Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 162

Thread: Islamophobia in the West

  1. #101
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,134

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Well, that’s the topic of this thread.

    And someone doesn’t need to be Anders Breivik or something to have hostility towards all Muslims. Stop Islamization of America and other so-called counter-jihad groups who portray Muslims as a fifth column are a charming example of that. I think there are plenty of people expressing anti-Muslim sentiment in western countries to warrant a discussion about it on a medium-sized vBulletin video game internet forum without these distractions that you’ve tried to bring up.
    It was not I who introduced terrorism to the discussion; perhaps you should chastise those who did.

  2. #102
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,716

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    I think your sources are describing a more nuanced perspective than you are. Their claims are certainly much less bold
    Have you even read the study? Look at the replies from muslim countries and the replies from pseudo-muslim countries (Bosnia, Albania)

    You are still trying to force a comparison where there is none. The lifestyle philosophy of the irish and the american protestants were not significantly different from any point of view. The worldview and phislosphy of a practicing muslim and those of your average western european are diametrically opposed, and in many cases incompatible. What you are doing is comparing the interactions of two groups the follow the SAME religion, and trying to fabricate from than an extrapolation for the followers of a completely alien and aggressive religion.

    Reality has already proven you wrong in almost every single instance. Muslim migrants do not behave like european migrants of the 19th century in the slightest. You cannot compare the two.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  3. #103
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Some replies for Pacifism...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others in their in-group. There are so many Muslims in the world that they have subcultures and a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. It's just silly to act like they're all the same or share responsibility for each other's actions.
    It is really tempting to agree with you here...

    However, if we declare ourselves a part of a collective - we can be held responsible for that deliberate act. Furthermore, that collective is also responsible for the ideas, ideals and doctrines that it defines itself with. The collective is also responsible for supporting, promoting and celebrating these ideas, ideals and doctrines, and by extension what these generate and influence in terms of various results and actions. Ergo, the collective can be - to some extents - also held responsible for actions that are inherently promoted within its ideas and ideals and doctrines. For instance, building a temple, taking slaves, killing certain people, oppressing certain people, favor certain people, using violence as method/tool to achieve its goals - and the list goes on and on... The collective can and should be held responsible for what it supports, promotes, declares and generates. This applies to any movement we can cook up - be it communism, nazism, fascism or Islam...

    As a result we can hold Muslims collectively responsible for some things - as outlined above. For instance, no Muslim on the planet will reject the koran(s) or the things and ideas conveyed there - thus they can be held responsible for it as they explicitly support, promote and celebrate it - collectively. In short, you are wrong (unfortunately)...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Most of the Muslim world was on the business end of 19th/20th century European imperialism. They currently face widespread poverty, ethnic tensions, repressive governments, and unsteady economies. Those are ingredients for any sort of extremist movement.
    While this is true... Lets not forget that Europe had to endure some 1000+ years of invasions, wars and slaveraids by Islamic imperialism before it. In short, Islam and its Muslims are hardly in any position to play victims anywhere - not with that kind of history. Something the usual PC-crowd constantly wants us to forget. Well, we should not.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    You can't just say that there are terrorist Muslims and accuse Islam of being the problem. There are clearly more motivating factors than just religion. You have to show that it actually is an intrinsic Islam problem to show that overall aversion to Muslims is not Islamophobia.
    You clearly did not understand parts of my previous post:57. Again, I quote...

    "...if we do declare ourselves supposed "Muslims", we then openly declare our allegiance, support and approval for the Koran(s) and the Hadith's. There is no way around that. Muslims are always expected to show unconditional obedience to the ideas and doctrines conveyed in that source material. Some of which openly advocates brutality, oppression and war against kafirs (unbelievers/non-muslims)."

    I am a kafir... You are one too, by the sounds of it... So why should we as kafirs tolerate and accept eternal hostility, disrespect, oppression, enslavement and/or our own extermination? Just to pander Islamic doctrine? Eventually, every PC-clown out there will have too face the reality that Islam will never tolerate or respect kafirs - it can not - its creed do not afford/allow it. So why should we kafirs tolerate and respect Islam and its Muslims anyways? The simple answer is we should not and that for rather self-explanatory reasons, as outlined. I like being a kafir, and I will automatically dislike anything that constantly tries to change that - such as Islam or it agents for instance....

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Okay, enlighten me.
    Try wikiIslam...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    I think hatred is irrational.
    Well, you are wrong there... Its just intense dislike - there is nothing irrational about that as such. I will now illustrate - I have hatred for human trafficking because it is utterly disgusting and shameful all over. Nothing irrational there, now was it? I even had reasons for my hatred, which means it can be rational. Ergo, hatred does not have too be irrational...

    - A

  4. #104
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Some comments for AbdŁls post:56 (and anybody else interested in these things)...


    1. In 1570 the ottomans invaded (not intervened) Cyprus and as a result Islamic supremacy and order was established there, by force. In 1914 that ottoman rule was formally ended by the British annexation of the same. As a result, Islamic order and supremacy was then rejected and abolished. Ultimately ending some 340+ years of Islamic supremacy there - again, enabled by an invasion in the first place. That's a fact... Obviously, there were still a Muslim minority there but that is academic as the order and supremacy of Islam was gone, marking the utter failure of the same.

    2. This inaccuracy and mistake is mine. I was thinking of the Kosovo-Albanians. All the same, I do concede that the Serbian army did not operate and slaughtered Muslims inside Albania.

    3. The existence of Muslim minorities in the Balkans have never been contested. It is obvious that they are leftovers from the multiple ottoman invasions initiated there and the following Islamic order set up there by force (at various points in history). The fact that Muslims are still around after that Islamic order and supremacy has been rejected and abolished is rather academic to me. Again, the removal of Islamic order and supremacy mark the utter failure of Islam in any place this happens. There is no way around that. Oppressed people is its never a good thing, anywhere I think. I don't like oppression. That said, lets not forget that Islam is all about oppressing kafirs whenever it gets the chance. As I am a kafir, it is hard to conjure up much sympathy for any case of oppressed Muslims - it is like asking a Jew if he feels sorry for any imprisoned and oppressed Nazis....

    4. The ottoman and Turkic invasions of the Balkans was initiated before the fall of Constantinople. This is merely careless writing on my part. Even so, the Islamic "presence-argument" does strike me as hollow anyways as soon as the overall context is actually examined. As for the supposed "interventions" by Islam and Turks into Europe - that has too be a mistake on your part. There have not been any Islamic interventions anywhere in Europe, in historical times. If it has, it is news to me...

    At any rate, there is no place in Europe that has not either been Christian or pagan (or both) long before any Muslim invaders ever set foot there. EVERY place that Islam invaded in Europe, was either Christian or pagan (or both) before Islam even existed. That's a fact. Islam's presence in Europe is just forced into existence by numerous external invasions, by external peoples and by external empires. It is the only way Islam has managed to exist there (this with little exception). Once this aspect is actually considered, Islam can hardly be considered a natural part of Europe - as you claim - if it only can maintain its presence there via wars and invasions. That is not the behavior of a movement or something that naturally belongs there, but that of an intruder. Even Bosnia and Albania where Christian before Islam and the ottomans invaded and established its order and kafir-oppression there. More or less forcing conversions of it's people via the traditional dhimmitude-system and cultural apartheid - as was standard Islamic practice. Nothing of this strikes me as natural or integral part for any western European civilization anywhere...

    5. To me, Crimea is on the extreme eastern fringes of Europe (anything beyond it is totally Asia). Anyways, your supposedly strong Islamic presence there are merely foreign tartar princes and people who found their way there by yet another invasion. By the 1700's the Russians invaded the area too and annexed Crimea - and as a result, the Islamic order and supremacy established there was ultimately rejected and abolished - yet again... So Islam did not really succeed in Crimea either...


    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdŁlmecid I View Post
    About the rest, both you and Common Soldier are simply moving the goalposts. The discussion concerned Europe in its entirety, not the Nordic countries or the Rhine valley.
    Well, you totally lost me here man... What are you talking about? As I understand it, this thread is about "the west" and supposed "Islamophobia" in it. The west traditionally means every European country outside (usually "west" of) the old iron curtain of the communist/soviet era - beyond that - it also typically includes north America, Australia and New Zeeland. That is "the west" in the traditional sense of the word anyways. Europe in its entirety is not a part of "the west" as a concept. Which means places like Russia, Belarus, Ukraine or the Balkans etc are not really relevant in that outlined context as they historically fail to qualify as traditional parts of "the West"...

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdŁlmecid I View Post
    The same applies for the newly raised requirement of continuous presence, although, as I demonstrated, even with these standards, the claim Islam not being part of the European civilisation fails.
    Think again... Islam has only managed to stay in Europe thru wars and invasions with little exception (historically speaking). That is the reality here - and that hardly qualifies as either a natural or integral part of anything due to the fact. In contrast, any natural or integral part of anything, does not need to invade, and invade, and invade all the time, in order to somehow survive and exist there, now does it? If anything, it is actually a receipt on that it is not a natural and integral part of that very thing... This is plain common sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdŁlmecid I View Post
    Attacking the adherents of the religion though and condemning them collectively is a typical case of hate-speech, which also falls under the category of phobias. It's an objective matter of terminology ... ...
    That's just wishful thinking, and semantically screwed up too...

    As already explained in post:103 - it is quite possible to hold the collective responsible for what it supports, promotes and does. As every member of the collective is responsible for joining the collective, they can also be held responsible for that act - and by extension for the collectives ideas, ideals and doctrines it defines itself by. Even in terms of the actions and results generated and shaped by their creed. If some ideas, ideals or doctrines of the koran(s) are questionable, intolerant, barbaric, shameful or otherwise objectionable somehow it is both possible and reasonable to condemn Muslims collectively for supporting, promoting and celebrating such content - collectively. These circumstances has zero to do with any hate-speech and even less to do with any supposed phobic reactions for that matter. That's a fact...

    Quote Originally Posted by AbdŁlmecid I View Post
    Such an attitude is also in direct contradiction with the values of the Enlightment, like tolerance and secularism, upon which the contemporary European culture is supposed to lie.
    Again, such stuff are only relevant if it is recognized by all in the first place - and Islam does not recognize any of that. Islam rejects it. It is a matter of doctrine. The Islamic source-material is clear on that. One can not fiddle around with the supposedly "verbatim word of god" and at the same time claim to be Muslim. That is just not possible...

    Tolerance and secularism will only work if it is somehow generally agreed upon and recognized by all (in that society). Once we disregard, or break away from that, society will slowly fall apart (as is happening in Sweden, for instance). And yes, that is a serious problem. Again, Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance - "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance". There is no way around that. And, Islam is an exceptionally intolerant movement, always has been.

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; September 15, 2020 at 01:23 PM.

  5. #105
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,828
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    It was not I who introduced terrorism to the discussion; perhaps you should chastise those who did.
    That is your response? You donít even want to talk about anti-Muslimism in western countries, the actual point of this thread? Your posts have been lowering the quality of discussion more than I originally thought, now that it seems to be deliberate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    Have you even read the study? Look at the replies from muslim countries and the replies from pseudo-muslim countries (Bosnia, Albania)
    Yes, I did. Statistical data is only as good as its analysis, and you really shouldnít ignore Sub-Saharan Africa. Hereís my quick breakdown:

    - The first two topics are ultimately theological. More religious Muslims believing that Islam is the only true religion and that Muslims ought to bring people to Islam strikes as a very similar perspective that theologically conservative Christians have about Christianity. If you think that the Muslims polled meant spreading Islam through conquest and subversion, well, thatís reading something into it that isnít there in your source.
    - The third topic on the seriousness religious conflict is interesting. In some cases Ė Palestine, Lebanon, or Nigeria immediately spring to mind Ė thatís probably an accurate assessment. But itís also seen as an important but ultimately secondary issue in a lot of places: ďin most cases worries about crime, unemployment, ethnic conflict and corruption far outweigh concerns about religious conflictĒ.
    - The lack of data from the Middle East on the interfaith tension is a real loss. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, and the DRC are really unusual for over +10 points of people responding believing Christians are more hostile to them than the other way around. Hostility between Christians and Muslims is actually seen as mostly mutual and occasionally more on Muslims according to Muslims polled, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.
    - The common ground question is another one that I think undermines your claims. All across the world, more observant Muslims believe there is more common ground to be had with Christians than less religious Muslims.
    - Apparently, a lot of Muslims worldwide are somewhat insular when it comes to friendships. Iím not too surprised since many of those countries are almost entirely Muslim, but itís not too important to me. That can change with immigration, or just increased use of technology to meet other people.
    - Apparently, a lot of Muslims worldwide are somewhat insular when it comes to interfaith marriage, particularly among more religious Muslims. Again, not too surprising because reservations towards interfaith marriage is true for a lot of more religious people. I canít fault Muslims in particular. Interestingly, it is still prevalent in a lot of Sub-Saharan Africa anyways, despite widespread disapproval.
    - Finally, on interfaith meetings, Sub-Saharan African Muslims Ė the ones that lean towards seeing religious tension as a two-way street and find more common ground with Christians than average Ė also tend to attend interfaith meetings and classes, and they usually live in more religiously pluralist countries. There is a correlation. Muslims donít view things like religious tensions or common ground between faiths uniformly.

    The fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran isnít included really bugs me, I will admit. Regardless, this polling data never said what you said it did. I don't know how you can act like all Muslims are anti-democracy in light of Arab Spring. Your source never says that Muslims immigrants are religiously obligated proselytize, create Sharia, or not integrate into western democracies/wherever those eastern European countries think theyíre going.

    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    You are still trying to force a comparison where there is none. The lifestyle philosophy of the irish and the american protestants were not significantly different from any point of view. The worldview and phislosphy of a practicing muslim and those of your average western european are diametrically opposed, and in many cases incompatible. What you are doing is comparing the interactions of two groups the follow the SAME religion, and trying to fabricate from than an extrapolation for the followers of a completely alien and aggressive religion.
    Well, part of my exact point is that many American Protestants at the time did not see Roman Catholics as real Christians. They thought that Roman Catholicism was diametrically opposed to America and the separation of church and state, hence things like the Blaine Amendment that was incorporated by most states and only struck down this year. I know it sounds strange, but that really is how it was viewed back then. It was a ďwe follow Jesus, they follow the PopeĒ mindset.

    I just hope you realize that the argument you are making is an awful lot like the ones people made about the Irish back in the day. The main difference so far is that you tacked on the addendum: weíre right this time. So I hope youíll excuse my skepticism. I mean, I wrote out a whole history lesson explaining why they have similarities, and you just dismissed it entirely without explanation! It's almost as if you refuse to change your mind on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    It is really tempting to agree with you here...

    However, if we declare ourselves a part of a collective - we can be held responsible for that deliberate act. Furthermore, that collective is also responsible for the ideas, ideals and doctrines that it defines itself with. The collective is also responsible for supporting, promoting and celebrating these ideas, ideals and doctrines, and by extension what these generate and influence in terms of various results and actions. Ergo, the collective can be - to some extents - also held responsible for actions that are inherently promoted within its ideas and ideals and doctrines. For instance, building a temple, taking slaves, killing certain people, oppressing certain people, favor certain people, using violence as method/tool to achieve its goals - and the list goes on and on... The collective can and should be held responsible for what it supports, promotes, declares and generates. This applies to any movement we can cook up - be it communism, nazism, fascism or Islam...

    As a result we can hold Muslims collectively responsible for some things - as outlined above. For instance, no Muslim on the planet will reject the koran(s) or the things and ideas conveyed there - thus they can be held responsible for it as they explicitly support, promote and celebrate it - collectively. In short, you are wrong (unfortunately)...
    Maybe we just view what it means to be in a collective differently. I would agree that groups can be responsible for actions, but only as far as the group is just an aggregate of the individualsí actions. When there is dissent or an opposition, then the existence and actions of the subgroups ought be considered as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    While this is true... Lets not forget that Europe had to endure some 1000+ years of invasions, wars and slaveraids by Islamic imperialism before it. In short, Islam and its Muslims are hardly in any position to play victims anywhere - not with that kind of history. Something the usual PC-crowd constantly wants us to forget. Well, we should not.
    Thereís a key difference here. That was all a very long time ago. European colonies are not just modern developments; they are still within living memory. More importantly, both the countries in the Muslim world and the European countries that formed those borders mostly still exist today. That is what forms the status quo, not the Rashidun and Umayyad conquests or Turkish invasions or Barbary Coast slavers. To simplify something that probably shouldnít be simplified, the current ďIslamic civilizationĒ has an arguably more legitimate grievance for what the ďChristian Europe civilizationĒ did to it than the other way around due to its current impact and relevancy in foreign policy. Civilizations are concepts that donít have feelings, of course, but thatís the idea Iím getting at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    You clearly did not understand parts of my previous post:57. Again, I quote...

    "...if we do declare ourselves supposed "Muslims", we then openly declare our allegiance, support and approval for the Koran(s) and the Hadith's. There is no way around that. Muslims are always expected to show unconditional obedience to the ideas and doctrines conveyed in that source material. Some of which openly advocates brutality, oppression and war against kafirs (unbelievers/non-muslims)."

    I am a kafir... You are one too, by the sounds of it... So why should we as kafirs tolerate and accept eternal hostility, disrespect, oppression, enslavement and/or our own extermination? Just to pander Islamic doctrine? Eventually, every PC-clown out there will have too face the reality that Islam will never tolerate or respect kafirs - it can not - its creed do not afford/allow it. So why should we kafirs tolerate and respect Islam and its Muslims anyways? The simple answer is we should not and that for rather self-explanatory reasons, as outlined. I like being a kafir, and I will automatically dislike anything that constantly tries to change that - such as Islam or it agents for instance....
    If we didnít tolerate intolerant people, we would be no better than them in at least one more respect. I quite like the idea of trying to do better than our opponents. It's my impression that European countries are more willing to restrict certain forms of speech and intolerance than the U.S. is, so maybe our laws of the land give us slightly different outlooks on this matter.

    But, clearly, this issue goes back to the sacred texts of Islam itself. I will admit that I am not familiar enough with Quranic hermeneutic approaches to be able to confidently determine the meaning of the more Ö shall we say, contentious segments. But I am under the impression that not only are there various schools of thought in Islamic jurisprudence, but also the nature of Sharia itself. I am not going to claim that I know more about Islam than the traditionalists or the modernizing faction; just that the existence of these factions means that this is probably a very nuanced issue, unlike your perspective on the matter, if you allow me to be so blunt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Well, you are wrong there... Its just intense dislike - there is nothing irrational about that as such. I will now illustrate - I have hatred for human trafficking because it is utterly disgusting and shameful all over. Nothing irrational there, now was it? I even had reasons for my hatred, which means it can be rational. Ergo, hatred does not have too be irrational...
    Hatred is an emotion. We usually have reasons for our emotions, and the idea that emotion and reason are opposed isnít as widespread as it used to be, but an emotional response isnít the same thing as a rational response. Basing our actions on our emotions relies on the idea that an individualís instincts are in the right more heavily than basing our actions on our reason. Emotional impulses can cause people to act in ways they later regret when they are no longer in that emotional state. It is not healthy to be in a negative emotional state like anger, disgust, or fear for a long period of time. That much is clear.

    My personal view as a pacifist is that hostility is fundamentally misdirected and leads to violence. To use your example, human trafficking is wrong, and itís justified to have an emotional response to it, but hatred is not quite a productive response. You donít want to harm or kill traffickers out of hate; what you actually want is for trafficking to stop. Fighting them is merely a method to do that. You can imagine I have reservations about the merits of defeating people as a solution instead of just a different iteration of the same problem of people overpowering other people. In my defense, I donít think that my perspective on situations like that is very practical, or effective.
    Being a little bit more kind and nuanced on the internet can go a long way.
    ---
    How do you stop your enemies? Do you defeat them, or do you try to become their friend?

  6. #106
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,134

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    That is your response? You don’t even want to talk about anti-Muslimism in western countries, the actual point of this thread? Your posts have been lowering the quality of discussion more than I originally thought, now that it seems to be deliberate.
    I have already explained why the term Islamophobia is a Trojan horse for identity activism; as before, I advise you to read my prior comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The term Islamophobia implies institutional and/or systemic discrimination (the word "institutional" appears almost 50 times in the "Islamophobia Defined" document produced by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims). This suggests it is deserving of more resourcing and/or attention than other forms of prejudice. In this way, the victims of alleged "Islamophobia" become privileged over other victims of prejudice in much the same way that the victims of "terrorism" (another politicized phrase) are privileged over other victims of violent crime.

    Let us be clear, Islamophobia is rooted in racism and its victims are not just Muslims but also those who are perceived to be Muslims. Its effects are seen in individual behaviours and institutional processes.

    -

    Islamophobia has far surpassed the ‘dinner table test’ espoused by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi in 2011. It is now so prevalent in society and dispersed across institutional, social, political and economic life that it deserves to be recognised at Britain’s ‘bigotry blind spot’

    -

    Again acknowledging the wide breath of manifestations that need to be categorised as Islamophobia, Awan and Zempi define it [Islamophobia] as:

    “A fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims or non Muslim individuals that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment,abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world.Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism which targets the symbols and markers of a being a Muslim.”

    -

    “It is important that any definition captures the fact that Islamophobia is more than just individual prejudice and includes systemic discrimination against Muslims and the exclusion of Muslims from the public sphere. However, we need versions which are accessible to people who are not academics, or specialists in the field.”

    Islamophobia Defined, All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims
    Last edited by Cope; September 16, 2020 at 03:20 AM.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    If we didn’t tolerate intolerant people, we would be no better than them in at least one more respect.
    But now you are just being intolerant of intolerance to intolerance. You're not better. You're demanding from others to conform to your idea of unlimited tolerance despite their objections, which is, in itself, intolerant to them. A neat paradox, isn't it?

    You keep repeating "I don't know, but...", and so on. So why don't you educate yourself instead of preaching from ignorance? In this spirit, allow me a little lecture.

    Some facts to keep in mind: a culture, when left isolated, with limited interaction with outside, or in cases where the contact is dominated by their side in some fashion, tends to slide toward orthodoxy. This can be demonstrated on cases like Chinese periods of stagnation, or in more recent cases history of Saudi Arabia or UAE, who used and still use their oil and profits from it to bend things their way. Second, people and societies who are under pressure or relatively impoverished tend to bend toward extremism. Rise of nazism, fascism and so on are great examples here. And finally...while there are various interpretations of Islam, those that could be called liberal are pretty rare and arise when muslims are distributed minority that's in peaceful contact with majority. The orthodox, extreme and even so called "moderate" Islam in countries where it's allowed to gain control are pretty nasty, intolerant and violent cultures. Because as I pointed out here before, Islam is very authoritative and controlling religion, with commandments that impact every aspect of the believers' lives, with a lot of intolerance or violence being given as either commandment in Qu'ran or as example in hadiths.

    Now look at the current situation with immigrants. They're fleeing their countries, hoping that they'll have a much better life in Europe. Often, they have much exaggerated hopes for that, often blown way out of proportions by the people who profit from the immigration and thus encourage it, like (but not only) various smugglers. After enduring much hardship and losing most of what they have left, they find countries with their own problems who can only devote relatively little money toward helping them, with refugee camps being swamped and processing slow. And whether they eventually get in legally or illegally, they find themselves strangers in a strange land. They don't know language, culture, laws, ways of thinking, it all seems alien to them. They see people apparently richer then they are, but they don't see or they resent the hard work that they'll have to do to achieve that. From their position it often seems unachievable. So they flock to each other and the one thing they know from their homeland. Islam. They form ghettos, and it them, the resentment and alienation fester, and with it, the orthodox and radical Islam.

    That itself would be bad enough, but unfortunately that's not the end of it. As it was noted, there are passages in Qu'ran and hadiths that speak quite plainly in terms of superiority of Islam, proselytizing and conversion, even by force, and treating nonbelievers as second class citizens at best. Liberal muslims sometimes ignore those, like most Christians ignore certain passages of Bible that don't fit the modern world, but orthodox and radical Islam sticks to them. And preachers from orthodox muslim countries that come to the west find these ghettos to be receptive to their message. And due to pervasiveness and authoritativeness of Islam, imams command great authority among believers...
    Even here in Czech Republic, where muslim community is very small and relatively liberal, we had in recent years cases of Saudi (IIRC) imam who was expelled from country due to his teachings, and a radicalized muslim preparing a terrorist attack. In both cases, muslim community knew well before law enforcement got wind of the issue, but didn't report either of them, claiming fear that it'll negatively impact the public perception of the community. Just think how worse things have to be in actual muslim ghettos.

  8. #108

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Just asking for clarification on this - so you would equally castigate the other 2 or 3 or so Abraham based religions when they walk the same walk?
    If they try to make religious laws as laws observed by everyone - yes.

  9. #109
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Some more comments for post:105...

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Maybe we just view what it means to be in a collective differently. I would agree that groups can be responsible for actions, but only as far as the group is just an aggregate of the individuals’ actions. When there is dissent or an opposition, then the existence and actions of the subgroups ought be considered as well.
    Tell me... Have Nazism ever been evaluated, defined or recognized by its internal opposition and dissent? Do you honestly think it ever will be (this on general terms)? Do you think such an approach and perspective would ever be considered representative of Nazism in general? Is Oscar Schindler representative as a Nazi? Was his ideas of Jews representative of Nazism? Do we generally think of Oscar Schindler when we are discussing Nazism universally? Or do we think of the likes of Eichmann, Himmler and Goebbels? Yet all four were members of the NSDAP. Thus they were all Nazis by definition, and it was the official party-program that defined it as all four joined - not some damned internal dissent and sub-groups - and don't we all know it...

    Same thing applies to Islam or any other movement... There will always be disagreement and fractions in large enough collectives but it is not these that define the collective or makes people join or support it...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    There’s a key difference here. That was all a very long time ago. ... ...
    Makes no difference... Its no excuse...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    To simplify something that probably shouldn’t be simplified, the current “Islamic civilization” has an arguably more legitimate grievance for what the “Christian Europe civilization” did to it than the other way around ... ...
    Again, the "Islamic world" probably have some 900-1000 years to go on the receiving end of invasions, atrocities and aggressions before such things even out in regards to "Christian Europe" (your analogy). Had it been the other way around your argument there would add up, as it stands, it does not... That said, Christian Europe still do have plenty on its conscience, no question about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    If we didn’t tolerate intolerant people, we would be no better than them in at least one more respect. I quite like the idea of trying to do better than our opponents.
    Tolerating stupid ideas, ideals and doctrines is irrational, stupid and counterproductive. Senseless and arbitrary intolerance is also stupid. Repeatedly tolerating it is even more stupid still and a silent approval of the same...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    It's my impression that European countries are more willing to restrict certain forms of speech and intolerance than the U.S. is, so maybe our laws of the land give us slightly different outlooks on this matter.
    Free-speech is the vital foundation of functional democracy and liberty... The US constitution and 1st amendment on free-speech is better then anything we got in Europe. We totally failed to recognize in Europe that hate-speech is ultimately self-regulating - every minority out there can defend and speak for themselves - and they probably will - as will others with them. The minority do not need any formal protection provided by the state. It is always better with a free market of ideas, opinions and expressions regardless its content. I think it is vastly superior to any "mostly free-speech" censorship and regulations versions/counterparts... Hate-speech and blasphemy or any other such restrictions should all be abolished...

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    ... I am under the impression that not only are there various schools of thought in Islamic jurisprudence, but also the nature of Sharia itself. I am not going to claim that I know more about Islam than the traditionalists or the modernizing faction; just that the existence of these factions means that this is probably a very nuanced issue, unlike your perspective on the matter, if you allow me to be so blunt.
    There is no actual complexity here so any attempt at artificial and manufactured nuance is a waste of time - that junk only works on the gullible and ignorant. The only thing that matters is this question - "is the kafir acceptable?" For Islam that answer will ALWAYS be a "no". And I will tell you why too - because if the answer ever was a "yes" then the need for Mohammed and his Islam would be gone. The kafir is unacceptable because that is the only way Islam can feign relevancy in this world...

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; September 18, 2020 at 04:28 AM. Reason: clarity...

  10. #110
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,828
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I have already explained why the term Islamophobia is a Trojan horse for identity activism; as before, I advise you to read my prior comments.
    Sorry, I didnít know it was some kind of trigger word.

    Your comments were as unremarkable the first time I read them. You jumped in to counter Alwynís point with a red herring: he was clearly talking about non-Muslims attacking Muslims, and you promptly went on about how Muslims attacking Muslims is the real issue. Well, Iím here to tell you that they can both be issues. Pretty neat, huh? Get this: the size of one issue doesnít negate the existence of another issue. Wild, am I right? I am willing to acknowledge that both are issues worthy of discussion. Are you?

    There are clearly a lot of people who dislike Muslims, sometimes violently so. Thatís the point of this thread: examining causes, consequences, and possible solutions about non-Muslims in western countries hating Muslims. You seem to be thoroughly disinterested in that. Instead, you just complain that the word Islamophobia is bad. How unoriginal. If thatís all you have to add to the discussion, Iím unimpressed. If you dislike the word ďIslamophobiaĒ so much, pick another term that fits with what we all know itís supposed to mean so you can move on to a more meaningful discussion already. Dragging your feet isnít helpful if itís a sincere concern for you. How does anti-Muslimism sound?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    But now you are just being intolerant of intolerance to intolerance. You're not better. You're demanding from others to conform to your idea of unlimited tolerance despite their objections, which is, in itself, intolerant to them. A neat paradox, isn't it?
    Cute, but no. If I tolerate intolerant people, how much easier do you think it is to tolerate people intolerant of intolerance? Thatís clearly a much more sympathetic perspective to have. Just because I think some people are wrong about something doesnít mean that I think that theyíre bad or that Iím intolerant to their views. Do you really think that anyone is calling for tolerance without end, or that tolerance isnít legitimate unless it never ends? Does mean that itís intolerant to deprive someone of their right to privacy or owning guns when theyíre in American prison? Youíre using a pretty weird definition if you think so.

    I donít see the point of bringing up a Karl Popper-style paradox of tolerance like itís the end of discussion. In the view of John Rawls, cases of intolerance are only justified to preserve the existence of a tolerant society and any further action is an additional perpetuation of an intolerant and therefore unjust society. I think thatís a reasonable alternative view to hold. With that in mind, if you think that European countries are on the brink of collapse due to Muslim immigrants and refugees, I really donít know what to tell you, because thatís just obviously silly. The populist authoritarian movements in Hungary and Poland Ė party driven by anti-Muslimism Ė have been more harmful to democracy and civil liberties than Syrians in Germany ever have. Iím afraid that in the real world the politics of the anti-Muslim cure may be worse than the sickness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    You keep repeating "I don't know, but...", and so on. So why don't you educate yourself instead of preaching from ignorance? In this spirit, allow me a little lecture Ö.
    I am just being honest about what I know and what I donít know. To be blunt, I think Iíve been holding my own fairly well so far without pretending to know how to interpret what the Qurían says. What I do know about has been enough for me to be critical of Islamophobia so far. If you think my posts are rooted in ignorance, then they should be easy enough to debunk.

    Frankly, most of what you say about Islam can be true for Christians or other religions, and most of what you say about Muslims in Europe is true for just about anyone suffering from intergenerational poverty and living in the ghetto and being seen as unwanted by large segments of society. There is no need to make Muslims special.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Tell me... Have Nazism ever been evaluated, defined or recognized by its internal opposition and dissent? Do you honestly think it ever will be (this on general terms)? Do you think such an approach and perspective would ever be considered representative of Nazism in general? Is Oscar Schindler representative as a Nazi? Was his ideas of Jews representative of Nazism? Do we generally think of Oscar Schindler when we are discussing Nazism universally? Or do we think of the likes of Eichmann, Himmler and Goebbels? Yet all four were members of the NSDAP. Thus they were all Nazis by definition, and it was the official party-program that defined it as all four joined - not some damned internal dissent and sub-groups - and don't we all know it...

    Same thing applies to Islam or any other movement... There will always be disagreement and fractions in large enough collectives but it is not these that define the collective or makes people join or support it...
    Iím not terribly happy to see you use the Nazis as a go-to example when I disagreed with you, but whatever. Theyíve obviously been recognized by internal opposition already Ė you just mentioned Schindler by name. I would argue that itís not useful to view the Nazis as some kind of cabal of demons duping their people into doing something impossibly evil that you can freely use as a debate stick; it was a widespread social movement of millions of people using very ordinary excuses for why the wellbeing of certain ďother peopleĒ didnít matter as much so they could rationalize their ignorance and happiness that life was better for them than it was in the last decade. Its causes were very human, almost banally human. So the dissenters and opponents of that thinking are a very real part of the history of Nazi Germany. Thatís sort of why they banned and killed off so many of them in the first place. The Nazis were doing their utmost to suppress diversity of opinion and its dangers to their total authority. That was done to the German people, but also with their implicit support.

    So I donít really know how else to explain this to you, but diversity of opinion clearly exists in Islamic circles. Outside of some very basic tenets, there is not a single school of thought that all Muslims agree on. There are Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, thereís also Ibadis, Mahdi movements, Islamists, Ijtihad, Salafists, Wahhabists, nondenominationalists, and all of their respective subgroups. I think that in your haste to lump them all together, the more liberal and progressive Muslim movements would be squashed before they even have an opportunity to flourish. I donít think thatís what you want at all. On the other hand, in the U.S. at least, Muslims mostly vote Democrat, which includes many of the people Muslims supposedly want to/have to kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Makes no difference... Its no excuse...


    Again, the "Islamic world" probably have some 900-1000 years to go on the receiving end of invasions, atrocities and aggressions before such things even out in regards to "Christian Europe" (your analogy). Had it been the other way around your argument there would add up, as it stands, it does not... That said, Christian Europe still do have plenty on its conscience, no question about it.
    It's not a justification; itís an explanation. Youíre still missing the point. Iím telling you that the duration of the aggression doesnít matter to anyone. Do you think anyone in the Vox party in Spain has a grievance against Muslims because of the time the Moors invaded Spain in 711 AD? Do you think that Marine Le Pen is suspicious of Muslim immigrants because of Muslim aggression in the Battle of Tours in 732? Does the Freedom Party of Austria care about Muslims so much because of the Battle of Vienna in 1683? Obviously not. Those events might as well be an eternity ago, except for someone with an axe to grind.

    The time imperialist European nations carved up Africa and most of the southern half of Asia like a birthday cake has a greater impact on international relations than anything that happened in medieval or early modern times. The fact of the matter is European imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th is more important for why the world is divided the way it is right now than the Crusades or whatever. If those people back then were concerned about the cultures and ethnic groups they governed, they never would have done stuff like dividing the Kurds into four countries while pursuing the self-determination of peoples in eastern Europe after WWI. They never would have done such a poor job at lifting their subjects out of grinding poverty. It is that hypocrisy that brought us to the diplomatic status quo because there hasnít been a serious shift in that part of the world since decolonization. Most of those countries were Third World in the original sense of being unaligned in the Cold War, so not even the collapse of the USSR was that major for the Muslim world, with the obvious exception of Central Asia. The centuries of conflicts that dominated medieval times and beginnings of the early modern era simply happened too long ago for resentments to be anything but abstract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Tolerating stupid ideas, ideals and doctrines are foolish, stupid and irresponsible. Period. Senseless and unwarranted intolerance is stupid, regardless the excuses for it. Repeatedly tolerating it is even more stupid still...
    Itís not really tolerance if itís easy, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Free-speech is the vital foundation of functional democracy and liberty... The US constitution and 1st amendment on free-speech is better then anything we got in Europe. We totally failed to recognize in Europe that hate-speech is ultimately self-regulating - every minority out there can defend and speak for themselves - and they probably will - as will others with them. The minority do not need any formal protection provided by the state. It is always better with a free market of ideas, opinions and expressions regardless its content. I think it is vastly superior to any "mostly free-speech" censorship and regulations versions/counterparts... Hate-speech and blasphemy or any other such restrictions should all be abolished...
    Iím a little surprised that we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    There is no actual complexity here so any attempt at artificial and manufactured nuance is a waste of time - that junk only works on the gullible and ignorant. The only thing that matters is this question - "is the kafir acceptable?" For Islam that answer will ALWAYS be a "no". And I will tell you why too - because if the answer ever was a "yes" then the need for Mohammed and his Islam would be gone. The kafir is unacceptable because that is the only way Islam can feign relevancy in this world...
    The same could be said about Christians, really. There are plenty who think that everyone should be Christian, and they bring that idea with them to the voting booth, too. I think this discussion is kind of driving back to the question of what Islam really teaches, but that I doubt thatís the actual motivation here. It's just too impersonal of an issue that we aren't terribly well-versed in. I think it's really about either terrorism or worry about changes to our society.
    Being a little bit more kind and nuanced on the internet can go a long way.
    ---
    How do you stop your enemies? Do you defeat them, or do you try to become their friend?

  11. #111
    Mithradates's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,701

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Sorry, I didnít know it was some kind of trigger word.
    Now you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    How does anti-Muslimism sound?
    Thats like anti-fascistism, nobody says that. Just like anti-fascism, anti-islam should be enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Thatís the point of this thread: examining causes, consequences, and possible solutions about non-Muslims in western countries hating Muslims.
    People who hate nazism generaly hate the nazis too, you know, they hate the people who follow and promote nazism. The same is true for islam and its followers.
    You dont want people to hate muslims? Maybe muslims should change and should stop being muslims, that would be an easy solution.
    I dont believe that islam can really change, and that means that muslims cant change either, so that leaves the non-muslims to change and...
    1. convert to islam
    2. embrace dhimmitude
    no thanks

    The cause is islam itself.
    Really, this is like talking about how to make the cult of Huitzilopochtli compatible with 21 century Europe.

  12. #112
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,134

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Sorry, I didnít know it was some kind of trigger word.

    Your comments were as unremarkable the first time I read them. You jumped in to counter Alwynís point with a red herring: he was clearly talking about non-Muslims attacking Muslims, and you promptly went on about how Muslims attacking Muslims is the real issue.
    As outlined above, my initial intention was to correct my interlocutor's implication that identity-based attacks against Muslims are necessarily "Islamophobic". I then moved toward a critique of the term itself.

    Well, Iím here to tell you that they can both be issues. Pretty neat, huh? Get this: the size of one issue doesnít negate the existence of another issue. Wild, am I right? I am willing to acknowledge that both are issues worthy of discussion. Are you?
    I did not deny that identity-based violence and/or discrimination against Muslims exists (on the contrary, I have repeatedly acknowledged that it does exist). I denied that it is systemic problem in western countries (as the term "Islamophobia" implies).

    There are clearly a lot of people who dislike Muslims, sometimes violently so. Thatís the point of this thread: examining causes, consequences, and possible solutions about non-Muslims in western countries hating Muslims. You seem to be thoroughly disinterested in that. Instead, you just complain that the word Islamophobia is bad. How unoriginal. If thatís all you have to add to the discussion, Iím unimpressed. If you dislike the word ďIslamophobiaĒ so much, pick another term that fits with what we all know itís supposed to mean so you can move on to a more meaningful discussion already. Dragging your feet isnít helpful if itís a sincere concern for you. How does anti-Muslimism sound?
    As was mentioned above, if the meaning of "Islamophobia" was self-evident, there would be no cause for the formation of parliamentary committees to define it or scholars to investigate it. At the same time, a rejection of the implication of institutionalized discrimination against Muslims (particularly with regard to violence and/or terrorism) forms a legitimate aspect of the discussion, assuming one has an interest in uncovering the extent of the problem. This should be understood in the context of the concerted efforts made by identity activists, political opportunists and partisan commentators to exaggerate the threat facing Muslims in western societies.

    A terror suspect watchlist has doubled in size from last year Ė but expert estimates and new figures suggest far-right extremists are just a tiny part of the problem. Britain's top anti-terror officer Neil Basu has repeatedly said that right-wing extremism poses the fastest growing terror threat to the UK.But while MI5's watchlist has doubled to 43,000 this year, experts say nine-tenths of these are jihadis.

    New separate statistics from the Home Office on terrorists in custody, also show that of 238 people held for terrorism in Great Britain, 183 were Islamist extremists while just 44 were far-right. It is an increase of just 11 people from the same period last year.

    The numbers came a day after senior military and intelligence expert Colonel Richard Kemp told the MailOnline he believed the focus on far-right terror was a 'false emphasis'. Both sets of figures emerged in the aftermath of the Reading terror attack, which killed three people and saw another trio seriously hurt.

    Ninety per cent' of 43,000 extremists on MI5 watchlist are Islamist terror suspects as Priti Patel issues new vow to increase deportations after experts warned police are 'obsessed' with catching far-right extremists, MailOnline, 23rd June.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    This thread seems to have turned into an orgy of Islamophobia with highly bigoted and ignorant arguments flying all around.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  14. #114

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Of course people that unironically use term "islamophobia" refer to facts and logic as "bigotry" and "ignorance".

  15. #115
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,828
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Please. I bent over backwards trying to find a way to discuss bigger things without people quibbling over the word Islamophobia. Darling, if you think I don't have "facts and logic", then by all means, show me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    anti-islam should be enough.
    I find it inadequate. If it was just about the religion, you wouldn't be attacking Muslims as people so much down below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    People who hate nazism generaly hate the nazis too, you know, they hate the people who follow and promote nazism. The same is true for islam and its followers.
    You dont want people to hate muslims? Maybe muslims should change and should stop being muslims, that would be an easy solution.
    I dont believe that islam can really change, and that means that muslims cant change either, so that leaves the non-muslims to change and...
    1. convert to islam
    2. embrace dhimmitude
    no thanks

    The cause is islam itself.
    Really, this is like talking about how to make the cult of Huitzilopochtli compatible with 21 century Europe.
    Hating Muslims and thinking that they cannot change is a deliberate choice that you make. You have chosen to think that way. I don't think anything bad will happen if you choose to think differently. The amount of hate anyone should have to put up with for their identity is none. It's not up to the victims of hatred to change their behavior to appease the perpetrators of hatred.

    Also, I can't help but notice that you are comparing Muslims to people who believe in world domination or human sacrifice. Where have I heard that one before? Oh, wait. That's right. The Jews. People said the same thing about Jewish people not very long ago. They were mistaken, of course, but they were just as sincere about the threat of Jews as you are about the threat of Muslims. Why are you right when your arguments sound so much like people who were wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I did not deny that identity-based violence and/or discrimination against Muslims exists (on the contrary, I have repeatedly acknowledged that it does exist). I denied that it is systemic problem in western countries (as the term "Islamophobia" implies).
    Okay then. You don't deny it. You just don't care. Not enough to do anything but criticize the word choice of people talking about discrimination towards Muslims.

    Discrimination about Muslims doesn't need to be systemic if it's already widespread anyways. Apparently, millions of Americans have some very low opinions about Muslims living in the U.S.. It's particularly bad among older people, less educated people, Republicans, and white evangelicals. Undoubtedly, there's some overlap among these groups. Hmm... what else do we know about these people? Why do you think that's the case?
    Being a little bit more kind and nuanced on the internet can go a long way.
    ---
    How do you stop your enemies? Do you defeat them, or do you try to become their friend?

  16. #116
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,134

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Okay then. You don't deny it. You just don't care. Not enough to do anything but criticize the word choice of people talking about discrimination towards Muslims.
    The lexicon exacerbates tensions between communities by encouraging false threat perceptions (which is the tacit intention of the identity grifters who use it). The perpetuation of unwarranted suspicions between Muslims and non-Muslims is not to the benefit of a tranquil society.

    Discrimination about Muslims doesn't need to be systemic if it's already widespread anyways. Apparently, millions of Americans have some very low opinions about Muslims living in the U.S.. It's particularly bad among older people, less educated people, Republicans, and white evangelicals. Undoubtedly, there's some overlap among these groups. Hmm... what else do we know about these people? Why do you think that's the case?
    There is a distinction to be made between discrimination and distrust or dislike; the former requires more than passive scepticism or common in-group bias(es). Additionally, according to the PEW data you cited, the negative characterizations are largely mutual.
    Last edited by Cope; September 19, 2020 at 03:00 PM.

  17. #117

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Of course people that unironically use term "islamophobia" refer to facts and logic as "bigotry" and "ignorance".
    Can you present a single fact used here with reference to the post it was used in? Just one would suffice.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  18. #118
    Mithradates's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,701

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    I find it inadequate. If it was just about the religion, you wouldn't be attacking Muslims as people so much down below.
    Aha... Is "antifascism" also inadequate for you? Would you use "fascistophobia" instead? I hope you dont have double standards
    Islam is much more than just a religion, it is a doctrine, a political movement, an ideology, and a complete set of norms to rule many aspects of human activity, things like you can never leave islam because the punishment for leaving ie for "apostasy" is death so no, you cant separate islam from muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Hating Muslims and thinking that they cannot change is a deliberate choice that you make. You have chosen to think that way. I don't think anything bad will happen if you choose to think differently. The amount of hate anyone should have to put up with for their identity is none. It's not up to the victims of hatred to change their behavior to appease the perpetrators of hatred.
    Of course they can change, being a muslim is a choice. You know, I don't think anything bad will happen if they choose to think differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Also, I can't help but notice that you are comparing Muslims to people who believe in world domination or human sacrifice. Where have I heard that one before? Oh, wait. That's right. The Jews. People said the same thing about Jewish people not very long ago. They were mistaken, of course, but they were just as sincere about the threat of Jews as you are about the threat of Muslims. Why are you right when your arguments sound so much like people who were wrong?
    lol at that comparison
    Terrorism, grooming-gangs, FGM etc these are all real things, arent they?

  19. #119

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post

    Okay then. You don't deny it. You just don't care. Not enough to do anything but criticize the word choice of people talking about discrimination towards Muslims.

    Discrimination about Muslims doesn't need to be systemic if it's already widespread anyways. Apparently, millions of Americans have some very low opinions about Muslims living in the U.S.. It's particularly bad among older people, less educated people, Republicans, and white evangelicals. Undoubtedly, there's some overlap among these groups. Hmm... what else do we know about these people? Why do you think that's the case?
    Nice comparison of religion with ethnicity.
    But even if Jews were just religion and not an ethnicity and Jews that didn't practice Judaism didn't exist (world without Jerry Seinfield isn't world in which I want to live), we still have elephant in the room, which is huuuuuge difference between Israel and most Muslim nation's conduct in relation to religious minorities.
    Again, negative view on Islam stems from Islamic customs as well as the fact that they are enforced in most Muslim nations and even parallel immigrant societies within Europe.

  20. #120
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,828
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Islamophobia in the West

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The lexicon exacerbates tensions between communities by encouraging false threat perceptions (which is the tacit intention of the identity grifters who use it). The perpetuation of unwarranted suspicions between Muslims and non-Muslims is not to the benefit of a tranquil society.
    Let me put it this way: look at the stances and arguments of people you are criticizing and those criticizing you. Then look at the stances and arguments of the people who you aren't criticizing and aren't criticizing you. Even though your word choice gives you plausible deniability, I think we all know exactly which side you're on here. Coy arguments and pseudo-academic language doesn't change that.

    I'll let you have the last word, if it means that much to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    There is a distinction to be made between discrimination and distrust or dislike; the former requires more than passive scepticism or common in-group bias(es). Additionally, according to the PEW data you cited, the negative characterizations are largely mutual.
    Great. We're no better than people in developing countries struggling with social issues such as adults with no education or civil wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    Aha... Is "antifascism" also inadequate for you? Would you use "fascistophobia" instead? I hope you dont have double standards
    If someone insisted on it, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    Of course they can change, being a muslim is a choice. You know, I don't think anything bad will happen if they choose to think differently.
    Exactly one sentence ago you just said that Muslims can never leave Islam or they'd be killed. I don't think you are being very thoughtful with your comebacks here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    lol at that comparison
    Terrorism, grooming-gangs, FGM etc these are all real things, arent they?
    They are very real and very terrible. All of them also predate Islam or are not unique to Muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Nice comparison of religion with ethnicity.
    But even if Jews were just religion and not an ethnicity and Jews that didn't practice Judaism didn't exist (world without Jerry Seinfield isn't world in which I want to live), we still have elephant in the room, which is huuuuuge difference between Israel and most Muslim nation's conduct in relation to religious minorities.
    Again, negative view on Islam stems from Islamic customs as well as the fact that they are enforced in most Muslim nations and even parallel immigrant societies within Europe.
    The negative view on Islam and Muslims exist because the actions of a small number of Muslims and several oppressive and brutal dictatorships that most Muslims live under is used as a blunt tool to write off billions of Other PeopleTM as enemies. I suppose these people don't realize or don't care that being antagonistic and hostile towards the other side only makes conflicts worse.

    So far, your nuanced understanding of Islam as a religion reminds me of an American neoconservative's during the Iraq War.
    Being a little bit more kind and nuanced on the internet can go a long way.
    ---
    How do you stop your enemies? Do you defeat them, or do you try to become their friend?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •