American Muslims fear a new wave of Islamophobia

The following quotes from this link are what I am describing:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Islamophobia

Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims. It is usually, though not always, connected with xenophobia in general. The term is also sometimes used as a snarl word to dismiss valid criticisms of Islamic doctrines and ideology.

Islamophobia is a controversial term for a number of reasons. Despite the implication of the term, those accused of Islamophobia are not actually afraid of Islam, but instead are highly critical of it. Despite the fact that it may not be an actual phobia, it is akin to the concept of homophobia.

Kenan Malik, a UK writer, has criticized the concept of Islamophobia, calling it a myth. He argues that the charge of Islamophobia is leveled against those who criticize Islam or Muslims in any way (even when those criticisms may be legitimate) to serve as a "chilling effect."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comic-actor has likewise stated that although criticizing another person based on their race is ridiculous and irrational, criticizing another's religion, which is a voluntary belief, is a right. He further stated that laws should not be created which protect certain types of ideas from criticism and not others.

Many well known atheists, including Sam Harris[20] and Bill Maher[21], have endorsed Andrew Cummins' description of Islamophobia as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”[22]

Charb, one of the cartoonists murdered in the Charlie Hebdo attacks, attacked the concept of Islamophobia in a posthumously published article. According to Charb, most right-wing islamophobes are actually just racists. By calling their racism Islamophobia these people get an intellectual veneer they don't deserve. "If one day all Muslims in France converted to Catholicism ... these foreigners or French of foreign origin would still be seen as responsible for all ills."[23]

From the same link, there are obviously many examples of actual Islamaphobia. One such action is 'snatching a Muslim woman's veil off in the street'. Now I cant speak for the US, but in the UK this is almost a non issue, and I live in one of the cities with England's highest Muslim population. However the common application of 'Islamaphobia' is simply used as a childish rebuttal to attempt to silence any legitimate criticism of Islam. Also, there are many countries in the west who have already banned, or are looking to ban face coverings in public. Many have attacked this as being Islamaphobic, yet it applies to all and any person and any type of face covering, not just the veil. Also the full covering face veil is not a religious requirement in Islam, but even pre dates Islam as a cultural trend from the middle east. Some Muslims simply take the Islamic teaching that 'women must dress modestly' to mean that a woman must cover up every milimeter of her skin with clothing, which of course is not a widely held actual belief as most Muslim women in the west do not adhere to it.

Another example of what is attacked as being Islamaphobic is the advocacy of the 'One law for all' campaign, which seeks to ban religious courts and laws from secular countries, as many of their court cases have been demonstrated to be misogynistic and oppressive towards muslim women. Yet to try and push for all citizens regardless of their race, religion or gender to be treated equally and by the same law is automatically branded 'Islamaphobic'.

So while the term Islamaphobia may exist, its use by many people including yourself is clearly an example of leftist - fascism, used as a method to try and smear any and all criticism of Islam as being hate speech, no matter how big, small or relevant the criticism may be.
 
My 2 cents.

IMO there's a difference between Islam and Muslims.

I don't like Islam, it's too violent.

Have lived in Muslim countries/areas and enjoyed the people.

As for Muslims, as long as they aren't violent and/or encouraging violence no problem. I judge them individually.

In other words 'Hate the sin, love the sinner.' I know that's not a popular saying here, but it fits the situation.
 
Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam or Muslims. It is usually, though not always, connected with xenophobia in general. The term is also sometimes used as a snarl word to dismiss valid criticisms of Islamic doctrines and ideology.
Only that is obviously not what is actually occurring here. Your very own statements in this thread make it quite clear you think the religion of Islam is to blame, even though the very same sort of statements can be found in the OT. That massive evidence to the contrary clearly exists from even many predominately Muslim countries where homosexuals are really treated not that much differently than they are in the US and the UK.

Islamophobia is a controversial term for a number of reasons.
There isn't anything "controversial" about it other than to those who continue to promote and make statements found on Muslim hate sites.

You just denied it even existed, as you have numerous times already!
 
In other words 'Hate the sin, love the sinner.' I know that's not a popular saying here, but it fits the situation.

It's not perfectly coherent, but I think it should resonate at least a bit.

One can dislike the culture, but still wish the best for any individual member (and thus the aggregate). The Koran is a pretty poisonous book. At least up there with Ayn Rand. And the cultures they produce tend to be pretty ugly.
 
This has already been posted once already. But since it seems to be recurring, along with how the Koran is supposedly a "pretty poisonous book" while not even mentioning the OT....

Again, bad words appear in this article. Beware if that offends your sensibilities or you are reading it at work.

The Homophobia of "Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin"

The quoted paragraph is all about conditional love, namely "I love you but I'll keep right on judging you". How that is sustained love escapes me. As Micah Murray states "It's a special sort of condescending love we've reserved for the gay community". It ignores the fact that being gay isn't an action, it's a state of being. While some denominations, for example Catholicism, makes a distinction between homosexual desires and homosexual acts (the former is not a sin, the latter is), it's uncertain if the Christian right makes that distinction and if so on a consistent basis. It matters not because in either case, it calls upon the person to deny their biology. Seeking love and happiness is the birthright of every human being. Last time I checked, we as a country embodied that sentiment in one of our founding documents.
 
The expression has been around a lot longer than its misuse on that front Form. We already know that homophobes hid behind it.
 
Yet the meaning hasn't changed at all.

It is indeed a special condescending form of love that robs homosexuals of their inherent rights as human beings. This is quite different from other "sins" which non-homosexuals engage in all the time and are ostensibly completely forgiven. Yet, unlike homosexuals, they still have these basic human rights. If you ever tried to deprive them of those rights on the basis that they "sin", they would scream religious persecution and rightly so.

How is that really any different than using it to hate the religion of Islam as a "sin", but to not hate some of the practitioners because they are just harmless "sinners"? It is still depriving them of practicing what is to them their entirely peaceful religion without any religious discrimination or persecution.

If you want to start labeling specific religious as being "poisonous" it seems to me that you need to do that consistently. All Abrahamic religions share these "poisonous" aspects, at least to some degree. Islam may be a bit worse and some of its practitioners are still stuck in the distant past. But the same is true with all of them to some extent. They still burn and stone "witches" to death in predominately Christian parts of southern Africa.
 
It isn't bigotry to smear an entire religion if the religion clearly has a doctrine and vast evidence of executing or imprisoning homosexuals to be homophobic.

It is clear hypocrisy for any homosexual or a person who claims to support homosexuals to also be supportive of such a religion which still today carries out such practice in most of its countries.

Disliking Islam for its vast and plentiful crimes against humanity is clearly justifiable, and also does not fall under your dictionary quote of 'Islamaphobia'. Yet this, and many other similar petty reasons why people dislike Islam is enough for you to brand them 'Islamaphibic'.

So in a similar vein, does 'Christianphobia' exist? How about 'Budhistphobia, or Jainistphobia'?

To define a dislike of any religious belief as a phobia, while you may quote a dictionary definition of such is still nothing but pure ignorance, or extremist political correctness, which you very clearly have a blatant bias towards.

Isn't it Christian doctrine to kill homosexuals too?
 
I think the key bit about that, Leonel, is that they've stopped. Except in Uganda or something.
 
I think the key bit about that, Leonel, is that they've stopped. Except in Uganda or something.
Which is why it is hypocrisy for Christians to condemn Muslims for homophobia. Christians have their own house to clean before they go around condemning others... Extract first the rafter from thine eye... and so forth... or something along those lines.
 
Which is why it is hypocrisy for Christians to condemn Muslims for homophobia. Christians have their own house to clean before they go around condemning others... Extract first the rafter from thine eye... and so forth... or something along those lines.

Christians have to get rid of homophobia in some totally backwards country in Africa before they can criticize the homophobia displayed openly by Muslims around the globe?
 
I think the key bit about that, Leonel, is that they've stopped. Except in Uganda or something.
Again, there have been thousands of "witches" stoned or burned to death in recent years in predominately Christian Southern Africa, just like it commands in the Bible.

The only real difference is that there are more Muslims living in backward parts of the world than Christians now.

Christians have to get rid of homophobia in some totally backwards country in Africa before they can criticize the homophobia displayed openly by Muslims around the globe?
Homophobia is still rampant in the US. They just can't get away with killing them anymore most of the time, as they can in a few backward countries that are predominately Muslim.

Turkey actually had vastly more progressive laws regarding homosexuality than the US did until quite recently, when the US eventually caught up thanks to the courts.
 
Isn't it Christian doctrine to kill homosexuals too?
Let's, where in the New Testament does it say to kill Gays?

Remember you said Christian Doctrine and I know of none.

In fact Christ's 'Any without sin, throw the first stone.' would fit here and don't forget he continued with 'and go and sin no more.'
 
Let's, where in the New Testament does it say to kill Gays?

Remember you said Christian Doctrine and I know of known.

In fact Christ's 'Any without sin, throw the first stone.' would fit here and don't forget he continued with 'and go and sin no more.'

The mistake people often make when comparing Islam with Christianity, is that they don't realize that the doctrines of the religions only matter to the extent that they are adhered to by their followers. If Christians are not killing gays on a regular basis (which they aren't), it wouldn't matter if their doctrines told them to do so.

That problematic attitudes towards gay people in the West are found predominantly among Christians is another matter, and it undoubtedly has its basis in scripture. But when it comes to Christians, we are talking about whether gays can marry or not, or whether they can adopt kids. This is not even on the same spectrum as Muslims who kill gay people constantly and criminalize their sexual orientation systematically. Just comparing is not only an insult to gay people, but really to any rationally thinking person.
 
The mistake people often make when comparing Islam with Christianity, is that they don't realize that the doctrines of the religions only matter to the extent that they are adhered to by their followers. If Christians are not killing gays on a regular basis (which they aren't), it wouldn't matter if their doctrines told them to do so.
What great and unintended irony! Only a tiny handful of Muslims still actually kill homosexuals, just like Christians do in some of the more backward countries. Yet you use this as an absurd pretext to condemn the entire religion while trying to give a free pass to another religion on the very same basis!
 
Christians have to get rid of homophobia in some totally backwards country in Africa before they can criticize the homophobia displayed openly by Muslims around the globe?
Yes. Exactly. You put that very well. That is exactly what I am saying... And this is the larger point I keep making... Whether you try to excuse the reprehensible practice, doctrine, ideology, tradition, law, etc, as only occuring in "some backwards", "country in Africa" or "podunk southern US state" or "hayseed rural county/town" or "group of misguided radicals" or "handful of perverse deviants" or "bigoted individual" ... the fact remains that it was still done in the name of your institution, according to (an arguably) reasonable interpretation of your practices, doctrines etc.

But you want to sweep that under the rug because cleaning your own house isnt any fun. You want to get about the business of looking down your nose at others instead of fixing your own institution. Prioritize taking responsibility for the heinous practices being carried out in the name of your own religion instead of condemning and criticizing the religions of others. How many posts have you made criticizing Islam, versus... How many have you made condemning homophobia by US Christians? African Christians? Pedophila by Christian priests?

The rafter, before the straw as some dude said.
 
Let's, where in the New Testament does it say to kill Gays?

Remember you said Christian Doctrine and I know of none.

In fact Christ's 'Any without sin, throw the first stone.' would fit here and don't forget he continued with 'and go and sin no more.'

Alternatively, can you point out where it says to NOT follow the law of Moses.

Best I can find is that you may choose not to, if you don't feel led to. But Paul explicitly warns against pressuring people to not practice the law.

Remember, there's no commandment to not engage in homosexual sex. There's a commandment to murder gays.

That said, nearly no one obeys that commandment any longer. Not on the Christian side anyway.
 
Let's, where in the New Testament does it say to kill Gays?

Remember you said Christian Doctrine and I know of none.

In fact Christ's 'Any without sin, throw the first stone.' would fit here and don't forget he continued with 'and go and sin no more.'

If the NT is the only bit that matters, why is the OT even still in the bible?
 
Top Bottom