Islamaphobia - Years later, I accept its a real/true phenomena and an industry

[firedragon]

Another member has kindly suggested the titles of four books as the nucleus of such an industry.
That's a mere nothing by comparison with the positive books produced about Islam.

Another member gave four books you say. But you see, you never even clicked on the link to see what the books were about. One book is on the Islamaphobia industry by lean. Its not a negative book about Islam so talking about positive books about Islam shows you dont even click on someones effort but just reply because you just close your mind to everything you biasly dont like. Nice.

Read the book. Learn something.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Look, you don't read a psychology mag to discover the meaning of a word, not in any language.

Phobia means extreme or irrational.

What does do Acrophobia, Acarophobia, Agoraphobia, Mysophobia mean? Find out. And think. Read the OP again.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for the list of four books.
How many positive and supportive books about Islam are produced?

I don't think that Islamaphobia is an industry though, honestly.

Where I live our Equality Act 2919 does all it can to reduce harassment, victimisation or crime directed at any person or group because of their religion.

There is Islamaphobia here but it is put down where it surfaces to cause discrimination against any Muslims. By the way, Islamaphobia affects Sikhs and Hindus here as well because the kinds of people who are most bigoted against Islam don't have the sense to be able to differentiate between these religions.

My wife's best friend works for a Hindu Post Office proprietor and he does sometimes get islamophobic insults..... But my wife's best friend is a huge powerful Brit lady who enjoys chucking idiotic bigots out of the place.....

Islamaphobia industry and what you are talking about is absolutely irrelevant. You. have not read the OP or you just read it here and there.

The existence of the industry does not mean all people in your country are racists or bigots. The problem is every single thing a Muslim says you are taking as an escapist strategy or a victim claim and go to defend your society by claiming they are not racist. The British society is not racist. Neither is the American society. There are some societies who are racist but they are far from you. Thats not the point mate.

The existence or the Islamaphobia industry is very well known among academics and some people who are writing their own polemics to make money. Businesses like these authors who write some absolutely bogus information in their books like Robert Morey and Robert Spencer and Ali Sina etc etc is evident. Scholars generally do not accept these nonsensical books as anything peer reviewed and/or valid academic work. But they sell like hot cakes. Because there is a huge industry. Most authors in the business of writing about religions and politics know this. But there are authors who know this, and they dont lie.

Anyway, all of this is not necessary because you will shrug them off anyway. You have not even read the OP yet you respond to every comment with a brush.

 

[icehorse]

Trust me, we're not ashamed of the Qur'an at all, we have proper hermeneutics while you cherrypick whatever suits your agenda. We live by the scripture, we study it thoroughly. Nothing you've said in this and other threads on the subject holds any water, it's just shallow nonsense. You people are so stuck on three or four ridiculous lazy 'criticisms' that are both easily refutable and irrelevant to Islam. People like you have no idea what Islam is, you have no idea about it's spirituality. You're trapped in the political world without any entry towards understanding Islam, yet many of us could easily help if you had the sincerity to learn about actual Islam. The kinds of views about the Qur'an that people like yourself propagate are so absurd, so far from reality, all for what? your agenda.

If we look at the book logically, there are a couple of possibilities:

1 - We should take the book at face value. This is the approach I've taken, and when you take the book at face value, it's a very unhappy picture.

2 - We need to "live by the scripture, and study it thoroughly". This seems to be the approach you're suggesting. The problem with this approach is that many Muslims have been doing this for 1400 years, and violent sects have been the consistent outcome. This seems like a predictable outcome to me because in order to tease any sort of humane message from the book requires extensive mental gymnastics, and of course every sect will perform those gymnastics their own way.

==

As it happens, I've taken the time to read the Quran, read about Muhammad, and read a small bit of the Hadith. So it's not thrilling to hear that all I have put forth here are "lazy criticisms". But if that's the case, can you enumerate my lazy criticisms and easily refute them? (as you say you can)

 

[icehorse]

Lol this is so stupid. Have you never heard of converts before?

Of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims, the majority are born into the faith. Of course there are a few converts, doh!

Subjective opinion.

Again, doh! Everyone on this thread is offering subjective opinions. That said, I'm happy to share with you that I base my opinion on the values described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (values which I share, BTW). Islamic scripture runs counter to the UDHR and Islam in practice, throughout the world, also runs counter to the UDHR.

So, I've told you what I value, it's in the UDHR. What do you value? And if you say you have Islamic values, that tells us very little, because as we know, Islamic sects violently disagree with each other, and have done so from day 1 of Islam.

Load of nonsense.

This response was in reference to my claim that many Muslims are not allowed to walk away from the faith. If this is nonsense, then please explain to me why apostasy is a crime - sometimes a CAPITAL crime - in so many Muslim majority countries?

 

[firedragon]

Some people are hellbent on derailing the thread. A lot of effort put in.

 

[icehorse]

Its a term used by psychologists so you have to look at what they say to understand what it defines. Yet if you are only hellbent on the superficial meaning of things maybe as you said a dictionary would suffice for your level of research.

Great going. Cheers.

This seems like projection to me. If you want us to analyze the meaning of the word "Islamophobia" from a science perspective it would have to mean something like "an irrational fear of the ideas described by Islam". The problem you have with that approach is that it's quite rational to fear Islam's take on misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, theocracy, supremacy, and so on.

But Muslims tend to insist that that's not what the word means. Instead they tell us it means something like "bigotry towards Muslims". Speaking for myself, I can live with that definition. Even though it's got political spin built into it, I can live with it. And I also agree that some people are bigoted towards Muslims, that's a real problem in the world.

But the problem with this approach is that Muslims also use the word to deflect genuine criticism of the ideas of Islam. They attempt a conflation. And that my friend, is dishonest.

 

[icehorse]

Some people are hellbent on derailing the thread. A lot of effort put in.

If you're referring to me, please explain how my posts have not been addressing the OP? Now I'm happy to grant you that I haven't addressed the "industry" claim directly. but what I HAVE been doing is questioning a key, underlying premise of the OP.

 

[firedragon]

If you're referring to me, please explain how my posts have not been addressing the OP? Now I'm happy to grant you that I haven't addressed the "industry" claim directly. but what I HAVE been doing is questioning a key, underlying premise of the OP.

If the cap fits.

 

[firedragon]

This seems like projection to me. If you want us to analyze the meaning of the word "Islamophobia" from a science perspective it would have to mean something like "an irrational fear of the ideas described by Islam". The problem you have with that approach is that it's quite rational to fear Islam's take on misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, theocracy, supremacy, and so on.

But Muslims tend to insist that that's not what the word means. Instead they tell us it means something like "bigotry towards Muslims". Speaking for myself, I can live with that definition. Even though it's got political spin built into it, I can live with it. And I also agree that some people are bigoted towards Muslims, that's a real problem in the world.

But the problem with this approach is that Muslims also use the word to deflect genuine criticism of the ideas of Islam. They attempt a conflation. And that my friend, is dishonest.

Read the OP.

 

[icehorse]

Read the OP.

I just reread it. I think the premise is flawed. It seems to me that in the OP you strawman well known critics' arguments and then do some cherrypicking to prove why they're wrong.

As I said in a recent post, you seem to want to conflate bigotry (a true problem), with criticism. It is not a derailment to point out those flaws in the OP.

 

[firedragon]

I just reread it. I think the premise is flawed. It seems to me that in the OP you strawman well known critics' arguments and then do some cherrypicking to prove why they're wrong.

Can you be specific?

1. What did I cherry pick from which author?
2. What was their whole point and what did I cherry pick?
3. What was the argument I made after cherry picking?

 

[firedragon]

As I said in a recent post, you seem to want to conflate bigotry (a true problem), with criticism. It is not a derailment to point out those flaws in the OP.

When anyone makes a statement like "Hindus are racist" that statement itself is bigotry. So if you think this statement is criticism, then you can't differentiate between bigotry and criticism.

If you like to understand criticism, maybe you could do some bible study or Quranic study. There are some types of criticism scholars use and teach in academic environments. e.g. Form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, narrative criticism.

These are good methods of criticism.

But if one person makes claims like "Hindus are racist", that's a bigoted statement. Not criticism. So maybe you should understand the difference.

 

[icehorse]

When anyone makes a statement like "Hindus are racist" that statement itself is bigotry. So if you think this statement is criticism, then you can't differentiate between bigotry and criticism.

If you like to understand criticism, maybe you could do some bible study or Quranic study. There are some types of criticism scholars use and teach in academic environments. e.g. Form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, narrative criticism.

These are good methods of criticism.

But if one person makes claims like "Hindus are racist", that's a bigoted statement. Not criticism. So maybe you should understand the difference.

When during our many debates - you and I - have you ever heard me say something like "Hindus are racist"? I believe I have a good handle on criticism, I'm a professional editor after all But I'm not at all interested in most of the debates that theologians have with each other. They tend to start with premises that I believe are false.

As you should know by now, I tend to start with claims that religious people make, and then I look for logical inconsistencies. It's not the only way to criticize, but for my purposes, it's sufficient. Islam and Christianity are my most frequent targets. This is because they are so danged popular, but it's also because they make such grandiose claims. If you Christians and Muslims would soften your claims a bit, the rest of us could and probably would back off a bit.

But when Muslims enter the conversation with a claim like "The Quran is the perfect, timeless word of an all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being" they are just asking for others to take a hard look at such a claim. If such a fundamental claim crumbles under scrutiny, it renders the rest of the faith suspect.

Another thing I feel compelled to bring up @firedragon is that I take great pains to debate only your ideas. I resist impugning you. So if you don't agree with my ideas, that fine, that's why we're debating. But when you impugn me as a person you're demonstrating the weakness of your arguments.

So let's stick to the high road and debate ideas, shall we?

 

[icehorse]

Can you be specific?

1. What did I cherry pick from which author?
2. What was their whole point and what did I cherry pick?
3. What was the argument I made after cherry picking?

Isn't it the case that one of the main points of the OP was to claim that these critics of Islam are only in it for the money? That's a strawman.

Is it not the case that you picked a few supporting versus from the Quran to bolster your argument? That's cherrypicking.

 

[firedragon]

When during our many debates - you and I - have you ever heard me say something like "Hindus are racist"?

I didnt say you did. I just gave an example of what bigotry is. You should understand it mate. Simple.

But when Muslims enter the conversation with a claim like "The Quran is the perfect, timeless word of an all-knowing, all-powerful

Thats not relevant to the thread.

Another thing I feel compelled to bring up @firedragon is that I take great pains to debate only your ideas. I resist impugning you. So if you don't agree with my ideas, that fine, that's why we're debating. But when you impugn me as a person you're demonstrating the weakness of your arguments.

I think you imagined it.

 

[firedragon]

Isn't it the case that one of the main points of the OP was to claim that these critics of Islam are only in it for the money? That's a strawman.

Is it not the case that you picked a few supporting versus from the Quran to bolster your argument? That's cherrypicking.

Thats not what you claimed.

So. You dont have any specifics, but just a general statement.

 

[Tambourine]

No, that was not what I meant.

My bad, then.

As far as I know, India does not have a state religion, and enshrines freedom of religion in its constitution, correct? So at least in the eyes of Indian law, a Muslim Indian would be no less a citizen of India than a Hindu. Would you agree?

 

[Piculet]

My bad, then.

As far as I know, India does not have a state religion, and enshrines freedom of religion in its constitution, correct? So at least in the eyes of Indian law, a Muslim Indian would be no less a citizen of India than a Hindu. Would you agree?

If you remove all practicality of the matter, could it be so? If the Indian police beats up innocent people and steals their property, I don't think it matters. Or are we going to give virtue points of what is written but not applied?

 

[Tambourine]

If you remove all practicality of the matter, could it be so? If the Indian police beats up innocent people and steals their property, I don't think it matters. Or are we going to give virtue points of what is written but not applied?

That's not what my question was about.