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

[Tambourine]

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

I'm not hostile. Did you want to address my statement in post #235 at all, or are just playing games again?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there any point to this?

That Fatwas are dime a dozen and no one cares about them. They have not removed Islamic terrorism.

 

[Tambourine]

That Fatwas are dime a dozen and no one cares about them. They have not removed Islamic terrorism.

Sorry, it seems like I completely missed that point amidst what read to me like nationalist bravado.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

No, that is not what I want. I am happy to let bygones be bygones. Dwelling in past does not help anyone. What happened has happened, partition of India or Pakistan are such things.

 

[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.

At this point I think it's safe to assume that you're addressing this post to me

I have to start by disagreeing with your assumption that I have "little knowledge". I've read the Quran, I'm a professional technical editor, I have a solid understanding of cognitive science, which I've applied professionally for years, I've listened to many debates on Islam, and I've participated in many debates on Islam.

I've already allowed for the possibility that @firedragon might be a scholar of Islam. But from all of his posts, he clearly an apologist for Islam. There is nothing wrong with either of those two things. But I'm simply not interested in what theological apologists have to say. They tend to have very strong, unbending assumptions coming into debates.

I am tackling discussions of Islam from a different perspective, that's all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I'm simply not interested in what theological apologists have to say. They tend to have very strong, unbending assumptions coming into debates.

Christians, Muslims and Bahais do that, Jews sort of keep away from it since they have no expansionist intentions. Others are obliged to take the 'good news' to others and make Dawas.

 

[firedragon]

At this point I think it's safe to assume that you're addressing this post to me

I have to start by disagreeing with your assumption that I have "little knowledge". I've read the Quran, I'm a professional technical editor, I have a solid understanding of cognitive science, which I've applied professionally for years, I've listened to many debates on Islam, and I've participated in many debates on Islam.

I've already allowed for the possibility that @firedragon might be a scholar of Islam. But from all of his posts, he clearly an apologist for Islam. There is nothing wrong with either of those two things. But I'm simply not interested in what theological apologists have to say. They tend to have very strong, unbending assumptions coming into debates.

I am tackling discussions of Islam from a different perspective, that's all.

Not really mate. (Im calling you mate because some people get offended with brother ) I did not address that to you at all. And it was not about knowledge in the Qur'an.

So great. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

No, that is not what I want. I am happy to let bygones be bygones. Dwelling in past does not help anyone. What happened has happened, partition of India or Pakistan are such things.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

That Fatwas are dime a dozen and no one cares about them. They have not removed Islamic terrorism.

The problem with this term terrorism is that it defines the user more than the accused. Has been the case for a very long time. Indian freedom fighters against the British regime were called Terrorists. India didnt have the technical reference to "Suicide Bombers" but India did have martyrs who would try to and succeeded in sacrificing their lives with explosives either hiding and sleeping with explosives around them and detonating themselves. In my opinion they are freedom fighters because they did not kill innocent people, they were rebelling against the British regime. But they were called terrorists.

So dropping this "terrorism" word like little bombs in conversation does create the shock effect, but its lazy. Thats exactly what the British did to Indians.

Hope you understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many years ago I used to be like this too, but I believe it was because of my lack in understanding of what Islam truly is.
Those extremists are not Muslims in my view. They do not know islam. But the millions of good Muslims are nice people.

They are just as muslim as the next person.
They have their particular intepretation of the religion, much like many many other denominations / communities have their particular interpretation of the religion.

The particular interpretation of the ones you refer to as the "extremists", is just another interpretation like the other ones. Either all count as muslims or only a single one counts as muslims (or none at all, if no interpretation is correct).

Seems to me that you are simply arbitrarily saying that the "extremists" aren't "real muslims", merely because you don't "like" their interpretation... while you call the others "real muslims" because their interpretation doesn't call for harming your or inhibiting your freedom in some way or... in short: you don't feel threatened by it".

I reject the idea that how it makes you feel, can be used to determine who is and isn't a "real muslim".

There are many denominations and many levels of "radicalism" - not all of which are violent.

I personally think it's pretty much impossible to say these people aren't muslims.

I would equally disagree that from that we could or should conclude all muslims are violent.
It's like fingers: all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

The larger point here though, is that islam is manifesting mainly as a violent and intolerant religion, with little to no respect for women, non-muslims, gay people, western culture, etc.
Sure, "the extremists" are a minority.

But I don't remember any particular peacefull islamic protests in favour of, for example, rights of women or against the discrimination of gays. I don't remember any preacefull islamic protest at all, actually.

Every time there is protest, it comes with looting, flag burning, death threats, arsony, etc...
And if it's in the middle east, often times it will also be joined by people shooting kalashnikovs and AK47's into the air.

During the 2013's - 2015's, I saw little to no effort by the muslim community in belgium AT ALL to try and stop their youth from moving to Syria to play Rambo and the anti-hero.

On the other hand, the only thing that comes out of the middle east seems to be nothing but crimes against humanity, oppression, brutal shariah courts, public executions and just one attrocity after another.

Yes, I'm aware that the vast majority of muslims in Belgium (for example) just go about their business, working their jobs and paying their taxes, not harming or harassing anyone and generally being decent folks.

But they don't manifest in the public sphere. In the public sphere (and I don't just mean western media), 7 times out of 10 when Islamic related things are the topic - it generally ends up being bad or sad news.


Given that that is generally the manifestation of "islamic" related things in the west, it should come as no surprise that islam, and everything related to it, doesn't have the best reputation and that it will be met with at least caution and suspiscion in most circumstances.

 

[Spirit of Light]

They are just as muslim as the next person.
They have their particular intepretation of the religion, much like many many other denominations / communities have their particular interpretation of the religion.

The particular interpretation of the ones you refer to as the "extremists", is just another interpretation like the other ones. Either all count as muslims or only a single one counts as muslims (or none at all, if no interpretation is correct).

Seems to me that you are simply arbitrarily saying that the "extremists" aren't "real muslims", merely because you don't "like" their interpretation... while you call the others "real muslims" because their interpretation doesn't call for harming your or inhibiting your freedom in some way or... in short: you don't feel threatened by it".

I reject the idea that how it makes you feel, can be used to determine who is and isn't a "real muslim".

There are many denominations and many levels of "radicalism" - not all of which are violent.

I personally think it's pretty much impossible to say these people aren't muslims.

I would equally disagree that from that we could or should conclude all muslims are violent.
It's like fingers: all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

The larger point here though, is that islam is manifesting mainly as a violent and intolerant religion, with little to no respect for women, non-muslims, gay people, western culture, etc.
Sure, "the extremists" are a minority.

But I don't remember any particular peacefull islamic protests in favour of, for example, rights of women or against the discrimination of gays. I don't remember any preacefull islamic protest at all, actually.

Every time there is protest, it comes with looting, flag burning, death threats, arsony, etc...
And if it's in the middle east, often times it will also be joined by people shooting kalashnikovs and AK47's into the air.

During the 2013's - 2015's, I saw little to no effort by the muslim community in belgium AT ALL to try and stop their youth from moving to Syria to play Rambo and the anti-hero.

On the other hand, the only thing that comes out of the middle east seems to be nothing but crimes against humanity, oppression, brutal shariah courts, public executions and just one attrocity after another.

Yes, I'm aware that the vast majority of muslims in Belgium (for example) just go about their business, working their jobs and paying their taxes, not harming or harassing anyone and generally being decent folks.

But they don't manifest in the public sphere. In the public sphere (and I don't just mean western media), 7 times out of 10 when Islamic related things are the topic - it generally ends up being bad or sad news.


Given that that is generally the manifestation of "islamic" related things in the west, it should come as no surprise that islam, and everything related to it, doesn't have the best reputation and that it will be met with at least caution and suspiscion in most circumstances.

I have only one question.
Have you thought about what media are portraying Islam to be are 99% of the time about ISIS or other terror groups. But the good God fearing people who live their life in the most peaceful way does not get in to the news, because that is not what sells?

Example is my friend here in Norway. She is one of the most calm people I have ever know, she always help others with no egoistic thought of doing it for benefit of her self.
Yes she wear a hijab, but she does not go around scaring others.
She accept other religions but of course she feel Islam is best for her, just like I feel Falun Gong is best for me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

99,999 % of all Muslims and Christians have never hurt anyone. Does not that say something?

First of all, I think you invented that % number right on the spot when writing the post.

Secondly, among all muslims, there actually is a LOT more support and sympathy for the "struggle" that groups like the taliban, al-qaida, isis, etc are engaged in then many people in the west are willing to acknowledge.

Go check out statistics from polls that asked muslims about osama bin laden after the 9/11 attacks for example.
Sure, the majority thought it was horrible, but the more approving / supporting voices were MUCH larger then "0.01%".

You wouldn't, for example, get anywhere NEAR such positive sentiments when you ask christians about the phelps picketting with their "god hates ****" nonsense at funerals and such. And they aren't even physically harming anyone - just being extremely disrespectfull.

 

[Spirit of Light]

First of all, I think you invented that % number right on the spot when writing the post.

Secondly, among all muslims, there actually is a LOT more support and sympathy for the "struggle" that groups like the taliban, al-qaida, isis, etc are engaged in then many people in the west are willing to acknowledge.

Go check out statistics from polls that asked muslims about osama bin laden after the 9/11 attacks for example.
Sure, the majority thought it was horrible, but the more approving / supporting voices were MUCH larger then "0.01%".

You wouldn't, for example, get anywhere NEAR such positive sentiments when you ask christians about the phelps picketting with their "god hates ****" nonsense at funerals and such. And they aren't even physically harming anyone - just being extremely disrespectfull.

I have my view on Muslims and Islam, you have yours.

I do not support terror groups

 

[firedragon]

They are just as muslim as the next person.
They have their particular intepretation of the religion, much like many many other denominations / communities have their particular interpretation of the religion.

The particular interpretation of the ones you refer to as the "extremists", is just another interpretation like the other ones. Either all count as muslims or only a single one counts as muslims (or none at all, if no interpretation is correct).

Seems to me that you are simply arbitrarily saying that the "extremists" aren't "real muslims", merely because you don't "like" their interpretation... while you call the others "real muslims" because their interpretation doesn't call for harming your or inhibiting your freedom in some way or... in short: you don't feel threatened by it".

I reject the idea that how it makes you feel, can be used to determine who is and isn't a "real muslim".

There are many denominations and many levels of "radicalism" - not all of which are violent.

I personally think it's pretty much impossible to say these people aren't muslims.

I would equally disagree that from that we could or should conclude all muslims are violent.
It's like fingers: all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

The larger point here though, is that islam is manifesting mainly as a violent and intolerant religion, with little to no respect for women, non-muslims, gay people, western culture, etc.
Sure, "the extremists" are a minority.

But I don't remember any particular peacefull islamic protests in favour of, for example, rights of women or against the discrimination of gays. I don't remember any preacefull islamic protest at all, actually.

Every time there is protest, it comes with looting, flag burning, death threats, arsony, etc...
And if it's in the middle east, often times it will also be joined by people shooting kalashnikovs and AK47's into the air.

During the 2013's - 2015's, I saw little to no effort by the muslim community in belgium AT ALL to try and stop their youth from moving to Syria to play Rambo and the anti-hero.

On the other hand, the only thing that comes out of the middle east seems to be nothing but crimes against humanity, oppression, brutal shariah courts, public executions and just one attrocity after another.

Yes, I'm aware that the vast majority of muslims in Belgium (for example) just go about their business, working their jobs and paying their taxes, not harming or harassing anyone and generally being decent folks.

But they don't manifest in the public sphere. In the public sphere (and I don't just mean western media), 7 times out of 10 when Islamic related things are the topic - it generally ends up being bad or sad news.


Given that that is generally the manifestation of "islamic" related things in the west, it should come as no surprise that islam, and everything related to it, doesn't have the best reputation and that it will be met with at least caution and suspiscion in most circumstances.

I agree.

Id like to point out though that when a Muslim protests these oppressive interpretations theologically, non Muslims work harder against these protests by calling them false. That happens a lot.

yet I commend your take.

 

[firedragon]

First of all, I think you invented that % number right on the spot when writing the post.

Secondly, among all muslims, there actually is a LOT more support and sympathy for the "struggle" that groups like the taliban, al-qaida, isis, etc are engaged in then many people in the west are willing to acknowledge.

Go check out statistics from polls that asked muslims about osama bin laden after the 9/11 attacks for example.
Sure, the majority thought it was horrible, but the more approving / supporting voices were MUCH larger then "0.01%".

You wouldn't, for example, get anywhere NEAR such positive sentiments when you ask christians about the phelps picketting with their "god hates ****" nonsense at funerals and such. And they aren't even physically harming anyone - just being extremely disrespectfull.

When you say “a lot of Muslims support al Aida and isis etc” what percentage of Muslims is that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hope you understand.

I very well understand that. But I request you too to understand this. India went into Kashmir when the Pakistan army and kabailis had reached Srinagar airport and were looting and killing Hindu and Muslim Kashmiris alike. We were not invaders in Kashmir. We went on their request and after the king and Sheikh Abdullah had signed the letter of accession. The UN plebiscite condition was that Pakistan will pull back its army, which Pakistan never did. So you cannot blame India for not holding plebiscite. After the separation of Bangladesh Pakistan instigated separatists in Kashmir. The valley was ethnically cleansed of some 300,000 Hindu Kashmiris. Now, the separatist movement is dead and terrorism is minimal. After the Corona rage is over (probably by end of the year), we will have internationally observed democratic elections in Kashmir. Whoever is elected by the people will rule. India will go by law.

 

[firedragon]

I very well understand that. But I request you too to understand this. India went into Kashmir when the Pakistan army and kabailis had reached Srinagar airport and were looting and killing Hindu and Muslim Kashmiris alike. We were not invaders in Kashmir. We went on their request and after the king and Sheikh Abdullah had signed the letter of accession. The UN plebiscite condition was that Pakistan will pull back its army, which Pakistan never did. So you cannot blame India for not holding plebiscite. After the separation of Bangladesh Pakistan instigated separatists in Kashmir. The valley was ethnically cleansed of some 300,000 Hindu Kashmiris. Now, the separatist movement is dead and terrorism is minimal. After the Corona rage is over (probably by end of the year), we will have internationally observed democratic elections in Kashmir. Whoever is elected by the people will rule. India will go by law.

The thing is this brother. I don’t wish to debate on the history of your country. But let me tell you something. One of the most dangerous terrorist organizations banned in most countries including India was also Hindu in religious belief. So I’m not gonna generalize that to Hindus and call out at every single thread. The ltte was the inventor of the suicide belt used around the world now and they killed hundreds of thousands of people. They were Hindu. A very small portion of them were Christians. The leader had a mixed family.

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

[Aupmanyav]

One of the most dangerous terrorist organizations banned in most countries including India was also Hindu in religious belief. So I’m not gonna generalize that to Hindus and call out at every single thread. The ltte was the inventor of the suicide belt used around the world now and they killed hundreds of thousands of people. They were Hindu. A very small portion of them were Christians. The leader had a mixed family.

Yeah, they were not just Hindus, but Christians and Muslims also (speakers of Tamil language), who were denied their language by a Christian turned Buddhist Sri Lankan Prime Minister, Solomon Bandaranayake, persecuted in their own country, and that is why they rebelled. They came to a tragic end.

Bandaranayake was Prime Minister for just three years, but he changed the politics of Sri Lanka.

"Language policy and communal tension
One of Bandaranaike's most notable actions was the implementation of the Sinhala Only Act, making Sinhala the sole official language of the country, downgrading the official status of English, and promoting socialist, non-Western policies that profoundly changed the course of Ceylonese politics in the following decades. He is also remembered by the minority Sri Lankan Tamils for his failure to use the state's resources to control the 1958 riots, leading to the deaths of many Tamil citizens at the hands of mobs."
S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike - Wikipedia

Recently there was conflict between the Buddhist Sinhalas and Sri Lankan Muslims, another riot.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, they were not just Hindus, but Christians and Muslims also (speakers of Tamil language), who were denied their language by a Christian turned Buddhist Sri Lankan Prime Minister, Solomon Bandaranayake, persecuted in their own country, and that is why they rebelled. They came to a tragic end.

Bandaranayake was Prime Minister for just three years, but he changed the politics of Sri Lanka.

"Language policy and communal tension
One of Bandaranaike's most notable actions was the implementation of the Sinhala Only Act, making Sinhala the sole official language of the country, downgrading the official status of English, and promoting socialist, non-Western policies that profoundly changed the course of Ceylonese politics in the following decades. He is also remembered by the minority Sri Lankan Tamils for his failure to use the state's resources to control the 1958 riots, leading to the deaths of many Tamil citizens at the hands of mobs."
S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike - Wikipedia

Recently there was conflict between the Buddhist Sinhalas and Sri Lankan Muslims, another riot.

So did you just justify terrorism by reason? Hmm. That’s strange isn’t it mate?

 

[Tambourine]

At this point I think it's safe to assume that you're addressing this post to me

I have to start by disagreeing with your assumption that I have "little knowledge". I've read the Quran, I'm a professional technical editor, I have a solid understanding of cognitive science, which I've applied professionally for years, I've listened to many debates on Islam, and I've participated in many debates on Islam.

So you finally admit that:

• your sole point of contact with Islam as a living religion is its sacred text, which you read unaided and without recourse to literary or theological scholarship on the text itself or its most common interpretations.
• you know next to nothing about Islamic theology and the role the Quran plays in it
• you haven't actually talked to real practicioners of Islam about their factual, real life religious practices or beliefs

Thanks for being honest and not playing games this time around.

I've already allowed for the possibility that @firedragon might be a scholar of Islam. But from all of his posts, he clearly an apologist for Islam. There is nothing wrong with either of those two things. But I'm simply not interested in what theological apologists have to say. They tend to have very strong, unbending assumptions coming into debates.

I am tackling discussions of Islam from a different perspective, that's all.

If you're not interested in debating your ideas on Islam with actual for real Muslims, then what exactly are you interested in debating?