Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[David Mo]

You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Etymology_and_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.

Sorry, but your comment seems to me scarcely understandable.

First of all, the Oxford dictionary is particularly ambiguous here: “Dislike” and “prejudice” are two different causes. I dislike violence and it is not a prejudice.
I have not a prejudice about anything. I try, at least. I have some distaste for many things and you cannot say that I have a “phobia”.
Secondly, I am disturbed by the political, social and cultural outcomes of Islam's force. But I have some strong objections -rational, I hope- to the Spanish government, Christianity and financial capitalism also and this doesn't make me a "governmentphobic", etc. I try to apply the same proportionality in my criticism to financial capitalism than to Islamic groups. I hope that this prevents me to fall in any kind of "phobia", Islamic or not.

Having a "phobia" usually means to have an unjustified aversion to a person, entity or thing. I think -independently of what the Oxford dictionary can said- that the "islamophobia" in Europe is the ideology that extends some strong criticism against some particular groups of Islamic activists -maybe partially justified- to any Muslim believer and, even worse, to so called "Muslims" that are not Islamic believers, but only citizens of countries with Islamic majority. In this sense "islamophobia" is simple racism and I can assure you that what I am not is a racist.

 

[David Mo]

I essentially agree, but I also think it's a bit pointless to "criticize Islam" or "Christianity" in general. A critical examination of source texts, sure, but any criticism directed at Islamic practice and society must be carefully done in a socio-political and historical context. For example, no sensible person should reach the conclusion that the main cause of suicide bombing is some wording in the Qur'an - its popularity is generally to be attributed to its use in the Iran-Iraq war. Likewise the application of various ultrareactionary policies like in Saudi Arabia must also be viewed with an understanding of the history of these movements and their relationship to "ordinary" Muslims, fundamentalism as a reaction to imperialism, etc.

Anything less is useless demagoguery.

A critical examination can be made not only on texts, but about common religious practices or the relation with not believers that are usually common to an individual religion. But you are right in that the socio-political criticism has to be made in the context. Why the relative tolerance of Islam respect unbelievers in the Middle Age has become fanatical intolerance now? ‒‒for example. The Quran doesn't justify killing himself even in the worse of circumstances. Therefore the bombing-men and those that incite them have to make particular interpretations of the book that are rejected to less violent Muslims. May be the Quran's militarism can impulse extreme politics, but there are more other reasons than particular religious texts. Anyway the religious impulse is not negligible. This is also valid to other violent-religious groups.

 

[Carn]

Having a "phobia" usually means to have an unjustified aversion to a person, entity or thing. I think -independently of what the Oxford dictionary can said- that the "islamophobia" in Europe is the ideology that extends some strong criticism against some particular groups of Islamic activists -maybe partially justified- to any Muslim believer and, even worse, to so called "Muslims" that are not Islamic believers, but only citizens of countries with Islamic majority. In this sense "islamophobia" is simple racism and I can assure you that what I am not is a racist.

Ok.

With that definition i am also not islamophobic.

My apologies for presuming you do not care much about the definition.

But be aware that the number of islamophobes under your definition will be rather low. For example, Geert Wilders might not even count as islamophob under that definition; though one would have to take a closer look.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And that however islamic texts of 7th to 9th centuries were applied/interpreted betwenn 13th and 20th century cannot prove that today events are not effected by islamic texts today?

Jesus, you don't get it, do you? Much of the Muslim world today was greatly shaped in the early modern era by the Ottomans. Understanding its rise, decline and fall is absolutely vital to understanding the middle east today.

Again, your toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general, makes it clear that bigotry fuels you.

 

[Carn]

Jesus, you don't get it, do you? Much of the Muslim world today was greatly shaped in the early modern era by the Ottomans. Understanding its rise, decline and fall is absolutely vital to understanding the middle east today.

And you suggest, that with what you consider a correct understanding one suddenly realizes that content of the quran has no negative effect on world of today?

Again, your toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general, makes it clear that bigotry fuels you.

Your lack of reasoning is abmyssal. There could be countless other reasons for my behavior, which you perceive as "toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general", besides bigotry.

Hence, it cannot make clear, that bigotry fuels me.

You know what realy, realy enforced some of my views, that you and others might perceive as islamophobic?

Reading the works of people arguing against "islamophobia" and in favor of islamic scripture being not or at least not more problematic than other scripture. Because of simply so many basic errors in reasoning.

Just as you do here, for example by claiming that my behavior can only be based in bigotry, although there is inssuficient evidence. Or by thinking that by arguing that a certain historical development leading to today's situation, you could somehow show, that content of islamic scripture is not one of the causes for today's situation.

 

[David Mo]

Ok.

With that definition i am also not islamophobic.

My apologies for presuming you do not care much about the definition.

But be aware that the number of islamophobes under your definition will be rather low. For example, Geert Wilders might not even count as islamophob under that definition; though one would have to take a closer look.

I am glad that I have been able to clear up my position. Sometimes I feel that my horrifying English make me opaque.

I don’t like the word “islamophobia”. It is a few confusing. I would use straightforwardly “racism”, but I am aware that the aversion to Arabs —another confuse word— and migrants from the Third World is disguised with cultural and political arguments. It is not easy to catch when cultural criticism ends and begins sheer racism. Anyway, I don’t know many things of Netherlands' politic. From what I know Geert Wilders is a racist. He claims for discriminative laws against Muslims and this is racism. His admiration for the state of Israel is also racist, because Israel has four or five basic discriminative laws against Palestinian that are sheer racism. His emphatic defense of Judeo-Christian values smells of racism and authoritarian politics, although it claims not to be fascist but a liberal. Perhaps he is a democratic fascist, that is to say, he would like acting as a fascist by popular mandate. This happen to many politicians in democratic countries.

I think that islamophobia or racism are more evident in day a day statements and political measures that I don’t know in the case of Netherland.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Or by thinking that by arguing that a certain historical development leading to today's situation, you could somehow show, that content of islamic scripture is not one of the causes for today's situation.

You really have no idea how this works, do you? I'd like to see you pursue a degree in history and write a thesis with your 'Islamic Scripture' narrative of Eastern history. You'd be laughed out of the room for even suggesting such a poorly conceived perspective.

But sure. Keep flaunting your ignorance of history!

 

[Darat]

And you suggest, that with what you consider a correct understanding one suddenly realizes that content of the quran has no negative effect on world of today?

...snip...

Coaching it as a question doesn't disguise that you are creating a strawman to argue against rather than addressing the actual argument.

 

[Carn]

You really have no idea how this works, do you? I'd like to see you pursue a degree in history and write a thesis with your 'Islamic Scripture' narrative of Eastern history. You'd be laughed out of the room for even suggesting such a poorly conceived perspective.

But sure. Keep flaunting your ignorance of history!

The joke is on you.

You implied that by somehow understanding Ottoman history, i could clear up my misconceptions about the effects islamic scripture in our world today and/or that understanding it is impossible without knowledge of Ottoman history.

So you claimed that somehow the history of Ottoman Empire is crucial for understanding why for example the province Sabah of Malaysia has penalty for apostasy on the books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Malaysia

That is about 7000 km away from the largest expansion the Ottoman Empire had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

But somehow, if i do not understand Ottoman history, i must be wrong when forming an opinion about what is going on in Sabah.

That is just a total joke.

 

[Carn]

Coaching it as a question doesn't disguise that you are creating a strawman to argue against rather than addressing the actual argument.

The "actual argument" visible so far is, that one has to study ottoman history in close detail to be capable of understanding why in the eastern most province of Malaysia apostasy is punishable by prison. That does not make any sense.

Hence, i ask questions to understand what the argument is. Cause it cannot be that ridiculous.

 

[Carn]

I don’t like the word “islamophobia”.

Cannot object that statement.

It is not easy to catch when cultural criticism ends and begins sheer racism.

Yes, hard to distinguish.

He claims for discriminative laws against Muslims and this is racism.

Ignoring the issue that such laws would not be acceptable under European law and propably law of the Netherlands, why is that racism?

There are "white" muslims, "black" muslims, etc. And there are non-muslim Arabs, etc.

So the group of people Wilders might want to have dsicriminative laws against does not share any common outward appearance, characteristics or ethinicity.

Furthermore, anyone could get rid of the charateristic Wilders might discriminate against by simply declaring to be non-muslim; so its not even an inherent and unchangable characteristic Wilders wants to use for discrimination.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The joke is on you.

You implied that by somehow understanding Ottoman history, i could clear up my misconceptions about the effects islamic scripture in our world today and/or that understanding it is impossible without knowledge of Ottoman history.

So you claimed that somehow the history of Ottoman Empire is crucial for understanding why for example the province Sabah of Malaysia has penalty for apostasy on the books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Malaysia

That is about 7000 km away from the largest expansion the Ottoman Empire had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

But somehow, if i do not understand Ottoman history, i must be wrong when forming an opinion about what is going on in Sabah.

That is just a total joke.

You're shooting yourself in the foot now. You weren't exclusively speaking of Malaysia. You're literally just making it harder for yourself by broadening the area you wish to make sweeping statements about. Any reasonable person should realize that although the influence of the Ottoman Empire on the Malay sultanates was not insignificant, the former is a much less decisive factor in the history of Malaysia, than with the MENA region. As it happens, I'm simply not well-read enough on Islam in SE Asia, and even less the nature of their pre-Islamic states, to discuss it at length. Obviously, Early Modern European Imperialism is an extremely important factor in these regions.

Seriously, the way you interpret this is purely malicious (or possibly very, very ignorant). If I said that the Holy Roman Empire was very important to understand the history of Christianity, and that medieval and Early Modern development of Christianity into the present day cannot be properly understood without studying the HRE closely, and that in fact studying the HRE and its interaction with the church was a much better way to understand Christianity in Europe today than reading the Bible, would you counter with Ethiopia?

And of course, there were two other great Muslim "gunpowder empires" of the early Modern area - the Safavid Empire (which covered most of Greater Iran) and the Mughal Empire (Much of greater India, &c). Immediately preceding those were the Timurid and Mongol Empires, both of which had significant influence on the spread, expression and political role of Islam in Central Asia. These are naturally pivotal for understanding these regions (incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose a distant Sunni state for your "counterexample" - wouldn't Shia Iran be a more natural choice?)

The nature of Islam is one very broad contextual factor in the state of these societies/regions today and historically.

I strongly suggest you try to limit yourself to a region and a period, and study its history closely from a variety of perspectives, if you want to be able to make meaningful statements about those societies.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The "actual argument" visible so far is, that one has to study ottoman history in close detail to be capable of understanding why in the eastern most province of Malaysia apostasy is punishable by prison. That does not make any sense.

Hence, i ask questions to understand what the argument is. Cause it cannot be that ridiculous.

The way you flaunt your anti-intellectual disposition is depressing as hell.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Look, here's an example how you can study the relationship between "Islam" and "Islamic societies" in a sensible way:

One of the most important factors for the development and maintenance of power structures in society is land ownership. Land can be bought, sold, conquered and inherited. The way land was inherited is known to have had significant influences on many societies in the middle ages - the Frankish empire is probably the most famous example.

One aspect of Islamic law that has generaly had more influence than criminal punishment, is indeed civil law dealing with property and inheritance. How has the application of laws of inheritance based on Sharia affected the distribution of land in selected Islamic societies historically? Did the introduction of Islam cause a shift in how land was inherited? In cases where Islam was imposed by a ruling (landowning) class, did this favour them? Are there any systemic effects that can be observed across Islamic societies today thanks to this?

That could potentially be a perfectly appropriate basis for a dissertation that could lead to a sensible and interesting thesis. That's how you approach the relationship between a cultural-contextual factor like religion and the state of society.

 

[David Mo]

Ignoring the issue that such laws would not be acceptable under European law and propably law of the Netherlands, why is that racism?

There are "white" muslims, "black" muslims, etc. And there are non-muslim Arabs, etc.

So the group of people Wilders might want to have dsicriminative laws against does not share any common outward appearance, characteristics or ethinicity.

Furthermore, anyone could get rid of the charateristic Wilders might discriminate against by simply declaring to be non-muslim; so its not even an inherent and unchangable characteristic Wilders wants to use for discrimination.

I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-far-right-islamophobic-freedom-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.
In addition, Wilders’ words are an oversimplification that lumps together Al Qaeda and thousand of Muslims that fought for democracy in the Arab Spring —and were abandoned by "Judeo-Christian" governments that prefer dictators like Sisi to democracy. Many Netherlands Muslims respect democratic principles and will be offended with Wilders’ discriminative —and stupid— words.

This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-far-right-islamophobic-freedom-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.
In addition, Wilders’ words are an oversimplification that lumps together Al Qaeda and thousand of Muslims that fought for democracy in the Arab Spring —and were abandoned by "Judeo-Christian" governments that prefer dictators like Sisi to democracy. Many Netherlands Muslims respect democratic principles and will be offended with Wilders’ discriminative —and stupid— words.

This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.

"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe. At least some of the racism that emerged in the Colonial Era derived from late medieval Spain, where Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity were still denied the right to own property on the basis of "impure blood". Similarly, the moral contempt towards "blackness" was strongly associated with Muslims from the Middle east and North Africa. It needs to be noted that many different conceptualizations comparable to "race" and associated discrimination have existed in many different civilizations throughout history, and even today, there is not really a coherent understanding of what race means. The categories used in the U.S. are just one particular social construction emerging from that country's history.

No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort. If one feels the need to do it, then one needs to seriously, SERIOUSLY re-consider what one's motivations are.

 

[Carn]

You're shooting yourself in the foot now. You weren't exclusively speaking of Malaysia. You're literally just making it harder for yourself by broadening the area you wish to make sweeping statements about.

I was speaking about Islam and/or islamic scripture and its effects on today world. Hence, i was speaking about Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Somalia, Tunesia and a host of other countries and regions.

You tried to argue that somehow what happened in some of those regions in 13th to 19th century was relevant to all of my argument. Hence, you claimed - without realizing cause you never realy understood what i was talking about - ALSO that Osman history was relevant for today Islam in Malaysia.

Seriously, the way you interpret this is purely malicious (or possibly very, very ignorant). If I said that the Holy Roman Empire was very important to understand the history of Christianity, and that medieval and Early Modern development of Christianity into the present day cannot be properly understood without studying the HRE closely, and that in fact studying the HRE and its interaction with the church was a much better way to understand Christianity in Europe today than reading the Bible, would you counter with Ethiopia?

If somebody offered statements/argument about "Christianity in Europe", then yes, countering with Ethopia would be stupid.

But i never suggested that i am just talking about Islam in Middle East. I talked about Islamic scripture, which is common in all of Islam, not only in the Middle East.

(incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose a distant Sunni state for your "counterexample" - wouldn't Shia Iran be a more natural choice?)

No. Due to being neighbour of Osman empire, i would have to present some good argument that although being neighbours and therefore naturally influencing each other, the history of Osman empire is mostly irrelevant for Islam of today in Iran.

With Malaysia the distance is in itself nearly a sufficient argument for the politics of Osman empire being irrelevant.

You understand that if there are geographical vastly distant regions with vastly different histories and in both regions there are people suggesting that apostasy is too be punnished and support this by quoting verses of the exactly same holy book (which verses verbatim call for punishment of apostasy) in all of these vastly distant regions with different histories,

that then the claim that these common occurrence has little to do with the scripture but in each case is strongly connected to the individually different histories of those regions which somehow magically result in everywhere being some people in favor of punishment for apostasy

is hard to accept?

I strongly suggest you try to limit yourself to a region and a period, and study its history closely from a variety of perspectives, if you want to be able to make meaningful statements about those societies.

The regions have a common charateristics, for example that apostasy is either directly punishable by state law or is often punished "privately". Therefore there either has to be some common factor causing this OR due to chance similar practices arised in each case due to local causes.

 

[Carn]

I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-far-right-islamophobic-freedom-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.

So Wilders is racist with his statements about Islam because Muslims in Netherlands have common "racial characteristics".

How could somebody in Netherlands, who is of the opinion that Islam and freedom are not compatible, formulate the argument in a non-racist way?

This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.

I do not see how it might be possible.

Cause as a second issue, you implied one should tone down criticism of Islam where Muslims are a small minority.

So one would need to live in a country with sizeable Muslim population of diverse "racial background" and then it would be ok, to stand at midday in the public square and say that "Islam and freedom are not compatible"; if either the muslim population is not enough percentage of general population or if the muslims have common "racial charateristics" one has to tone it down somehow or remain silent.

As I cannot name any country fulfilling the criteria in which doing that in public square is not against the laws, it does not seem possible.

 

[Carn]

"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe. At least some of the racism that emerged in the Colonial Era derived from late medieval Spain, where Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity were still denied the right to own property on the basis of "impure blood". Similarly, the moral contempt towards "blackness" was strongly associated with Muslims from the Middle east and North Africa. It needs to be noted that many different conceptualizations comparable to "race" and associated discrimination have existed in many different civilizations throughout history, and even today, there is not really a coherent understanding of what race means. The categories used in the U.S. are just one particular social construction emerging from that country's history.

No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort. If one feels the need to do it, then one needs to seriously, SERIOUSLY re-consider what one's motivations are.

All social critique you ever voiced in your life about Christianity was only veiled racism.

How would you respond to that charge without using "It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" in one form or another?

Besides, if my opinion about Islam is racism, why is my emotional stance in regard to radical muslim preachers of "darker" skin colour nearly exactly identical to radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color?

(It is not identical, since all radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color i am aware of, were citizens of some country effectively in a low-scale war of attrition with radical Islamists, so these "white" radicals add to following a bloodthirsty brand of religion also treason, which makes me dislike them even more; but if not for their treason, i would probably dislike them exactly the same)

 

[David Mo]

(...)

How could somebody in Netherlands, who is of the opinion that Islam and freedom are not compatible, formulate the argument in a non-racist way?
I do not see how it might be possible.

Cause as a second issue, you implied one should tone down criticism of Islam where Muslims are a small minority.

So one would need to live in a country with sizeable Muslim population of diverse "racial background" and then it would be ok, to stand at midday in the public square and say that "Islam and freedom are not compatible"; if either the muslim population is not enough percentage of general population or if the muslims have common "racial charateristics" one has to tone it down somehow or remain silent.

As I cannot name any country fulfilling the criteria in which doing that in public square is not against the laws, it does not seem possible.

No.I have not said that the criticism of Islam would be impossible, but that it need to be careful. And the first caution is not to lumps together all Muslims, as Wilder does. Of course, all the Holy Books that I know are incompatible with democracy. They were written in theocratic societies with a theocratic mentality. The Bible and gospels also. In my country the Bible and gospels were the foundations of a dictatorship that lasted more than 40 years. Every criticism to religion was banned and it involved diverse punishments. What makes Wilders a racist is not the criticism of Quran, but that he exclusively orients his condemn to the Quran. He claims for a Judeo-Christian culture without any criticism and calls for anti-Muslim legislation. Law has to be the same for ulemas and priests, churches or mosques or it will be discriminative.

We know that in some Christian majority countries atheism is not welcome and its public expression is persecuted by legal or popular means. But if a leader of a Muslim country says that gospels are incompatible with freedom it would sound a little discriminative. Is it not?

It is not impossible to criticize the Quran without giving support to the white supremacism. The key is to avoid pointing exclusively the Muslim community, lumping together terrorists with peaceful citizens and making it clear that our criticism doesn’t implies the scorn against those that make a moral and respectable reading of the Holy Books, even when we don’t share it. And so on.

I use similar cautions when I am discussing with some Christian friends. It is more important to do the same thing when speaking about a minority that endures constant racist attacks. And this is just the opposite that Wilders does.

A question: Has Wilders claimed for laws against racists that attack mosques? It is only curiosity.