American Muslims fear a new wave of Islamophobia

[Sommerswerd]

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

Amen

 

[Tahuti]

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

We could replace OT as in Old Testament with OT as in Off-Topic. Some memorable quotes from NOT (New Old Testament):

Tolni 2:30
In Bulgaria, you have dangerous bears!

Tovergieter 1:20
And then PhroX sayeth this: If the NT is the only bit that matters, why is the OT even still in the bible?
Tovergieter, the mighty magical watering can, sayeth: And so OT will replace OT.

Hygro 4:4
Money is created by the state and gains its worth by government spending.

 

[jackelgull]

That would certainly make the bible more readable.

 

[Funky]

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?

First off, I am not a Christian. I have vigorously criticized homophobia among Christians in the past. It is an incredibly stupid relict of ancient times, and must be tackled. But I also see things in their perspective. In most of the West gays are meanwhile able to marry! This battle is almost won. That will take time to sink in to the heads of the last Christians in some village in the middle of Texas. But nowhere in the West do you have to fear for your life for admitting that you are gay. Pointing the finger at Uganda strikes me as rather absurd. It is not representative for Christianity, it is a very small percentage of Christians, and, most importantly, the situation there is condemned by many Christians too.

This is on an entirely different spectrum than homophobia in Islam. I don't think I have to go into the numbers here, but do your research. Look at the polls. Look at in how many Muslim countries being gay is illegal. Look at how many gays are killed. Christians have the right to criticize these catastrophic conditions just as much as anyone else.

 

[bhavv]

Even if Christians are homophobic, they still don't kill gay people institutionally.

On the other hand with Islam, they hang / stone / push them off high buildings / lifetime in jail depending on the country.

And then people have the nerve to tell me that I should respect Islam.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

I'm not so sure it's hypocrisy. Firstly, they might condemn the same behavior from Christians, and likely do.

But it's also a numbers game. If you're concerned about 'gays getting murdered because of religion' then time matters. If Islam is killing gays at a rate 10x than Christianity is, then focusing ones time against the greater threat makes sense.

It's like charity. I'm not wrong to focus on homeless people freezing to death in my town. But if I decide to worry about (say) malaria instead, then I can probably save 10x as many people per dollar invested on my part.

 

[Sommerswerd]

But nowhere in the West do you have to fear for your life for admitting that you are gay.

This is flat out incorrect, ( Violence against LGBTs in United States) and this misconception is part of the problem. Bigotry, hatred, violence, oppression, segregation and disenfranchisement are not "other people's" problem it is our problem... it is a Western problem, a "First World" problem a US problem... and yes it is a Christian problem. "Pointing the finger at Uganda" is absurd, because it is a lame attempt to pass off the very real local and global problems that Christianity has by trying to blame it on some "obscure pocket of hopelessly backward rubes that just didn't get the memo."

I don't think I have to go into the numbers here, but do your research.

Hmmmm, yeah... Yeah I think you do... given your factually erroneous statements above... Get the numbers (when you have time). Then make your claims. Don't make outlandish claims and then tell me to

do your research

Please. You are the one who needs to "do your research."

Christians have the right to criticize these catastrophic conditions just as much as anyone else.

That is totally irrelevant to my point. Christians have "the right" to do lots of things... commit adultery, hate their fellow man etc. What they "have the right to do" is not even remotely the issue. I am stating that they should not prioritize criticizing other religions. They should prioritize handling the flaws within their own religion.

 

[Leonel]

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.'

Ah yes, the classic Old Testament dodge. It doesn't apply to stuff like shellfish and dual cloth clothing but let's roll Leviticus out to a gay persons funeral!

 

[Formaldehyde]

You have to admit the OT does come in handy when you are trying to rationalize genocide, or even come up with some completely inane excuse why homosexuals still can't be protected by the very same human rights laws as everybody else.

But when you are trying to differentiate yourself from Islam, just say it's been entirely "abrogated" by "Praise Jesus"! That very same god worshiped by the Muslims supposedly no longer even exists! After all, aren't all modern Christians pacifists who find all war utterly abhorrent? Who think that only an extremely few number of people will ever get into the Kingdom of Heaven because they haven't renounced all their material possessions, while doing everything they possibly can to not to ever sin again? Yeah, that certainly describes nearly all modern Christians to a T. Instead, most of them actually think they have a magical "get out of hell" card no matter what they do or say.

So what does that mean about all the Jews who have no such "abrogation" excuse?

 

[Funky]

@Sommerswerd:

I understand that you are focused on the country you live in. But seriously, you don't want to compare Islam with Christianity in regard to homophobia. The link you posted is a list of individual cases. The perpetrators were all convicted and punished. Homophobia is not institutionalized. Is it a problem in the US? Sure. Unlike in Europe, where homosexuality has become a total non-issue, you still get the religious nutjobs in the US who think homosexuality is a sin.
Now let's compare. There are only five Muslim majority countries where homosexuality is not illegal. That fact alone should put things into perspective. Just let it sink in. In 90% of Muslim countries you get imprisoned or killed for being gay. Gays in these countries are not endangered by individual religious lunatics, the entire ideology and philosophy in these countries outlaws homosexuals and turns their life into a constant fear of being killed.
Focusing on homophobia among Christians instead of among Muslims is really like talking about papercuts at a cancer conference.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How many homosexuals have been stoned to death or otherwise killed by Muslims in Europe or the US?

How many Muslims have been killed in the same countries due to hate crimes perpetuated by the very same people who believe all this utter nonsense?

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Sommerswerd: I understand that you are focused on the country you live in.

Yes, that is exactly right. You put that very well. And that is my point. I am trying to stay focused on my own house and what we do wrong rather than deflecting to Europe, or Africa etc. It doesent mean you cant talk about anything outside your own local issues, but just that you should try to keep some perspective before you go on some self-righteous crusade pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong.

But seriously, you don't want to compare Islam with Christianity in regard to homophobia.

But seriously... yes... yes I do... See that is an example of what I am talking about... trying to tell me what I want to talk about... Rather than telling me what I want to talk about, just focus on what you want to talk about.

Focusing on homophobia among Christians instead of among Muslims is really like talking about papercuts at a cancer conference.

This is another perfect example of what I am talking about. Comparing people getting killed because of being gay to a papercut because "the killer went to jail" is exactly the kind of lame excusing that I am talking about. Comparing Islam to cancer, while you excuse Christianity as a papercut is just another example of the biased, hypocritical, double-standard thinking that I am rejecting wholesale.

 

[Funky]

I am trying to stay focused on my own house and what we do wrong rather than deflecting to Europe, or Africa etc.

Fair enough. However, politicised Islam is a global problem.

Comparing Islam to cancer, while you excuse Christianity as a papercut is just another example of the biased, hypocritical, double-standard thinking that I am rejecting wholesale.

Just compare the facts. Start with religiously motivated violence. Look at how women are doing. Compare the treatment of apostates, religious minorities, and gays. Compare the general health of societies.
Don't get me wrong, I am against papercuts. They can be really nasty and often come when you're unprepared. I will criticize papercuts. I will try to help lessen the problems they cause. But at the moment, reality sets other priorities.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the thread is somewhat about the suffering Muslims will have if they're mistreated in Western societies. "Islamophobia" would allow us to condone an abuse of rights for them that we'd not tolerate ourselves. There's the urge to blame Muslims here for the problems elsewhere. It's partially true, but we've been collectively throwing money at OPEC in order to have BBQs, so I'm not sure if they're acceptance of the Koran is as damaging as us outright funding tyrannies with our consumer dollars.

 

[Tahuti]

Islamophobia is simply a curse word to silence criticism of Islam, to slander people who aren't Pro-Palestine enough or who are simply skeptical of religion in general.

This isn't to say people who happen to be Muslims do not suffer racism, they do. Though it is more often than not related to their colour and customs, in which case, we speak of Anti-Arabism or Anti-whatevertheirethnicityis. And the thing is, Indians and other groups of people who are misidentified as Arabs are often victims of Anti-Arabism as well. Lumping the Persian world, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Arab world and calling it the 'Islamic world' isn't helpful and makes as much sense as lumping Christian parts of Africa, Europe and the Americas as the 'Christian world'. In both cases, overt generalisations are made which do not make any logical sense. If by some miracle the Arab world is to become atheist overnight, would anyone still call part of the 'Islamic world', because of their religious heritage?

 

[Formaldehyde]

How often have we heard that utter nonsense before. I suppose you also think that xenophobia is a "curse word" because that is essentially what it is but directed at one particular religious group. The obvious "slander" here is towards those who are the victims of prejudice and discrimination, not those who are fomenting it.

This is is also an absurd attack on those Muslims who don't mind any rational criticism of their religion whatsoever. This has nothing at all to do with legitimate criticism of Islam.

UC Berkeley Center for Race and Gender: Defining "Islamophobia"

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.

The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities

Islam does not share common values with other major faiths

Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.

Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.

Islam is a violent political ideology.

For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

Islamophobia is rampant in the US, Europe, and apparently even Canada:

It's not just America: Canadian politicians use Islamophobia to make gains in polls

Thanks to candidates like Donald Trump and Ben Carson, American political discourse seems to be dominated by xenophobia. Now, Canada seems to be following suit. A few weeks ago, the ruling Conservative Party looked like they might lose the federal elections, due to be held on 19 October. Since then, they have taken the lead by making the election about whether women can wear the niqab, a face veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes, while swearing the citizenship oath. The discussion about the niqab is, by all accounts, a distraction tool – yet it seems to be working.

Muslims make up 3.2% of Canada’s population and niqabis, women who wear the face veil, make up less than 1% of the 1.05 million Muslims in Canada. Canada’s CBC reported that out of 680,000 of people who have taken the citizenship oath since 2011, only two tried to wear the niqab during the ceremony. Still, the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois, a federal political party, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars turning this non-issue into a viable political talking point.

This is an issue that was previously irrelevant, especially since reciting the oath is mostly symbolic. In Canada, women in face-covering veils have sworn oaths at their weddings for centuries. This seems to be an effective election strategy in a country where a government-commissioned poll found that 82% of Canadians support such a ban, an oft-repeated point.

There is an absurdity and danger in basing minority rights on the opinions of the majority, especially when the poll surveyed only 3000 Canadians before the federal court ruled on the matter. That means the opinion of 2,460 Canadians surveyed in March in a country of over 35 million have led to an overwhelming majority of our media coverage two weeks before election day.

Ever since making the niqab a central campaign issue, the Conservatives have risen by 10% in the polls. It has also led to a massive spike in support for the otherwise fledgling Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec-centered federal party whose leader believes that niqabis should be prevented from accessing all public services.

While the leaders of the other major federal parties have affirmed the right of a woman to wear the niqab at her citizenship ceremony – a position the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada has recently upheld – their stance regarding the practice of niqab in general is unclear. No one wants to admit that the niqab can be an independent expression of choice and agency by a woman; doing so would be political death in this context. In the last federal election, all party leaders were either supportive or suspiciously silent on Bill 94, a piece of Quebec legislation that would ban niqabi women from accessing public services in the province. This bill similarly had high rates of support in polls.

It is no coincidence that these are the polling numbers shaping public discourse in Canada. If you were to look at other polls, you would find overwhelming public support for an inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Yet we see this mentioned only as a convenient addendum to the current political discourse, where no major federal debate has even brought up issues affecting indigenous communities. Meanwhile, at least three debates have brought up the niqab. Canadian political and thought leaders, including both politicians and media, seem to be fixated more on the dress of a handful of Muslim women than the tragic loss of over 1000 Aboriginal women.

Just a few short weeks ago, the national discussion was heavily centered on Syrian refugees and was seemingly more human. Today, the discourse problematizes a non-issue and relies on the fear and alarmism of a few to win electoral favor among the masses. According to Conservative leader Stephen Harper, the niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-woman”. In some cases, it may be forced. In all, absolutely not. If the purpose of targeting the niqab is to protect women, it seems to be backfiring as there are now increasing reports of violence towards niqabi women.

While more tempered than the debates in the United States, the positioning of the niqab as a problem for the Canadian state is similarly anti-choice and xenophobic. If it ultimately ends up working on election day, it will lead to serious questions as to who Canadian democracy is intended for. Given all the attention directed towards governing a Muslim woman’s dress while ignoring real social problems facing the country, the answer may be all too frighteningly clear.

How often have we seen this blatant form of discrimination against Muslim women in Europe? Now it apparently even catching hold in Canada.

 

[Birchbark22]

The Canadian Prime Minister is using the niqab issue as a ploy to stir up fear and prejudices during our federal election. Canada is supposedly a tolerant society, but Harper is gaining some support by using fear and loathing of a few women who wear the niqab, as if that is truly some form of threat to our way of life.

 

[PhroX]

While I wouldn't by any means claim that "Islamophobia" is only used to silence criticism of Islam - it is indeed a genuine phenomenon, and a reprehensible one at that - at times it is used in that way. It's rather reminiscent of how claims of "antisemitism" are sometimes used to discredit criticism of Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

While I wouldn't by any means claim that "Islamophobia" is only used to silence criticism of Islam - it is indeed a genuine phenomenon, and a reprehensible one at that - at times it is used in that way. It's rather reminiscent of how claims of "antisemitism" are sometimes used to discredit criticism of Israel.

Exactly. In a way, using the term Islamophobia to describe racial discrimination against ethnic groups from Muslim majority countries is itself racist because it implies that by an unbendable law, all people from Muslim majority countries are by definition Muslim. Which is ridiculous if you think about it.

Islamophobia is rampant in the US, Europe, and apparently even Canada:

It's not just America: Canadian politicians use Islamophobia to make gains in polls

How often have we seen this blatant form of discrimination against Muslim women in Europe? Now it apparently even catching hold in Canada.

Again, this is Anti-Arabism, not Islamophobia. Misnaming discrimination against Arabs, Iranians and other Middle Easterners as Islamophobia is to lose the point, and possibly worse.

 

[HannibalBarka]

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.

In that case it's either:

1. Most muslims you "enjoyed" are not "true muslims", in that case it's a bit pretentious to pretend knowing their religion better than them

or

2. they are indeed "true muslims" and therefore your first sentence about Islam is wrong