[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Ryokan]

Then what was it in?

Iran..?

 

[A'isha]

Then what was it in?

Politics. He downplayed his theocratic ambitions during the revolution, attempting to unify all of the revolutionary factions (his Islamists, secular liberals, Marxists, etc.) against the shah, then positioned himself as the "elder statesman" who could fix all of Iran's economic and political problems after the post-shah interim government fell, then by using the "if you're not with me, you're against all of Iran" trick when Iraq invaded barely a year and a half after the fall of the shah. Khomeini wasn't fully in control of Iran as its unquestioned theocratic leader until 1983.

 

[Tony]

Iran..?

Which is why Rushdie went into hiding in the UK...

Politics. He downplayed his theocratic ambitions during the revolution, attempting to unify all of the revolutionary factions (his Islamists, secular liberals, Marxists, etc.) against the shah, then positioned himself as the "elder statesman" who could fix all of Iran's economic and political problems after the post-shah interim government fell, then by using the "if you're not with me, you're against all of Iran" trick when Iraq invaded barely a year and a half after the fall of the shah. Khomeini wasn't fully in control of Iran as its unquestioned theocratic leader until 1983.

Only politics? Are any secular Muslims or exmuslims calling for his death (like a lot of Muslims still do)?

 

[Ryokan]

Which is why Rushdie went into hiding in the UK...

I believe it's possible for Iranians to leave Iran and both stay and live in other places. I might be wrong.

And even though his power was in Iran, it's still possible to influence some weak and stupid minds.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Tony-

Perhaps you should learn that the criterion for the inclusion of religiously motivated actions in political discourse is not that they are well-reasoned, but that they are compelling to the people who hold the underlyinf beliefs.

Oh, by the way, you are still doing the equivalent of quite deliberately failing to distingush between supporting everyone's right to free speech and supporting the content of everyone's speech. Of course, such a distinction clearly marks you insistence that people keep their religious beliefs "personal and private" as bigotted as the homophobes' insistence that LGBTs "stop shoving their sexuality in others' faces".

 

[A'isha]

Only politics? Are any secular Muslims or exmuslims calling for his death (like a lot of Muslims still do)?

You appear to be moving the goalposts. Khomeini's fatwa was notable and effective not because he was a Muslim calling for someone's death, but because he was the supreme leader of an entire nation of 50 million people calling for someone's death.

When the losers at Revolution Muslim called for the deaths of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, they were arrested and jailed and Parker and Stone didn't have to live in hiding.

The thing that separates "isolated crackpot" from "I'd better go into hiding for a couple decades" is political power.

 

[Tony]

I believe it's possible for Iranians to leave Iran and both stay and live in other places. I might be wrong.

And even though his power was in Iran, it's still possible to influence some weak and stupid minds.

Therefore, his power and influence extended outside Iran.

 

[Tony]

Tony-

Perhaps you should learn that the criterion for the inclusion of religiously motivated actions in political discourse is not that they are well-reasoned, but that they are compelling to the people who hold the underlyinf beliefs.

I know that. But it isn't relevant. Someone who thinks commands to kill from invisible magic men are compelling is totally unimpressive to me. YMMV

Oh, by the way, you are still doing the equivalent of quite deliberately failing to distingush between supporting everyone's right to free speech and supporting the content of everyone's speech.

I've already made that distinction. That you fail to understand or recognize it belies your inability to approach this subject rationally.

Of course, such a distinction clearly marks you insistence that people keep their religious beliefs "personal and private" as bigotted as the homophobes' insistence that LGBTs "stop shoving their sexuality in others' faces".[/

It doesn't nothing of the sort. They are nothing a like, and you insistence that they are only betrays your own intolerance for secularism.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Opposing a law that banned the wearing of a hijab?

Is this something that was actually proposed? Or is this like Christians who think that Obama wants to take away their Bibles?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know that. But it isn't relevant. Someone who thinks commands to kill from invisible magic men are compelling is totally unimpressive to me. YMMV



I've already made that distinction. That you fail to understand or recognize it belies your inability to approach this subject rationally.

Of course, such a distinction clearly marks you insistence that people keep their religious beliefs "personal and private" as bigotted as the homophobes' insistence that LGBTs "stop shoving their sexuality in others' faces".

It doesn't nothing of the sort. They are nothing a like, and you insistence that they are only betrays your own intolerance for secularism.

Look like you don't understand that secularism is marked by a governmental indifference to religion not a personal hostility toward religion. Your insistence that religious people keep their religious beliefs "personal and private" is a direct manifestation of the later and therefore in blatant opposition to secularism.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is this something that was actually proposed? Or is this like Christians who think that Obama wants to take away their Bibles?

Really?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated material and response.

For instance, do you have any evidence that secularism is characterized anywhere as "hostility toward religion"?

 

[ddt]

Opposing a law that banned the wearing of a hijab?

Is this something that was actually proposed? Or is this like Christians who think that Obama wants to take away their Bibles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

There are other countries where similar laws have been proposed and/or adopted.

(psst: the world is not the USA alone).

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Look like you don't understand that secularism is marked by a governmental indifference to religion not a personal hostility toward religion. Your insistence that religious people keep their religious beliefs "personal and private" is a direct manifestation of the later and therefore in blatant opposition to secularism.

I don't understand what you're arguing against here. It's not like anybody's saying that Islam needs to be outlawed. I oppose them putting Islam in schools and courthouses the same why I oppose them putting Christianity there. I don't think that means that I'm "personally hostile" to it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that all Muslims are terrorists,

or support terrorists, or at least don't oppose them. Oh wait...

Iran Gave U.S. Help On Al Qaeda After 9/11

But that didn't stop many Americans from openly calling for 'bombing them back to the Stone Age' after 9/11 - because the only good towelhead is a dead one.

And despite our carrying out that threat in Iraq, it's we who should be afraid of Muslims? Yes, that's right. One ineffective Fatwa targeting a lone individual is vastly more threatening than an illegal invasion that causes the deaths of 120,000+ Muslims...

 

[angrysoba]

And despite our carrying out that threat in Iraq, it's we who should be afraid of Muslims? Yes, that's right. One ineffective Fatwa targeting a lone individual is vastly more threatening than an illegal invasion that causes the deaths of 120,000+ Muslims...

Actually, the fatwa wasn't entirely ineffective. The Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was murdered in his university - presumably on the basis of the fatwa.

 

[angrysoba]

Which of the OP's arguments do you disagree with, and why?

Okay, let's look at the "arguments"

"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.

1.) I disagee that it was a word created by fascists. There is no evidence of this.

2.) I disagree that it is a word used by cowards. There is no evidence of this.

3.) I disagree that it used to manipulate morons. There is no evidence of this.

4.) I disagree that Christopher Hitchens said it. The evidence is that it comes from a tweet. You have to click the link in the OP to discover this.

5.) I disagree that the interview is "very interesting". This is a matter of opinion, of course, coming down to a question of taste.

6.) I think saying the OP consists of arguments is to stretch the meaning of the word "argument" to breaking point. It's really nothing more than a gob of rhetoric with some famous names attached to it.

Apart from that the OP has the excellent quality of brevity and concision. Rare it is to pack so much wrong in to so short a space.

Now, tell me what you think.

 

[Dinwar]

Which of the OP's arguments do you disagree with, and why?

If you have to ask, you aren't paying attention to this thread. This question has been answered repeatedly.

I simply reject your claim that any old brand of rabid frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobia is valid criticism.

It's amazing, isn't it? Every time Humes Fork and A'isha have had these discussions, Humes Fork's arguments are shown to be wrong, with well-reasoned and well-referenced rebuttals. Ignoring all that does not constitute a violation of the principles of skepticism. Refusing to obey Humes Fork's demands, however, somehow does constitute a failure.

This directly parallels how religious zealots think. In terms of mental processes, there is no difference between Humes Fork and the Islamists HF attacks. Yet WE are the ones who are irrational.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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?

It isn't. What do you make of that?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Opposing a law that banned the wearing of a hijab?

I would oppose such a law, and I am not a Muslim. Not that I doubt that you can come up with a law only a Muslim would support, in this case I think there would be a fair number of non-Muslims who don't think the government should get that involved in what people wear.

In the case of France's ban, pretty much everything that was supposed to be a secular reason for it could have been accomplished by giving police officers the right to have people show them their faces, rather than an outright ban.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I would oppose such a law, and I am not a Muslim. Not that I doubt that you can come up with a law only a Muslim would support, in this case I think there would be a fair number of non-Muslims who don't think the government should get that involved in what people wear.

In the case of France's ban, pretty much everything that was supposed to be a secular reason for it could have been accomplished by giving police officers the right to have people show them their faces, rather than an outright ban.

?? The hijab usually refers to a type of headcovering that doesn't cover the face.