I give up fighting Islamophobia

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem is that some liberals and leftists feel that Muslims must always play the role of victim, never victimizer.

This is another thing about that pisses me off. I constantly get called a Liberal just for defending Islam. It is assumed, by many, that just because I defend Muslims and their right of freedom to worship, I also support Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iran, and other places that I use a basis to show there is a very clear divide between Western and Middle East. When you can so easily draw up a very clear division where one culture has hardly any problems from their Muslims, while the other harbors most of the world's Islamic terrorists, culturally backwards, violent, and oppressive ways, there should be no argument that Islam turns people violent. The very fact that there are a bunch of Muslims in America, hardly any violence coming from them (and overwhelmingly the ones causing violence aren't American or Western), and there are very few the FBI lists as suspected terrorists should have everyone who thinks Islam makes people violent questioning their position.
There is also a difference between acknowledging people are treated poorly and held back, and insisting they should play the victim card. I do not see much of the latter. It seems to be as elusive as the man-hating feminist who wants women above men.
As for "Islamophobia," some may use it as a way to hinder discourse, but, then again, this social hatred and animosity that exists towards Islam hardly at all exists towards Christianity, even though it is just as guilty of all accusations, and it's book has laws and punishments that would mostly and largely be banned throughout the Western and Eastern worlds today. Rather, we can muster up the effort to boldly declare Christian terrorists are not real Christians, yet we hold up Islamic terrorists as the ideal Muslim that Allah approves of. Some may use it as a discourse, but as I said earlier, all bigotry is illogical and irrational. All of it, every last shred of it, needs to go.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They know that there is anti-Muslim bias, and they also know that "Islamophobia" is a dubious term used to cut off debate over problems with Islam and Islamic states.

This is a tactic that is thrown out in many ways, such as how the term "homophobia," for a number of different reasons, is a part of the gay agenda that is trying to force America to accept immoral behavior. This also often leads to a situation in which those repressed, targeted, and discriminated against homophobes already state their freedom of speech has been lost, and many of them fear future social and legal consequences of not allowing that devil-spawned gay agenda to be shoved down their throat.

The two major lessons I've learned:
1) Never speak to an "outsider" from the "insider's" perspective (in such matters);
2) Try as much as possible to speak only for myself.

The way some people talk, you would think where I live would have been leveled by now given the size of the Muslim community. It's not big, but it's more than big enough to cause massive damage if they were terrorists, and some of the "statistics" I have seen state that all but a few of these Muslims are terrorists who want nothing more than to kill infidels and make America an Islamic State. But, out of all the Western ones I know, they do not want the government to be ruled by religious law. Even Middle Eastern ones that I have met, though they do tend to believe the Bible and Quran should be used as a source for governance, they do not wish to change our ways and they do not support the radical interpretations and laws that are found throughout the Middle East.
I am not trying to feign speaking as an insider while I myself am an outsider. I am speaking how I have interpreted Islamaphobia, which ranges from stupid at one end, intolerance and hostility in the middle, and deadly at the other end. I speak as someone who refuses to be scared of an entire group because of a few.
For a bad example, look at Fox News. They are notorious for demonizing Muslims, yet they are fervent defenders of the police, even though the police are much more likely to harm or kill you than a radical Muslim. They hold Muslims, as a whole, accountable for the actions of a few, yet police brutality and corruption is excused, even dismissed as just a part of the job and the fault, entirely, of the injured party.
It's so bad that many *****ed a fit over radical Islam being removed from the list of serious domestic threats, despite the fact the dangerous radical Islamic threats are international threats that come from abroad, not domestic threats that come from within our own borders..

 

[Caligula]

While I can see where you are coming from, surely there is no way to attempt to meaningfully talk about nations or even civilization if we surrender to such a mindset, don't you think?

I fail to see the link. What exactly stops us form having meaningfully talks about nations? Are you talking about past events or historical analysis? ...Because I surely don't. I'm addressing the problem of mind readers, if you ask me . ...One that fells the need to tell me that people, about which he knows nothing more other than the fact they probably share a common ideology, have no bad intentions in regards to other people, including those that do not share that same common ideology. Why would I recognize one's authority in such matters?

I could condensate my previous message into no more than a (long) phrase: "When speaking of intentions/plans/aims/goals, no matter the position one holds (even political), he is only truly entitled to speak in his name and nothing more, unless he heard the opinion of all those he represents and that perfectly coincides with the one he expresses".

Also, the argument that not all X-ers intend to do harm along with the argument that some or most of the X-ers do good should not be considered sufficient as to establish that one's fear is irrational or ...immoral. IMO it shouldn't be seen as an argument at all.

There were cases when I dealt with prejudice, because of my nationality. I used to make a fuss about it but I reached to the conclusion I had the wrong approach to such a problem. My attitude now is rather one of sympathy and I prefer to stop at that, never using the word "but". Prejudice can only be fought individually, making a case for yourself only and not for the others.

 

[Flankerl]

It is obligatory to consider Yazidi (Christian and Jews) as People of the Scripture.

Uhm Yazidis aren't Christians or Jews.

3- how about rally against Muslims in Germany ?

Hate in Europe: Germany's Anti-Islamic Protests
Hate in Europe: Germany's Anti-Islamic Protests | VICE News

Yeah those weren't anti-Islamic protests. But good try.

 

[LuisDantas]

I fail to see the link. What exactly stops us form having meaningfully talks about nations?

I don't see how a meaningful nation might exist with such lack of social conscience.

 

[leibowde84]

Since 2001? Wow!

Islambashers will continue to exist.
May Allah guide them.

Just like Christianity Bashers, Jewish Bashers, Hindu Bashers, Gay Bashers, etc. "Haters" will always be a constant that EVERYONE will have to deal with, both generally and on a personal level. It is up to all of us to have thick skin, react with words, and beat them with our ideas and our ability to express them rather than acting like children reacting to an insult about their mother. It's time for all of these groups to grow up.

 

[Godobeyer]

Are you saying the link is biased or not accurate? The source is one of the 2 major English language newspapers in Indonesia, I chose it because people can understand it seeing as it is written in English. Would you prefer the articles in Bahasa Indonesia?

Gereja Dibongkar, Jemaat HKBP Hadang Alat Berat | -metro- | Tempo.co

I only chose 1 country because I already knew these cases so can find them quickly. It was simply to show more churches/temples/etc. are destroyed in Muslim countries than Mosques in Western countries.



Me? Why would you think I 'burn mosques' or 'rally against Muslim immigration'?

There is no doubt that many Muslims suffer discrimination against them in the West, this should always be condemned without equivocation. Nothing justifies it.

Muslims should also acknowledge, that minorities in Islamic countries and Muslim majority countries frequently suffer a higher level of discrimination than Muslims in the West do.

When people living in Islamic countries complain about how nasty the West is to Muslims who live there, they open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy unless they are aware of the failings in their own countries.

At the worst, it ends up with such ludicrous double standards as this:

"On Sunday, a majority of Swiss voters gave their support to an initiative to prohibit the construction of minarets — the towers from which the call to prayer is made — at mosques.

“This is contrary to what we know about the Swiss people who are very open and tolerant,” Marty said, adding that other Islamic nations who were members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference shared the same opinion.

“This reminds us that we still need to enhance dialogue and promote inter-religious understanding,” Marty said.

“We can’t let unacceptable policies emerge out of ignorance.”

Marty called on Indonesians to remain calm and sensible, saying that the Swiss government itself disapproved of the referendum.

“What we need to do now is build a bridge of understanding to counter stereotypes,” the minister said, adding that Indonesia, as the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, could “with a constructive spirit and polite manner, educate the Swiss people that this is unacceptable.”

Swiss Ban on New Minarets Unacceptable: Indonesian Government - The Jakarta Globe

if that true .
I believe it's could be some extrem Muslims responsible of that , their act against Islam teaching.

I am sorry for typo error "you are" i mean " you have"

 

[Cephus]

Any particular reason not to give a straight answer?

Because he just made it up?

 

[icehorse]

In Islam protection of minorities is enshrined in Shariah Law.
Note minorities will always live in fear and there is no doubt about it.Different countries will have differing concerns that minorities will have and they have to sit with their Governments and sort their concerns to alleviate their fears.Muslims also have problems being minorities in non-muslim countries.The solution to problems is to sit and discuss and try to get the maximum benefit out of such talks for the betterment of minorities.

Hi farouk,

For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant you that hidden deep in the scripture, scholars can find good moral teachings. That's the theory.

The problem I want to discuss is how the scripture is understood by everyday people. And the evidence in the world is that the common interpretations lead to theocracy and situations like Turkey and the more radical situations we're seeing all across the Muslim world.

As for you're criticism that I'm ignorant... As I said earlier, I've spend hundreds of hours studying Islam. What percentage of Muslims have studied as much as I have? I'm not talking about passively listening to an Imam, I'm talking about reading and studying. (And BTW, compared to an Islamic scholar, I'm very happy to agree that I'm ignorant.)

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ok, that's my summary farouk, I await yours.

Here we go........


1.Refutation of Superstitious belief.

2.Patience.

3.Humility.

4.Greetings of peace upon you.

5.Repent for sins.

6.Beneficent.

7.Establish regular prayer.

8.Lawful and unlawful food.

9.Prevent sin.

10.Do not make partners to God.

11.Treat your 2 parents with goodness.

12.Do not kill your children from poverty.

13.Do not approach immoralities.

14.Do not take a life that God has made sacred.Except by justice or law.

15.Learn wisdom.

16.Do not steal from Orphans.

17.Give full measure and weight in justice.

18.Be truth in testimony even if its against close family.

19.Fulfill you dues on Gods oath.

20.Be Righteous.

icehorse
4 out of 20.Its back to school for you.
Nontheless you did better than Luis.This is the minimum moral code of conduct.Now tell me what is so difficult in finding moral codes in the Noble Quraan.Maybe you just not honest to yourself.Next time you study keep an open mind.
Will present the hidden moral code within next few days.
Peace

 

[gsa]

This is another thing about that pisses me off. I constantly get called a Liberal just for defending Islam. It is assumed, by many, that just because I defend Muslims and their right of freedom to worship, I also support Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iran, and other places that I use a basis to show there is a very clear divide between Western and Middle East. When you can so easily draw up a very clear division where one culture has hardly any problems from their Muslims, while the other harbors most of the world's Islamic terrorists, culturally backwards, violent, and oppressive ways, there should be no argument that Islam turns people violent. The very fact that there are a bunch of Muslims in America, hardly any violence coming from them (and overwhelmingly the ones causing violence aren't American or Western), and there are very few the FBI lists as suspected terrorists should have everyone who thinks Islam makes people violent questioning their position.
There is also a difference between acknowledging people are treated poorly and held back, and insisting they should play the victim card. I do not see much of the latter. It seems to be as elusive as the man-hating feminist who wants women above men.
As for "Islamophobia," some may use it as a way to hinder discourse, but, then again, this social hatred and animosity that exists towards Islam hardly at all exists towards Christianity, even though it is just as guilty of all accusations, and it's book has laws and punishments that would mostly and largely be banned throughout the Western and Eastern worlds today. Rather, we can muster up the effort to boldly declare Christian terrorists are not real Christians, yet we hold up Islamic terrorists as the ideal Muslim that Allah approves of. Some may use it as a discourse, but as I said earlier, all bigotry is illogical and irrational. All of it, every last shred of it, needs to go.

If it is any comfort, I would never call you a liberal for defending Islam. A misguided leftist perhaps.

To me, it is clear enough that "Islam" as some abstraction is not the issue. Of course, we all know plenty of peaceful, even progressive Muslims (if you know Muslims). But then again, just as expats are not representative of their homelands, Muslim immigrant communities, and certainly second and third generation Muslims, are far from representative of the global phenomenon. If I only knew of the Episcopal Church I would also have a very distorted view of Christianity as a global religion, I imagine.

I do not play the "no true Scotsman" game with Christianity or Islam. They are religions that are historically and textually rooted in violent conquest. For better or worse, though, Islam has the short end of the stick when it comes to a liberalizing tradition. That's just the way it is.

This is a tactic that is thrown out in many ways, such as how the term "homophobia," for a number of different reasons, is a part of the gay agenda that is trying to force America to accept immoral behavior. This also often leads to a situation in which those repressed, targeted, and discriminated against homophobes already state their freedom of speech has been lost, and many of them fear future social and legal consequences of not allowing that devil-spawned gay agenda to be shoved down their throat.

Except ideology and religion are fair game. People are not. Hence the distinction between anti-Muslim bias, which is real and has real victims, and Islamophobia, which is slippery and can be used to describe everything that ranges from violent persecution of Muslim minorities to criticism of apostasy laws. Homophobia is not directed at an ideology, and in any event "anti-gay" is usually a more appropriate description of what is going on.

The problem with what you are doing, to me, is conflating the criticism of "Islamophobia" as a concept with the criticism of anti-gay ideology as a concept. The two are not parallel or analogous. Much the same can be said for the attempt to use anti-Semitism as a shield to protect criticism of Israel or delegitimize anti-nationalism.

 

[icehorse]

Hey farouk,

So we might have slightly different definitions of the words "moral" and "morality". Based on my definitions, only a few things on your list seem to be about morals:

11 - treat your parents well
12 - don't kill children if you're poor (but again, was this new information???)
14 - don't kill - of course but i'd need to understand what the definition of "justice" is??
16 - do not steal from orphans (and again, was this seen as new information???)
17? - not sure I know what you mean?
18 - be honest in testimony (yes, but also nothing new)
20? - this could have several different meanings, how do you mean it?

The rest might be rules or guidelines or such, but they seem like morals to me.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Shadow Wolf,

We're often told that there are 1.6 billion Muslims. Please remember that in relationship to 1.6 billion, very, very few live in North America, and not that many more live in Europe. So we can't draw many conclusions from that small subset. The lion's share of the world's Muslims live in Africa, the ME, SW Asia, and Indonesia. To me it's commonalities across those societies that give us the most accurate view of how Islamic belief shapes behavior.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am just asking you the question of what specifically forbids the proselytisation of other faiths. It is a simple question.

Is it based on a specific Quranic verse? Yes/no If so, which ones?
Is it based on any specific hadiths? yes/no If so which ones?

Note i have given you a very straight forward answer for which you seem to be having a problem accepting so let me explain in more simple words.
There are verses in the Noble Quraan which deals with apostacy.According to the Noble Quraan one of the worst acts of humanity is when a person having fallen safety in Almighty God and then increases oneself in rejecting his creator.When a person enters into Islam he submits and surrender himself to the will of God and hence his rejection of Islam is regarded as a grave sin.Apostacy is enshrined in Islamic Law as a protection and security of the Islamic State.When this verse was revealed to the Prophet(PBBUH) there were questions regarding proselytising by non muslims in an Islamic State.Hence from his teachings we learn that proselytising by non muslims is prohibited in an Islamic State.All the Imams who complied the Laws of Jurisprudence are unanimous so far as proselytising by non muslims in an Islamic State.This law is also enshrined as a protection and security of the Islamic State.
PS don't confuse yourself with hadith and teachings of Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).The teachings of Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH) was followed by the Sahaba after his demise and the same teachings was passed on to the Tabeen which eventually found its way to the Imams.

 

[Augustus]

Note i have given you a very straight forward answer for which you seem to be having a problem accepting so let me explain in more simple words.

No, you gave no answer, just replied with vague comments or non-sequiteurs.

.All the Imams who complied the Laws of Jurisprudence are unanimous so far as proselytising by non muslims in an Islamic State.This law is also enshrined as a protection and security of the Islamic State.

So the law comes from some jurists in 8th/9th C Abbasid Iraq?

Strange that the early Muslims didn't seem to enforce it on conquered populations during the early Arab conquests though. If they did, then none of the conquered peoples seems to have actually noticed it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What Islamic teachings are used to justify this?

Here was your question.

Sorry i am having a problem understanding your question but If your question relates to how Shariah Law was compiled.Then your answer is the Noble Quraan and from the teachings of Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).

Here was my answer.

No, you gave no answer, just replied with vague comments or non-sequiteurs.

What made you say i did not answer your question?
Note if you having a problem accepting my answer then its ignorance on your part and there is no need to blame me for it.

So the law comes from some jurists in 8th/9th C Abbasid Iraq?

No,no............what made you ask such a silly question?

Strange that the early Muslims didn't seem to enforce it on conquered populations during the early Arab conquests though. If they did, then none of the conquered peoples seems to have actually noticed it.

What is actually more strange is that the first generation of muslims from the time of Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH) were actually party in enshrining it in the Laws of Jurisprudence.

 

[Augustus]

What is actually more strange is that the first generation of muslims from the time of Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH) were actually party in enshrine it in the Laws of Jurisprudence.

Why do you think that from all of the earliest conquered peoples, none of them seem to have noticed this rule though? Once conquered, they mostly seem to have just paid a tax and been left alone to run their own affairs. It is clear that some of the Arabs were following a new religious doctrine, but the conquered people didn't seem to know anything about it.

Much of Islamic jurisprudence seems to have begun developing in 8th C Iraq, especially the stuff which relates to governace.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hey farouk,

So we might have slightly different definitions of the words "moral" and "morality". Based on my definitions, only a few things on your list seem to be about morals:

11 - treat your parents well
12 - don't kill children if you're poor (but again, was this new information???)
14 - don't kill - of course but i'd need to understand what the definition of "justice" is??
16 - do not steal from orphans (and again, was this seen as new information???)
17? - not sure I know what you mean?
18 - be honest in testimony (yes, but also nothing new)
20? - this could have several different meanings, how do you mean it?

The rest might be rules or guidelines or such, but they seem like morals to me.

icehorse
Firstly i did ask you to define morality according to your own definition.
Secondly you have studied the Noble Quraan about 3 times and you still having a problem understanding Surah 6.Note if you read this verse another 100 times then you still going to be ignorant of its teachings simply because you have done no research on this verse.When the Noble Quraan says "don't kill children if you poor" then you got to ask yourself why would God reveal such a verse?The answer to this question lies in the culture of the Arabs before the advent of Islam.FYI the Arabs had a culture of burying their girls alive.Now this is just one example of Arab culture that i gave you.This actually shows the depth of morality that the Arab culture reached.Hence without knowing or understanding Arab culture then you going to be lost in your studies.
Finally note you not the only one that has a problem studying the Noble Quraan infact more than 90% of non-muslims have a problem because they do not keep an open mind before opening the Noble Quraan.In the very first verse of the Noble Quraan there is verse that states "this is a book in which there is no doubt"now if open the book looking for faults to create mischief then God will keep you in such darkness that studying the book will not benefit you so far as knowledge is concerned.Note we believe in an all knowing God hence he knows your intent before you even open the book.Then there are those who have studied the Arabic launguage and they think they know it all by simply reading the Noble Quraan infact they are worst off then you.
Peace

 

[faroukfarouk]

Why do you think that from all of the earliest conquered peoples, none of them seem to have noticed this rule though? Once conquered, they mostly seem to have just paid a tax and been left alone to run their own affairs. It is clear that some of the Arabs were following a new religious doctrine, but the conquered people didn't seem to know anything about it.

Much of Islamic jurisprudence seems to have begun developing in 8th C Iraq, especially the stuff which relates to governace.

Note non-muslims had rights so far as living in an Islamic state is concerned.They were free to practice their religion but at the same time they had to adhere to Islamic Law.
Ask yourself if apostasy is prohibited then how can they allow non-muslims to proselytize.Logic tells you that both are inter related..These laws were there for security of the Islamic State.
Finally may i suggest that you study the coming of one the greatest Imam(Al Imam Al Aa'zam).His coming was prophesied by our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).There are 2 Ahadith that are recorded in "Durr al -Mukhtar"He was born in Kufa and records indicate that close to 1050 Sahaba's settled in Kufa and 24 were from the participants of Badr.The Imam was non other than Imam Abu Hanifa Nau'man ibn Thabit (RA).He was the first Imam(also a Tabiee)and the laws of jurisprudence was complied by him through consensus with the first generation of muslims.There is much more that i tell you but i need you to do your own research.

 

[Augustus]

Note non-muslims had rights so far as living in an Islamic state is concerned.They were free to practice their religion but at the same time they had to adhere to Islamic Law.

Not until the 8th C (or possibly late 7th) they didn't They just had to pay tribute to the Arabs.

Unless you can find me a non-Muslim source that says otherwise...

Strange that Hanifa was a figure in 8th C Iraq btw..