islamophobia

[Will]

I think the main problem is people don't understand what Islam is as a religion. Islam, as a religion, is a big, big tent. It spans many different beliefs and principles and ideologies. There are radical teachings, which mainly have root relatively recently in Wahabism (the ultra-conservative reading of Islam), but they're not in the majority. Most Muslims are moderate politically, socially and religiously.

The mosque controversy, the questioning of whether President Obama is a Muslim, etc. are all examples of pure, unadulterated bigotry, and the vasy, vast majority of it is coming from people who consider themselves Christians. It's shameful behavior made only more shameful by the fact they're not called on it by smart people (like us, hehe).

I don't share the beliefs of Muslims, in fact I find them to be just as silly as Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism, but I am not ignorant of what Islam is, I don't fear Muslims and I don't hate Muslims. Islamophobia is simply a nice way of saying "bigot", just as homophobia is a nice way of saying "bigot".

[PoopShoot]

People are not their book, but the book is the religion.

If that were the case, there would be no religious people.  No, the religion is dictated by people, hence the changes in the religion over time while their bokk changed very little.

The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

The same goes for Christianity.  You seem to forget the stonings in the old testament, the attempted genocide on the Canaanites and all the other lovely little bits in your book.

[jduster]

those are good points, will, i agree with you.

i am anti-muslim (just as i am anti-christian), though i dont consider myself a bigot.  i believe everyone should not be victim to irrational stigmas, have equal rights, have freedom from discrimination, and such.  i believe everyone should have the right to freely express their ideas openly without dogmatic resistances.  if i deny any religious group that right, i would in no position to complaint that religious groups are intolerant to atheists.  everyone should freely express their beliefs and everybody should be open minded in listening.  no dogma, no false accusations, no intimidation, no ad baculum, no emotional appeals, no stigmas.  if this ideal environment would exist, religion would be gone, because people would be able to think logically without social consequences.

[Intercourseman72]

Not only Christians are islamophobes, you know.

In my country, people are getting more skeptical to those of arabic heritage - particularly practicing muslims - with every passing minute, it seems.

I think it's a reaction to mass-labeling a collection of many different people with varied systems of belief as potentially dangerous to "our way of life" even though most of them do come here looking for a NEW way of life. But then again, it's always the loud-mouthed minorities one hears best, is it not..?

Yeah, just look at Pat Condell and Thunderf00t. I'd say there is a huge nationalist component when it comes to Bigotry towards Muslims. Lots of nationalists parties around Europe (and Republicans) are getting support under an anti-immigration/anti-Islam platform. BNP and UKIP are the most notorious probably. There is also this party in Belgium that is very nationalistic/anti-Islamic that borders on ethnic nationalism really. Ethnic nationalism is considered rather repulsive now though, so... yeah. The banner is more like "our way of life."

[humblesmurph]

People are not their book, but the book is the religion.

If that were the case, there would be no religious people.  No, the religion is dictated by people, hence the changes in the religion over time while their bokk changed very little.

Poop, the book is the common denominator.  For over 1500 years the faith has had this one book.  When there are differences of opinion regarding how to practice Christianity, conflicting sides always point to the Bible.  The very basis of the religion is about having a ground, an objective morality, ultimate judgment and all that jazz (at least I thought).  Absent the actual voice of God, that ground is the Bible.  While the particulars of worship aren't necessarily dictated by the Bible, when Christians start talking about what one should and shouldn't do they usually bring up the book.

If we are playing chess, chess has established rules.  We can choose to break the rules if we want to, but it seems we couldn't be properly said to be playing chess. If you choose to break a rule and I disagree, I bring out the rulebook and settle the argument.  The Bible is the Rulebook for Christianity. It defines the religion in the same way that rules of a game define the game.  Basketball has changed over the years because the rules have changed.  Chess remains the same because the rules remain the same.  Christianity hasn't changed because the rules haven't changed.  What moderate Christians are practicing is something else entirely in my view.  They really should just write a new book with clear language and without all the violent overtures.

[PoopShoot]

Poop, the book is the common denominator.  For over 1500 years the faith has had this one book.  When there are differences of opinion regarding how to practice Christianity, conflicting sides always point to the Bible.  

And each just as quickly ignore one another.  Which christian denomination teaches that it's ok to murder a man for working on Saturday?

The very basis of the religion is about having a ground, an objective morality, ultimate judgment and all that jazz (at least I thought).  

They claim as much, but they don't actually bother to live that way.  That's why people have to find a church that fits them rather than simply going to the one closest to them.

Absent the actual voice of God, that ground is the Bible.  While the particulars of worship aren't necessarily dictated by the Bible, when Christians start talking about what one should and shouldn't do they usually bring up the book.

Yep, then they interpret the book to fit how they want it.

If we are playing chess, chess has established rules.  We can choose to break the rules if we want to, but it seems we couldn't be properly said to be playing chess.

Good analogy.  Let's apply it to christianity.  Some Baptists insist that followers wash each others feet.  Other baptist denominations insist that this is not a requirement.  They fight over it like two chess players fight when one takes a piece through en passant and the other doesn't recognize that rule.  Who is right?  That depends on house rules, despite the fact that there are official rules governing the usage of en passant.

If you choose to break a rule and I disagree, I bring out the rulebook and settle the argument.  The Bible is the Rulebook for Christianity. It defines the religion in the same way that rules of a game define the game.  

Therein lies the rub: the rules are all optional, at least in practice.  If that weren't the case, all christians would be snake handlers.

What moderate Christians are practicing is something else entirely in my view.  They really should just write a new book with clear language without all the violent overtures.

In the end, this is really all about a no true scotsman fallacy with the added twist of an Irishman being the one stating what true scotsmen do.

[humblesmurph]

I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

[PoopShoot]

I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

[Tank]

I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

[PoopShoot]

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Regardless, Muslims don't generally BEHAVE in a violent manner, which was the original point.  The religion of Islam is, in practice, a peaceful religion.

[humblesmurph]

I see your point.  There is still the very real problem of violence being in a book that greatly influences a religion.  If they simply wrote a new book that couldn't possibly be construed to advocate racism, sexism, and genocide, I think that there would be less crazies in the world.

You're probably right.

But as the Quran is the received word of God rewriting the Quran would be an absolute denial of a Muslim's faith.  To be a Muslim is to believe the Quran, to believe the Quaran is to be a Muslim. The relationship between a Muslim and the Quran is very different from that between a Christian and the Bible. To the Christian the Bible is very much the collected stories of people about Jesus. For a Muslim the Quarn is in effect Allah's closest possible incarnation on Earth, it is inviolate.

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Tank, I hate to admit this in a public forum, but you may have convinced me that Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity.  I know this stuff should be common knowledge, but I never pay much attention to religion, I'll try to figure out how to worship god when I see some evidence that she exists.   Anyway, the absoluteness of the Koran seems to make it a much more dangerous text to base a religion on.  The bible and the koran are both texts that encourage violence and bigotry, but at least the bible can be interpreted in a less ridiculous way.  

Thanks for ruining my Saturday Tank.  I'll be all day trying to rid myself of my new found Islamaphobia.  Where's an Imam when you need one?

[Tank]

The various splits and sects of Islam are mostly caused by schisms about the succession of the Prophet Mohamed and interpretations of his sayings in the hadiths. The hadiths are a moving target and are up for reinterpretation to suit political aspirations and pragmatic need.

Regardless, Muslims don't generally BEHAVE in a violent manner, which was the original point.  The religion of Islam is, in practice, a peaceful religion.

I agree. I have never met a violent Muslim. But that's not the point I was responding to. I was responding to the point that Muslims should rewrite the Quran, which they could not and remain Muslims.

[Tank]

Tank, I hate to admit this in a public forum, but you may have convinced me that Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity.  I know this stuff should be common knowledge, but I never pay much attention to religion, I'll try to figure out how to worship god when I see some evidence that she exists.   Anyway, the absoluteness of the Koran seems to make it a much more dangerous text to base a religion on.  The bible and the koran are both texts that encourage violence and bigotry, but at least the bible can be interpreted in a less ridiculous way.  

Thanks for ruining my Saturday Tank.  I'll be all day trying to rid myself of my new found Islamaphobia.  Where's an Imam when you need one?

Islam has no church, no ruling authority, a Muslim has to find their own way to heaven, they can't just do as they are told, although in practice cultural norms and traditions inform the actions of the individual. I think the issue with Islam is now a crisis of authority of Allah. If the Quran is true why has the Caliphate (the regent of God on Earth and successor to Mohamed) not defeated the infidel? Islam is besieged on all sides by peoples who appear to be materially more successful than the average Muslim while not being Muslim!

The colonisation and humiliating defeat of the lands of Islam caused lasting shock in the Muslim psyche which the law makers and respected thinkers have still to come to terms with. The rank and file of Christianity have their church to cling to in times of trouble, this support is not available to the rank and file Muslim who know everything is the will of Allah. I think it is this individual responsibility of the Muslim to their own salvation and vicariously all other Muslims, combined with the apparent failure of Islam to conquer the infidel that has led to the violent radicalisation of a very, very small proportion of Muslims.  

At the moment Christianity is not going through such a crisis of authority, it's the big guy on the block. Islam however is perceived by many Muslims as failing and some Muslims are taking a violent path to rectifying that situation.

[AreEl]

Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence?   I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers.  I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

Yes, the Bible contains many passages where God advocates violence against non-believers and believers as well. However, the topic here is about islamophobia so to answer your question would be to go off topic.

Here is a smart post:

I think the main problem is people don't understand what Islam is as a religion. Islam, as a religion, is a big, big tent. It spans many different beliefs and principles and ideologies. There are radical teachings, which mainly have root relatively recently in Wahabism (the ultra-conservative reading of Islam), but they're not in the majority. Most Muslims are moderate politically, socially and religiously.

As I stated earlier, secular Muslims are ethically OK just as are most apostate Christians: they conform more-or-less to the morality of the moment depending on how important religion is to them. This is why most of us can say,

I have never met a violent Muslim.

[humblesmurph]

The Koran advocates violence against infidels and there are many suras (verses) I could bring up to show this. Islam itself was born in violence and has largely grown by violence/coercion. Secular Muslims, however, hold to values similar to those of most sensible people.

Apostate Christianity has grown by the same forces Islam uses but to a lesser extent, as violence isn't part of biblical injunctions. Again, secular Christians hold to the values of the day.

Could you provide some evidence of the relative difference between Christianity and Islam regarding violence? I always thought the Bible contained passages advocating violence against non believers. I was taught in history class that the Crusades were at least as bloody (if not much more so) than whatever the Muslims called their violent mass coercion.

Yes, the Bible contains many passages where God advocates violence against non-believers and believers as well. However, the topic here is about islamophobia so to answer your question would be to go off topic.

Yes this thread is about Islamophobia.  The idea that Christianity is somehow superior to Islam (implied by what I bolded and italicized) is at the heart of the problem.  It's completely on topic.