[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Tony]

You appear to be moving the goalposts.[/I]

"Appear"? I never set-up goal posts. I asked 2 questions.

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.

This is apologist BS. The fact that it was an Islamic theocracy is very relevant, but of course, you hand-wave it away.

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.

I don't see how this contradicts your point.

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

And the thing that unites them, in this case, is their religion.

 

[Dinwar]

You mean like Mark342 was doing?

How many times have we heard "Atheists know the Bible better than Christians"? How many times have we heard "We don't need to study theology in order to argue against it"? And now someone is accusing YOU of being arrogant because you can support your assertions with documented evidence?!

This is beyond reprehensible. It is the outright abandonment of rationality.

 

[A'isha]

"Appear"? I never set-up goal posts. I asked 2 questions.

You're right, it was Axiom Blade who made the initial statement, not you. Sorry.

This is apologist BS. The fact that it was an Islamic theocracy is very relevant, but of course, you hand-wave it away.

It's not as relevant. The whole reason Khomeini's fatwa was dangerous was because he was the leader of Iran, not because he was a Muslim. That's why Rushdie had to live in hiding for years, while Parker and Stone didn't.

I don't see how this contradicts your point.

In any grouping of 1.6 billion people, you're going to get more than enough violent ******** who issue death threats for stupid reasons, even before religion gets involved. The problem is not that such people exist, it's that some of them have the political power and influence to be able to carry out their threats.

And the thing that unites them, in this case, is their religion.

If all 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet were to instantly be converted to other religions (Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, etc.), do you honestly think this problem would go away?

 

[Tony]

You're right, it was Axiom Blade who made the initial statement, not you. Sorry.

Thank you.

It's not as relevant. The whole reason Khomeini's fatwa was dangerous was because he was the leader of Iran, not because he was a Muslim. That's why Rushdie had to live in hiding for years, while Parker and Stone didn't.

I agree. Not as relevant. But still very relevant. If Joseph Stalin issued an order to communists to "Execute every running dog capitalist you see", his communism would be a relevant factor. Pointing out his communism in relation to such an order wouldn't constitute "anti-communist bigotry" or "communistophobia".

The problem is not that such people exist, it's that some of them have the political power and influence to be able to carry out their threats.

I disagree. I think both are problems.

If all 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet were to instantly be converted to other religions (Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, etc.), do you honestly think this problem would go away?

Actually, by definition, a fatwa is an specifically Islamic degree. So yes, it would go away. But that is only a technicality. It will go a away when Muslims (before you get offended, I don't mean ALL Muslims) either stop heeding people who issue such fatwas or decide that they are unacceptable and take a stand against them.

 

[A'isha]

I agree. Not as relevant. But still very relevant. If Joseph Stalin issued an order to communists to "Execute every running dog capitalist you see", his communism would be a relevant factor. Pointing out his communism in relation to such an order wouldn't constitute "anti-communist bigotry" or "communistophobia".

Blaming it solely on his Communism, and broad-brushing Communists with the guilt-by-association might be, however.

Actually, by definition, a fatwa is an specifically Islamic degree. So yes, it would go away. But that is only a technicality.

And therefore irrelevant.

It will go a away when Muslims (before you get offended, I don't mean ALL Muslims) either stop heeding people who issue such fatwas or decide that they are unacceptable and take a stand against them.

And how are you going to get 1.6 billion people to do that? We can't even get 300 million Americans to take a stand against lunatics like Cliven Bundy and the many armed fanatics and high-powered political figures that supported their armed revolt. Bundy and his armed band are still out there, and he still has widespread Tea Party support. Is America to blame for Cliven Bundy and the fact that he and his cattle are still running free on his ranch and have Tea Partiers and Freepers backing him up? Are Americans?

 

[Tony]

And how are you going to get 1.6 billion people to do that?

See. This is why I am cynical about people like you. The conversation starts moving in a more civil direction, and you STILL have to misrepresent my position. I clearly said not ALL Muslims. You ALWAYS fall back on the "but you're over-generalizing" canard.

 

[A'isha]

See. This is why I am cynical about people like you. The conversation starts moving in a more civil direction, and you STILL have to misrepresent my position. I clearly said not ALL Muslims.

Sorry, that was my fault - I didn't mean to imply that you meant all Muslims, particularly when you specified not all Muslims. I'd put in a sentence in the post above, but deleted it during a rewrite and neglected to add it back.

The sentence was this: "How many Muslims not heeding such fatawa and deciding they're unacceptable is enough?" Because with 1.6 billion Muslims, even if 99% of Muslims do that, and it's only that 1% which agree with Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie and join him in baying for Rushdie's head, that's still 16,000,000 Muslims. Is knowing that there are only sixteen million people out there demanding your blood enough to make you feel safe, even if 99% of Muslims are totally on your side and against what they're doing? And if not, are that 99% still not doing enough?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You can't blame all Muslims for what some do.

Please demonstrate how it's rational to blame all Muslims for what some do.

 

[Darat]

Thread is being closed until a moderator has the time to remove the many breaches of the Membership Agreement and issue appropriate warnings. As usual do not attempt to continue this discussion elsewhere on the Forum until the thread is reopened.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Humes fork]

"The Phobia of Being Called Islamophobic"

Source:

As a brown-skinned person with a Muslim name, I can get away with a lot more than you'd think. I can publicly parade my wife or daughters around in head-to-toe burqas and be excused out of "respect" for my culture and/or religion, thanks to the racism of lowered expectations. I can re-define "racism" as something non-whites can never harbor against whites, and cite colonialism and imperialism as justification for my prejudice.

And in an increasingly effective move that's fast become something of an epidemic, I can shame you into silence for criticizing my ideas simply by calling you bigoted or Islamophobic.

For decades, Muslims around the world have rightly complained about the Israeli government labeling even legitimate criticism of its policies "anti-Semitic," effectively shielding itself from accountability. Today, Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have borrowed a page from their playbook with the "Islamophobia" label -- and taken it even further.

Very much spot on! We should not let ourselves be intimidated by those who try to to silence criticism of Islam with smears and defamation. Skeptical scrutiny should be applied to all subjects.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Have you payed attention to what people on these forums have told is valid criticism of Islam is?

Hint: Casting Islam as fundamentally incompatible with and therefore an existential threat to "Western" society is not a valid criticism of Islam.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Source:



Very much spot on! We should not let ourselves be intimidated by those who try to to silence criticism of Islam with smears and defamation. Skeptical scrutiny should be applied to all subjects.

Still bleeding?

 

[MontagK505]

Have you payed attention to what people on these forums have told is valid criticism of Islam is?

Hint: Casting Islam as fundamentally incompatible with and therefore an existential threat to "Western" society is not a valid criticism of Islam.

Pointing out that much of Islamic religious ideology is in fact fundamentally incompatible with secular political values makes you a bigot.
To even question whether Islam is fundamentally incompatible with secular political values makes you a bigot in some peoples eyes.

Note that many of the teachings in the KJ Bible are incompatible with secular values, and it's OK to point this out and we should. But if you suggest the Qur'an contains similar incompatibles you're a bigot.

In western secular societies we have (at the present) political mechanisms to limit the power of religious ideologues. Do you think these political mechanisms are likely to arise in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Qatar, Bangladesh or any major Islamic state any time in the near future?

Feel free to label me a bigot. But those are questions that have to be answered.

 

[Belgian thought]

....
Hint: Casting Islam as fundamentally incompatible with and therefore an existential threat to "Western" society is not a valid criticism of Islam.

Where in this post does it do so?

I don't agree much with most of HF's OPs, but this article does make interesting reading, and should not be simply fobbed off simply because it is a post from one very active JREF member, whose interests are mainly on a certain subject.

 

[Cavemonster]

I see complaints about the word "islamaphobia" about 50 times more often than I see anyone actually applying the label. And of those actual uses, most are in response to "They all want to kill us because they hate our freedom"

Of course, YMMV.

 

[angrysoba]

These posts don't really add to the discussion though, do they?

You keep asserting that it is about time that Islam is given skeptical scrutiny, but you haven't demonstrated that it is not.

Furthermore you rarely put forward any kind of constructive criticism or any action plans. It just seems to be the same old self-pitying post about how you are fed up with people not criticizing Muslims.

Does anyone really think that Islam gets no criticism?

I think there's actually quite a lot of it, although perhaps not as much as self-pitying rants about the oppression from the Muslim Overlords.

 

[Ryokan]

Very much spot on! We should not let ourselves be intimidated by those who try to to silence criticism of Islam with smears and defamation. Skeptical scrutiny should be applied to all subjects.

What about those that try to shame their opponents into stopping trying to correct unjust criticism of Muslim by calling them apologists of Islam? I have never called you an islamophobe, but you've put names and labels on me countless times.

Maybe you should have that beam in your eye checked out.

 

[ehcks]

It is not Islamophobia to critically examine the religion; to compare it to other similar religions; to point outs its flaws; or even to come to a reasoned conclusion that it's worse in some ways than the other Abrahamic religions. But you haven't done any of that.

It is Islamophobia when nearly all of your posts on Islam are thread starters complaining that other people call you Islamophobic, when the only people doing so are pointing out these two facts.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm trying to read that article linked to in the OP.

But, the guy writing accuses people of "the racism of lowered expectations".

I am not sure how he comes to this conclusion, however, as he offers no evidence that people expect less of him just because he is, as he says "brown-skinned". That certainly seems to be the accusation, however.

It is ironic that he would use an inflammatory word like "racism" to presumably silence critics, and even more ironic that he demonstrates his point with this example:

Last month, a white American man successfully convinced the Massachusetts liberal arts school Brandeis University that he was being victimized and oppressed by a black African woman from Somalia -- a woman who underwent genital mutilation at age five and travels with armed security at risk of being assassinated.

Eh? Is he now trying to say that it is ridiculous on its face that a white American man can be victimized by a black African woman? Isn't that undermining the very point he started out by making?

 

[Hawk one]

Very much spot on! We should not let ourselves be intimidated by those who try to to silence criticism of Islam with smears and defamation. Skeptical scrutiny should be applied to all subjects.

Actually, here's a thing. I personally do not enter into discussions about Islam, that's true enough. But it's not because I don't have anything to criticise about what some of its proponents does, nor is it because I am particularly fond of religion in general. I have plenty of skeptical scrutiny reserved for it all. Proper skeptical scrutiny, mind you.

But when I seldom enter into those debates, it's mainly because of the people most vocal about their hatred for Islam. People that see disagreement as "smears and defamation". People that pretty much automatically starts their threads with at least one insult towards those that would not immediately agree with them (and yet has the galls to hypocritically complain about said smears).

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 12