What is "Islamaphobia"?

Peregrinus · 08-05-2015 7:54am

silverharp wrote: »

. . . or less, more usually.

volchitsa · 08-05-2015 8:55am

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . or less, more usually.

So how much should someone know about each of the many religions they don't belong to, then, in your view?

I'd suggest we have no obligation to know anything about them other than the actions we see their adherents taking, particularly those done in the name of their religion - and that judging the religion by that is a perfectly reasonable thing for the average non specialist to do.

And by that measure, it doesn't look too good for Islam.

robindch · 08-05-2015 9:43am

Personally, I'd defined "Islamophobe" as "Somebody who understands the islamic religion sufficiently well to be frightened of its aims and its means of achieving them".

timetogo · 08-05-2015 9:51am

This thread is in danger of heading into debate territory. It's just for jokes isn't it?

TheChizler · 08-05-2015 9:56am

timetogo wrote: »

This thread is in danger of heading into debate territory. It's just for jokes isn't it?

You need to trust in Mod.

Undergod · 08-05-2015 10:13am

TheChizler wrote: »

You need to trust in Mod.

Okay fundamentalist. I've personally never seen a shred of evidence that Mod exists...

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-05-2015 10:13am

TheChizler wrote: »

You need to trust in Mod.

In Mod we trust.

Peregrinus · 08-05-2015 10:26am

volchitsa wrote: »

So how much should someone know about each of the many religions they don't belong to, then, in your view?

Nobody needs to know anything about religions they don't belong to, if they don't care too. My point is just that there are plenty of islamophobes out there who are living evidence of the fact it's perfectly possible to hate something about which you are profoundly ignorant. In fact, it's generally easier.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'd suggest we have no obligation to know anything about them other than the actions we see their adherents taking, particularly those done in the name of their religion - and that judging the religion by that is a perfectly reasonable thing for the average non specialist to do.

Well, possibly, provided they're not going to be selective about it, characterising the religion only by reference to actions which are congruent with the view they want to reach. Have you some reason to think (or some authority to decree) that the actions and attitudes of the Muslims who don't engage in terrorist violence, or who deplore it, for example, are less authentic an expression of Islam than the actions and attitudes of Islamist terrorists?

If someone is justified in looking at the actions of Islamist terrorists and ascribing characteristics to Islam in general from them, then someone else is justified in looking at, say, the Terror, and ascribe characteristics to rationalism and republicanism from that.

robindch · 08-05-2015 10:44am

Posts moved over from ha-ha thread!

volchitsa · 08-05-2015 11:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody needs to know anything about religions they don't belong to, if they don't care too.

Well you're the one who said it, not me.

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point is just that there are plenty of islamophobes out there who are living evidence of the fact it's perfectly possible to hate something about which you are profoundly ignorant. In fact, it's generally easier.

Not in this case apparently. These are Muslims making these claims about being entitled (being duty-bound in fact) to kill those who disrespect the prophet etc. if think that's acceptable, then fair enough.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, possibly, provided they're not going to be selective about it, characterising the religion only by reference to actions which are congruent with the view they want to reach. Have you some reason to think (or some authority to decree) that the actions and attitudes of the Muslims who don't engage in terrorist violence, or who deplore it, for example, are less authentic an expression of Islam than the actions and attitudes of Islamist terrorists?

Irrelevant, unless someone is claiming that all Muslims are violent. I haven't seen that claim made.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If someone is justified in looking at the actions of Islamist terrorists and ascribing characteristics to Islam in general from them, then someone else is justified in looking at, say, the Terror, and ascribe characteristics to rationalism and republicanism from that.

That's an interesting point, however, and is the only reason I bothered replying to all the rest above first.

I'd make an important distinction in that political ideologies make no claim to "be" a uniform whole, but are developed as our thinking develops. So the fact that the U.S. constitution claimed to be universal while excluding blacks doesn't invalidate what it has now come to mean in modern thinking.

Whereas the problem with organized religion is that they generally claim to be immutable. That's the point of them. So if a group can point to justifications within their religion for their actions, that's an issue for the whole religion. And apparently Muslim extremists can, and do, do that.

silverharp · 08-05-2015 6:53pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, possibly, provided they're not going to be selective about it, characterising the religion only by reference to actions which are congruent with the view they want to reach. Have you some reason to think (or some authority to decree) that the actions and attitudes of the Muslims who don't engage in terrorist violence, or who deplore it, for example, are less authentic an expression of Islam than the actions and attitudes of Islamist terrorists?

people arent robots , they are moral beings in their own right and use reason which explains why you dont have one and a half billion terrorists. As religions go though Islam doesnt stand up well. The Qur'an is violent and the later violent versus are supposed to take precedence over the earlier less violent parts. Mohammed would be judged today as a war criminal and child abuser which is a bit different from the pacifist virgin Jesus. And who in their right mind would want to submit to Sharia?

If I had my own definition of Islamophobe, its a term used by a certain type of individual to shut down debate and who in their preceding breath has said something to the effect that all religions are same, something something Crusades something something Inquisitions.

Gbear · 08-05-2015 7:04pm

Technically Islamophobia would be having an irrational fear of Islam - this does exist. For example, it's used to stir up fear and anti-immigration sentiments towards people who are, when you get down to it, almost certainly not terrorists. They're not even usually all that evangelical.

In places like Britain, the bulk of Muslims are already or are becoming Westernised. Most can see the writing on the wall that the ****ty countries they left or their ancestors came from aren't worth emulating and Western enlightenment ideals are why Western countries are relatively pleasant places to live. Abandoning those ideals will create a self-fulfilling prophecy where immigrants and those of immigrant ancestry will be driven away from society and into insular, backwards communities.

Tapping into that fear is just an applied version of racism really.

But, of course, it's thrown around by lefties and Islamic apologists inappropriately all the time as well, when they conflate criticism of a culture or a religion with blanket statements about the people that hold such beliefs and values.

Gordon · 08-05-2015 7:40pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In Mod we trust.

Goderators

Our author who aren't in heaven,
allow access be thy game.
Thy modding comes.
Thy post be done
on boards as it is in prison.
Give us this day our daily thread,
and forgive us our ellipsises.
as we forgive those who ellipsis against us,
and lead us not into quotation,
but deliver us from illegal.
For thine is the mod-dom,
and the powertrip, and the story,
for ever and ever.
Acumen.

Nodin · 09-05-2015 10:24am

silverharp wrote: »

..................

Generally its the reverse. Hysterical exaggeration combined with half truths and ignorance.

Peregrinus · 11-05-2015 6:27am

I don’t think anyone on this board would quarrel if I said that homophobia was rooted in ignorance, and thrived on it. Or if I said that about antisemitism.

So when somebody posted a claim - OK, a joke, but still intended to make a point - that islamophobia is the condition of knowing more about Islam than you are supposed to, I felt it was reasonable to post a one-liner suggesting that it was more probably the result of knowing less about Islam, not knowing more. Why, of all the bigots that we characterise with the -phobe suffix, should Islamophobes along get away with a claim that they are enlightened, rather than ignorant?

And, so far, nobody has offered an account for this.

Volchitsa offers a reasonable case for hatred or fear of Islamism, the political ideology, but his leap from that to his feelings about the religion as a whole is not well-argued. The actions of, say, Stalin do not justify hate and fear of secularism, the actions of Mao do not justify hatred and fear of socialism, the events and actors of the Terror do not justify hatred and fear of rationalism or republicanism, but the actions of Islamists justify hatred and fear of Islam. Why? becase religion “claims to be immutable”.

This gives rise to a couple of points.

First, it;s not true. While some religions may claim to be immutable, it is not the case that all do. Conversely, there are secular ideologies which make similar claims to universal validity and immutability - rationalism, for example.

Secondly, even if it were true, I don’t see that that leads to the conclusion that Volchitsa argues. An ideology which claims to be immutable is no more threatening than one which makes no such claim. The threat, surely, stems from an ideology which fosters violence, hatred, etc? Is that not the salient characteristic? Should I be less concerned about Naziism, which makes no claim to immutability, than Buddhism, which does?

Thirdly, if doesp justify Islamophobia, mustn’t it equally justify anti-semitism? The two religions are strikingly similar in their fundamentals, worshipping the same god, offering the same cosmology, sharing many of their myths, venerating many of the same figures and, of course, making the same claim to immutability. So if people practice violence and justify it with an appeal to their religion - and we can find examples both in Islam and in Judaism - then on what basis are we going to say that antisemitism in the 1920s was deplorable but Islamophobia, playing out in a disturbingly similar way, in the 2010s is justified?

silverharp wrote: »

If I had my own definition of Islamophobe, its a term used by a certain type of individual to shut down debate and who in their preceding breath has said something to the effect that all religions are same, something something Crusades something something Inquisitions.

I’m slightly surprised to see that this remark gets a ‘thank’ from Volchitsa, since in the immediately preceding post he had, in fact, said precisely that all religions are the same. (“The problem with organized religion is that they generally claim to be immutable”.) He generalised his defence of Islamophobia to a defence of a similar distaste for any religion, and of whose practitioners cite it to justify violence.

Silverharp takes a different tack, arguing - I think correctly - that not everyone accused of being as Islamophobe in fact is. And, yes, a fairly common technique to silence critics is to accuse them of bigotry. Accusations of antisemitism are often used to try and circumvent criticisms of Israel, for example, or accusations of anti-Americanism when the US is criticised. But when somebody really does hate and fear Islam (and is not, e.g., simply attaching Al Quaea, or Islamic State, or the policies of the Saudi government) that response is not quite so meaningful.

volchitsa · 11-05-2015 6:59am

You're surprised that a comment got a "thanks" from me because you think it contradicts what I said. One of two conclusions are logical then : either I'm an idiot, or you misunderstood much of what I'm saying.

I humbly suggest it's the latter.

Peregrinus · 11-05-2015 7:11am

volchitsa wrote: »

You're surprised that a comment got a "thanks" from me because you think it contradicts what I said. One of two conclusions are logical then : either I'm an idiot, or you misunderstood much of what I'm saying.

I humbly suggest it's the latter.

It's certainly not the former; I do not think you are an idiot. Humility compels me to concede that it could well be the latter. But we should not fall into the trap of the false dichotomy; it doesn't have to be either of these things.

It's not that I think that Silverharp's post contradicts what you said. It's more that its stricture against the "all religions are the same" line seem to me to apply to your defence of your position, which does indeed take an "all religions are the same" line.

jank · 11-05-2015 7:38am

The term seems to be open ended and can be interpreted differently, for a wide variety of reasons.

Ex Labour leader Ed Miliband was promising to criminalise Islamaphobia, without clarifying what exactly that was. All fine to have lofty ideals to protect people (which usually does more harm then good) but the devil is in the details and many commentators attacked the plan which would have basically amounted to criminalising people who criticised Islam.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/free-speech-campaigners-concerned-by-ed-milibands-vow-to-ban-islamophobia--without-defining-what-he-means

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There already exists a distinct offence of religiously aggravated hate crime that carries a maximum 7 year tariff. We all want to prevent bigoted attacks on people, but given how tough the law is already – this sounds like Ed Miliband may want to revisit the 2006 legislation on 'insulting religion'. If so he'll be challenged every step of the way.
"'Islamophobia' is a highly contentious and nebulous term, and at the very least, Mr Milliband needs to define what he is intending to outlaw."
NSS honorary associate Maajid Nawaz, who is a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, said "no idea is above scrutiny" and described the vague proposal as "illiberal."
Professor Richard Dawkins, also an honorary associate of the NSS, has been drumming up opposition to Mr Miliband's comments on social media and called on him to explain his plans. He asked if the proposed law would prosecute Charlie Hebdo and said that if it wouldn't "it would be useful" to have a clarification of the Labour leader's comments "to explain why not."
Dealing with the confusion around the term 'Islamophobia', Professor Dawkins said he thought Ed Miliband was against violent attacks against people and anti-Muslim bigotry, for which there were already applicable laws, but asked, "why privilege religion?"

The British public at large given their exercised democratic mandate made it clear what their thoughts were of Ed Miliband's proposal.

Pherekydes · 11-05-2015 7:54am

jank wrote: »

The British public at large given their exercised democratic mandate made it clear what their thoughts were of Ed Miliband's proposal.

And there was I thinking it was just about the economy, stupid. Me.

volchitsa · 11-05-2015 7:55am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's certainly not the former; I do not think you are an idiot. Humility compels me to concede that it could well be the latter. But we should not fall into the trap of the false dichotomy; it doesn't have to be either of these things.

It's not that I think that Silverharp's post contradicts what you said. It's more that its stricture against the "all religions are the same" line seem to me to apply to your defence of your position, which does indeed take an "all religions are the same" line.

"All religions have certain aspects in common which makes analogies with all political ideologies unreliable" is not at all the same as "all regions are the same".

You do understand the nuance, I hope?

(It's kind of funny that someone who drew such a grossly over simplistic, black and white interpretation of what I said is now telling me not to fall into a trap of oversimplifying!

Especially as the dichotomy in your case was either "you interpreted my post correctly" or "you misrepresented important aspects of what I actually said" - what middle ground do you suggest exists there? :rolleyes: )

keane2097 · 11-05-2015 8:09am

I think it's very clear that Volchista said nothing approaching "all religions are the same", a bad case of poor comprehension to suggest it at best.

silverharp · 11-05-2015 8:36am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thirdly, if doesp justify Islamophobia, mustn’t it equally justify anti-semitism? The two religions are strikingly similar in their fundamentals, worshipping the same god, offering the same cosmology, sharing many of their myths, venerating many of the same figures and, of course, making the same claim to immutability. So if people practice violence and justify it with an appeal to their religion - and we can find examples both in Islam and in Judaism - then on what basis are we going to say that antisemitism in the 1920s was deplorable but Islamophobia, playing out in a disturbingly similar way, in the 2010s is justified?

I see some important differences here. When looking at antisemitism or homophobia for instance there is nothing these people under scrutiny can do to escape criticism, which says more about the "logic" of the critics. If 99% of Jews in Europe had confirmed they were atheist , they would still have been sent to concentration camps. Gay people cant really do anything to stop being hated or beaten up by homophobes which again put the eye back on the logic of haters. So I would need to see these qualities in Islamic critics before I would start to use the term Islamophobia.

volchitsa · 11-05-2015 8:52am

silverharp wrote: »

I see some important differences here. When looking at antisemitism or homophobia for instance there is nothing these people under scrutiny can do to escape criticism, which says more about the "logic" of the critics. If 99% of Jews in Europe had confirmed they were atheist , they would still have been sent to concentration camps. Gay people cant really do anything to stop being hated or beaten up by homophobes which again put the eye back on the logic of haters. So I would need to see these qualities in Islamic critics before I would start to use the term Islamophobia.

Yes exactly. I don't care what people believe, whether that is flying horses taking Muhammed up to heaven or Spaghetti Monsters, my problem is what people do in the name of their ideology.

So if people want to refuse the Jews access to the Western Wall because that is where Mohammed tethered his flying horse (buraq), then I have a problem with that.

The problem is also that non violent Muslims, of whom there are of course plenty, are nevertheless surprisingly numerous to condone violent action against those who "disrespect" Islam (various polls). So there does seem to be a tendency to use of violence in the name of their faith which other religions may well have shown in the past but no longer accept.

jackofalltrades · 11-05-2015 11:14am

The vast, vast majority of times I've seen this phrase used is as a lazy retort to valid criticism of Islam.
It's rare that I see it used to describe someone's irrational fear or hatred of Islam.

TBH I'm amazed the word Christianophobia hasn't taken off.

Gbear · 11-05-2015 7:27pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of times I've seen this phrase used is as a lazy retort to valid criticism of Islam.
It's rare that I see it used to describe someone's irrational fear or hatred of Islam.

TBH I'm amazed the word Christianophobia hasn't taken off.

I think it's a thing in the US, where they've weasled Christianity into government despite it being expressly forbidden and then whine about being persecuted when someone calls them on their bull****.

Basically, this cartoon:

That "let's have a little bit of respect" is what passes for Christianophobia to the Christians with a persecution complex.

I'm sure our buddies in the Iona Institute and John Waters have waffled about it or something similar.

jank · 12-05-2015 1:28am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of times I've seen this phrase used is as a lazy retort to valid criticism of Islam.
It's rare that I see it used to describe someone's irrational fear or hatred of Islam.

TBH I'm amazed the word Christianophobia hasn't taken off.

The difference of course is the in the West we have an old Christian tradition where by the majority are or at least did subscribe to this religious philosophy. Islam by contrast is seen as a religion practised by a minority in the west, most of them non-white. Therefore we have a knee jerk reaction by some that because they are a) non-white b) a minority, they need to be protected at all costs from criticism no matter how valid. Proof of this is the reaction by some of the usual suspects to Charlie Hedbo terror attacks, who saw it as a Islamphobic racist publication even though it satired both Jews and Christians just as much as Islam. We saw the blame for the murder of 11 journalists landed not at the feet of extreme Islam but at the West itself.

Putting our cards on the table, who gets the raw deal? Muslims in the West or Christians in the Muslim world. Without question its the latter. We in the west are not taking Muslims and beheading them en mass and we have provisions that guarantee freedom of religion or non belief. Much of the Muslim world fails in this regard, yet the term Islamaphobia is branded about and is part of our everyday vernacular. By contrast do we every talk about christianphobia in the Muslim world?

MakeEmLaugh · 12-05-2015 1:30am

"Islamphobia" is a silly neologism that should not be used by those engaging in serious discourse.

The correct term would be "anti-Muslim prejudice" or "anti-Muslim bigotry".

Peregrinus · 12-05-2015 2:14am

silverharp wrote: »

I see some important differences here. When looking at antisemitism or homophobia for instance there is nothing these people under scrutiny can do to escape criticism, which says more about the "logic" of the critics. If 99% of Jews in Europe had confirmed they were atheist , they would still have been sent to concentration camps. Gay people cant really do anything to stop being hated or beaten up by homophobes which again put the eye back on the logic of haters. So I would need to see these qualities in Islamic critics before I would start to use the term Islamophobia.

So if you hate on people for a characteristic which they can change, that's not bigotry?

Right, got it.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 7:48am

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if you hate on people for a characteristic which they can change, that's not bigotry?

Right, got it.

not a very well thought out response. if you happened to be around in the first half of the 20th century would you "hate on" the belief of actual Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's? would you wish that they had changed their beliefs? would you call me a bigot if I criticised Nazi's in public.?

Peregrinus · 12-05-2015 8:10am

silverharp wrote: »

not a very well thought out response. if you happened to be around in the first half of the 20th century would you "hate on" the belief of actual Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's? would you wish that they had changed their beliefs? would you call me a bigot if I criticised Nazi's in public.?

No, I wouldn't call you a bigot.

But your claim is a bit bigger than that. You are saying that hatred of people for a characteristic which they cannot change is bigotry, whereas Islam is a something that people can leave. The unstated premise in your argument is that hating people for a characteristic which they can change is not bigotry. My point is that hating people for a characteristic which they could change may well be bigotry - not that it necessarily is, but that it can be. And, therefore, you can't justify Islamophobia just by saying "Muslims can change".

keane2097 · 12-05-2015 8:44am

You don't actually have control over whether you believe in Allah or not anyway. It's possible for that to change, but you don't control whether it does.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 8:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I wouldn't call you a bigot.

But your claim is a bit bigger than that. You are saying that hatred of people for a characteristic which they cannot change is bigotry, whereas Islam is a something that people can leave. The unstated premise in your argument is that hating people for a characteristic which they can change is not bigotry. My point is that hating people for a characteristic which they could change may well be bigotry - not that it necessarily is, but that it can be. And, therefore, you can't justify Islamophobia just by saying "Muslims can change".

leaving is not the only option , in such a situation there is also reforming a set of believes or warehousing part of the belief system as other religions have done. I can think of plenty of examples where the criticism is bigoted Catholics and Protestants in Ireland would be an example where its possible. So then we are just left with the quality of the arguments. Essentially does believing in X lead to negative outcomes that we can measure against values we deem important, free speech , attitudes to women , attitudes to minority groups like gay people.

robindch · 12-05-2015 10:57am

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

"Islamphobia" is a silly neologism that should not be used by those engaging in serious discourse. The correct term would be "anti-Muslim prejudice" or "anti-Muslim bigotry".

There are two things going on here, and the term "islamophobia", and its analog "christianophobia", exist to conflate the distinction between them.

Firstly, there's hatred or fear of islam, the idea - that's strictly what "islamophobia" means. And secondly, there's hatred of people who hold islamic ideas - perhaps "muslimophobia" might be a better term for that.

In any case, when you listen to people discussing islamophobia, it's usually clear enough that they either blur the distinction, either deliberately or by mistake. But the end-result is the same - to reduce criticism of islam (which is fine) by confusing it with criticism of people (which isn't, and which people like to avoid).

Peregrinus · 12-05-2015 12:40pm

Thin ice, Robin! If you tried to justify homophobia by saying that it's the hatred of homosexuality as a form of attraction, but not of homosexual people, you'd get short shrift on this board. And rightly so. Or if you mounted a similar justification of antisemitism. The fact is that if you attack any aspect of a community's culture or identiy - whether it be sexuality, beliefs, ethnicity, gender or anything else - that community is going to suffer from the attack, and if they are a vulnerable or minority community they are quite likely to experience this as persecution. A moment's thought will show that hating on Islam is going to affect Muslims in much the same way that hating on homosexuality is going to affect gay people.

That doesn't mean that nobody can be criticised for anything, though. I think the distinction we need to make here is not between Islamophobia and Muslimphobia; it's between Islamophobia and critique of Islam.

Back in post #13, Gbear points out that Islamophobia involves an irrational fear/hatred of Islam. And I think that's the key to it. If I reject islamic beliefs about the charging of interest, say, or polygamy, and object to their influencing public policy, that doesn't make me an islamophobe. But if I allow my generally negative attitude to Islam as a whole to be shaped by only part of the available evidence, that's irrational, because I'm excluding or disregarding the evidence that doesn't support the a priori conclusion hat I want to reach. I asked back in post #9 why why terrorism, as practised in the name of Islam by some Muslims, should be taken to characterise Islam while rejection of terrorism, as practised in the name of Islam by rather more Muslims, should be taken not to do so. The only response I've had so far is silverharp's in post #12, saying that "they are moral beings in their own right and use reason which explains why you dont have one and a half billion terrorists". With respect, he's simply assuming without evidence that rejection of terrorism, even when explicitly ascribed to Islam, is in fact not attributable to Islam but to some other cause, whereas when terrorism is ascribed to Islam it is genuinely attributable to Islam, and not to any other cause. Simply assuming these things without argument or evidence because they support the desired conclusion is, 'm afraid, irrational.

robindch · 12-05-2015 12:57pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you tried to justify homophobia by saying that it's the hatred of homosexuality as a form of attraction, but not of homosexual people, you'd get short shrift on this board.

Good point, and that's why I usually avoid the term "homophobic" as well.

The term "heterophobe" suits a little better - fear of "The Other", whether it's alternate ideas of what should be tolerated, or alternate sexualities or indeed, alternate just about anything you like. Only "heterophobe" would probably be misunderstood as somebody who fears heterosexuals.

In any case, "phobe" is the ending for "fearful of", rather than "hatred of" for which I can't think of any ending. Perhaps using the Ancient Greek word "μισειν" for "to hate", one could suggest the use of:

Islamophobe - fear of islam
Islamomist - hatred of islam
Muslimophobe - fear of muslims
Muslimomist - hatred of muslims

However they'll never take off as they're not going to be used by the people who should be using them.

Peregrinus · 12-05-2015 1:39pm

Don't get hung up on the etymology. The -phobia suffix comes from Greek, but just as the subtle Greeks had several quite different words with distinct and non-overlapping meanings which are all translated into English as "love", so they distinguished between several different kinds of fear. Phobos was the kind of fear that we would call horror or aversion as distinct from, say, the fear of harm or the fear of loss. (Phobos, in fact, was the god of horror, so perhaps a really hardcore atheist would avoid -phobe words on that ground alone.)

The -phobia suffix has several uses in English - in psychology/psychiatry (where it usually refers to anxiety - e.g. agoraphobia), biology (heliophobic, the term for organisms which are harmed by sunlight), in physical medicine (hydrophobia, an aversion to swallowing water) and of course in the social sciences, where it can refer to prejudice, hatred or fear of something - usually a group of people.

It has to be an unreasoned or irrational fear. If you're a Jew -or even if you're not a Jew, come to think of it, fear of or hatred for Nazis is not a phobia. (Though it may become a phobia in the sense of anxiety disorder if your fears constrain you in irrational ways, e.g. refusing to go out of the house in case you meet Nazis.) Fear or hatred of terrorism is not a phobia (subject to the same caveat). But if you transfer your fear or hatred of terrorism to Islam as a whole, then it starts to look a bit phobic. Not in the psychological anxiety disorder sense, but in the prejudice sense.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 1:55pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thin ice, Robin! If you tried to justify homophobia by saying that it's the hatred of homosexuality as a form of attraction, but not of homosexual people, you'd get short shrift on this board. And rightly so. Or if you mounted a similar justification of antisemitism. The fact is that if you attack any aspect of a community's culture or identiy - whether it be sexuality, beliefs, ethnicity, gender or anything else - that community is going to suffer from the attack, and if they are a vulnerable or minority community they are quite likely to experience this as persecution. A moment's thought will show that hating on Islam is going to affect Muslims in much the same way that hating on homosexuality is going to affect gay people.

That doesn't mean that nobody can be criticised for anything, though. I think the distinction we need to make here is not between Islamophobia and Muslimphobia; it's between Islamophobia and critique of Islam.

Back in post #13, Gbear points out that Islamophobia involves an irrational fear/hatred of Islam. And I think that's the key to it. If I reject islamic beliefs about the charging of interest, say, or polygamy, and object to their influencing public policy, that doesn't make me an islamophobe. But if I allow my generally negative attitude to Islam as a whole to be shaped by only part of the available evidence, that's irrational, because I'm excluding or disregarding the evidence that doesn't support the a priori conclusion hat I want to reach. I asked back in post #9 why why terrorism, as practised in the name of Islam by some Muslims, should be taken to characterise Islam while rejection of terrorism, as practised in the name of Islam by rather more Muslims, should be taken not to do so. The only response I've had so far is silverharp's in post #12, saying that "they are moral beings in their own right and use reason which explains why you dont have one and a half billion terrorists". With respect, he's simply assuming without evidence that rejection of terrorism, even when explicitly ascribed to Islam, is in fact not attributable to Islam but to some other cause, whereas when terrorism is ascribed to Islam it is genuinely attributable to Islam, and not to any other cause. Simply assuming these things without argument or evidence because they support the desired conclusion is, 'm afraid, irrational.

A homosexual person doesnt have homosexual beliefs as such so after a certain point it starts to make sense to describe any unearned criticism as conditioned or religious zealotry and says more about the people making the claim.

As regards terrorism if you compare the IRA to any of the Muslim terrorists groups there is a difference. One couldnt say that the IRA were using Christianity as a moral guide or reason for their terrorism. To be an IRA terrorist would put the member at odds with the religion they were born into. A Muslim terrorist can quote you chapter and verse as to why they are acting "correctly".

Then if you widen it out the average critic of Islam will rag on Sharia law because it is objectively barbaric and inferior to western ethics and legal standards, so it deserves to be criticised in the public sphere

As an aside only as I saw this today , here is a Muslim preacher discussing violence. This simply wouldnt happen in a church or a Buuddhist temple

"In an Al-Aqsa Mosque address, posted on the Internet on May 1, Sheik 'Issam Amira said that polytheist enemies should be given three options: "They must convert to Islam, or pay the jizya poll tax, or else, you should seek the help of Allah and fight them." "You should fight them even if they do not fight you," Amira stressed."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR2W-ae5cu0

Michael OBrien · 12-05-2015 2:11pm

silverharp wrote: »

"In an Al-Aqsa Mosque address, posted on the Internet on May 1, Sheik 'Issam Amira said that polytheist enemies should be given three options: "They must convert to Islam, or pay the jizya poll tax, or else, you should seek the help of Allah and fight them." "You should fight them even if they do not fight you," Amira stressed."

Why is this surprising? That is exactly what Muhammed professed and what is in the quran. In fact it is actually more tolerant to polytheists than some Muslims have been, where they usually leave out the jizya protection racket tax option so its 1. convert or 2. die.
It is also worth nothing that the quran states that the tax is to humiliate the payer and there is plenty in it and the hadiths about how inferior the payer is and how little the payer's rights are.
Also the value of a polytheist is about an eight of a muslim. If you happen to be a polytheist woman, well lets say that your value is even lower.

Peregrinus · 12-05-2015 2:16pm

silverharp wrote: »

A homosexual person doesnt have homosexual beliefs as such so after a certain point it starts to make sense to describe any unearned criticism as conditioned or religious zealotry and says more about the people making the claim.

OK. You do realise that there is no logical connection at all between your stated premise and your conclusion in this sentence? If you were setting out to persuade me that your feelings about Islam were not rationally arrived at you could hardly do a better job.

silverharp wrote: »

As regards terrorism if you compare the IRA to any of the Muslim terrorists groups there is a difference. One couldnt say that the IRA were using Christianity as a moral guide or reason for their terrorism. To be an IRA terrorist would put the member at odds with the religion they were born into. A Muslim terrorist can quote you chapter and verse as to why they are acting "correctly".

And yet other Muslims will tell you that their terrorist actions do indeed put them at odds with the religion they were born into. And - keep coming back to this point - you treat the views of the Muslim who insists that his religion condones terrorism as authorative, while dismissing the views of the Muslim who insists that his religion condemns terrorism. And despite several invitations to do so, you conspicuously fail to say why you take one of these to be authoritative, and the other to be inauthentic.

silverharp wrote: »

Then if you widen it out the average critic of Islam will rag on Sharia law because it is objectively barbaric and inferior to western ethics and legal standards, so it deserves to be criticised in the public sphere

You sound like Jacqui Lambie, silverharp. (A provincial reference. Google her.) I'm not sure that you even know what sharia law is.

silverharp wrote: »

As an aside only as I saw this today , here is a Muslim preacher discussing violence. This simply wouldnt happen in a church or a Buuddhist temple

"In an Al-Aqsa Mosque address, posted on the Internet on May 1, Sheik 'Issam Amira said that polytheist enemies should be given three options: "They must convert to Islam, or pay the jizya poll tax, or else, you should seek the help of Allah and fight them." "You should fight them even if they do not fight you," Amira stressed."

So you can find an example of a Muslim condoning violence in the name of religion? (Or, at least, "fighting"; you may be wrong in thinking that "fighting" has to mean violence.) I get that. But if you're trying to persuade me that your attitude is rational, what you really have to do is explain how you reconcile the (abundant) evidence that doesn't support your conclusion. You'll start to impress me a little bit more when you post examples of Muslims denouncing violence, and offering me coherent reasons for taking this not to be an authentic expression of Islam. At the moment, all I see is you studiously ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit the conclusion you seem desparate want to reach.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 2:41pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK. You do realise that there is no logical connection at all between your stated premise and your conclusion in this sentence? If you were setting out to persuade me that your feelings about Islam were not rationally arrived at you could hardly do a better job.

And yet other Muslims will tell you that their terrorist actions do indeed put them at odds with the religion they were born into. And - keep coming back to this point - you treat the views of the Muslim who insists that his religion condones terrorism as authorative, while dismissing the views of the Muslim who insists that his religion condemns terrorism. And despite several invitations to do so, you conspicuously fail to say why you take one of these to be authoritative, and the other to be inauthentic.

You sound like Jacqui Lambie, silverharp. (A provincial reference. Google her.) I'm not sure that you even know what sharia law is.

So you can find an example of a Muslim condoning violence in the name of religion? (Or, at least, "fighting"; you may be wrong in thinking that "fighting" has to mean violence.) I get that. But if you're trying to persuade me that your attitude is rational, what you really have to do is explain how you reconcile the (abundant) evidence that doesn't support your conclusion. You'll start to impress me a little bit more when you post examples of Muslims denouncing violence, and offering me coherent reasons for taking this not to be an authentic expression of Islam. At the moment, all I see is you studiously ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit the conclusion you seem desparate want to reach.

I'm a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz. Does that count? As for the quip about not knowing Sharia law , I know enoughh to know that when its applied in democratic states it can be awfully cruel. Do you think its OK for apostates to be punished , arrested or killed? I believe at that point its fallen below a line where good and bad bits can't be balanced out.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 3:12pm

I googled yer wan. She said that they would rape their way through Australia until every woman wears a burqua. I havnt said anything remotely like that but smear away !

MakeEmLaugh · 12-05-2015 4:37pm

robindch wrote: »

There are two things going on here, and the term "islamophobia", and its analog "christianophobia", exist to conflate the distinction between them.

Firstly, there's hatred or fear of islam, the idea - that's strictly what "islamophobia" means. And secondly, there's hatred of people who hold islamic ideas - perhaps "muslimophobia" might be a better term for that.

In any case, when you listen to people discussing islamophobia, it's usually clear enough that they either blur the distinction, either deliberately or by mistake. But the end-result is the same - to reduce criticism of islam (which is fine) by confusing it with criticism of people (which isn't, and which people like to avoid).

A new word doesn't need to be invented for those who criticise Islam. It's called atheism.

Groups like the English Defence League are routinely called 'Islamophobic', when five minutes spent listening to one of their members would prove that they know little about Islam.

It's bearded/hijab-wearing brown people they have a problem with.

volchitsa · 12-05-2015 5:21pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

You sound like Jacqui Lambie, silverharp. (A provincial reference. Google her.) I'm not sure that you even know what sharia law is.

You'll start to impress me a little bit more when ...

Very patronizing of you, but I'm sure it's justified by the immense gulf between your knowledge and poor Silverharp's.

So do share your knowledge of Sharia law with us, Peregrinus.

For example, tell us something about the religious logic behind family law in most countries with Muslim majorities, not just Saudi Arabia or Iran but also most of North Africa, Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, several Muslim states or areas within non-Muslim-majority countries like Nigeria, Mali, Malaysia etc etc.

Tell us about Muslim personal law in India, and why child marriage is still allowed for Muslims (or rather, why only Muslim parents are allowed to marry their children off, which of course is a little different) when it's banned for other Indians.

Maybe you'll start to impress everyone else as much as you appear to impress yourself.

Nodin · 12-05-2015 7:15pm

silverharp wrote: »

As an aside only as I saw this today , here is a Muslim preacher discussing violence. This simply wouldnt happen in a church or a Buuddhist temple

...'in most churches or Buddhist temples' perhaps. I'd imagine it doesn't happen in most mosques either, given no muslim state on the planet enforces a jizya tax. Memri, however, can always be relied on to provide the best examples to enforce the worst stereotypes as regards muslims however.

silverharp · 12-05-2015 11:15pm

Nodin wrote: »

...'in most churches or Buddhist temples' perhaps. I'd imagine it doesn't happen in most mosques either, given no muslim state on the planet enforces a jizya tax. Memri, however, can always be relied on to provide the best examples to enforce the worst stereotypes as regards muslims however.

whats your view of the Islamic approach to Apostasy? not from Memri this time. English speaking and quite reasonable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj0P3HP0rS4

Peregrinus · 13-05-2015 4:03am

volchitsa wrote: »

Very patronizing of you, but I'm sure it's justified by the immense gulf between your knowledge and poor Silverharp's.

So do share your knowledge of Sharia law with us, Peregrinus.

You're missing the point. The soundness of silverharp's views on Islam doesn't depend on my knowledge of Islam; it depends on his. I could be profoundly ignorant of Islam; that doesn't mean that his views are rational, well-grounded, or balanced. And if, as still appears to me to be the case, he arbitrarily assumes that those who practice evil in the name of Islam are authentically expressing Islam while those who practice good in the name of Islam are not, then I'm afraid his views are not rational.

volchitsa · 13-05-2015 6:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. The soundness of silverharp's views on Islam doesn't depend on my knowledge of Islam; it depends on his. I could be profoundly ignorant of Islam; that doesn't mean that his views are rational, well-grounded, or balanced. And if, as still appears to me to be the case, he arbitrarily assumes that those who practice evil in the name of Islam are authentically expressing Islam while those who practice good in the name of Islam are not, then I'm afraid his views are not rational.

I'm missing the point? :rolleyes: You're pretty good at denigrating others' posts, aren't you? You should probably be a little more critical of your own, and of your reading of others first.

No, you alleged that Silverharp seemed not to know anything about Sharia, which implies that you do know enough about it to know to judge Silverharp's views.
I couldn't tell someone who's just posted about Japan that their knowledge of Japanese culture, say, is rubbish, if I know absolutely nothing about it myself.

Now, I'm really not interested in discussing Silverharp's posts - it's never a good idea to discuss what other people meant, IMO. What I want to know is the knowledge basis from which you expressed a judgment about his/her lack of knowledge of the subject.

I gave you a couple of ideas to start with - because they're something I've looked into a little, and do know something about. Or at least I know where to get information from people who do know about the subject of Sharia family law and the status of women in what are generally not considered to be Islamic countries.

So far, you've given no information that would lead us to think you have any detailed knowledge of how Sharia actually works, or where it's applied. Yet you're very quick to dismiss others.

So off you go. Tell us about how Sharia works for Muslim citizens in India or any other country which allows Sharia to be used for its Muslim minority. Whether or not the individuals want that. (And of course if you're born Musm, the law about apostasy applies, so you can't even renounce it safely.)

Or indeed, about why the secular government of Bangladesh is afraid to take steps to prevent Muslim extremists from picking off atheist bloggers one by one - because their explanation is that the government isn't prepared to punish these people who offend Islam, so someone else has to do it - and the population agrees with them. After all, it's in the Quran.

Peregrinus · 13-05-2015 7:04am

Vol, if silverharp had said that he opposed sharia laws about apostasy he'd be getting no argument from me. Or if he said that he opposed sharia laws about the status of women. But no, what he expresses is opposition to sharia law in its totality. And he does that by either ignoring or remaining ignorant of any principles of sharia law with which he might actually agree.

And this comes back - yet again - to that I am consistently making, and that other are consistently refusing to address. Characterising the totality of something - anything - by reference only to the parts of it which strike you as bad is irrational. If I'm not allowed to characterise the western legal tradition by reference only to Texas's record of judicial executions, how come silverharp gets to characterise the whole of Sharia law - indeed, the whole of Islam - by reference only to what sharia has to say about apostasy and the status of women?

I don't have to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of sharia and all its highways and byways, or about Islam, because I am not expressing any general view - either positive or negative - about Sharia, or about Islam, or encouraging others to accept any particular view. Silverharp is. And the thrust of your position seems to be that if I don't demonstrate a sound knowledge of Islam, I am not entitled to critically interrogate silverharp's negative generalisations. That's irrational. The soundness or validity of silverharp's judgments can't possibly depend on what I know.

silverharp · 13-05-2015 7:53am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Vol, if silverharp had said that he opposed sharia laws about apostasy he'd be getting no argument from me. Or if he said that he opposed sharia laws about the status of women. But no, what he expresses is opposition to sharia law in its totality. And he does that by either ignoring or remaining ignorant of any principles of sharia law with which he might actually agree.

And this comes back - yet again - to that I am consistently making, and that other are consistently refusing to address. Characterising the totality of something - anything - by reference only to the parts of it which strike you as bad is irrational. If I'm not allowed to characterise the western legal tradition by reference only to Texas's record of judicial executions, how come silverharp gets to characterise the whole of Sharia law - indeed, the whole of Islam - by reference only to what sharia has to say about apostasy and the status of women?

I don't have to demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of sharia and all its highways and byways, or about Islam, because I am not expressing any general view - either positive or negative - about Sharia, or about Islam, or encouraging others to accept any particular view. Silverharp is. And the thrust of your position seems to be that if I don't demonstrate a sound knowledge of Islam, I am not entitled to critically interrogate silverharp's negative generalisations. That's irrational. The soundness or validity of silverharp's judgments can't possibly depend on what I know.

My opinion on Sharia is based on looking how it is applied in various countries (see Malaysia below which is a democracy). I conclude that it falls too far below the standards I consider to be, modern, civilised or tolerable. A system that doesnt let people think and change their minds is barbaric. If an adherent doent believe this then fine , if the adherent has no problem with this then they are a horrible human being.
Do I believe its reformable , sure, every religion can be "de-fanged", when it is I will change my opinion.

What has Texas got to do with anything? this is a variant on "all religions are the same" and is a red herring. The worst thought crimes I can think of in Texas is trying to shneak in Creationism into the classroom, when is the last time somebody was killed with the back up of the legal system for wanting to leave a particular religion?

And back to comparing me to a politician in Australia who thinks Muslims will rape all the women there into a Burqa, I dont think anywhere on boards have I ever criticised Muslims in relation to Ireland for instance so again another example of someone using the term Isamophobia to close down debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...on_in_Malaysia

Quote:
Conversion from Islam[edit]
Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.[22]
In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

Quote:
Revathi Massosai[edit]
Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but her identity card designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her religion to be Hindu and has petitioned unsuccessfully to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. Massosai married a Hindu man, but her marriage is not recognised by the Malaysian government because of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an Islamic re-education camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in favour of the Hindu religion.[30] Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to meet her Hindu husband.

Quote:
Proselytizing[edit]
Proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is not technically prohibited by federal law, even though Muslims may proselytise. It is however prohibited in 10 of the 13 states (i.e. excepting Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) and can lead to lengthy jail sentences and many strokes of the rotan (whipping). Most Christian and a few other religious groups in Malaysia put a standard disclaimer on literature and advertisements stating "For non-Muslims only".[35]

here is a Pew survey on Muslim attitudes to having a death sentence for leaving the religion, note it would be higher it just said any penalties , some lashes perhaps? or a prison sentence?

Nodin · 13-05-2015 9:26am

silverharp wrote: »

whats your view of the Islamic approach to Apostasy? not from Memri this time. English speaking and quite reasonable

It's intolerant and nasty. The death sentence is rare in the extreme however.

What is "Islamaphobia"?

Comments