Not Everyone Who Criticises Islam Is Islamophobic

[trotsky]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sorab-shroff/radical-islam-lgbt-rights_b_11080724.html

Every time an Islamic State sponsored or Islamic State-inspired attack occurs in the West, I notice a particular scenario play out on social media amongst my friends on the left: first there is the "we are with you, we are heartbroken" posts, then there is the "this has nothing to do with Islam" posts followed by the "don't be Islamophobic, Muslims died during these attacks, so it proves the people who perpetrated the attack are not Muslims" posts.

...

All Islamophobes are critical of Islam. However, not everyone who is critical of Islam is an Islamophobe. Anyone who attacks another human being verbally or physically based on their race or religion is committing a hate crime - and the law should deal with that. No human being should feel attacked for their faith (or for their lack of faith). However, this does not mean we have to play out this depressing "we-are-with-you; this has nothing to do with Islam; don't be Islamophobic" scenario each Islamic State-inspired attack occurs. All that is doing is signalling to our friends how virtuous and 'nice' we are.

...

If the people perpetrating these attacks believe they are Muslims, who are we to take their self-identities away from them? Every person has the right to their own religious self-description, even murderous thugs. The old line of "he ate pork and smoked and had sex with men, so he is not a Muslim" is crazy. If that is your definition of being a Muslim it would exclude the millions of Muslims around the world who happily smoke, drink, eat pork - and have sex with men (although in most Islamic societies most of these are done secretly because it is forbidden in so many of those societies). This "he ate pork so he can't be a Muslim" argument is a desperate argument. Dogs are considered extremely unclean according to Islam's holy book - does that mean that a Muslim person who is fond of dogs and keeps one as a pet is no longer a Muslim?

...

Of course the majority of people who follow Islam (and the majority of people who follow any religion - or no religion) are peace-loving - no one disputes that. However, the people committing these awful acts are following a literal interpretation of Islam - and until as a society we are able to openly acknowledge that, we will not be able to counter those views. After all, if one does not admit what the cause of something is, one can never fix it. The violent periods of Christian violence in centuries past only subsided because society recognised it, spoke up against it - and criticised those aspects of the Bible which were not compatible with the modern world. Why are we so terrified to do the same with Islam?

[jonno99]

1. K&R nt

[Binkie The Clown]

2. K&R n/t

[rug]

3. Do you agree with this, trotsky?

Anyone who attacks another human being verbally or physically based on their race or religion is committing a hate crime

[Lordquinton]

4. You left off gender and sexual orientation

Interesting, and very telling.

[rug]

6. Why don't you answer for him?

Albeit your expertise is only in snide innuendo.

State what you find "telling" - to you, if you're capable of something more than that.

[edhopper]

5. define attack

because some say that challenging a belief or criticizing any religion is an attack.

[rug]

7. trotsky took the trouble to post it. You'll have to ask him.

That's simply a quote.

What I asked was whether he agrees with it.

[edhopper]

8. i just checked the link

seems to be unavailable.

[RussBLib]

9. we need more words

I am not "Islamophobic" in that I do not "fear" Islam. I also don't hate followers of Islam, but there isn't a clear suffix for that. I do, however, consider them rather developmentally stunted and dumb. No suffix for that either. And yes, millions of people can be "dumb" at the same time.

-phobic is closely correlated with fear and is just an inadequate word for the spectrum of opposition to Islam.

There are indeed Muslims who criticize the more-violent passages in the Koran and basically ignore them. They don't seem to be the majority.

But those who claim to be Muslim and commit atrocious acts in part because the Koran permits them are also Muslim. Who are we to doubt their faith, just because they practice it a little differently (and more violently) than others?

[hrmjustin]

10. I think criticism of all religions is fine and healthy.

I have criticism of my own faith tradition.

[surgeon]

11. Did Huffington Post remove this article?

Does anyone have a copy of the full article?

I get a 404 error when I try and access the link now.

[Rhiannon12866]

12. The article is 10 days old, looks like it's not available anymore

But you can read the excerpt that the original poster copied to his post. Welcome to DU!

[surgeon]

13. :)

Thanks! If I get a hold of a copy or a working link I'll post it here

[trotsky]

40. Bummer, it was a good one.

Can't even find a copy of it.

[backscatter712]

14. Well, for every ISIS fundie, there's a bunch of Khizr Khans.

Obviously, there are a lot of good Muslims, as we saw last Thursday at the DNC.

But at the same time, much of the Islamic world is thoroughly dominated by asshats in stupid hats, that force women to wear clothes that make the Victorian era look salacious. If you're a woman, try driving a car in Saudi Arabia, and watch what happens. Women cannot even go to the corner store in Saudi Arabia without male family escort. That country has a regime of anti-woman apartheid.

We're talking about entire nations that are committing broad abuses of human rights, using Islam as a justification.

So yeah, I'm going to criticize Islam. It has a severe fundie problem.

[Cartoonist]

15. Within our borders

You don't have to go to Saudi Arabia to find Islam's corrupting influence. Polls show that over half of Muslims here approve of Sharia law.

[rug]

16. Build a wall!

Throw them out!

[Cartoonist]

17. So you're OK with Sharia law

Why am I not surprised?

[rug]

18. Overall, no. What you fail to grasp is there is no Sharia law, or any other law, without state power

Why am I not surprised?

[Cartoonist]

19. It's what's in the mind

That is where the corruption lies.

[rug]

20. That's bizarre. Actions are what have consequence.

The more time you spend curled up in the script of the Quran, thundering against its evil, the less you'll be able to distinguish human beings who believe from those who blow themselves up. You'll have ended up in a vile and dangerous place.

[Cartoonist]

21. There are no actions

without the thought.

[rug]

22. And there are far more thoughts than actions.

Further, if you are asserting the innate corruption of Islamic thought causes these actions, you've already failed to explain why so few, so very few, Muslims engage in terrorism. (I assume that's what you're objecting to, and not to praying five times a day. But I can not be sure.) Something else between the thought and the act intervenes. That catalyst is external to Islam.

[Cartoonist]

23. Do you also approve

of the way women are subjugated in Saudi Arabia? You think that doesn't happen here among American Muslim families? So they don't commit terrorism, so I guess you think it's OK to practice "little" injustices.

[rug]

24. What I don't approve of is stereotypes.

What I really don't approve is people attempting to put words in my mouth to evade the topic at hand.

Tell me you concede the point and we'll move on to the next point.

Or do you persist in asserting Islam is the root of terrorism? Come on, you can do it. Take your pick.

[Cartoonist]

25. See reply #16

And shove it!

[rug]

26. Tsk, tsk.

I'll just attribute that action to some sewer of a website that you frequent that has inflamed your passion about religion and drives yo to such intemperate and reckless acts.

You're not the only one.

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/atheists-have-an-anti-muslim-bigotry-problem

[Cartoonist]

29. You wrote #16

You must see it every time you Vista Freeperland

[rug]

30. Replying to you is the closest I get.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Orthodox Jewish communities would be shocked to

learn that their Beth Din don't exist and don't enforce halakhah in their communities outside of any state regulation or structure.

Oh and the RCC runs Diocean Courts as well, although without the appalling clout that the orthodox religious courts have.

[Zynx]

31. You are citing a single poll that has been roundly discredited.

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

I have serious doubts about your motivations given that you wanted to believe this thing.

[Cartoonist]

34. You may be right

I saw a poll posted in this group. I don't remember the source.

[Zynx]

35. It was probably that one. Other polls have shown US Muslims have social and cultural

views not dissimilar from the country at large.

[guillaumeb]

27. Very true, Not Everyone Who Criticises Islam Is Islamophobic.

Some who criticize Islam also criticize every other religion as well. This is intolerance , but consistently intolerant.

Some who criticize Islam because of violence committed in its name excuse the same violence when committed by Christians.

And yes, some people who commit violence do so for self-proclaimed religious reasons.
And some people who commit violence do so fro self-proclaimed patriotic reasons.

To the victims of violence, no matter the motivation, there is no difference because they are dead.

Recommended.

[Cartoonist]

32. I don't

Religious violence is inexcusable. Those who tolerate it are apologists.

[guillaumeb]

33. All violence is to be condemned no matter the motivation.

We agree on this.

[surgeon]

36. Agreed

Agreed.

I'm not sure about this statement though - "Some who criticize Islam because of violence committed in its name excuse the same violence when committed by Christians."

I haven't really heard of many "Christian apologists" but maybe that's because the media doesn't report on "Christian violence"? I'd be interested to know what you meant by the above.

[guillaumeb]

37. When some Christians criticize violence committed in the

name of Islam they do not always condemn the violence committed in the name of Christianity.

Examples are Anders Breivik, who referenced his Christianity in his manifesto, as well as various abortion clinic terrorists who claim to kill for Jesus.

And no, the corporate media never talks about Christian violence because that would induce too much cognitive dissonance in US readers. Same as the term "US terrorism" is never used.

Edited to add: Another example was the violence committed by the Irish. It was never called Catholic terrorism.

[surgeon]

38. Thanks Guillaumeb

Thanks for the clarification Guillaumeb.

I see what you're saying. It's not referred to as Christian terrorism (it's either called "far-right" or "home-grown" or "sectarian" etc) - but personally I don't remember people or the media turning a blind eye or defending such violence.

It seems that when violence happens in the name of Islam there seems to be a chorus of people in the media (The Young Turks etc) coming up with defences/arguments along the lines of "Well, the US bombed Iraq - so what do you expect?". I think such arguments are false and confuse the issue.

[guillaumeb]

39. Glad to clarify.

And yes, it is never referred to as religious terrorism unless it can somehow be tied to Islam.

[trotsky]

41. So you've just said something rather interesting. Let me make sure I understand it.

Someone who criticizes religion is intolerant of it?

Is criticism of religion EVER valid then?

[guillaumeb]

42. What I said was:

Some who criticize Islam also criticize every other religion as well. This is intolerance , but consistently intolerant.
Some who criticize Islam because of violence committed in its name excuse the same violence when committed by Christians.

And yes, some people who commit violence do so for self-proclaimed religious reasons.
And some people who commit violence do so fro self-proclaimed patriotic reasons.

To the victims of violence, no matter the motivation, there is no difference because they are dead.

When I said "intolerant", what is meant is that those who criticize all religion are, in my personal view, intolerant of the concept of belief.

If one criticizes the Catholic Church for covering up for pedophile priests I will agree and join on that.

If one criticizes Kim Davis for allowing her personal religious beliefs to interfere with her job I will agree.

If one criticizes pastors who preach politics from the pulpit I will agree.

But if one criticizes people for the specific act of having faith I will call that intolerance.

Clear?

[trotsky]

43. "those who criticize all religion are, in my personal view, intolerant of the concept of belief"

and

"if one criticizes people for the specific act of having faith I will call that intolerance"

...are two completely different statements.

Do you understand the difference? Criticizing a religion is NOT the same as criticizing people. You are still conflating the two, and in doing so you are smearing and attacking people. Or one might say, "If one criticizes people for the specific act of being critical of all religion, I will call that intolerance."

[guillaumeb]

44. Then we might disagree.

Because I feel that the two statements express the same thing.

1) "those who criticize all religion are, in my personal view, intolerant of the concept of belief"

2) "if one criticizes people for the specific act of having faith I will call that intolerance"

These things say essentially the same thing using slightly different words. Belief and faith are used to convey the same concept. Neither action is based on something that is provable. One must believe to have faith.

To illustrate:
I believe in a Creator that I cannot see, therefore I must have faith that the Creator exists. I cannot prove or disprove the Creator's existence.

I know that water freezes at 0 C at sea level. Belief and/or faith do not enter into this statement. It is easily provable and replicable.

And we both apparently agree that criticizing specific people for their actions is not the same as criticizing religion.

[trotsky]

45. Nope, those absolutely do NOT say the same thing.

Look very closely at the words:

1) "those who criticize all religion"
2) "if one criticizes people"

That is where you continue to have difficulty. Considering how long this has gone on, I'm not sure you can get past it.

Criticizing religion and/or religious beliefs is NOT the same as criticizing the people who have faith. By conflating the two, you are encouraging hatred and bigotry against those who point out the negative aspects of religion. You appear to want religion and religious beliefs protected, by demonizing those who call attention to their problems.

I can criticize supply side economics and call it a stupid, unsupported economic theory. That does not call every single Republican stupid.

Do you see the difference?

[guillaumeb]

46. More clarification needed?

If you criticize a believer for acting violently that is one thing.
If you criticize the faith of the believer that is another because that is an accusation against the faith itself.

For every believer (of any major faith) who commits a violent act in the name of that faith, there are millions who do not commit violent acts in the name of the faith.

So to any who might say that (fill in the faith) is a religion of violence, I would ask what percentage of believers engage in violence.

As to this:

By conflating the two, you are encouraging hatred and bigotry against those who point out the negative aspects of religion. You appear to want religion and religious beliefs protected, by demonizing those who call attention to their problems.

I would respond that specific criticism is one thing, but a generalized hatred of religion/faith/belief, (pick your preferred word) is another.

So again, I do feel that the two statements that I made are basically equivalent.

[trotsky]

47. I dunno, the more you "clarify" the more you demonstrate you don't get it.

For every believer (of any major faith) who commits a violent act in the name of that faith, there are millions who do not commit violent acts in the name of the faith.

That's great, but there are two questions you must answer that are crucially related to your statement:

1) In your opinion, are ANY verses in the bible or koran, or ANY longstanding teachings/hadiths by churches, priests, or imams, that would appear, or could be easily interpreted, to justify violence? (I have asked you this question multiple times in the past and have NEVER gotten an answer. It would be awesome to finally get one.)

2) When a follower of a religion is peaceful, what do they do with those negative verses/teachings? Do they ignore them? Dismiss them? Declare them invalid? Based on what, exactly?

So to any who might say that (fill in the faith) is a religion of violence, I would ask what percentage of believers engage in violence.

Exactly what percentage of violent believers is an "acceptable" amount before we need to seriously look at the violent elements in a religious text or its teachings? 1%? 5%? 50%??? And you do realize that once again you're resorting to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, right? I return you to the fact that at one time, a large majority of Christians felt that it was their holy duty to convert or kill the heathen populations of the world. Oh but that's right, you somehow know they were all lying. Just as you somehow know that everyone committing violence in the name of their religion today is just lying, and that they really are just "using" the religion and have a different actual motivation.

I would respond that specific criticism is one thing, but a generalized hatred of religion/faith/belief, (pick your preferred word) is another.

So what exactly do you define as a "generalized hatred" of those things? Be precise. Where does legitimate criticism end and hatred begin? Be precise. Can we point to foul verses in the bible and koran and say "these are horrible ideas"? Is that criticism, or hatred? Who decides?

So again, I do feel that the two statements that I made are basically equivalent.

No, your statements are ridiculously different, and I again suggest the only reason you think they are similar is because to you, any significant criticism of a religion is the same as personally attacking every person who identifies with the religion. And also again, that is wrong, and is eerily close to proposing we need blasphemy laws and punishment of people who criticize religious ideas.

[guillaumeb]

48. A very "interesting" response.

When you wrote:

1) In your opinion, are ANY verses in the bible or koran, or ANY longstanding teachings/hadiths by churches, priests, or imams, that would appear, or could be easily interpreted, to justify violence? (I have asked you this question multiple times in the past and have NEVER gotten an answer. It would be awesome to finally get one.)

the relevant words are the conditionals would and could. Charles Manson interpreted the song Helter Skelter as a call for violence against all who he disliked. Does his interpretation become the definitive one?

Anything said or written could in theory be interpreted by another as calling for the exact opposite of what the words say. All of which only proves that people can find motivation anywhere to justify what they want to do. Which proves what really?

Next:

2) When a follower of a religion is peaceful, what do they do with those negative verses/teachings? Do they ignore them? Dismiss them? Declare them invalid? Based on what, exactly?

See the answer to your first comment. But again, if the majority of believers do not engage in violence, why would anyone argue that the violent minority represents the valid belief?

Next:

Exactly what percentage of violent believers is an "acceptable" amount before we need to seriously look at the violent elements in a religious text or its teachings? 1%? 5%? 50%??? And you do realize that once again you're resorting to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, right? I return you to the fact that at one time, a large majority of Christians felt that it was their holy duty to convert or kill the heathen populations of the world. Oh but that's right, you somehow know they were all lying. Just as you somehow know that everyone committing violence in the name of their religion today is just lying, and that they really are just "using" the religion and have a different actual motivation.

First, violent people allege many reasons for their violence.
Second, when you assert without evidence that "a large majority of Christians...", this is sheer speculation on your part.
Third, when you repeat:

Just as you somehow know that everyone committing violence in the name of their religion today is just lying, and that they really are just "using" the religion and have a different actual motivation.

while it sets up an interesting straw man for you to attack, I have repeatedly stated that I do not question the self-proclaimed motivation of any violent person. I have simply and repeatedly stated that anyone claiming to act in the name of a god reveals nothing about the god and everything about the claimant.

Next:

So what exactly do you define as a "generalized hatred" of those things? Be precise. Where does legitimate criticism end and hatred begin? Be precise. Can we point to foul verses in the bible and koran and say "these are horrible ideas"? Is that criticism, or hatred? Who decides?

In another post, you cited a specific verse that Biblical scholars agree refers to the judgement and insist that it refers to acceptable behavior for Christians. I have pointed out that most Christians agree that the Bible is meant to be taken as allegory. If you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible as your basis for argument it would be better for you to argue with a Biblical literalist.

Your last statement talks again of things that I have never said. Again, setting up a straw man to argue with. Unless, of course, you can point to my posts arguing for laws against blasphemy and posts arguing for no separation of church and state. Good luck with your search.

[trotsky]

49. I have received the "answers" I knew I would get.

You refuse to acknowledge that anyone other than you personally could possibly interpret a holy book or teaching properly. Everyone else with a different interpretation is just wrong, according to you.

That is a dangerous attitude and terrible position. It is fundamentally (no pun intended) no different than the radical Islamists and Christians who commit atrocities in the name of their religion. THEY are correct, and everyone else is wrong. You are an echo of that, insisting that only you know the true meaning of not only your religion, but others as well.

I hope that with more time, you reconsider your position on this and acknowledge that other interpretations could be just as valid - and perhaps even more correct - than yours.

Good luck indeed.

[deathrind]

28. True.

It is possible I be critical of a chapter in a book but not hate the book.