[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[MontagK505]

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

People who do openly criticize Catholic Church sex scandals don't have to worry about the Pope sending Jesuit hit-men after them. You could even publish insulting cartoons about the Pope or the Catholic Church and a lot of people wouldn't like it. But, you don't have to worry too much about a riot over it.

 

[A'isha]

People who do openly criticize Catholic Church sex scandals don't have to worry about the Pope sending Jesuit hit-men after them. You could even publish insulting cartoons about the Pope or the Catholic Church and a lot of people wouldn't like it. But, you don't have to worry too much about a riot over it.

That doesn't even come close to addressing what Cleon said. In fact, it makes it all the more remarkable that the Lutheran World Federation, for example, didn't condemn, as one Christian organization to another, the Catholic Church for their institutional cover-up of abusive priests, when they didn't even face any prospect of violent retribution for making such a condemnation.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes. Do you recognize that criticism of a belief-system is not "hatred for people not like them"?

Do you recognize that irrational fear and/or hatred of Islam IS Islamophobia?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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.

Could you give an example of a political action that a Muslim might make based upon Islamic justifications?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Dawkins. Ibn Warraq. Freethought Mecca. Lots of ex-Muslims.

But the point is, I don't think any critic of Islam passes your criteria. You simply don't want there to be any criticism of Islam, full stop.

That's a pretty serious accusation. Care to back it up?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Could you give an example of a political action that a Muslim might make based upon Islamic justifications?

Opposing a law that banned the wearing of a hijab?

 

[ddt]

People who do openly criticize Catholic Church sex scandals don't have to worry about the Pope sending Jesuit hit-men after them. You could even publish insulting cartoons about the Pope or the Catholic Church and a lot of people wouldn't like it. But, you don't have to worry too much about a riot over it.

Wrong order. It were the Dominicans who primarily went after heretics and made up the majority of the Inquisition.
[/derail]

 

[MontagK505]

That doesn't even come close to addressing what Cleon said. In fact, it makes it all the more remarkable that the Lutheran World Federation, for example, didn't condemn, as one Christian organization to another, the Catholic Church for their institutional cover-up of abusive priests, when they didn't even face any prospect of violent retribution for making such a condemnation.

Your point is taken. However the Catholic Church doesn't openly issue death threats against people who do criticize it.

BTW Just to make something clear, I am not am admirer of Christianity or religious ideology in general. The political situation in most western nations keeps most of western Christianity in the 21st century. Islam has a serious PR problem in the west and a lot of it stems from their ideology. The vast majority of countries that fall under the influence of Islam are poop-holes when it comes to civil-rights. Most people condemn fascism when it's political but give it a pass when it has a religious paint job. Note that Christians in some African states don't behave any better.

 

[MontagK505]

Wrong order. It were the Dominicans who primarily went after heretics and made up the majority of the Inquisition.
[/derail]

Thanks for the correction. You're right, the Jesuit's were the political arm of the Church.

 

[A'isha]

Your point is taken. However the Catholic Church doesn't openly issue death threats against people who do criticize it.

Not anymore, at least. And Iran is fairly unique among Muslim nations, which is why such a thing as the Rushdie fatwa was able to happen (and was so notable in the first place).

BTW Just to make something clear, I am not am admirer of Christianity or religious ideology in general. The political situation in most western nations keeps most of western Christianity in the 21st century. Islam has a serious PR problem in the west and a lot of it stems from their ideology. The vast majority of countries that fall under the influence is Islam are poop-holes when it comes to civil-rights.

And the relationship between those two things is a messy one at best, with the cause and the thing being caused not so easy to determine. Entire volumes have been written about the rise of Islamism and fundamentalist Islam as a reactionary ideology (from Boko Haram to the reason the government of Iran became a theocracy ruled directly by Ayatollah Khomeini), and how repressive dictatorships in turn formed in response to Islamism (the Ba'athist regimes of Saddam Hussein and the al-Assads, Egypt recently going back to military rule after a year under the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance).

And complicating this whole thing is the fact that Islam is even more decentralized than Christianity is. Ayatollah Khomeini could issue whatever fatawa he wanted, but they were binding only on those Muslims who accepted Khomeini as a religious authority (which isn't many, since Shia Muslims are a minority and not even every Shia accepted him as an authority).

 

[Tony]

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".

Like I said you should learn to distinguish between reason and superstition and how one has no place in public policy. I never advocated codifying a limitation on the justification individuals' political actions. I wholly support someones right to champion the cause of gay hate and gay murder because their superstitions tell them that is right. Free speech and freedom of religion entitles them to that, just as it entitles me to criticize them. Contrary to you, I don't roll over and say "well, that's their opinion". I say "no, **** that. Such justifications are asinine and have no place in a civilized society and should be ridiculed and marginalized".

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.

You defend the people who would happily murder you because they think their god told them to. Because...reasons?

 

[Dinwar]

Your point is taken. However the Catholic Church doesn't openly issue death threats against people who do criticize it.

I HAVE heard people advocating for the death of homosexuals. Were we a culture like exists in the Middle East, those threats may be taken more seriously.

And complicating this whole thing is the fact that Islam is even more decentralized than Christianity is. Ayatollah Khomeini could issue whatever fatawa he wanted, but they were binding only on those Muslims who accepted Khomeini as a religious authority (which isn't many, since Shia Muslims are a minority and not even every Shia accepted him as an authority).

If I'm reading this right, it's kinda the equivalent of, say, Fred Phelps saying that someone should be put to death in Christianity: only those who are part of his church would consider it a significant statement. Other people have other authorities--for example, a Mormon need not consider Phelps' ravings important, and in the same way other sects of Islam need nto consider Khomeini's ravings anything but that. Am I interpreting this correctly?

 

[A'isha]

If I'm reading this right, it's kinda the equivalent of, say, Fred Phelps saying that someone should be put to death in Christianity: only those who are part of his church would consider it a significant statement. Other people have other authorities--for example, a Mormon need not consider Phelps' ravings important, and in the same way other sects of Islam need nto consider Khomeini's ravings anything but that. Am I interpreting this correctly?

That's it exactly.

EDIT: It's actually more splintered than that - even Muslims of the same sect and madh'hab can decide to pick between two different scholars of that school, if one issues a fatwa ruling one way and another issues a fatwa ruling a different way on the same thing. ddt's link from the FGM/C thread goes into more detail about how this "scholar shopping" works:

A fatwa is a religious ruling which Muslim believers will try to follow, but the are not considered binding. Usually, fatwas are issued by a mufti who works for the national Dar al Ifta (House of rulings) which is in many countries with Muslim majority an official national body. There are Shia and Sunni fatwas and within Sunni Islam the four main law school may each have their own interpretation on a subject. Even within one law school, the rulings in one country differ from those in another country. To complicate things, a fatwa does not have to be issued by an official Mufti, but could also come from other religious scholars.

The believers may follow those fatwas issued by their mufti, but they can also follow a fatwa by a preacher they particularly like, refer to an Internet page specialized in Islamic guidance or they can choose a fatwa suiting best their circumstances. Thus, the fact that a fatwa has been issued against or pro female genital mutilation does not mean that this is the official legal opinion of “Islam” – a common misunderstanding among Westerner who compare such rulings with those of the Catholic Pope.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If I'm reading this right, it's kinda the equivalent of, say, Fred Phelps saying that someone should be put to death in Christianity: only those who are part of his church would consider it a significant statement. Other people have other authorities--for example, a Mormon need not consider Phelps' ravings important, and in the same way other sects of Islam need nto consider Khomeini's ravings anything but that. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Is that a reasonable comparison, though? Did Fred Phelps have the same power, influence, and significance in Christianity as Khomeini had in Islam?

 

[Peter May]

"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.

The article link states that the quotation was in fact written by someone called Andrew Cummins.

 

[A'isha]

Is that a reasonable comparison, though? Did Fred Phelps have the same power, influence, and significance in Christianity as Khomeini had in Islam?

Khomeini's power and significance wasn't "in Islam", it was as the theocratic ruler of a large, populated nation. Before he managed to hijack the revolution, he was just one exiled preacher, whose unorthodox religiopolitical theory was rejected by even other Ayatollahs.

 

[Dinwar]

Is that a reasonable comparison, though? Did Fred Phelps have the same power, influence, and significance in Christianity as Khomeini had in Islam?

He was just the first that springs to mind. How about, if the Mormon leadership issued some doctrinal decree, would a Menonite have to follow it?

EDIT: It's actually more splintered than that - even Muslims of the same sect and madh'hab can decide to pick between two different scholars of that school, if one issues a fatwa ruling one way and another issues a fatwa ruling a different way on the same thing.

It almost seems that Islam means exactly what the believer wants it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. I'm sure there are some unifying threads, but it certainly seems that there's ample wiggle room under the umbrella "Islam"!

 

[Tony]

Khomeini's power and significance wasn't "in Islam"...

Then what was it in?

 

[Dinwar]

Khomeini's power and significance wasn't "in Islam", it was as the theocratic ruler of a large, populated nation. Before he managed to hijack the revolution, he was just one exiled preacher, whose unorthodox religiopolitical theory was rejected by even other Ayatollahs.

So, John Smith instead of Fred Phelps.

 

[Humes fork]

Any critic of Islam, by definition, passes the criteria for being a critic of Islam. You, on the other hand, seem awfully insistent on passing the modern-day equivalent of blood libel level hatemongering off as "criticism".

Can you show me an example of this? If not, will you then retract?