• 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!

What exactly is Islamophobia?

Your subconscious brain does exactly that.

Your subconscious brain does many things, some more powerful than others.

Exposure to information you comprehend is never neutral, but it is processed in accordance with numerous other factors.

If you read "Donald Trump is a graceful pink elephant" you don't start to subconsciously think Trump is a graceful pink elephant.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I've seen absolutely no evidence that personal religiosity correlates with anti-kaffir sentiment until you get to the fundamentalist type level, although I'm not sure fundies are necessarily more knowledgeable scholars.
Well again, this is happening at a subconscious level.

As with any kind of identity it can create in group bias, and I would say at the large scale then many people will support policies that favour Islam, although again I'm not sure of the extent to which this is a feature of greater piety rather than simply in-group bias and tribal loyalty.

Such in/out group biases also exist in minority religions, often to a greater degree due to perceived discrimination (which certainly does have its basis in reality).
I understand that it's tricky to discuss what's happening at a subconscious level. That said, again it appears you're talking about conscious effects?

It's not as easy as 'Quran says X therefore people believe it"

Augustus: If you read "Donald Trump is a graceful pink elephant" you don't start to subconsciously think Trump is a graceful pink elephant.

==

Well the BRAIN is much more likely to pay attention to messages when they have one or both of these characteristics:

- heavy repetition
- emotional content

The Quran has both of those, in spades.

==

BTW, I sincerely appreciate the tone of our debate here. It's great to be able to debate ideas cleanly, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Well again, this is happening at a subconscious level.

What's your attitude towards "implicit bias tests" used to 'prove' subconscious racism? (there are some you can do online if you want to test them)

Testing the subconscious is very difficult as it is very hard to isolate the thing we want to test, and even harder to assign causality.

I understand that it's tricky to discuss what's happening at a subconscious level. That said, again it appears you're talking about conscious effects?

If subconscious activity doesn't manifest itself in term of outward effects, how much should we care about it?

If someone has been my good friend for years, why should I think they subconsciously think I'm a bad person even though it never impacts their behaviour?

Well the BRAIN is much more likely to pay attention to messages when they have one or both of these characteristics:

- heavy repetition
- emotional content

I agree with these, more likely, but dependent on other factors.

When you activate the 'wrong' emotion then people will be far less likely to be persuaded than by a neutral message. Heavy repetition will magnify this anti-persuasion.

Look at pro/anti Trump responses to see an easy example of this.

People are very good at rationalising whatever they want to believe as true, and finding reasons no to believe the opposite.

Some studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, smarter people and those with better reasoning abilities are less likely to change their strongly held beliefs when confronted with contradictory evidence, presumably as they are better at rationalising why they can reject it.

BTW, I sincerely appreciate the tone of our debate here. It's great to be able to debate ideas cleanly, thanks!


Me too :)
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Here's one about natural beauty.

"Thus, everything in the universe has been created beautiful, with purpose and in proportion and measure, both qualitatively and quantitatively." (al-Qamar 54:49)

There you go. Just 6,235 more to go and we can talk.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You mean a phobia for unbelievers?
Sure, some Muslims go through great lengths to point out what is wrong with non-Muslims.
But I thought you wanted to avoid whataboutism..

Fair enough. The difference is that an 'Islamophobe' comes to that point on his own, whereas a Muslim 'kafrophobe' is simply following the lead created by hundreds of verses in the Qur'an. 'Kafrophobia' is a tenet of the religion.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
There never has been some pure normative “Islam”

Of course there has been (and still is for some) "pure normative Islam". Verse 5:3 says, "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

The day that Mohamed revealed the last verse of the Qur'an is the day that "pure normative Islam" existed in full. 'Allah' created Islam, and only 'Allah' can change it. Ask any Muslim you know, and he will tell you that.

, it has been evolving and adapting from day one.

Much of Orthodox Islam is medieval rather than from the time of Muhammad.


It is a living tradition

No, people have been dicking with it. IT has not changed one iota.

Not for 99.9% of Muslims who use the sunnah, hadith, itjihad, etc.

People use hadith etc. for guidance in following the Qur'an. They do NOT change anything.

Not for 99.9% of Muslims, but don’t let that stand in your way.

You can’t take a literal reading of an isolated passage and say “that’s what Islam teaches”.

For example, you quoted a verse about not taking unbelievers as friends or allies yet all Muslim leaders, including Muhammad have taken unbelievers for friends or allies.

So either you understand Islam better than Muhammad or you are, once again, wrong.

Mohamed used whatever means were necessary to give himself an advantage. The treaty of Hudaybiyyah is a perfect example. It gave him a couple of years to strengthen, but as soon as he found a reason to pretend that the Meccans had broken it, he declared the treaty broken and attacked. The Meccans came to him and apologized for the fact that one of their allies had attacked one of his, and offered to make restitution, but Mohamed was ready to fight, so he rejected their offer. There's a difference between having a true friend and ally vs just using them.
 
Of course there has been (and still is for some) "pure normative Islam". Verse 5:3 says, "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

The day that Mohamed revealed the last verse of the Qur'an is the day that "pure normative Islam" existed in full. 'Allah' created Islam, and only 'Allah' can change it. Ask any Muslim you know, and he will tell you that.

You sound like an Islamic apologist here.

In theory there is a pure normative Islam, in reality there is not and never has been.

There are only differing and evolving subjective interpretations.

No, people have been dicking with it. IT has not changed one iota.

You seem to think Islam = the text of the Quran. Unfortunately you are wrong both historically and theologically.

Also you are credulously taking Islamic theological claims as established historical facts.

Even if we assume the Quran has not been changed since it was first “revealed”, which is certainly not an uncontested fact, the sunnah, hadith etc objectively have changed and these are a major part of Islam.

You don’t seriously think all Hadith are true and the sunnah is an accurate record of historical fact do you?

As I said, orthodox Sunni Islam was only really established several centuries after Muhammad.
People use hadith etc. for guidance in following the Qur'an. They do NOT change anything.
Again after “decades” of studying Islam it’s quite remarkable you haven’t even managed to learn numerous elementary features of the religion.

Many orthodox Sunnis believe mutawatir hadith can abrogate the Quran.

Sunnah also gives meaning to ambiguous verses of the Quran or can change an apparent meaning.


The idea they don’t change anything is again objectively wrong.
Mohamed used whatever means were necessary to give himself an advantage. The treaty of Hudaybiyyah is a perfect example. It gave him a couple of years to strengthen, but as soon as he found a reason to pretend that the Meccans had broken it, he declared the treaty broken and attacked. The Meccans came to him and apologized for the fact that one of their allies had attacked one of his, and offered to make restitution, but Mohamed was ready to fight, so he rejected their offer. There's a difference between having a true friend and ally vs just using them.

Back to your schtick of uncritically repeating Islamic theology as historical fact, but with your own negative spin on Muhammad that you simply make up based on your own prejudices.

You neither care about critical historical scholarship or make a good faith attempt to understand what Muslims believe.

That is why your threads are simply Islam bashing rather than legitimate critique.

It is a well established historical fact that many of those involved in the Arab conquests were non Muslims, so someone was certainly taking them as allies.
 

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. The difference is that an 'Islamophobe' comes to that point on his own, whereas a Muslim 'kafrophobe' is simply following the lead created by hundreds of verses in the Qur'an. 'Kafrophobia' is a tenet of the religion.
I'm not sure this is true in your case.
Didn't you say you used to defend Islam and only grew disenchanted with its innocence once you started reading the Quran?

In a sense you justify your "islamophobia" by using the same literary source that "kafrophobes" use to justify their fear or resentment, regardless of the attitudes of the ones that follow it, which can vary greatly per individual and community.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
@Augustus - You bring up several interesting ideas and questions:

1 - implicit bias
2 - proving causality
3 - outward effects of subconscious beliefs / effects on behavior
4 - rationalizing

1 - I suspect implicit bias is a real thing, but I don't think my argument depends on it.

2 - As for proving causality, I agree that that's difficult. That said, most of the world's most successful and profitable companies spend billions and billions (perhaps TRILLIONS?), of money each year on various forms of advertising and marketing. Huge, profitable companies like Google base all of their income on advertising and marketing dollars spent by other companies. All of these dollars are spent because it works.

And what we see used in advertising and marketing are the same ideas: repetition and emotions.

3 & 4 - Have you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow"? I would agree that the order in which we react is:
first: subconscious reaction or intuition
second: rationalization sometimes or some conscious overriding of the subconscious

So, we see a person that our subconscious is suspicious of, then our mind goes into override mode, to defeat or counter the fast intuition. This takes a lot of brain glucose. This is hard to maintain. All manner of stress is created if this kind of event happens a lot. In the worst cases people can get PTSD. So, if you're well rested you can fight your subconscious. But if you're tired or stressed, it's much harder to do so.

(I know I've oversimplified here, but I think this is largely correct.)
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
@Augustus - You bring up several interesting ideas and questions:

1 - implicit bias
2 - proving causality
3 - outward effects of subconscious beliefs / effects on behavior
4 - rationalizing

1 - I suspect implicit bias is a real thing, but I don't think my argument depends on it.

2 - As for proving causality, I agree that that's difficult. That said, most of the world's most successful and profitable companies spend billions and billions (perhaps TRILLIONS?), of money each year on various forms of advertising and marketing. Huge, profitable companies like Google base all of their income on advertising and marketing dollars spent by other companies. All of these dollars are spent because it works.

And what we see used in advertising and marketing are the same ideas: repetition and emotions.

3 & 4 - Have you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow"? I would agree that the order in which we react is:
first: subconscious reaction or intuition
second: rationalization sometimes or some conscious overriding of the subconscious

So, we see a person that our subconscious is suspicious of, then our mind goes into override mode, to defeat or counter the fast intuition. This takes a lot of brain glucose. This is hard to maintain. All manner of stress is created if this kind of event happens a lot. In the worst cases people can get PTSD. So, if you're well rested you can fight your subconscious. But if you're tired or stressed, it's much harder to do so.

(I know I've oversimplified here, but I think this is largely correct.)

Yeah, that is why I own very product I have ever seen an add about and if not, if I had the money I would buy them all.

Let me try to explain the problem with your model. Everything is either subconscious or a rationalization. But then the model is either the one or the other and there are no other way that brains can function.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Yeah, that is why I own very product I have ever seen an add about and if not, if I had the money I would buy them all.

Let me try to explain the problem with your model. Everything is either subconscious or a rationalization. But then the model is either the one or the other and there are no other way that brains can function.

For your first point, can you explain why trillions are spent on advertising?

For your second point, of course it's not a simple either / or, which I think I explained in post #89, no?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
For your first point, can you explain why trillions are spent on advertising?

For your second point, of course it's not a simple either / or, which I think I explained in post #89, no?

Because if it works on some people, it doesn't follow that it works on all humans. It only requires enough humans in regards to profit.
 
1 - I suspect implicit bias is a real thing, but I don't think my argument depends on it.

My point was more about how you test for subconscious bias.

Try one of the online tests, I doubt you will agree that it is a meaningful test of racial bias.


2 - As for proving causality, I agree that that's difficult. That said, most of the world's most successful and profitable companies spend billions and billions (perhaps TRILLIONS?), of money each year on various forms of advertising and marketing. Huge, profitable companies like Google base all of their income on advertising and marketing dollars spent by other companies. All of these dollars are spent because it works.
Yet I can see thousands of adverts a day that have no real impact on me.

Adverts work in general, cast a big enough net and you catch some fish.

I agree messages in the Quran impact Muslims in general, many Muslims will think kuffar to be bad people, but I think you overestimate the degree to which that impact all Muslims.

3 & 4 - Have you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow"? I would agree that the order in which we react is:
first: subconscious reaction or intuition
second: rationalization sometimes or some conscious overriding of the subconscious

So, we see a person that our subconscious is suspicious of, then our mind goes into override mode, to defeat or counter the fast intuition. This takes a lot of brain glucose. This is hard to maintain. All manner of stress is created if this kind of event happens a lot. In the worst cases people can get PTSD. So, if you're well rested you can fight your subconscious. But if you're tired or stressed, it's much harder to do so.

Again, I agree it takes conscious effort to correct things you don't believe when exposed to them.

This effort declines based on repeated exposure though as we have already stored the response in our filing system.

When someone presents a new argument to you it might make you think and doubt your original opinion, but after a while you see the weaknesses and reject it.

Next time you are exposed to the same point you just retrieve the rebuttal from your filing system and it is exponentially easier.

Also remember many Muslims are being constantly exposed to the information that non-Muslims are good people via friends, colleagues, media, etc.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You sound like an Islamic apologist here.

No, I sound like someone who understands where Islamic apologists get their talking points. See the difference?

In theory there is a pure normative Islam, in reality there is not and never has been.

Are you honestly trying to sell the fact that during Mohamed's lifetime he didn't establish and preside over Islam as it was described in the Qur'an? Ask ANY Muslim that you know about this. Ask him about any variations that may have been acceptable at that time.
 
No, I sound like someone who understands where Islamic apologists get their talking points. See the difference?

Understanding Islamic apologetics doesn’t necessitate acting as if they are true as you have been doing.

Are you honestly trying to sell the fact that during Mohamed's lifetime he didn't establish and preside over Islam as it was described in the Qur'an? Ask ANY Muslim that you know about this. Ask him about any variations that may have been acceptable at that time

Which is the correct version of Islam as practiced by Muhammad then? Which of the sects/madhhabs has it right?

Again you are unable to differentiate between Islamic apologetics and historical events.

Different Muslims will tell you different things about Muhammad’s Islam, there is no pure normative Islam to be discovered, just a myth of one that is created according to subjective apologetic preferences.

Islam as practiced by Muhammad has been lost to history. We can only try to replicate it based on incomplete and ambiguous information.

The orthodox Sunni Islam that emerged several centuries after Muhammad was one simply one of many attempts to do this.

The text of the Quran is not and never has been “Islam”, it is simply one part of a living and evolving tradition.

This is a fact for secular historians and theologians alike.

The problem is you don’t give the impression of knowing much about Islamic theology or secular scholarship and you keep mistaking the former for the latter. Hence all of the errors you made in this and your previous posts.

Do you still not accept the sunnah/hadith can modify or even abrogate the Quran btw? Why not?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Yet I can see thousands of adverts a day that have no real impact on me.

Adverts work in general, cast a big enough net and you catch some fish.

I'm not sure how to square these two sentences?

Again, I agree it takes conscious effort to correct things you don't believe when exposed to them.

This effort declines based on repeated exposure though as we have already stored the response in our filing system.

When someone presents a new argument to you it might make you think and doubt your original opinion, but after a while you see the weaknesses and reject it.

Next time you are exposed to the same point you just retrieve the rebuttal from your filing system and it is exponentially easier.

Also remember many Muslims are being constantly exposed to the information that non-Muslims are good people via friends, colleagues, media, etc.

I think the context that you're discussing is a lot less charged than the one I'm discussing.

It's estimated that about half the world's Muslims repeat the first Surah of the Quran five times a day as part of their daily prayers. Call it a billion people to keep the math easy. The last line of Surah 1 reads - parsimoniously - "allah is forever mad at non-believers".

Now for a religious person, prayers are important and emotional. So that message, repeated FIVE BILLION TIMES A DAY in an emotional context, is fomenting serious subconscious divisiveness throughout the world.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The last line of Surah 1 reads - parsimoniously - "allah is forever mad at non-believers".

Here is a whole slew of translations of that last verse... not a single one even comes close to this.


Not only that, but Allah is the most merciful, they're repeating that 5 times a day too. So, even if the imagined version of verse 7 is repeated, they are also repeating Allah is the most merciful. And somehow the imagined verse 7 is being ingrained in their brain, but Allah is most merciful is not?

Are you confusing "parsimonious" with a rapid onset split-personality disorder between verse 1 and verse 7?
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you are wrong both historically and theologically.

Also you are credulously taking Islamic theological claims as established historical facts.

The only thing I'm taking as fact in this discussion is that the Qur'an was created for the purpose of creating and defining Islam.

Even if we assume the Quran has not been changed since it was first “revealed”, which is certainly not an uncontested fact,

It may indeed have been altered slightly because it wasn't committed to writing until well after Mohamed's death. However, a few alterations here and there would not change the message one bit.

the sunnah, hadith etc objectively have changed and these are a major part of Islam.

So? That doesn't change the fact that they were never intended to be. If what you're saying is true, then Islam was not complete until long after Mohamed's death. That means his immediate successors didn't yet have the full story - and you know that is absolute bollocks. It would also make a lie of verse 5:3.

You don’t seriously think all Hadith are true and the sunnah is an accurate record of historical fact do you?

Are you doubting the Qur'an itself? Even if Mohamed had exactly zero to do with it, the very essence of being a Muslim is to believe he did. Whatever point you think you're making is at best moot, and a worst a disingenuous distraction.

As I said, orthodox Sunni Islam was only really established several centuries after Muhammad.

If I ever talk about orthodox Sunni Islam, feel free to mention that.

Again after “decades” of studying Islam it’s quite remarkable you haven’t even managed to learn numerous elementary features of the religion.

Many orthodox Sunnis believe mutawatir hadith can abrogate the Quran.

So? Nothing that anyone claims can change the fact that the Qur'an says that it completely, definitively, and finally establishes the truth regarding religion. Anything that comes afterwards is by definition an illegal addition to the word of Allah.

Sunnah also gives meaning to ambiguous verses of the Quran or can change an apparent meaning.

That brings up an absurdity of Islamic belief - that Allah spent 22 years and 6,236 verses trying to get his point across, but did such a poor job of it that an entire industry of scholarship had to be established to try to figure just what he was trying to say.


The idea they don’t change anything is again objectively wrong.


Back to your schtick of uncritically repeating Islamic theology as historical fact, but with your own negative spin on Muhammad that you simply make up based on your own prejudices.

You neither care about critical historical scholarship or make a good faith attempt to understand what Muslims believe.

That is why your threads are simply Islam bashing rather than legitimate critique.

The ad hom is always the refuge of the disingenuous.

It is a well established historical fact that many of those involved in the Arab conquests were non Muslims, so someone was certainly taking them as allies.

So they were joined by mercenaries. Big whoop. It only makes sense that anyone who was useful to their goal of conquest and pillage would be welcomed.
 
Top