Islamophobia

[wellwisher]

Wrong. There is a significant different between a healthy critique, and mimicking bigoted rhetoric that portrays itself as based on facts. Most online discussions "criticizing" Islam tend to ballet dance in the realm of bigotry and confirmation bias not discourse.

In many Muslim majority countries, in Africa for example, there is a Muslim based Christian-phobia that goes deeper than rhetoric and words. It begins with intimidation, persecution, all the way to genocide. These Christians have a reason to fear Islam.

Yet the persecution of these Christians is not labeled a phobia from either angle. The reason is these word games come from Western Progressives and are designed to misinform and divide people in favor of the side they take. The same games are played in America with phobia only applying to protected left wing groups. One needs to maintain a rational sense of justice, truth and proportion, regardless of word scams.

A more contemporary example is this word scam is on display in San Fransisco, where the term convicted felon is being replaced by justice involved. The goal of the scam is to change reality into a delusion, so further scams can be run. For example, felons are not allowed to vote, but there is no law that formally states that justice involved cannot vote.

Or changing the term homeless, to self domiciled, they can solve the homeless problem, without doing actually anything. Do not let the Progressive frame any discussion, since it uses word game to set up the deception. Stay in touch with hard reality.

 

[Augustus]

Under the Apologists consensus, people like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, David Wood, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and many others fall under the category of "Islamophobes".
The problem is that nothing that they say is actually irrational nor discriminatory against Muslims.

Their misleading discussion of taqiyya certainly is.

Robert Spencer, also referred to himself as the "good kind of Islamaphobe," is also self-described anti-Muslim and despite his lack of academic knowledge on Islam, continues to blog using anti-Muslim rhetoric.

He actually is reasonably knowledgeable in this regard, although he certainly doesn't present it in an unbiased manner.

Polemical cherry-picking and selective representation are not the same as being ignorant of a subject.

WTH is "Islamic rules?" you mean Islamic law? That only applies to countries that enforce them.

Sharia applies to all Muslims.

What constitutes Sharia and to what extent local laws take precedence over certain aspects of the sharia is a more complex theological question which will elicit a wide range of answers.

But for a simple example, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie wasn't limited to countries that enforce Islamic Law.

 

[Polymath257]

No. What she wanted to do is stir the pot. Grant it, I'm sure the Muslim community wouldn't appreciate the depiction of their prophet and I'm sure a section of those with extremist views wouldn't like it even more, but the fact is, is that its an intentional way of "poking the bear" all under the guise of free speech. All their effort amounts to simply demonstrating their belief that they have a right to be a****holes.

Yes, in a free society, a person has the right to be a jerk. When Serano immersed a crucifix in urine, Christians got bent out of shape. They claimed it was sacrilege. When 'The Last Temptation of Christ' came out, Christians around the world were appalled. There were protests at theaters and the showing was occasionally cancelled.

But guess what? Those artists had the right to do exactly what they did. And the people against them had the right to *peacefully* protest.

But what those in opposition do NOT have the right to do is make death threats. They do NOT have the right to kill others because they are 'offended'. THAT is how things work in a free society.

No. In the United States more terrorism is domestic as opposed to international.

Quite right. And we need to focus more on *Christian* fundamentalist terrorism. I will grant you that.

Yes because they decided to throw rocks at a hornets nest.

The obvious solution is to get rid of the hornets. And this is NOT saying that we shoudl get rid of Moslems. The vast majority of Moslems, like the vast majority of Christians, and the vast majority of people are good, law abiding people who just want good lives. But, in all camps, there are hornets. And those hornets need to be removed.

WTH is "Islamic rules?" you mean Islamic law? That only applies to countries that enforce them.

I am against theocracy, whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or any other type.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The fact remains that she did nothing wrong under our law.

True. Nothing was against the law, however it doesn't change the fact that Marine Le Pen was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination.

Muslims are supposed to obey the local laws

People are supposed to obey the laws period, Muslim or not.

They killed people (Charlie Hebdo) and reacted violently on similar occasions (Swedish movie) and others

It wasn't Muslims that did it, it was criminals. If I decided to take someone's life for malicious reasons am I doing it because I'm black, or because I'm Baptist Christian, or am I doing it because I'm a criminal committing a crime with malicious intent?

I know nothing about those ads, care to place a
link to them?

Right-Wing Crusader's Anti-Muslim Ads Provoke Ban on Political Ads on NYC Transit

You're confusing facts.

Thank you for the correction as I was confusing the two, but even more thanks that you've acknowledged it factual that they've engaged in bigoted anti-Muslim activity as well.

I have heard much worst from Muslims preaching on the streets of London.

Ok. I've also heard fiery rhetoric from inflammatory pastors as well. I don't think fiery brimstone cast-you-in-hell and death to you all rhetoric is unique to street Imams and the Muslim community.

Are you saying what he wrote is not based on the Islamic doctrine itself?

No. Considering he is not even educated in the academic understanding of Islam, I'd take his viewpoint liken to that to an armchair online scholar.

I don't see anything outrageous about that. It all sounds true to me.

Because you're anti-Muslim so of course confirmation bias is the best thing to maintain the ego.

That is pure cheap speculation on your part.

Well, it is my profession actually....That is not to say people suffering from mental disorders are incapable of genius thought, but someone coming from a psychotic background making outlandish claims with no formal educational background on the subject matter makes there grievances moot.

Those are the rules of the game.

You've set no rules. your initial post is that of a rant. The OP is pure dialectical with no substantive breakdown on the subject matter.

You want to prove they are Islamophobic?

The fact that their views are controversial, the fact that some were banned on twitter for those views, the fact that some were being investigated for inflammatory speech that incites violence all relating to Islam or Muslims definitely alone has categorized them as Islamophobic according to the sources I've overlooked.

Bring some facts to prove your point.
I

Already have, but the thing is you cannot bring facts to someone willing to argue against them especially if it does not confirm what you believe. These are right wing nut jobs. The facts I bring are outside that. You'll disregard them so it's a pointless endeavor to make an attempt because I don't see it going nowhere.

Most attacks are committed by Americans but still

But still nothing. Most attacks are done by domestic terrorist mostly right wing nut jobs.

the small percentage of Muslims commit a much larger percentage of attacks as shown in my last post.

This makes no sense. Most terrorist attacks are done by domestic citizens but a smaller percentage of attacks done by Muslims commit a much larger percentage? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you doing a breakdown on geography?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The difference is that the other religions bow to the secular law.

According to you they do....You need to do more research on fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

in Africa for example, there is a Muslim based Christian-phobia that goes deeper than rhetoric and words. It begins with intimidation, persecution, all the way to genocide. These Christians have a reason to fear Islam.

There are 54 countries in Africa, which one of them are like this?

Yet the persecution of these Christians is not labeled a phobia from either angle.

Extremism is extremism. Because these Christians are a minority and because extremism exist yes they (Christians) will be persecuted just as Bangladeshi Muslims and Indian Muslims will be persecuted by a Hindu majority. This is the nature of demographics.

 

[Audie]

I think Islamophobia is a poorly defined word which is certainly used to shut down constructive critique.

That’s the problem I have with legislating against Islamophobia, laws should be restricted to cull hate speech, not to keep Islam from receiving reasonable critique, nor to shield the criminal element which exists in all religions including Islam from the operation of justice.

Maybe "Islamodisgustia" ?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

He actually is reasonably knowledgeable in this regard, although he certainly doesn't present it in an unbiased manner.

Anybody that has an axe to grind can be reasonably knowledgeable on a subject matter especially if they choose to cherry pick Quranic verses along with other aspects of Islam to suit their own biases. I'd be more impressed considering his antics that he were an Islamic scholar who held anti-Muslim views.

Polemical cherry-picking and selective representation are not the same as being ignorant of a subject.

Quite the contrary especially if one cherry picks without the substantial knowledge and command of the Arabic language in conjunction to the contextual history to which Quranic verses were made. Many people make this mistake online all the time.

Sharia applies to all Muslims.

As I understand it, there is not one Muslim community here in Southern California that enforces Shari'ah Law. Most Muslims live by secular law. For example one may divorce in accordance to Islamic tradition but one still has to go by the state government to divorce. There is no advertisements to any "Qadi" on television nor am I aware of any Islamic courts in California. Hence is why I mentioned countries that enforce them. Here in the United States, banning aside there are no indications here that the Muslim community is practicing Shari'ah Law.

But for a simple example, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie wasn't limited to countries that enforce Islamic Law.

Stupid fatwas are issued all the time, that is nothing new in the Muslim community. Hell a religious edict can be made against a Barber.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes, in a free society, a person has the right to be a jerk.

Right and in a free society the consequence of such rights is that one may be on the receiving end of a well placed fist or being shot or worse. As the saying goes freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

But what those in opposition do NOT have the right to do is make death threats. They do NOT have the right to kill others because they are 'offended'. THAT is how things work in a free society.

What I've learned is there is no such thing as absolute free speech. If you believe this try being a racist on social media and work at a hospital or a small business and let that get posted to the public. More than likely you'll be fired. Regardless of private views your views are an extension of thought and undoubtedly will get you in trouble. Although we are a democratic republic (at least the U.S. is), we still have rules.

But, in all camps, there are hornets. And those hornets need to be removed.

I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Muslims "Apologists" seem to add to that definition, everyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims no matter if the reasons are based on facts and on reliable sources.
Under the Apologists consensus, people like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, David Wood, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and many others fall under the category of "Islamophobes".
The problem is that nothing that they say is actually irrational nor discriminatory against Muslims.

Nothing? You seriously believe this?

Would you like to put your claim to the test?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because you're anti-Muslim so of course confirmation bias is the best thing to maintain the ego.

That is no argument. At all. Not when one can with more justification point out that Islaam is both "anti-" atheism, Christianity and Judaism. For starters.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

ISIS attacks on US soil are not considered domestic terrorism by law. Also you removed (source) the one event that tips the balance. After all 3k dead says it all. So your source must remove 9/11 as it has no point if it doesn't. Manufactured stats, nothing more.

Your source

"The FBI defines international terrorism as involving subjects who are members of, or receive support from, a foreign terrorist organization."

Your source

"For example, the FBI can immediately open an investigation if a person expresses support for al Qaeda online, but the same can not be done for someone who aligns themselves with a white nationalist group."

Ergo prevention. How many attacks were prevented?

Again prevention means attacks didn't happen. Police foiled 3 massive shootings couple weeks ago. Doesn't change the fact that more right-wing terrorist are doing the terrorism not extremist Muslims regardless of the prevention done by FBI, CIA or military.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That is no argument. At all. Not when one can with more justification point out that Islaam is both "anti-" atheism, Christianity and Judaism. For starters.

That wasn't meant to be an argument but an opinion based on the observation here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nothing? You seriously believe this?

Would you like to put your claim to the test?

That is actually something that ought to be done. While there are excesses, they are few and far between, and we all deserve to notice that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nothing? You seriously believe this?

Would you like to put your claim to the test?

That is actually something that ought to be done. While there are excesses, they are few and far between, and we all deserve to notice that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A western country is afraid of freedom of speech.

I, for one, am not at all afraid of your speech. I'm disgusted by it -- appalled by its ignorance and revolted by its bigotry. But I also realize that it's important that such nativist drivel can be expressed if only so we know that there is still a battle to be waged, not against Islam, but against the xenophobes.

 

[exchemist]

www.merriam-webster.com
Definition of Islamophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam
Muslims "Apologists" seem to add to that definition, everyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims no matter if the reasons are based on facts and on reliable sources.
Under the Apologists consensus, people like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, David Wood, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and many others fall under the category of "Islamophobes".
The problem is that nothing that they say is actually irrational nor discriminatory against Muslims.
The fears against Islam are entirely based on facts and reliable sources.
These problems affect not only Muslims but most countries around the world are now affected by the Islamic turmoil.
What the "Apologists" accomplish by claiming these people are "Islamophobes" is to deter them from denouncing the problems that the religion faces.
Many of them are already facing death threats and are not able to live normal lives.
They live in hiding and under 24/7 security protection.
Who is to blame for this?
Muslims extremists?
Muslims in general?
Islam?
Islamic rules? (blasphemy and freedom of speech)
The UK has banned many of these people from entering the country.
Isn't that crazy?
A western country is afraid of freedom of speech.
A few years ago two female journalists (Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone) were not allowed to enter the UK for some similar reasons, fear they would speak badly against Islam.
What do we accomplish by silencing the ones making us aware of what is coming?
Is it better to walk blindly towards the danger zone without any warning?
We'll see.

You seem to be assuming that something or other is "coming". Can you explain what, please?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A few years ago two female journalists (Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone) were not allowed to enter the UK for some similar reasons, fear they would speak badly against Islam.

"Journalists."

IIRC, Lauren Southern harassed people outside of a British mosque and then was denied entry the next time she tried to enter the UK.

 

[Polymath257]

Right and in a free society the consequence of such rights is that one may be on the receiving end of a well placed fist or being shot or worse. As the saying goes freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

And if someone commits assault (hitting with a fist) or intended murder (shooting), they should be brought to trial and convicted under the laws.

What I've learned is there is no such thing as absolute free speech. If you believe this try being a racist on social media and work at a hospital or a small business and let that get posted to the public. More than likely you'll be fired. Regardless of private views your views are an extension of thought and undoubtedly will get you in trouble. Although we are a democratic republic (at least the U.S. is), we still have rules.

Yes, and one of the *major* rules is that you don't threaten to kill others. Even if what the other person does is offensive. So, killing a racist would not be tolerated. Threatening their life is still against the law.

Yes, there are consequences for being a racist. Often, especially in places like hospitals, where the goal is to provide equal service for everyone, there is a strong risk of losing a job. And yes, that is a consequence of being publicly racist.

And a company *does* have the right to refuse to hire someone who offends them. If someone wants to deny Serano a position in their firm, that is allowed. But there is a HUGE difference between refusing to hire and threatening to kill. There is a huge difference between protesting and promoting the killing of others. That is the difference between an ordinary person and a hornet, in my mind.

 

[Raymann]

It wasn't Muslims that did it, it was criminals. If I decided to take someone's life for malicious reasons am I doing it because I'm black, or because I'm Baptist Christian, or am I doing it because I'm a criminal committing a crime with malicious intent?

They did it specifically to defend their religion. That was the whole point, they were offended and killed defending their prophet. It was done by Muslim fanatics, very much Muslims.
You don't get to decide who is a Muslim and who is not.
If they say they are Muslims then you have to take their word for it.

No. Considering he (David Wood) is not even educated in the academic understanding of Islam, I'd take his viewpoint liken to that to an armchair online scholar.

From Wikipedia: "went to college at Old Dominion University where he earned a bachelor's degree. He later earned a doctorate in philosophy in the philosophy of religion from Fordham University.[11][12][13] While studying at Old Dominion University, he was challenged to convert to Islam by his roommate, Nabeel Qureshi (an Ahmadi), and went about investigating the life of Muhammad using the earliest sources, including Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad (the earliest extant biography of Muhammad); the hadith collections of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (considered by Sunni Muslims to be the two most reliable or sahih collections of Muhammad's statements, actions, and example); and the History of the Prophets and Kings by Al-Tabari (one of Islam's greatest historians)."
I wouldn't say he is not educated in the subject, he is just as educated as any Islamic Scholar is.

Ok. I've also heard fiery rhetoric from inflammatory pastors as well. I don't think fiery brimstone cast-you-in-hell and death to you all rhetoric is unique to street Imams and the Muslim community.

I think it is pretty unique to Islam this kind of aggressive preaching. I haven't seen that from Christians or any other religion. Call it as it is.

Because you're anti-Muslim so of course confirmation bias is the best thing to maintain the ego.

What David Wood wrote is just a description of the Islamic philosophy which you don't understand and he, on the other hand, is an expert on. He wrote nothing but the truth.

This makes no sense. Most terrorist attacks are done by domestic citizens but a smaller percentage of attacks done by Muslims commit a much larger percentage? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you doing a breakdown on geography?

Let me do it one more time. Based on the study of the last 30 terrorist attacks in the US. Considering that the US has 300 million habitants. 4 of 30 were done by Muslims.
4 of 30 represents 13.3%. Muslims in the US are only 1%.
1% of Muslims committed 13% of terrorist attacks in the US.
99% of Americans committed 87% of the attacks.
Is it too difficult for you to understand that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist attacks than Americans?