• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is, but let me mention that we lost 400 million to Islam in Pakistan and Bangladesh. If that is not suffering then what is it?
I am unaware of an ongoing genocide against your Hindu citizens in Pakistan in Bangladesh, least of all one that has claimed more victims that these two countries' populations combined.

Perhaps you could make a new thread to enlighten us on this terrible genocide against you, and your experience of being victimized by two of your neighbours?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Not at all the point I'm making. Muslims tell us that they believe that the Quran is the perfect, timeless word of god. I accept that they believe that. Full stop.
Who has told you "that the Quran is the perfect, timeless word of god"? Were they a scholar of the Quran, a Muslim clerical leader, a random guy you know?

Or are you talking in generalizations and abstractions, and never actually talked to real factually existing Muslims about this?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Question: how do you know people was ignorant 2000 years ago? Where do you have that info from?

Hmmm, are you asking a philosophical question here? This sounds like a question that a moral relativist might ask.

So in all sincerity I have to ask you what you value? Do you value long life? Good health? Feeling secure that you and yours will have a safe place to live and food enough? And so on.

If you value these things, then it should be blindingly obvious that - compared to 2000 years ago - we have all of these things in abundance, and it's because we have learned so much.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Islamaphobia

The reason I dont like this word is because I think its wrong. I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

But what this word represents is not that. Because people dont know that this fear is irrational. They actually believe that this fear is rational. So being a scientific or a medical term it’s wrong.

But then again one must admit that there are many wrong words that have been established now and you cant take them back so we have no choice but to go along. Like the word Jihadist. Everyone knows what a Jihadist means. A Jihadist is a person who identifies himself as a Muslim and uses his theology to fight for something in his country or for a cause. But this word doesn’t make sense to many people if you look at it scientifically.

If you look at the Quran which is deemed the textbook of the arabic language, the word Jihad means “to try”. So what does the word Jihadist mean? So this word is a problem in its essence. But it’s established and one cant change what it represents.

And the word “awful”. Sometime ago if a person says “my king is awful” it would have meant “full of awe”. Now it’s the exact opposite. If I say “you as a thug are awful” to a drug lord I will get killed. Awful now means the opposite of Awesome. Strange world isn’t it?

So bottomline is this word is now established and one cannot change it.

Does Islamaphobia exist? Yes it definitely does. It exists mostly in the hands of writers and speakers who make a career out of it. There is no easier way to come to the limelight by speaking nonsense than to use Islamaphobia.

Recently I read a comment about an article that read “woman burns Quran in protest against rape”. She alludes that Muslims are rapists. She is American and there are only 1% Muslims in the country. Its an illusion she is trying to create but I’m sure she will get famous or at least this is an attempt to.

It is common to see many people associate terrorism with Islam. Islam is the motherload of bad ideas says Sam Harris. Hitler picked up his ideas from Islam says Ali Sina. Many people make a lot of claims like this and sell books. Robert Morey, Robert Spencer etc. If one analyses the history of the world, there has been thousands and thousands of wars between people. If you read the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillip and Alan Axelrod you will see they have data filling over 1,400 pages as if the world was at war more than governance. Religion is a language that people use to identify themselves. Buddhism teaches us not to hate anyone because hatred cannot be mulled by hatred but the lack of hatred alone. That didn’t stop Buddhist monks in Myanmar from promoting violence. Jesus is quoted to have said to give the other cheek, but that didn’t stop the church from the inquisition as henry Charles lea, the American historian, civic reformer, and political activist remarked in his most famous book A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, “Christendom seemed to have grown delirious and Satan might well smile at the tribute to his power in the endless smoke of the holocaust which bore witness to the triumph of the Almighty.”

Religion

A man named Robert A. Pape, PhD and founder of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, a very well-known political scientist from the United States of America compiled a database of all suicide attacks from 1980 to 2003 with an extensive research of news in all available media outlets. His book was called Dying to Win, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism and in the introduction section he says

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Three general patterns in the data support my conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of organized campaigns, not as isolated or random incidents. Of the 315 separate attacks in the period I studied, 301 could have their roots traced to large, coherent political or military campaigns.”

Robert Pape goes to explain various levels of terrorism while suicide terrorism is the most extreme. He gives an example “One LTTE suicide attacker was motivated by the thought that the Sinhalese Buddhists would destroy the Hindu temples near her village, even though she had never visited them.”

He says “Two main explanations have been offered thus far. The first argues that local competition between the LTTE and other Tamil guerrilla groups encouraged the LTTE to use the extreme tactic of suicide to distinguish itself from its rivals. The second explanation stresses the “cult-like” behaviour of the group in which the Tamil Tigers separate their fighters from the general population and brainwash recruits to follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice.”

Follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice. Sounds like a sane explanation of the insanity.

Religion is used as a language to achieve certain goals a state or a group has as foundation to further their cause. Their root 'cause' is made of secular goals but their communication takes the language of religion. Even secularism has been used in the past as the language that leaderships have used for their cause. Take Joseph Stalin for example. He was a secular atheist with a secular state and he butchered Christians, Christian pastors and people who had a Bible at home during his reign. He was instrumental in the deaths over 15 million people and is deemed only second to Mao Zedong in the number of human deaths caused by them and their regime. And it may come as a surprise to many when they learn Joseph Stalin persecuted homosexuals by jailing them up to five years and that’s in the 20th century while the so called Muslim khalifate, the Ottoman Empire gave them full rights way back in 1858. The scale of totalitarianism tips this way and that way but what we remember top of mind is what we see every day on TV.

Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod compiled the comprehensive book on wars in history called “Encyclopedia of Wars”, a great read, clearly shows that only 7% of all wars ever recorded in history were motivated by religion.

Murder in the name of God

In a nutshell, the Islamic scripture directly tells you never to take an innocent life. So says the Quran in chapter 5 verse 32 - “It is because of this that we have decreed for the Children of Israel: “Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people. “

Now notice that this verse says as a blanket statement that a person who has not committed murder should not be killed or even as a government give a death sentence. But there is a phrase here that many people misunderstand that says “or who has not committed corruption in the land” which is open for interpretation. The Arabic phrase “Al Fasadhu Fil Ardh (الفساد في الأرض)”, or corruption in the land has a definition which a lot of people have ignored. This maybe the boring part for the reader, but this also maybe a piercer of faith to the fanatic. Read further.

So says the Quran in chapter 27, verses 48 to 50, - “And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, …...

Notice that it says “Swear by God”. This is what the Quran is saying by the phrase “Spreading corruption in the land”. These are the people the verse 5:32 above is speaking about and they are very clearly explained.

So it should be evident, that their claim of murdering innocents shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, calls for Gods wrath on them, and the penalty is nothing but death. You murderer, your Quran is mandating a death sentence to you purely for murdering people using Gods name.

Bottomline: If you say Allah/God and kill an innocent human being, you are the scum of the earth according to the Quran. YOU!

Conspiracy theories aside, a firm believer in Bin Laden and Al Qaeeda’s connection to the world trade centre bombings in the USA Robert A. Pape says in his book Dying to Win, the one book that has the most extensive research and data collection on suicide terrorism, “However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America’s situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly”.

How do these people make their living off this fear? Is it real?

I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

I agree that a phobia is an irrational fear, but I disagree that a person with a phobia recognizes that the fear is irrational. A person with a fear of spiders thinks that they have very good reason to fear spiders. So the fact that someone thinks they have a legitimate reason to fear anyone who follows Islam doesn't mean that they aren't suffering from a phobia.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Who has told you "that the Quran is the perfect, timeless word of god"? Were they a scholar of the Quran, a Muslim clerical leader, a random guy you know?

Or are you talking in generalizations and abstractions, and never actually talked to real factually existing Muslims about this?

Oh come on! Are there any aspects of Islam that you would agree are common knowledge? How about the five pillars? Or in your opinion, is every aspect of Islam a sort of "choose your own adventure"? ;)

So, tell me what ideas in Islam are commonly held by Muslims, and we can start from there.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

I agree that a phobia is an irrational fear, but I disagree that a person with a phobia recognizes that the fear is irrational. A person with a fear of spiders thinks that they have very good reason to fear spiders. So the fact that someone thinks they have a legitimate reason to fear anyone who follows Islam doesn't mean that they aren't suffering from a phobia.

Please do not conflate Islam with Muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Oh come on! Are there any aspects of Islam that you would agree are common knowledge? How about the five pillars?
So you never actually talked to any real Muslims on how they view their religion or its sacred text, you assumed authoritarive knowledge on the subject based on stuff you read on the Internet. Am I correct?

Or in your opinion, is every aspect of Islam a sort of "choose your own adventure"? ;)
In my experience, literally every religion is that, because what draws a person to a religion can be deeply personal and may be different from person to person. In my opinion, people tend to accept inconsistent systems of thought, and unquestioningly obey rules that are confusing or self contradictory, if they think these reflect some deeper understanding of their faith. These same people may either ignore or dismiss texts or interpretation of texts that do not conform with their religious self-reflections or their identity as a member of a particular faith.

It is probably not difficult to read a message of bigotry into a sacred text of one's faith if one is already a bigot or has been brought up in bigoted beliefs, and I've seen people having little trouble to take away a message of peace, charity and understanding from the same text.

For these reasons I do not find it particularly productive to discuss religious texts in a vacuum, or from a purely academic or otherwise superficial understanding of them. The meat of any religion, in my opinion, lies in the way it is being practiced by real people who think themselves as legitimate practitioners, and if we actually want to understand - rather than simply judge while perched high atop a self-isolated position of intellectual authority - then I find it useful to get their perspective on how and why they do the things they do.

There are plenty of reprehensive things that we can condemn people of any belief for when looking at the actions they take, if we want to go down that particular route, but I personally think it useful to properly identify the moral actors in these situations. It is the believer who acts, not the belief.
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Hmmm, are you asking a philosophical question here? This sounds like a question that a moral relativist might ask.

So in all sincerity I have to ask you what you value? Do you value long life? Good health? Feeling secure that you and yours will have a safe place to live and food enough? And so on.

If you value these things, then it should be blindingly obvious that - compared to 2000 years ago - we have all of these things in abundance, and it's because we have learned so much.
Personally I believe mostly all humans 2000 years ago was a hundred times more morally good and focused on spiritual growth then humans are today. Today wealth and physical objects has taken our focus away from spiritual growth.
And I think what we see of good living like a lot of money, any food we want, any toy the kid wants they can have is not a good moral way to live.
A modest life where we survive and can focus on spiritual growth, that to me is a moral life.

By the way my question was not philosophical it was a direct question.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So you never actually talked to any real Muslims on how they view their religion or its sacred text, you assumed authoritarive knowledge on the subject based on stuff you read on the Internet. Am I correct?

incorrect, care to take another wild guess?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Personally I believe mostly all humans 2000 years ago was a hundred times more morally good and focused on spiritual growth then humans are today. Today wealth and physical objects has taken our focus away from spiritual growth.
And I think what we see of good living like a lot of money, any food we want, any toy the kid wants they can have is not a good moral way to live.
A modest life where we survive and can focus on spiritual growth, that to me is a moral life.

By the way my question was not philosophical it was a direct question.

Okay, you just switched from ignorance to morals. okay.

2000 years ago slavery was widespread throughout the world. 2000 years ago most of the world's populations were subject to cruel class systems. What exactly were the good morals that we've lost?

Now, I'm not claiming that we've got all the answers - we most certainly do not. For example I agree with you that materialism is not a particularly evolved way of being. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Despite all the problems we've yet to solve, for the most part life now is far better than at any time in history. And there are still a LOT of people in pursuit of spiritual growth. I'm one of them ;)
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Okay, you just switched from ignorance to morals. okay.

2000 years ago slavery was widespread throughout the world. 2000 years ago most of the world's populations were subject to cruel class systems. What exactly were the good morals that we've lost?

Now, I'm not claiming that we've got all the answers - we most certainly do not. For example I agree with you that materialism is not a particularly evolved way of being. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Despite all the problems we've yet to solve, for the most part life now is far better than at any time in history. And there are still a LOT of people in pursuit of spiritual growth. I'm one of them ;)
Slavery is probably more a cultural thing then religious, it happend in most of the world, also within atheist society
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Slavery is probably more a cultural thing then religious, it happend in most of the world, also within atheist society

Wait, what? You made the claim that people were more moral 2000 years ago. I reminded you that slavery was widespread 2000 years ago. I'm not talking about religion at this moment to you - I'm responding DIRECTLY to YOUR claim concerning morality.

And I don't give a hoot who you want to blame for slavery, it was common, it's immensely immoral, end of story.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Again, I never brought up the word Muslims... YOU'RE the one that said I was conflating Islam with Muslims. YOU are the one conflating Islam with Muslims and accusing me of it. Rather bizarre.

Are you trying to back away from what you said in post #44? If so, that's quite disingenuous :(

I'm happy to sort this out with you and look at your specific claims and mine. But if you're going to be disingenuous, then I'll move on.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Wait, what? You made the claim that people were more moral 2000 years ago. I reminded you that slavery was widespread 2000 years ago. I'm not talking about religion at this moment to you - I'm responding DIRECTLY to YOUR claim concerning morality.

And I don't give a hoot who you want to blame for slavery, it was common, it's immensely immoral, end of story.
The spiritual people back then was more morally good, to use your own words. I don't give a hoot about the non spiritual people back then. By the way it is nothing I can do about what happens 2000 years ago, I live now.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Asked and answered. Feel free to take as many guesses as you like.
No, you didn't. You are just playing a guessing game that I simply find tired, annoying, and, frankly, immature.

Feel free to return to our discussion at any time when you feel you are able to address my argument.
 
Top