Islamaphobia?

[tuxbox]

Do you guys think criticizing Islam is a form of bigotry? I saw this Real Time with Bill Maher episode with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck when it first aired and I was just shaking my head when Ben Affleck got all buthurt over Bill and Sam's criticism of Islam. Then I came across this video on YouTube where two atheists agreed with Ben on this issue. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the matter.

Just in case you missed this episode or haven't heard about it.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

The 2:30 mark is when they start talking about Islam.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

*Edited*

Here is another persecutive, one that I kind of agree with.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something. People who are afraid of islam and have no real need to fear it are the ones who are islamophobic. If you criticize islam, like you would critisize anything else, there is nothing phobic about that. Saying x, y, and z are the reasons you don't like islam does not mean you are islamophobic

 

[tuxbox]

The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something. People who are afraid of islam and have no real need to fear it are the ones who are islamophobic. If you criticize islam, like you would critisize anything else, there is nothing phobic about that. Saying x, y, and z are the reasons you don't like islam does not mean you are islamophobic

I agree with you, but many liberals in this country will paint you with the bigot and Islamaphobia brush if you criticize Islam in any way. Christianity is fair game though. The double standard here is mind blowing.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Do you guys think criticizing Islam is a form of bigotry?

No. Bigotry is defined as unfair dislike, and it's perfectly fair to dislike Islam.

 

[sick_jesus]

Well, it can be bigotry and it can be islamaphobia and it can also cross over into racism... that all depends on the objections and how they are expressed and what kind of reasonable justification one has behind the view. If someone criticizes Islam because they claim it is an arab religion and Arabs are dirty and backward then that is obviously ridiculous and a person with such a view will more than likely be part of some other supernatural worshipping cult. If, however, you criticize islam because you either know and disagree with the scripture (or parts of the scripture) or if you've no need to read the scripture because you find the idea of any religion absurd and disagree on a scientific basis then that is not islamaphobia. Yet in these dangerous political times there is a media/political campaign to protect Islam (and it's on both sides of the pacific and widespread across Europe) and part of that campaign is anti-propaganda labelling such critics (many on the left and extreme left) as bigots and islamaphobes. I would contest that it is rather those who are afraid to speak ill of Islam, the media organisations who go out their way to defend it and the politicians bringing in laws to protect it, who are actually the real islamahobes (i.e those who have a real fear (irrational or not) about its dangers. Indeed, it is a campaign which is born out of fear of Islam and mirrors the dangerous sensitivity of many of Islam's adherents. With a religion so sensitive and so reactionary towards criticism or people breaking certain religious taboos, then it is not only necessary that we speak out but an absolute duty to do so - and to do so loudly. We mustn't cower or hide away from the liberals or the centre road throwing labels at us because it picks up moral or political votes - that will only exacerbate the problem and make certain Muslims feel ever more justified in extreme actions regarding those who voice opposition to their faith. No, especially now, even if we will be fingered out and painted in a terrible and false light we must verbally batter Islam (and all other reactionary and dangerous religions too) and we must make sure that Islam hears this criticism and that the sharp point of their reaction is blunted due to exposure of such views. It's the same as if we were all to start making caricatures of "The Prophet" Mohammed on a frequent enough basis. It would soon come to pass that Islam gets used to such images and satire and couldn't take action against everyone even if it wanted to. if we were all to do that then it would cease to be anymore shocking to practising muslims and no-one would further be massacred (except maybe in their own communities) for doing such a thing. The more we tiptoe around such subjects and seal our lips for fear of being unfairly portrayed then not only do we become secondary victims of religion but we are also being lured into murdering our own views as well as helping to prolong further this vile and terrible dogma that all religion is.

So, we have a duty to speak out: more now than ever. We must not be silenced by the fear of being falsely labelled nor the fear of being painted as one of those exact same people who i am sure we are mostly all against (bigots/racists). That is what they play on: making our politics and science look hypocritical... shaming us into silence and turning our passionate views into passive views.

 

[Laurens]

Having a job with some less-educated working class individuals who read the Sun, I can say categorically that there is an irrational hatred towards Muslims that is constantly exacerbated by fabrications and exaggerations in the media.

It's easy enough for educated atheists to sit on the internet and say "how can you be afraid of a religion lol", but the reality is that some people hate Muslims just by virtue of their being Muslim.

Sure criticizing Islam is not bigotry in and of itself, but you cannot make the argument that Islamophobia is not a thing. I've seen it, its not nice.

 

[sick_jesus]

Having a job with some less-educated working class individuals who read the Sun, I can say categorically that there is an irrational hatred towards Muslims that is constantly exacerbated by fabrications and exaggerations in the media.

It's easy enough for educated atheists to sit on the internet and say "how can you be afraid of a religion lol", but the reality is that some people hate Muslims just by virtue of their being Muslim.

Sure criticizing Islam is not bigotry in and of itself, but you cannot make the argument that Islamophobia is not a thing. I've seen it, its not nice.

Hey Ya Laurens....

I've worked and lived alongside them very same ignoramuses all my life. They are just as ignorant and as dangerous and as close minded as some of the groups they berate and hate. But the thing is , Islam (and most religions) even moderate islam, is even more ignorant and close minded and hateful of other cultures than those Sun readers. All religion if taken down to politics is on the extreme right and Islam is so far to the right that it bloody well deserves the neo-fascist idiots who it attracts... because really, they are one and the same: at least in brain size and gullibility and hatred. If you were to compare the other views of muslims and sun readers you'd find they pretty well match up on every subject. This is a part of the propaganda to group intelligent people alongside those racist Sun readers... it's why so many on the left are terrified to approach the subject.

 

[Laurens]

Having a job with some less-educated working class individuals who read the Sun, I can say categorically that there is an irrational hatred towards Muslims that is constantly exacerbated by fabrications and exaggerations in the media.

It's easy enough for educated atheists to sit on the internet and say "how can you be afraid of a religion lol", but the reality is that some people hate Muslims just by virtue of their being Muslim.

Sure criticizing Islam is not bigotry in and of itself, but you cannot make the argument that Islamophobia is not a thing. I've seen it, its not nice.

Hey Ya Laurens....

I've worked and lived alongside them very same ignoramuses all my life. They are just as ignorant and as dangerous and as close minded as some of the groups they berate and hate. But the thing is , Islam (and most religions) even moderate islam, is even more ignorant and close minded and hateful of other cultures than those Sun readers. All religion if taken down to politics is on the extreme right and Islam is so far to the right that it bloody well deserves the neo-fascist idiots who it attracts... because really, they are one and the same: at least in brain size and gullibility and hatred. If you compared the other views of muslims and sun readers you'd find they pretty much match up on every subject.

I don't think you can make such a broad generalization.

What about the British Muslims for Secular Democracy? Sounds pretty fascist doesn't it?

There is also such a thing as Islamic socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism

I don't see how you can say that Islam as a whole is fascistic, as with any diverse conglomerate, it encompasses a wide range of views---some of which make more noise and fill more headlines than others.

 

[sick_jesus]

Hey again Laurens... it doesn't matter if it sounds fascist or not (national socialism didn't sound fascist either)... all that is important is the religion or ideas which holds these views up. If one knows even a little of the strict scripture that islam is based on then it's very clear that there can no more be a democratic Islam than there can be a Jewish imam. That's nonsense. I'd love to see how democratic members of the BMSD would be if one of their daughters brought me home an announced me as her latest lover.... or if the son come home in spandex pants with a leather clad male lover. How democratic would they be then? If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic... the Koran (nor any other religious book) doesn't care for democracy: that's the point. It's the book.... the revelations of 'their' prophet or 'their' God or nothing. How can they purport to be democratic when five times a day they are praying to a superior, all-powerful being? How can they marry a dictator god like that with democracy? Also, the fundamental tenets of Islam (common to moderates and extremists alike) are not up for discussion. A 70/30 show of hands to scrap ramadan - would they still be democratic and adhere? Of course not. You can't have a bit of democracy here and there. Don't forget Saddam Hussein also claimed his regime was a democratic system, that it was purely because he was so well loved by the people that he kept winning 99.9% of all the votes. The BMSD make it very clear that ISLAM comes first and foremost before democracy.... that democracy must find its place around the religion and not the other way around... that with any conflicts of agreement which arise there is no discussion, no vote, because you cannot barter with god's words. So, democracy is all well and good as long as it doesn't impinge upon the religion itself, as long as they don't have to make any concessions in that area. All the three great religions, even in moderate form, are on the far right of politics (but not all have political and judicial law inherent in their religious texts). The only time when believers are not also dragged along with their religions is when they are believers in word only but not practising the faith. That's certainly not the case with BMSD. So I agree 'for secular democracy' all sounds very nice, but when its backbone and nervous system is a religious doctrine then I'm sure it's not as 'secular' nor as 'democratic' as it purports. And even if I'm wrong and some small groups have found some way of arrange-marrying together two contradictory ideas, well, I'm all for that: concessions to the point of the death of their idiotic, illogical and dictatorial faith. Let's hope more can do the same until this insidious poison is flushed out of our world for good.

 

[Laurens]

Hey again Laurens... it doesn't matter if it sounds fascist or not (national socialism didn't sound fascist either)... all that is important is the religion or ideas which holds these views up. If one knows even a little of the strict scripture that islam is based on then it's very clear that there can no more be a democratic Islam than there can be a Jewish imam. That's nonsense. I'd love to see how democratic members of the BMSD would be if one of their daughters brought me home an announced me as her latest lover.... or if the son come home in spandex pants with a leather clad male lover. How democratic would they be then? If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic... the Koran (nor any other religious book) doesn't care for democracy: that's the point. It's the book.... the revelations of 'their' prophet or 'their' God or nothing. How can they purport to be democratic when five times a day they are praying to a superior, all-powerful being? How can they marry a dictator god like that with democracy? Also, the fundamental tenets of Islam (common to moderates and extremists alike) are not up for discussion. A 70/30 show of hands to scrap ramadan - would they still be democratic and adhere? Of course not. You can't have a bit of democracy here and there. Don't forget Saddam Hussein also claimed his regime was a democratic system, that it was purely because he was so well loved by the people that he kept winning 99.9% of all the votes. The BMSD make it very clear that ISLAM comes first and foremost before democracy.... that democracy must find its place around the religion and not the other way around... that with any conflicts of agreement which arise there is no discussion, no vote, because you cannot barter with god's words. So, democracy is all well and good as long as it doesn't impinge upon the religion itself, as long as they don't have to make any concessions in that area. All the three great religions, even in moderate form, are on the far right of politics (but not all have political and judicial law inherent in their religious texts). The only time when believers are not also dragged along with their religions is when they are believers in word only but not practising the faith. That's certainly not the case with BMSD. So I agree 'for secular democracy' all sounds very nice, but when its backbone and nervous system is a religious doctrine then I'm sure it's not as 'secular' nor as 'democratic' as it purports. And even if I'm wrong and some small groups have found some way of arrange-marrying together two contradictory ideas, well, I'm all for that: concessions to the point of the death of their idiotic, illogical and dictatorial faith. Let's hope more can do the same until this insidious poison is flushed out of our world for good.

My point is that many hold their religious convictions separately from their political beliefs. So whether or not you wish to argue that belief in God is inherently fascistic, this does not necessarily reflect upon their social and political views.

I am sure that some Muslim families would be outraged if their child was gay or dated a non-Muslim, but I am also sure that there exists a proportion of Muslims who aren't that zealous. My mother is a Christian, she doesn't mind that I, an atheist, am living with my atheist girlfriend out of wedlock. This would surely be outrageous and divisive in some religious families, but it is accepted in mine. What I am trying to say is that just as with Christianity, you get some Muslims for whom their faith is a private thing for the most part, and it is not imposed upon others. Of course the newspapers only print stories about honour killings and the like because "Muslim parents celebrate and support their gay son's relationship" doesn't shift newspapers.

Also regardless of whether or not you hold fascistic views, as long as you do not act upon them in a criminal way, your views are your views and they should not face hatred and vilification just for holding them.

A Muslim has just as much right to believe something that you perceive to be fascist, as you do to believe that about Muslims.

 

[SpecialFrog]

If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic

Who gets to decide who is "really following Islam"?

Religious people interpret their texts and find a reason to ignore the parts they find objectionable. Slavery was consistent with Christianity until it became inconsistent with Christianity.

You can claim that this means they aren't really Muslim / Jewish / Christian / whatever but it is ultimately a pointless endeavour.

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

The Quran says bad things. It is worth while opposing the bad things and speaking against those who claim the bad things are good things.

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe. Pretending that liberal Muslims don't exist makes the Islamists the de-facto representatives of Muslim communities and further marginalizes liberals and reformers.

 

[Shanara99]

Hi guys. First time posting here. I just wanted to give my 2 cents on this topic.

Do you guys think criticizing Islam is a form of bigotry? I saw this Real Time with Bill Maher episode with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck when it first aired and I was just shaking my head when Ben Affleck got all buthurt over Bill and Sam's criticism of Islam. Then I came across this video on YouTube where two atheists agreed with Ben on this issue. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the matter.

Criticizing ANY kind of religion is not a form of bigotry. Everything, including all religions, should be object of criticism. Religions, ironicaly enough, are not sacred. They shouldn't be protected from being called on their bullshit.

Criticizing islam is not the same as criticizing islamists, tho. In every religion, there'll be moderates, fanatics, people who identify with the religion for cultural/historical reasons but mostly ignore said religion...

In old Europe we're technically christians, for the most part. And I say technically. We do count as such in statistics, but it's not like we really care about cristianism, or go to church, or even read the bible. For instance, check this article, keeping in mind that's it's an overtly catholic source (the Catholic Church information agency, to be precise) http://infocatolica.com/?t=noticia&cod=6978. Sorry about the Spanish in the article. In any case it goes to say that, even while 74 % of Spanish declare themselves Catholic, only one quarter of those even goes to mass.

That apathy towards religion spreads to other religions, as muslims here seem to care less and less about their traditions, and you can see muslim women in the street showing their hair, even if they declare themselves strongly convinced muslims.

So, evidently, not every muslim is a fanatic yihadist, evidently. Same way not every christian is a fanatic crusader. Criticizing the people require too many qualifiers for it to be a valid criticism. You can talk about muslims who follow sharia law, and live in iran, who are older than 40 years old... But at that point you're not criticizing a religion, but a demografic.



However, as I said, religions can and should be criticized. The ideas on the bible, or the qur'an, or the torah, or the mahabharata... all those are free to be criticized, the same way any other philosophical current can be criticized.



As a side point, I can't talk about USA, but I can say that in Spain and France, at least, there's no such thing as "islamophobia". It's more a xenophibia thing. They don't have our cultural upbringing, so we distrust them, but we don't actually care about their god. If they adapt to our social uses, they can pray to allah, or to whomever they want. After all: it's just religion, it's not like it matters. By what I mean, religion, here, is what you do in private, without bothering others (except for jehova witnesses. Those still bother us at home, trying to "save" us).

If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic

Who gets to decide who is "really following Islam"?

...

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

The Quran says bad things. It is worth while opposing the bad things and speaking against those who claim the bad things are good things.

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe. Pretending that liberal Muslims don't exist makes the Islamists the de-facto representatives of Muslim communities and further marginalizes liberals and reformers.

I couldn't agree more with you there, SpecialFrog. As I mentioned, some people identify as muslim/cristian for cultural/historical reasons. In fact, most people, in my country, identify as cristians for historical reasons, or because our previous regimen, a dictatorship, imposed cristianism on them. This makes for a lot of "cristians" who don't even know how many books are in the new testament. or how many gospels are there. But they're nonetheless cristians, who say that you need to believe in Jesus, and all that crap.

Exactly the same is happening with some muslims here. Their parents were muslims, and they do know who Mohammed was, and that Allah is their god... but they know little more about their religion. Are those muslims? I think they are. Culturally, at least. Their belief in allah can't be denied. But you don't see them stoning gays to death, for example.

As I mentioned previously, Islam itself needs to be criticized, and some parts should be forbidden, in a civilized country. Same way that some parts of cristianism are forbidden (killing people for eating shellfish, comes to mind). But denying that there are moderate muslims, who are able to live in an aconfesional country without making a fuss about culture is unfair for them.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

The Quran says bad things. It is worth while opposing the bad things and speaking against those who claim the bad things are good things.

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe. Pretending that liberal Muslims don't exist makes the Islamists the de-facto representatives of Muslim communities and further marginalizes liberals and reformers.

I couldn't agree more with you there, SpecialFrog. As I mentioned, some people identify as muslim/cristian for cultural/historical reasons. In fact, most people, in my country, identify as cristians for historical reasons, or because our previous regimen, a dictatorship, imposed cristianism on them. This makes for a lot of "cristians" who don't even know how many books are in the new testament. or how many gospels are there. But they're nonetheless cristians, who say that you need to believe in Jesus, and all that crap.

Exactly the same is happening with some muslims here. Their parents were muslims, and they do know who Mohammed was, and that Allah is their god... but they know little more about their religion. Are those muslims? I think they are. Culturally, at least. Their belief in allah can't be denied. But you don't see them stoning gays to death, for example.

As I mentioned previously, Islam itself needs to be criticized, and some parts should be forbidden, in a civilized country. Same way that some parts of cristianism are forbidden (killing people for eating shellfish, comes to mind). But denying that there are moderate muslims, who are able to live in an aconfesional country without making a fuss about culture is unfair for them.

Welcome aboard.

While I generally agree with you, I think there are both "cultural Muslims" and Muslims who are genuinely religious who nevertheless follow a liberal interpretation of Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz, for instance, is definitely religious but has tweeted Jesus and Mo cartoons.

It is perhaps a minor distinction but an important one, I think.

 

[Shanara99]

While I generally agree with you, I think there are both "cultural Muslims" and Muslims who are genuinely religious who nevertheless follow a liberal interpretation of Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz, for instance, is definitely religious but has tweeted Jesus and Mo cartoons.

It is perhaps a minor distinction but an important one, I think.

Point taken. I have to admit that are muslims who apply islam liberaly, ignoring the most.... fanatic aspects of their religion, while still being quite religious themselves.

It's, indeed, an important distinction, that muct be made.

 

[sick_jesus]

Who gets to decide who is "really following Islam"?

You've taken a small part of a much longer phrase and used it to stand alone. I explained quite logically why they (nor any other person adhering to religion cannot be democratic: because their ultimate authority is a dictator/god and the religious order itself is based on hierarchy which isn't and doesn't care for democracy. One can't claim to be democratic in one instance and yet live life and form ones views according to the 'ultimate word of god' on the other. So that is not democracy and if you worship and live by the words of a single, all-powerful and knowing being then you cannot be democratic. You can't have it both ways. Because that is a cop out for anything you don't like or agree with. Suddenly, even when the democratic vote goes against you, then the claim is that it is a matter of faith. So if you are a real democrat, who truly believes in democracy, then you cannot be devoutly religious as that would mean (even if your beliefs could still remain stable) that you are liable and willing to live and behave against those beliefs because they maybe didn't get the vote. I'm sure most will agree that in religion actions are much more important than declarations and those actions will ultimately show whether you are practising the faith or not.

Religious people interpret their texts and find a reason to ignore the parts they find objectionable. Slavery was consistent with Christianity until it became inconsistent with Christianity.

Exactly, I agree on that. And it's a good thing: a weakening of the poison. The more we can, with science and logic, make these people reconsider or question their ideology, water it down, the better it will get. These are small victories upon victories until hopefully... gradually we'll get all religions somewhere to how it is in UK today whereby most are believers on paper only. In another hundred or so years this poison should have worked its way out the population altogether.

And I would say that they more 'reinterpret their texts to find a reason to ignore the parts that society finds objectionable'. Because if there was no public opinion against it they wouldn't reinterpret their texts at all. They wrote them. So each reinterpretation is a small victory for logic and science.

You can claim that this means they aren't really Muslim / Jewish / Christian / whatever but it is ultimately a pointless endeavour.

Well it is certainly not a pointless endeavour because it is only by people pointing out these inconsistencies and contradictions and pulling people to task on their doctrines compared to their behaviours that we get any progression and dilute the poison. If someone else would accept that a priest can bugger a kid and still be a devout practicing catholic, or another can completely live against their own doctrine, break every law or commandment and still be a genuine whatever, then that's their business. Personally I will not let that pass and will point out those contradictions and will call their faith into question. As we've seen above, with them having to reinterpret their texts to answer mere mortals like me, it is anything but pointless.

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

Let's let the Islamic community itself decide that question. Let us take both groups and put them in the heartland of the arab and muslim world and see what would happen. I think we'll find that gay liberal muslims would not fare too well... would be voted out... by the sword! But again, I'm delighted for these developments (and i know they exist), this westernising of the faith. And if you think it isn't westernisation you'll find that the further Islam is from its heartland and origins the more corrupt from the original faith it becomes and the less extreme that brand of Islam is. Islam will tell you exactly the same. So those gay liberal muslims and those Muhammed was an alien Muslims and those my husband was a female atheist muslims and all the Mcdonald's muslims well they better prey with all their five prayers per day that the religion they claim to follow and the religion they want to enlighten and dominate the entire globe does not, because if it does they'll be slaughtered and condemned to hell quicker than the pigs like me.

The Quran says bad things. It is worth while opposing the bad things and speaking against those who claim the bad things are good things.

No, it's worthwhile opposing religion as a whole until it's watered down to waste-water and pissed down the toilet and into the sewer of history for good.

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe. Pretending that liberal Muslims don't exist makes the Islamists the de-facto representatives of Muslim communities and further marginalizes liberals and reformers.

My respect for people as humans is so great, and so my belief (based on all the scientific and logical proof at hand) that this existence is the only guaranteed one we have, that it becomes my duty to inform my fellow brothers and sisters of what religion is and how idiotic it is and what a waste it is to live their sole existence bent over to prayer to all-seeing giants in the sky. I do not harass people in the street and neither do I impose myself upon them, but if they are in my house, or they are at a debate, or they come to a rally then I will do the little my voice can to help prise open these peoples eyes to the evil and the falsehood of religion. I can't respect anyone more than that. At least then, when I've done that, they have some kind of choice. Granted, my 30 seconds is nothing to years of indoctrination but it's a squeak at least. But I think you were maybe referring to those bigoted Sun readers who often turn their hatred into violence if there are enough of them against one or after they've had a skinful of courage. If so, I agree. I'm just as against that ignorance as I am against the ignorance of religion and for me that violence and racism only pushes people to immerse themselves further into doctrine and undoes any good that logical and scientific argument may have done.

As for liberal muslims (liberal any devout follower of any faith)... well, how liberal can anyone be when they live their lives by a set of holy orders? Yes there is room for interpretation of those texts but it's much like saying you are free within the confines of the prison. There is only so far you can go without breaching the walls. To be libre... liberal in that context has a very restricted meaning.

Phww... and now onto Laurens... Oh, gawd...

 

[sick_jesus]

Exactly the same is happening with some muslims here. Their parents were muslims, and they do know who Mohammed was, and that Allah is their god... but they know little more about their religion. Are those muslims? I think they are. Culturally, at least. Their belief in allah can't be denied. But you don't see them stoning gays to death, for example.

Believing is not enough and the Koran will tell you as much. A muslim must not only believe but must submit to the will of god... that is what the word muslim means (submitter).

Mu'men is a believer
Muslim is a submitter

So there is certainly a criteria above just believing to be accepted as a muslim: one must submit as well.

In Islam, Christians and Jews are mu'mens, but not submitters. They will still be received by Allah (only they won't for other reasons (always a catch)) ut they will have less healthy souls and be in a less favourable position than the muslims. Which doesn't make much sense in paradise... but there ya go, this is religion and none of it makes any sense.

There is a quite well known text around mu'men/muslims but I can't recall it just now.

Also, imagine you believe in Allah but you also believe in Vishnu or that Christ was not only a prophet but actually son of god, then you cannot be said to be following the muslim faith as it is absolutely monotheistic and also against idolatry. Though muslims also say that no man can judge anothers depth of belief nor can judge him on it, that only god can judge that... and yet sunni /shia disputes and violence seems to absolutely judge who is the 'correct type of muslim'.

And when you say that they are 'culturally muslim' i would completely disagree in most cases. Most 2nd and 3rd generation muslims (of which you refer) know as little about their cultural inheritance as they do their religion (which for me are intermingled anyhow). If anything these people are culturally christian. Living here and growing up here, like me, they have absolutely no choice in that. Sure, they get a little cultural heritage from their families but that is nothing compared to a lifetime of schooling and social interaction and that which is being pumped into their poor brains by British media and politics. I'm sure most are even more familiar with christian biblical stories than those from the koran.

 

[SpecialFrog]

If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic

Who gets to decide who is "really following Islam"?

You've taken a small part of a much longer phrase and used it to stand alone. I explained quite logically why they (nor any other person adhering to religion cannot be democratic: because their ultimate authority is a dictator/god and the religious order itself is based on hierarchy which isn't and doesn't care for democracy.

I think this phrase s is central to your entire argument. The rest of the sentence is only relevant if I accept your underlying assumptions that not only can you determine who is and is not a real Muslim, you can do so by reading the Quran.

I don't accept either of those premises.

According to the Torah, no one has practiced Judaism properly for almost two thousand years. Does this mean there are no "real Jews"?

While certain religious organizations have enforced ideas about who is and isn't part of the in group, in general religion is a matter of self-identification and religious practices evolve over time, even as the texts do not. Even fundamentalists have to interpret their texts because a lot of them don't make any sense.

One can't claim to be democratic in one instance and yet livecclife and form ones views according to the 'ultimate word of god' on the other.

Why not? Suppose you believe that God is pro-democracy?

Religious people interpret their texts and find a reason to ignore the parts they find objectionable. Slavery was consistent with Christianity until it became inconsistent with Christianity.

And I would say that they more 'reinterpret their texts to find a reason to ignore the parts that society finds objectionable'. Because if there was no public opinion against it they wouldn't reinterpret their texts at all. They wrote them. So each reinterpretation is a small victory for logic and science.

In the specific context of slavery, certain Christian groups were ahead of the curve of public opinion. How do you explain their re-interpretation?

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

Let's let the Islamic community itself decide that question. Let us take both groups and put them in the heartland of the arab and muslim world and see what would happen.

Just to note, there are more Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh than there are in the Middle East and the highest Muslim population of all is in Indonesia. Where is the heartland of the Muslim world, exactly?

Besides, the majority of Christians are Catholic and the official position of the Catholic church is that it is the only true church. Does that mean that Protestants aren't actually Christian?

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe.

To clarify this statement, I don't think people are entitled to have their beliefs respected but they are entitled to have their rights to their beliefs respected. And this includes the right to decide for yourself what you actually believe.

As for liberal muslims (liberal any devout follower of any faith)... well, how liberal can anyone be when they live their lives by a set of holy orders? Yes there is room for interpretation of those texts but it's much like saying you are free within the confines of the prison. There is only so far you can go without breaching the walls. To be libre... liberal in that context has a very restricted meaning.

Perhaps we are using different meanings of the word "liberal" here but I don't see how being religious prohibits anyone from being liberal.

 

[sick_jesus]

If they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic

Who gets to decide who is "really following Islam"?

I think this phrase s is central to your entire argument. The rest of the sentence is only relevant if I accept your underlying assumptions that not only can you determine who is and is not a real Muslim, you can do so by reading the Quran.

I don't accept either of those premises.

According to the Torah, no one has practiced Judaism properly for almost two thousand years. Does this mean there are no "real Jews"?

While certain religious organizations have enforced ideas about who is and isn't part of the in group, in general religion is a matter of self-identification and religious practices evolve over time, even as the texts do not. Even fundamentalists have to interpret their texts because a lot of them don't make any sense.

Again, you have taken a small part of a much longer phrase and continue to use it out of context even when it has been explained to you. Not only have you used it out of context but you have even tried to put the emphasis on the religion where the clear subject of my statement was not on religion but the contradiction of saying someone praying to an all-powerful being and then singing about democracy. Idiotic contradiction go and maybe think about it.

One can't claim to be democratic in one instance and yet livecclife and form ones views according to the 'ultimate word of god' on the other.

Why not? Suppose you believe that God is pro-democracy?

Well the confused idiots who actually believe in a god may very well try and use such a pathetic and lowly argument as that but all it would mean is that they have even less understanding of the concept of democracy than they do for logical thought. And at that point, with such a dumb-minded retort, i'd tick them off as one of the helpless cases and leave them to suffer with their god and their evils.

Religious people interpret their texts and find a reason to ignore the parts they find objectionable. Slavery was consistent with Christianity until it became inconsistent with Christianity.

And I would say that they more 'reinterpret their texts to find a reason to ignore the parts that society finds objectionable'. Because if there was no public opinion against it they wouldn't reinterpret their texts at all. They wrote them. So each reinterpretation is a small victory for logic and science.

In the specific context of slavery, certain Christian groups were ahead of the curve of public opinion. How do you explain their re-interpretation?

Oh, I'm sure they were. They took them into slavery and then set them free! How noble. That's also a very cheap line with 'certain' chucked in and i'd like to see the historical support for that against the current public opinion of the time. Sounds a bit like you're making stuff up there. Even if it were to have any truth about it, it wouldn't change a thing as a small minority isn't going to change the opinion of the church... especially with all the dirty money coming in off slavery. So when the text was re-interpreted it wasn't because a few Christians found objection to what they were doing.

Islamic fundamentalists are real Muslims. Gay liberal Muslims (which do exist) are real Muslims.

Let's let the Islamic community itself decide that question. Let us take both groups and put them in the heartland of the arab and muslim world and see what would happen.

Just to note, there are more Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh than there are in the Middle East and the highest Muslim population of all is in Indonesia. Where is the heartland of the Muslim world, exactly?

Well I specifically didn't say because that's not something you can do in a single paragraph. But the real interesting thing is that although I didn't say (didn't even hint at my thoughts) still you drew your own conclusions and then doubted me on YOUR conclusions. That says so much more about you and a way of debating that just defeats itself.

Besides, the majority of Christians are Catholic and the official position of the Catholic church is that it is the only true church. Does that mean that Protestants aren't actually Christian?

Well that argument is ridiculous, please think before typing. If we go on that logic then they are all muslim. End of. My point is that with all religions and all sects of religions there are fundamental beliefs and practices that one cannot escape. So if you are a priest who buggers young boys, refuses to pray to saints and doesn't accept the pope as head of the church, then no, regardless of what you class yourself you are not a practising catholic... though he may still be a practising protestant (they'll accept anyone!) It's not me who decides if someone follows their religion: it's them. I just bring it to light. And if they label themselves as Jew/muslim/Christian or Satanist but are not adhering to the very basic requirements then, no... they are not what they scream they are. And I will say as much if they bring their childish superstitions anywhere near me or around me or try to push it onto me.

If someone tells me "I am protestant but don't believe in god" then they are not protestant. there are certain criteria to follow in all religions and if you are not following them then you are not what you claim. Do you need it simplified any further? If you tell me that even if they don't believe in their own god and don't follow their own religion but still claim to be it that they are... then IU'll leeave you to yourself on that one.

It is also worth treating people as human beings and not telling them what they believe.
To clarify this statement, I don't think people are entitled to have their beliefs respected but they are entitled to have their rights to their beliefs respected. And this includes the right to decide for yourself what you actually believe.

Yes, I agree. But they can only decide if they have a choice and many are so indoctrinated or sheltered that they've never really heard logical or intelligent argument for a godless universe. So in order to make their own decisions they need people like some of us here to put to them an alternative... to put the hard questions to them. Many after hearing such stuff renounce their faith and turn atheist so that is real choice. If one hears all the arguments and still chooses god that's their fault and they can live in noodle land with the rest of them.

As for liberal muslims (liberal any devout follower of any faith)... well, how liberal can anyone be when they live their lives by a set of holy orders? Yes there is room for interpretation of those texts but it's much like saying you are free within the confines of the prison. There is only so far you can go without breaching the walls. To be libre... liberal in that context has a very restricted meaning.

Perhaps we are using different meanings of the word "liberal" here but I don't see how being religious prohibits anyone from being liberal.

I Refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago:

You're free in the confines of the prison. Liberal in the confines of your text. Both are very restricted freedoms, and to be liberal you need liberty and there is no liberty in religion.

I've said all there is and when one has to begin repeating it's time to stop and move on. You can have a free shot as that's only fair... but I'd stick to statements if I were you as there's no more point me re-answering the same questions. I'm off to find a nice young and smooth gay liberal muslim boy to really make a night of it... X

 

[Shanara99]

f they're really following Islam then they cannot be democratic

IAgain, you have taken a small part of a much longer phrase and continue to use it out of context even when it has been explained to you. Not only have you used it out of context but you have even tried to put the emphasis on the religion where the clear subject of my statement was not on religion but the contradiction of saying someone praying to an all-powerful being and then singing about democracy. Idiotic contradiction go and maybe think about it.
[/quote ]

One can't claim to be democratic in one instance and yet livecclife and form ones views according to the 'ultimate word of god' on the other.

Well, you claim you can't do that, and I present you the incredible case of the Vatican State. They vote on their pope. Sure it's not 1 man, 1 vote, but they still vote for it.

Believing in an all-powerful entity for your afterlife doesn't mean you allow that all-powerful to control every aspect of your life. You can believe that you'll get an eternal reward after death, but that, up to that point, the laws of men govern you. I know the Vatican is not exactrly a democracy... but it's not a dictatorship, for sure. And you should be used to countries with a figure of autority non elected (a king) that are, in fact, democratic. Like the case of UK and Spain. Both of them have a monarchy, yet are democracies.

Believing is not enough and the Koran will tell you as much. A muslim must not only believe but must submit to the will of god... that is what the word muslim means (submitter).

Mu'men is a believer
Muslim is a submitter

So there is certainly a criteria above just believing to be accepted as a muslim: one must submit as well.

In Islam, Christians and Jews are mu'mens, but not submitters. They will still be received by Allah (only they won't for other reasons (always a catch)) ut they will have less healthy souls and be in a less favourable position than the muslims. Which doesn't make much sense in paradise... but there ya go, this is religion and none of it makes any sense.

There is a quite well known text around mu'men/muslims but I can't recall it just now.

Also, imagine you believe in Allah but you also believe in Vishnu or that Christ was not only a prophet but actually son of god, then you cannot be said to be following the muslim faith as it is absolutely monotheistic and also against idolatry. Though muslims also say that no man can judge anothers depth of belief nor can judge him on it, that only god can judge that... and yet sunni /shia disputes and violence seems to absolutely judge who is the 'correct type of muslim'.

And when you say that they are 'culturally muslim' i would completely disagree in most cases. Most 2nd and 3rd generation muslims (of which you refer) know as little about their cultural inheritance as they do their religion (which for me are intermingled anyhow). If anything these people are culturally christian. Living here and growing up here, like me, they have absolutely no choice in that. Sure, they get a little cultural heritage from their families but that is nothing compared to a lifetime of schooling and social interaction and that which is being pumped into their poor brains by British media and politics. I'm sure most are even more familiar with christian biblical stories than those from the koran.

So, your argument is basically, that they are "no true muslim". I guess they're no true Scottsmen, either. There are plenty of Christian denominations, some of them require to accept certain precepts and ideas, and ignore the rest. There's even a certain denomination of christianism that asserts that christ was a woman. Another denomination says that christ traveled to the Americas.

Yes, if you define muslim as people who blindly follow every single line in the qur'an, you'd be true. But you'd find that you'd have much less than 2.000 million muslims.

Fanatics, indeed, cannot be democrats. But not every muslim is a fanatic. And at this point, we reach the crux of the question: How you decide who is a muslim/christian/jew...?

The way I see it, you have 3 possibilities.

1.- If spiritual belief, without any formality is required, then just admiting that alah/jaweh/ellohim whatever exists makes you a muslim/christian/jew.

2.- If you need to follow an interpretation of sacred scripture, independant of what's that interpretation, then multiple denominations would still be islam/jews/christianity.

3.- if you need to adhere to the letter of your sacred text, and any deviation of them is heresy, then, only a small part of what's oficially a religion is that religion.

Are sunis muslims, or are shia the only muslims? Are catholic christians, or only protestants are the True Christians (tm)? The sufis are clearly muslim... but re the yezidi? Are the lutherans christians? What about the mormons?

As you see, is not that easy. Yes, if you go out of your way to assert that only those who follow the qur'an to the letter are muslims, you'd be right to say that they cannot be democratic. But not every muslim believes the qur'an to that point, same way not every christian believes the bible to the letter.

So at this point is important to this discussion that we define what is a muslim. Because obviously you are thinking on a very different definition than SpecialFrog or I.


Edit: messed up my quotation tags.

 

[tuxbox]

Having a job with some less-educated working class individuals who read the Sun, I can say categorically that there is an irrational hatred towards Muslims that is constantly exacerbated by fabrications and exaggerations in the media.

It's easy enough for educated atheists to sit on the internet and say "how can you be afraid of a religion lol", but the reality is that some people hate Muslims just by virtue of their being Muslim.

Sure criticizing Islam is not bigotry in and of itself, but you cannot make the argument that Islamophobia is not a thing. I've seen it, its not nice.

WTF are Sun readers?

No one is denying that islamophobia does not exist, but criticizing Islam does not equal hating Muslims.

If you look at the Middle Eastern countries ruled by Muslims and see all of the atrocities committed in the name of Allah then it is understandable why some people fear Muslims. So I would not call their fear of Muslims irrational.

That said, there are plenty of people who hate Christians, Jews, and many religious and non-religious people. So those people who hate Muslims are no different than the other people who hate others. Don't make Muslims out to be a the only victims here.

Hate of any kind is not nice.