Islamophobia

[Shad]

Ok, whatever you say

So you are in denial regarding the arbitrary cut off data or you just have no rebuttal?

WS is not a problem as of 5 mins ago! Anyone can create a cut off data to get stats to say what they want.

 

[stvdv]

Holy War is conducted (properly) if one is expelled from their home (the lesser Jihad) and military conflict is imminent and lawful.

All countries agree on that one (or they would have lost their country) I think

The Greater Jihad is within oneself who deals with everyday life and abstain fro sins and transgression. According to Muslim scholars this is a gross misunderstanding by terrorist.

This should be put on frontpage daily IMO
Good for every human to be reminded of

 

[Polymath257]

Well, are we doing these things to have a dialogue or we doing these things for purpose of creating anger and resentment? As far as I'm concerned for me, it's not okay for anyone to show up at an NAACP chapter with a stuffed animal monkey tied to a noose. It's not okay to show up at a Gay pride parade yelling out homophobic slurs. It is not okay to show up in front of a mosque with a plate of bacon and a huge fire to burn copies of the Holy Qur'an with. These things despite examples of "free speech" are not okay because they're disruptive and stoke emotions that are sensitive. I know you all hate me bringing up race but I'll use this as an example:

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of disgruntled white men show up on an HBCU campus to yell out racial slurs all in the interest of so-called "Free Speech?" No. It's disruptive and the intent is not dialogue, the intent for all what its worth is to troll people and cause disruption and anger. This is what I see when people want to "draw Muhammad" or "put a crucifix in urine." Most rational people who have a sincere critique of a religious faith have dialogue not poke the bear. This really isn't about speech. This really isn't about the need to openly disagree, this is ultimately about pissing people off and then telling them "hey I have free speech what are you going to do about it?" This is why I'm glad there are laws in place to curb this nonsense.

But it *is* allowed in both cases to have a protest in a different area and/or time. Disrupting a meeting can legitimately lead to the police being called.

But hate speech is not protected.....Hate speech does not protect you from being attacked, it's a law that is it. But laws aren't materialized like police officers when hate is conducted. If a cop isn't there to mitigate danger what do you think is going to happen when a bunch of white supremacist go up to a Nation of Islam rally without police protection? You see, when things like this occur it's not about speech anymore it's looking for a fight. I think where people fail in understanding is knowing the difference between speech and antagonizing people.

I shouldn't sit there in a space and allow you to antagonize me and use slurs against me because you feel it's your right to. But all of this eventually goes back to cultural privilege. Most historically disenfranchised groups understand and respect the need for free speech.

But there is a HUGE difference between someone directing a racial slur against you personally (fighting words) and an artist drawing a cartoon of the prophet or immersing a crucifix in urine. In both cases, the *point* may well be that the target is taking themselves too seriously OR that the values presented by the target aren't necessarily what they claim.

Sometimes poking the bear is *exactly* what needs to be done to get changes to happen. Ridicule and satire are often very potent methods for change. I see a LOT of 'blaming the victim' here: an artist makes a piece of art that is, yes, intended to poke the bear (that is part of what artists are *supposed* to do).

Maybe the problem is that too many people are thinking like bears and hornets and not enough are thinking like people in a free society.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Do you think a politician saying "some people did something to some other people" on 9/11 is helping this situation?

 

[Augustus]

No, as I have no interest in them.

On what are you basing the idea that he is ignorant, rather than simply biased, then?

Define "classical Islam"

Orthodox Islamic theology that emerged in the 9th-13th C and forms the basis for traditional Islamic jurisprudence

I can read the Qur'an itself and read passages that would for face value appear violent, same as the Bible, again, if I read it on face value.

Classical Islamic sources = the work of classical scholars, not your own opinions on the Quran

So, without misrepresenting them in the slightest, how hard do you believe it would be to make a polemic that shows Islam in a light that would be incongruent with Western liberal values? [bearing in mind that a fair number of Muslims specifically reject Western liberal values]

Actually you do at least to understand vowels, nouns, etc which is why I keep a transliteration of the Qur'an.

Would you say all of the world's Muslims who are unable to speak Arabic are also unable to understand Islam?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I still do not understand islamofobia. 99% od those who follow Islam has no intention to harm anyone, There is maybe 1% who think they follow Islam by being terrorists who people really are afraid of.
I really wish both Terrorists and Islamofobic people stop spreading fear.

 

[Augustus]

Holy War is conducted (properly) if one is expelled from their home (the lesser Jihad) and military conflict is imminent and lawful. The Greater Jihad is within oneself who deals with everyday life and abstain fro sins and transgression. According to Muslim scholars this is a gross misunderstanding by terrorist.

According to some scholars, not according to others. If we are going to criticise Robert Spencer for the sins of omission and cherry-picking, we should strive to be as accurate as we can.

Jihad is not, and never has been purely defensive, hence the size of amount of territories conquered by the Islamic Empires, and 'holy war' jihad has long been viewed as one of the most noble activities.

Privatized Jihad and Public Order in the Pre-Seljuq Period: The Role of the Mutatawwi'a, Deborah Tor, Iranian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Dec., 2005), pp. 555-573

The effective halting of the Jihad-and, even worse, the reversal of the offensive into Muslim territory-must have posed an unprecedented crisis for the Faithful. The Jihad, a central tenet of the faith, one which had constituted the main focus of the Caliphate's endeavours from the very beginning of the Islamic polity, had fallen into abeyance. Obviously, the resulting moral and mili-tary vacuum at the frontier could not last-and, indeed, it did not. What has been termed "the Jihad State" may have ended, but the Jihad itself did not; it simply became what we today would call "privatized;" that is, it went from cen-trally directed state campaigns to independent, non-governmentally controlled, smaller scale raids led and manned by mutatawwia, volunteer warriors for the faith. This transferral of religious leadership in the Jihad, from the caliph to the mutatawwia, in turn led to truly fundamental changes in all areas of Islamic civilization.

Religiously, the mutatawwi'a movement brought about a revolution regarding the proper role of the political authorities in the Jihad... There was a deep ideological conflict expressed in these two opposing views: namely, do political leaders have religious control over the Jihad, or is it, rather, a religious obligation in which any believer may engage at any time-as he is entitled to do with, say, the giving of alms-irrespective of the political authority. It was the latter view, the view of the mutatawwi'a, which won (at least in 'Iraq), and was eventually adopted by both the Shafi'ite and Hanbalite schools.

The ramifications of this mutatawwi' victory were immense. Again in the religious sphere, the early mutatawwi'a played a decisive role in the consolidation of Sunnism-and particularly Hanbalism-in the decades around the turn of the third Hijri century. The mutatawwi' emphasis on the individual responsibilities of the believer before God-particularly concerning the Jihad-and on guidance by the Prophetic Sunna weakened the religious role of the Caliph, and marked, if not the beginning, certainly one of the most significant steps in the process Crone and Hinds have described as the transition from Caliphal to Prophetic sunna, and also accords well with the timeline they present.24 Thus, the mutatawwi'a, the militant arm of the proto-Sunni Traditionists, played a significant role in Sunnism's victory through the religious prestige they acquired in their role in leading the Jihad...

The rise of the mutatawwi'a, and the significance of their victory in reshaping the Jihad, was not limited to the religious sphere, though; it was fraught with pol-itical consequences as well. Jihad had traditionally lain at the heart of the Muslim polity from the time of the Prophet; the very first governmental organization, the diwan, had been an outcome of this focus on bringing God's rule to the Dar al-Harb. The fact that the Jihad now passed largely out of governmental hands meant that a major factor in the religious identification of Islam with the government was removed. More importantly, since the nongovernmental mutatawwi view of the Jihad was part of a complete religious outlook regarding the relative worth of the contemporaneous imamate compared to that of the Prophet and the early Muslims as preserved by the Traditionists, the undermining effect that the mutatawwi'i victory in the Jihad had upon the caliph's religious standing and authority was not and could not be limited to that one religious area. Rather, once the question of who would wield religious authority in Islam had been settled in favor of the Traditionists-in no small part, thanks to the prestige of the mutatawwi'a caliphal religious stature and authority crumbled, with political authority and power soon following in their wake.

 

[stvdv]

But there is a HUGE difference between someone directing a racial slur against you personally (fighting words) and an artist drawing a cartoon of the prophet or immersing a crucifix in urine.

And there is even a BIGGER difference to Wilders "thinking to start a drawing contest" and a Muslim "threatening to nuke The Netherlands in reply"

Sometimes poking the bear is *exactly* what needs to be done to get changes to happen. Ridicule and satire are often very potent methods for change. I see a LOT of 'blaming the victim' here: an artist makes a piece of art that is, yes, intended to poke the bear (that is part of what artists are *supposed* to do).

Wilders won the contest:
1) Islam showed it's face, and it was ugly
*) Threaten to nuke Holland over cartoon
*) Celebrating when Wilders withdrew
2) Islam showed thereby ignorance:
*) Believing they won
*) While in reality they lost BigTime

 

[stvdv]

I still do not understand islamofobia. 99% od those who follow Islam has no intention to harm anyone, There is maybe 1% who think they follow Islam by being terrorists who people really are afraid of.
I really wish both Terrorists and Islamofobic people stop spreading fear.

Terrorism is not the only problem

Belittling other religions is the root cause together with "My way is the Highway"

Too many religious people entertain this thought. Not just Islam, but if this stays terrorism will florish

 

[Spirit of Light]

Terrorism is not the only problem

Belittling other religions is the root cause together with "My way is the Highway"

Too many religious people entertain this thought. Not just Islam, but if ghis stays terrorizm will florish

Yes i agree to what you say here

 

[Polymath257]

And there is even a BIGGER difference to Wilders "thinking to start a drawing contest" and a Muslim "threatening to nuke The Netherlands in reply"


Wilders won the contest:
1) Islam showed it's face, and it was ugly
*) Threaten to nuke Holland over cartoon
*) Celebrating when Wilders withdrew
2) Islam showed thereby ignorance:
*) Believing they won
*) While in reality they lost BigTime

OK, I think this is an issue with a certain *group* of Moslems, not Moslems in general. The leaders of Iran, for example, are problematic, to say the least. But, my impression is that most Moslems are more offended by these threats than by the cartoons.

Characterizing all people of a religion by their worst (or most vocal) proponents is seldom helpful.

 

[stvdv]

OK, I think this is an issue with a certain *group* of Moslems, not Moslems in general. The leaders of Iran, for example, are problematic, to say the least. But, my impression is that most Moslems are more offended by these threats than by the cartoons.

Characterizing all people of a religion by their worst (or most vocal) proponents is seldom helpful.

Pakistan claims victory in row over Dutch cartoon contest

Not all Muslims. "a Muslim" I said

And for sure that is one of Islam's faces, that we better deal with.

And it's not that only 1000 were cheering

If Islamic world (Pakistan is a major part) puts this in the news, proving their arrogance, I hold Islam worldwide responsible and they miserably failed to allow this to be printed. Cheering part is most troublesome.

Sometimes it's good to expose a face, esp. when so brutal. Real Muslims should cheer and declare "Indeed the West is right, this (nuke threat over cartoon contest plan) was too sick for words".

Millions of Muslims cheered as newspaper claimed with this headline (not a minor percentage).

Pakistan claims victory in row over Dutch cartoon contest

However, Pakistan’s Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) government said the decision is a victory for Pakistan that was made possible by diplomatic efforts directed by Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Nuke threat they call victory. That is sick and fanatical

“Pakistan responded to the issue with cooperation from Turkey and other members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation,” Chaudry said. “The controversial contest hurt sentiments of over 2 billion Muslims and there is need to frame laws to deal with such issues.”

We talk about 2 billion believing this way
I would say get over it, or start showing the world respect and stop belittling Atheists and what not as being inferior

He urged all Muslim countries to adopt a global strategy to deal with the recurring issue of caricatures

They want to impose their religious "lack of freedom" onto the world. I'm fine if they do it in their country. Not in the world. They thereby belittle us, which they do anyway declaring "Islam is the highway"

But, my impression is that most Moslems are more offended by these threats than by the cartoons.

I hope you are right. But if above goverments think different soon all Muslims might get influenced. Media does have big impact on people

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

I happen to agree with some of this, but I have to wonder... why was "apologists" put in scare quotes? Are they not apologists?

 

[Raymann]

I happen to agree with some of this, but I have to wonder... why was "apologists" put in scare quotes? Are they not apologists?

Good question.
I simply might have misused the quotes around the word apologists. I'm not a professional writer as you can see.
The intended meaning was to add a sarcastic and skeptic tone to the word.
I believe that apologists are people who are ready to defend an idea to the point that they can lie and deceive if necessary with the sole purpose of defending their view.

 

[stvdv]

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.

No, that's understandable to me (English is my second language, but I can't see it any different)

Also using common sense it's clear to me: Money/Power rule the world. Arab has the oil/power, so Arab dictates the rules (Strassbourg).
Islam is very clear in "Koran is God's word given for all mankind", so how to spread it (oil+word) wisely is done in Strassbourg
Then it makes perfect sense to me: don't have people trash Islam or Koran or Muhammad. And bring Arab culture to Europe.

Spoiler: Sai Baba gave me a peak into this Muslim issue in 1996

Already age 10 I made a plan "I will never marry". Sai Baba always jokingly tells us "How do you make God laugh? Tell Him your plan". In 1996 my Guru, Sai Baba told me "I give you a Muslim wife". Freaked me out, but I decided to say no to my Guru on this. Of course He kept His end of the deal and within a week showed up with the girl He promised earlier. She was stunning (He did make me think twice), but I am just not a Muslim. What can I do? Was tempting though.

At first I took it as in "real wife", but now I think Sai Baba meant that lots of Muslims will come to Holland. After reading about Timmermans promising a few more million Muslims for Europe to arrive soon (link in the end) this is more of a chance than that I ever get married anyway. All other predictions Sai Baba told about my life happened. I thought "aha, this one Sai Baba got wrong" ... I guess not, just He meant something different than I thought.

This was a perfect example, that we humans not always interpret words given by God/Prophet/Messenger correctly

To get the oil they (Europe) signed a contract in 1975 to allow spreading Arab culture (see the abundance of verses in Strassbourg Resolution). Freedom of speech is still there, but slightly updated "you have the freedom to speak nice about Arab culture". That was 1 of the prices to be paid for getting the oil. Those people you mention don't speak nice, hence they are not allowed (makes sense to me, not crazy; just a business deal). I would not be surprised there are small letters in this Strassbourg Resolution, not visible on the internet.

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.

Again makes sense. Arab culture should be spread in Europe (Strassbourg resolutions). Speak badly about Islam is out of the question

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.

We get our oil and Islam as a bonus (+Koran +Muhammad)

Strassbourg Resolution (scroll down, past the Dutch part):
Omvolken, de resolutie van Straatsburg (olie voor immigratie) - Onafhankelijk Delft

Some quotes from Strassbourg Resolution

The Association calls on European governments to improve legal regulations concerning the freedom of travel and the protection of the basic rights of immigrant workers in Europe which should be equivalent to those of citizens of the countries concerned.

So don't speak negative about Islam
Freedom of Islam Religion in Europe

recognising the historic contribution of Arab culture to European development, emphasising the contribution which Arab culture can still give to European countries especially in the field of human values,

Europe need Arab update especially in the field of human values,

regretting the relative neglect of the teaching of Arab culture and Arabic in Europe and looking forward to its development, hoping that European governments will help Arab countries to create the resources needed for the participation of immigrant workers and their families in Arab culture and religious life, asking the European press to show a sense of responsibility so that they may inform public opinion objectively and more fully about the problems of the Arab world,

Very clear instruction to develop Arab culture
Very clear instruction to the European press
[Note the word Europe here. Not Pakistan, threatening to nuke Europe IF cartoon contest. We should just bend down or get nuked]

Calls on the governments of the Nine to approach the cultural aspect of the Euro-Arab dialogue in a constructive spirit and to give a higher priority to the popularisation of Arab culture in Europe.

Very clear again.

Youtube: Latest Timmermans plans were to allow 60 million Muslims into Europe within the next few years. He calls it diversity.

Of course I don't believe Timmermans has any say in this. The billionaires already planned everything. Nothing we can do about it.

Spoiler: Notes:

1) Above ideas are about a power/money game I see, that is played out in Europe. Common sense tells me "don't mix 2 arrogant cultures".
2) I don't have anything against Muslims. I do like Muslimas. I should not generalize I was told yesterday. I like Muslimas that are friendly and respectful and of course not fully covered (No judgment though; when covered I just can't tell if I really like them; hijab is kind of cute).
3) I don't have anything against Islam. It's a great Religion, but should stay in the Middle East until they drop "Koran is meant for all" attitude IMO. Because I know from Christian experience that this spiritual arrogance brings only trouble, irritation, hate and finally war. I prefer non-violence.
4) I am Dutch, and I am not personally interested in Islam Religion and Koran to dictate my life, hence I prefer Holland without Islam. Because a religion that has spiritual arrogance is bringing only trouble to a country that thinks differently; and even Atheism is not "okay" under Islam (at least when I asked a few Muslims they wisely refrain from answering such questions, like "do you see an Atheist as an equival human being as a Muslim, not being judged by Allah" etc).

 

[stvdv]

Good question.
I simply might have misused the quotes around the word apologists. I'm not a professional writer as you can see.
The intended meaning was to add a sarcastic and skeptic tone to the word.
I believe that apologists are people who are ready to defend an idea to the point that they can lie and deceive if necessary with the sole purpose of defending their view.

Someone pointed out that I used them also, and asked why. (glad I'm not the only 1)
I looked it up, and I read one use of scare quotes is when meaning sarcasm
So you probably used them correctly

 

[Raymann]

The main purpose of this thread was obviously to challenge all those who very easily label people as "Islamophobes"
I even named some of the most controversial and easily identifiable personalities who are often labeled as "Islamophobes"
My expectation was to have people jumping in with all sorts of quotes to show me the reasons why they deserve the label. That hasn't been the case. Why? I don't know.
I'll have to conclude that my experiment has worked even better than I expected it and it has been demonstrated that the word has been used inappropriately for the most part.
All I asked was direct quotes from those people to be able to analyze if they are deserving of that label.
No second-hand opinions nor second-hand quotes but precise quotes from the people that are being the target of the accusations.
So far only one person was able to bring an actual quote (Epic Beard Man)
At the time I said I didn't see anything in the text that deviates from the Islamic doctrine in a way that we can consider the text to be Islamophobic.
To be fair with it I'm going to analyze the text a little bit more in-depth
The quote is from David Wood and I separated it into three parts.

"I have long contended that Islam is unique among the major world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers."
Is it true that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers?
Under certain circumstances it does. Not always but under certain circumstances it does.
Quran 9:29 and 8:39 are good examples and are always problematic for Muslims to explain.
They do explain them but the explanations are not very convincing.
There are many other violent verses in the Quran which are explained by some Scholars as nonviolent but others do not agree.
The point is that accusing the Quran of containing violent verses is not irrational at all and can easily be proven to be true.

"There is no orthodox sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims must coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis."
This is true as well, when Muslims are a minority there is no problem but look at any Muslim majority country and you'll notice all the restrictions imposed on those that are not Muslims.
Muslims like to have Muslim women using their burqas even in western countries but how about allowing western women to dress their own way in Muslim countries?

"I use the term “radical Islam” merely to distinguish those Muslims who are actively working to advance this subjugation from the many millions who are not, as well as to emphasize that the stealth jihad program is truly radical: it aims at nothing less than the transformation of American society and the imposition of Islamic law here, subjugating women and non-Muslims to the status of legal inferiors."
Of course, this cannot be proven at this point but there are historical samples that show that this is nothing crazy to think about as it has happened in many places that were not Islamic and end up changing totally as a result of the Muslim population becoming the majority. (Lebanon and many others)

 

[22Nasser]

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.

First of all sorry for my English(English is not my first language)you mention that "The fears against Islam are entirely based on facts and reliable sources" in my opinion is "The fears from Muslim people are entirely based on facts and reliable sources not from Islam.
let me explain some information :
1- "The is no relation between what Muslims do and Islam"
Because "The Qur'an is the source of Islamic legislation" Quran said in Verse number 256 in (al-Baqarah) "there is no compulsion in religion" that is general rule from God that mean killing because of blasphemy is not right at all "if you said that prophet Mohammed practice that rule in his live" i will clarify to you why he did that? It is Because some people changed their religion and joined the enemy force to fight Muslims so they were committing high treason so he killed them because of that not because they change their religion . So those people just following religious scholars and inherit wrong interpretation . Quran is an open source of knowledge for the good of humanity, like other religions and not exclusive for Arabs, Saudis, Shiite Iran or any Islamic doctrine.
Islam has been distorted by misinterpretations throughout the ages or improper implementation of its doctrines but Quran still the same without any change.
Make sure that anything inappropriate you hear about Islam, there is a wrong misinterpretations or wrong implementation practice by Muslims, because they imitate theologians only and do not read the true teachings of Quran.
For example, who are ISIS?
From my perspective as a genuine Muslim, I consider them my first enemies because they destroy my religion and they are doing the opposite of its teachings and alleged they are Muslim .
In verse 32 Sura (المائدة) "Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all of mankind".
Quran explain that killing of any soul, whether it is of any religion, it like killing all of mankind and strongly condemned these act . There is no doubt that the deeds of ISIS completely contradict the principles of the Islam. they are not Muslims without doubt and they are my enemies as real Muslim more than any other nation in the world
Islam allowed fighting in self-defense only and this action is a logical and legitimate right. Killing is strictly forbidden even in the event of war only in self-defense.
Islam strongly encouraged for peace and reconciliation in verse (34-35) Sura (فصلت) {not equated good nor bad pay that is better. If between you and him is enmity like a guardian intimate * and meted out only those who are patient and meted out only with great luck} In This verse Quran said when someone does you wrong, meet him by treating him well
if you treat well those who treat you badly, this good deed will lead to reconciliation, love and empathy, and it will be as if he is a close friend to you and he will feel pity for you and be kind to you. Even your enemy the teachings of the Koran has taught us to treat him in the best possible way as if he were a close friend. Unless he try to attack us, we must defend ourselves. Also no legislation of stoning mentioned in Quran. So God did not mention stoning in the Quran and mentioned many other details because it simply stoning does not exist and what was transferred from the Prophet that he did it was at the beginning of Islam and was before the descent of the principles of Islam and The Prophet followed the principles of the previous Abraham religions and even the Qibla Muslims were not praying in the direction of Mecca but towards Jerusalem.
A true Muslim must practice prayer, which is a spiritual sport aimed to inner peace of the soul in harmony with peace in the universe and reflect the peace to all mankind. The way to God, such as the search for treasure has several ways and this is represented by religions on the condition that the religions are true or revealed by God But the terrorists went wrong to the opposite side of the treasure.

 

[stvdv]

All I asked was direct quotes from those people to be able to analyze if they are deserving of that label.

Okay, I saw many questions, but had no clue that this you were after.

The point is that accusing the Quran of containing violent verses is not irrational at all and can easily be proven to be true.

I have seen a Muslim woman expert on Koran just telling that Koran indeed has lots of violent verses. And a Bible expert admitted that Bible is also full of it. And they agreed that Bible contains double the amount of violence. So I guess no Muslim will ever argue there is no violence in Koran.

 

[danieldemol]

Well, are we doing these things to have a dialogue or we doing these things for purpose of creating anger and resentment? As far as I'm concerned for me, it's not okay for anyone to show up at an NAACP chapter with a stuffed animal monkey tied to a noose. It's not okay to show up at a Gay pride parade yelling out homophobic slurs. It is not okay to show up in front of a mosque with a plate of bacon and a huge fire to burn copies of the Holy Qur'an with. These things despite examples of "free speech" are not okay because they're disruptive and stoke emotions that are sensitive.

I think there might be a false equivalence in there. A stuffed animal monkey tied to a noose is expressing explicit hatred and advocating cruel violence towards animals, and doing it at an NAACP chapter would probably be reasonably taken to imply advocation of hatred and violence towards coloured people. Yelling out homophobic slurs against gay people is once again targeting people. Eating bacon outside of a mosque is not advocating hatred or violence against anyone and I'm surprised you raised such a non-issue amongst issues such as the noose portrayal. Burning copies of the Quran is not targeting people its targeting ideas, and ideas should never be beyond the disdain of those who either don't like them or misunderstand them. Hence the false equivalence, becuase you are trying to compare targeting of ideas to targeting of people.

I know you all hate me bringing up race but I'll use this as an example:

I think you are projecting hatred onto others they may not have.

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of disgruntled white men show up on an HBCU campus to yell out racial slurs all in the interest of so-called "Free Speech?"

No. It's hate speech.

This is what I see when people want to "draw Muhammad" or "put a crucifix in urine." Most rational people who have a sincere critique of a religious faith have dialogue not poke the bear. This really isn't about speech. This really isn't about the need to openly disagree, this is ultimately about pissing people off and then telling them "hey I have free speech what are you going to do about it?"

Then you are attributing motives to people they may not necessarily have. They may just be normalising dissent. Satirising public figures by drawing them can be educational. We satirise our politicians all the time when they are perceived by us to make mistakes so why not for religios figures when they are perceived to make mistakes?

Dunking sacred objects in urine is not a constructive way to express dissent, but it does desensitise people to the fact that we don't alll have to revere something just because you or somebody else does, and imo this desensitisation to the fact that others don't all hold the same items sacred does reduce violence against dissent in western society which is beneficial in creating safe spaces for people to express dissenting opinions.

Certainly the civilised mature way to deal with dissenting opinions against ideas is not to advocate hate for or to kill the dissenters but rather to demonstrate the moral high grounds by showing that holding these items sacred grants one patience in the face of trials, compassion in the face of testing situations etc.