Islamaphobia - Years later, I accept its a real/true phenomena and an industry

[firedragon]

No, he did not. He gave me his interpretation, correct? for the sake of discussion, let's say that @firedragon is a well known scholar of Islam. That is probably an interesting field of study, and perhaps it also has some historical significance. But he can never claim that his interpretations are "the truth" about Islam. At best he is just one scholar and there are tens of thousands of scholars who disagree with him. No matter he says, many will disagree.

OTOH, if we look at the book from a logical perspective, we can arrive at some conclusions that anyone who uses logic can agree with. That's the beauty of logic

Mate. So what's your point? Who do you agree with, who do you disagree with and what's your reasoning (not just general comments)? Do you disagree with everyone or you just use the majority or some large number to not agree with one person?

 

[EsonauticSage]

No, I do not. But I also do not accept that your understanding of Islam is the only one. That, just looking at the two major sects, and the outliers, ought to be pretty obvious.

You said: "Those extremists are not Muslims in my view. They do not know islam. But the millions of good Muslims are nice people." Do I assume that you mean, by "the millions," both Shia and Sunni? But you do not mean the "extremists?" How about the Ghulat and Kharijite movements? Or the Sufi orders? How about Ibadi, Ash’ari, Maturidi, Murji’ah, Qadariyyah, Mu’tazili, Jahmiyyah, Bateniyyah. Or how about the Ahmadiyya or Gülen/Hizmet movements? Salfism and Wahhabism – what about them?

There are more….I just want to know which ones you claim “do not know Islam," and which are the "nice people?"

Ghulat (which means "Extremist" in the sense of exaggerating deity to Prophets and other figures) and Batini are not sects, they're just classifications within Shi'ism.

Kharijites are a separate form of Islam to Sunnism and Shi'sim. Ibadis are the predominant surviving splinter from the Kharijites but are not the violent maniacs that the Kharijites were.

Asharism is jurisprudence in Sunnism, Mutazilism is a defunct philosophical school.

Ahmadiyya is a heretical Sunni messianic movement, that believes the Mahdi came.

Salafism and Wahhabism are hard anti-rationalist fundamentalist forms of Sunnism, part of the cause of terrorism.

Gulen is a political movement led by regular Sunnis.

Qadaris are another philosophical school, a Sunni one.

Jahmites were not a sect but were just a group that differed with regular Sunnis over one theological issue.



So after all of that, we still only have Sunnism, Shi'ism and Kharijites/Ibadis, only three.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The right to convert to another religion is a human right, not something to be bothered by.

Saint, you are ignoring 'Vyavaharika'. That also is a reality. If they were not converted, there would not have been Pakistan and three wars.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you agree with Sadeq in Islam "corruption in the land" means what he says and includes atheists?

I think you are asking me to judge which interpretations of Islam are Islamic and which ones are not.
As a non-Muslim I don’t have a say in what is and isn’t Islam. That is up to Muslims, and you as a Muslim would say that it is not Islam, whilst Sadeq would say that it is Islam.

To me that just looks like there is more than one Islam, Quranic Islam and whatever Sadeqi bases his Islam on.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even if the numbers are relatively low, one can't disregard what this seems to imply, although no doubt most of these would never embark on any of the activities which ISIS have carried out, and might be more about wanting an Islamic state - but one can see why it might invoke a reaction towards Muslims in some.

 

[firedragon]

That is up to Muslims, and you as a Muslim would say that it is not Islam, whilst Sadeq would say that it is Islam.

So basically you have no opinion or analysis or whatever, but you just wish to quote some person in Iran for a rhetorical response to show this guy says this. Thats it?

Is there any point in that discourse?

SO you are not gonna reason, just dismiss everything, never agree, never assess a post on its own merit by just saying "He said that". Nice.

 

[firedragon]

Even if the numbers are relatively low, one can't disregard what this seems to imply, although no doubt most of these would never embark on any of the activities which ISIS have carried out, and might be more about wanting an Islamic state - but one can see why it might invoke a reaction towards Muslims in some.

View attachment 41627

So the worst country in your research is Syria with 79% of the people against ISIS? Nice.

 

[danieldemol]

Is there any point in that discourse?

Yes, the point is that we should be calling murder murder, NOT “corruption on earth/in the land” in the context of the law of the land, so that what constitutes corruption in the land is not left to the imagination or other sources rulers may look to in arriving at their judgements when deciding who to execute.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, the point is that we should be calling murder murder, NOT “corruption on earth/in the land” in the context of the law of the land, so that what constitutes corruption in the land is not left to the imagination or other sources rulers may look to in arriving at their judgements when deciding who to execute.

Ah. Now you are at least beginning to make at least a simple analysis.

The reason to call this "Al Fasadhin Fil Ardha" in the Quran or "Corruption in the land" specifically is because it is described very clearly and is explained in detain in the OP. One book. You just wish not to agree with it anyway so that's your premise. You do not wish to analyse it. Its because you have already decided to just disagree with it you are looking for anything you can find on the internet to defy it.

Invalid.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So the worst country in your research is Syria with 79% of the people against ISIS? Nice.

I said the numbers are low but they still amount to a lot more than involved in ISIS.

 

[firedragon]

I said the numbers are low but they still amount to a lot more than involved in ISIS.

Lets take Syria. Its where Dais is present right? So can you tell me where this research was done and what was the methodology of sampling? Just curious to see.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Lets take Syria. Its where Dais is present right? So can you tell me where this research was done and what was the methodology of sampling? Just curious to see.

Let's not - I was pointing out why there might be some antagonism towards Islam by many, even if it might be unfounded (the majority of Muslims being overwhelmingly against such terrorist-like behaviour).

 

[firedragon]

Let's not - I was pointing out why there might be some antagonism towards Islam by many, even if it might be unfounded (the majority of Muslims being overwhelmingly against such terrorist-like behaviour).

Brother. I will tell you the reason I asked. This is for your information and digestion.

Take a trip to a place like Mayadhin which was a Daish controlled area prior to the Syrian government taking over the area. Then maybe take a ride all the way to Damascus which is a 12 hour drive. See how the environment is and talk to people. Just make the assessment if one could make a proper research in the area. I can vouch for you that Pew Research finds it easier to do their sampling which is absolutely too small to have any kind of decent error margin in the uncontrolled areas.

Also in this kind of research in countries or geographical areas that are controlled by a terrorist group there is an effect in research called the Hawthorne effect. You will only understand how much it would affect the research if you go there and see the ground situation. If you are in the subject, you will know.

I am not saying you were wrong or right brother, I am telling you to think about it deeper because I can see that you think.

Lets say you wish to try and find out how Pew does the research in a country like Syria. There is no listing for Syria. Do you understand? Their research is extensive in the U.S, but in a country like Syria what is their method? Face to face interviewing in Syria has skewed. Think about it. When a researcher comes to a terrorist controlled area and questions one person about their views on the situation do you think he will say what is true in his mind? This is called the Hawthorne effect in research.

Also the sampling method cannot be random. It is a snowball method where one respondent introduces another. In the U.S they have a database where they call them unto 7 times and then get through to them and ask their questions. But in Syria you have to physically go there and ask one person to introduce another which is the Snowball method and in rebel controlled areas like minded people will introduce like minded people and they are all responding to impress someone.

This is why Pew Research in countries like that is highly questionable. Yet that does not mean you should question every single country. I am specifically speaking about a country as war torn and in splinters like Syria.

Anyway I have said much. Just ponder over it. Cheers.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Brother. I will tell you the reason I asked. This is for your information and digestion.

Take a trip to a place like Mayadhin which was a Daish controlled area prior to the Syrian government taking over the area. Then maybe take a ride all the way to Damascus which is a 12 hour drive. See how the environment is and talk to people. Just make the assessment if one could make a proper research in the area. I can vouch for you that Pew Research finds it easier to do their sampling which is absolutely too small to have any kind of decent error margin in the uncontrolled areas.

Also in this kind of research in countries or geographical areas that are controlled by a terrorist group there is an effect in research called the Hawthorne effect. You will only understand how much it would affect the research if you go there and see the ground situation. If you are in the subject, you will know.

I am not saying you were wrong or right brother, I am telling you to think about it deeper because I can see that you think.

Lets say you wish to try and find out how Pew does the research in a country like Syria. There is no listing for Syria. Do you understand? Their research is extensive in the U.S, but in a country like Syria what is their method? Face to face interviewing in Syria has skewed. Think about it. When a researcher comes to a terrorist controlled area and questions one person about their views on the situation do you think he will say what is true in his mind? This is called the Hawthorne effect in research.

Also the sampling method cannot be random. It is a snowball method where one respondent introduces another. In the U.S they have a database where they call them unto 7 times and then get through to them and ask their questions. But in Syria you have to physically go there and ask one person to introduce another which is the Snowball method and in rebel controlled areas like minded people will introduce like minded people and they are all responding to impress someone.

This is why Pew Research in countries like that is highly questionable. Yet that does not mean you should question every single country. I am specifically speaking about a country as war torn and in splinters like Syria.

Anyway I have said much. Just ponder over it. Cheers.

I wasn't necessarily saying that the survey was accurate, but that such information does tend to make the news and affect people.

Here is a thread I have started to posit some of the things that might explain negativity towards Muslims or Islam, justified or not - so perhaps discuss/argue there? I suspect all of these and perhaps more tend to affect such.

Explaining negativity towards Muslims and/or Islam?

 

[Tambourine]

Saint, you are ignoring 'Vyavaharika'. That also is a reality. If they were not converted, there would not have been Pakistan and three wars.

If India had not become independent from British rule, there wouldn't have been a Pakistan, either.

 

[Tambourine]

But what about the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel ("The Islamic Versus"). It calls for him to be summarily killed. Killing people -- you might have heard this -- is not an entirely peaceful occupation. And again, it does seem that Islam mandates death for apostates -- those who, for whatever reason of their own, have come to some other faith belief after having once professed Islam. Killing people -- even for changing their own beliefs -- doesn't seem all that peaceful to me, but maybe you have another definition of peaceful.

After 9/11 there was also a Fatwa issued against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. It called for peace and condemned Islamist terrorists as not following the true path of Islam.

Why do you think that people always bring up the Fatwa against Rushdie and never the other? As far as I can tell, the two are absolutely equivalent from a legal standpoint.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Fatwas sure seem to have been effective. We have killed at least 130 Pakistani and Pakistan-trained local terrorists since the beginning of the year, that is besides those who were captured.

Indian Security forces save a three-year-old child from being killed by terrorists in Kashmir - watch video - Today Headline News | THN

 

[firedragon]

I wasn't necessarily saying that the survey was accurate, but that such information does tend to make the news and affect people.

Here is a thread I have started to posit some of the things that might explain negativity towards Muslims or Islam, justified or not - so perhaps discuss/argue there? I suspect all of these and perhaps more tend to affect such.

Explaining negativity towards Muslims and/or Islam?

You have a point. I understand.

 

[Piculet]

There are more….I just want to know which ones you claim “do not know Islam," and which are the "nice people?"

This is very simple. Islam is one thing. You only need to know what it is and who follows that. There's no need to go around pointing to things that are not Islamic and to people that are not Muslims.

 

[firedragon]

The Fatwas sure seem to have been effective. We have killed at least 130 Pakistani and Pakistan-trained local terrorists since the beginning of the year, that is besides those who were captured.

Indian Security forces save a three-year-old child from being killed by terrorists in Kashmir - watch video - Today Headline News | THN

So you want to play the "your people did this, my people did this" game. Cut and paste and share news that supports your tribe. Is not that tribalism? What are you really gonna gain by bringing in this kind of discussion?