What is "Islamaphobia"?

keane2097

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

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

No. What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people they say have offended Islam : their justification is that since the penalty in the Quran is death, they say they are only carrying out Sharia law because the government refuses to do so.

Crucially, the Bangladeshi government, though secular, is in a real quandary as to what to do, because they don't want to criticize Islam, and basically the killers are correct.

So if that can happen a secular Muslim-majority state, and when significant numbers of Muslims express varying degrees of sympathy for the killers in France recently, it's misguided, IMO, to just dismiss the issue as you do.

People have died because they were apostates. Is there a particular number of deaths which you will consider as "not all that rare"? Or is the truth that you will cling, no matter what, to your belief that it's all those nasty non Muslims' fault really?

smacl

robindch wrote: »

The term "heterophobe" suits a little better - fear of "The Other"

I think the more commonly used term is xenophobia, and I think where Islamaphobia is irrational it is actually no more than a form of xenophobia. That isn't to say that there aren't very many valid criticisms of Islam, some of which have already been raised, that are quite rational. For example, where a theocracy punishes an individual for apostasy, it seems reasonable that the religion as practised in that regime is the cause of human rights violations and deserves to be vilified. While there is a clear association fallacy at play for vilifying all Muslims on that basis, I would equally expect all Muslim leaders to openly criticise barbaric acts carried out in the name of their religion to dissociate them and their followers from such actions. While many do, they appear to be in a minority, which leads me to remain very sceptical of the good intents of Islam as a whole.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

No. What you mean is that an official death sentence is rare. But look at what happens when extremists like those in Bangladesh start killing people they say have offended Islam : their justification is that since the penalty in the Quran is death, they say they are only carrying out Sharia law because the government refuses to do so.

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

I wasn't aware that the extremists were the norm.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the extremists were the norm.

I'm not aware that anyone here has said they are.

jank

This picture paints a thousands words. The Green is for countries that support a 2011 UN Human Rights Council resolution which supports LGBT rights.

The Red are for countries that support a 2008 statement that opposes LGBT rights.

Now, some apologists would pass this off just a few conservative countries banding together, but of course all these countries have major if not majority Islamic populations with many adhering to Sharia Law. Hell even Russia did not support that statement, you will have to have some pretty extreme views on LGBT rights if you are more extreme than Russia.

It urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."

But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."

"We note with concern the attempts to create 'new rights' or 'new standards,' by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership," it added.

This, it said, could "seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework."

Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/18/us-un-homosexuality-idUSTRE4BH7EW20081218

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not aware that anyone here has said they are.

That would be the impression your last post gave.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

This picture paints a thousands words. ..............

If you would be as good as to pick the most relevant few hundred and tell us what they are....

jank

Nodin wrote: »

If you would be as good as to pick the most relevant few hundred and tell us what they are....

Em, that countries with large Muslim populations are extremely anti-gay and enact the most anti-homosexual laws on this earth. Therefore, the view that "ah its just a few bad apples' does not hold sway.

Do you deny this or are you trying to muddy the waters with whatever point you are trying to make, there by acting as an apologist for nations that execute people for being Gay.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

That would be the impression your last post gave.

Only to you, I hope. And mistakenly, in any case.

So if you're quite finished trying to deflect from what you were asked back up there a bit, do you have anything to say about the fact that when some Muslim extremists use the Quran as justification for murdering atheist bloggers in Bangladesh, the secular Bangladeshi government doesn't dare condemn it too strongly because they are aware that in fact the extremists have the literal right of things, and that the population would not accept their government doing or saying anything that appeared to criticize Islam?

(If you're interested, which I suspect you're not, the BBC had an excellent report on the situation from their corespondent on radio 4 yesterday. I'll see if I can find a link, in case anyone else is though.)

EDIT : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32708975
This isn't the exact report, but contains some of the information about the problem the secular government faces if it tackles Islamists head on. It seems to have decided to compromise - among other things, by leaving the bloggers to their "fate".

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Em, that countries with large Muslim populations are extremely anti-gay and enact the most anti-homosexual laws on this earth. Therefore, the view that "ah its just a few bad apples' does not hold sway..

They are extremely conservative, yes. We do not demonise whole peoples on such grounds, however.

jank wrote: »

Do you deny this or are you trying to muddy the waters with whatever point you are trying to make, there by acting as an apologist for nations that execute people for being Gay.

is that some form of parody?