What is Islamophobia?

[Magic Man]

Perhaps I was too extreme. In Religions with a Holy Book, it should be based on what the texts say, or else there is no need for the texts at all. But that does not mean you get to cherry-pick from the texts and re-interpret it at all to suit your convenience.

But that's exactly how these religions work. I agree it's a terrible way to go about finding a guide for your life, but that's how it goes. You can criticize Muslims for cherry-picking and reinterpreting things to fit their needs, just as Christians and others do, but their beliefs are still what make up the religion.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, so if Muslims gradually start eating bacon rather than just all at once, that makes it all right? Qur'an says no.

All right? I can't say. All I can say is that it's possible over time an interpretation would come about that allows eating bacon.

 

[Rival]

All right? I can't say. All I can say is that it's possible over time an interpretation would come about that allows eating bacon.

Well I can't find one. Good luck with that.

 

[YmirGF]

All right? I can't say. All I can say is that it's possible over time an interpretation would come about that allows eating bacon.

Muslim CAN already eat bacon/pork under certain circumstances. However, as a general ruling for everyday considerations I'd say that change has a snowball's chance in hell of coming to pass. It's sort of like the Catholic church's stance on abortion and contraception. Sure, things could change but we are likely to see flying pigs first.

 

[Rival]

So we're 16 pages, 305 posts in and still no-one can agree on what 'Islamophobia' is yet.

Interesting.

 

[nazz]

I don't know where you live, Nazz, or if you are under a rock somewhere, but yes: in the UK and France this is all too common behaviour from a lot of them.

That may be but it does not represent the views of all Muslims

 

[nazz]

Many Muslims would deny that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim and find the term almost insulting...

so what?

 

[nazz]

People like the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan?

"It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not,"


I guess he just doesn't get it, eh?

Context?

 

[nazz]

I think the canard being advanced is that people mean "all" or "every" Muslim. Clearly, that is not the case...

Clearly it IS the case for many Islamophobes.

 

[nazz]

I think you and Rival are misunderstanding what he's saying. He's agreeing with us. He's not saying there is no moderate Islam. He's saying all Islam is moderate. In your quote, he doesn't say "Islam cannot be classified as moderate". The "or not" is the key to the whole meaning. He's saying Islam is Islam; not moderate, not extremist, just Islam.

If you want to get a fuller picture of his stance, this article was pretty interesting:

Turkish President Erdoğan urges Muslim countries to warn West against Islamophobia - POLITICS

As I suspected. Thanks. A typical Islamophobe tactic is to distort the words of others by taking them out of context.

 

[nazz]

I'm becoming sick of this, so if you reply to me and I don't respond it's because I feel I'm legitimately wasting my time.

Some things can generally only be understood one way.

"You shall not murder."

I'd say that's pretty clear cut.

Is it? then why must it be legally defined? BTW, the Bible says "thou shall not kill". That is interpreted by many pacifists to mean no killing at all. Most others interpret to mean only legally defined murder. So things are not so clear cut as you imagine.

 

[Rival]

Is it? then why must it be legally defined? BTW, the Bible says "thou shall not kill". That is interpreted by many pacifists to mean no killing at all. Most others interpret to mean only legally defined murder. So things are not so clear cut as you imagine.

I knew someone would bring this up. Go to a Hebrew speaker. Look at the context of the Bible. Does it look as if God meant "Don't kill at all. Full stop. Ever." ? Obviously not. Afterwards, he commands Joshua to go and kill in war and conquest. You shall not Murder (as far as I know) is the Jewish stance on the matter and what the Hebrew actually says. And it is their Scripture.

Also, some Bibles say kill and other say murder. I've found murder in the modern ones. Have at it.

Either way, I'm not gonna sit here and defend the Bible. I'm neither a Christian nor a Jew. It's not my problem.

 

[nazz]

Of course you're allowed to criticize the religion. Generally people aren't called Christianophobes because of a couple factors:

1) There isn't nearly as much irrational criticism of Christianity. Most people in the west are more familiar with the religion, so they criticize it more accurately.

2) The uncommon times there is similarly irrational criticism of Christianity, it doesn't lead to the same widespread animus as there is with Islam, and we don't see the same sort of reaction against Christianity as we do against Islam. The dynamic has a lot to do with the sizes of the groups. In the west, Muslims are the small minority, whereas Christians are the majority.



Almost. Yet again, it's a word used to deter irrational criticism of Islam.

Just so I don't overload your alert notifications consider every post you make to have an unexprseed "like" from me attached to it. I keep thinking of answering various posts but then I see you have said exactly what I would said.

 

[nazz]

I am not a Christian. Nor am I a Jew. Yes, that is exactly what Ha-Torah says. And yes, that is exactly what it means.

You are not getting the point! It does not matter what the text may say. What matters is how it is interpreted by the followers of that religion and practiced in their behavior. And by the way that works both ways because the Qur'an says that homosexuals are only to be flogged. Yet we see them being executed. So who's really following the Qur'an? The gospels have Jesus saying people should hate their parents. How many Christians do you know that take that literally? Is the fact that they don't mean they are not Troo Christians?

 

[nazz]

I knew someone would bring this up. Go to a Hebrew speaker. Look at the context of the Bible. Does it look as if God meant "Don't kill at all. Full stop. Ever." ? Obviously not. Afterwards, he commands Joshua to go and kill in war and conquest. You shall not Murder (as far as I know) is the Jewish stance on the matter and what the Hebrew actually says. And it is their Scripture.

OH, so suddenly JEWS get to interpret their Scriptures as they see fit but MUSLIMS don't get the same right in your book??? Muslims must abide by YOUR interpretation of their holy texts?

Also, some Bibles say kill and other say murder. I've found murder in the modern ones. Have at it.

Do you speak Hebrew? Do you know what the Hebrew word is and what it means? Do you know the translation "murder" is just an interpretation?

 

[Rival]

You are not getting the point! It does not matter what the text may say. What matters is how it is interpreted by the followers of that religion and practiced in their behavior. And by the way that works both ways because the Qur'an says that homosexuals are only to be flogged. Yet we see them being executed. So who's really following the Qur'an? The gospels have Jesus saying people should hate their parents. How many Christians do you know that take that literally? Is the fact that they don't mean they are not Troo Christians?

It does matter what the texts say. If it didn't matter, why would the Religion have a Holy Book at all? To go back to my example: if Muslims decided it was all right to eat blood, but the Qur'an strictly forbids eating blood (which it does), then what is Islam? My answer would be: the Qur'an, and no, the Muslims are deviating from the Religion, which is guided/dictated by the Qur'an.

If Christians decided, en masse, to stop believing that Jesus was crucified for their sins, would it any longer be Christianity? I don't think so, because that is one of the points at the core of the Gospel. Sure, they could still be Christians in name, but not in belief . It would be a new Religion. It would not be Christianity.

Yes, if the Qur'an says homosexuals ought to be flogged but are instead being executed, that would be a deviation. I agree. In this respect, I.S would be wrong, for example.

 

[nazz]

If Christians decided, en masse, to stop believing that Jesus was crucified for their sins, would it any longer be Christianity? I don't think so, because that is one of the points at the core of the Gospel. Sure, they could still be Christians in name, but not in belief . It would be a new Religion. It would not be Christianity.

I see you don't know much about Christianity either. Plenty of Christians reject Penal Substitution which was invented in the late Middle Ages. I'm one of them.

 

[Rival]

OH, so suddenly JEWS get to interpret their Scriptures but MUSLIMS don't get the same right in your book???


Do you speak Hebrew? Do you know what the Hebrew word is and what it means? Do you know the translation "murder" is just an interpretation?

Scripture can be interpreted. Not re-interpreted and twisted out of shape. What I'm arguing against is this "Everyone's interpretation is different" business, because it's not. Most Muslims seem to agree on what the Qur'an says.

No, I don't speak Hebrew. Go ask a Rabbi. In fact, I know one on Twitter. Would you like me to ask him?

 

[Magic Man]

Muslim CAN already eat bacon/pork under certain circumstances. However, as a general ruling for everyday considerations I'd say that change has a snowball's chance in hell of coming to pass. It's sort of like the Catholic church's stance on abortion and contraception. Sure, things could change but we are likely to see flying pigs first.

Yup, it's highly unlikely, although 100 years ago, I doubt many people would have considered it likely that a majority of Christians would support same-sex marriage. I don't know whether that's the case just yet, but it will be soon.

 

[Augustus]

That's fine. I just disagree. I think it serves a useful purpose, even if it's not perfect. Racism is also highly politicized by racists and anti-racists who use it to either stifle legitimate criticism or to hide behind the word's ambiguity to obscure simple bigotry.

That is certainly true re racism, and the word is highly devalued by it, in most cases a more accurate substitute could be used. However, the word is inherently less problematic than Islamophobia, because it simply means considering another race inferior or being prejudiced against others due to no other characteristic than their ethnicity.

Islamophobia, should refer to irrational fear of the Islamic faith. Not hatred of Islam, not hatred of Muslims, not prejudice against Muslims, not rational concerns about Islam. Remember it is also not mainstreamIslamophobia, simply Islamophobia, it doesn't necessitate that the Islam you fear is the most popular or representative kind.

Are any of the following statements unequivocally false:

Islam accepts the killing of apostates
Islam accepts the stoning of adulterers
Islam accepts the killing of practicing homosexuals
Islam accepts amputations, beheadings and crucifixions
Islam accepts aggressive holy war against unbelievers
Islam accepts that unbelievers are a kind of untermenschen who must accept 2nd class status in society and 'feel humbled'
Islam accepts slavery, including sexual slavery

Given this why is the best term to use Islamophobia?

None of the Muslims I know personally supports any of these, but I can't say that (some forms of) Islam don't accept all of them. People can define Islamophobia with whatever form of Islam suits their agenda. The word is too imprecise.

If you accuse someone of Islamophobia, the first thing they will usually do is to deny or debate the term itself, rather than reply to the substance of the accusation. This alone should make you not want to use the term