• 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
That seems very good to me
So if you believe in your above Koran verse you will agree with me, that below verse is wrong, am I right?




Because if Allah's Apostle himself said to kill apostates, it's obvious that Muslims who believe in this apostle do what he says in below verse

I found below quote in link from Sahih Bukhari:
Sahih Bukhari : Book of "Blood Money"
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17

Its not a verse, its a hadith. No Muslim considers that an "Ayath".

Also, when you quote ahadith you should have proper understanding what you are quoting. You should also justify why the hadith that clearly contradicts the Quran is adopted by you as Al Kaanun or law.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Islam would not need to use made up words like Islamophobia and promote blasphemy laws if it was as decent as they would have us believe.

Well, no. Thats not true. Islamaphobia will be there no matter what, and you have not understood the point of the OP.

And about made up words, please refer to the post.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Islamaphobia is a wide paintbrush of a word to try to stop the criticism Islam gets,if Islam as a religion was as strong as Muslims profess any criticism would be water off a ducks back but it's not ,islamaphobia is an attempt to steer us away from the obvious hole in the string vest.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Islamaphobia is a wide paintbrush of a word to try to stop the criticism Islam gets,if Islam as a religion was as strong as Muslims profess any criticism would be water off a ducks back but it's not ,islamaphobia is an attempt to steer us away from the obvious hole in the string vest.

If you read the OP, you note that I didnt use the word Islamaphobia to you.

Also, with the type of argument you are making about "wide paintbrush", you are also using your argument against the word as a "wide paintbrush". I can accuse you also of "attempting to steer us away from the hole....".

Id rather be specific in analysis. So lets practice what we preach. Dont use "wide paint brushes".
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium 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?
To restrict the concept of spreading a religion by force to suicide bombing alone without a discussion of related concepts such as blasphemy and apostasy laws is a diversion.

Of course if you acknowledge that spreading religion by force is done by blasphemy and apostasy laws, then you must also acknowledge the sizeable percentage of Muslims who believe wholeheartedly in such laws.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
To restrict the concept of spreading a religion by force to suicide bombing alone without a discussion of related concepts such as blasphemy and apostasy laws is a diversion.

Of course if you acknowledge that spreading religion by force is done by blasphemy and apostasy laws, then you must also acknowledge the sizeable percentage of Muslims who believe wholeheartedly in such laws.

Well.

1. Based on what research have you said "spreading of religion is done by blasphemy and apostasy laws"?
2. Whats the size of the Muslims who believe wholeheartedly in "such" laws as you broadly put it?
3. What is the relevance to the OP?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Great. I appreciate that. But frankly, none of this is relevant to the OP. You should understand the post. Lets say that Shariah is the most atrocious, nonsensical, murderous idea in the world (just for explanation), still, the world has seen only 7% of all wars ever written down in history to have been motivated by religion. And mind you, these wars include all religions including Buddhism, Christianity, etc. What ever this so called "Shariah" is, yet again the biggest and most murderous terrorist group that killed 180,000 innocent people, and carried out the most number of suicide attacks were secular, Leninist, run by a Christian, who was also practicing Hinduism. What the Shariah is, one of the biggest murders in the world was Joseph Stalin, the atheist. Whatever the Shariah is! Do you understand? So the Shariah is irrelevant.

The Shariah is a great tool used by the writers who sell books by writing to sentiments created by the aversion they wish to butter up and keep going and thats one of the reasons mind you that top of mind awareness about these things stunts scholarly exploration.

Nevertheless in order to you respect your query, I made a statement. Based on your response I will respond so that you will know better instantaneously. How about the one statement? "There is no Shariah that persecutes homosexuals". How would you comprehend that?

I had considered my response to be all about the OP question.

Statistics are notoriously prone to supporting whatever narrative we want. But I agree there are many religious and non religious groups behaving badly. I was simply explaining why Islam has negative associations for me personally. Although I agree Islam does get unfairly treated by the media, there are attitudes and beliefs held by many Muslims, not just a few extremists, that contribute to the media’s narrative.

I responded to the question about homosexuality and sharia above. Reflecting further, here’s what Wikipedia says ( for better or for worse):

The death penalty for homosexuality was historically implemented by a number of countries worldwide. It currently remains a legal punishment in several countries and regions, all of which have sharia-based criminal laws. Being prescribed by the law does not necessarily mean that the penalty is carried out in practice. Gay people have also fallen victim to extrajudicial killings by state and non-state actors.

Death penalty for homosexuality - Wikipedia

So how about if I identified as gay in one of the 12 countries (all Islamic) listed where someone could be executed for homosexual acts? If I were fearful of Islam in one of those countries would I be considered to have an irrational fear of Islam or would my fear of Islam be justified?

I hope you’re OK with that question, I’m just trying to have an honest conversation about an issue that touches a nerve for many of us.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Its not a verse, its a hadith. No Muslim considers that an "Ayath".

Also, when you quote ahadith you should have proper understanding what you are quoting. You should also justify why the hadith that clearly contradicts the Quran is adopted by you as Al Kaanun or law.

Okay the below is not a verse, let's call it the below quote from Sahih Bukhari (Book of "Blood Money") Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17

Simple question now: "Do you believe that one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims should be killed or punished?"

Just a simple Y/N answer to a simple question I have after reading this quite disturbing text below
And it is disturbing to you also I think, as you left the below quote out, when replying to my post
I do understand you left it out, and even good you left it out, because it is a terribly disturbing text

If I would find such a quote from my Master in His books, I would just honestly say "Burn the whole Book, this is rubbish"
Unless He would put in small print below something like "Just a joke, checking if you guys use your Common Sense before Divine Sense". Because that was His main Teaching. Always use Common Sense before Divine Sense. Even if God personally comes to you and tells you a "verse" or something, you better discard it as rubbish if it feels bad as in totally wrong (killing is such a thing, that feels totally wrong to me, over apostasy).

There might be 1 way out though, with this verse. I always try to give Islam the benefit of the doubt when seeing troubled verses (or Hadith). Maybe there is a translation error. But then I see that the context is very clear also. Murderer gets killed, person having illegal sexual intercourse gets killed AND apostate gets killed.

So NO, this "text" just feels bad (and so far I could recreate all Koran verses into good).
This I can't make any better. This can not be the word of God (because of killing apostate) IMHO

To make it even much more simple.
I, stvdv, decide to become a Muslim and do ALL the rituals (**1) needed to be a true Muslim. Then after some time (maybe 2 years) for whatever reason, I decide to become Christian or Atheist (**2). I have 100% decided already to become Christian or whatever.

Should you kill me, according to Islam (**3)?
Should I be killed, according to Islam (**3?
Should I be punished, according to Islam (**3)?

**1 = or whatever they are called; this question is not about semantics
**2 = or any other choice I want to make; again no semantics here
**3 = Islam, Allah, Koran, Hadith or whatever, again no semantics, just pure and simple question/answer


I found below quote in link from Sahih Bukhari:
Sahih Bukhari : Book of "Blood Money"
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I had considered my response to be all about the OP question.

Statistics are notoriously prone to supporting whatever narrative we want. But I agree there are many religious and non religious groups behaving badly. I was simply explaining why Islam has negative associations for me personally. Although I agree Islam does get unfairly treated by the media, there are attitudes and beliefs held by many Muslims, not just a few extremists, that contribute to the media’s narrative.

I responded to the question about homosexuality and sharia above. Reflecting further, here’s what Wikipedia says:

The death penalty for homosexuality was historically implemented by a number of countries worldwide. It currently remains a legal punishment in several countries and regions, all of which have sharia-based criminal laws. Being prescribed by the law does not necessarily mean that the penalty is carried out in practice. Gay people have also fallen victim to extrajudicial killings by state and non-state actors.

Death penalty for homosexuality - Wikipedia

So how about if I identified as gay in one of the 12 countries (all Islamic) listed where someone could be executed for homosexual acts? If I were fearful of Islam in one of those countries would I be considered to have an irrational fear of Islam or would my fear of Islam be justified?

I hope you’re OK with that question, I’m just trying to have an honest conversation about an issue that touches a nerve for many of us.

Brother. There is nothing about death penalty for homosexuality in any Shariah. You know why there is none? Because they cant find anything to justify their persecution. Many countries persecute homosexuals. But not based on Shariah. Its based on Fikh and they have intentionally injected the law without any basis.

You see brother. My comment was about Shariah and homosexuality. Not about what people do. And I am responding to this question though its completely irrelevant to the OP out of respect to a question.

Alright. Think of this flip side. In my OP I have said that Islamic Shariah in the last Islamic khaliphate in the mid 19th century legalised homosexuality. Can you think and tell me how come you have not even touched that? When did the United States legalise homosexuality? Just think.

You know why? Because there is nothing in any Shariah about killing homosexuals. Thats why the Shariah of the Ottoman Empire in 1858 gave full homosexual rights.

You see brother. The OP has nothing to do with saying "Shariah is great". Thats a blanket statement and is absurd to make such statements. Neither is the flip side.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Simple question now: "Do you believe that one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims should be killed or punished?"

Just a simple Y/N answer to a simple question I have after reading this quite disturbing text below
And it is disturbing to you also I think, as you left the below quote out, when replying to my post
I do understand you left it out, and even good you left it out, because it is a terribly disturbing text

No.

And I didnt leave anything out intentionally. There is no need to.

Now can you state whats the justification to make a legislature out of the hadith you quoted though its clearly against the Quran? Because it is you who is proposing the prophet said this. Whats your justification, your evidence, and reasoning?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
No.

And I didnt leave anything out intentionally. There is no need to.

Now can you state whats the justification to make a legislature out of the hadith you quoted though its clearly against the Quran? Because it is you who is proposing the prophet said this. Whats your justification, your evidence, and reasoning?
Thanks for the clear answer. I appreciate that

Okay my mistake. Sorry.

I assume Allah's Apostle = Muhammad. So this text is quite simple and straightforward to me.

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Many of the hadith were written hundreds of years after Mohammed, They're hardly as reliable as the Koran.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I assume Allah's Apostle = Muhammad. So this text is quite simple and straightforward to me.

Right. Why is it so straight forward? What is your justification? What is your reasoning?

Do you just believe some stories blindly?

I am not trying to twist you around, I am asking you so that you will see clearly.

Lol. Let me ask you something. You are quoting Buhari right? You know that Buhari had 100,000 (more) ahadith and in his books now there are over 7000 ahadith.

Do you think all of them are absolutely Muhammeds real narrations or only this one you picked?

(BTW, none of this is relevant to the OP)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
(BTW, none of this is relevant to the OP)
Title = Islamophobia. So this is relevant to the title IMO

Why? If a hadith tells that Muhammad said that Apostates should be killed

Then this has to do with Islamophobia

Because we can discard the word Islamophobia and call it a real threat for Apostates
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You don't seem to have a full comprehension of Sharia law, its only a few obscure elements of Sharia law that people object to, Islamic Divorce court is Sharia law for instance, it protects the rights of the wife, etc.

The fact is that it is irrelevant what the "technical details" are, or even how shariah law is supposed to work.

What matters, is how it practically works. How it is actually implemented in the countries where it is.

And the fact of the matter is, that in EVERY country where shariah laws are active, or claimed to be active, we see extreme crimes against humanity, extreme violations of human rights, extreme bullying and prosecution of women, homosexuals, etc.

What we actually see in shariah ruled countries is barbarism, brutality, crimes against humanity, oppression, etc.

It is not "islamophobic" to state that. It's a statistical fact of the muslim world. Stating the facts is not expressing a phobia. It is just stating the facts.


I can't imagine a single rational person who thinks stuff like freedom, emancipation, human rights etc are important, who would want to live in such a country.

Would you want to live in such a country?
I sure wouldn't.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well.

1. Based on what research have you said "spreading of religion is done by blasphemy and apostasy laws"?
2. Whats the size of the Muslims who believe wholeheartedly in "such" laws as you broadly put it?
3. What is the relevance to the OP?
1. I haven’t done research on it because it just seems like common sense that if a society exists where non-Muslim ideas are actively polemicised and critics and propagates of competing ideas are silenced under blasphemy laws, Islam monopolises the ideas marketplace. Compound this by forcing retention of converts who try Islam out to find its not for them and you have compulsion in religion.

2. I haven’t done the calculations myself, but in the video
the author calculates the global average of Muslims who believe in death for apostasy at 31%. If you don’t trust his calculations the statistics are available here Muslim Beliefs About Sharia

3. The OP was entitled “Islamophobia” I’m pointing out that there is more to be concerned about in Islamic society than suicide bombing alone.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Right. Why is it so straight forward? What is your justification? What is your reasoning?

All Muslims love to tell me:
Allah is God.
Muhammad is His Prophet
Koran is the word of God given to Muhammad
Koran is infallible and the Truth

Suggesting that whatever Muhammad has said is the word of Allah and is true

That same Muhammad also has said, when asked, "Apostates should be killed"

And below survey in 2014 states that a third believe in the death penalty for leaving Islam

According to a Pew survey in 2014, more than half of Muslims say that Sharia is the revealed will of God.

More than half believe that Sharia should be the law of the countries they live in. Of those supporting this:
about a third believe it should apply to non-Muslims as well,
about a third believe that adulterers should be stoned,
about a third believe in the death penalty for leaving Islam.
These are not insignificant minorities!


And, why should I believe the Koran to be true, if other written quotes about Muhammad are false?

On this forum I saw last week a Muslim stating that he believes Apostates should be killed

And then you ask me, being not a Muslim, why I question this?

This is a question that is bothering me maybe the most !!!

Well, here you have my answer
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Title = Islamophobia. So this is relevant to the title IMO

Why? If a hadith tells that Muhammad said that Apostates should be killed

Then this has to do with Islamophobia

Because we can discard the word Islamophobia and call it a real threat for Apostates

Not really. Its not relevant. You should read the whole thing, not just the title.

But thats fine.
 
Top