Islamophobia in the West

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, that just sounds like crime. When crimes happen, they are investigated and punished. Or are you saying that immigrants are given immunity from criminal laws in their new homes? I still don't really know what either of you are talking about. I need more details and specifics.

You don't know that these people who've immigrated to Europe are unable to integrate. I'm sure you think so, but you don't know so. Not unless Europe decides to not bother trying.

You mean like in UK, where police looked the other way for years at muslim immigrant rape gangs?

Okay, my analogy is going over your head. I'll just say it outright. I'm skeptical of your understanding of Islamic theology. You haven't said anything more informative than the barebones right-wing political talking point that warmongers and people who casually throw out anti-Middle Eastern racial slurs have parroted on the internet since 9/11. You've said that the Qur'an teaches this or that, but after over 120 posts no one has even bothered to quote it once, much less analyze it. If you actually are well-versed, then you certainly hid it masterfully, and it's really lowering the quality of discussion so far.

Do you understand me now?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)" The Arabic for the word "fight" is from qital, meaning physical combat.

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Mere disbelief makes one an "open" enemy of Muslims.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:12) - "(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as those who "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. (See also: Response to Apologists)

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the "cause of Allah" (or "way of Allah"). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and - in this case - on Christian soil, according to the historians). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today's devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of "hypocrites" (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist's defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can't Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam's perpetual internal conflicts). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer? (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (21:44) - "...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it." - The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse - although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The "it" at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the 'unbelievers.' Obviously, this changed with the hijra. 'Jihad' after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter." This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators - those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today's terrorists do.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context) (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Do you think that anti-Muslimism is mainly rooted in general forms of discrimination, like xenophobia or racism, or is it a more specific phenomenon, like Orientalism? I haven't fully made up my mind yet.

It is rooted in Islam's own hateful and intolerant teachings as well as the fact that most Muslim societies are still theocratic. That's why we don't see Jews throwing stones at people, or Protestants trying to burn a witch, but its a norm in Pakistan.

[Mithradates]

Well, I've already provided a reference for you to easily find this poll I was talking about. This very same poll have been subject of debates on these forums that you have been part of quite many times. They're one of the most popular polls that are used in discussions. You can easily find it with a simple Google search. It's the first result using the 4 basic search terms that you need. I already gave you the number. 36%.

This is the third time you refuse to provide a link to your claim, people might think you are hiding it on purpose or something, is the data this horrible?

You can find the actual study you vaguely reference here. Overall, back in 2007, 31% of those that were polled agreed that apostasy is punishable by death. 57% disagreed. The illiteracy point was your idea. So, you, probably think that these UK Muslims are also illiterate. Nonetheless, literacy is merely one of the factor.

Oh, I dont think these UK Muslims are also illiterate, not at all.
This is you:

you're actually shooting your position in the head. Percentage of people who say that apostasy from Islam should be met with death is roughly the same as the illiteracy rate. The less people read, including the Quran itself, the more they adhere to extremist beliefs like this.

Unless illiteracy is rampant, or even notable among UK muslims, which afaik it isnt, your "who say that apostasy from Islam should be met with death is roughly the same as the illiteracy rate" and "most of those live in very poor countries with very little socio-economic support in their life" means nothing.
In the UK 31% is pro-death only 57% disagrees this is so embarassing, now I see why you dont want to give that link haha

You blame the Catholic Church, which had a hand in covering up such crimes, but not Christians or even Catholic priests. You're basically choosing to apply double standards quite openly.

Apples to oranges, also whataboutism
Catholic priests work for the Catholic Church so the Church is responsible for them, FGM and forced child marriages are linked to everyday muslims. I cant really blame anybody but them.

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh, I dont think these UK Muslims are also illiterate, not at all.
This is you:
Unless illiteracy is rampant, or even notable among UK muslims, which afaik it isnt, your "who say that apostasy from Islam should be met with death is roughly the same as the illiteracy rate" and "most of those live in very poor countries with very little socio-economic support in their life" means nothing.
In the UK 31% is pro-death only 57% disagrees this is so embarassing, now I see why you dont want to give that link haha

Nice to see you piggy back from your attempt to belittle Muslims. That kind of argumentation has a habit of biting you back. 31% against 57% kinda means you can not attribute it to the entirety of the group. In any given day, you're likely to not bump into such a person just like you probably wouldn't bump into a person in UK supports conversion therapy.

Apples to oranges, also whataboutism
Catholic priests work for the Catholic Church so the Church is responsible for them, FGM and forced child marriages are linked to everyday muslims. I cant really blame anybody but them.

Not really. Its a quite good comparison that's on point. Just like you shouldn't attribute deeds of few Catholic priests to the entire Christian community, you shouldn't attribute deeds of few Muslims to the entire Muslim community. Your approach is a basic bigoted approach.

[Mithradates]

Nice to see you piggy back from your attempt to belittle Muslims. That kind of argumentation has a habit of biting you back. 31% against 57% kinda means you can not attribute it to the entirety of the group. In any given day, you're likely to not bump into such a person just like you probably wouldn't bump into a person in UK supports conversion therapy.

Belittle? The muslim illiteracy? Yep, its about 40%. (IIRC the worst among the big religions)
Oh, "kinda means you can not attribute it to the entirety of the group" yeah, only to every third of them and only every other has a problem with it lol
31% against 57% are terrible numbers. Really, really terrible numbers. Embarrassingly crap numbers and people are suprised why muslims have a bad reputasion
what are you even talking about, its obvious that you dont even realise how ridiculous this numbers are

Not really. Its a quite good comparison that's on point. Just like you shouldn't attribute deeds of few Catholic priests to the entire Christian community, you shouldn't attribute deeds of few Muslims to the entire Muslim community. Your approach is a basic bigoted approach.

Still apples to oranges.

[pacifism]

Really? So I should change because some third world migrants dont want to? Yeah sure lol, how about a hard no.
#wheninrome

I'm saying that you shouldn't hate anyone. You shouldn't think that hatred is ever a good thing, even if they're just bad people. Especially if they're just bad people.

What?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Those are "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam" attacks and not islamophobic attacks. "Islamophobic" should involve irrationality, unless if you think hatred in general is irrational.

It's good to hear that we agree that there are anti-Muslim attacks happening in the West.

I don't need to show that hatred in general is irrational. If someone is motivated by rational hatred of terrorism by Islamic extremists, there are things they can do. They could join the police, the armed forces or an intelligence agency. They could contact their elected representative(s), asking them persuade the government to increase funding for agencies which investigate and deal with this terrorism. They could support activities by moderate Muslims in their local area, encouraging people to be part of moderate Islamic groups instead of the alternatives. Acts such as driving a van into a group of people leaving a mosque, setting fire to a mosque or shooting people at a mosque, don't sound like rational responses.

No, we dont agree, actually YOU dont agree with me when you say that those anti-muslim attacks are "islamophobic" attacks.

Calling it islamophobia is just a way to judge and control what people think.

Those who dislike fascism are the anti-fascists, right? Okay, but when they go out to speak against fascism, when they hate fascism, when they protest against it or even fight the fascists in the streets they cross the line, now they become irrational FASCISTPHOBICS!
No, they dont haha because hating fascism is okay ...but hating, or even just disliking islam isnt okay! Its islamophobia right from the start, its irrational, YOU are irrational the problem is with you, and definitely not with them, not with islam NOOO NEVER!!!

kind of funny in a sad way

If you think driving a van into a crowd with the intent of killing multiple civilians is rational, then I hope I never meet you.

You honestly think that was my point? Oh god...

You said that it shouldn't be called Islamophobia because attacks against Muslims aren't irrational. When someone referenced Darren Osborne, you never condemned what he did. You seemed less concerned about the morality of killing a person and hurting ten more because he hates Muslims and more concerned with people calling that "Islamophobia" because that would mean his reasons were irrational.

Can you imagine what your own response would be if you were talking to a Muslim about terrorism, and they wouldn't say that terrorism is wrong? You would probably wonder if they quietly supported terrorism! But that is a lot like what you did there. Unintentional or not, you still did it and you haven't said you were sorry for implying such a terrible thing.

Yeah and they are objectively overrepresented at an obscene level, what does it change or why would it matter that it isn't fully 100% unique to them or it wasnt them who invented it when they are the ones who still practice it here and today?
What are you even talking about, seriously wtf

Well, you brought them both up as reasons to hate Muslims.

I have said before that in the case of terrorism, way more Muslims are killed by terrorists than non-Muslims. Terrorism itself is basically a non-Western problem since almost 80% of deaths due to terrorism in 2015 occurred in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria. Right-wing extremists committing lone wolf acts of terror is a significant contributor to terrorism in western countries over the years. It was even the predominant one in 2015. Here are some updates from 2019.

I also said that for FGM, it already existed in those parts of the world before they became predominantly Muslim, and was practiced areas that never became predominantly Muslim. That would imply that they aren't doing it because they are Muslim, it's because of a pre-existing cultural tradition that's even older than that.

It's also becoming less common now that people in those countries are being educated about it. If we just wrote them off as a part of "third world savageness", as you so diplomatically put it, instead of educating them about the matter, do you think it would be on the decline? If people are doing something that's wrong but they don't think it's wrong, should you call them despicable barbarians and kick them out of your civilization until they learn better, or show them why their actions are wrong? Which do you think is going to be more effective to stop it, which is going to improve the world?

You mean like in UK, where police looked the other way for years at muslim immigrant rape gangs?

I've never heard of that happening. Most of the ones I have heard of were the highly publicized trials of rings that the police broke up.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)" The Arabic for the word "fight" is from qital, meaning physical combat.

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Mere disbelief makes one an "open" enemy of Muslims.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:12) - "(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as those who "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. (See also: Response to Apologists)

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the "cause of Allah" (or "way of Allah"). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and - in this case - on Christian soil, according to the historians). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today's devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of "hypocrites" (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist's defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can't Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam's perpetual internal conflicts). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer? (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (21:44) - "...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it." - The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse - although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The "it" at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the 'unbelievers.' Obviously, this changed with the hijra. 'Jihad' after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter." This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators - those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today's terrorists do.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context) (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Okay, first of all, that's plagiarism. You just copied and pasted all that from this article without citing it. Poor form.

Second of all, that is from an anti-Islamic website. It's called religionofpeacedotcom. Their running "List of Killings in the Name of Islam" doesn't even cite any sources. Why would I trust an anti-Islam website to interpret the Qur'an instead of Muslims themselves? Here's one that disagrees with their entire approach.

Third of all, the fact that you just took a minute to copy and pasted the first result when you search "Qur'an violence verses" instead of writing your own analysis about a section of the Qur'an kind of supports my suspicion that you don't have a very good grasp on the book. It's okay, I don't really know anything about it either, but at least I admit it. But the idea that you would rather put blind trust in the first website you found that you agreed with instead of actually taking the time to really know it through reading and studying it yourself is a little telling.

It is rooted in Islam's own hateful and intolerant teachings as well as the fact that most Muslim societies are still theocratic. That's why we don't see Jews throwing stones at people, or Protestants trying to burn a witch, but its a norm in Pakistan.

It's been the norm for Israeli settlers too, they're just not punished as often and the cases are less high-profile.

Charismatic Pentecostals in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past sixty years have lead an uptick in witch hunts, from Nigeria to Malawi to Angola. They don't always burn people to death, but that's small consolation for the tortured children.

If you say that that is not representative of 2.3 billion Christians and 15 million Jews, you may be on to something. But combined with your lackluster understanding of Islam, deciding that dictators, criminals, and terrorists are representative of 1.8 billion Muslims is a double standard.

As I said earlier, most Muslim-majority countries are authoritarian. Those laws are imposed on the people, not decided on by the people. The whole point of the original Arab Spring protests were about economic freedom, anti-corruption, human rights, and democracy. It failed and got hijacked, but the sentiment was there in 2010. Muslims aren't all the same.
--

EDIT:

Most human insecurities are quite simple phenomenon. They are largely rooted in fragility of self-worth. If it wasn't about Muslims it would be about someone else.

That may be, but a lot of the imagery does have similarities to how 19th-century Europeans portrayed the Middle East. In the art at the time, it's shown as being this rigid, stagnant, and decaying place to contrast the flexibility and progress of Europe. I can see how contemporary anti-Muslimism is arguably part of an older anti-Middle East phenomenon, but maybe that is just making it overly complicated.

[PointOfViewGun]

That may be, but a lot of the imagery does have similarities to how 19th-century Europeans portrayed the Middle East. In the art at the time, it's shown as being this rigid, stagnant, and decaying place to contrast the flexibility and progress of Europe. I can see how contemporary anti-Muslimism is arguably part of an older anti-Middle East phenomenon, but maybe that is just making it overly complicated.

Sure, the rivalry between Greeks and Persians, then Romans and Persians, then Ottomans and European kingdom must have played a role in all this. However, in the modern sense of things, for a person with access to free information, such roles should have been subsided. However, I believe those would not be the cause but the use of them as factors would be the symptoms. It all boils down to a person's character. Then, of course, it goes into nature vs. nurture debate. I do believe its more about people's self worth. Irrational fear and hatred is an outlet for that.

[Mithradates]

I'm saying that you shouldn't hate anyone. You shouldn't think that hatred is ever a good thing, even if they're just bad people. Especially if they're just bad people.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You said that it shouldn't be called Islamophobia because attacks against Muslims aren't irrational. When someone referenced Darren Osborne, you never condemned what he did. You seemed less concerned about the morality of killing a person and hurting ten more because he hates Muslims and more concerned with people calling that "Islamophobia" because that would mean his reasons were irrational.

Can you imagine what your own response would be if you were talking to a Muslim about terrorism, and they wouldn't say that terrorism is wrong? You would probably wonder if they quietly supported terrorism! But that is a lot like what you did there. Unintentional or not, you still did it and you haven't said you were sorry for implying such a terrible thing.

Of course I condemn what he did but I dont feel like I need to do this every time his name is mentioned somewhere.

Well, you brought them both up as reasons to hate Muslims.

I have said before that in the case of terrorism, way more Muslims are killed by terrorists than non-Muslims. Terrorism itself is basically a non-Western problem since almost 80% of deaths due to terrorism in 2015 occurred in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria. Right-wing extremists committing lone wolf acts of terror is a significant contributor to terrorism in western countries over the years. It was even the predominant one in 2015. Here are some updates from 2019.

I also said that for FGM, it already existed in those parts of the world before they became predominantly Muslim, and was practiced areas that never became predominantly Muslim. That would imply that they aren't doing it because they are Muslim, it's because of a pre-existing cultural tradition that's even older than that.

Yes, I know that islamic terrorism is even worse outside of Europe.
FGM isnt European, muslims brought it to the continent and they are the ones who practice it so people see this as a muslim thing, and in Europe it is.
Those muslims choose to cling to this tradition and people are condemning them for that. If they dont want the hate, they should stop cutting their children.

It's also becoming less common now that people in those countries are being educated about it. If we just wrote them off as a part of "third world savageness", as you so diplomatically put it, instead of educating them about the matter, do you think it would be on the decline? If people are doing something that's wrong but they don't think it's wrong, should you call them despicable barbarians and kick them out of your civilization until they learn better, or show them why their actions are wrong? Which do you think is going to be more effective to stop it, which is going to improve the world?

Showing them that their actions are bad and expecting them to change on their own was a total failure in the UK, I guess forcing them to abandon this medieval nonsense is the only way, just like how France is dealing with it.

[pacifism]

Sure, the rivalry between Greeks and Persians, then Romans and Persians, then Ottomans and European kingdom must have played a role in all this. However, in the modern sense of things, for a person with access to free information, such roles should have been subsided. However, I believe those would not be the cause but the use of them as factors would be the symptoms. It all boils down to a person's character. Then, of course, it goes into nature vs. nurture debate. I do believe its more about people's self worth. Irrational fear and hatred is an outlet for that.

Perhaps. We should never underestimate a person's aversion to being wrong about something, or be viewed as doing something wrong. I'm not entirely convinced that that's basically all there is to anti-Muslimism, but I haven't looked at it enough to have a complete argument against it yet. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate you offering your perspective.

Of course I condemn what he did but I dont feel like I need to do this every time his name is mentioned somewhere.

For what it's worth, thank you.

FGM isnt European, muslims brought it to the continent and they are the ones who practice it so people see this as a muslim thing, and in Europe it is.
Those muslims choose to cling to this tradition and people are condemning them for that. If they dont want the hate, they should stop cutting their children.

No. You can condemn a practice without hating people. We cannot control other people's emotions, only our own. Do you think that hating people will get them to stop, or dig in their heels? Is the goal here to hate this practice, or to end it?

Actually, it was done in Europe and America by doctors during the 19th century as a way to treat "female hysteria", which was used to justify anything from institutionalization to unnecessary sugeries. It was not a very bright time for women's rights in healthcare.

Showing them that their actions are bad and expecting them to change on their own was a total failure in the UK, I guess forcing them to abandon this medieval nonsense is the only way, just like how France is dealing with it.

I'd like to make something clear first: I'm not saying that it's okay if immigrants break the law. I strongly believe in the equality of all before the law.

I really don't know about a whole lot about politics going on in U.K. and France, but I'm going to suggest that if they're policies haven't worked, maybe some adjustments are need or it merely hasn't worked yet. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. Teaching people and changing minds takes time, so I'm not very surprised that change isn't instant. But it can work.

[Heathen Hammer]

I've never heard of that happening. Most of the ones I have heard of were the highly publicized trials of rings that the police broke up.

After it became public knowedge, but police admitted they knew about it for years. There was a big thread about this.

Okay, first of all, that's plagiarism. You just copied and pasted all that from this article without citing it. Poor form.

Second of all, that is from an anti-Islamic website. It's called religionofpeacedotcom. Their running "List of Killings in the Name of Islam" doesn't even cite any sources. Why would I trust an anti-Islam website to interpret the Qur'an instead of Muslims themselves? Here's one that disagrees with their entire approach.

Third of all, the fact that you just took a minute to copy and pasted the first result when you search "Qur'an violence verses" instead of writing your own analysis about a section of the Qur'an kind of supports my suspicion that you don't have a very good grasp on the book. It's okay, I don't really know anything about it either, but at least I admit it. But the idea that you would rather put blind trust in the first website you found that you agreed with instead of actually taking the time to really know it through reading and studying it yourself is a little telling.

What a weak cop out
The source is Quran.
You asked for quotes from Quran. I delivered.
Quran preaches violence.
Islam has violent nature. Arguing against that is arguing against Islam itself, in fact your comrades would call you an "islamophobe" for the latter, no?

t's been the norm for Israeli settlers too, they're just not punished as often and the cases are less high-profile.

Charismatic Pentecostals in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past sixty years have lead an uptick in witch hunts, from Nigeria to Malawi to Angola. They don't always burn people to death, but that's small consolation for the tortured children.

If you say that that is not representative of 2.3 billion Christians and 15 million Jews, you may be on to something. But combined with your lackluster understanding of Islam, deciding that dictators, criminals, and terrorists are representative of 1.8 billion Muslims is a double standard.

As I said earlier, most Muslim-majority countries are authoritarian. Those laws are imposed on the people, not decided on by the people. The whole point of the original Arab Spring protests were about economic freedom, anti-corruption, human rights, and democracy. It failed and got hijacked, but the sentiment was there in 2010. Muslims aren't all the same.
--

Again, almost every Muslim nation is very theocratic, even the ones where government is elected - Turkey and Pakistan come to mind. So your argument makes no sense since its the people that voted for them, not some kind of dictatorship that imposes religious norms on secular population. Not to mention that there'd be secular resistance against such a thing - of which we see none, unless its from religious minorities, like Kurdish Zoroastraians shooting ISIS in Iraq.

[Common Soldier]

This thread seems to have turned into an orgy of Islamophobia with highly bigoted and ignorant arguments flying all around.

While there are some critics od Islam are no doubt are motivated by bigotry, there are equally those who label any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia and bigoted, which is just as bigoted a position. Contrary to what those who cry "Islamophobia" all the time, there are legiitmate criticisms of Islam. When the.only 12 counties in that have a death penalty are.all Muslim, that is not a problem with just a few individuals but the.religion itself. When a leading Muslim country, the homeland of Islam itself, finally grants women a.right that women in non Muslim countries have had for 50 yeara or more, that may be a problem with the religion, and certainly is more than just a problem with a few individuals. In every Muslim controlled country, non Muslims are at best treated as second class citizens, with lesser rights and priveledges, ans Sharia law openly states in an Islamic state that are certain posiions that should not be held by non Muslims. Not only do many, perhaps even most even so called moderate Muslims hold such biased beliefs, and in fact many Muslims, even "moderate" ones proclaim how tolerate Muslims are. As I read somewhere, Muslims are tolerant the way whites of the Jim Crow South were tolerant of Africsn Americsns.

[pacifism]

After it became public knowedge, but police admitted they knew about it for years. There was a big thread about this.

He's so close to providing an example, isn't he, folks?

What a weak cop out
The source is Quran.
You asked for quotes from Quran. I delivered.
Quran preaches violence.

You didn't say it preached violence. You said that Muslims are supposed to want you dead.

I asked you to show that you knew what you were talking about when it comes to Islamic theology. I wanted to see if you know how Muslims interpret the Qur'an. You've only shown how anti-Muslims interpret the Qur'an. If they both interpret it the same way, how come you've only cited an anti-Islamic interpretation? I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about.

Islam has violent nature. Arguing against that is arguing against Islam itself, in fact your comrades would call you an "islamophobe" for the latter, no?

Again, almost every Muslim nation is very theocratic, even the ones where government is elected - Turkey and Pakistan come to mind. So your argument makes no sense since its the people that voted for them, not some kind of dictatorship that imposes religious norms on secular population. Not to mention that there'd be secular resistance against such a thing - of which we see none, unless its from religious minorities, like Kurdish Zoroastraians shooting ISIS in Iraq.

Even in liberal democracies, it's unfair to judge an entire people by their government. How much more unfair it is to judge a people by a government that they have no legitimate say in changing.

I never said the population was secular, I'm saying that the countries lack democratic institutions. That's pretty obvious when a lot of them have had a bunch of coups within living memory. Turkey and Pakistan are like textbook examples of hybrid regimes. By most metrics (like free press, internet censorship, corruption, and democracy indices), almost all of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East are considered unfree. The only exceptions are Israel and maybe Tunisia. Again, remember the goals of Arab Spring? All the anti-government protests in Iran in the last ten years?

Different iterations of the argument that those countries are bad because of religion and nothing else has been done before in this thread, and it's just too simplistic to hold water. I'm not saying that the people of the Middle East are perfect. I'm saying that it's a lot of authoritarian and hybrid regimes in developing countries. Many of them are former colonies. You don't need know the religious breakdown of an authoritarian developing country to expect some major social problems to be going on. There are problems of a similar scale going on in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, but they aren't majority Muslim.

If it's as simple as [country] is bad because it's Muslim, is Myanmar bad because it's Buddhist, or is there more to it than that?

[PointOfViewGun]

Perhaps. We should never underestimate a person's aversion to being wrong about something, or be viewed as doing something wrong. I'm not entirely convinced that that's basically all there is to anti-Muslimism, but I haven't looked at it enough to have a complete argument against it yet. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate you offering your perspective.

Imagine this world:

Globalizing Homophobia

Curiously, not too long ago the “Orient” still served as a projection screen for the homoerotic wish-fantasies of the European bohème. Countless writers and artists such as André Gide, Oscar Wilde, Edward M. Forster, and Jean Genet made pilgrimages in the 19th and 20th centuries from homophobic Europe to Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, and various other Arab countries,10 where homosexual sex was not only met without any discrimination or subcultural ghettoization whatsoever, but rather, additionally as a result of rigid segregation of the sexes, seemed to be available on every corner. For example, in a letter to his friend Louis Bouilhet dated 15 January 1850, Gustave Flaubert notes concerning male-male “sodomy”: “Here it is quite accepted [. . .] and it is spoken of at table in the hotel. Sometimes you do a bit of denying, and then everybody teases you and you end up confessing.”11

That was not that long ago and it actually covers the period you were pointing at European portrayal. At the time, I believe, Muslims were seen more as exotic. Perhaps because at this time there was no Muslim nation that was strong enough to challenge European powers? Ottoman Empire was the sick man at that time and any other Muslim-majority state was just very weak.

While there are some critics od Islam are no doubt are motivated by bigotry, there are equally those who label any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia and bigoted, which is just as bigoted a position. Contrary to what those who cry "Islamophobia" all the time, there are legiitmate criticisms of Islam. When the.only 12 counties in that have a death penalty are.all Muslim, that is not a problem with just a few individuals but the.religion itself. When a leading Muslim country, the homeland of Islam itself, finally grants women a.right that women in non Muslim countries have had for 50 yeara or more, that may be a problem with the religion, and certainly is more than just a problem with a few individuals. In every Muslim controlled country, non Muslims are at best treated as second class citizens, with lesser rights and priveledges, ans Sharia law openly states in an Islamic state that are certain posiions that should not be held by non Muslims. Not only do many, perhaps even most even so called moderate Muslims hold such biased beliefs, and in fact many Muslims, even "moderate" ones proclaim how tolerate Muslims are. As I read somewhere, Muslims are tolerant the way whites of the Jim Crow South were tolerant of Africsn Americsns.

There are about 51 Muslim-majority states in the world and you're saying that only 12 of them prescribes death penalty for apostasy. Some of those states have tiny populations. Only a small portion of 1.5 billion strong Muslim community in the world lives within states where apostasy is punishable by death. Then, of course, are we to ignore centuries of history where blasphemy laws or crusades took lives of many non-whatever religion those people were following? By your logic, such practices were a problem of Christianity back then but it no longer is? Christianity didn't change. The Bible didn't morph into something different. Yet, you find no fault in them. Uganda, a Christian country, only recently abolished death for being gay, though there have been threats of reintroducing the law. Christianity was barbaric in 2013 but it was OK in 2015? The law was abolished in 2014. Though it was exchanged for imprisonment for life.

To describe Saudi Arabia as a leading Muslim country or the homeland of Islam itself is to fail understanding Islam or Saudi Arabia. Then you talk about women rights and what not. Pakistan had a female prime minister. Benazir Bhutto was elected the prime minister of Pakistan back in 1988 at the age of 35. A young woman. There are many Western states that still loses their mind when a woman wants to lead the country. Many Muslim majority states gave equal voting rights to women before USA did. Full voting rights were given to women in Turkey 18 years before Greece. How Christians in Lebanon or Albania, two Muslim majority countries with relatively large Christian populations, are treated as second class citizens? Your black and white analysis is demonstrably false. Your post merely relies on ignorant and bigoted points. Nothing more.

[Cope]

He's so close to providing an example, isn't he, folks?

The Rotherham child sex abuse scandal is the most infamous example of the organized exploitation of children in England. The abuse was excused, ignored and in some instances facilitated, by local authorities for decades. The overwhelming majority of the perpetrators were from South Asian backgrounds.

No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day. In May 2014, the caseload of the specialist child sexual exploitation team was 51. More CSE cases were held by other children's social care teams. There were 16 looked after children who were identified by children’s social care as being at serious risk of sexual exploitation or having been sexually exploited. In 2013, the Police received 157 reports concerning child sexual exploitation in the Borough.

Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham. This came from those working in residential care and from youth workers who knew the young people well.

Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. The first of these reports was effectively suppressed because some senior officers disbelieved the data it contained. This had led to suggestions of coverup. The other two reports set out the links between child sexual exploitation and drugs, guns and criminality in the Borough. These reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.

-

As has been stated many times before, there is no simple link between race and child sexual exploitation, and across the UK the greatest numbers of perpetrators of CSE are white men. The second largest category, according to the Children's Commissioner's report, are those from a minority ethnic background, particularly- 92 -those recorded as 'Asian'. In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013, Alexis Jay, 2014.

This scandal - and others like it - has been discussed at length on many occasions in the D&D.

[Common Soldier]

Imagine this world:

Globalizing Homophobia



That was not that long ago and it actually covers the period you were pointing at European portrayal. At the time, I believe, Muslims were seen more as exotic. Perhaps because at this time there was no Muslim nation that was strong enough to challenge European powers? Ottoman Empire was the sick man at that time and any other Muslim-majority state was just very weak.




There are about 51 Muslim-majority states in the world and you're saying that only 12 of them prescribes death penalty for apostasy. Some of those states have tiny populations. Only a small portion of 1.5 billion strong Muslim community in the world lives within states where apostasy is punishable by death. Then, of course, are we to ignore centuries of history where blasphemy laws or crusades took lives of many non-whatever religion those people were following? By your logic, such practices were a problem of Christianity back then but it no longer is? Christianity didn't change. The Bible didn't morph into something different. Yet, you find no fault in them. Uganda, a Christian country, only recently abolished death for being gay, though there have been threats of reintroducing the law. Christianity was barbaric in 2013 but it was OK in 2015? The law was abolished in 2014. Though it was exchanged for imprisonment for life.

To describe Saudi Arabia as a leading Muslim country or the homeland of Islam itself is to fail understanding Islam or Saudi Arabia. Then you talk about women rights and what not. Pakistan had a female prime minister. Benazir Bhutto was elected the prime minister of Pakistan back in 1988 at the age of 35. A young woman. There are many Western states that still loses their mind when a woman wants to lead the country. Many Muslim majority states gave equal voting rights to women before USA did. Full voting rights were given to women in Turkey 18 years before Greece. How Christians in Lebanon or Albania, two Muslim majority countries with relatively large Christian populations, are treated as second class citizens? Your black and white analysis is demonstrably false. Your post merely relies on ignorant and bigoted points. Nothing more.

12 out of 51 Muslim countries, 23%, is a significant fraction of the Muslim world, and when they included countries like Iran, we are not talking about a tiny fraction of the Muslim world as you assert. Pakistan, which has a de facto death penalty against apostacy since they have a death penalty against blasphemy which includes disbelief in god, is the second largest Muslim country in the world. And while not every Muslim country against apostacy, almost all hqve some penalty against it, often severe, and more than any non Muslim country. A person would be less than honest to insist that 12 is less than 0.

And now that you bring up homosexuality, the countries where the dearh penalty still exist are all Muslim - it is only in the Muslim areas of Nigera that the death penalty against homosexuals is practiced https://247wallst.com/special-report...le-by-death/2/ And the while Uganda is not a leading Christian country, either in size or influence, Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country in the world, and assert that Iran and Saudi Arabia were not leading Muslim countries in influence is either beingOh woefully ignorant. Saudi Arabia uses it wealth to.spread its brand of Islam across the world, and Mecca, the spirtual home of Islam and where Islam has existed.thr longest, is in Saudi Arwbia.

Britain has had not one, but 2 women prime ministers, one of them before Bhutto took office. Pakistan has no women on its Supreme Court, and never did.

Muslim countries condemn to death 13 year old gils for being pregnate https://es.redskins.com/topic/76109-...ing-pregnant/m and being raped. Iran, operating on the principles.of Islam, sanctions child brides and sex with 10 year old girls https://www.newsweek.com/un-condemns...oung-10-423435. When looking at gender gaps, of the top 26 countries with the smallest gender gaps, not one is a Muslim country, and of the bottom 12 countries with the largest gender gap, 10 are Muslims http://reports.weforum.org/global-ge...2014/rankings/. It is neither ignorance nor bigoted to point out those facts, unpleasant that they may be.

PS - Pakistan is next to last on the having thr largest gender gap, rated at 141. Only Yemen is rated worse.

[Common Soldier]

He's so close to providing an example, isn't he, folks?


You didn't say it preached violence. You said that Muslims are supposed to want you dead.

So.do you acknowledge the Qurwn preached violence, yes or no? Quran verses 9:5, 9:29 specifically tell Muslimz to fight non Muslims, and fighting is a form of violence. Quran 9:29. "Fight those who don't believe in Allah or the Last Day, nor forbid.that which Allah and his Messenger has forbidden, nor acknowledge.the religion of Truth, (even if they are) People of the Book, until they willingly pay the Jizya (tax), and acknoedge themselves subued". Surah 9:5 tells Muslims to "slay isolates", something Muslims have been doing since the beginning of Islam.

For more Quran verses that expouse fighting and violence, see https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/p.../violence.aspx

I asked you to show that you knew what you were talking about when it comes to Islamic theology. I wanted to see if you know how Muslims interpret the Qur'an. You've only shown how anti-Muslims interpret the Qur'an. If they both interpret it the same way, how come you've only cited an anti-Islamic interpretation? I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about.

Here is an Islamic site that specifically says that says apostates from Islam should be killed https://islamqa.info/en/answers/811/...t-for-apostasy . And here are a list of Muslim countries where apostacy from Islam is punisbable by death https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...th--Z110j2Uwxb. The assertion that these things are just made up by anti-Muslims is not true.



[quote=*
Even in liberal democracies, it's unfair to judge an entire people by their government. How much more unfair it is to judge a people by a government that they have no legitimate say in changing. [/quote]

When entire countries support laws with death penalty for gays apostates, it shows the opinions supporting such views are not the result of a handful of Muslims as some try to imply. Your arguement has no merit, since by that logic, the US should be excused for.slavery. Countries don't impose death penalties for blasphemy and.homozexuality aggainst the will of the people, it is because the majority of Muslims.support the laws.is why they exist. The Muslims are not poor helpless people unable to prevent their rulers from imposing these bigoted laws - Pakistanis can elect prime ministers, they could remove death penaltied against blasphemy and homosexuality if they chose. But they don't because the manority of Muslims there support those laws.

I never said the population was secular, I'm saying that the countries lack democratic institutions. That's pretty obvious when a lot of them have had a bunch of coups within living memory. Turkey and Pakistan are like textbook examples of hybrid regimes. By most metrics (like free press, internet censorship, corruption, and democracy indices), almost all of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East are considered unfree. The only exceptions are Israel and maybe Tunisia. Again, remember the goals of Arab Spring? All the anti-government protests in Iran in the last ten years?

Those Islamic countries do.have elections, and the claim that Muslims have no say is not true. Iranian leaders are elected, for example. Iran's bigoted policies exist because the majority of Iranians support them, even if a minority don't. The intolerance that leads the executiom of 13 and 16 years old girls comes from the majority of Muslims in Iran itself, not from values imposed from above by a handful leader. The Iranian people overthrew the Shah, remember?

If Islamic countries lack a free press, maybe religion, which has heavily shaped.the attitudes and values of ths people living in those countries, is the cause. Islamic religious opposition delayed the adoption of thr printing press in the Muslim world for 2 centuries or more.

Different iterations of the argument that those countries are bad because of religion and nothing else has been done before in this thread, and it's just too simplistic to hold water.

To argue as you do that religion has nothing to with the state those countries are in is navie and and just plain false. To continue to assert as you that religion, which plays such an instrumental role in shaping people's lives and thought in those countries plays no roles.in the state those countries are in is just nonsense. Religion is not the only factor of why those countries are in a mess, but it is a factor and a big one at that.

I'm not saying that the people of the Middle East are perfect. I'm saying that it's a lot of authoritarian and hybrid regimes in developing countries. Many of them are former colonies. You don't need know the religious breakdown of an authoritarian developing country to expect some major social problems to be going on.

But you are denying religion plays no role at all in the Muslim countries. Authoritarian rule doesn't account for death penalties againat apostacy and homosexuity, in thr list of Muslim countries where you.had death penalties against apostates, Syria was not on the list. And for all his flaws, religious minorities.were not attacked in Iraq under Hussein, and Syria under Assad.

The terrorist attacks againat religious minorities are being freely carried out by members of ISIS who freely and voluntarily raped, tortured, and murdered in the name of Islam. And many of these ISIS members didn't come from developing natioms, tbey came from Europe, often born in Europe from middle class homes, who voluntarily rejected the tolerance of western values in favor of bigotry they got from their version of the Islamic religion

There are problems of a similar scale going on in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, but they aren't majority Muslim.

That is not quite true. People born in Europe and the West are not returning their parents Sub Sahara Africa snd Southeast Asia to commit rape and murder the way Islamic ISIS.members are in the middle east. Much of the violence in the middle east.today is.caused by outsiders.(ISIS) motivated by their religion (Islam) to commit.it.

If it's as simple as [country] is bad because it's Muslim, is Myanmar bad because it's Buddhist, or is there more to it than that?

And.how many terrorist attacks outside Mynamar have th Buddhist of Mynamar commited? If Muslims not commiting.attrocities all over the world, no one would.care. London subway, Paris attacks, Madrid attacks, 911 Twin Tower Attacks, New Dehli. 95% of all terrorist deaths in the US were caused by Muslims, who make.up only 2% the US population.

Your argument that the Muslims are no worse than anybody else are flawed. Muslims are not the only ones to commit violence, that is true, but they do commit organized against others worldwide on a far greater scale than other groups. A lone gunman might attack a.couple.of mosques, bt that is nothing to compared to the organized Islamic Easter church bombings in Sri Lanka that killed far more.

Yes, the majority of Muslims do not share the views of terrorist Muslims, but unfortunately, far too many Muslims are sympathetic Muslim terrorist. A quarter of British Muslims were sympathetic to the Charlie Hebo attackers https://www.dawn.com/news/1165850 The way to combat Islamophobia is to whitewash Islam and make.excuses, as you are doing, but acknowledge the problems and address them.

The problems of Islam won't go away by pretending they don't exist. Bin Laden did not become a terrorist because of poverty or because he was deprived. Many of the ISIS members came.from European middle class backgrounds. Making excuses for them isn't solving the problem.

[PointOfViewGun]

12 out of 51 Muslim countries, 23%, is a significant fraction of the Muslim world, and when they included countries like Iran, we are not talking about a tiny fraction of the Muslim world as you assert. Pakistan, which has a de facto death penalty against apostacy since they have a death penalty against blasphemy which includes disbelief in god, is the second largest Muslim country in the world. And while not every Muslim country against apostacy, almost all hqve some penalty against it, often severe, and more than any non Muslim country. A person would be less than honest to insist that 12 is less than 0.

And now that you bring up homosexuality, the countries where the dearh penalty still exist are all Muslim - it is only in the Muslim areas of Nigera that the death penalty against homosexuals is practiced https://247wallst.com/special-report...le-by-death/2/ And the while Uganda is not a leading Christian country, either in size or influence, Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country in the world, and assert that Iran and Saudi Arabia were not leading Muslim countries in influence is either beingOh woefully ignorant. Saudi Arabia uses it wealth to.spread its brand of Islam across the world, and Mecca, the spirtual home of Islam and where Islam has existed.thr longest, is in Saudi Arwbia.

Britain has had not one, but 2 women prime ministers, one of them before Bhutto took office. Pakistan has no women on its Supreme Court, and never did.

Muslim countries condemn to death 13 year old gils for being pregnate https://es.redskins.com/topic/76109-...ing-pregnant/m and being raped. Iran, operating on the principles.of Islam, sanctions child brides and sex with 10 year old girls https://www.newsweek.com/un-condemns...oung-10-423435. When looking at gender gaps, of the top 26 countries with the smallest gender gaps, not one is a Muslim country, and of the bottom 12 countries with the largest gender gap, 10 are Muslims http://reports.weforum.org/global-ge...2014/rankings/. It is neither ignorance nor bigoted to point out those facts, unpleasant that they may be.

PS - Pakistan is next to last on the having thr largest gender gap, rated at 141. Only Yemen is rated worse.

I see that you deflected from what I was pointing out and tried to double down on your ignorant and bigoted viewpoint. It is indeed extremely bigoted and ignorant to present the kind of facts you try to present in connection to random Muslims or the religion of Islam itself. I could correct your claims and point out at factors in play for pages. I have no faith that you will acknowledge them as we move along. You didn't for the previous post. This is exactly what's Islamophobia.

[Common Soldier]

I see that you deflected from what I was pointing out and tried to double down on your ignorant and bigoted viewpoint. It is indeed extremely bigoted and ignorant to present the kind of facts you try to present in connection to random Muslims or the religion of Islam itself. I could correct your claims and point out at factors in play for pages. I have no faith that you will acknowledge them as we move along. You didn't for the previous post. This is exactly what's Islamophobia.

.

The fact the best example you could come up with was Uganda demonstrates on truly weak your argument. In every way your own example shows how Islam and you are. The fact is that how Uganda treats homosexuals is bad, does change the fact that what Islam does is far worse. Uganda does not even have a death penalty for homosexuals, while almost a dozen Muslim countries still have a death penalty for homosexuality, including major Muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan. These are not just a tiny percentage of Muslims, Pakistsn alone represents more than 10 percent of the Muslim.population. Comparing Uganda to Iran and Pamistan is like comparing a strawberry to a watermelon, they are vastly different, and it is just an attempt to divert the discussion with an irrelevant example. .

It is your brining up crusades while ignoring the far more recent Armenian Genocide that is divertng my point. What happened a 100 years ago is far more important than 800 years ago. Other religions are simply not committing terrorist acts ans killing others at the rate that is Islam is, and has been for years. Pointing out such facts is not bigoted, it is just being honest and factual. Muslims and people like you always try to excuse the violence and bigotry of Muslims by deflection talking about irrelevant facts. What happened happened many centuries ago is not a hundreth as important what as what is happening.today.

And the fact is, Buddhist are not conducting organized attacks on places of worship of other religions on the most holy days, Muslims are as Muslim did in the Easter Sri Lankan Church attack.. And Buddhist from number of different countries are not coming to Myanmar to kill Muslims, but Muslims are going to the Middle East to kill non Muslims. ISIS members from European countries are raping killing Yazdids, and the Muslim community ignores it, offering feeble protest that are more for good Public Relations image than moral outrage. When have the Muslims ever tried to stop the murdering, and genocide committed by Muslims.

Unpleasant as it is to face, what Muslims are doing is what everyone else is doing, and pointing unpleasant but true facts out is not Islamophobia. There is genuine Islamophobia, and if you are willing to acknowledge and point out the legitimate criticism of Islam from what could be Islamophobia, there could be a useful debate. But if you are just going call criticism of Islamophobia and engage in name calling, then there isn't much point in having a discussion, is there.


I will say this,the best way to deal with what you call Islamopobia is to honestly acknowledge the current flaws in Islam, and not pretend everybody else is the same, because they are not, Islam is inspiring terrorist acts at a far greater rate than other religions and that is a bug problem. Making excuses or tryig to divert the discussion by talking about irrelevant things lie what happened 800 years ago like the crusades isn't goig to help solve the, and just make what you call Islamophobia worse. Most of the excuses for Islam are just that, excuses, not true valid reason. Bin Laden didn't become a terrorist because he was poor and deprive, and many ISIS tsrrorist didn't becoke rapist and murderers because they grew up under dictatorial oppressive regimes.





Y

[PointOfViewGun]

The fact the best example you could come up with was Uganda demonstrates on truly weak your argument. In every way your own example shows how Islam and you are. The fact is that how Uganda treats homosexuals is bad, does change the fact that what Islam does is far worse. Uganda does not even have a death penalty for homosexuals, while almost a dozen Muslim countries still have a death penalty for homosexuality, including major Muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan. These are not just a tiny percentage of Muslims, Pakistsn alone represents more than 10 percent of the Muslim.population. Comparing Uganda to Iran and Pamistan is like comparing a strawberry to a watermelon, they are vastly different, and it is just an attempt to divert the discussion with an irrelevant example.

It is your brining up crusades while ignoring the far more recent Armenian Genocide that is divertng my point. What happened a 100 years ago is far more important than 800 years ago. Other religions are simply not committing terrorist acts ans killing others at the rate that is Islam is, and has been for years. Pointing out such facts is not bigoted, it is just being honest and factual. Muslims and people like you always try to excuse the violence and bigotry of Muslims by deflection talking about irrelevant facts. What happened happened many centuries ago is not a hundreth as important what as what is happening.today.

And the fact is, Buddhist are not conducting organized attacks on places of worship of other religions on the most holy days, Muslims are as Muslim did in the Easter Sri Lankan Church attack.. And Buddhist from number of different countries are not coming to Myanmar to kill Muslims, but Muslims are going to the Middle East to kill non Muslims. ISIS members from European countries are raping killing Yazdids, and the Muslim community ignores it, offering feeble protest that are more for good Public Relations image than moral outrage. When have the Muslims ever tried to stop the murdering, and genocide committed by Muslims.

Unpleasant as it is to face, what Muslims are doing is what everyone else is doing, and pointing unpleasant but true facts out is not Islamophobia. There is genuine Islamophobia, and if you are willing to acknowledge and point out the legitimate criticism of Islam from what could be Islamophobia, there could be a useful debate. But if you are just going call criticism of Islamophobia and engage in name calling, then there isn't much point in having a discussion, is there.

I will say this,the best way to deal with what you call Islamopobia is to honestly acknowledge the current flaws in Islam, and not pretend everybody else is the same, because they are not, Islam is inspiring terrorist acts at a far greater rate than other religions and that is a bug problem. Making excuses or tryig to divert the discussion by talking about irrelevant things lie what happened 800 years ago like the crusades isn't goig to help solve the, and just make what you call Islamophobia worse. Most of the excuses for Islam are just that, excuses, not true valid reason. Bin Laden didn't become a terrorist because he was poor and deprive, and many ISIS tsrrorist didn't becoke rapist and murderers because they grew up under dictatorial oppressive regimes.

Yup, this is certainly ignorance and bigotry. You're failing to address most of what I said while trying to shoot random negative points about Muslims. You're trying to muddy the waters to keep your vilification alive. You want people to be on the defensive for whatever bad did whatever Muslim does while doing your utmost to avoid applying the same standards elsewhere. That's what Islamophobia is. If you could acknowledge what I said and gave an honest attempt at addressing it I would take your words for criticism of the Muslim world. That's not really happening here. You make a claim. I correct it then you jump to something else without addressing it. There is a reason why you keep shooting new points with each posts while leaving others unresolved. We are, of course, trying to understand what pushes someone to distort reality like this to keep fueling one's own biases.

[Axalon]

Some comments to previous bold claims made here...

Islam doesn't demand death for leaving Islam. ...

This is a lie... Sahih al-Bukhari 6922 states, and I quote ..."according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" As this is a part of the Islamic source material - its a part of Islam. For us dirty unbelievers that essentially translates into *Mohammed said - anyone who leaves Islam, kill them*. So that settles that, I think.

Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

Misrepresenting the facts appears to be common theme in pro-Islamic activism as well... It seems...

99% of FGM is not committed by Muslims. It's a region specific practice, not religion specific. Vast majority of Muslims don't practice it. Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

I am hardly an expert on FGM-matters but I am pretty sure that this "99%-claim" is a fabrication. I can not find anything that actually support or confirm that in the Prevalence of female genital mutilation wiki-page or in the Religious views on female genital mutilation wiki-page. Neither can confirm or provide basis for that impressive 99% claim. However, I certainly can find plenty that contradicts it and suggest otherwise. UNICEF lists the top 5 countries with the highest levels of support for FGM - Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Egypt - and all 5 just happens to be Islam-majority countries. ...What a coincidence... And yet, supposedly 99% of all FGM is still somehow magically committed by non-Muslims almost exclusively - according to the claim. It does not add up very well, now does it? The "99%-claim" also provides us with a bunch of other unexplained paradoxes for us to consider as well. I will just forward a few here...


1. In Somalia (east Africa) apparently 98% of the females aged 15-49 years are mutilated somehow, and that in a country were supposedly 99.8% are Muslims. So that means that the non-defined 0.2 % of the population would then basically be responsible for mutilating 98% of the entire female population there - aged 15-49 years - which is nothing short of amazing as far as paradoxes go! BTW, we are talking about at least 5 million Muslim females here. Strange, really strange...

2. In Indonesia (south Asia) - who also has the largest Muslim population in the world - some 55 million Muslim girls/females are apparently mutilated a somehow. That is a remarkable since 99% of FGM is supposedly done by none-Muslims we are told - yet some 55 million Muslim females magically have the scars to prove that FGM is employed en-masse there. Those non-muslims must be really busy cutting and slicing those poor Muslim girls/females left and right it seems. And is it not strange that the Indonesian Muslim majority seems to be just fine with that? UNICEF estimates that at least 200 million females in the world suffers from FGM (various types). How is it then possible that Indonesia by itself - as an Islamic country - are already beyond 25% of that figure? It is quite a mystery how all that add up with the claim, not to mention a strange paradox indeed...

3. In Malaysia (south Asia) apparently some 93% of females from Muslim families (about 9 million females) have been mutilated. That's really odd since we are told that 99% of all FGM is done by non-Muslims, right? So how these 9 million mutilated Muslim females came to be is a complete mystery it seems? Really odd, isn't it... Those non-Muslims sure like to do FGM on them poor Muslim girls for some mysterious and strange reasons...

Another thing we find in Malaysia is that FGM is prevalent in the dominant Muslim community, but not observed in its minority Buddhist and Hindu communities. Strange, really strange... Yet 99% of FGM is still not committed by Muslims supposedly... The government sponsored Fatwa Committee National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs decided in April 2009 that female circumcision was a part of Islamic teachings and it should be observed by Muslims, with the majority of the jurists in the Committee concluding that female circumcision is obligatory (wajib). How strange is that?!? As 99% of FGM is still not commited by Muslims supposedly. Nah, the Malaysian Fatwa Committee National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs had no idea what they are doing apparently - and ruled in favor of FGM despite 99% of FGM is still not commited by Muslims... Isn't that a grand paradox folks?

4. In Switzerland (Europe), the Islamic Central Council classified removal of the clitoral foreskin, a less severe form of FGM, as sunna (recommended). They did that in 2018 despite it was outlawed in the Switzerland in 2012 to perform FGM, or arranging for it to be performed overseas. All this is very strange as as supposedly 99% of all FGM is still commited by others then Muslims, and yet the Islamic Central Council decided it was a great idea to recommend FGM in 2018 - some 6 years AFTER FGM was outlawed in Switzerland... What a paradox, what a paradox....

5. In Mauritania (west Africa) - an Islamic republic - over 70% of its female population aged 15-49 had been the victims of FGM according to multiple surveys (conducted 2001 and 2007). About 57% of Mauritania women believe FGM is a religious requirement and this despite some 99% are identified as Muslims in Mauritania. That's a remarkable paradox. Not to mention that the 1% of non-Muslims are somehow supposedly allowed to do FGM on 70% of the entire Muslim female population without any sort of reaction from the 99% Muslim majority there - what is a strange paradox indeed. And yet, supposedly 99% FGM is still not committed by Muslims we are told... That is an impressive paradox for sure... BTW, we are talking about at least 1 million Muslim females here....

In short, either we totally believe these 5 ridiculous outlined paradoxes are real or we believe that the 99%-claim is a fabrication...



..."It's a region specific practice, not religion specific."

Folks, I'm pretty sure this claim is a fabrication as well... After all, that quite some "region" we are talking about there - it is spanning from the coast of west Africa all the way to Egypt and horn of Africa, and then it continues from the Arabic peninsula to parts of the middle east then parts of Iran and Pakistan - and then again in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Curiously, it also happens to match up rather well with many (if not most) Islamic territories along the way somehow - what strange coincidence, isn't it? Furthermore, multiple Islamic councils all over the world have de facto offered their theological opinions and conclusions on FGM - that would be utterly redundant if FGM was not somehow relevant or important to Islam somehow - as is claimed. Obviously that is not true and thus we have yet another fabrication, on that note...


..."Vast majority of Muslims don't practice it."

Its hard to tell for sure folks... It is clear is that at least half of all Islamic countries in the world do practice FGM to various extents - and that circumstance alone suggests that many, if not a majority of Muslims do practice it somehow. As many Muslims do live in such Islamic countries we can be rather certain that it is not a nominal minority we talking about here (Pakistan and Iran might be exceptions here). However without the hard data one can only speculate on this, but it is clear it is nowhere close to a small insignificant minority - as we are led to believe by the claim - and in that sense, the claim is obviously untrue and blatantly dishonest. As is so often the case with various pro-Islamic activism. If in doubt, Youtube have plenty of clips of such stuff...

Misrepresenting facts is a common companion of Islamophobia.

Considering what has just been explained above - does pro-Islamic activism and propaganda behave any better? It sure don't look like it...

- A

[Heathen Hammer]

He's so close to providing an example, isn't he, folks?

Huh? That is one of the most prominent examples on the subject.
It was also corresponding with Islam's view on women.

You didn't say it preached violence. You said that Muslims are supposed to want you dead.

I asked you to show that you knew what you were talking about when it comes to Islamic theology. I wanted to see if you know how Muslims interpret the Qur'an. You've only shown how anti-Muslims interpret the Qur'an. If they both interpret it the same way, how come you've only cited an anti-Islamic interpretation? I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about.

Soooo... Quoting Quran is "anti-Muslim" interpretation? Your post is either dishonest or you don't know what "interpretation" even means. Quoting directly from the source isn't interpreting it. That's what Quran says on the matter.

Even in liberal democracies, it's unfair to judge an entire people by their government. How much more unfair it is to judge a people by a government that they have no legitimate say in changing.

I never said the population was secular, I'm saying that the countries lack democratic institutions. That's pretty obvious when a lot of them have had a bunch of coups within living memory. Turkey and Pakistan are like textbook examples of hybrid regimes. By most metrics (like free press, internet censorship, corruption, and democracy indices), almost all of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East are considered unfree. The only exceptions are Israel and maybe Tunisia. Again, remember the goals of Arab Spring? All the anti-government protests in Iran in the last ten years?

Different iterations of the argument that those countries are bad because of religion and nothing else has been done before in this thread, and it's just too simplistic to hold water. I'm not saying that the people of the Middle East are perfect. I'm saying that it's a lot of authoritarian and hybrid regimes in developing countries. Many of them are former colonies. You don't need know the religious breakdown of an authoritarian developing country to expect some major social problems to be going on. There are problems of a similar scale going on in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, but they aren't majority Muslim.

If it's as simple as [country] is bad because it's Muslim, is Myanmar bad because it's Buddhist, or is there more to it than that?

Again, if that was the case we'd see organized resistance against such governments for secular cause. Yet there is none of that. It is either theocratic resistance for more Islamic society (kinda like the anti-Assad movement in Syria), or sectarian resistance groups which simply want another brand of Islam instead of the one embraced by the ruling elite(anti-government protests in Iraq).
As I said, what we have is that majority of Muslim-majority countries have theocratic regimes that actively discriminate based on religious ideology - and population seems not to be pissed off about that, while being perfectly able to dissent over other issues.