[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[metacristi]

Yeah, that does not show that Islam in toto is fundamentally opposed to modernity any more than a sea change in the demographics of Christianity in the US show that Christianity in toto is fundamentally opposed to modernity. At best, your Islamophobia can be couched in terms of the politically influential, extremist strains of Islam being fundamentally opposed to modernity–which you then expand without justification to Islam in toto.

First there is no 'islamophobia' in what I said, probably you may want to cease with this practice if you want to be rational. Ad hominems do not raise the probability of your stance to be the correct one. Secondly 'islamophobia' (irrational fear of islam) is not at all that widespread as you think, even those who really hate islam (and muslims) use at least some valid arguments against islam when they say it is a threat.

So yes there are some haters of islam but 'islamophobia' is an artificial term used to bully ALL valid criticism of this religion. Shame on those who upheld this madness, unwittingly they block also all non-trivial reform of islam coming entirely from inside (the religious class in islam use this tactics very efficiently currently in the West against those who require important reforms). The fact that you cannot make a difference between a valid criticism of islam and 'hate speech' cannot invalidate my arguments.

Thirdly coming from an east European country, poor, where religion is closer to some practices in islam than to Western Christianity*, I know prima facie that disliking the West (or Russia) and its imperialist practices could never produce the explosion of hate and violence coming from the muslim countries. The difference is made in important ways by the basics of these religions, given also the level of religious indoctrination forced on children in the Islamic world (and even in the West, the madrassas do not really contribute to the creation of modern citizens). Poverty, imperialism and other factors can only 'modulate' the theological factor which unfortunately is extremely important in the case of islam. The most efficient cure is a nontrivial change in the educational, organizational and theological aspects of islam (of course action at the level of the other factors is needed as well).

Fourthly I do all I can to not make hasty generalizations. So yes there are liberal muslims but unfortunately they are undeniably a minority and sadly they have very few support in both the theology and history of islam. That's why the conservative clerics in islam have huge crowds of followers (Qaradawi for example, he's definitely conservative even if considered 'moderate' in western circles of apologists of islam) whilst reformers like Irshad Manji have very few and are need bodyguards to protect them at all times (and this in the West).

Sadly islam still shapes very strongly culture in the Islamic world (those in the West included) instead of the other way around thus quranic criticism is inexistent, the level of secularism very low, personal freedoms not that important, free inquiry severely curbed, self criticism entirely missing, Human Reason not important, the level of militancy very high and so on. The key factor behind is those 'defects' of islam I was talking about, act against them and a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment becomes at least probable (although of course the moderate islam which results from this will have quite little in common with the mainstream islam of today).



*some similarities in honor-shame values systems, faith often considered more important than Reason, unfortunately the Eastern Christianity has never had the counterpart of the papal reforms at the beginning of the last millennium

 

[mijopaalmc]

First there is no 'islamophobia' in what I said, probably you may want to cease with this practice if you want to be rational. Ad hominems do not raise the probability of your stance to be the correct one. Secondly 'islamophobia' (irrational fear of islam) is not at all that widespread as you think, even those who really hate islam (and muslims) use at least some valid arguments against islam when they say it is a threat.

So yes there are some haters of islam but 'islamophobia' is an artificial term used to bully ALL valid criticism of this religion. Shame on those who upheld this madness, unwittingly they block also all non-trivial reform of islam coming entirely from inside (the religious class in islam use this tactics very efficiently currently in the West against those who require important reforms). The fact that you cannot make a difference between a valid criticism of islam and 'hate speech' cannot invalidate my arguments.

Thirdly coming from an east European country, poor, where religion is closer to some practices in islam than to Western Christianity*, I know prima facie that disliking the West (or Russia) and its imperialist practices could never produce the explosion of hate and violence coming from the muslim countries. The difference is made in important ways by the basics of these religions, given also the level of religious indoctrination forced on children in the Islamic world (and even in the West, the madrassas do not really contribute to the creation of modern citizens). Poverty, imperialism and other factors can only 'modulate' the theological factor which unfortunately is extremely important in the case of islam. The most efficient cure is a nontrivial change in the educational, organizational and theological aspects of islam (of course action at the level of the other factors is needed as well).

Fourthly I do all I can to not make hasty generalizations. So yes there are liberal muslims but unfortunately they are undeniably a minority and sadly they have very few support in both the theology and history of islam. That's why the conservative clerics in islam have huge crowds of followers (Qaradawi for example, he's definitely conservative even if considered 'moderate' in western circles of apologists of islam) whilst reformers like Irshad Manji have very few and are need bodyguards to protect them at all times (and this in the West).

Sadly islam still shapes very strongly culture in the Islamic world (those in the West included) instead of the other way around thus quranic criticism is inexistent, the level of secularism very low, personal freedoms not that important, free inquiry severely curbed, self criticism entirely missing, Human Reason not important, the level of militancy very high and so on. The key factor behind is those 'defects' of islam I was talking about, act against them and a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment becomes at least probable (although of course the moderate islam which results from this will have quite little in common with the mainstream islam of today).



*some similarities in honor-shame values systems, faith often considered more important than Reason, unfortunately the Eastern Christianity has never had the counterpart of the papal reforms at the beginning of the last millennium

I notice that your refuse to acknowledge the existence of Islamophobia yethave no trouble calling the people with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam", even as you continue to insist that Islam's supposed in compatibility with the West is an inherent feature of Islam. In other words, you make Islamophobic arguments that attempt toportray Islam in toto as fundamentally opposed to the West, complain that "Islamophobia is an artificial term used to bully ALL valid criticism of this religion", and then turn around an call those with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam" in attempt to shame their valid critcisms of your gross generalizations about Islam in toto into silence. That's a rather obvious manifestation you towering cognitive dissonance.

 

[Belgian thought]

I notice that your refuse to acknowledge the existence of Islamophobia yethave no trouble calling the people with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam", even as you continue to insist that Islam's supposed in compatibility with the West is an inherent feature of Islam. In other words, you make Islamophobic arguments that attempt toportray Islam in toto as fundamentally opposed to the West, complain that "Islamophobia is an artificial term used to bully ALL valid criticism of this religion", and then turn around an call those with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam" in attempt to shame their valid critcisms of your gross generalizations about Islam in toto into silence. That's a rather obvious manifestation you towering cognitive dissonance.

The fact that one word exists and is misused, does not equate to another word equally being used in opposite.

Islamophobia is not the opposite of Apologist.

One is branded seemingly and too often when one criticises a religion called Islam.

The other, when one tries to justify any religion by cherry picking, using cultural relativism, etc.

They are not opposites.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The fact that one word exists and is misused, does not equate to another word equally being used in opposite.

Islamophobia is not the opposite of Apologist.

One is branded seemingly and too often when one criticises a religion called Islam.

The other, when one tries to justify any religion by cherry picking, using cultural relativism, etc.

They are not opposites.

Do you have any actual evidence that "['Islamophobia'] is branded seemingly and too often when one criticises a religion called Islam"?

The statements that I have referred to as "Islamophobia" are ones that take the existence of possibly prevalent extremism as evidence that Islam in toto is fundamentally opposed to Western society, a claim that is completely contradicted by the mere existence of groups searching for ways of reconciling secularism and Islam. It is indeed Islamophobia to insist that all Islam can ever be in the reactionary, violent sociopolitical force that obstructs secularism without first considering the interactions of all Muslims with secularism and the history of the rise of Islam as a reactionary, violent sociopolitical force as result of various intellectual traditions within Islam with the West the territory covered by the Islamic world came to be a strategically important physical region due its richness in a vital natural resource.

For instance, have those who argue that Islam in toto is fundamentally opposed to Western secularism considered the role that the US played in providing the social conditions that brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran?

 

[hgus]

The fact that one word exists and is misused, does not equate to another word equally being used in opposite.

Islamophobia is not the opposite of Apologist.

One is branded seemingly and too often when one criticises a religion called Islam.

The other, when one tries to justify any religion by cherry picking, using cultural relativism, etc.

They are not opposites.

So one of the words is used to often to brand critics. In other words a word used unjustly and oppressive.

The other word is used when someone is using cherry picking and cultural relativism to justify a religion. A word used to reveal something ugly.

You are not very objective are you?

 

[Belgian thought]

Do you have any actual evidence that "['Islamophobia'] is branded seemingly and too often when one criticises a religion called Islam"?

The statements that I have referred to as "Islamophobia" are ones that take the existence of possibly prevalent extremism as evidence that Islam in toto is fundamentally opposed to Western society, a claim that is completely contradicted by the mere existence of groups searching for ways of reconciling secularism and Islam. It is indeed Islamophobia to insist that all Islam can ever be in the reactionary, violent sociopolitical force that obstructs secularism without first considering the interactions of all Muslims with secularism and the history of the rise of Islam as a reactionary, violent sociopolitical force as result of various intellectual traditions within Islam with the West the territory covered by the Islamic world came to be a strategically important physical region due its richness in a vital natural resource.


For instance, have those who argue that Islam in toto is fundamentally opposed to Western secularism considered the role that the US played in providing the social conditions that brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran?

How about if I say, Islam in toto is ****** Am I now an Islamophobe?

I have never added anything about opposition to the West etc.., simply because I do not care. I repeat Islam in toto is ****.

Now before you say I am picking on Islam, let me add that all other religions in toto are *****.

[/I]Now tell me why Islam is less in toto **** than the others, and try not to apologise for it?

Do not use forum codes to get around the autocensor.

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

 

[Belgian thought]

So one of the words is used to often to brand critics. In other words a word used unjustly and oppressive.

The other word is used when someone is using cherry picking and cultural relativism to justify a religion. A word used to reveal something ugly.

You are not very objective are you?

See my post above - objective? Are you? Nonsensical question.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How about if I say, Islam in toto is ****** Am I now an Islamophobe?

I have never added anything about opposition to the West etc.., simply because I do not care. I repeat Islam in toto is ****.

Now before you say I am picking on Islam, let me add that all other regions in toto are *****.

[/I]Now tell me why Islam is less in toto **** than the others, and try not to apologise for it?

Yeah, being anti-religious bigot means you have the the moral high ground over an Islamophobic bigot.

A bigot is still a bigot and comments of a anti-religious bigot that specifically criticize Islam are Islamophobic because they are about Islam, just as comments of an anti-religious bigot about Judaism are anti-Semitic because they are about Judaism. The over-riding hatred of all religion doesn't change the fact that the subject of comment is a particular religion.

The problem with bigotry is not the particularism; it is the hatred.

 

[Belgian thought]

Yeah, being anti-religious bigot means you have the the moral high ground over an Islamophobic bigot.

A bigot is still a bigot and comments of a anti-religious bigot that specifically criticize Islam are Islamophobic because they are about Islam, just as comments of an anti-religious bigot about Judaism are anti-Semitic because they are about Judaism. The over-riding hatred of all religion doesn't change the fact that the subject of comment is a particular religion.

The problem with bigotry is not the particularism; it is the hatred.

I do not hate.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I do not hate.

Yeah, because "Islam is ****" and "religion is ****" are soooo totally not expressions of extreme dislike of Islam and religion.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, because "Christianity is ****" and "religion is ****" are soooo totally not expressions of extreme dislike of Christianity and religion.

FTFY

Insert superstition of your choice. All of them are primitive superstitions. I see no reason to give any one an exception.

 

[mijopaalmc]

FTFY

Insert superstition of your choice. All of them are primitive superstitions. I see no reason to give any one an exception.

I was specifically criticizing what Belgian thought had said in their post.

 

[Belgian thought]

Yeah, because "Islam is ****" and "religion is ****" are soooo totally not expressions of extreme dislike of Islam and religion.

Dislike is not he same as hate.

But you are right, I dislike religion vehemently. I do not hate it or its believers. I feel sorry for them - having myself been brought up many years ago in a strict religious household, which in the end affected my respect for all religions i.e. - I had (from the age of fourteen) and since, no respect for them.

No hatred, I guarantee you. Simply no respect.

 

[abaddon]

Dislike is not he same as hate.

But you are right, I dislike religion vehemently. I do not hate it or its believers. I feel sorry for them - having myself been brought up many years ago in a strict religious household, which in the end affected my respect for all religions i.e. - I had (from the age of fourteen) and since, no respect for them.

No hatred, I guarantee you. Simply no respect.

Meh. I find no reality in all religious belief. It's all about feeling better about oneself, the search for the ultimate oneupmanship.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Meh. I find no reality in all religious belief. It's all about feeling better about oneself, the search for the ultimate oneupmanship.

Which, of course, the above comment is not about at all.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

To be honest, there's a lot I hate about religion, religious belief, and the history of world religions. However, I actually dissent from most atheists, in that I believe (this is subjective) that religion does more good than bad in the world. This is the reason I will criticize religious abuses and atrocities so vehemently though, because I feel there's a right way and a wrong way to use one's faith, and it sickens me whenever something that could be used to help those less fortunate is instead used to hurt or kill others.

 

[metacristi]

I notice that your refuse to acknowledge the existence of Islamophobia yethave no trouble calling the people with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam", even as you continue to insist that Islam's supposed in compatibility with the West is an inherent feature of Islam. In other words, you make Islamophobic arguments that attempt toportray Islam in toto as fundamentally opposed to the West, complain that "Islamophobia is an artificial term used to bully ALL valid criticism of this religion", and then turn around an call those with whom you disagree "apologists for Islam" in attempt to shame their valid critcisms of your gross generalizations about Islam in toto into silence. That's a rather obvious manifestation you towering cognitive dissonance.

Better read Lifting the Veil of "Islamophobia" instead of pursuing with this 'debunking' mode you show here. Maybe Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali can enlighten you (if I can't) of the profoundly erroneous stance you defend. Arguing rationally that islam is more radical than other religions and that we have to apply the same criterions when labelling someone 'moderate' is not 'islamophobia' (we are not doing that with islam at the moment, that's why for example imams who are not capable to reject the view that jews are 'pigs and monkeys' and other 'dark parts' of islam are considered, misleadingly, 'moderate' in the West). Full stop.

If many muslims (in the religious establishment is crucial) were indeed moderate in the Western acceptation of the word then one would see a lot of Tawfiq Hamids presenting openly their ideas and, even more, there would be also people arguing, without any fear, that the Quran is not 'perfect' (albeit still considering themselves muslims). As I already said I am often puzzled on how some of these western islamophiles require from Christians (but not only) to renounce the view that the bible is perfect (fully in agreement, this is the first mark of moderation) but at the same time claim that it is somehow 'bigotry' and 'islamophobia' to request the same from muslims regarding the quran. Anyone rational can easily see who is experiencing a 'cognitive dissonance'. And even more who's really bigot.

Don't Gloss Over The Violent Texts

By Tawfik Hamid

In regards to Islam, the words "moderate'" and "radical" are relative terms. Without defining them it is virtually impossible to defeat the latter or support the former.
Radical Islam is not limited to the act of terrorism; it also includes the embrace of teachings within the religion that promote hatred and ultimately breed terrorism. Those who limit the definition of radical Islam to terrorism are ignoring—and indirectly approving of—the Shariah teachings that permit killing apostates, violence against women and gays, and anti-Semitism.

Moderate Islam should be defined as a form of Islam that rejects these violent and discriminatory edicts. Furthermore, it must provide a strong theological refutation for the mainstream Islamic teaching that the Muslim umma (nation) must declare wars against non-Muslim nations, spreading the religion and giving non-Muslims the following options: convert, pay a humiliating tax, or be killed. This violent concept fuels jihadists, who take the teaching literally and accept responsibility for applying it to the modern world.
Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to such teachings at a later stage in their lives.

Finally, moderate Islam must powerfully reject the barbaric practices of jihadists. Ideally, this would mean Muslims demonstrating en masse all over the world against the violence carried out in the name of their religion.

Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination over others. Insisting that all acts in Islamic history and all current Shariah teachings are peaceful is a form of deception that makes things worse by failing to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Mr. Hamid, a former member of the Islamic radical group Jamma Islamiya, is an Islamic reformer and a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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

Technically, it's any and all head coverings worn by Muslim women to conform to al-hijab, but I suppose I would have been clearer to specify niqab and/or face veils.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Maybe nobody in this thread has made that argument...
Okay, let me ask again: Which criticisms of Islam are okay, which ones are "Islamophobic", and how can you tell the difference? Who are the Islamophobes and what makes them different from "legitimate" critics of Islam?

Since Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam, irrationality is the telltale sign.

If you think your intepretation of the Koran is the only correct one, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think Muslims who don't behave according to your intepretation of the Koran aren't 'true Mulims', you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think that less than 2% of the population actually has any chance of imposing Sharia law in America, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think 6 or 7 million Muslims are going to become 100 million Muslims in the next 20 years 'because they have big families', you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think Muslims who aren't involved in terrorism now are practicing taqiyya in order to be better positioned to practice terrorism later, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think Islam is uniquely immutable and monolithic, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think we wouldn't be having any trouble from majority Muslim countries in the Middle East had Islam never been invented and Othodox Christianity prevailed in those areas, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think the politics and war of the last hundred years in the Middle East and Northern Africa don't have nearly as much to do with anti-Western sentiment in those regions as Islam does, you might be an Islamophobe.

If you think not enough Muslim leaders have denounced terrorism by Muslims without bothering to Google 'Muslim leaders denounce terrorism' but you think enough Christian leaders have denounced terrorism by Christians, you might be an Islamophobe.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Better read Lifting the Veil of "Islamophobia" instead of pursuing with this 'debunking' mode you show here. Maybe Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali can enlighten you (if I can't) of the profoundly erroneous stance you defend. Arguing rationally that islam is more radical than other religions and that we have to apply the same criterions when labelling someone 'moderate' is not 'islamophobia' (we are not doing that with islam at the moment, that's why for example imams who are not capable to reject the view that jews are 'pigs and monkeys' and other 'dark parts' of islam are considered, misleadingly, 'moderate' in the West). Full stop.

You're right, arguing rationally that Islam is more radical than other religions would not be Islamophobia. It would be a lovely change of pace to hear such an argument. And certainly, agreeing on what we mean by the label 'moderate' in Islam would be helpful. Beats me why an Imam with the views you describe would be considered moderate, other than lowering the bar to 'doesn't advocate terrorism'.

If many muslims (in the religious establishment is crucial) were indeed moderate in the Western acceptation of the word then one would see a lot of Tawfiq Hamids presenting openly their ideas and, even more, there would be also people arguing, without any fear, that the Quran is not 'perfect' (albeit still considering themselves muslims).

That seems to be the case in many areas. I wouldn't try it in Saudi Arabia, but if I were in the 'religious establishment' of Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Senegal, I would expect to be able to do so...not to mention in Europe or America.

As I already said I am often puzzled on how some of these western islamophiles require from Christians (but not only) to renounce the view that the bible is perfect (fully in agreement, this is the first mark of moderation) but at the same time claim that it is somehow 'bigotry' and 'islamophobia' to request the same from muslims regarding the quran.

This is a phenomena of which I have never heard. Is it actually prevalent?

Anyone rational can easily see who is experiencing a 'cognitive dissonance'. And even more who's really bigot.

It has not been my experience that treating people realistically and fairly causes any cognitive dissonance.