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

[icehorse]

Ah circular reasoning. Funny you are

That's another bit of reasoning you'd need to walk me thru

 

[icehorse]

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?

You know how these thread go @firedragon The OP starts off in one direction and people start debating and pretty soon there are several variations of the original discussion going on at once.

In this case, @EsonauticSage was defending your scholarly views. My point is that those scholars who are religious apologists usually don't interest me too much. Sometimes, not often. A couple of reasons:

1 - Such studies are largely based on subjective interpretation.
2 - Such scholars always have other scholars who wildly disagree with them.
3 - Such studies tend to focus on the theoretical, and ignore the realities.

So, in the OP you called out a few well known critics of Islam and claimed (more or less), that they're only in it for the money. I disagree with that claim. I think that they are legitimate critics of the ideas contained in Islam. I don't have to like their style to say that.

 

[icehorse]

This is why Pew Research in countries like that is highly questionable

I would agree that we shouldn't rely on any single source of data. But the Pew data is consistent with evidence in the real world.

- Worldwide Muslim leadership denied support to the UDHR and instead created the Sharia-friendly CDHRI.
- Islam-based misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism are well documented throughout the Muslim world.

and so on.

The bottom line is that the support that Islamic scripture gives for misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, theocracy, supremacist thinking and so on, are all carried out in the real world. I don't like those values, but I have to grant you that the scripture is - sadly - effective.

 

[firedragon]

1 - Such studies are largely based on subjective interpretation.
2 - Such scholars always have other scholars who wildly disagree with them.
3 - Such studies tend to focus on the theoretical, and ignore the realities.

So, in the OP you called out a few well known critics of Islam and claimed (more or less), that they're only in it for the money. I disagree with that claim. I think that they are legitimate critics of the ideas contained in Islam. I don't have to like their style to say that.

1. Give me a few examples of "subjective interpretation"s of the Qur'an and explain why it matters and how it negates or supports the OP.
2. So people disagree as you disagree with so many people so that's how it is. But what does that make? Are you appealing to people, authority, or sources? What is your cynicism? Make it objective.
3. How many studies have you scutinised to claim its "theoretical, and ignore realities"? Can you point it out and explain in detail objective?

All I see is just more general comments which would go to show they are empty shells.

Also, why would you specifically disagree with the OP. Can you validate all the authors with their specific information and with empirical research data analysis?

Or are you just gonna give your usual rhetorical generalisation?

I honestly dont expect you to provide anything to the question I asked in this post. But I give you the respect of responding so I expect you to do the same with analysis.

 

[firedragon]

I would agree that we shouldn't rely on any single source of data. But the Pew data is consistent with evidence in the real world.

- Worldwide Muslim leadership denied support to the UDHR and instead created the Sharia-friendly CDHRI.
- Islam-based misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism are well documented throughout the Muslim world.

and so on.

The bottom line is that the support that Islamic scripture gives for misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, theocracy, supremacist thinking and so on, are all carried out in the real world. I don't like those values, but I have to grant you that the scripture is - sadly - effective.

Another "Superficial general comment".

I think you dont even understand a post.

 

[icehorse]

1. Give me a few examples of "subjective interpretation"s of the Qur'an and explain why it matters and how it negates or supports the OP.

In the OP you cite a few passages from the Quran, and you interpret them. The problem I have with this is twofold:

1 - you ignore other passages that contradict the ones you cited.
2 - these are just your interpretations.

2. So people disagree as you disagree with so many people so that's how it is. But what does that make? Are you appealing to people, authority, or sources? What is your cynicism? Make it objective.

You imply that you are representing Islam. But you're not. You're representing your take on Islam. The critics that you're calling out don't know you. They are criticizing something different than what you are defending.

3. How many studies have you scutinised to claim its "theoretical, and ignore realities"? Can you point it out and explain in detail objective?

This is the nature of the religious apologist. You are given a religion to defend, and trust me my friend, I understand that that's a hard task! So apologists have to find indirect ways to defend their faith and they have to sidestep the realities I've called out several times now.

Also, why would you specifically disagree with the OP. Can you validate all the authors with their specific information and with empirical research data analysis?

I'm an author. I know roughly how much these folks are making by writing books and giving lectures. This is not making millionaires out of any of them. Add to that the fact that they are all LITERALLY putting their lives at risk. While I might not agree with their style, I agree with much of their criticism.

I honestly dont expect you to provide anything to the question I asked in this post. But I give you the respect of responding so I expect you to do the same with analysis.

Enough with the personal attacks.

You must understand that just because you pose a question, it doesn't mean I have to respond to it. You yourself fail to respond to many of my questions. I often feel as though you are asking "loaded" questions, and so I reframe them.

As for your repeated complaints that my answers are general, well so is your OP. I am simply responding in kind.

 

[icehorse]

Another "Superficial general comment".

I think you dont even understand a post.

You were attacking the Pew polls, I was defending them. And once again, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS !!

Debate the ideas dude, you are not the judge here. You lay out your ideas, you attack other ideas. That's it!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

No, it is not that. we can let go the old things, it has been 72 years since then. But the problem is that it is continuing even now, and the perpetrators should realize that it is harming Muslims more than any others, whether the terrorists, policemen in Kashmir, and civilians who get killed in the cross-fire. For all we care, Pakistan can continue it for a 1000 years and it would not make much difference to us.

 

[Tambourine]

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.

Is there any point to this?

 

[firedragon]

No, it is not that. we can let go the old things, it has been 72 years since then. But the problem is that it is continuing even now, and the perpetrators should realize that it is harming Muslims more than any others, whether the terrorists, policemen in Kashmir, and civilians who get killed in the cross-fire. For all we care, Pakistan can continue it for a 1000 years and it would not make much difference to us.

So you wanna discuss things you guys, Pakistanis did? How about the British? How about some other country? How about going back in history and discussing all the wars all the ethnic problems? Everything?

 

[firedragon]

You were attacking the Pew polls, I was defending them. And once again, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS !!

Debate the ideas dude, you are not the judge here. You lay out your ideas, you attack other ideas. That's it!!

I was not "Attacking """THE PEW POLLS"" Do not make things up about what other people said. Read the post and understand and understand the specific details. Dont generalise things every single time. Thats a lie.

What ideas? Generalisations of everything with nothing specific are ideas?

Ciao mate. Thats the end of discussion I believe. Have at it.

 

[icehorse]

I was not "Attacking """THE PEW POLLS"" Do not make things up about what other people said. Read the post and understand and understand the specific details. Dont generalise things every single time. Thats a lie.

What ideas? Generalisations of everything with nothing specific are ideas?

Ciao mate. Thats the end of discussion I believe. Have at it.

I'm not making things up. In that case I was summarizing. Summaries - by definition - leave out some details.

Again, no one here is compelled to answer every claim you make. "In general" (your favorite phrase ), when an argument requires many claims to be true, all the opponent has to do is prove one of those claims false. So you have to get used to your opponents focusing on any part of your claims. You cannot expect them to respond to everything you say.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not making things up. In that case I was summarizing. Summaries - by definition - leave out some details.

Nope.

 

[icehorse]

Nope.

Yup.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm starting to wonder what it is that compels people with little knowledge on a subject to specifically seek out and educate people with firsthand experience of the same issue.

 

[icehorse]

I'm starting to wonder what it is that compels people with little knowledge on a subject to specifically seek out and educate people with firsthand experience of the same issue.

One of the things I wonder is whether people can step back and look at the assumptions they bring into a discussion without realizing it?

 

[Tambourine]

One of the things I wonder is whether people can step back and look at the assumptions they bring into a discussion without realizing it?

Why so hostile? I am simply employing logic and reason to think rationally and critically.

 

[icehorse]

Why so hostile? I am simply employing logic and reason to think rationally and critically.

you're being passive aggressive. You want to disagree about a claim? go for it!

 

[Tambourine]

you're being passive aggressive. You want to disagree about a claim? go for it!

I'm sorry, based on what authority are you telling me what I am allowed to discuss here?

 

[icehorse]

I'm sorry, based on what authority are you telling me what I am allowed to discuss here?

i was just commenting on the nature of your post, why so hostile?