Islamophobia

Big Guy · January 19, 2015

I think that I am finally convinced by those on this board who see Islam and Muslims as a real danger to North America. I researched some names and statistics and realized that Muslims have been slowly becoming part of the Canadian fabric and according to some on this board, harboring thoughts of violence as taught by the Koran.

For example; Wajid Khan hid in the federal Conservative party, Yasmin Ratansi in the Liberal camp and Yasir Naqvi had Jack Laytons ear.We currently have Haheed Nenshi, the current mayor of Calgary, who, after being outed as a Muslim, squeezed into a re-election with 73% of the vote. We have Haroon Siddiqui, a columnist and former editor of the Toronto Star. The NHL and the Toronto Maple Leafs have Nazeem Kadri following those dangerous teachings of Islam while in the NHL. That is just a small representation of Canadian Muslims who, according to some posters here, have been poisoned by Islam and should be watched. Others can be found at:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Muslims

We know that Muslims are good fighters because of the success of ISIS in the Middle East. They must be trying to emulate their American brothers; Eddie Mustafa Mohammed, Matthew Saad Mohammed and Mike Tyson - oh - and that other Muslim who, on behalf of Americans, helped light the Olympic flame in Atlanta in 1966. Yes, Muhammad Ali also had some success in boxing.

Then we have Kareem Abdul Jabar, ShaquilIe O'NealA and Iman. I guess that I could go on and on exposing Muslims who, some on this board, feel are being brainwashed into violence by the Koran but I will let those interested see for themselves;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Muslims

Hey - What if those folks on this board who blame the teachings of Islam for hate, violence and chaos are wrong? What if it is only individuals with a violent secular agenda use Islam as an excuse to reach their dark goals? Maybe these folks who are blaming Islam are just racists and bigots?

I wonder.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Big Guy

-1=e^ipi · January 19, 2015

I think that I am finally convinced by those on this board who see Islam and Muslims as a real danger to North America.

I'm not convinced that you are 'convinced'. This thread appears to me to be an attempt to strawman people that think that certain interpretations of Islam (specifically salafism and wahabism) can cause terrorism, violent jihad, killing of apostates, killing of homosexuals, stoning for adultery, etc. The word 'islamophobia' is of course one of the many Orwellian words that progressives use to try to silence decenting opinion.

For one, (as far as I can tell) most of the people in the west that are being labelled as 'islamaphobes' specifically are against islamism not islam and frequently insist on distinguishing between different types of muslims. The protests in germany specifically refer to islamism, not islam. Sam harris distinguishes between jihadists, islamists, conservative muslims and liberal muslims. It is also very important to distinguish between Shia and Sunni as well as other branching of Islam. Yet your original post clearly attempts to group all muslims together.

Edit: After reading your post a second time, I think that you are being sarcastic in the first half but I am uncertain. Whenever I use sarcasm on online forums I always indicate it to avoid ambiguity. Of course being ambiguous and distorting meaning is a common tactic by the PC-crowd so it doesn't suprise me, nor do your attempts to lump all muslims together.

Maybe these folks who are blaming Islam are just racists and bigots?

Ah yes, the typical 'progressive' name calling, as expected. Not really sure how one can be a 'racist' against Islam since Islam is not a race, but such details are inconvenient to proper 'progressive' thinking.

Appeal to motive is a common tactic used by people that want a simplistic world view and don't want to deal with directly with arguments, evidence or reason. It is far simpler to just convince yourself that other people disagree with you due to some hidden motive and therefore you are right and do not have to deal with their arguments. I've heard it many times: "People that think there is a connection between Islam and Terrorism are just racist bigots!" "Atheists aren't really atheist, they just want to sin!" "Scientists that don't agree with the anthropogenic global warming 'concensus' only disagree because they are paid for by oil companies!" "The reason why people disagree with progressive taxation is because they are greedy!".

Edited January 19, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

Big Guy · January 19, 2015

Thank you for a very interesting response. I am not sure if my views as being evaluated as "progressive" should be considered an asset or a liability. I shall have to re-read your post a few times and do a little objective self reviewing.

I feel that to express my views clearly in reference to the different aspects of Islam: Sunni/Shia and then into the sub sects of the Sunni Malaki, Shafi, Hanbali, Hanafi or the Shia Zaidi, Ismali and Twelvers (and even into the Taliban Sunni Deobandi) would require a presentation of a length not appropriate to this venue and discourage the average browser.

Thank you for sharing your opinion in a respectful manner.

-1=e^ipi · January 19, 2015

Thank you for a very interesting response. I am not sure if my views as being evaluated as "progressive" should be considered an asset or a liability. I shall have to re-read your post a few times and do a little objective self reviewing.

To me the word 'progressive' is used primarily to play an Orwellian word association game to associate a certain set of views with 'progress' (regardless of if those views lead to progress) and avoid having to justify those views with reason or empirical evidence. Often 'progressives' will try to silence debate by labelling a disenting position as 'regressive' and proclaim that 'the debate is over', 'there is a consensus', or 'this view point has been settled' to justify not even bothering to defend their position with reason or empirical evidence. So in reality a 'progressive' belief doesn't necessarily lead to progress, but the Orwellian word play that has infected the English language for decades makes the average person sub-conciously associate progress with that belief.

Argus · January 19, 2015

Thank you for a very interesting response. I am not sure if my views as being evaluated as "progressive" should be considered an asset or a liability.

I think the more apt description is 'simplistic', which really does more fully encompass your views of the issue. And he's certainly right that you use name-calling to try and dismiss valid and generally more well-thought-out counter-arguments.

This thread, in fact, ought to simply be deleted. It adds nothing to the discussion already taking place under other topics, and appears to simply be your effort at insulting anyone who disagrees with you in a way you won't get suspended.

Moderators, this topic should be deleted.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Argus

January 19, 2015

Hey - What if those folks on this board who blame the teachings of Islam for hate, violence and chaos are wrong? What if it is only individuals with a violent secular agenda use Islam as an excuse to reach their dark goals? Maybe these folks who are blaming Islam are just racists and bigots?

I wonder.

Maybe they are just being fooled, by the cries of "Allahu Akbar", and "we have avenged the Prophet!". Those are some tricky secularists, right there.

Even more conniving is the way they have convinced entire countries to pretend to enact laws that put people to death for purely religious transgressions.

They must be fairly wealthy too, having paid all those actors to lie down in Nigeria.

The_Squid · January 19, 2015

It's not a secularist agenda lashing a citizen for daring to debate religion on an internet blog.

They are doing so for religious reasons. I am sure there are some Christian cheerleaders who would love this sort of punishment for the atheists and blasphemers here too.... but they're held in check by our system of government.

jacee · January 19, 2015

Maybe they are just being fooled, by the cries of "Allahu Akbar", and "we have avenged the Prophet!". Those are some tricky secularists, right there.

Even more conniving is the way they have convinced entire countries to pretend to enact laws that put people to death for purely religious transgressions.

They must be fairly wealthy too, having paid all those actors to lie down in Nigeria.

I think the point is that not all Muslims nor the religion itself are responsible for the actions of extremist terrorists.

Discrimination against all Muslims is not justified: Islamophobia is bigotry.

.

January 19, 2015

I think the point is that not all Muslims nor the religion itself are responsible for the actions of extremist terrorists.

Discrimination against all Muslims is not justified: Islamophobia is bigotry.

.

I couldn't agree more.

That said, not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

Edited January 19, 2015 by bcsapper

jacee · January 20, 2015

I couldn't agree more.

That said, not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

Can you be more specific?

Personally, I find all organized religion to be repulsive mind control.

The bible, for example, is pretty gruesome stuff.

But people are free to believe whatever they want.

I see no reason to criticize one religion more than others.

.

January 20, 2015

I just go by current body count, I guess.

Like you, I'm not keen on religions, but I really couldn't care less what people believe as long as they apply those beliefs to themselves alone. It wouldn't bother me if if they killed themselves for blasphemy.

Big Guy · January 20, 2015

I have read here time and time again that it is the teachings of Islam that is the problem. I have given a number of examples of Muslims who are part of the Canadian and American fabric, are considered nationalists and assets to North American culture, economics and art. I have yet to read a rebuttal.

The only argument I can envision is that some of these Islamophobes have decided that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. So the next logical step is if you believe that they read from the same source - the Koran - that some interpret the message very differently from others. But why are many Muslims not only peaceful but an important part of the Canadian and American society. Are the peaceful ones reading the Koran improperly where the violent ones are reading it properly - or - that the peaceful ones are reading the Koran properly while the violent ones are reading it improperly. That concept blows the Islamophobes mind.

That concept would mean that individuals will interpret religious writing to satisfy their secular agenda. That might even mean that very angry and disturbed individuals might interpret some teachings in the Bible or the Torah to validate the killing of people or blowing up of buildings. But when it happens with Christians or Jews then the interpreters are obviously deranged.

Squid, the lashing of a citizen for daring to debate is a secular interpretation. Some people actually believe in the exact literal translation from holy books. Modern Christians interpret the Bible in modern terms. There are some pretty strange suggestions in the Bible if you were to take them literally.

bcsapper, the atrocities of torture, maiming and genocide by those ignorant followers of Islam who choose to, or are convinced to, perform these acts which are foreign to all religions, are not part of the teachings of Islam. How many of the one million Muslims in Canada shout "Allahu Akbar" and "we have avenged the prophet!" How about the 3 million in the USA ?

As to Argus , unfortunately your dislike of Big Guy and his method of posting will probably paint you into the Islamophobe corner from which you may or may not be able to extricate yourself in time. That is why I have no respect for your views nor respond to your rude and baiting comments. I wonder why you even bother.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Big Guy

January 20, 2015

bcsapper, the atrocities of torture, maiming and genocide by those ignorant followers of Islam who choose to, or are convinced to, perform these acts which are foreign to all religions, are not part of the teachings of Islam. How many of the one million Muslims in Canada shout "Allahu Akbar" and "we have avenged the prophet!" How about the 3 million in the USA ?

Is it so difficult to understand that it is possible to differentiate between the two groups? That those who shout it are basing their actions on their interpretation of Islam, be it the Koran, the Hadith, the ravings of a local cleric, is not in any doubt.

And that the other group to which you refer are the same as you and me. Blameless for the most part. (There is the odd one or two that think the first group have such a good idea that they are willing to plot against their country, or head off to foreign lands to have a go at martyrdom, but I'm sure it is just one ore two. A very small percentage, anyway.)

What is it about that point of view that bothers you?

Is it just that not enough emphasis is placed on the "just the bad ones" position when Islamic excesses are discussed?

That said, what about the not quite so bad, but bad enough followers of the religion? Those who don't do the yelling and the killing, but are okay with the idea of corporal or capital punishment for certain crimes under Sharia law. Those who truly do believe that men are superior to women and should act as though it is so. Is it okay to talk about those? They seem to be legion.

I have said on here before that no Muslim who is not responsible for an act owes anyone an apology for that act. (As a Brit, I know all about that.)

But they have no right to expect others to refrain from criticism of their religion just because they might find it offensive. Maybe they don't. Maybe it's just you who does.

Edited January 20, 2015 by bcsapper

Big Guy · January 20, 2015

I believe in fairness. I also believe that to allow those who blame a religion for the acts perpetrated by those who use it as an excuse for secular agenda sets the table for very faulty foreign policies. I have no real problems with racists, bigots, misogynists or any other view that a person has. That is their right. They do tend to seek their own and limit their stupidity to a small group.

What bothers me is when the general populace begins to listen to these quacks and starts to allow the war mongers who are looking for excuses and reasons to get the rest of us into useless conflicts.

Sure, criticize religions for their specific tenets. Point out things that make your religion superior to others which is why you believe what and how you do. Most religions support and promote that idea to gain more members. But do not blame Islam, or the peaceful teachings of Islam for atrocities committed by people with their own agenda.

I care if the racists and bigots get us into useless wars.

Thank you for the civil reply.

January 20, 2015

So you believe then, that there is a secular agenda behind all the excesses currently attributed to some Muslims, be they ISIS and Boko Haram, or politicians in Pakistan?

Take ISIS for example. Were they to achieve the goals set forth by their secular agenda, are you of the opinion that the end result would be a secular society under their rule?

I can't see it myself.

Bonam · January 20, 2015

But do not blame Islam, or the peaceful teachings of Islam for atrocities committed by people with their own agenda.

Putting aside the rest of the debate (which I haven't commented on), could you explain how you came to use the phrase "the peaceful teachings of Islam". All "Abrahamic religions", including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have "teachings" that contain a lot of violence, prescriptions to commit violence, etc. One need only glance cursorily at any of the "holy texts" to see multiple instances of their deity exacting wrathful vengeance and slaughtering entire groups of people, or of the author of the holy text urging its readers to kill others for some perceived moral defect, or of supposed "holy figures" or "prophets" committing such acts.

In fact, the very reason that Christianity and Islam are the dominant religions that they are today is precisely because both of their teachings were anything but peaceful, they both converted other peoples to these religions by the sword, annihilating all competing "pagan" religions and their followers. Where older pagan religions consisted of many gods and didn't particularly care if someone worshiped one god or another or yet another and how they did it, the monotheistic religions saw it as the greatest blasphemy to revere anything but their one god, and prescribed their followers to kill, destroy, avoid, or convert by any means possible everyone else.

So what exactly are the "peaceful teachings of Islam"?

(It shouldn't have to be said, but to avoid extraneous chatter, I will say it: I acknowledge that most followers of these religions have, for the most part, learned to ignore the urgings to violence that their "teachings" include. The problem is with those that haven't.)

Edited January 20, 2015 by Bonam

-1=e^ipi · January 20, 2015

I have read here time and time again that it is the teachings of Islam that is the problem. I have given a number of examples of Muslims who are part of the Canadian and American fabric, are considered nationalists and assets to North American culture, economics and art.

The second statement doesn't contradict the first. Why have you deluded yourself into thinking it does?

Sigh...

Why don't you read up on Tarek Fatah's views on this issue then? He is a Canadian liberal secularist Muslim that agrees that the interpretation of many verses in the Quran and Hadith are problematic and motivate religious violence in the name of Islam. Does his existence somehow contradict his arguments?

The only argument I can envision is that some of these Islamophobes have decided that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good atheists and bad atheists. Good Sikhs and bad Sikhs. And so on.

So the next logical step is if you believe that they read from the same source - the Koran - that some interpret the message very differently from others.

Uh no. The first sentence doesn't imply the second clause of the second sentence. The fact that they are both true is irrelevant to whether your claim of logical implication is correct. Please learn basic logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

Are the peaceful ones reading the Koran improperly where the violent ones are reading it properly - or - that the peaceful ones are reading the Koran properly while the violent ones are reading it improperly.

All of them are reading the Quran improperly because no correct interpretation of the Quran exists. It's all nonsense and involves cognitive dissonance at some point. With respect to very specific questions about Islam, there may be a correct interpretation of Islam for that question. But as far as I know, no overall correct interpretation of Islam exists.

That concept would mean that individuals will interpret religious writing to satisfy their secular agenda.

No, that does not logically follow. Please see earlier link on logical consequence.

Furthermore, different religious texts say different things so the possible interpretations for each religion are different. Though I am aware that the concept that different religions are different is difficult for your to grasp.

Let me put it this way, it is impossible for a Muslim to use Islam, the Quran or the Hadith to justify robbing a liquor store for purposes of self consumption.

bcsapper, the atrocities of torture, maiming and genocide by those ignorant followers of Islam who choose to, or are convinced to, perform these acts which are foreign to all religions, are not part of the teachings of Islam.

And you know this how? You barely know anything on Islam.

Actually, I'll take you up on this. Prove to me that under Islam: Apostasy and Homosexuality are not crimes under Islam where the punishment is death. And no, pointing to a few Muslims that think this is the case is not 'proof'. Use the Quran and the Hadith to demonstrate that under the teachings of Islam that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Apostasy and Homosexuality.

From my perspective, it appears that you are blindly following the doctrine of cultural relativism.

How many of the one million Muslims in Canada shout "Allahu Akbar"!"

All of them, unless they are mute, deaf or have some disability that would prevent them from doing so. Saying Allahu Akbar is very common.

will probably paint you into the Islamophobe corner from which you may or may not be able to extricate yourself in time.

I think a lot of posters here have been painted 'into the Islamophobe corner', so it won't be very lonely.

poochy · January 20, 2015

I think the more apt description is 'simplistic', which really does more fully encompass your views of the issue. And he's certainly right that you use name-calling to try and dismiss valid and generally more well-thought-out counter-arguments.

This thread, in fact, ought to simply be deleted. It adds nothing to the discussion already taking place under other topics, and appears to simply be your effort at insulting anyone who disagrees with you in a way you won't get suspended.

Moderators, this topic should be deleted.

Agree completely, the first post is ridiculous, it says nothing at all.

drummindiver · January 20, 2015

I believe in fairness. I also believe that to allow those who blame a religion for the acts perpetrated by those who use it as an excuse for secular agenda sets the table for very faulty foreign policies. I have no real problems with racists, bigots, misogynists or any other view that a person has. That is their right. They do tend to seek their own and limit their stupidity to a small group.

What bothers me is when the general populace begins to listen to these quacks and starts to allow the war mongers who are looking for excuses and reasons to get the rest of us into useless conflicts.

Sure, criticize religions for their specific tenets. Point out things that make your religion superior to others which is why you believe what and how you do. Most religions support and promote that idea to gain more members. But do not blame Islam, or the peaceful teachings of Islam for atrocities committed by people with their own agenda.

I care if the racists and bigots get us into useless wars.

Thank you for the civil reply.

The problem with the peaceful teachings of Islam is abrogation. Muhammad stated Allah can do as he will, as he is Allah. Therefore, later writings supersede earlier writings, and you guessed it, the later writings are the ones that many point to when citing Islam's hurtful side ( when justifying hurtful actions). It's obvious that people of all religions have hijacked certain tenets of their chosen (indoctrinated usually) religion for personal or political agendas.

Religion (and not just Islam) are still culpable though IMO.

drummindiver · January 20, 2015

The second statement doesn't contradict the first. Why have you deluded yourself into thinking it does?

Sigh...

Why don't you read up on Tarek Fatah's views on this issue then? He is a Canadian liberal secularist Muslim that agrees that the interpretation of many verses in the Quran and Hadith are problematic and motivate religious violence in the name of Islam. Does his existence somehow contradict his arguments?

There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good atheists and bad atheists. Good Sikhs and bad Sikhs. And so on.

Uh no. The first sentence doesn't imply the second clause of the second sentence. The fact that they are both true is irrelevant to whether your claim of logical implication is correct. Please learn basic logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

All of them are reading the Quran improperly because no correct interpretation of the Quran exists. It's all nonsense and involves cognitive dissonance at some point. With respect to very specific questions about Islam, there may be a correct interpretation of Islam for that question. But as far as I know, no overall correct interpretation of Islam exists.

No, that does not logically follow. Please see earlier link on logical consequence.

Furthermore, different religious texts say different things so the possible interpretations for each religion are different. Though I am aware that the concept that different religions are different is difficult for your to grasp.

Let me put it this way, it is impossible for a Muslim to use Islam, the Quran or the Hadith to justify robbing a liquor store for purposes of self consumption.

And you know this how? You barely know anything on Islam.

Actually, I'll take you up on this. Prove to me that under Islam: Apostasy and Homosexuality are not crimes under Islam where the punishment is death. And no, pointing to a few Muslims that think this is the case is not 'proof'. Use the Quran and the Hadith to demonstrate that under the teachings of Islam that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Apostasy and Homosexuality.

From my perspective, it appears that you are blindly following the doctrine of cultural relativism.

All of them, unless they are mute, deaf or have some disability that would prevent them from doing so. Saying Allahu Akbar is very common.

I think a lot of posters here have been painted 'into the Islamophobe corner', so it won't be very lonely.

-1, I agree with most of what you wrote. I'm not sure if your stance on Allahu Akbar is neutral.

"The origin of Allah Akbar, which does not appear in the Koran, comes from the Hadith, during Mohammed’s genocide of the Jews.

“So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu–Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:195

Khaybar, Khaybar Ya Yahud Jash Muhammad Saya’ud, Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Mohammed’s Army Will Return is still used as an anti-Semitic battle cry by Muslims today.

Like it, Allahu Akbar has clear hostile religious overtones. It’s used to denote the religious supremacism that is the fundamental mission of Islam."

cybercoma · January 20, 2015

I think the more apt description is 'simplistic', which really does more fully encompass your views of the issue.

Nothing says simplistic quite as well as, "Muslims Bad, Westerners Good," which ignores the depth and variety of beliefs that Big Guy pointed out. In other words, your insult here is nothing more than reflecting.

-1=e^ipi · January 20, 2015

-1, I agree with most of what you wrote. I'm not sure if your stance on Allahu Akbar is neutral.

"The origin of Allah Akbar, which does not appear in the Koran, comes from the Hadith, during Mohammed’s genocide of the Jews.

“So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu–Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:195

Khaybar, Khaybar Ya Yahud Jash Muhammad Saya’ud, Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Mohammed’s Army Will Return is still used as an anti-Semitic battle cry by Muslims today.

Like it, Allahu Akbar has clear hostile religious overtones. It’s used to denote the religious supremacism that is the fundamental mission of Islam."

Obviously it depends on context. Allahu Akbar has different meaning if one is performing violent jihad then in other circumstances. But more generally, allahu akbar is said in the call-to-prayer and most muslims will recite or think it when they pray 5 times a day.

Just youtube call to prayer. Look at the results I get:

Allahu Akbar is said many times.

Michael Hardner · January 20, 2015

Nothing says simplistic quite as well as, "Muslims Bad, Westerners Good,"

And the fact that groups do this to each other. What do religious people say about the "west"... that it's full of degrading images of pornography, of greed and depravity.

We really like to point out the faults in others, and to come up with complicated reasons why our fault-pointing isn't a result of something bad inside of us...

jacee · January 20, 2015

I just go by current body count, I guess.

But you are generalizing that to the entire religion.

.

drummindiver · January 20, 2015

Obviously it depends on context. Allahu Akbar has different meaning if one is performing violent jihad then in other circumstances. But more generally, allahu akbar is said in the call-to-prayer and most muslims will recite or think it when they pray 5 times a day.

Just youtube call to prayer. Look at the results I get:

Allahu Akbar is said many times.

Just google. Allahu-Akbar. It was never in the Quran, and is stated over and over again it is a call to jihad.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/26035713/call-for-muslim-army-in-australi

a/

Some may find these vids funny. In the current state of events, I don't.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/allahu-akbar

I love Family Guy, but again, I don't know about this. Very telling IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGpVNVrQ-o

You can find this over, and over again. A call to prayer? Yeah, maybe. Call for non-Muslim deaths..absofuckinlutely

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/france-muslims-in-car-screaming-allahu-akbar-mow-down-12-pedestrians

https://news.vice.com/article/france-searching-for-answers-after-allahu-akbar-attacks

http://shark-tank.com/2014/09/14/imam-chants-allah-akbar-during-911-memorial-at-catholic-university-in-florida/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908147/Major-security-alert-triggered-jihadists-boasted-killed-British-soldier-amid-growing-fears-ISIS-style-attacks-UK.html