The Islamophobia Thread

Just dropping my two cents on the matter: Islamophobia is bad, as is any sort of hate towards organized religion which works towards the common goal of the betterment of humankind. However, that is not to say that there are aspects of Islam that I strongly disagree with, particularly regarding their views on punishable apostasy and marriage restrictions, which not only paints them as desperate to retain their followers, but also violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in how people have the basic right to choose what they believe in.

First you said "Islam" then you said "their views". Are you talking about the creed, or the people? Because it's safe to say that not all Muslims think that apostates should be killed. It's also worth remembering that the original apostates, for whom that rule was written, were traitors to the state as well as the religion, and that you'll still find lots of people in the "civilized" West who think that traitors should be executed.

But that's the problem, isn't ithe? Like Judaism, the Ummah was set up as a totalitaritarian state.

This causes a boatload of problems for integration in Non-Muslim land and legitimacy and progress in Muslim land.

edited 27th Apr '15 12:07:45 AM by TheHandle

So were most of the major religions, weren't they? Democracies as we understand them today are a very modern invention, and the minor religions became major by incorporating themselves into powerful monarchies and/or oligarchies.

I think the general principle is that most religions become attached to various governments (whatever their form) but Islam stands out from the crowd a bit because the religions founder and first leader was also it's political leader and it makes the religious and political issues a little more intertwined than they might be in other religions.

Again, Judaism.

In practice, though, the difference isn't that huge - Christianity is basically Judaism with a dose of extra influence from the Roman Empire, and Hinduism was synthesised into a single religion by the Gupta Empire. That leaves Buddhism and Sikhism, which originated as monastic religions, which made them even stricter due to the lack of need to integrate them with a system of government (although it did also mean they were a lot more chill about apostasy).

I'm fairly hazy on my knowledge of Sikhism, but to some extent, it's an offshoot of both Islam and Hinduism- the founder was a Hindu from the Brahman caste who worked as a bureaucrat in Muslim-ruled India.

The resulting religion combines the "mysticism" of Hinduism with the kind of grounded, social justice teachings of Islam and other monotheistic religions (I realize this is a terrible way of explaining things). And it contains elements that explicitly reject both earlier religions- it opposes the caste system (Hinduism) and it's own version of ritual slaughtering that is the opposite of Halal (Islam)

Regarding those subway posters, I have a mixed feeling- I think my biggest problem is that they are phrased in such a way to give the impression they are written by a Muslim group endorsing violence against Jews. It sort of both encourages hate against Muslims (no surprise, the group making the posters are an anti-Muslim hate group) but also against Jews. And since a city would never be made to allow posters calling for the murder of a group of people, it seems kind of weird that they can be forced to allow posters pretending to be posters calling for the murder of a group of people (although I guess the intent makes the difference as to whether there's a 1st Amendment right).

If the posters just said that the Quran is Antisemitic, that would be unpleasant (but not completely untrue), and wouldn't amount to hate speech.

Failed congressional candidate pleads guilty in plot to massacre Muslims

And he'll likely be out within a few years and will still desire to commit mass murder. If a Muslim had plotted this sort of attack they wouldn't get bail and would be going to prison for decades.

That guy is pretty much the definition of a terrorist. It is amazing how double standard exist and is evident even in the most obvious situations.

Not that I want to defend such a man, but he is looking at five years. How much should someone get for not getting past the planning stage?

Sort version, what are the sentencing recommendation for conspiracy to commit murder because this is what it amounts to. Simply on a very large scales (large for a small group of people anyway).

I think for a conspiracy you have to actually act on the plan, not just talk about it. As far as I can tell, these guys were talking shit but not doing anything about it.

That is not the point. The point is that, if a Muslim tried the same thing, his punishment would be far more severe.

That said, I do question the decision of letting him free until the sentence. I mean, the guy admitted the intention to carry a terrorist act. Who knows what he may do once you take the eyes away from him?

Destroy the evidence?... That was a very grim joke.. .

While I was unable to come up with any solid figures for how many people have been convicted for terrorism in the US, and what sentences they received, I did find this Al Jazeera article summarizing a report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School:

"...The report, titled "Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions" details a pattern of US law enforcement targeting American Arabs and Muslums in FBI "Sting" in which informants cajoled, pressured, and sometimes even bribed young men to participate in plots created by law enforcement."

Another article on the same report. Particularly worrying is this claim: "...It cites numerous prosecutions under the “material support” law, which makes it a crime to provide any aid, even in the form of speech, to a blacklisted organization, even if that assistance is not intended to and in fact does not further violence."

Here is a link to the original report

An independent article on a specific case that appears to a law enforcement "sting operation"

Another one.

So there is evidence of major bias against Muslums in the US during the investigation stage. It's perfectly plausible that sentencing also demonstrates a bias as well, but as I said I was unable to come up with any facts or figures on that.

edited 20th May '15 7:30:53 PM by DeMarquis

Phobia probably isn't the right word. I don't know many religions that scare me. Maybe I'm scared of how tolerant society is of religion in general, to the point several states on this planet are more or less run by religion, including the one I live in, with populaces who by and large dismiss cosmologies much more inline with modern science. It disturbs me how separate religion and science have become, that science continues to advance but religion by and large remains rooted in the 7th century.

"Islam" as usually described is just another prophetic faith that is, of course, superior to all others/the only way to salvation/must be spread for the good of the world. That kind of exclusivity in religion just isn't healthy in my opinion. But even if Islam followed a different model, a way of life characterized by "submission" doesn't sit right with me. I'm all for more humility in this world, but being part of an exclusive faith club superior to all others on some level seems to run counter to it. We totally submit to a god who says we're better than everyone else?

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not religious either. My "belief" in god has very little to do with faith or morality. I've got much less reason to "believe" in angels, demons, jinn, giants, Iblis/Satan, souls or resurrection than about a god. I'm pretty skeptical about a "heaven" and don't believe in this torturous hell, jahanam, at all. Don't take insinuations god speaks in Royal "We", hates shaving but demands the cutting of foreskins too seriously either. From an objective modern perspective, reincarnation makes more sense than all of that-not a whole lot of sense-but there is an argument for it in thermodynamics. Ancestral worship makes more sense, which is to say hardly any, but we know information is never truly lost even when our ability to recover it is. It's not like worship will ever change that, that the world will stop spinning if we stop praying, how much less does an omnipotent god need worship?

I'll take my free Gideon Bible, thank you, new living translation too. I'll listen to the Jehova Witness at my door, watch tower's usually an interesting read, but some people don't have the patience for it. Shunning jehova witnesses is a much repeated joke here, they are subject to open ridicule. When you announce yourself as part of an ideology, religious or otherwise, that comes with the territory. It's our right to disassociate with those who would push any belief on us, to shun communists/anarchists/hermits too. Why have they not coined their own phobias, communistophobia? Christians probably get too much "protection" as well but I've yet to read anyone claim Christianophobia.

I don't think Islamophobia is the logical way for Muslims to go about combating their "enemies" anyway. I think more people have a "Muslimophobia". It's not hard for me to find people mocking Christians, arguing against the Bible, Tanakh or New Testament line by line, portraying Jesus in a goofy manner. I usually stumble on it by accident. It's much rarer to hear people actually breakdown the Koran, Sahih Bukari, Ibn Ishaq's Surat, describe what they don't like about the Sunnah, see comedic portrayals of The Prophet Muhammad. When people talk about "Islam" I've usually heard them make general comments about "treatment of women", "terrorism", "goats", "camels", "pork", "Somalis", "extremists". It's very rarely in a scriptural/textual context, or even a legal one, just in reference to the actions of some Muslims they know of.

Now we have laws designed to protect citizens and whatnot but we ultimately can't force people who don't want to associate with one another to do so, the current social relations in the USA is evidence enough of that. We'll mock your taste in music, clothing, residence, food, drink, politics, doesn't matter if you were raised that way or not, if it's not in your DNA, its fair game. When our government puts a ban on religious recruitment, proselytizers, propaganda, buildings, public ceremonies, then maybe mocking of religion should be banned too, just make all related matters private, but as long as the religious are allowed to broadcast their messages and knock on our doors, we are free to turn them off and away, to shout them down or argue with them.

It's not Islam I'm scared of. It's a society where I'm not allowed to express my disagreements on what we call Islam, my dislike of this global religion called Islam, while my Muslim classmates are free to handout pamphlets furthering their agendas. I've taken them, cause I like reading that kind of stuff, I rarely get into public debates about religion, but I dread the day the students who oppose have to deal with accusations of "Islamophobia". I already live in a state where religious institutions leeching money out of the communities they are supposed to be helping are exempt from taxation but people in those same communities have to pay for gifts they get from their families. Perhaps it doesn't scare me, but it bugs me when one of these religious groups not only tries to coin a social "phobia" but actually succeeds.

Like with "homophobia" and "antisemitism", the badly constructed term obscures what is meant.

Like with Judaism, the ethnic association is what makes it hard for criticism to be presented in a way that is entirely free of Unfortunate Implications. Which is to the detriment of proper analysis and scrutiny.

edited 21st May '15 10:13:25 AM by TheHandle

TL;DR version - there's a difference between criticism and active discrimination, and religious persecution is very much a thing (read a history book - any history book, even the really recent ones). It's often conflated with race, as well, with 'Islam', 'Judaism', and so on used as shorthand for 'those funny brown people I don't like' (yes, I know many Jews are what we'd consider white, but try telling the Nazis that).

Not every claim of Islamophobia is illegitimate, and many of them have very solid grounding - the terrorist congressional candidate is just one of the more extreme recent examples.

That is a poorly constructed term isn't it? Semite means claimant of ancestry from Sem/Shem, which isn't limited to Jews. Jews itself was from the Persian term for the Kingdom of Judah, yet the rest of the Israelites who refused to be ruled by the house of David get lumped in with them, Israel and Judah were not the entirety of the Hebrew people...if only our languages were more intelligently designed.

Still, the point I'm trying to make is that I'm skeptical of religious groups claiming persecution. Especially when it's one of the world conquering expansionists type religions. I'm not saying Christians and Muslims have never suffered immoral persecutions, they have, but it's usually came from of other world conquering expansionist ideologies (the cult of the emperor, fascism, communism, each other). The main point anyway.

My tl; dr expalnation/rant on terminology:

Anti-semitism as a term comes from Wilhelm Marr, who thought up the term for himself and his cronies because it sounded better than calling themselves something like "the League of Jew Haters". That's why the term is specific to Jews.

I don't have proof, but I've always figured that both Homophobia and Islamophobia are "derived from" Xenophobia, which means "hatred of foreigners", not "fear of foreigners". And I have heard the term Judaeophobia used ocassionally instead of anti-semitism. Incidentally, both "Islamophobia" and "Judaeophobia" are in part subsets of Xenophobia.

edited 21st May '15 10:38:58 AM by Hodor2

It's less about fear, per se, and more about legal and overt forms of discrimination and prejudice. I dont know why you are skeptical that Muslims can experience discrimination based on their religion, but it does happen and it is a serious problem. All forms of prejudice are problems, but Muslims have experienced this to a more extreme degree in Western societies since the War on Terrorism started. Hence this thread.

I actually really wish to understand these aspects of Hebrew history. What happened to those tribes? What is the history of Judaism in its ethnic and ideological genealogy?

Also, to echo Laculus' point. It reminds me how Voltaire has often been brought up in relation to Charlie Hebdo and he might not be the best spokesperson. Voltaire was a free speech advocate (he didn't say "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but it is a decent summary on his position).

On the other hand, he was racist and was anti-semitic in a way that was quasi-racial and thought of Jews as superstitious, disliked their public displays of religion, and was only accepting of completely secularized Jews (sound familiar?)

I kind of suspect that if Voltaire lived today, he'd be big on banning headscarves and would vote for Marie Le Pain.