The Islamophobia Thread

Need I point out that in the Quran there are specific instructions to not harm the "peoples of the book"? Also known as the jews and the christians?

I honestly don't see how either of those things is bigotry. Can you explain it to me? I don't see how attacking a religion is any more bigoted than attacking climate change denial, attacking the idea of the Earth being flat, or attacking any other idea. And I don't see how it's bigoted to define a religion in a way that excludes beliefs held by people who do classify themselves as being part of that religion.

I'm not saying the horrible interpretations of the Quran are the only accurate ones, but I don't see how believing that the horrible interpretations are the only accurate ones is bigotry. Being wrong and being bigoted aren't the same thing. Besides, there is awful stuff in the Quran in addition to the good stuff.

Edited by EveryOtherHandleIsTaken on May 22nd 2021 at 11:43:17 AM

Guys I swear that the Earth is round and that climate change is real.

I dont care if I offend flat earthers or big oil.

I must be a bigot for not caring about the feelings of conspiracy theorists and billionaires.

Not everyone who's wrong is a bigot, but everyone who's a bigot is wrong.

That's a pretty clear statement of "good people who think they're Muslim aren't actually Muslim" with a clear undertone of "because Islam is an inherently bad or violent religion".

It's becoming hard for me to believe that you're arguing in good faith when you don't see how saying that only violent interpretations of a religion are actually the correct interpretations is bigoted.

Bigot, as defined by Merriam-Webster: :a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. I'd call the attitude that an entire religion should only be defined by its violent adherents and that non-violent adherents aren't actually adherents at all because they're non-violent intolerant.

If you're arguing that the horrible interpretations of the Quran are inaccurate (or at least not "the only accurate ones", which... is another can of worms) then why did you feel the need to append the "there is awful stuff in the Quran in addition to the good stuff" part? Is that supposed to be a defense of some sort?

It sure is interesting how one user continually hijacks the Islamophobia thread to insist that their pet fascist-supporting Islamophobe doesn't actually hate Muslims.

Here's something actually appropriate to the thread topic:

Minnesota mosque vandalized with racist, Islamophobic graffiti during Ramadan

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 22nd 2021 at 12:37:53 PM

Related to is this story from 2 weeks ago (the original story was last month)

Muslims Forgive Moorhead Mosque Vandal

https://krocnews.com/muslims-forgive-moorhead-mosque-vandal/

Edited by sgamer82 on May 22nd 2021 at 12:47:33 PM

Sorry, but reading that reminds me of "black forgiveness" and its discussion here.

Maybe. I was mostly just looking to see if there were any updates since the original story was from last month, such as if anyone had been arrested for it.

Edited by sgamer82 on May 22nd 2021 at 12:52:16 PM

A London, Ontario Muslim family was attacked, resulting in the murder of four innocent people. It is justly being referred to as a terror attack.

That said, I think "terror attack" is too polite a term for what this son of a bitch did. What he did, is he slaughtered four servants of God, and in doing so, he declared war on God himself.

As a Jewish servant of God, I take religious based attacks on people personally.

Fair point. The point is, he has declared war on anyone who worships that God. You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 9th 2021 at 6:59:35 AM

That's terrible.

But 'declaring war on God himself' sounds pretty fundamentalistic as well.

It was a terroristic hate crime. And the guy should never see the light of day again.

I skimmed the article and didn't find a mention of the guy being atheistic (though I might not have looked hard enough). Until specific evidence to such comes up, it's more likely he declared war on "anyone worshipping the same god as him but in a different way".

Which is just as terrible.

Edited by Medinoc on Jun 9th 2021 at 1:38:54 PM

Fair point. If he does worship the same God, he has desecrated God's name.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 9th 2021 at 7:53:17 AM

Not sure if it makes sense to put this here.

Apparently there are plans to make a film based on the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks. The New Zealander government and Muslim New Zealanders have protested it for being too soon and the production crew did not consult both sides in NZ before announcing it.

I typically dont judge until they release the movie but this already sounds like a terrible idea.

The movie wasn't in production yet.

Sounds like a typical case of 'Meaning well is not doing well'.

I mean, it could be done well, with sufficient sensitivity toward the victims and an objective assessment of the attacker's motives. But I would have to see the details to know.

The failure to consult before announcing does not give me hope for it treating events in a proper manner.

I have a friend-of-a-friend who died there, so count me out of the hype squad for this one.

I just realized that the Christchurch massacre was already 3 years ago yesterday. Man, how time flies by. I can still remember it....RIP once more.

Do we have any tropers from New Zealand here who can comment on the current state of affairs of Islamophobia there?

A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job:

"After an outcry over the art history class by Muslim students, Hamline University officials said the incident was Islamophobic. But many scholars say the work is a masterpiece."

"In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did.

In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.

Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig."

As an adjunct myself, I probably wouldn't have made the same decision she did. But I come down on the side of "not Islamaphobic."

Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 8th 2023 at 10:57:52 AM

As an ex-Muslim I agree that it's not Islamophobic. The term should be reserved for hateful or otherwise prejudiced actions against Muslims. Using it as a bludgeon against non-Muslims who dare to violate Muslim rules is frankly unjust.

It would be one thing if she was deliberately bigoted or inflammatory, but if she gave ample warning and merely treated it as a part of the lesson then it's not reasonable to object.

This was a direct attack on secularism in favor of religious favoritism, it's vile.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 8th 2023 at 8:51:04 AM

Yeah, I agree. It's really not Islamophobic, especially since she gave plenty of warning with ample time so any possible Muslim students could have given their concerns or asked to opt out or whatever. This feels like claiming anyone eating pork is Islamophobic. As a Muslim myself, I think it is ridiculous to expect people who are not Muslim to abide by Islamic laws, including the law about not looking at a depiction or image of the Prophet.