Islamophobia the socially acceptable hatred?

[baron]

Baron you are missing the point and helping makie th epoint that blindly hating all of a group of people fo rhte actions of one person is irrational.

I think you mean "rational", otherwise I would concur (although I'm unclear who this "one" person is - Mohammed perhaps?). I've consistently stated that anybody who negatively labels all Muslims is a fool and their viewpoint is not worth listening to. I guess you could argue that a fool would misrepresent my argument and might therefore think I was advocating blanket condemnation but that's hardly my problem.

ANd do not say I am defending anyone I am jsut pointing to the fact that there is an undecurrent of hating a whole group of people for the views and actions of a tiny minority, which appears to be acceptable.

That's not my fault.

Why finger just the one group if you are to be consistant you should examine all religious groups and as has been pointed out time and again you will find in all of them minorities that are dangerous and extreme, but somehow that does not count somehow it is only Isalm that you seem to have a prticulr vitriol for why is that?

Like as not because you haven't read any of my other posts and writings where I condemn aspects of other religions, including Christianity. Not least, too, because in a thread on Islam we should ideally stick to discussing Islam. But you are right that I have particular vitriol for Islam because I believe it as the most damaging of all contemporary religions.

Why hate an entire singel religion for extreme acts carried out in its name but not all the others too?

I dislike all monotheistic religions and I can't understand why you believe I don't.

 

[baron]

There are 177 million people in Pakistan. So even if your numbers are correct, that's still only 0.01% of the population.

I'm pretty sure one hundredth of one percent counts as "a few".

So if 25,000 people died in an Earthquake in Pakistan tomorrow would you state "a few people died", or would you be more honest?

Furthermore don't fixate on the 25,000. As I explained, that was the figure for dead terrorists over 10 years in one country - Pakistan. How many terrorists are there altogether in Pakistan, how many worldwide, how many supporters do they have in Pakistan, how many worldwide? Then factor all those who indulge in inhumane behaviour that does not fall under the umbrella of terrorism, the civil atrocities and human rights violations. Are we still talking about "a few nuts" who spoil it for the rest, or a significant minority whose actions are directly attributable to their particular notions of Islam?

 

[Jaxe]

what does it say about Islam when a few nuts claim to do their crimes in the name of Islam?
what does it say about enviromentalism when a few nuts claim to do their crimes in the name of enviromentalism?

terrorism is linked to many things. and in every case, it is linked to humans. what does that say about humans?

It doesn't say anything about Islam (or environmentalism), it does say something about the level of acceptance of fundamentalist violence within the ranks of their 'co believers', be they environmentalists or religious people.

 

[DC]

So if 25,000 people died in an Earthquake in Pakistan tomorrow would you state "a few people died", or would you be more honest?

Furthermore don't fixate on the 25,000. As I explained, that was the figure for dead terrorists over 10 years in one country - Pakistan. How many terrorists are there altogether in Pakistan, how many worldwide, how many supporters do they have in Pakistan, how many worldwide? Then factor all those who indulge in inhumane behaviour that does not fall under the umbrella of terrorism, the civil atrocities and human rights violations. Are we still talking about "a few nuts" who spoil it for the rest, or a significant minority whose actions are directly attributable to their particular notions of Islam?

over a billion moslems and nutters among them that call for violence against the west since decades and what happened? only a tiny minority actually follows those calls. A guy called jor a holy war against my country, not a single moslem followed that call. nothing happened at all.
seems like the oberhelming majority of muslims does not interpret their religion in a way that allows them to kill innocent people, also not of other faiths.
ths surely does not mean there is no danger from those violent groups that do interpret their religion in a way that hustifies their crimes for them. But this is a problem that is dealth with. we know the problem and we work to prevent those atacks. that is a good thing. but more than that is Islamaphobia.

 

[A'isha]

So if 25,000 people died in an Earthquake in Pakistan tomorrow would you state "a few people died", or would you be more honest?

If it was 25,000 people who died over ten years, I'd certainly say it was a few. Because that's the same average yearly death rate as left-handed people who end up getting killed when they use products made for right-handed people.

Furthermore don't fixate on the 25,000. As I explained, that was the figure for dead terrorists over 10 years in one country - Pakistan.

No, that was the figure as compiled from news reports (hardly the hallmark of accurate statistics), which even your source website warns are provisional.

As a side note, it seems that the guy who runs SATP's parent organization is an...ah...interesting guy.

How many terrorists are there altogether in Pakistan, how many worldwide, how many supporters do they have in Pakistan, how many worldwide? Then factor all those who indulge in inhumane behaviour that does not fall under the umbrella of terrorism, the civil atrocities and human rights violations. Are we still talking about "a few nuts" who spoil it for the rest, or a significant minority whose actions are directly attributable to their particular notions of Islam?

So find out those numbers and calculate it, if you want to use it as any kind of support for your arguments.

 

[DC]

It doesn't say anything about Islam (or environmentalism), it does say something about the level of acceptance of fundamentalist violence within the ranks of their 'co believers', be they environmentalists or religious people.

i see myself as an enviromentalist, but dont regard the idiots that set Hummers on fire as enviromentalists.
the same goes for many Moslems i have spoken to. They don't see those terrorists as Moslems, just like many Christian didn't regard Breivik or whatever the nutter his name was, as a Christian.
Setting a hummer on fire is polution. this for me they are not enviromentalists.
Killing people is against Islam / Christianity.Thus for those interpreting their religion as peacefull, those murderers are not Moslems / Christians.

sure without a doubt they use Enviromentalism / Islam / Christianity etc to justify their crimes. But doe others have to feel responsible for them? i personally don't for the crimes done by those that claim to share my concerns for the enviroment.

 

[Jaxe]

i see myself as an enviromentalist, but dont regard the idiots that set Hummers on fire as enviromentalists.
the same goes for many Moslems i have spoken to. They don't see those terrorists as Moslems, just like many Christian didn't regard Breivik or whatever the nutter his name was, as a Christian.
Setting a hummer on fire is polution. this for me they are not enviromentalists.
Killing people is against Islam / Christianity.Thus for those interpreting their religion as peacefull, those murderers are not Moslems / Christians.

sure without a doubt they use Enviromentalism / Islam / Christianity etc to justify their crimes. But doe others have to feel responsible for them? i personally don't for the crimes done by those that claim to share my concerns for the enviroment.

And if more people who shared you'r beliefs were of those opinions, in particular in and around the 'fundies' area, they would become more ostracized and their numbers would dwindle... Hence 'the level of acceptance' of the 'co believers', not your personal beliefs.

I'd wager that scandinavia has very little problems with terrorists. Muslim, Christian, Environmental or otherwise... The people in scandinavia are largely atheist and generally non-accepting of violence, against anyone, so living there and spouting religious hatred, never mind acting out in violence, will not be tolerated.

In parts of the middle east and africa however violence is just background noise, the fundies have a completly different playing field there, if Afghanistan for some reason had a very big environmental movement you betcha there'd be alot more hummers blowing up

 

[baron]

over a billion moslems and nutters among them that call for violence against the west since decades and what happened? only a tiny minority actually follows those calls. A guy called jor a holy war against my country, not a single moslem followed that call. nothing happened at all.
seems like the oberhelming majority of muslims does not interpret their religion in a way that allows them to kill innocent people, also not of other faiths.
ths surely does not mean there is no danger from those violent groups that do interpret their religion in a way that hustifies their crimes for them. But this is a problem that is dealth with. we know the problem and we work to prevent those atacks. that is a good thing. but more than that is Islamaphobia.

You're covering many issues, few of which are particularly contentious. To restate, I am saying that labelling those who legitimately criticise Islam as Islamophobic is to do them an injustice. The word itself has a recent history strongly interwoven with the suppression of free speech and is used as a tool for protecting Islam from criticism. There is a reason why the words Christophobe, Hindophobe and Buddophobe do not exist, whilst Islamophobe does.

If it was 25,000 people who died over ten years, I'd certainly say it was a few.

I don't think you would, because regardless of the proportion of the population affected you would not - I hope - stoop to diminishing these deaths in such an offhand way. Many people dying every day tends not to be mitigated by the population of their homeland unless of you throw Islam into the mix, in which case basic human decency is often relegated in favour of apologetics.

No, that was the figure as compiled from news reports (hardly the hallmark of accurate statistics), which even your source website warns are provisional.

As a side note, it seems that the guy who runs SATP's parent organization is an...ah...interesting guy.

So find out those numbers and calculate it, if you want to use it as any kind of support for your arguments.

I don't really need to. I'm happy with saying that there are thousands of Islamic terrorists in Pakistan and many times that figure worldwide, and that they kill thousands of civilians every year, because unless you're willing to suspend your humanity in favour of Islamic apology these facts cannot just be dismissed with a shrug, and that's the point I was making.

 

[A'isha]

There is a reason why the words Christophobe, Hindophobe and Buddophobe do not exist, whilst Islamophobe does.

Yes. Because most "critics of Islam" are Christians of a decidedly conservative bent, and Christianity has a 1300-year-long history of hatred and conflict with Islam that it hasn't had with Buddhism or Hinduism.

I don't think you would, because regardless of the proportion of the population affected you would not - I hope - stoop to diminishing these deaths in such an offhand way. Many people dying every day tends not to be mitigated by the population of their homeland unless of you throw Islam into the mix, in which case basic human decency is often relegated in favour of apologetics.

So, would you describe the number of left-handed people who died while using products made for right-handed people over the last decade as a little, or a lot?

I don't really need to. I'm happy with saying that there are thousands of Islamic terrorists in Pakistan and many times that figure worldwide, and that they kill thousands of civilians every year, because unless you're willing to suspend your humanity in favour of Islamic apology these facts cannot just be dismissed with a shrug, and that's the point I was making.

The problem comes when you want to use the beliefs and actions of those terrorists to talk about the beliefs and actions of all those non-terrorists.

No one but the looniest of loons gets upset when people rail against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But it's something else entirely when people do stuff like this.

 

[DC]

You're covering many issues, few of which are particularly contentious. To restate, I am saying that labelling those who legitimately criticise Islam as Islamophobic is to do them an injustice. The word itself has a recent history strongly interwoven with the suppression of free speech and is used as a tool for protecting Islam from criticism. There is a reason why the words Christophobe, Hindophobe and Buddophobe do not exist, whilst Islamophobe does.

I have no problem with justified critizism against Islam. But when i feel it is unjustified i say my part.
and to link Islam to terrorism is somewhat unjustyfied. As the absolutely overwhelming majority of muslims are peacefull people living their live.
the problems mainly stemms from a lack of differentiation. with the religions we are more often exposed to, like for me, Christianity i have learned to see the differences, and we know some things are more to find with Catholics, other things with Jehova whitnesses etc. we make very detailed distinctions, but as we are not so used to Islam we do not make those differences. we often throw all of Islam together in one pot and judge that.
no matter how i interpret the koran, or how fundamentalist in pakistan interpret the koran, when talking about all of Islam we have to take the interpretation of the majority, and that seems not to be the interpretation of the terrorists.
Almost nobody seriously attributed the deeds of Breivik to Christianity. Because we know based on his deed, that what he did is not what Christianity means for most Christians. no matter how he or i interpret the bible.
Also when it come to teaching evolution, mostly we know we talk about fundi christians. we don't fear all christians want to kick Evolution out of the books, because we know its only a small group. we even have a specific name for them, again we make very detailed differences, which we do not for moslems.

 

[baron]

Yes. Because most "critics of Islam" are Christians of a decidedly conservative bent, and Christianity has a 1300-year-long history of hatred and conflict with Islam that it hasn't had with Buddhism or Hinduism.

That doesn't explain the absence of these other words. In terms of criticism I'd say Islam gets off lightly as compared to Christianity, not to mention giving as good as it gets. The problem is that even well-informed, reasoned criticism of Islam is classified using this catch-all terminology yet with other religions, anything goes. There is no need to coin a new word specifically for Islam when other religions and secular ideologies are forced to share well-established words such as 'bigotry' and 'intolerance', and certainly no need to expand this definition in order to suppress valid debate.

So, would you describe the number of left-handed people who died while using products made for right-handed people over the last decade as a little, or a lot?

A staggeringly high number. If someone told me a few people worldwide had died in this way I'd assume they were talking about a dozen, not 25,000. The response depends on the context and on the numbers you are comparing against. You wouldn't respond that "a few" people died on 9/11 simply because they represented a tiny minority of the population. Instead, you would compare that number with the number you might expect to die in such a horrific manner in a Western city and phrase your response accordingly. Not to mention that using the term "a few" in this instance would be disrespectful. Yet you might say that "a few" people gathered for a march if 3000 turned up, on the basis that marches are often larger than 3000 and do not have the same tragic associations. So when we're talking about thousands of people indulging in terrorism and in turn killing thousands of civilians, "a few" should be avoided as a quantitative description regardless of the core population size.

The problem comes when you want to use the beliefs and actions of those terrorists to talk about the beliefs and actions of all those non-terrorists.

Not an approach I'd take.

No one but the looniest of loons gets upset when people rail against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But it's something else entirely when people do stuff like this.

I must say I thought you were going to link to something more meaty. Over here practically every planning application of significance attracts vocal opposition groups and legal challenges. The threats and arson attempts are obviously unacceptable but I've known worse than that happen when someone moved into a village and painted their house a discordant shade of puce. Not that I condone such behaviour (the backlash, not the painting) but so far we don't have any word for an irrational hatred of people who paint their houses unacceptable colours. Of course bigotry against Muslims exists and sometimes takes the most despicable of forms but my point is that not every criticism of Islam can or should be considered 'Islamophobic'.

 

[Jaxe]

Almost nobody seriously attributed the deeds of Breivik to Christianity. Because we know based on his deed, that what he did is not what Christianity means for most Christians. no matter how he or i interpret the bible.

Actually it's not attributed to christianity because there are no known christian organizations endorsing, planning and executing similar attacks, nor was it done in the name of christianity or any other god. It was an isolated event planned and executed by a single madman.

 

[A'isha]

That doesn't explain the absence of these other words.

Yes it does. It also explains Islamophobia's older sibling, anti-Semitism.

The problem is that even well-informed, reasoned criticism of Islam is classified using this catch-all terminology yet with other religions, anything goes. There is no need to coin a new word specifically for Islam when other religions and secular ideologies are forced to share well-established words such as 'bigotry' and 'intolerance', and certainly no need to expand this definition in order to suppress valid debate.

It's not used to suppress valid debate, and it doesn't cover "well-informed, reasoned criticism of Islam".

Not an approach I'd take.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

Of course bigotry against Muslims exists and sometimes takes the most despicable of forms but my point is that not every criticism of Islam can or should be considered 'Islamophobic'.

What's happening in Murfreesboro is not "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Pamela Gellar going into hysterics about Butterball secretly and insidiously attempting to foist halal turkeys on innocent non-Muslims celebrating Thanksgiving in a "stealth turkey jihad" isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Debbie Schlussel warning that Simon Cowell's manufactured pop group One Direction is attempting to seduce young (and white) non-Muslim girls into the clutches of Islam isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Robert Spencer attempting to paint a man separated from his wife and in financial trouble who dressed as Santa Claus, went to his wife's house as his wife, son, daughter, and brother and sister in law were opening Christmas presents on Christmas morning (after they had hosted a Christmas party on Christmas Eve the night before), shooting and killing all of them, then attempting to make it look like the brother in law was the shooter before he committed suicide by turning the gun on himself, as an example of a "Muslim honor killing" isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia.

 

[DC]

Actually it's not attributed to christianity because there are no known christian organizations endorsing, planning and executing similar attacks, nor was it done in the name of christianity or any other god. It was an isolated event planned and executed by a single madman.

well then take violence against abortion doctors and clinics or burning "witches" in africa or abuse of children by catholic priest etc etc.

 

[Dcdrac]

I have seen nothing in your psots to suggest you are not singling out one religion Baron, you seem to be focuing on jsut Islam, and yes out a billion plus adherents only a tiny handful are terrorists, so your point does not hold up so if you are actually against all montehstic religions please point out the nutters in the others too.

 

[Jaxe]

well then take violence against abortion doctors and clinics or burning "witches" in africa or abuse of children by catholic priest etc etc.

Indeed, horrible isn't it! Religion is used as an excuse to commit horrible atrocities. Irrational behaviour is usually frowned upon, even among religious people, but being irrational in the name of a religion, all of a sudden it's all fine and dandy. Scary is what it is...

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I have seen nothing in your psots to suggest you are not singling out one religion Baron, you seem to be focuing on jsut Islam, and yes out a billion plus adherents only a tiny handful are terrorists, so your point does not hold up so if you are actually against all montehstic religions please point out the nutters in the others too.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that this thread is about Islam specifically.

 

[Caper]

Exactly where are you getting your knowledge on the world? Because it looks like you've picked up some bits and pieces here and just put it together according to your bigotry.

When it comes to evolution, it looks to me like they get a more thorough education on it in Iran than in the USA. I bet you're surprised to hear that. That's because you thought and spoke without considering actual facts. Sure, in some Islamic countries the theory of evolution is not accepted, or even considered heresy. In others, it's taught in schools as fact. Anyone taking that and generalizing about Islam, does so either out of ignorance or as part of an agenda.

If I were American, I would actually be very careful about criticizing a whole group of people based on their stance on evolution. How much of the population of the USA accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory? Is it a settled thing now?

As for the debate whether homosexuals should be executed or not, as a European I most often hear this debate coming from Christian agitators in the USA. Gays in the US don't exactly live a life free of bigotry and prejudgment.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist also in the Islamic world, far from it. Iran or Saudi Arabia often makes the news when they execute homosexuals, which they do, but those are two countries. I know from personal experience that the gay scene in Turkey is active and well, and public and fabulous.

It's not the first time someone takes the worst parts of the Islamic world and compares it against the best and idealized parts of the Western world. As I said, it's either done out of ignorance, or because of an agenda. I can't say where you're coming from, but either way it's not a good thing.

Thanks for the reply. You make some good points. But you do seem to do an awful pile of cheery picking to get your points across.

I don't have an agenda. I won't deny there may be some ignorance.

a few points.

You point out that I take the best out of one and the worst of the other..... But that's exactly what you do. I talk about homosexual rights in Islamic Countries.....You bring up Turkey.... There are 50 or so Islamic Countries... you make your point with 1. You take the 20 most powerful predominantly Christian Nations... the 20 most prominent Islamic countries... and it isn't even close as to which group is more accepting of homosexuals.

Same with evolution. You bring up Iran (a country that has executed homosexuals) and try to equate that with the United States. I would wager a months salary (you won't get rich) that more American's believe in evolution then ANY Islamic country on Earth.... and America I'm sure has the lowest support of most any predominantly christian country.

 

[Ryokan]

The point wasn't to show equality or that one 'side' was better. I wasn't cherry-picking, I was offering counter-points to disprove your uniform view of, as you say, 50 Islamic countries. When you say evolution isn't even considered in the Islamic world, giving you even one example that says otherwise disproves your claim, don't you agree?

Obviously, quite a few Islamic countries are hellholes that neither of us would like to live in. That was never the contention. The contention here is if you can take the worst attributes of countries with a majority population of Muslims, and then paint all Muslims with those attributes. That's what you did.

As for what country has the highest amount of people who accept evolution, I couldn't find any good enough polls doing a quick Google search. I seem to remember a poll that showed that Turkey and the USA very pretty similar in this regard.

But I did find this poll from 2009, that shows that, in the US, Muslims are more accepting of the theory of evolution than Evangelicals and Mormons. In fact, the poll shows that a random Muslim is twice as likely to accept evolution than a random member from those two Christian groups.

 

[A'isha]

As for what country has the highest amount of people who accept evolution, I couldn't find any good enough polls doing a quick Google search. I seem to remember a poll that showed that Turkey and the USA very pretty similar in this regard..

Turkey apparently actually has fewer people that believe evolution than the US (25% vs. 39%). A study in 2006 revealed that Turkey was actually the only country out of 34 examined that had a lower percentage than the US. The aforementioned Adnan Oktar brags that it used to be around 70-80% in Turkey in the 70's, before he started his campaign for Creationism.

Kazakhstan, however, which is 3/4 Muslim, has a percentage almost equal to the US percentage, with 37% of the people there believing evolution. I'm looking for information about Iran - I have a study of textbooks there, but polling data from Iran is...scarce.

EDIT: And that's just the percentage of people who say evolution is true or probably true. There's actually a higher percentage of people who explicitly reject evolution in the US and answered the poll saying they believe evolution is false (~40%) than there are Kazakhs who say they believe evolution is false (28%) - the rest in both countries answered that they don't know/never thought about it.