[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Roger Ramjets]

We should not let ourselves be intimidated by those who try to to silence criticism of Islam with smears and defamation.

Who of us has been smeared or defamed?

If you are fearful of being smeared or defamed for your views on Islam - even though no objective evidence of such threats exist - then you may indeed have a phobia. A phobia is by definition an irrational fear, disproportional to the actual danger posed. If you have a phobia then you are not being rational, and your ability to apply skeptical scrutiny is compromised.

Skeptical scrutiny should be applied to all subjects.

Yes, and that includes being skeptical of unsupported claims such as that "brown-skinned" people are silencing critics by calling them bigoted or Islamophobic.

I'm not suggesting that no Muslim has ever accused a critic of being bigoted or Islamophobic, but I am skeptical of the claim that valid criticism is being silenced by such accusations. The obvious response would be that if the accusers are Muslim then they may be biased, and if the criticism is valid then it should stand.

Of course if the criticism is not valid, and is indeed bigoted or Islamophobic, then the accuser has a point. However I fail to see how making that point would silence a critic. Evidence suggests the opposite, as Islamophobes tend to cry blue murder whenever their hateful diatribes are exposed to scrutiny.

 

[Chaos]

Source:

So you´ve found another person who agrees with you. Nice. I´m happy for you.

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.

Who here is trying to silence criticism of Islam?

Can you show any evidence of anyone trying to silence, for example, A´isha? I mean, other than Islamophobes shouting her down and "accusing" her of being a Muslim?

Stop spamming unfounded accusations. As they say in Zombieland, it´s time to nut up or shut up.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

So you´ve found another person who agrees with you. Nice. I´m happy for you.



Who here is trying to silence criticism of Islam?

Can you show any evidence of anyone trying to silence, for example, A´isha? I mean, other than Islamophobes shouting her down and "accusing" her of being a Muslim?

Stop spamming unfounded accusations. As they say in Zombieland, it´s time to nut up or shut up.

and yet here is that word...

 

[Dinwar]

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.

If you were applying skeptical scrutiny to Islam, no one would be complaining. However, you have a history of getting even the basic facts wrong, and resisting correction when it is demonstrated that you are wrong (A'isha has more than adequatley demonstrated this, and I feel no need to further beat a horse that is not only dead, but also lithified at this point)--which is hardly a skeptical stance on the subject.

Would it have helped if I called A´isha a Muslim, too? Or maybe dished out a couple of "Islamophile" or "faithhead apologist" to people who disagree with me?

It's ironic that those guiltiest of a flaw are the first to accuse others of it. I recall a conversation with HF in which I advocating skeptics actually learn the religion they wish to debate, and he accused me of being a "faitheist" and having "belief in belief". Now HF is upset because people are using the label Islamophobe. Pot, meet kettle.

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.

Not at all. To point to specific issues in the Quran, and specific interpretations of it, that are incompatable with Western secular society is perfectly fine. The issue is, you have to do so rationally. You can't claim that any one person speaks for all of Islam, for example (A'isha has recently discussed that Islam is letigious, not the top-down authority system that msot of us are used to). And you have to actually show that your interpretation is shared by Muslims--in other words, you have to show that at least someone believes it before you attack it.

This is not difficult stuff. Get your facts straight, make a rational argument, avoid fallacies, and acknowledge the limits of your argument--in other words, treat Islam like literally any other issue--and while some lunatics may call you an Islamophobe, those of us who are rational won't. Lie about Islam, make crappy arguments, use fallacious reasoning, and ignore the limits of your argument--in other words, act like any other wooster--and you'll get called out on it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I agree. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be capable of accomplishing skeptical scrutiny in regards to Islam. Looking for fault and thinking that finding it means much in a vacuum is not skeptical scrutiny.

There are guys just like you on Muslim sites, doing your job here, only in reverse. They've got plenty of proof of Western decadence, depravity, and hypocrisy, using the same methods you employ.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

No, it doesn't. Suggesting that Muslims are unable to interpret their scriptures to conform to modernity the same way Jews and Christians do would make you 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?

Yes, for the same reasons they arose in the West. What Islam is going through now is actually pretty similar to what was happening in the early parts of the Christian reformation, including the violence. The main difference in violence is that bombs and automatic weapons are now available.

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

Raising the questions doesn't make you a bigot. Already being convinced you know all the answers to them might.

 

[Tony]

No, it doesn't. Suggesting that Muslims are unable to interpret their scriptures to conform to modernity the same way Jews and Christians do would make you a bigot.

No I doesn't. Suggesting that Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews makes you a bigot.

Yes...

So you can see the future now?

 

[Mister Agenda]

No I doesn't.

Why wouldn't it?

Suggesting that Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews makes you a bigot.

They clearly are the same in many respects. They're all mammalian bipeds capable of using their brains to change how they live.

So you can see the future now?

I've reason to believe my powers to do so are at the very least, no worse than yours.

 

[Tony]

Why wouldn't it?

Some belief systems are different than others. Some are unique. You assume Islam is the same as other religions.

I've reason to believe my powers to do so are at the very least, no worse than yours.

Then you are transferring your own cultural expectations onto Islam and using that as a basis for your assumption that it will develop the same way your own culture has. That's pretty Western and Euro-centric.

 

[Ryokan]

Again you call me bigotted without backing your point up. But it's clear from your recent history that you are not a skeptic anyways.

You should join the atheism plus forums. Criticism of Islam is actively stamped out there, so you won't be exposed to it. Guaranteed.

Humes, please read this post of yours again.

Personal attacks and name calling. Now who's trying to silence criticism?

 

[Belz...]

It's ironic that those guiltiest of a flaw are the first to accuse others of it.

Actually it's pretty cunning, as it deflects attention away from oneself, like the liar calling another liar or the thief pointing the finger at another. At some point it becomes so natural that we don't notice that we're going it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Some belief systems are different than others. Some are unique. You assume Islam is the same as other religions.

No, I do not. Suggesting that Muslims can't interpret their scripture to conform to modernity is suggesting that they are fundamentally different from other people.

Then you are transferring your own cultural expectations onto Islam and using that as a basis for your assumption that it will develop the same way your own culture has. That's pretty Western and Euro-centric.

This doesn't even make sense as a response to me claiming to be as good at predicting geopolitical events as you are. 'Nuh-uh' would have been just as adequate.

 

[Dinwar]

Actually it's pretty cunning, as it deflects attention away from oneself...

A low form of cunning, perhaps. And it certainly doesn't abid by the principles of skepticism as I've seen them illustrated.

Suggesting that Muslims can't interpret their scripture to conform to modernity is suggesting that they are fundamentally different from other people.

Not to mention flagrantly false, by which I mean the conclusion can only be held by rejecting copious amounts of data to the contrary. The mere fact that different groups have different beliefs is proof that the holy book is not the sum total of the religion, and that different interrpretations are possible.

But going with how you think I thought is probably the way to go if you can't refute my contention and are unwilling to admit it.

That does seem to be the SOP for some people regarding any issue where Islam comes up, doesn't it? They feel that they get to define both sides of the argument, the facts be damned.

 

[Tony]

No, I do not. Suggesting that Muslims can't interpret their scripture to conform to modernity is suggesting that they are fundamentally different from other people.

Yes you do. What evidence do you have that Islam is like Christianity and Judaism (which I don't fully accept that they've really interpreted their scripture to conform to modernity but that they've only ignored their scripture because modernity has rendered some of its claims obsolete, I'm only granting it for the sake or argument) in this regard?

This doesn't even make sense as a response to me claiming to be as good at predicting geopolitical events as you are.

It makes sense regarded the subject of the exchange and your claim that Islam is going through a similar transition that the West went through during the Renaissance and for the same reasons.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes you do. What evidence do you have that Islam is like Christianity and Judaism (which I don't fully accept that they've really interpreted their scripture to conform to modernity but that they've only ignored their scripture because modernity has rendered some of its claims obsolete, I'm only granting it for the sake or argument) in this regard?

Islam doesn't have to be like Judaism for Muslims to treat their scriptures similarly to the way most modern Jews treat their scriptures. Many Muslims do. Do you know any Bosnian Muslims? Have you ever heard of 'Islamic Modernism'?

It makes sense regarded the subject of the exchange and your claim that Islam is going through a similar transition that the West went through during the Renaissance and for the same reasons.

You've mistaken my conclusion based on study for an assumption. I may be mistaken, but I didn't assume similarities between what happened during the Reformation and what's happening in Islam today, I found them.

 

[Tony]

Islam doesn't have to be like Judaism for Muslims to treat their scriptures similarly to the way most modern Jews treat their scriptures. Many Muslims do. Do you know any Bosnian Muslims? Have you ever heard of 'Islamic Modernism'?

No and No. Does their school of thought wield significant influence in Islam?

You've mistaken my conclusion based on study for an assumption. I may be mistaken, but I didn't assume similarities between what happened during the Reformation and what's happening in Islam today, I found them.

What study? I'd like to read it.

 

[Hokulele]

No and No. Does their school of thought wield significant influence in Islam?

Hell, just speak with Muslims in countries such as Malaysia. Sure, they may not have influence on the way Islam is practiced in, say, Iran, but it certainly wields tremendous influence within their own country. As has been pointed out, there is no central authority figure for Islam, the way there is for Catholicism.

To suggest that it is impossible for Muslims to interpret their scripture to conform to modernity is to ignore Islam outside of a few countries and cultures.

Which, of course, is the hallmark of a religious bigot.

 

[Mister Agenda]

No and No. Does their school of thought wield significant influence in Islam?

It'a a movement. Remember, I claimed that Islam is in the beginnings of a Reformation.

What study? I'd like to read it.

My own, I studied. I recommend the book A World Without Islam by Graham Fuller; or Googling 'Islamic Reformation'.

 

[Tony]

Hell, just speak with Muslims in countries such as Malaysia.

Malaysia? You mean that country that Constitutionally defines Malays as being Muslims, which forbids their apostasy and which forces citizens to have "government approved" religious identification on their cards? Sure, bastion of religious freedom and tolerance there.

 

[ddt]

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?

Very good point.

I'd also like some evidence that Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman of CAIR referred to, has claimed to be victimized and oppressed by Ayaan. I couldn't find it, in between a Change.org petition and requests from considerable parts of the faculty. And according to the NYT, Hooper has just called her an Islam hater and notorious Islamophobe.