The anti-Muslim/Islam nonsense needs to stop

[icehorse]

First, anyone who takes the trouble to actually read the scriptures of a religion to understand what it teaches is ahead of too many others who don't take the trouble.

But balance is needed is to not focus on only some passages but read those that have the opposite message. I can find passages of both peaceful and warlike kind in Islam. I can find very positive and loving messages in strong Hadith.

Also, it's important what people who follow a religion actually do. When Buddhists use violence to attack Muslims, they betray their beliefs. When Christians do the opposite of what is in the Sermon on the Mount, they betray their beliefs. And this is true of Islam as well.

I understand that this is a tangent, but you opened the door...

BECAUSE Muslims claim that their scripture is PERFECT, it is not good enough that *some* passages are peaceful. Muslims continue to CHOOSE to raise the bar and demand that we agree that their scripture is perfect. They make it hard on themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The featuring process is automated and is based on the number of responses a thread has. Furthermore, only threads in forum sections related to religious subjects can be featured, so political threads and threads of topics otherwise unrelated to religion cannot be featured.

The staff can manually feature or unfeature threads, but we often only interfere with the automated functioning of the featuring option if we find a rule-violating thread on the featured page due to the automated system.

We often see featured threads that we don't necessarily like or dislike without manually changing their "featured" status. It would also be significantly impractical and pointless for us to browse through every thread and hand-pick which ones get featured, especially given that the volunteer staff have other duties (such as addressing reports) that can take up a considerable amount of our time on the forum.

If anyone sees a thread they believe to be in violation of any RF rule or rules, using the report button greatly helps the staff because we don't and can't read everything that members post on the forums. It is also unquestionably more productive than accusatory posts that demonstrate hasty judgment of the volunteer staff based on misconceptions about the forum software and its automated features as well as the supposed intentions of the diverse staff team.

 

[icehorse]

Truth?

Dude I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time refuting people here using Hadith and Qur’an and I tend to use academic sources. Many times when I face anti-Muslims majority use anti-Muslim websites or they post verses from Quran because you know, it’s in English therefore it needs no interpretation.

The anti-Muslim rhetoric is nonsensical, uneducated, and stupid, but I welcome it. All I’m saying is whoever allows things to be featured even if it’s critiquing one religion to spread that same energy around. If I want to talk about how ridiculous Judaism is why not feature it?

Or if I want to talk about how crappy atheists are in bed why not feature that? Not the same ole ridiculous redundant issues that we have already discussed and nauseum.

Yes, you use academic sources, which are apologetic. When you and I debate, I counter your apologists with logic.

As for the OP, I think you just haven't toured the website very well. I have seen many huge discussions concerning Israel, and plenty of huge threads criticizing Christianity. But while I think all of the Abrahamic religions have big, big problems, I think Islam is the worst of the bunch, and as your own OP demonstrates, I'm not alone.

And my conclusion is based on evidence and logic, not some prejudice.

 

[columbus]

Trump supporters also have a problem with the demographic groups that tend to post on RF.

Do you have a problem with that @Epic Beard Man ?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Personally, I pay no attention to which threads are featured by the forum.

Does anybody? If so, why?

Tom

 

[viole]

Look, I get it. Many of you don’t like Islam and some of you don’t personally like Muslims. It’s not so much that personal opinions regarding Islam that bothers me (because 90% of the people here critiquing Islam know diddly squat on Islam), it’s the fact that “the powers that be” posts these same anti-Islam threads as featured threads on the website.

I, at least in the past spread the criticism around to different religions yet I rarely see those threads pop up as a featured thread. The issues that I see with those threads becoming featured discussions is that you’re featuring these “critiques” but these are redundant issues that have been regurgitated and talked about.

All I am saying is if I criticize Judaism, or Hinduism, or any other faith let that be a featured thread as well. I’m not saying that threads I’ve made in the past weren’t featured but it seems that more likely than not, anything critiquing Islam or the Muslim community at large more commonly gets featured over threads that question the validity of other faiths.

That to me displays the level of bias by the website itself or those who are in control of featuring threads. This to me is not fairness. Not to mention featuring threads that continually bash Islam or Muslims just draws people who already have a negative view of the faith into discussion, making it not an actual intelligent discussion, but an echo chamber.

If it’s going to be about religion let it be about it, but stop always featuring threads that criticize Islam. This is one of the main reasons why the only moderate Muslim who was a moderator left. It just fosters the level of toxicity that makes actual discussion impossible.

I see no problem to be anti “whatever” nonsense.

But in my defense, I think I can claim to be equally anti Christian nonsense, too. i consider myself actually quite ecumenic when it comes to religious beliefs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Islaam creates discussion. It is only natural for threads that discuss it to be featured.

In any case, there is no reasonable reason to expect Islaam (as opposed to Muslims) to be spared from any significant criticism. Any other ideology receives its fair measure of criticism, and so shall Islaam.

 

[columbus]

that is not true, the staff have the option of blocking any thread from being featured for any reason

I'm not on the staff, so I could be wrong.

In order for the staff to "de-feature" a thread, a level of consensus that a rule was broken must be reached. That isn't the same.
That's my understanding.

I asked something in an earlier post.
Trump supporters feel the same way about RF, that it's hostile and biased.
Do you, @Lyndon, think that their views should be protected the way Islamic views should be?
Tom

 

[sun rise]

I understand that this is a tangent, but you opened the door...

BECAUSE Muslims claim that their scripture is PERFECT, it is not good enough that *some* passages are peaceful. Muslims continue to CHOOSE to raise the bar and demand that we agree that their scripture is perfect. They make it hard on themselves.

There are Christians who assert the Bible is "inerrant" which to me amounts to the same thing.

And I don't find the bar raised - it's been a feature of Islam since day 1. But where the question comes in is how one interprets statements which, taken in isolation, are opposed to each other. Muslims scholars have written a library of books on that topic which wildly different interpretations.

And actually I don't have an extremely high opinion of scriptures from any religion. People find justification in them for whatever they want to do. But I'm certainly opposed to anyone who wants to force me to do something by, as it were, beating me over the head with their holy book.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm not on the staff, so I could be wrong.

In order for the staff to "de-feature" a thread, a level of consensus that a rule was broken must be reached. That isn't the same.
That's my understanding.

I asked something in an earlier post.
Trump supporters feel the same way about RF, that it's hostile and biased.
Do you, @Lyndon, think that their views should be protected the way Islamic views should be?
Tom

IMHO bigoted anti Islam threads should be treated just like political threads and not featured

 

[LuisDantas]

There are Christians who assert the Bible is "inerrant" which to me amounts to the same thing.

Such groups do exist in Christianity, but not to a comparable extent. Some of them interpret that word to imply that Christian teachings can't ever need reconsideration for validity, others do not.

In any case, they, too, have to accept that Christianity is not above criticism.

And I don't find the bar raised - it's been a feature of Islam since day 1. But where the question comes in is how one interprets statements which, taken in isolation, are opposed to each other. Muslims scholars have written a library of books on that topic which wildly different interpretations.

And actually I don't have an extremely high opinion of scriptures from any religion. People find justification in them for whatever they want to do. But I'm certainly opposed to anyone who wants to force me to do something by, as it were, beating me over the head with their holy book.

Indeed.

 

[LuisDantas]

IMHO bigoted anti Islam threads should be treated just like political threads and not featured

How does one tell a bigoted anti Islaam thread from a plain vanilla anti Islaam thread?

 

[columbus]

IMHO bigoted anti Islam threads should be treated just like political threads and not featured

What does"featured" mean to you?
It means nothing to me.

Do you think that anti Christian threads should also be de-featured? There's lots of those. I do not, however, understand why anyone cares about featured threads.
Could you explain that to me?
Tom

 

[icehorse]

Bravo. It is a huge problem on this site. I've brought it up before, too. It's a violation of the forum mission, really. What's worse is that staff members insult Muslims and Islam, too. It's ridiculous. People made very callous and disgusting remarks even after the New Zealand mosque shootings. This forum has gotten very hateful and full of trolls the last few years. It wasn't always like this. Many older members no longer post, probably because of how nasty it's gotten here.

I'm often involved in the debates involving Islam. In my experience, I see a lot of criticism of the IDEAS of Islam. I do not see posters insulting Muslims. It could be I haven't been involved in those threads. But my real suspicion is that Muslims feel insulted when Islam is criticized. While I agree that that's human nature, it's not really fair to say that criticizing Islam is the same as insulting Muslims.

 

[sun rise]

How does one tell a bigoted anti Islaam thread from a plain vanilla anti Islaam thread?

That's a tricky question. But one thing, ahem, is not using the same spelling as everyone else uses. I don't know why you do it (maybe you answered this and I forgot), but it sends out a message every time I read it.

But to the specific question - the only thing we can go on is language because we don't know the person doing the posting. Sometimes the language is obvious. But sometimes it's subtle and in those cases we should give the poster the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Any belief system that has limited, controlled, and suppressed humanities potential should be mocked and denigrated, all are fair game.

... including nativism, antisemitism, and islamophobia.

 

[icehorse]

There are Christians who assert the Bible is "inerrant" which to me amounts to the same thing.

Maybe a few million Christians take this stance, as opposed to almost two billion Muslims.

 

[sun rise]

I'm often involved in the debates involving Islam. In my experience, I see a lot of criticism of the IDEAS of Islam. I do not see posters insulting Muslims. It could be I haven't been involved in those threads. But my real suspicion is that Muslims feel insulted when Islam is criticized. While I agree that that's human nature, it's not really fair to say that criticizing Islam is the same as insulting Muslims.

Great point. And to me criticism based on ignorance is more likely to be perceived as an insult.

I once had an email exchange with someone who could be called a moderate Islamist. I challenged him based on various Suras, Hadiths, interpretations from various scholars and so forth. I was not challenging Islam as a religion but Islam as Islamists interpret it.

I was not challenging Muslims in general and people like him in particular for being Muslim but I was challenging his view of Islam. So no insult was meant or perceived.

 

[sun rise]

Maybe a few million Christians take this stance, as opposed to almost two billion Muslims.

It's a mistake to assume all Muslims agree. I think Muslims in general are pretty ignorant of Islam just as Christians are ignorant of Christianity. Muslim Adherence to Articles of Faith

 

[LuisDantas]

That's a tricky question. But one thing, ahem, is not using the same spelling as everyone else uses. I don't know why you do it (maybe you answered this and I forgot), but it sends out a message every time I read it.

We have threads elsewhere that call opponents of Brexit "Remoaners". I complain about that occasionally.

I don't think that my insistence on adopting a custom spelling for Islaam (and there is indeed a reason for that) characterizes or even hints of bigotry... but if it does, surely that would only make it easier to pinpoint said bigotry, wouldn't it?

And that, as it turns out, is a big part of the reason why I favor the "Islaam" spelling. It is a reminder of the personal responsibility that we all have to reflect on whether teachings can exist on their own (they can not) or whether it is unavoidable to consider how they are interpreted and implemented.

Incidentally, that point is very often raised in order to defend the validity of Islaam proper. Not always with my personal approval, but fair is fair.

But to the specific question - the only thing we can go on is language because we don't know the person doing the posting. Sometimes the language is obvious. But sometimes it's subtle and in those cases we should give the poster the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough.