Islamophobia in the West

[Heathen Hammer]

The problem is the term "islamophobia" itself which is an oxymoron, since anti-Muslim sentiment is generated by Islam itself, not "irrational fear", so essentially the term itself is just a partisan buzzword and ultimately meaningless. For example, plenty of "islamophobes" are former Muslims. According to Islam, "apostates" should be put to death and in many Islamic countries there are similar laws. It is not irrational for former Muslims to hate Islam for essentially prescribing them to be killed. That applies to many other groups in society from gays and women to atheists and people who are not in Abrahamic religions.

[Common Soldier]

The problem is the term "islamophobia" itself which is an oxymoron, since anti-Muslim sentiment is generated by Islam itself, not "irrational fear", so essentially the term itself is just a partisan buzzword and ultimately meaningless. For example, plenty of "islamophobes" are former Muslims. According to Islam, "apostates" should be put to death and in many Islamic countries there are similar laws. It is not irrational for former Muslims to hate Islam for essentially prescribing them to be killed. That applies to many other groups in society from gays and women to atheists and people who are not in Abrahamic religions.

I think there might be genuine "islamophobia", where there are some who do have an irrational fear of Islam. The problem is that defenders of Islam call any criticism of Islam "islamophobia" no matter how true and legitimate the criticism of Islam is. It is not irrational to fear a religion that has as its official policy the death of apoatates in at least 2 out of the 4 schools of islamic law that apply to 80% of Muslims, and at least 20% of Muslim countries have a death penalty for apostates.

It further does not help the case of defenders of Islam when they either show a woefull ignorance ofnIalsm or just lie while defending Islam. The fact that 2 of the schools of Sunni Islamic law either require or recommend FGM makes thr issue not just a local geographical concern, but a religious one for Muslims - FGM is an islamic religious practice, not just cultural. The labeling of any criticsm of Islam as "islamophobia" no matter how true ultimately does a disservice to Muslims.

[Infidel144]

It is nit irrational to fear a religion that has its official policy the death of apoatates in at least 2 out of the 4 schools of islamic law that apply to 80% of Muslims...

The four (Hanbali, Hanifi, Maliki and Shafi'i) all have the death penalty for apostasy, as does the Jafari (main Shi'ite school). The major differences are how much of a waiting time to is required, while the Hanafi and Jafari don't recommend executing women, just confining them until repentance

The fact that 2 of the schools of Sunni Islamic law either require or recommend FGM makes thr issue not just a local geographical concern, but a religious one for Muslims - FGM is an islamic religious practice, not just cultural.

Obligatory in the Shafi'i school, considered a good in the other three (main) Sunni schools. Shi'a don't permit it, IIRC.

[Common Soldier]

The four (Hanbali, Hanifi, Maliki and Shafi'i) all have the death penalty for apostasy, as does the Jafari (main Shi'ite school). The major differences are how much of a waiting time to is required, while the Hanafi and Jafari don't recommend executing women, just confining them until repentance

Obligatory in the Shafi'i school, considered a good in the other three (main) Sunni schools. Shi'a don't permit it, IIRC.

Thank you for the information. Thankfully, most Muslims do not seem to be following sharia law with regard to the penalties on apoatscy and other areas, since rhe majority of Muslim countries do not have a death penalty for apostacy. Is this because most Mulsims formally reject sharia law, or because they just ignore those teachings that are too far out of with modern timed, the way even many devout Catholics ingore the Church's teaching on contraceptives? Most Catholics I know use birth control inspite of what the Pope says, and still regard themselves as good Catholics.

Even if the majority of Muslims today reject the sharia teachings, it is still an issue since many Muslims still do follow the sharia. I wonder how many Muslims who advocate sharia law fully understand what it says?

[Heathen Hammer]

I think there might be genuine "islamophobia", where there are some who do have an irrational fear of Islam. The problem is that defenders of Islam call any criticism of Islam "islamophobia" no matter how true and legitimate the criticism of Islam is. It is not irrational to fear a religion that has as its official policy the death of apoatates in at least 2 out of the 4 schools of islamic law that apply to 80% of Muslims, and at least 20% of Muslim countries have a death penalty for apostates.

It further does not help the case of defenders of Islam when they either show a woefull ignorance ofnIalsm or just lie while defending Islam. The fact that 2 of the schools of Sunni Islamic law either require or recommend FGM makes thr issue not just a local geographical concern, but a religious one for Muslims - FGM is an islamic religious practice, not just cultural. The labeling of any criticsm of Islam as "islamophobia" no matter how true ultimately does a disservice to Muslims.

I guess we can say that, but even early 2000s neocon narrative that was used to justify endless wars in Middle East was not based on Islam itself. US still maintained its alliance with Saudi Arabia, who happens to be world's main sponsor of islamist terrorism and the nation behind 911 attacks.
There are valid reasons to dislike and even hate Islam, just like any mainstream religion. Theocracy also tends to be specific to Islamic societies, so there's that.

[pacifism]

You asked three questions, I answered two, and asked for clarification on a third.
Do you have any further questions?

Did you really expect me to just take your answers at your (singular) word?

It is not "If" they sign. This is referring to those idolaters with whom the muslims already had a treaty. Any who had a treaty that was indefinite in time or less than 4 months were given 4 months to accept Islam (or flee/find sanctuary). Those who had a treaty that was longer than 4 months (there were two or three tribes to whom this applied, as a I recall the longest was nine months), and those treaties were to be honored for their term.

For ayah 5
“Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
The parentheticals are generally editorial insertions. In particular the "(and they refuse to make peace)" is not in the original (the other two are translations, nihil obstet).
The Muslims are permitted to kill, capture and execute or make prisoners of the idolaters, they will have no choice but to die or accept Islam (signified by praying properly (salat) and paying the religious tax (zakat).

Ayah 6 permits the idolaters to safely learn about Islam and be returned to their homes.



Well, the generally accepted manner is to inform the opposing side they can accept Islam, accept dhimmi status (for people of the Book, though this was sometimes extended to others), if neither then war.

Now you are making it sound like those verses just applied to the Arabian tribes in the 600s.

I don't see where the poster you are referring to ever said "I hate Muslims", please provide that exact quote.

Don’t defend Heathen Hammer. I want to respect you.

PS - hating Islam is not the same thing as hating Muslims, a fact that defenders of Islam often confused. Sam Harris tried to explain that fact to Ben Affleck as Ben, that overrated bad actor, was almost turning red in the face.

While that is true, I would like to suggest something to you. Hating Israel does not make one an anti-Semite, but the two have a bit of a habit going hand in hand. A correlation, if you will. Ironically, the Muslim world’s hostility to Israel and the Jewish people is a great example of that. But in the same way, people who put use so much of their time and energy criticizing and hating Islam can be correlated with have something against Muslims in general.

The verse that you use to show how peaceful Muslims appears to do the exact opposite! Muslims are told to kill others unless the others sumbit, that is not peaceful and tolerant, that is violent and intolerant.

That's not what I used it for. Don't get ahead of yourself. I literally never said nor implied that it was. It’s almost as if I quoted a peaceful verse and a violent verse together on purpose. Did you consider that?

Again, you are being less than honest. You most certsinly are implying that the role of religion was minor and the negative aspects we criticized were not due to religion. We never never said that religion had everything to do with it, but we are do.say religion does have a major role in the violence and bigortry in these countries, while you most certainly tried ro pretend the role of religion was only minor.

Your opinion has no basis in fact. You repeatesly showed your lack of knowledge and bias, not knowing Surah 9 was one of the last to be written.

And your complete lack of any facts oemany real history at all

Look, I spelled it out: I think religion is a secondary factor for why those countries are the way you are. If you think that’s inaccurate, by all means, show me. But this better not be the best you’ve got.

I have been very up front that I am not very familiar with the religion of Islam. I never said or even implied that Surah 9 was abrogated. My point about the 9th surah is that you can’t just quote the Qur’an and say “boom, I’m right”. That’s just bad hermeneutics. You have to show that you are quoting accurately and making a good interpretation. If someone doesn’t even bring up abrogation in their interpretation without prompting, then the defense of that interpretation is so barebones that it needs work.

The Iranian people were able to overthrow the Shah. While some do protest, there are other Iranians who support the regime, and perhaps more Iranian support more moderate views, there are still plenfy that don't, ormthe regime would have toppled. You keep trying to imply that all these islamic laws we objectionable are just do to a handful of individuals is simply not true. It might or might not be the majority, but death penalties for apostscy snd homosexaulity don't exist because just one man decided.to impose them. A lot of people in those countries supported the view for the laws to have been enacted.

You do know what a dictatorship is, right?

The solution is clear, reduce the influence of Islam or alter traditional Islamic beliefs:

1. Reject sharia law

2. Reject idea the Koran is the verbatim unaltered word of Allah, but a a book written by humans with mistakes

3. Recognize many of the hadiths are wrong or just invented stories, even hadiths from the Bukhari and other collections traditionally regarded as authentic

4. Recognize Muhammad as a man with a lot flaws and is not always a role model for.modern times.

5. Recongition that Islam had been been intolerant and bigoted in the past and other religions should be given all the same rights as Muslims - if others csn convert to Islam, then Muslims must be allowed convert to other religions or no.religion as well just as easily with no greater restrictions
.
6. A recognition of the of the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and that they were wrong. Example, the Armenian Genocide. Most Muslims deny it happened, and thoze who do don't admit it was religious; the fsct thr equally non Turkish but Muslim Kurds proves thd genocide was religiously motivated

7. A rejection of the lying in behalf of Islam.

I believe all of these. Did you really think that I wouldn’t? But I would like to suggest that in your haste to denounce Islam you are at risk of not recognizing the moderating or even progressive movements within Islam when it’s due. Even though you have acknowledged that they exist, you don’t really seem to care. You should care because ending extremism is the goal here. I think the main difference between us here is that you choose to care about the extremists and basically ignore the modernists, and I do the opposite.

To get a little political, I think that actively welcoming the more moderate and modernist Muslims into our countries is an important part of moderating and modernizing Muslims as a whole. If we act too combative towards Muslims and Muslim-majority countries, we run the risk of letting any progress we’ve made so far just unravel as they respond in kind and become more anti-Western.

Because the warning was based on the historical action of Muslims. Muslims tried to conquer until they were militarily defeated. The Muslims tried to conquer Europe and it was only because.they were stopped at Tours, Vienna, Lepanto, and other places that they didn't. Cyprus, Middle East, Egypt, north Africa, Pakistan and Bengal all became Muslim after Muslim conquest. Instsnbul, built by Christians, became Muslim after the Muslims 3rd try, 700 years after the Muslims first effort, and the Hagia Sophia church stolen by Muslims and turned into a mosque.

And Muslims are not looking for everyome to be a Muslim, but they do want everyone to submit to Allah and Islam, if not converting to Islam, then to become subordinate to Islam, and Surah 9:29 tells Muzlims to fight until that happens.

Islam only wants everybody to submit to Islam, either convert to the Islamic religion, or acknowledge their subordinate position and pay tax to Muslims, as Surah 9:29 commands, Islam doesn't care about saving souls. Christians do care saving souls, but do not care abour non Christians submitting fo Christians and paying tax to Christians, not the same thing.
.

I think you’re being inconsistent in your argument. In other areas, you have talked about how Islam is bad because of what certain Muslims are doing today, and that today is what matters. But you also keep bringing up stuff from hundreds of years ago. Historical events wouldn’t matter to you if you’re only concerned about what’s happening in the modern day.

To address the verse you’ve brought up so much, 9:29: when I read that chapter from the beginning, it seems to take the view that the unbelievers are acting as oath breakers and transgressors in the conflict, which is something Muslims themselves should not do. That’s noticeable in verses 10 and 12. More importantly, I don’t see how this verse says to fight nonbelievers until they convert or die. It says to fight “until they give the jizya willingly”. Wikipedia says that jizya is the not-Muslim tax. I must be missing something in your argument, because if Muslims are supposed to stop fighting when the enemies pay the not-Muslim tax, they are neither dead nor Muslim.

Muslims can be any race. Like Ben Affleck, you are treating Muslims as a race, instead of treating Islam as the ideology it is. The criticism of Islam are about ideology, not race. Please point out where race was brought into the discussion except where you brought it in

That was a joke about a conspiracy theory. I hope you find your sense of humor one day.


EDIT:

And I say that the effects European imperialism and colonialism is way overrated. Most of the Middle East only came under European rule after WW1, and only lasted decades. The Middle East had alresdy fallen way behind by then. Conditions became worse with the resurgence of Islam decades after decolonialism, not during decolonialism itself. It was not colonialism that caused the Muslim world to. reject printing press for cenruries

Like I said to the other guy, it doesn’t matter that European imperialism didn’t last “that long”, it matters because it created the status quo in the Middle East that we are now dealing with, and it was not good thing for the region. The fact that the Middle East had already “fallen behind” and couldn’t fight off the imperialists doesn’t mean that what the Europeans did was remotely acceptable. Not unless you think might makes right.

After decolonization, popular movements sought to purge the region of its “Western imperialism” (including Israel), and pursue a kind of pan-Arabic unity and socialism. That was back when invading Israel was popular. Ultimately, I think you could describe this as a political movement with secular motivations. When that mission clearly failed by the 1970s, then those countries turned to a fundamentalist Islam from the political power vacuum, and you have status quo that exists today. Unlike the invasions of Israel, this era is marked by a protracted guerrilla-style resistance against Israel that exists today. If it wasn't for the failure of the first post-colonial movement, we wouldn't be where we are at now. But if it wasn't for colonialism, there wouldn't be a failed beginning post-colonial movement, now would there?

Contemporary foreign policy in the Middle East is basically centered around the existence of Israel, the shift from European withdrawal to an American presence in the region, and how important controlling oil reserves were when the Middle East was developing its economy. To be blunt, imperialism played a pretty substantial part in each of those. European powers created Israel. European powers sought oil so badly. European powers cared more about extracting wealth than raising the standard of living of the people in the region – like any colony.

[Infidel144]

Did you really expect me to just take your answers at your (singular) word?

I don't expect you to take it at all.
You're welcome.
"(So when the Sacred Months have passed. . . ), meaning, ` Upon the end of the four months
during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We
gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement
next (then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area
(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they f ight you there. But if they at tack
you, then fight them.) 2:191"

"These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.
Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important .
Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the
right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy."
Tafsir Ibn Kathir

[Common Soldier]

While that is true, I would like to suggest something to you. Hating Israel does not make one an anti-Semite, but the two have a bit of a habit going hand in hand. A correlation, if you will. Ironically, the Muslim world’s hostility to Israel and the Jewish people is a great example of that. But in the same way, people who put use so much of their time and energy criticizing and hating Islam can be correlated with have something against Muslims in general.

The analogy of Israel is a good one. Simply because much of the criticism of Israel is rooted in antisemitism, does not mean it all is, or that there not some legitimate criticism to be made against Israel, which I think you ackniledge. When it comes to Islam, the same people who acknowledge legitimate criticism ofnIsrael brand any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, yourself included When have younever acknowledged any legitimate criticism of Islam, wiithout making excuses?

But Islam is different - its attrocities effect the entire globe, Israel only effects only one tiny corner of the world, yet it t recieves an enormous amount of attention. Yet people make excuses for Islam they wouldn't for Israel. It is nice ofnyounat least to acknowledge that much of the Muslim criticism comes islamic bigotry antisemitism. What you don't know is that antisemitism in the Muslim world comes from the Koran and Islam itself; you are ignorant of that fact due to your own admitted ignorance of Islam.

[Quot=]
That's not what I used it for. Don't get ahead of yourself. I literally never said nor implied that it was. It’s almost as if I quoted a peaceful verse and a violent verse together on purpose. Did you consider that? [/quote]

You are being less than honest, since you wouldn't have to quouted thr verse if you were not trying to imply just that.

Look, I spelled it out: I think religion is a secondary factor for why those countries are the way you are. If you think that’s inaccurate, by all means, show me. But this better not be the best you’ve got.

You repeatedly admitted your claims ignorance of Islam and not well informed on it, so where do younget off making those claims? I have repeatedly given you the evidence, while you have given no evidence but just demonstrate you bias. When all 4 schools Sunni Islamic law call for death for apostates, then Islam is the main factor responsible for the death penalties and other criminal penalties for apostacy in Muslim countries

Religion is not the secondary factor, but the primary factor of why Muslim countries treat religious minorities as second class citizen at best, and apostates and those who criticize Islam are attacked. Islamic religion is the primary, not secondary factor, for most.of the terrorist attacks and why the countries have so many problemsm.

I have been very up front that I am not very familiar with the religion of Islam.

If you are not familar with the religion of Islam as you say, then you have no business making the claims you have, and asserting Islam is not the cause, when you are admitting your ignorace.

It is dishonest to plead ignorance and then make the assertion of Islam teached or does not, but you most certainly did.

I never said or even implied that Surah 9 was abrogated. My point about the 9th surah is that you can’t just quote the Qur’an and say “boom, I’m right”. That’s just bad hermeneutics. You have to show that you are quoting accurately and making a good interpretation.

Again, you are trying to imply that, otherwise you would not have brought up the topic in the first place. Now you are dishonestly changing your tack when you couldn't refute the facts presented to you. The violent actions ISIS, the Taliban and other Muslims groups show the violent intrepretation is a good one. ISIS and Taliban ar other Muslim goups operate in accordance with The Quran and Islam.

When all 4 schools of sharia law call for death to apostates, then interpretations of Quranic verses as calling for.death to apoatates you s a valid one. It might not be how you would interpret the Quran, but that is irrelevant, since you.admit your own ignorsnce on Islam, and in any case, you have no right tonsay the Talibans interpretation is any more incorrect then some so called "moderate" Muslim's one.

A relgion's scripture means whatever its followers think it means and by Muslims' own standard, groups like the Taliban, ISIS are genuine Muslims - they adhere to the 5 Pillars and other universally agreed Mulsim beliefs and practices.

If someone doesn’t even bring up abrogation in their interpretation without prompting, then the defense of that interpretation is so barebones that it needs work.

If the verses are being intrpretated that way by Muslims, then it is valid intrepretation. Violent Muslim groups like ISIS, who follow.rhe Quran, clearly follow thr violent intrpreations - that other Muslims interpret the verses differently, since there is no universal Ialami authoriy like a pope wh has the right to say the ISIS interpretation is wrong.

You do know what a dictatorship is, right?

What are you trying to say? That the Shah was not a dictator? Or that the Iranian Islamic.Republic is not a dictatorhsip?

If you are saying that the Islamic Republic is not a dictatorship, then you saying that bigoted laws like death to apostates are not being imposed upon the people, but have popular support due Iranians Islamic beliefs.

If you saying that the Iranian Islamic Republic is a dictatorship, then the example the Shah show the Iranian people are capable of kicking out dictators, so it must be, due to the Iranian public Islamic beliefs, executing 16 years old girls for adultery (but not the men they commit adultery with) and sex with 10 years old girls is not bad enough to overthrow the dictatorships. While many Iranians might oppose thr Islam policies, many do support itm

I believe all of these. Did you really think that I wouldn’t?

What does it matter what you believe? You admit you are not well informed on Islam. The fact is many, the majority I would say, support most of these points.

Note, if you believe in sharia law, then you are a bigot, since non Msulims.are treated as inferiors in sharia.law.

All Muslim countries, not some, treat as second class citizens. Many even so called "moderate" Muslims don't believe Muslims should be allowed to leave Islam. Most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of Allah, and most Muslims accept the 6 hadith collections as authentic, such as Bukhari.

What you believe is irrelevant if you are not a Muslim as you imply, and even if you were, your belief would still be irrelevant, since your beliefs don't represent most Muslims.

But I would like to suggest that in your haste to denounce Islam you are at risk of not recognizing the moderating or even progressive movements within Islam when it’s due..

And your haste to make excuses for Islam and not recognizing that even many "moderate" hold views which are intolerant unacceptable delays the reforms.Islam needs. Why would Islam change if Islamic apologist like you keep making excused for Islam and refuse to admit there is any problem?

Even though you have acknowledged that they exist, you don’t really seem to care.

You don't even admit that Islamic terrorist has anything to do with Islam, and you demonstrate you don't care about the people Muslims kill.

I have heard you condemned the killing of non Mulsims by Muslims - let us hear you condemn the genocide of Armenians by Muslims and the large scale killings of Christian Assyrians without making some excuse.

You should care because ending extremism is the goal here. I think the main difference between us here is that you choose to care about the extremists and basically ignore the modernists, and I do the opposite..

You care far more about "islamophobia" than the far greater number of victims Muslims. What you refuse to admit the problems with Islam.are not confined to what you call extremist. All Muslim countries treat non Muslims as second class citizens. If all Muslim countries are just extremist, then you need to redefine extremist, since you are saying th majorty of Muslims worldwidemare extremist.

And if say there are no democratic Muslim countries, that says something negative about Islam. But if you admit there are democratic Muslim countries, then even moderate Muslims approve of treating non Muslims as second class citizens, and that is a problem with even moderate Muslims you refuse to admit.

To get a little political, I think that actively welcoming the more moderate and modernist Muslims into our countries is an important part of moderating and modernizing Muslims as a whole. If we act too combative towards Muslims and Muslim-majority countries, we run the risk of letting any progress we’ve made so far just unravel as they respond in kind and become more anti-Western.

Large numbers of Muslims have been let into western countries and Muslim countries have not become less bigoted toward non Muslims, nor has therr been any kind of csmpaign to treat non Muslims.as full equals. If anything , discrimination against non Muslims.has increased. All that increasing number of Muslims into western countries has done is increase terrorist attacks in those.

You have things backwardsn- it is Muslims who have been combative toward non Muslims from the beginning. Wiping out whole Newish villages, as Muhammad himself.did. It.was Muslims who spread from Arabia stealing, raping and enslaving in the name Islam both the Persian and Byzantine empires. Istsnbul to be a Christisn city before Muslims stole it and turned.one of the greatest christian church into a mosque.

Massacres like the Armenian Genocide or that of Christian Assyrians are excused by apologist, and Muslim have been persecuting non Muslims like the Yazidis for.a long time, ISIS is not killing Yazidis because of what western countries did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persec...dis_by_Muslims

I think you’re being inconsistent in your argument.

. I bring up the past as well as what is happening today to show.the attocities committed by Muslims are a consistent feature of Islam, that he problem is not just anfew bad apples in Islam, problems deeply rooted in Islam itself.

The attrocities committed by Muhammad and his cronies set the example that modern Muslims like ISIS members are following today. If modern Muslims.were not following the exsmples of Muslims in the past, then what Muslims did in the past would be irrelevant, but modern Muslims are following the examples of the past Muslims committing their attrocities, so it is relevant.

In other areas, you have talked about how Islam is bad because of what certain Muslims are doing today, and that today is what matters. But you also keep bringing up stuff from hundreds of years ago. Historical events wouldn’t matter to you if you’re only concerned about what’s happening in the modern day.

As I said, the past was brought up because it gave an example that Muslims today are following. When Muslims kill cartoonist pokijg fun at Muhammad, they are following the example.of Muhammad himself.

I explained all this before, perhaps you could actually read what I wrote. I explained it all before how Islamic terrorist actions of the past set an example that many Muslims today follow, and that therefore makes the Muslims pasts relevant today. Furthermore, the point you keep bringing up while ignoring what I said is rather hypocritical for Muslim apologist, who always bring up the Crusades, which is irrelevant, since nobody is following the example of the Crusades today.

You keep bringing up colonialism, which is more than a generation in the past, so your argumentnis just being hypocritical to say the past doesn't count, since you insist on blaming all the Muslims problems on the colonial past.

That was a joke about a conspiracy theory. I hope you find your sense of humor one day.

A true Muslim apologist, that you can find matters of genocide and rape by Muslims matter to joke about.

Like I said to the other guy, it doesn’t matter that European imperialism didn’t last “that long”, it matters because it created the status quo in the Middle East that we are now dealing with, and it was not good thing for the region. The fact that the Middle East had already “fallen behind” and couldn’t fight off the imperialists doesn’t mean that what the Europeans did was remotely acceptable. Not unless you think might makes right.¬

The same stardard should apply to Islamic imperialism as European, but with double standard.you and all Muslim.apologist, you never do. Countries and cities like Egypt and Alexsndria used to be Christian before Islamic imperialism. Istssnbul was a city built by Christians and the Haiga Sophia was one of the greatest Christisn before it was stolen by Islamic imperialism. Apparently, you think imperial is ok when it is practiced by Islam.

The Muddle.East is backwards because of Islam - for 3 centuries, Islam opposed the use the printing press, and thr printing press was mostly unused by Muslims due to religious opposition. Islamic opposition to lending and borrowinf hindered economic development in the Islamic world. It was only in the 19th and early 20th that most of the Mideast fell under European control, long after the Islamic world had become backwards.

After decolonization, popular movements sought to purge the region of its “Western imperialism” (including Israel), and pursue a kind of pan-Arabic unity and socialism. That was back when invading Israel was popular. Ultimately, I think you could describe this as a political movement with secular motivations. When that mission clearly failed by the 1970s, then those countries turned to a fundamentalist Islam from the political power vacuum, and you have status quo that exists today. Unlike the invasions of Israel, this era is marked by a protracted guerrilla-style resistance against Israel that exists today. If it wasn't for the failure of the first post-colonial movement, we wouldn't be where we are at now. But if it wasn't for colonialism, there wouldn't be a failed beginning post-colonial movement, now would there?

If if weren't for Islam's rejecting of the printing press and modern lending and borrowing that hinder the Islamkc world technical and economic development, Europe would never have been able colonize the region in the first place. The same religious factors that hinder thr Islamic world development before the 19th century are at work today. I would say Islam was the problem, then and now.

Contemporary foreign policy in the Middle East is basically centered around the existence of Israel, the shift from European withdrawal to an American presence in the region, and how important controlling oil reserves were when the Middle East was developing its economy. To be blunt, imperialism played a pretty substantial part in each of those. European powers created Israel. European powers sought oil so badly. European powers cared more about extracting wealth than raising the standard of living of the people in the region – like any colony.

ISIS has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Islam. The crisis in Syria and Libya is not due with Israel.

But Islam does play a key role in the problems in the Middle East, ISIS and Iran being a big contributor, and in both, Islam plays a central role.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

The whole debate about Islam is a smokescreen, attempting to shift what should be the true focal point of migration (prevention) policy, i.e. race, to endless arguments about meaningless ideological distinctions, while our countries are being flooded with alien populations, which even if they don't turn out outright hostile, like the Muslims or at least a large part of the Muslims, still destroy our societal cohesion, high in-group trust and biological uniqueness.

[pacifism]

I don't expect you to take it at all.
You're welcome.
"(So when the Sacred Months have passed. . . ), meaning, ` Upon the end of the four months
during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We
gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement
next (then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area
(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they f ight you there. But if they at tack
you, then fight them.) 2:191"

"These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.
Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important .
Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the
right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy."
Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Okay, not to be dense, but why have the Muslims that I’ve met never tried to kill me? I mean, if this was a general command for every Muslim on earth to follow right now, I’d expect it have some more, you know, following.

You repeatedly admitted your claims ignorance of Islam and not well informed on it, so where do younget off making those claims? I have repeatedly given you the evidence, while you have given no evidence but just demonstrate you bias. When all 4 schools Sunni Islamic law call for death for apostates, then Islam is the main factor responsible for the death penalties and other criminal penalties for apostacy in Muslim countries

Religion is not the secondary factor, but the primary factor of why Muslim countries treat religious minorities as second class citizen at best, and apostates and those who criticize Islam are attacked. Islamic religion is the primary, not secondary factor, for most.of the terrorist attacks and why the countries have so many problemsm.

Recent history and economic circumstances of those countries have a lot of explanatory power for why Muslim countries are the way they are. That’s why I consider religion a secondary factor; because a lot of what is going on in the world right now can be explained with or without it. Religious conflicts can often be drawn by ethnic divides as well, economic uncertainty can cause flirtations with extremism, and so forth. Neither of those tendencies are unique to Muslims.

Again, you are trying to imply that, otherwise you would not have brought up the topic in the first place. Now you are dishonestly changing your tack when you couldn't refute the facts presented to you. The violent actions ISIS, the Taliban and other Muslims groups show the violent intrepretation is a good one. ISIS and Taliban ar other Muslim goups operate in accordance with The Quran and Islam.

When all 4 schools of sharia law call for death to apostates, then interpretations of Quranic verses as calling for.death to apoatates you s a valid one. It might not be how you would interpret the Quran, but that is irrelevant, since you.admit your own ignorsnce on Islam, and in any case, you have no right tonsay the Talibans interpretation is any more incorrect then some so called "moderate" Muslim's one.

A relgion's scripture means whatever its followers think it means and by Muslims' own standard, groups like the Taliban, ISIS are genuine Muslims - they adhere to the 5 Pillars and other universally agreed Mulsim beliefs and practices.

There are about 200,000 active combatants in Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh combined. That accounts for a little over 0.01% of Muslims. If you’re interpretation is good 0.01% of the time, then it isn’t good.

What are you trying to say? That the Shah was not a dictator? Or that the Iranian Islamic.Republic is not a dictatorhsip?

If you are saying that the Islamic Republic is not a dictatorship, then you saying that bigoted laws like death to apostates are not being imposed upon the people, but have popular support due Iranians Islamic beliefs.

If you saying that the Iranian Islamic Republic is a dictatorship, then the example the Shah show the Iranian people are capable of kicking out dictators, so it must be, due to the Iranian public Islamic beliefs, executing 16 years old girls for adultery (but not the men they commit adultery with) and sex with 10 years old girls is not bad enough to overthrow the dictatorships. While many Iranians might oppose thr Islam policies, many do support itm

Are you … blaming the victims of authoritarian governments for not overthrowing their rulers? Is it also the North Korean or Chinese people’s fault that they “let themselves” be oppressed for being born in the wrong part of the earth?

What does it matter what you believe? You admit you are not well informed on Islam. The fact is many, the majority I would say, support most of these points.

Note, if you believe in sharia law, then you are a bigot, since non Msulims.are treated as inferiors in sharia.law.

All Muslim countries, not some, treat as second class citizens. Many even so called "moderate" Muslims don't believe Muslims should be allowed to leave Islam. Most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of Allah, and most Muslims accept the 6 hadith collections as authentic, such as Bukhari.

Okay, so you made you’re seven points that you want Muslims to adopt, but what do you want to do to help get them to adopt them? That’s what I meant by their being no solution suggested. Should we ban Islam, embargo Muslim countries, and then broadcast these as our demands? Should we just kill people who don’t agree with religious tolerance? What do we do to make this actually happen?

Large numbers of Muslims have been let into western countries and Muslim countries have not become less bigoted toward non Muslims, nor has therr been any kind of csmpaign to treat non Muslims.as full equals. If anything , discrimination against non Muslims.has increased. All that increasing number of Muslims into western countries has done is increase terrorist attacks in those.

Considering the recent rise of right-wing nationalism and electoral gains of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim parties in many European countries, there wasn’t quite a warm welcome party.

As I said, the past was brought up because it gave an example that Muslims today are following. When Muslims kill cartoonist pokijg fun at Muhammad, they are following the example.of Muhammad himself.

I explained all this before, perhaps you could actually read what I wrote. I explained it all before how Islamic terrorist actions of the past set an example that many Muslims today follow, and that therefore makes the Muslims pasts relevant today. Furthermore, the point you keep bringing up while ignoring what I said is rather hypocritical for Muslim apologist, who always bring up the Crusades, which is irrelevant, since nobody is following the example of the Crusades today.

You keep bringing up colonialism, which is more than a generation in the past, so your argumentnis just being hypocritical to say the past doesn't count, since you insist on blaming all the Muslims problems on the colonial past.

I don’t see what the Crusades have to do with anything. Why are you telling me what I’m supposed to argue?

You’re being inconsistent when you bring up old history, because you’ve also said that today is what really matters:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

attempting to divert criticism.saying other religions were jusr as bad in the past wont fly, because Muslims are doing it today and others aren't, and what is happpening now is what matters.

It is not silly are wrong to say that Islamic is more violent today than the other religion, it is the truth. In.the past that the.others.may have been violent, but not today and today is what matters.

Islam is inherently more rigid than Christianity. It is why Islam hss the only countries with death penalth for gays. Islam has 11 countries have [BГnone[/B], Islam is far worse today, which matters.

The operative word in regard to Christians is "in the past". Christians in the past were no better than Muslims, but the problem that Muslims are doing the killings today, not sometime in the past. If the Muslims were not doing their killings today, nobody would care what Muslism believed.

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.

According to you, bringing up events from centuries ago is a pretty weak argument.

The same stardard should apply to Islamic imperialism as European, but with double standard.you and all Muslim.apologist, you never do. Countries and cities like Egypt and Alexsndria used to be Christian before Islamic imperialism. Istssnbul was a city built by Christians and the Haiga Sophia was one of the greatest Christisn before it was stolen by Islamic imperialism. Apparently, you think imperial is ok when it is practiced by Islam.

The same moral standard, yes. But they are not equally relevant.

If if weren't for Islam's rejecting of the printing press and modern lending and borrowing that hinder the Islamkc world technical and economic development, Europe would never have been able colonize the region in the first place. The same religious factors that hinder thr Islamic world development before the 19th century are at work today. I would say Islam was the problem, then and now.

I haven’t exactly written scholarly articles on the history of the printing press or banking in the Middle East, so I don’t know that the history is as clear-cut as you’re describing. But either way, colonialism is immoral, and it doesn’t suddenly become moral if the natives are backwards barbarians.

I think you’re going to have a harder time with this argument if you applied it to any other group of colonized people. How well do you think it would go over if you said the same thing about American Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Aborigines, or Indians and Southeast Asians?

ISIS has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Islam. The crisis in Syria and Libya is not due with Israel.

But Islam does play a key role in the problems in the Middle East, ISIS and Iran being a big contributor, and in both, Islam plays a central role.

You think that Syrian, Libyan, and Iranian politics have nothing to do with Israel?
You think that Syrian, Libyan, and Iranian politics have nothing to do with Israel?

Remember Gaddafi? Khomeini? The three wars that Syria fought against Israel? Remember that Syria was a French colony and Libya an Italian one? Remember the large oil reserves found in Libya and Iran?

Those are almost comedically bad counterexamples.

Spoiler for asides: 

Last edited by Common Soldier; October 07, 2020 at 10:00 PM. Reason: typos

You, uh, missed a few.

When it comes to Islam, the same people who acknowledge
legitimate criticism ofnIsrael brand any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, yourself included

I have said that people have been inconsistent, hypocritical, and even hateful. But when have I ever called something Islamophobic? I went out of my way to avoid that word, specifically because it bothers people so much.

When have younever acknowledged any legitimate criticism of Islam, wiithout making excuses?

Once I’m sure that the person making the criticism isn’t trying to mask their Muslim bashing. Or are you seriously asking me? Well, my name is pacifism … and I said before that the Qur’an tries to justify the use of violence, so … I’ll let you put the two together.

EDIT: Actually, I’ll just say it, because I don’t trust you to accurately represent me anymore: when I said that Islam allows for wars in self-defense, that wasn’t a compliment. I think Islam justifies the use of violence, which I think is wrong because I believe that violence is never justified. There’s one, for starters.

It is nice ofnyounat least to acknowledge that much of the Muslim criticism comes islamic bigotry antisemitism. What you don't know is that antisemitism in the Muslim world comes from the Koran and Islam itself; you are ignorant of that fact due to your own admitted ignorance of Islam.

You’re right that I do not know about that. But I have heard about how popular The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been in that part of the world.

You are being less than honest, since you wouldn't have to quouted thr verse if you were not trying to imply just that.

I’ll take that as a “no, I didn’t consider that”.

If you are not familar with the religion of Islam as you say, then you have no business making the claims you have, and asserting Islam is not the cause, when you are admitting your ignorace.

It is dishonest to plead ignorance and then make the assertion of Islam teached or does not, but you most certainly did.

I quoted it and then asked some basic questions on how it is interpreted. I never said it taught anything. You did. Apparently, what I said was still enough for you to pigeonhole me as some kind of horrible person who defends murder and oppression. That’s not very nice of you at all.

Again, you are trying to imply that, otherwise you would not have brought up the topic in the first place. Now you are dishonestly changing your tack when you couldn't refute the facts presented to you.

I said never said that, and I’m sorry if the subtext misled into thinking that I was implying it, because that was never my position. I mentioned abrogation very off-handedly in a list of considerations to make while reading the Qur’an. You’re imagining arguments and positions that I never actually take.

What you believe is irrelevant if you are not a Muslim as you imply, and even if you were, your belief would still be irrelevant, since your beliefs don't represent most Muslims.

I’m starting to think that you don’t really care about anything that I actually believe.

And your haste to make excuses for Islam and not recognizing that even many "moderate" hold views which are intolerant unacceptable delays the reforms.Islam needs. Why would Islam change if Islamic apologist like you keep making excused for Islam and refuse to admit there is any problem?

I never said there are no problems. I said the problems have multiple causes. Don’t deliberately misinterpret me.

You care far more about "islamophobia" than the far greater number of victims Muslims.

This thread is called “Islamophobia in the West”.

And if say there are no democratic Muslim countries, that says something negative about Islam. But if you admit there are democratic Muslim countries, then even moderate Muslims approve of treating non Muslims as second class citizens, and that is a problem with even moderate Muslims you refuse to admit.

Tunisia and Indonesia are making progress towards becoming full democracies, although Indonesia partly backslid. They’re not perfect, but right now, should we support them, or snub them?

A true Muslim apologist, that you can find matters of genocide and rape by Muslims matter to joke about.

It’s a joke about a conspiracy theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

You don't even admit that Islamic terrorist has anything to do with Islam, and you demonstrate you don't care about the people Muslims kill.

First of all, that’s a horrible thing to say!

Second, I do care. As I said before, I want to let the potential victims of terror flee to my country for safety and a new life. Most of these potential victims are Muslims themselves who probably aren’t fans of terrorism at this point. But for reasons that I do not fully understand, many humble critics of Islam take issue with those particular ideas.

I have heard you condemned the killing of non Mulsims by Muslims - let us hear you condemn the genocide of Armenians by Muslims and the large scale killings of Christian Assyrians without making some excuse.

I acknowledge and condemn the massacres and genocides committed by the Muslim Ottoman Empire against the predominantly Christian Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that is denied by the Turkish government to this day, along with any other acts of aggression committed by anyone in human history. Why were you so insistent on making me say that I’m anti-genocide? I’m sad that you think so little of me just because we have some disagreements.

This isn’t the first time you’ve implied that I don’t care much for Christians. I find it really bizarre; I’m not sure where you got that impression, because it’s not true at all.

The whole debate about Islam is a smokescreen, attempting to shift what should be the true focal point of migration (prevention) policy, i.e. race, to endless arguments about meaningless ideological distinctions, while our countries are being flooded with alien populations, which even if they don't turn out outright hostile, like the Muslims or at least a large part of the Muslims, still destroy our societal cohesion, high in-group trust and biological uniqueness.

Mostly people try to avoid the racism because it's not very endearing, but if that's how you feel, thanks for being up front about it, I guess.

[Common Soldier]

Okay, not to be dense, but why have the Muslims that I’ve met never tried to kill me? I mean, if this was a general command for every Muslim on earth to follow right now, I’d expect it have some more, you know, following.

No one said all Muslims interpret the Quran and Islam that way, but many do. Fortunately, most Muslims do not follow Islamic teachings, just as most Muslims don't follow the sharia's call for death to apostates, even Muslims countries that follow the sharia law. Kind of like how many Americsn Catholicsndo not follow the Church's teaching on the use of contraceptives, even those who consider themselves good Catholics.

Recent history and economic circumstances of those countries have a lot of explanatory power for why Muslim countries are the way they are. That’s why I consider religion a secondary factor; because a lot of what is going on in the world right now can be explained with or without it. Religious conflicts can often be drawn by ethnic divides as well, economic uncertainty can cause flirtations with extremism, and so forth. Neither of those tendencies are unique to Muslims.

ISIS members are driven by religion, not history, and not ethnic rivalry. Groups like ISIS that have international memberships conducting terrorism internationally are rather unique to ISIS.

There are about 200,000 active combatants in Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh combined. That accounts for a little over 0.01% of Muslims.

200,000 is a good size army. And for every combat soldier, there are typically 3 support staff, making it like 600,000 Muslims committed to killing non Muslims. That is a lot, since you don't have 200,000 Christians and Buddhist terrorist motivated solely by religion.

200,000 is more troops than the US has in the middle east right now, and you are not including the Iranian army, which should be included, since the entire country is operating under Islamic principles.

If you’re interpretation is good 0.01% of the time, then it isn’t good.

The SS only numbered around 250,000 in WW2. The population of Germany in WW2 was around 70 million, and 250k wasn't even 1%, so the SS should not have been a problem?

The fact that all, not some Muslim countries, but all, treat non Muslims as 2nd class citizens with inferior right doesn't bother you at all?. So itnis ok if Muslims kill non Muslims as long at it is only a small percentage doing the actual.killng and the majority of Muslims just let the minority do it without joining in is all right?.

That 20% of Muslims countries have death penalties for apostates and blasphemers, including the 2nd most populous Muslim country, Pakistan, that is more like 200 million Muslims, not a small number or a small percentage.

Are you … blaming the victims of authoritarian governments for not overthrowing their rulers?

Are you saying the Germans have no responsibility for what their government did in WW2?

Muslims are victims, but they are vicitims of their authoritarian religion Islam and making excuses for Islam will keep the Muslims being victimized. The governments are just operating under the principle ofnthe religion. Treating non Muslims as 2nd class citizens, killing apoatates is enshrined in their religion.

Assad, who has an authoritarian government, for all his flaws does not impose death penalties for apostacy, nor does he condone marriages and sex with 10 years girls as Iran does, and religious minorities fair better than Muslim countries that are more "democractic"

Okay, so you made you’re seven points that you want Muslims to adopt, but what do you want to do to help get them to adopt them? That’s what I meant by their being no solution suggested.

Getting Muslims realize there are problems with Islam itself, not just with a few bad apples Muslims, is a start. The problems with Islam and the Islamic world are institutional,and the religion itself needs to change.

Education is a key factor, and exposing the false claims made by Muslim leaders and apologist for Islam is a first step, just like I am doing now. Once Muslims see the Quran has flaws, and Muhammad instead of being a role model to be followed was a deeply flawed human being, Muslims will see you they have been lied to all their lives and demand change in the religion.

It is you that don't have a plan on how to really help Muslims - denying Islam has institutional problems is only hurting Muslims, since by denying Islam has problems. It is like Germans who were misled and brainwashed by their Nazis governmentm

Muslims terrorist like the Fort Hood and Orlando Night Club shooters were native born Americans, they didn't grow under some authoritative regime, and the same is true for many of the ISIS members, which undermines the argument blaming colonialism.
?

Should we ban Islam, embargo Muslim countries, and then broadcast these as our demands? Should we just kill people who don’t agree with religious tolerance?

No, but we should hold Islam accountable and hold Islam to the same standards as we hold others, and stop making excuses for Islam.

And yes, perhaps we should.embargo Muslim countries until they stop victimizing non Muslims and treating them as second class citizens, and stop killing gays and apostates, and start recognizing basic human rights for all, non Muslims, women, gays, freedom of religion.

If we don't pressure them, why would they change?

What do we do to make this actually happen?

1. Education, non Muslims and Muslims alike, that there are many traditional Ialamiv views which are unacceptable per modern standards, and not pretend there are not major problems.
2. Don't condemn all criticism of Islam. Recognize some criticsm could be valid,
3. Hold Muslims to the same standards as everyone else. - if people.can make art and say comments offensive to Christians, then they should he allowed the same right to do the same to Muslims, and that is not true today.
4. Realize that some Quranic verses can and are intepreted violently, and the problem is not just a few. Muslims need to stop PR campaigns telling non Muslims Islam an religion of peace and tell ISIS members that ..
5. Expose the incorrect things Muslim.religious leaders having been saying, and the faslsity of many of the apologists for Islam claims. Muslims frquently lie, such as denying Muhammad had sex wirh a 9 years old, he did and they need to deal with it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ywJIkXvrHpo
6. Pressue Muslim countries to get rid of criminalization of apostacy and allow Muslims to leave their religion, get rid of religious discrimination, and adhere to modern standards of tolerance, issuing sanctions when needed.

Considering the recent rise of right-wing nationalism and electoral gains of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim parties in many European countries, there wasn’t quite a warm welcome party.

The right wing groups have not killed as many Muslims, and their rise are the direct consequence of Muslims going around killing and raping, and Muslims and their apologist like yourself ingoring the problem and just making excused.

If Muslims don't have a warm welcome, they must share the blame - why would anyone welcome a group that takes no responsibility for murders and rapes they commit, but blame the vicitims?. Please point out when the Muslims ever welcomed non Muslims in their lands? Give an example at any time in history Muslims allowed non Muslims settle in their lands.

You’re being inconsistent when you bring up old history, because you’ve also said that today is what really matters:

I am being entirely consistent and I explained to several times - events of the past serve as a role model that Muslims today are following, which makes it relevant.

ISIS members are trying to restore the ancient Islamic caliphate; the past is what determing the present.

You blame most of the problems of the Islamic world on colonialism, which occurred in the past and.the people responsible are all dead, and which is no one is trying to imitate, instead of religion which is still around influencing people.?

According to you, bringing up events from centuries ago is a pretty weak argument.

The Armenian Genocide is not centuries in the past, I have personally met survivors of it. And the killings and rape of Yazidi is happening today

I also brought up events centuries in the past as well to show the problems are institution with Islam - the rapes and killings with the sanction of Islam occurred at the beginning of Islam under its founder, and throughout the history of Islam upto the present day.

The same moral standard, yes. But they are not equally relevant.

Yes they are just as relevant, even more. Unlike in the West, where there is regret and ambivalence about the colonial past, Muslims don't have the slightest regret about their colonial past and the lands and wealth thhey stole from non Muuslims. There were no Muslim protest when the Hagia Sophia was made a mosque again. It is not that Muslims have come to regard colonialism as wrong, merely that they lack the ability to carry it out.

I haven’t exactly written scholarly articles on the history of the printing press or banking in the Middle East, so I don’t know that the history is as clear-cut as you’re describing. But either way, colonialism is immoral, and it doesn’t suddenly become moral if the natives are backwards barbarians.

I never said colonialism was moral, only that was not what made the Muslim world backwards as you assert. Islamic religion, not colonialism, lay at the root of thr Middle East problem. The same factors, driven by religion, that enabled the Europeans to colonize the Middle East in the first place are at work causing its problems today.

I think you’re going to have a harder time with this argument if you applied it to any other group of colonized people. How well do you think it would go over if you said the same thing about American Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Aborigines, or Indians and Southeast Asians?

American Indians are not committing terrorist acts around the world. American Indians are not responsible for 90% of the terrorist deaths in the US. Muslims are.

Your example proves my point. Aborigines, American Indians, Southeast Asians, are not going around killing other groups, Muslims are.

You think that Syrian, Libyan, and Iranian politics have nothing to do with Israel?
You think that Syrian, Libyan, and Iranian politics have nothing to do with Israel?

ISIS fighters are not fighting against Israel. The Iranian terrorist commander was killed in Iraq, not Israel, and most of the terrorist attacks he was directing were in Iraq, not Israel.

Remember Gaddafi? Khomeini?

Gaddafi launched a military attack against Israel as far as I can recall - can you show where he did?

And please show me where Gaddafi was overthrown because of his support for Israel? Khomeini overthrew the Shah because Khomeini wanted to implement an Islamic Republic, and implement Islamic policies , not because of Israel. The Iran Hostage criss happened because Carter planned to let the Shah into the US, and they were released when Reagan became president, even though Reagan was a big Israel supporter. Muslim is not all about Israel, but Islam usually plays a role.

The three wars that Syria fought against Israel?

The wars were decades ago, before most ofnthe ISIS fighters were born. The ISIS fighters came from all over Europe ro implement the Islamic Caliphate, it is even in their name, remmeber? How many military battles did ISIS launch against Israel? Israelmisna factormin the Middle East, but is no the only one or even the biggest factor these daysm

Remember that Syria was a French colony and Libya an Italian one? Remember the large oil reserves found in Libya and Iran?

And how long was Syria a French colony? Less than 50 years? And how long ago was it since has been a French colony? 26 years? And how long was it a colony of the Islamic Ottoman Empire - 400 years?

And Libya was an Ottoman colony for 360 years, and Italian colony for 32 years. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the Ottoman occupation for 10 times the length had less impact than the Italian and French occupation s?

I have said that people have been inconsistent, hypocritical, and even hateful. But when have I ever called something Islamophobic? I went out of my way to avoid that word, specifically because it bothers people so much.

You called any criticism of Islam hypocritical and hateful, isn't that the same thing? But my apologies, I thought you had used the word. My mistake.

Once I’m sure that the person making the criticism isn’t trying to mask their Muslim bashing. Or are you seriously asking me? Well, my name is pacifism … and I said before that the Qur’an tries to justify the use of violence, so … I’ll let you put the two together.

EDIT: Actually, I’ll just say it, because I don’t trust you to accurately represent me anymore: when I said that Islam allows for wars in self-defense, that wasn’t a compliment. I think Islam justifies the use of violence, which I think is wrong because I believe that violence is never justified. There’s one, for starters.

The early conquest by Muhammad's followers were not wars of self defense. The conquest of Spain was not self defense, nor the conquesr of the Byzantine or Persian empire. Robbing a caravan during the.sacred months when all Arabs were to be at peace innthe time of Muhamman was not an act of self defense.

And nowhere is the word "self defense" used in the Quran as far as I can tell. Can you point out where it says in the Quran only in self defense is violence allowed?

You’re right that I do not know about that. But I have heard about how popular The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been in that part of the world.

When the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were written, Jews were not runnijg around the world committing terrorist acts in the name of Judaism

I quoted it and then asked some basic questions on how it is interpreted. I never said it taught anything. You did. Apparently, what I said was still enough for you to pigeonhole me as some kind of horrible person who defends murder and oppression. That’s not very nice of you at all.

I guess I did not make myself clear - a religion is whatever people make of it. The Quran does have passages that can be and clearly are interpreted by some Muslims as authorizing violence against non Muslims. True, the majorit of Muslims don't interpret the passages that way, but many do, significantly more in Islam than other religions these days.

You got some interpretations, but they are not thr only interpretations, and it crystal clear some Muslims do not interpret it that way.

I’m starting to think that you don’t really care about anything that I actually believe.

I may be confusing what you said with what others said, if so, my apologies.


[Quote=*
I never said there are no problems. I said the problems have multiple causes. Don’t deliberately misinterpret me. [/quote]

Ok. But I don't recall you acknowledging any problems with Islam itself. Do you?.

Tunisia and Indonesia are making progress towards becoming full democracies, although Indonesia partly backslid. They’re not perfect, but right now, should we support them, or snub them?¬

We should support them. But we also need to let them know they still need to do far better, Indonesia in particular.

Second, I do care. As I said before, I want to let the potential victims of terror flee to my country for safety and a new life. Most of these potential victims are Muslims themselves who probably aren’t fans of terrorism at this point. But for reasons that I do not fully understand, many humble critics of Islam take issue with those particular ideas.

The problem is that many these potential "victims" have intolerant views thar created the very conditions they are fleeing. Like people fleeing the plague carrying the plague with them and spreading it. If we offer refuge, then they need to leave things like honor killing, sharia law, lack of respect and raping non Muslim women, FGM, and killing anyone disrespects Muhammad behind.

And religious minorities are at far greater risk than Muslims.

I acknowledge and condemn the massacres and genocides committed by the Muslim Ottoman Empire against the predominantly Christian Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that is denied by the Turkish government to this day, along with any other acts of aggression committed by anyone in human history. Why were you so insistent on making me say that I’m anti-genocide? I’m sad that you think so little of me just because we have some disagreements.

I apologize, I lumped you with others I have dealt with and associated their views with you, which was not fair. My mistake, and I apologize for it.

I tend to lose my temper at times and become immoderate in my speach. I will to do better.

[Common Soldier]

For those arguing against Islamophobia in the West, how would you define the term wne what specific features does it have?

[Sar1n]

Okay, not to be dense, but why have the Muslims that I’ve met never tried to kill me? I mean, if this was a general command for every Muslim on earth to follow right now, I’d expect it have some more, you know, following.

There are about 200,000 active combatants in Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh combined. That accounts for a little over 0.01% of Muslims. If you’re interpretation is good 0.01% of the time, then it isn’t good.

That's quite a hypocrisy you've got going here. Insisting that those few muslims you've met are representative while vastly larger sample is not.

Recent history and economic circumstances of those countries have a lot of explanatory power for why Muslim countries are the way they are. That’s why I consider religion a secondary factor; because a lot of what is going on in the world right now can be explained with or without it. Religious conflicts can often be drawn by ethnic divides as well, economic uncertainty can cause flirtations with extremism, and so forth. Neither of those tendencies are unique to Muslims.

Take a good look at history of Ottoman empire and Ataturk's Turkey, and the rise of Islam in Indonesia, and other cases where influence of Islam can be separated from other factors. They'll reveal that the Islam is indeed primary cause here.

[basics]

If Islam is such a great religion why is it that half its population has no say in what the other half does? I mean why would any mother allow her son to strap a bomb to himself to blow up anyone else? The answer is fear over her natural instinct and that is what Islam is all about, fear. Without it Islam has nothing to offer the world, never had and never will.

[Gromovnik]

If Islam is such a great religion why is it that half its population has no say in what the other half does? I mean why would any mother allow her son to strap a bomb to himself to blow up anyone else? The answer is fear over her natural instinct and that is what Islam is all about, fear. Without it Islam has nothing to offer the world, never had and never will.

Shocking, I know. An entire religion built around fear.

[PointOfViewGun]

If Islam is such a great religion why is it that half its population has no say in what the other half does? I mean why would any mother allow her son to strap a bomb to himself to blow up anyone else? The answer is fear over her natural instinct and that is what Islam is all about, fear. Without it Islam has nothing to offer the world, never had and never will.

In what religion does one half have a say in what the other half does? How does that even work?

[Heathen Hammer]

In what religion does one half have a say in what the other half does? How does that even work?

Abrahamic religions and their attitude towards women, although only sSlamic societies still enforce religious customs to same extent.

[basics]

The big problem is that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion because Hagar and Ishmael were not part of the promise God made to Abraham and Sarah about Isaac. That promise was about the coming of Messias through Isaac, nothing to do with the promise God made to Hagar and Ishmael later and only because Sarah had them put out of the camp. Now Abraham believed God and was like Abel, accounted righteous before Him. The promise was fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ the Messiah into the world as a man. Islam does not accept this and like the disbelieving Jews still await their Messiah. So, Islam cannot be counted an Abrahamic religion at all. So what's the difference?

Jesus Christ never taught anyone to kill as certain in Islam do. His church was never taught to subject women rather to honour and love them. If that were not the case why did so many women follow Him? The women we read of in the Bible were it appears quite independent yet that is not the case with Islam. It's women are born into the phobia that is Islam and we know and hear what happens when a young girl steps out of line in that society.

[PointOfViewGun]

The big problem is that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion because Hagar and Ishmael were not part of the promise God made to Abraham and Sarah about Isaac. That promise was about the coming of Messias through Isaac, nothing to do with the promise God made to Hagar and Ishmael later and only because Sarah had them put out of the camp. Now Abraham believed God and was like Abel, accounted righteous before Him. The promise was fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ the Messiah into the world as a man. Islam does not accept this and like the disbelieving Jews still await their Messiah. So, Islam cannot be counted an Abrahamic religion at all. So what's the difference?

Jesus Christ never taught anyone to kill as certain in Islam do. His church was never taught to subject women rather to honour and love them. If that were not the case why did so many women follow Him? The women we read of in the Bible were it appears quite independent yet that is not the case with Islam. It's women are born into the phobia that is Islam and we know and hear what happens when a young girl steps out of line in that society.

The problem right now is that you're not explaining your earlier assertion despite being asked about it. Instead, you're deflecting by discussing your personal opinion that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion.

You talk of independent women following Jesus as a contrast to Muhammad. You're ignoring the fact that, not just the first female follower, but the very first follower of Muhammad was an independent business woman, Khadija... Depending what section of the Bible you read you can create a different take on Christianity. Yet, it's a blatant lie that the church never taught to subject women. The Bible is explicit in this regard. I don't know how you can even imply that.

[Common Soldier]

The problem right now is that you're not explaining your earlier assertion despite being asked about it. Instead, you're deflecting by discussing your personal opinion that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion.

You talk of independent women following Jesus as a contrast to Muhammad. You're ignoring the fact that, not just the first female follower, but the very first follower of Muhammad was an independent business woman, Khadija... Depending what section of the Bible you read you can create a different take on Christianity. Yet, it's a blatant lie that the church never taught to subject women. The Bible is explicit in this regard. I don't know how you can even imply that.

And the very first follower of Jesus that recognized his specialness waa his mother Mary, whonis the only woman in a he entire Koran who is mentioned by name. Khadija was not deemed worthy enough to be mentioned in the Koran, nor any other women except Mary, they just were not important enough to bothered to be mentionednby name.

Islam has always assigned inferior status andmrights to women. Women inherit less than their male brothers and that inequality is enshrined in Islam. While men can marry more than more than one woman, a woman is not allowed marry more than one man. A Muslim man is allowed to marry a non Muslim woman, but the reverse is not allowed.

In contrast, in marriage, the same standard is applied to men and woman in Christianity, a man can't have more than one wife nor a woman more than one husband. Jesus talked to Martha no different than he did to any of his male disciples. On the average, the condition of women in the Islamic world has been inferior. On.the whole, the average literacy rate for Muslim women have been inferior than their Christian women counterparts, and the gap with male literacy higher on the average.

The beating of women is enshrined in the Koran, Islamic men are given permission to beat their wives. Nowhere are Christian men given permission to beat their wives in the New Testaments.

In the Bible, we have an entire book where women are the principle characters and actors, who not just passively accept events but are an active participants. The only surahs in the in the Koran where a woman is the main focus are those about Mary, and she is not shown an as an active agent, barely shown as speaking.

Unlike Islam, where the testimony of a woman is half that of a man, neither Christianity nor Hinduismn say the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of man.