative values that Muhammad and his followers embodied, and which Islamists seek to impose on people today.

No, Richard "Hey, look what hateful crap Pat Condell said about Islam today" Dawkins and Ayaan "All of Islam has to be crushed militarily" Hirsi Ali are doing no such thing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"Islamophobia" is simply ad hominem intended to silence critics of Islam.

Islamophobia
noun
hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

ad hominem
adjective, adverb
directed against a person rather than against his arguments​

If a person's hatred or fear of something is coloring their criticism of that thing, it is not ad hominem to point out their emotional bias. Otherwise the following would be a valid argument:-

HitchensSpoon:
"While from innate cowardice the upper classes turn away from a man whom the Jew attacks with lies and slander, the broad masses from stupidity or simplicity believe everything. The state authorities either cloak themselves in silence or... persecute the unjustly attacked" - Adolf Hitler

EveryBodyElse:
Adolf Hitler? Really? You present frickin' Hitler to prove that "Antisemitism" was simply intended to silence critics of Judaism?

HitchensSpoon:
Ad hominem! You are attacking the man, not the argument.

 

[MontagK505]

Salman Rushdie had a death price placed on his head by the religious leader of a major Islamic state. We're not talking about somebody hiding in a hole in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the Ayatollah of Iran.
How many leaders of major Islamic countries openly denounced this?

You can place a plastic Jesus in a jar of urine and you don't have to worry too much about Jesuit hit-men.
You can claim Buddha was full of poop and you don't have to worry about assassins in orange robes.
But openly say something bad about Islam? You better watch your back.
Islamic ideology encourages murdering people who openly criticize it.
(Remember the threats over Danish cartoons?)

Why are people who point this out, called Islamophobes?

 

[Cleon]

Salman Rushdie had a death price placed on his head by the religious leader of a major Islamic state. We're not talking about somebody hiding in a hole in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the Ayatollah of Iran.
How many leaders of major Islamic countries openly denounced this?

How many Presbyterian ministers condemned the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal?

You can place a plastic Jesus in a jar of urine and you don't have to worry too much about Jesuit hit-men.

IIRC, that artist did get a fair number of death threats and Church officials did try to get the exhibit shut down.

You can claim Buddha was full of poop and you don't have to worry about assassins in orange robes.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

But openly say something bad about Islam? You better watch your back.
Islamic ideology encourages murdering people who openly criticize it.
(Remember the threats over Danish cartoons?)

Yet you continue to post without any apparent adverse effects.

Why are people who point this out, called Islamophobes?

Because it's not actually pointing anything out, so much as trying to sow hatred and fear of 1.6 billion people.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If these Muslims and Christians that I am friends with didn't express their identity, then I obviously wouldn't know they were Muslims or Christians would I?

Yet it is somehow not acceptable for the religious to influence the political landscape based on their religious beliefs because their religion then becomes "religionism".

Look, Tony, the objection here stems from your defense of your conflation of Islam with Islamism and your continued disingenuity in asserting that you have not conflated the two.

By the way, why do you continue to refer to me a being female, when I have at least hinted in this thread that I am male?

 

[Tony]

Yet it is somehow not acceptable for the religious to influence the political landscape based on their religious beliefs because their religion then becomes "religionism".

Pretty much. Are you ok with the religious implementing anti-gay laws based on their religious beliefs?

By the way, why do you continue to refer to me a being female, when I have at least hinted in this thread that I am male?

I've always been unsure and I didn't see it in this thread. I apologize, I will stop doing it from now on.

 

[Tony]

How many Presbyterian ministers condemned the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal?



IIRC, that artist did get a fair number of death threats and Church officials did try to get the exhibit shut down.



Are you absolutely sure of that?



Yet you continue to post without any apparent adverse effects.

Hand wave away.

Because it's not actually pointing anything out, so much as trying to sow hatred and fear of 1.6 billion people.

Did a tear roll down your cheek when you wrote this?

 

[Dinwar]

I'd like to know exactly when calling for fact-checking on a site devoted to skepticism became the equivalent of supporting a position.

Am I a "Creationistophile" for reading what Creationists actually argue before getting into a debate with them? Is James Randi a "psyophile" for allowing woosters to make their own claims in his Million Dollar Challange? Was Ayn Rand a "Socialistophile" when she advocating people read the works of Marx, Kant, and others she criticized? (It's in the book "Philosophy: Who Need It", before anyone denies that she did.)

Is there any rational way to argue AGAINST the notion of knowing what you're talking about? Is there any honest way to abandon the principle that one should base one's opinions on facts?

Why are people who point this out, called Islamophobes?

If the data you point out is based on fact, you are not an Islamophobe, regardless of what that data is. If you perpetuate or make up lies, as some on this forum insist on doing, at the very least you are not a rational person and the label "Islamophobe" is appropriate. It's not a question of Islam at all; it's a question of whether the person attacking that religion is doing so honestly, after due consideration, and is open to new data; or whether the person attacking that religion will believe anything so long as it makes Islam look bad and reject anything that makes Islam look in the least bit good. There is NO rational justification for abandoning the principles of logic and reason. The most basic of these is that arguments must be based on evidence. Islamophobes abandon that principle when attacking Islam. If this were ANY other discussion the problem with such behavior would be obvious to everyone. The fact that the topic under discussion is Islam changes nothing.

 

[Darat]

"A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." - Christopher Hitchens

Found in this conversation between Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is very interesting and you should read it.

George Orwell pre-dates him by quite some time: http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

 

[mijopaalmc]

Dodge noted.

Errr...no.

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish between supporting individuals' right to lawfully use the political process to achieve an end and supporting the end so achieved.

Or do enjoy misleading people with acts of confellatio?

 

[Tony]

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish between supporting individuals' right to lawfully use the political process to achieve an end...

And perhaps you should learn to distinguish between reason and superstition and how one has no place in public policy.

But it is striking that you would defend the people who just as a soon have you strung-up as they would shoot you while demonizing someone who would gladly defend you from such oppression.

 

[MontagK505]

How many Presbyterian ministers condemned the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal?
<snip>
Because it's not actually pointing anything out, so much as trying to sow hatred and fear of 1.6 billion people.

BS I didn't say anything of the sort and you know it. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. (thanks for the help)

The Catholic Church has received widespread criticism over the pedophilia scandal, and there is no evidence the Pope has tried to murder anyone over it.

That Piss Christ artist didn't have to go into hiding for several years. There weren't any riots over his artwork and he wasn't threatened by any head of state. (Not even the Pope.)

Salman Rushdie had a death price placed on his head by the religious leader of a major Islamic state. No government of any major Islamic state has criticized Iran for doing this. How is pointing this out, expressing hatred for 1.6 billion people?

 

[A'isha]

If the data you point out is based on fact, you are not an Islamophobe, regardless of what that data is. If you perpetuate or make up lies, as some on this forum insist on doing, at the very least you are not a rational person and the label "Islamophobe" is appropriate. It's not a question of Islam at all; it's a question of whether the person attacking that religion is doing so honestly, after due consideration, and is open to new data; or whether the person attacking that religion will believe anything so long as it makes Islam look bad and reject anything that makes Islam look in the least bit good. There is NO rational justification for abandoning the principles of logic and reason. The most basic of these is that arguments must be based on evidence. Islamophobes abandon that principle when attacking Islam. If this were ANY other discussion the problem with such behavior would be obvious to everyone. The fact that the topic under discussion is Islam changes nothing.

Exactly.

For example, "Divorce in Islamic law is patriarchal in origin and severely disadvantages the wife because she has very few options for divorcing her husband while the husband can divorce his wife almost at whim" = not Islamophobic.

"Islam is a backwards, cruel religion that mandates that men treat women terribly and women ought to be saved from this vile religion" = Islamophobic.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And perhaps you should learn to distinguish between reason and superstition and how one has no place in public policy.

But it is striking that you would defend the people who just as a soon have you strung-up as they would shoot you while demonizing someone who would gladly defend you from such oppression.

Yeah, because that is sooo totally what I said.

 

[Dinwar]

The Catholic Church has received widespread criticism over the pedophilia scandal, and there is no evidence the Pope has tried to murder anyone over it.

True. However, that's because the RCC has been taught, slowly and painfully for that institution, that it can't just go around murdering everyone who disagrees. A lot of Catholics and Christians WANT to kill people for disagreeing with them--ever hear of the Ku Klux Klan?--but the institution has seen its power ebb to the point where it can no longer effectively issue such orders. Go back a few generations, and you'll see that it wasn't uncommon.

All that said, to accuse people in the USA of the crimes committed in areas most of them couldn't find on a map is simply insane. ISLAM didn't do that--A SPECIFIC GROUP OF MUSLIMS did. It's like accusing Christianity as a whole for the actions of the KKK. See the difference? If not, you've got blinders on, pure and simple. But I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong--please explain to me how a man in Toledo, Ohio is responsible--merely because he's the same religion--for the crimes of a man in Bagdad, Iraq. Until you can do that, you cannot accuse ISLAM of those actions, not as a whole.

 

[Cleon]

The Catholic Church has received widespread criticism over the pedophilia scandal,

But you don't demand that Presbyterians condemn it.

Salman Rushdie had a death price placed on his head by the religious leader of a major Islamic state. No government of any major Islamic state has criticized Iran for doing this.

The "head of a major Islamic state" in question is Shiite, a minority in the Muslim world. The vast majority of Muslim governments are Sunni. Why are they required to condemn what the someone in another sect said?

How is pointing this out, expressing hatred for 1.6 billion people?

Because you're holding the entire population responsible for the Ayatollah's fatwa, regardless of whether they're actually affiliated with him or not.

 

[MontagK505]

Why are they required to condemn what the someone in another sect said[/HILITE]?



Because you're holding the entire population responsible for the Ayatollah's fatwa, regardless of whether they're actually affiliated with him or not.

If the Pope did something like this, he would be loudly denounced by most Christians of other sects and I suspect most Catholics as well.

I've never made the statement that the entire population of Islam is responsible. This is something that is entirely in your mind. I've pointed out facts and all you have done is claim I hate 1.6 billion Muslims.

 

[Cleon]

If the Pope did something like this, he would be loudly denounced by most Christians of other sects and I suspect most Catholics as well.

And yet, most Christian churches didn't see the need to condemn the Catholic Church sex scandal. Nor would I expect them to.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes it was.

Except that it wasn't even close at all.

You appear to be advocating a priori limitations on the justifications for individuals' political actions simply because you dislike said justifications. In fact, you seem to prefer that people the beliefs on which said justifications rest be kept "personal and private"–much like homophobes would prefer that LGBTs "not shove their sexuality in others' faces". I, however, advocate letting people base their political actions on whatever justifications they see fit because suppressing specific justification due to personal taste is conceptually do different from asserting that others must suppress their otherwise legal behaviors to avoid offending people who object to those behaviors.