• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islamaphobia

firedragon

Veteran Member
It was never illegal to be gay in the US. The US did have sodomy laws which were part of a large group of "morality" laws which included adultery, bigamy, incest, etc. Those laws were used to target gay acts thus gays.

The reforms in the Ottoman empire were secular based not Islamic based. The religious powers were part of a coup to overthrow a moderate leadership and reimplement the old systems. They won.

Rather than going all the way there I'll say this.

Whatever the reason is, it was a good thing.

But Stalin was jailing hkmosexuals in the 20th century.

That's the bottomline.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Rather than going all the way there I'll say this.

Whatever the reason is, it was a good thing.

The reforms were a major step in a good direction in my view. Not just the specific here. In general the Ottoman Empire was falling apart under the existing systems once the Empire lost it's military edge.

But Stalin was jailing hkmosexuals in the 20th century.

Stalin was not a leader of the USA. More so various communist leaders and thinkers were divided on the subject. Stalin is Stalin tho. He hardly followed any ideaology other than the great "I/me"

That's the bottomline.

Of what exactly?
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Islamaphobia

The reason I dont like this word is because I think its wrong. I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

But what this word represents is not that. Because people dont know that this fear is irrational. They actually believe that this fear is rational. So being a scientific or a medical term it’s wrong.

But then again one must admit that there are many wrong words that have been established now and you cant take them back so we have no choice but to go along. Like the word Jihadist. Everyone knows what a Jihadist means. A Jihadist is a person who identifies himself as a Muslim and uses his theology to fight for something in his country or for a cause. But this word doesn’t make sense to many people if you look at it scientifically.

If you look at the Quran which is deemed the textbook of the arabic language, the word Jihad means “to try”. So what does the word Jihadist mean? So this word is a problem in its essence. But it’s established and one cant change what it represents.

And the word “awful”. Sometime ago if a person says “my king is awful” it would have meant “full of awe”. Now it’s the exact opposite. If I say “you as a thug are awful” to a drug lord I will get killed. Awful now means the opposite of Awesome. Strange world isn’t it?

So bottomline is this word is now established and one cannot change it.

Does Islamaphobia exist? Yes it definitely does. It exists mostly in the hands of writers and speakers who make a career out of it. There is no easier way to come to the limelight by speaking nonsense than to use Islamaphobia.

Recently I read a comment about an article that read “woman burns Quran in protest against rape”. She alludes that Muslims are rapists. She is American and there are only 1% Muslims in the country. Its a illusion she is trying to create but I’m sure she will get famous or at least this is an attempt to.

It is common to see many people associate terrorism with Islam. Islam is the motherload of bad ideas says Sam Harris. Hitler picked up his ideas from Islam says Ali Sina. Many people make a lot of claims like this and sell books. Robert Morey, Robert Spencer etc. If one analyses the history of the world, there has been thousands and thousands of wars between people. If you read the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillip and Alan Axelrod you will see they have data filling over 1,400 pages as if the world was at war more than governance. Religion is a language that people use to identify themselves. Buddhism teaches us not to hate anyone because hatred cannot be mulled by hatred but the lack of hatred alone. That didn’t stop Buddhist monks in Myanmar from promoting violence. Jesus is quoted to have said to give the other cheek, but that didn’t stop the church from the inquisition as henry Charles lea, the American historian, civic reformer, and political activist remarked in his most famous book A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, “Christendom seemed to have grown delirious and Satan might well smile at the tribute to his power in the endless smoke of the holocaust which bore witness to the triumph of the Almighty.”

Religion
man named Robert A. Pape, PhD and founder of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, a very well-known political scientist from the United States of America compiled a database of all suicide attacks from 1980 to 2003 with an extensive research of news in all available media outlets. His book was called Dying to Win, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism and in the introduction section he says

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Three general patterns in the data support my conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of organized campaigns, not as isolated or random incidents. Of the 315 separate attacks in the period I studied, 301 could have their roots traced to large, coherent political or military campaigns.”

Robert Pape goes to explain various levels of terrorism while suicide terrorism is the most extreme. He gives an example “One LTTE suicide attacker was motivated by the thought that the Sinhalese Buddhists would destroy the Hindu temples near her village, even though she had never visited them.”

He says “Two main explanations have been offered thus far. The first argues that local competition between the LTTE and other Tamil guerrilla groups encouraged the LTTE to use the extreme tactic of suicide to distinguish itself from its rivals. The second explanation stresses the “cult-like” behaviour of the group in which the Tamil Tigers separate their fighters from the general population and brainwash recruits to follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice.”

Follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice. Sounds like a sane explanation of the insanity.

Religion is used as a language to achieve certain goals a state or a group has as foundation to further their cause. Their root 'cause' is made of secular goals but their communication takes the language of religion. Even secularism has been used in the past as the language that leaderships have used for their cause. Take Joseph Stalin for example. He was a secular atheist with a secular state and he butchered Christians, Christian pastors and people who had a Bible at home during his reign. He was instrumental in the deaths over 15 million people and is deemed only second to Mao Zedong in the number of human deaths caused by them and their regime. And it may come as a surprise to many when they learn Joseph Stalin persecuted homosexuals by jailing them up to five years and that’s in the 20th century while the so called Muslim khalifate, the Ottoman Empire gave them full rights way back in 1858. The scale of totalitarianism tips this way and that way but what we remember top of mind is what we see every day on TV.

Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod compiled the comprehensive book on wars in history called “Encyclopedia of Wars”, a great read, clearly shows that only 7% of all wars ever recorded in history were motivated by religion.

Murder in the name of God

In a nutshell, the Islamic scripture directly tells you never to take an innocent life. So says the Quran in chapter 5 verse 32 - “It is because of this that we have decreed for the Children of Israel: “Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people. “

Now notice that this verse says as a blanket statement that a person who has not committed murder should not be killed or even as a government give a death sentence. But there is a phrase here that many people misunderstand that says “or who has not committed corruption in the land” which is open for interpretation. The Arabic phrase “Al Fasadhu Fil Ardh (الفساد في الأرض)”, or corruption in the land has a definition which a lot of people have ignored. This maybe the boring part for the reader, but this also maybe a piercer of faith to the fanatic. Read further.

So says the Quran in chapter 27, verses 48 to 50, - “And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, …...

Notice that it says “Swear by God”. This is what the Quran is saying by the phrase “Spreading corruption in the land”. These are the people the verse 5:32 above is speaking about and they are very clearly explained.

So it should be evident, that their claim of murdering innocents shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, calls for Gods wrath on them, and the penalty is nothing but death. You murderer, your Quran is mandating a death sentence to you purely for murdering people using Gods name.

Bottomline: If you say Allah/God and kill an innocent human being, you are the scum of the earth according to the Quran. YOU!

Conspiracy theories aside, a firm believer in Bin Laden and Al Qaeeda’s connection to the world trade centre bombings in the USA Robert A. Pape says in his book Dying to Win, the one book that has the most extensive research and data collection on suicide terrorism, “However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America’s situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly”.

"just Like Today: Islam must be spread by force" - Robert Spencer

How do these people make their living off this fear? Is it real? Is it an industry?
The word is dumb, but Islam still promotes terror. Sorry.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
They're are more terrorists in the Allied militaries, than there are in Islamic countries, the Allies have killed way more innocent civilians than Islamic terrorists
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Bahai have all the right to claim "as a fact" that Islam is not acting as "a Religion of Peace" if my facts are correct

This has nothing to do with Islamophobia from my side. I just googled and found some facts.
I think all Muslims should agree that Islam has lots of work to do worldwide to stop prosecution of Bahai Faith.
[Note: I am from Holland, Dutchies are known to not have their facts straight. Let me know in case]
[Note: Of course there are plenty of other killings; but I try to stick to the title+OP; Bahai have no fobia]

Those numbers have been a shot of reality for a few of us so thanks again for your thread
Yes, that thread was an eyeopener for me as well. And thanks to @Wandering Monk we got good stats, showing us reality about what Muslims think

Hindus have had their experiences with Islam as have the Baha’is. We know first hand
Thank you Adrian. Quite a while ago I checked how many Bahai were/are killed. Too many to call "Islam Religion of Peace". My first random google gave me the below. Unbelievable. Islam needs a lot of work. My Master prophesied that Muslim will come last. No surprise if I read this, and knowing that Muslim Apologists keep calling us non-Muslims Islamophobes.
Reality check: Is "Islam the Religion of Peace" ... answer is "NO" ... they should learn from "Bahai" instead of kill them:
What crimes have been committed by these Baha’is to evoke such animosity and hatred? According to reports, the official charges against some of the current prisoners include ‘showing kindness to the poor’ and ‘displaying good behaviours’. Is it truly possible, as one former prisoner shared, that because Yemen is at war, the Baha’is are criminalised for promoting peace? If the promotion of peace is not the true role of religion, then what else is religion for?

Slogan of the Houthis = ‘We will butcher every Baha’i.’
Sunni Islam makes up 75% of Houthis
Sunnah refers to the behaviour of the Islamic prophet Muhammad

[Houthis belong to the Zaidi branch of Islam, a sect of Islam almost exclusively present in Yemen. Zaydis make up about 25 percent of the population, Sunnis make up 75 percent]
[Sunni Islam is the largest denomination of Islam, followed by 87–90% of the world's Muslims. Its name comes from the word sunnah, referring to the behaviour of the Islamic prophet Muhammad]

Article: ‘We will butcher every Baha’i’: How a small religious minority in Yemen became a key target for the Houthis


Other countries[edit]
While the most significant persecution has happened in Iran and Egypt during this century and the last, other countries have restricted or persecuted Bahá'ís. In several countries with majority Muslim populations, they have done so on the same basis as Iran and Egypt—that since Islam does not recognize the Bahá'í Faith, neither should the government, and thus all manner of social services and identity are circumscribed. Banning orders have been made against Bahá'í activities in Algeria (1969), Iraq (1970 and versions since)[133] and Indonesia (especially but not exclusively 1962–2000).[134][135] During the late 1970s, the Bahá'í Faith was also banned in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Burundi, 1974; Mali 1976; Uganda 1977; Congo, 1978; and Niger, 1978).[136]
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
stating that there are facts supporting the dignity of Islaam

I'm not stating anything. I already told you I'm going to debate this subject with you or anyone I know there are bigoted individuals on these boards that's a given and it's pointless to even make a thread in detail discussing this subject. It has nothing to do with differences of opinion or facts there is just blatant ignorance and disrespect and it will just end up boiling down to an echo chamber.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Really,proof?

I think in this thread every statement is based on co
The reforms were a major step in a good direction in my view. Not just the specific here. In general the Ottoman Empire was falling apart under the existing systems once the Empire lost it's military edge.



Stalin was not a leader of the USA. More so various communist leaders and thinkers were divided on the subject. Stalin is Stalin tho. He hardly followed any ideaology other than the great "I/me"



Of what exactly?

Why would u.s come into that comment?

Brother. I think you should read the o.p.

Not that I expect you to make any change of course.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I'm not stating anything. I already told you I'm going to debate this subject with you or anyone I know there are bigoted individuals on these boards that's a given and it's pointless to even make a thread in detail discussing this subject. It has nothing to do with differences of opinion or facts there is just blatant ignorance and disrespect and it will just end up boiling down to an echo chamber.
You just can't help but commit slander and misrepresent that as having the high ground, I see.

All the best.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
If you took the time to read the link I provided it includes the belief that it should be applied to all citizens, not just Muslims.

I respect the effort, but I think you, just like myself have an armchair's scholarly knowledge about Shari'ah. Like most of us here there is no enough in-depth knowledge on studying the sacred law. For example:

"Some people falsely equate Sharia with criminal or huddud laws, which are centuries-old specific punishments for major crimes such as killing, adultery, or theft. Huddud laws are only a tiny part of Sharia and can only be applied by an Islamic state; it is questionable if any of the nations claiming to be “Islamic states” actually fit that description morally or structurally, so these laws are generally not applicable in a modern context, let alone in the U.S. Unfortunately, the misapplication of these laws by the Taliban or other contemporary groups or governments generally contradict both the letter and spirit of Sharia and have given it a bad name."

Source

"Are American Muslims trying to enforce Sharia Law in the United States?" (From same source as above)

"No, America Muslims are merely trying to follow Sharia in their personal life just as practicing Jews try to follow Jewish law (halakha). There is no evidence of American Muslims individually or as a group trying to force Sharia on others. Muslims are obligated to adhere to the law of the land, and the observance of any laws that run contrary to the Constitution such as polygamy would be prevented even if someone tried to implement them."


I typically find it funny that people look at Sharia Law but don't look at Judaic law like for example Gett and how hard it is for women to get a divorce citing patriarchal elements see:


Yet here we are debating Sharia but don't equally cite other laws that could be perceived as reprehensible.

You also said Sharia is for everyone, well that is also another myth

MYTH NO. 2

In Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.

"While it’s true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim-majority countries, those codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, most powerfully, European colonialism. France, England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land, inadvertently joining the crown and the faith. In pre-modern Muslim lands, fiqh authority was separate from the governing authority, or siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence.

When Muslim political movements, such as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have looked to codify sharia in their countries, they have done so without any attention to the classical separation of fiqh and siyasa, instead continuing the legal centralization of the European nation-state. That’s why these movements look to legislate sharia — they want centralized laws for everything. But by using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history."

Source


Finally, DOES SHARIA APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS?

Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims anyway so the hysteria that is now being incited by certain groups, I believe, is based on utter ignorance and bigotry. This bigotry underlying the anti-Sharia campaign was recognized by the American Bar Association when it passed a resolution in 2011 opposing various anti-Sharia measures. As the resolution stated:


“Initiatives that target an entire religion or stigmatize an entire religious community, such as those explicitly aimed at ‘Sharia law,’ are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence.”

To set the record straight, one should note that anti-Sharia legislation has been defeated in Florida, Missouri and Oklahoma and the fight continues in states such as Michigan."

Source

Sorry for the non-sequitor I just had to correct you because all it takes is a little digging.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
You just can't help but commit slander and misrepresent that as having the high ground, I see.

I committed no slander to you or anyone. I'm saying in general there are bigoted people here (I did not include you in that general observance) which takes the level of desire for me to discuss the issue of Islam. I do contend that you do not have enough knowledge on the subject as I do as I'm at least fully aware of Fiqh in relation to Muslim conduct (prayers, hygiene etc) which also relates to how one interprets Qur'an. Given our history you really haven't at least in my opinion presented any detailed understanding of Islam. Islam is a complex faith and its jurisprudence even more complex given the interpretations and reinterpretations by scholars. If you're knowledgeable of fiqh aside from your critique then I'd be more than happy to debate you on that, but given our history you haven't presented that particular type of knowledge rather come across as like other individuals here that have a general understanding of Islam based on personal readings and interpretations and media influence. That what I just said is not slander towards you, its my experiences with you.

Good Day
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I respect the effort, but I think you, just like myself have an armchair's scholarly knowledge about Shari'ah. Like most of us here there is no enough in-depth knowledge on studying the sacred law. For example:

"Some people falsely equate Sharia with criminal or huddud laws, which are centuries-old specific punishments for major crimes such as killing, adultery, or theft. Huddud laws are only a tiny part of Sharia and can only be applied by an Islamic state; it is questionable if any of the nations claiming to be “Islamic states” actually fit that description morally or structurally, so these laws are generally not applicable in a modern context, let alone in the U.S. Unfortunately, the misapplication of these laws by the Taliban or other contemporary groups or governments generally contradict both the letter and spirit of Sharia and have given it a bad name."

Source

"Are American Muslims trying to enforce Sharia Law in the United States?" (From same source as above)

"No, America Muslims are merely trying to follow Sharia in their personal life just as practicing Jews try to follow Jewish law (halakha). There is no evidence of American Muslims individually or as a group trying to force Sharia on others. Muslims are obligated to adhere to the law of the land, and the observance of any laws that run contrary to the Constitution such as polygamy would be prevented even if someone tried to implement them."


I typically find it funny that people look at Sharia Law but don't look at Judaic law like for example Gett and how hard it is for women to get a divorce citing patriarchal elements see:


Yet here we are debating Sharia but don't equally cite other laws that could be perceived as reprehensible.

You also said Sharia is for everyone, well that is also another myth

MYTH NO. 2

In Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.

"While it’s true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim-majority countries, those codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, most powerfully, European colonialism. France, England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land, inadvertently joining the crown and the faith. In pre-modern Muslim lands, fiqh authority was separate from the governing authority, or siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence.

When Muslim political movements, such as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have looked to codify sharia in their countries, they have done so without any attention to the classical separation of fiqh and siyasa, instead continuing the legal centralization of the European nation-state. That’s why these movements look to legislate sharia — they want centralized laws for everything. But by using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history."

Source


Finally, DOES SHARIA APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS?

Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims anyway so the hysteria that is now being incited by certain groups, I believe, is based on utter ignorance and bigotry. This bigotry underlying the anti-Sharia campaign was recognized by the American Bar Association when it passed a resolution in 2011 opposing various anti-Sharia measures. As the resolution stated:


“Initiatives that target an entire religion or stigmatize an entire religious community, such as those explicitly aimed at ‘Sharia law,’ are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence.”

To set the record straight, one should note that anti-Sharia legislation has been defeated in Florida, Missouri and Oklahoma and the fight continues in states such as Michigan."

Source

Sorry for the non-sequitor I just had to correct you because all it takes is a little digging.

'Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.

The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38%) and Morocco (29%) hold this opinion. Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58% in Jordan hold this view.

By contrast, Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe who favor making sharia the official law of the land are among the least likely to say it should apply to all citizens in their country. Across the nations surveyed in the region, fewer than a third take this view. This includes 22% of Russian Muslims (who were asked about the applying sharia in their country’s ethnic Muslim republics).

In other regions, opinion varies widely by country. For example, in Southeast Asia, half of Indonesian Muslims who favor sharia as the official law say it should apply to all citizens, compared with about a quarter (24%) of those in Thailand. (Thai Muslims were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the predominantly Muslim areas of the country.) Similarly, in Central Asia, a majority of Muslims in Kyrgyzstan (62%) who support making sharia the official law say it should apply to non-Muslims in their country, but far fewer in Kazakhstan (19%) agree. Meanwhile, in South Asia, Muslims who are in favor of making sharia the law of the land in Afghanistan are 27 percentage points more likely to say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law than are those in Pakistan (61% in Afghanistan vs. 34% in Pakistan).'

gsi2-chp1-5.png


Muslim Beliefs About Sharia
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I committed no slander to you or anyone. I'm saying in general there are bigoted people here (I did not include you in that general observance) which takes the level of desire for me to discuss the issue of Islam. I do contend that you do not have enough knowledge on the subject as I do as I'm at least fully aware of Fiqh in relation to Muslim conduct (prayers, hygiene etc) which also relates to how one interprets Qur'an. Given our history you really haven't at least in my opinion presented any detailed understanding of Islam. Islam is a complex faith and its jurisprudence even more complex given the interpretations and reinterpretations by scholars. If you're knowledgeable of fiqh aside from your critique then I'd be more than happy to debate you on that, but given our history you haven't presented that particular type of knowledge rather come across as like other individuals here that have a general understanding of Islam based on personal readings and interpretations and media influence. That what I just said is not slander towards you, its my experiences with you.

Good Day
Come back when you want to be listened to, please. It is clearly not the case right now.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
I committed no slander to you or anyone. I'm saying in general there are bigoted people here (I did not include you in that general observance) which takes the level of desire for me to discuss the issue of Islam. I do contend that you do not have enough knowledge on the subject as I do as I'm at least fully aware of Fiqh in relation to Muslim conduct (prayers, hygiene etc) which also relates to how one interprets Qur'an. Given our history you really haven't at least in my opinion presented any detailed understanding of Islam. Islam is a complex faith and its jurisprudence even more complex given the interpretations and reinterpretations by scholars. If you're knowledgeable of fiqh aside from your critique then I'd be more than happy to debate you on that, but given our history you haven't presented that particular type of knowledge rather come across as like other individuals here that have a general understanding of Islam based on personal readings and interpretations and media influence. That what I just said is not slander towards you, its my experiences with you.

Good Day

It's not complex at all according to whoever authored the quran,"We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything (16:89),oh well.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Bahai have all the right to claim "as a fact" that Islam is not acting as "a Religion of Peace" if my facts are correct

This has nothing to do with Islamophobia from my side. I just googled and found some facts.
I think all Muslims should agree that Islam has lots of work to do worldwide to stop prosecution of Bahai Faith.
[Note: I am from Holland, Dutchies are known to not have their facts straight. Let me know in case]
[Note: Of course there are plenty of other killings; but I try to stick to the title+OP; Bahai have no fobia]

Thank you Adrian. Quite a while ago I checked how many Bahai were/are killed. Too many to call "Islam Religion of Peace". My first random google gave me the below. Unbelievable. Islam needs a lot of work. My Master prophesied that Muslim will come last. No surprise if I read this, and knowing that Muslim Apologists keep calling us non-Muslims Islamophobes.

Thanks for that. The Baha’i Faith is considered an apostate religion by many Muslims as its widely believed there can be no Prophet after Muhammad. So the Baha’i Faith has been severely persecuted since it was first proclaimed in Shiraz, Persia 1845.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, Pages 142-170

Our first Prophet, the Bab, was executed by a firing squad along with one of His young followers in 1850. With the persecution of this new movement, a couple of misguided Babis tried to assassinate the Shah in 1852 but failed. This led to retribution and the death of an estimated 20,000 Babis. Bahá’u’lláh Himself was imprisoned and left to die in the notorious ‘Black Pit’ in Tehran. Because of His family’s diplomatic ties the Russian government intervened. When Bahá’u’lláh was found innocent of any crime He was exiled from Persia for the remaining 40 years of His life including 9 years in the prison city Akka.

So whether through the Persian and Ottoman Empires or various Islamic nations, the Baha’is know too well how the words peace and tolerance can be meaningless slogans. The Baha’is are one of many groups to experience persecution from the Islamic world. The irony is the Baha’is believe in the same Muhammad and Quran as the Muslims.

So while there’s propaganda vilifying and denouncing Islam, there’s propaganda portraying Islam as a religion of peace.

Thanks for your post. I know you won’t mess with a New Zealander again when in comes to statistics.:D
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Islamaphobia

The reason I dont like this word is because I think its wrong. I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

But what this word represents is not that. Because people dont know that this fear is irrational. They actually believe that this fear is rational. So being a scientific or a medical term it’s wrong.

But then again one must admit that there are many wrong words that have been established now and you cant take them back so we have no choice but to go along. Like the word Jihadist. Everyone knows what a Jihadist means. A Jihadist is a person who identifies himself as a Muslim and uses his theology to fight for something in his country or for a cause. But this word doesn’t make sense to many people if you look at it scientifically.

If you look at the Quran which is deemed the textbook of the arabic language, the word Jihad means “to try”. So what does the word Jihadist mean? So this word is a problem in its essence. But it’s established and one cant change what it represents.

And the word “awful”. Sometime ago if a person says “my king is awful” it would have meant “full of awe”. Now it’s the exact opposite. If I say “you as a thug are awful” to a drug lord I will get killed. Awful now means the opposite of Awesome. Strange world isn’t it?

So bottomline is this word is now established and one cannot change it.

Does Islamaphobia exist? Yes it definitely does. It exists mostly in the hands of writers and speakers who make a career out of it. There is no easier way to come to the limelight by speaking nonsense than to use Islamaphobia.

Recently I read a comment about an article that read “woman burns Quran in protest against rape”. She alludes that Muslims are rapists. She is American and there are only 1% Muslims in the country. Its a illusion she is trying to create but I’m sure she will get famous or at least this is an attempt to.

It is common to see many people associate terrorism with Islam. Islam is the motherload of bad ideas says Sam Harris. Hitler picked up his ideas from Islam says Ali Sina. Many people make a lot of claims like this and sell books. Robert Morey, Robert Spencer etc. If one analyses the history of the world, there has been thousands and thousands of wars between people. If you read the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillip and Alan Axelrod you will see they have data filling over 1,400 pages as if the world was at war more than governance. Religion is a language that people use to identify themselves. Buddhism teaches us not to hate anyone because hatred cannot be mulled by hatred but the lack of hatred alone. That didn’t stop Buddhist monks in Myanmar from promoting violence. Jesus is quoted to have said to give the other cheek, but that didn’t stop the church from the inquisition as henry Charles lea, the American historian, civic reformer, and political activist remarked in his most famous book A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, “Christendom seemed to have grown delirious and Satan might well smile at the tribute to his power in the endless smoke of the holocaust which bore witness to the triumph of the Almighty.”

Religion
man named Robert A. Pape, PhD and founder of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, a very well-known political scientist from the United States of America compiled a database of all suicide attacks from 1980 to 2003 with an extensive research of news in all available media outlets. His book was called Dying to Win, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism and in the introduction section he says

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Three general patterns in the data support my conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of organized campaigns, not as isolated or random incidents. Of the 315 separate attacks in the period I studied, 301 could have their roots traced to large, coherent political or military campaigns.”

Robert Pape goes to explain various levels of terrorism while suicide terrorism is the most extreme. He gives an example “One LTTE suicide attacker was motivated by the thought that the Sinhalese Buddhists would destroy the Hindu temples near her village, even though she had never visited them.”

He says “Two main explanations have been offered thus far. The first argues that local competition between the LTTE and other Tamil guerrilla groups encouraged the LTTE to use the extreme tactic of suicide to distinguish itself from its rivals. The second explanation stresses the “cult-like” behaviour of the group in which the Tamil Tigers separate their fighters from the general population and brainwash recruits to follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice.”

Follow the leader’s orders without conscious choice. Sounds like a sane explanation of the insanity.

Religion is used as a language to achieve certain goals a state or a group has as foundation to further their cause. Their root 'cause' is made of secular goals but their communication takes the language of religion. Even secularism has been used in the past as the language that leaderships have used for their cause. Take Joseph Stalin for example. He was a secular atheist with a secular state and he butchered Christians, Christian pastors and people who had a Bible at home during his reign. He was instrumental in the deaths over 15 million people and is deemed only second to Mao Zedong in the number of human deaths caused by them and their regime. And it may come as a surprise to many when they learn Joseph Stalin persecuted homosexuals by jailing them up to five years and that’s in the 20th century while the so called Muslim khalifate, the Ottoman Empire gave them full rights way back in 1858. The scale of totalitarianism tips this way and that way but what we remember top of mind is what we see every day on TV.

Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod compiled the comprehensive book on wars in history called “Encyclopedia of Wars”, a great read, clearly shows that only 7% of all wars ever recorded in history were motivated by religion.

Murder in the name of God

In a nutshell, the Islamic scripture directly tells you never to take an innocent life. So says the Quran in chapter 5 verse 32 - “It is because of this that we have decreed for the Children of Israel: “Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people. “

Now notice that this verse says as a blanket statement that a person who has not committed murder should not be killed or even as a government give a death sentence. But there is a phrase here that many people misunderstand that says “or who has not committed corruption in the land” which is open for interpretation. The Arabic phrase “Al Fasadhu Fil Ardh (الفساد في الأرض)”, or corruption in the land has a definition which a lot of people have ignored. This maybe the boring part for the reader, but this also maybe a piercer of faith to the fanatic. Read further.

So says the Quran in chapter 27, verses 48 to 50, - “And in the city were nine ruffians who were causing corruption in the land, and they were not reforming. They said: “Swear by God to one another that we will attack him and his family at night, …...

Notice that it says “Swear by God”. This is what the Quran is saying by the phrase “Spreading corruption in the land”. These are the people the verse 5:32 above is speaking about and they are very clearly explained.

So it should be evident, that their claim of murdering innocents shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, calls for Gods wrath on them, and the penalty is nothing but death. You murderer, your Quran is mandating a death sentence to you purely for murdering people using Gods name.

Bottomline: If you say Allah/God and kill an innocent human being, you are the scum of the earth according to the Quran. YOU!

Conspiracy theories aside, a firm believer in Bin Laden and Al Qaeeda’s connection to the world trade centre bombings in the USA Robert A. Pape says in his book Dying to Win, the one book that has the most extensive research and data collection on suicide terrorism, “However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America’s situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly”.

"just Like Today: Islam must be spread by force" - Robert Spencer

How do these people make their living off this fear? Is it real? Is it an industry?

. I was told that a phobia is when someone has an irrational fear of something and they know that the fear is irrational but they still fear it. Its a psychological condition.

That definition is not correct. A phobia IS an irrational fear of something, but there is no requirement that the person who has the phobia recognizes that the fear is irrational. A person can have an irrational fear of spiders, but not see their fear as irrational.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I respect the effort, but I think you, just like myself have an armchair's scholarly knowledge about Shari'ah. Like most of us here there is no enough in-depth knowledge on studying the sacred law. For example:

"Some people falsely equate Sharia with criminal or huddud laws, which are centuries-old specific punishments for major crimes such as killing, adultery, or theft. Huddud laws are only a tiny part of Sharia and can only be applied by an Islamic state; it is questionable if any of the nations claiming to be “Islamic states” actually fit that description morally or structurally, so these laws are generally not applicable in a modern context, let alone in the U.S. Unfortunately, the misapplication of these laws by the Taliban or other contemporary groups or governments generally contradict both the letter and spirit of Sharia and have given it a bad name."

Source

"Are American Muslims trying to enforce Sharia Law in the United States?" (From same source as above)

"No, America Muslims are merely trying to follow Sharia in their personal life just as practicing Jews try to follow Jewish law (halakha). There is no evidence of American Muslims individually or as a group trying to force Sharia on others. Muslims are obligated to adhere to the law of the land, and the observance of any laws that run contrary to the Constitution such as polygamy would be prevented even if someone tried to implement them."


I typically find it funny that people look at Sharia Law but don't look at Judaic law like for example Gett and how hard it is for women to get a divorce citing patriarchal elements see:


Yet here we are debating Sharia but don't equally cite other laws that could be perceived as reprehensible.

You also said Sharia is for everyone, well that is also another myth

MYTH NO. 2

In Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.

"While it’s true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim-majority countries, those codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, most powerfully, European colonialism. France, England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land, inadvertently joining the crown and the faith. In pre-modern Muslim lands, fiqh authority was separate from the governing authority, or siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence.

When Muslim political movements, such as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have looked to codify sharia in their countries, they have done so without any attention to the classical separation of fiqh and siyasa, instead continuing the legal centralization of the European nation-state. That’s why these movements look to legislate sharia — they want centralized laws for everything. But by using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history."

Source


Finally, DOES SHARIA APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS?

Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims anyway so the hysteria that is now being incited by certain groups, I believe, is based on utter ignorance and bigotry. This bigotry underlying the anti-Sharia campaign was recognized by the American Bar Association when it passed a resolution in 2011 opposing various anti-Sharia measures. As the resolution stated:


“Initiatives that target an entire religion or stigmatize an entire religious community, such as those explicitly aimed at ‘Sharia law,’ are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence.”

To set the record straight, one should note that anti-Sharia legislation has been defeated in Florida, Missouri and Oklahoma and the fight continues in states such as Michigan."

Source

Sorry for the non-sequitor I just had to correct you because all it takes is a little digging.

Thanks for your post @Epic Beard Man
I really appreciate your advocacy for Islam and concerted efforts to seek the truth and have Islam presented fairly. I agree with most of your post. To be clear I did not claim that Sharia should be applied to everyone and I agree this misunderstanding of Sharia fuels bigotry and prejudice. What I claimed was many Muslims themselves believe Sharia should be applied to everyone. I included a link to Pew Research as evidence.


Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens?
gsi2-chp1-5.png

Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.

The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38%) and Morocco (29%) hold this opinion. Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58% in Jordan hold this view.

By contrast, Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe who favor making sharia the official law of the land are among the least likely to say it should apply to all citizens in their country. Across the nations surveyed in the region, fewer than a third take this view. This includes 22% of Russian Muslims (who were asked about the applying sharia in their country’s ethnic Muslim republics).

In other regions, opinion varies widely by country. For example, in Southeast Asia, half of Indonesian Muslims who favor sharia as the official law say it should apply to all citizens, compared with about a quarter (24%) of those in Thailand. (Thai Muslims were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the predominantly Muslim areas of the country.) Similarly, in Central Asia, a majority of Muslims in Kyrgyzstan (62%) who support making sharia the official law say it should apply to non-Muslims in their country, but far fewer in Kazakhstan (19%) agree. Meanwhile, in South Asia, Muslims who are in favor of making sharia the law of the land in Afghanistan are 27 percentage points more likely to say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law than are those in Pakistan (61% in Afghanistan vs. 34% in Pakistan).

Muslim Beliefs About Sharia
 
Top