The Islamophobia Thread

Dat typo.

Nah, he wouldn't vote for the FN as it stands today. Marine is courting the Jewish folks.

LOL at my typo/Freudian slip.

But I do think that Voltaire would view Muslims as the bigger problem (although he may still find Dieudonné funny).

That being said, one can't really judge the opinions someone from the past would have in the present. To be fairer, I'd say that Voltaire embodies both the good and bad sides of French secularism.

edited 21st May '15 11:37:43 AM by Hodor2

This whole "if X was alive today" nonsense assumes that if X would have the exact same opinions despite being exposed to a completely different time period. Voltaire was situated in what was, for his time, a fairly radical left-wing constituency. If he lived today, why wouldn't he also be a radical leftists?

edited 21st May '15 11:49:09 AM by Achaemenid

If Doc Brown was alive today (or at any time in actual history) he would disagree with you

I think we mean a Fish out of Temporal Water kind of deal, not some sort of rebirth.

edited 21st May '15 11:51:50 AM by TheHandle

He was a bright guy though. Sure, he'd probably start off being appalled with all the brown people and Mohammedanery, but I reckon he was smart enough that he could go to a public library, read up on what's happened since he was planted, and change his mind.

Yeah, Voltaire really hated persecution of all kinds, so I kind of think that given access to a library and computer, reading about stuff like the Holocaust and Colonialism would probably change his perspective somewhat.

Still though, I kind of see him as having a kinship with Bill Maher in the sense of "I hate all religions, but I really hate Islam."

But like Maher he probably wouldn't embrace right-wing populism/fascism out of Islamophobia, he'd be one of those liberals that make the rest of the left cringe.

Yeah. Good point there.

So, on non-Voltarian topics...

I'm not skeptical that Muslims can be discriminated against. I'm skeptical when a group whose goal make all of humanity follow a way of life calls for help.

The Tanakh made it clear all competition from the promised land had to be removed, but at least it stopped at the promised land. Christianity and Islam brook none from the world, they want to conquer the world...well, the Christian immediate goal was to separate from the Roman Empire, which also wanted to conquer the world, but are you getting my point?

I'm not saying they shouldn't complain if their holidays are unlawfully banned, or hell, shouldn't raise attention if they are lawfully banned. Let's have more open debates about religion, get people really thinking about it. I'm not saying they aren't capable of suffering, that Muslims are unworthy of sympathy, just that I'm wary of exclusive groups who wish to convert the rest of humanity to their cause calling for help on issues directly related to their spread.

Both Muslim and Christian groups caused some of the most violent incidents in recorded history during invasions of India and to this day will talk about how "the Hind" oppresses them, even after local "Hind" raised Muhammad and Jesus to "avatar" status. I'm not saying Hinduism is the greatest religion in the world either, but I'm bringing it up as an example of how exclusive club world conquerors operate. No they are not immune to oppression and yes there have been pogroms against them in India but they tend to milk it and not mention such incidents were often motivate by revenge.

edited 21st May '15 1:49:01 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

"I'm not skeptical that Muslims can be discriminated against. I'm skeptical when a group whose goal make all of humanity follow a way of life calls for help."

I'm trying to parse this logically and I'm having some trouble. Are you equally skeptical of secular humanism? Of the pro-democracy movement? The anti-war folks? If the problem you're having is a group of people asking for help against discrimination when they themselves have discriminated in the past, doesnt that really include everyone? The in-group bias is the human default status, unless one receives special training or is exposed to an unusual set of life-experiences. If we exclude everyone from support who is guilty of oppressing someone, nearly no one is left. I think a better path toward an improved future is to let bygones be bygones, and require people to improve their behavior now, regardless of who the victims are.

I am skeptical of the the idea of humanism, multiculturalism and of isms in general, secular or otherwise. It'd be better off if none of that even existed but oh well. I know people need to organize some kind of way, that they often have "good intentions", but good intentions have put the nations of perhaps the most mineral rich continent in seemingly inescapable debt.

As someone who is fairly secular, I can tell you secular systems in their own ways can be worse than religious groups, the latter are a lot less prone to runaway narcissism since it's pretty hard to place yourself above God. But at the same time I've seen the kinds of things people are capable of when they believe the universe itself has given them a task and set aside a special part of itself for them should they follow through.

You remember that Salmon Rushdie Satanic verses controversy? The story about the prophet's zalat, the fib told in hopes saving his tribe from Jahanam? People, particularly the faithful, don't even like the suggestion a prophet could slip but consider USA's own biggest Muslim splinter, that Nation of Islam. The Nation Of Islam was to help lift a people in a society designed to keep them low, empowered the oppressed, I can't fault most of what they do. But the suggestion that Islam was the black man's original faith is still ill informed, if we can all assume it wasn't intentional fiction constructed to gain more followers. African peoples had worshiped God, the creator whose essence is present in all things, since before the language we know as Arabic came into being.

The Nation was right to question why Jesus is painted like a long haired white hippie, why black "churches" prop up that image. Muhammad Ali's comment about milk and honey being hardly worthy of the promised land when most people are lactose intolerant was comically insightful, but ignored milk is also being served in Jannah. The Nation Of Islam demonstrated how people are perfectly capable of lying about God to serve their own means and did or else using their apparent rightness to twist the truth in order to gain sympathy and demonstrated such better than they intended too. The very concept of martyrs in the modern world are no longer those who willingly lay down their lives to make a point but soldiers killed in combat, civilians killed by said soldiers who claimed to be defending them from the harbi.

I know Muslims can be oppressed. The plight of the Palestinians is on the news pretty much every night. But it's not just Jews, Christians or Kaffirs who oppress Muslims, Muslims do a pretty good job of oppressing each other too. Islamophobia strikes me as a term engineered specifically to shut down arguments with Kaffirs, Harbis, those of the book, rather than accurately explain a situation. In fact, it seems like a counter term to antisemitism, which also seems to be spammed for the purpose of shutting down arguments(even Dr. King Jr. has done that, can't talk about Zionism or you are antisemitic, not that I have any particular desire to talk about Zionism but it still seems to convenient)

There isn't a newsworthy term for racist against black people, Africans. Racist seems to cover it pretty well. Again, no one seems to be saying communistophobia, chrstianophobia, it doesn't seem like something that naturally sprung out of language in of itself as a means of explaining things. Maybe homophobia itself is such an engineered term but given the Abraham derived faiths, including Islam, tend to have doctrines and dogmas described as "homophobic", co opting "phobia" for their own uses seem particularly forced, especially since homosexual is not an ideology that wants to assimilate the whole of humanity. It's an irreversible human condition!(as much as being heterosexual or lactose intolerant or having an active pineal gland)

I suppose I'm not really getting anywhere with this, so I might just back out of the thread. I've given more than my two cents already. I'll reiterate I know religious groups are less motivated by narcissism than the belief they are given authority by universe itself. They act in belief of good greater than petty human vices, to bring paradise for humanity and in fact can be perfectly decent humans. But still I am skeptical of religious groups. I'm also skeptical of groups seeking world domination. Most forms of Islam are both of those things. I don't fear them, but I fear a time I'm not allowed to express my disagreements with them, when accusations of Islamophobe make audiences stop paying attention to the argument.

edited 23rd May '15 8:18:27 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

And oppressing/killing some Christian communities as well (hence why plenty of Christians are leaving various areas in the Middle East - it's not safe anymore, even if one pays the jizyah.

It's a big sodding mess, across almost all sides, and across history.

I still like to think that multiculturalism partly failed due to bad economic and housing policy (our current economic situation is a powerful catalyst for prejudice from all sides), as well as a lack of cultural balance in regards to a given nation's law.

edited 22nd May '15 7:46:42 PM by Quag15

I'm just gonan comment that if you're holding a person responsible for something they had no part in (like say a Muslim being oppressed responsible for the oppression carried out by other Muslims far far away without their approval or support) you're kinda committing guilt by association and being an ass.

Christian, Muslim and such are labels that detonate a shared belief in a higher power, not membership of a hive mind who all agree on how they should act in the world.

I feared that this day would come, when at last labels and beliefs are themselves weaponised.

As the prophet Gygax foretold, crits be upon him.

It's the Holy Hand Grenade of Ecumenical Theism.

Normally I correct spelling mistakes once they're pointed out to me, but I think I'm going to leave that one in.

You're skeptical of Humanism?? That's certainly an unusual attitude, at least for someone who isnt a self-described religious fundamentalist. At least you are being consistent. Well, it seems to me that in general you're mostly just a pessimist, at least with regards to shared cultural attitudes. Any shared cultural attitudes. Since everyone is free to whatever opinion pleases them, provided that they are logically coherent and consistent with known facts, I would merely point out that people need to share beliefs, and that the cost and complexity of communication mandates that shared belief systems will of necessity be a simplified version, at best, of reality. I would look more to signs of improvement over time, rather than focus on the shortcomings of the world at the present moment. Humanitarianism, at least, seems to have experienced clear gains in, say, the past hundred years, a trend that I think is very likely to continue. I personally take comfort from that.

Well, there's no way this will end badly. #sarcasm

I really want to know what kind of company would willing sell shirts reading "F*** Islam".

Custom printed, I suppose?

No way at all.

I was quite amused by the scholar in a linked article who remarked how a practice intended to avoid idolatry has mutated into Muslims treating the lack of depiction of a man with almost deifying reverence.

Really, the cartoonists are the ones treating him how he'd want to be treated: with no particular reverence whatsoever.

Idolatry.[1]