A solution for Iraq

[Formaldehyde]

This is another one of these strange moments in which I find myself defending Christianity. I am an atheist. I think that all religions are made-up and silly. But that doesn't mean they are all equally harmful. Religions don't all teach the same things. And the specifics matter...

The only major difference is that it is taking some cultures longer to adapt to modern times.

Those who resort to terrorism also frequently feel they are forced into a position where they have no other choice but use terrorism against an "asymmetric" foe which is militarily vastly superior.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force. William Blum

Or they feel that those whom they are fighting against are using what is essentially state-supported terrorism against them, so they feel justified using what they perceive as similar terrorism in response against a cruel and sadistic foe.

"There is no place in the prison of Gaza safe from Israeli sadism." Noam Chomsky

And you can't very well give all Abrahamic religions besides Islam a free pass. After all, Christian and even Jewish terrorism is alive and well in the US, as well as many other parts of the world, even though it is not as prevalent.

Some fundamentalists with all these various Abrahamic groups have much in common with each other. They all think they are engaging in their own religious form of "jihad", even though it is quite clear to the vast majority of adherents of all those faiths they are doing nothing of the sort. That they are merely using religion as an excuse to commit atrocities which are actually forbidden by these faiths.

 

[Funky]

So we agree that as a result of U.S. invasion of only Iraq alone there is over million people dead. How many are dead becouse of islamic fanatics in the same time period?

I disagree with the premise of your question. As I said in my last post, the vast majority of people who died in Iraq after the war were not killed by Americans. They were killed by violence directly motivated by the Islamic religion. Implying that the US are responsible for all the violence that occured after 2003 is simply a misrepresentation of what really happened. The US did not target civilians. Islamic extremists do. And they do it ruthlessly. Their very point is to cause the highest amount of suffering and agony. That is why, for example, they don't rest after a terror attack, but immediately go out and deploy bombs in the hospitals where the injured people from the first terror attack are taken to.

US has over 30 military bases in the area of middle East to keep stability. Again this isnt the case to support Christianity or Islam. Its to support its geopolitical and bussiness interests. But is the US interest the same as an interest of people of religion which allowes defensive war? I doubt it. Is it possible that these religious followers are feeling threatend by this military arsenal of people with different religion and culture? Quite possibly.

Those who resort to terrorism also frequently feel they are forced into a position where they have no other choice but use terrorism against an "asymmetric" foe which is militarily vastly superior.

Again, take a look at what is going on. This is not a case of the poor oppressed Muslims reacting to the overwhelming military power of America. The victims of Muslim terror are mostly other Muslims. This has nothing to with Iraq.
And why focus on Iraq in the first place? The charta of democratically elected Hamas, which contains the premise that Jews must be eradicated, has nothing to with Iraq. Boko Haram has nothing to with Iraq. Al-Shabaab has nothing to with Iraq. The Taliban poisoning the water in a girl's school has nothing to with Iraq. Sunnis blowing up a bus with 40 Shiites in Pakistan has nothing to with Iraq. Whatever we may think about the Iraq war, it in no way can sufficiently explain why Muslims behave the way they do around the world. And it certainly cannot explain why they treat women in the most reprehensible manner, why they kill blasphemers and gays, or why they want to implement the dispicible system of sharia.

I am not against constructive criticism of Islam or anything which can be perfected. I am against ignorance, stupidity and cherished sense of superiority. Lets try to learn from other cultures instead of imposing ours on others. There are many ways to goal and not single one and only. If some other culture discovers through interaction with mine or on its own in process of its development that it needs to get rid of some of its less progressive elements thats wonderfull but imposing my will over other cultures to enslave them even if in more subtle economic ways leads to suppression and logically to reaction.

By all means, go and study Islam. I have been recommending this to you all along. I didn't start out by randomly picking a religion to criticize. I approached Islam open-mindedly. I read their holy texts, I listened to what they say, and found their beliefs to be abhorrent.

And to be honest, I find the moral relativism displayed here obscene. When we see people who go out and intentionally kill and torture civilians, who brutally subjugate women, who openly state they want to kill Jews and infidels in general, who violate every single human right, the correct reaction can not be to say that they get a pass, or, worse, that we should be open-minded and learn from their culture. No, the only correct response, that is to say the only moral response, is to passionately condemn these actions and beliefs. Refusing to do so translates to an incredible lack of compassion for the tens and hundreds of millions of victims of Islam, first and foremost the Muslim women.

It is convenient to exclude the Old Testament and its smattering of utterly insane violence, incest, rape, and slavery.

It may be convenient for Muslims to exclude the violent parts of the Quran, if they so choose.

Though I feel bad for my Hebros, they don't have a New Testament to fall back on.

I didn't exclude the Old Testament. I emphasized the New Testament, because we were talking about Christianity. We can talk about the Old Testament, too (and I have done so numerous times in this forum). It is indeed full of barbarism, killing and genocide. But as I said previously, it does not follow the narrative of an instruction manual as the Koran does. These are very different books. Go out and read them!

More importantly though, the Jews are not behaving according to the Thora. Hell, there are only 13.7 million Jews on the planet and the vast majority of them are atheists. Religion doesn't play a role in most of the Jewish community anymore. Where it does, we can criticize that too, and the belief of some orthodox Jews that their land was given to them by God, can lead to problematic outcomes. But this is on an entirely different scale. The Jews don't want to kill of Muslims. They don't intentionally kill civilians. Even mentioning the Jews in the same breath as the Muslims in regard to religiously motivated violence is preposterous. Check out this video and just appreciate the differences.

that's not the only place in the world where there are Christians committing acts of terrorism (see Central African Republic, China, India, for example).

What are you trying to accomplish by pointing out incidents of religiously inspired terror by Christians? I never claimed that terror was exclusively done by Muslims. But it is overwhelmingly committed in the name of Islam. I already gave you the links to the statistics. Over 90 percent of terror attacks are done by Muslims every year. If we look at the number of people killed in these attacks, the percentage is even higher. That there is an occasional Christian attack doesn't change that fact. We should condemn the attacks by Christians too. But that doesn't make them equal. They are not even close.
And your examples basically show this. You mention "murdering abortion doctors and bombing clinics", as if this was the big problem of our time. There have been eight deaths related to abortion doctor killings. Not eight per year. Eight in the history of the US. They have been condemned by virtually all Christians. This is not comparable. And then comes the time travelling. We already had to go into the crusades and the burning of witches, now you mention Jim Crow of 150 years ago. Since when is it legit to bring up long past times and events when talking about today's threats? The Jim Crow laws have been condemned. We have long moved past that. The reason you are forced to go back hundreds of years to dig up some incidents of dispicible behaviour motivated by Christianity proves my point. We are not seeing that anymore. Yes, somewhere in Africa and China there are still active Christian terror groups. They are terrible, let's condemn them. But now let's focus on the ones who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of cases around the world.

How about female genital mutilation carried out in mostly Christian countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea?

And here you completely jump the rails. I assume you are refering to the quote of Reza Aslan, of all people. This is the biggest sharlatan among the Muslim apologists, who will downright lie in order to defend Islam. Who immediately after the Charlie Hebdo attack condemned the West for being opposed to multiculturalism. But it gets better.

The article goes on to show that the majority of female genital mutilation is done in Islamic countries, by Muslims. Yes, two Christian countries made it into the list, on place five and eleven. Every other country with this horrible practise is Muslim. The article you linked to backup your point says the exact opposite of what you claimed in your post!

Our drone program also has an officially undisclosed miss rate/collateral damage rate, which is code for killing innocent civilians.

Drones are not used to target civilians. Leaving aside that they are a lot more accurate than you make them out to be, they are used as precision strikes against military targets. By attacking ISIS with drones, we are directly supporting the people in the area who suffer mightely under the cruel oppression of ISIS's sharia system. We cannot view these things in a vacuum. That's not to say I am unconditionally for drones, nor am I neccessarily against them. The circumstances matter. And if civilians do die by collateral damage (which is often the result of the practise of Islamic groups using them as human shields), it is regrettable and tragic. But this is not the same as intentionally killing and torturing civilians, as the Muslims do it all the time.

The specific doctrines of Islam or what-have-you don't lead to abhorrent behavior, because there are hundreds of millions who follow this and aren't mass murderers. Instead, abhorrent, mentally disturbed people justify their crimes with Islam, Christianity, or whatever other reason they can dream up.

Is that seriously your argument? That the doctrines of Islam can't be that bad because not all Muslims behave in abhorrent ways? Not all Germans were Nazis. Does that place National Socialism above all critique?
It is rather precious that you would absolve millions of Muslims by claiming they are just bad, mentally disturbed people. This is really the height of arrogance. I don't neccessarily mean you personally, it is a common meme among the left. But these people are telling us by the tens and hundreds of millions what their reasons are. What kind of justification can we have to not only discredit their self-proclaimed reasons but insist that they must be mentally disturbed?

If you cannot see the connection between Muslim violence and Islam, I can only repeat to read the Koran. Check the links I provided. Look at the facts. Listen to what these people are saying. Go to sites like barenakedislam. Open a newspaper.

Specific beliefs have specific consequences. If the Koran said gays are Allah's favourites and should be treated with respect, we would not see stonings of homosexuals. If it said "By all means, caricature the prophet to the best of your abilities", we would not be be dealing with riots and murders for drawing cartoons. These Muslims are behaving exactly as the Koran proscribes. It is not complicated to figure out why they are doing it. It's not even hard.

 

[JollyRoger]

You do not think that Israel's fairly lax attitude about theirkilling of women and children doesn't have roots in their scripture?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, take a look at what is going on. This is not a case of the poor oppressed Muslims reacting to the overwhelming military power of America. The victims of Muslim terror are mostly other Muslims.

It is still a handful of individuals who are openly despised and vilified by the overwhelming majority of peace-loving Muslims.

By all means, go and study Islam. I have been recommending this to you all along. I didn't start out by randomly picking a religion to criticize. I approached Islam open-mindedly. I read their holy texts, I listened to what they say, and found their beliefs to be abhorrent.

Try not using Islamophobic hate sites as your reference. As others have pointed out, the Old Testament is just as bad. And the vast majority of Jews and Christians no longer follow that utter nonsense any more than the vast majority of Muslims clearly no longer do.

Here is one such example:

What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?

It is just a matter of clicking on the right sites, instead of deliberately clicking on the clearly Islamophobic ones.

And to be honest, I find the moral relativism displayed here obscene.

What I find "obscene" is the Islamophobia displayed by many Westerners now.

And there is no "moral relativism" here. Just like the overwhelming majority of Muslims, I do not condone terrorism one bit no matter who commits it. And that includes the US and Israel either directly or through their proxies. I just don't try to blame well over 2 billion peaceful adherants of Islam for the crimes of a handful of fanatics, any more than I blame Christians or Jews for the acts of a handful of their own fundamentalists.

I didn't exclude the Old Testament. I emphasized the New Testament, because we were talking about Christianity.

Tthe Holy Bible includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Many fundamentalist Christians still believe every single word, just as many fundamentalist Jews who believe every single word of the OT. That is why you still see Christian terrorism even in the US, much less in African countries, one of which recently tried to pass a law to execute any practicing homosexuals. Where did they get the inspiration for this barbaric behavior? Largely from American fundamentalist missionaries and their bibles...

 

[Funky]

@Formaldehyde:

With all due respect, there is nothing what you wrote that I haven't refuted in my previous posts or that is worth going into in the first place. I will give you the benefit of doubt of not having read my first posts in this thread. If you are interested, I came in on page 5. Meanwhile I'll do you a favour and point out why posts like your last one can't be taken seriously and do not contribute to an honest discussion in any way.

1. You call sites with facts, such as poll results, quotes from the Koran, or documented acts of terror and violence by Muslims, "hate sites". As if there was a global conspiracy to "hate" Islam for no reason.

2. You reference an Islamic site which is completely bogus. Did you even read the quotes it mentions? Did you look at what it says about the origins of the universe or human embryonic development?

3. But what totally disqualifies you from a meaningful discussion on this issue is your multiple usage of the term "islamophobia", which is the most ridiculous, useless and misleading term ever invented. I am open to debate and to have my point of view challenged. But I don't have unlimited time. Please acquire at least a basic understanding of the matter first.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Islamophobia clearly exists. There are plenty of people who fear Islam, mostly due to the standard human response of fearing anything they don't understand. There are plenty of people who consider that fear to be a good thing, so they feed the misunderstanding, and plenty of people who just feed it because they feel the fear themselves and want as much company as they can get. Funky, I figure you are in that second group since someone who really had something to gain wouldn't be wasting their time trying to spread fear here.

As to "sites with facts" being considered hate sites; I have no problem with that. It's pretty easy to present facts in ways that seem to support whatever conclusion you want to support. Taking quotes out of context is one of the easiest ways to do so. Plenty of sites that are clearly saying "I hate [whatever] and you should too" are set up that way.

You haven't "refuted" much of anything in this thread. Mostly you've just spewed venom and been recognized as a hopeless case. Once your input on "solution for Iraq" was recognized as "purge the world of people who aren't like meeeeeeeee!" most people recognized that you are just part of the problem, not a source of solutions, and stopped paying attention. Formy just came in late.

 

[Ajidica]

I also want to point out that you [Funky] framed the debate in a way that made it impossible. Any document or treatise on Islamic law and interpretation by Islamic scholars you would classify as 'apologist' or 'false' or what have you.
It is like insisting that Catholicism mandates children are given pink cotton candy unicorns when they loose their first tooth, and after Catholic catechism and statements by the Pope are brought out saying that is incorrect, dismissing those statements as 'apologists' or 'incorrect interpretations'.

This is starting to feel like those conspiracy theory people, who the more evidence you show them the theory is bogus, the more they believe they are right.

 

[Phrossack]

I don't think Funky's calling for the purge of all Muslims, nor is he claiming that most Muslims are evil. He does raise the valid point that Islamist terrorists and governments do things that are completely contrary to liberal ideals, yet there's this dilemma for the left because they think that criticizing these actions too harshly is just bigotry. So they end up defending, ignoring, or excusing actions that they would definitely and rightly criticize if done by Christians.

Attacking the problems of Islam can be done without becoming Islamophobic, just as one can mock Christianity without hating or fearing Christians. It requires walking a fine line, though, and most people don't bother and prefer to stay on one side or the other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think Funky's calling for the purge of all Muslims, nor is he claiming that most Muslims are evil. He does raise the valid point that Islamist terrorists and governments do things that are completely contrary to liberal ideals, yet there's this dilemma for the left because they think that criticizing these actions too harshly is just bigotry. So they end up defending, ignoring, or excusing actions that they would definitely and rightly criticize if done by Christians.

Attacking the problems of Islam can be done without becoming Islamophobic, just as one can mock Christianity without hating or fearing Christians. It requires walking a fine line, though, and most people don't bother and prefer to stay on one side or the other.

If you are not seeing that you should take another look at his posts. Given what he says repeatedly about the teachings of Islam it is clear that as far as he is concerned the only followers of those teachings who are not evil are ex-followers. The most effective way to make followers into ex-followers is, of course, kill them all, which is how he fits into the "solution to Iraq" thread. He is the typical "rain nuclear fire across all who oppose us" mass murderer...the sort that supports the neocon madness that caused the problem in the first place.

 

[kiwitt]

Attacking the problems of Islam can be done without becoming Islamophobic, just as one can mock Christianity without hating or fearing Christians. It requires walking a fine line, though, and most people don't bother and prefer to stay on one side or the other.

Exactly. I think most Muslims are probably good people, just like most Christians. It is the extremists that need to be continually called out for their actions. But it seems that these extremists are currently 'striking a cord' with the disenfranchised youth caused by I suspect our overly unequal economic system, where only the 1%ers seems to do well.

There needs to be a 'revolution' against these 1%ers and their system of corporates and government lobbyists, that maintain their status quo. The effects of which are felt not only in the poor countries but 'rich' countries as well. Tear down this hierarchy and eventually a more 'socialist' solution can be established. I blame relatively recent (last few decades) 'neo-liberalism' from the US for most of world's current ills.

 

[Phrossack]

If you are not seeing that you should take another look at his posts. Given what he says repeatedly about the teachings of Islam it is clear that as far as he is concerned the only followers of those teachings who are not evil are ex-followers. The most effective way to make followers into ex-followers is, of course, kill them all, which is how he fits into the "solution to Iraq" thread. He is the typical "rain nuclear fire across all who oppose us" mass murderer...the sort that supports the neocon madness that caused the problem in the first place.

I did reread his posts, and they don't say what you think they say. Reread this post. This part in particular was noteworthy:

In these lines you cover the crucial distinction between criticizing people and criticizing ideas. As I said before, I am not criticizing all Muslims. I am focused on the specific doctrines of Islam which lead to the abhorrent behaviour that many Muslims display all the time. And the solution to the problem can indeed only be to empower moderate Muslims and help them reform their faith. Unfortunately, at the moment the most outspoken ones who could become true reformers have an immensely difficult stand. On the one side they have to deal with fatwas and death threats from other Muslims for their blasphemy, on the other side they have to combat the opinion that has become wide-spread among the left in America and Europe, namely that Islam isn't a problem and any criticism of it, even by Muslims, is a sign of bigotry and should not be taken seriously.

This is especially difficult to fathom as people on the left are by and large pro freedom of speech, pro women's rights, pro gay rights, pro secularism and pro human equality. In other words they are diametrically opposed to the central tenets of Islam. Yet in their often seen attempt to shut down any criticism of Islam and downplay the role of the religion, they are supporting the very forces which are against everything they otherwise stand for.

He's not criticizing Muslims for being Muslim. He's criticizing Islam. There's a difference between attacking an ideology and attacking people. And he's not a mass murderer; even ignoring the fact that there's no evidence he's ever killed someone, he isn't even advocating for violently annihilating all Muslims with nuclear weapons as you claim he is.

I think you were listening for familiar phrases in his posts, rather than listening to them, as Hygro would say. Once Funky started making arguments against Islam, you categorized him as "Islamophobe," skimmed his posts for familiar phrases, and then attacked. This is a perfectly common thing to do; I myself do it sometimes, hastily classifying people and their beliefs and skimming through their posts so I can make a rebuttal, as I did here. I noticed that his post reminded me of the sorts of arguments that recreational activities are a waste of time, hastily classified him as one of those, and jumped on him for it. As it turned out, he wasn't one of those.

Why am I going out of my way to defend Funky? Because I hate the kind of hasty classification that leads to binary arguments, in this case, that either you're a good, tolerant person, or you're an Islamophobic bigot who wants to nuke all Muslims off the face of the Earth. I want Islam and the actions of Muslims to be subject to the same kind of criticism and scrutiny as any other ideology and any other people, rather than set aside as something above scrutiny just because bigots also like to criticize Islam. Just as it's possible to criticize Mugabe without being a white supremacist pining for Rhodesia, so is it possible to criticize Islam without being Geert Wilders or Fox News. But I've noticed a lot of other liberals being quick to accuse any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, and not only is that often unfair, it's profoundly at odds with the very ideals those liberals claim to hold--equality, tolerance or acceptance, a dislike of war and violence, justice, and so on. There are very unequal standards being applied to Muslims and Christian Westerners.

This isn't to say I agree with Funky on everything--I wouldn't call Islam one of the main evils facing the world today, for example--but it's pretty clear that a lot of Islamic doctrines are incompatible with those ideals I mentioned. This also doesn't mean that I think most Muslims agree with or practice those Islamic doctrines, and some disagree with them enough to try to say that Quranic calls to war are not meant to be taken literally or whatever. That reminds me of the time I was at a Catholic mass and the priest tried to claim that when St. Paul said women should be silent and obey their husbands, he didn't really mean it literally. It involved a lot of creative rewording and awkward wiggling around rather clear and unambiguous statements, and it was terribly unconvincing. But, given the choice of either acknowledging that St. Paul's beliefs were totally archaic and unpopular in this age or dishonestly trying to twist them into something more palatable, he chose the latter. I likewise find arguments that ISIS is un-Islamic to be unconvincing; unlike the vast majority of Muslims, who are not violent terrorists at all, they seem to be following the instructions about jizya, the enslavement of non-believers, and the division between the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb pretty much to the letter, and that's what's so horrifying about them. I mean, I have as little patience for right-wing Islamophobia as the next guy, but come on, we can't pretend that all religious doctrines are equal here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While he may "talk the talk" about criticizing ideas rather than people, throughout his posts he fails to walk the walk. Not that there is really any opportunity to walk that walk. Ultimately, if you condemn someone's ideas as being "threatening" are you not demanding that they either change their ideas or be met by "self defense"?

If my "idea" is that I should just kill the guy next to me that guy has every right to protect himself. So how does criticism of such an idea not equate to condemning the person holding the idea? By misrepresenting Islam as "the religion that says it is okay to kill us" Funky is presenting an indisputable call to action against anyone who refuses to give up Islam. It is the exact same call to action that GWBush answered when he ordered the invasion of Iran.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But what totally disqualifies you from a meaningful discussion on this issue is your multiple usage of the term "islamophobia", which is the most ridiculous, useless and misleading term ever invented.

I think that fairly well summarizes your response to my posts.

Islamophobia is indeed quite real and extremely pervasive:

University of California at 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.

The Gallup Poll: Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West

A phobia, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. It may be hard for the afflicted to sufficiently determine or communicate the source of this fear, but it exists. In recent years, a specific phobia has gripped Western societies - Islamophobia.

Researchers and policy groups define Islamophobia in differing detail, but the term's essence is essentially the same, no matter the source:

An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life.[1]

Islamophobia existed in premise before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but it increased in frequency and notoriety during the past decade. The Runnymede Trust in the U.K., for example, identified eight components of Islamophobia in a 1997 report, and then produced a follow-up report in 2004 after 9/11 and the initial years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The second report found the aftermath of the terrorist attacks had made life more difficult for British Muslims.

In a 2011 meeting, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, as well as the League of Arab States, a key partner, identified Islamophobia as an important area of concern. Gallup developed a specific set of analyses, based on measurement of public opinions of majority and minority groups in multiple countries, to guide policymakers in their efforts to address the global issue of Islamophobia.

Research shows that the U.S. identified more than 160 Muslim-American terrorist suspects and perpetrators in the decade since 9/11, just a percentage of the thousands of acts of violence that occur in the United States each year. It is from this overall collection of violence that "an efficient system of government prosecution and media coverage brings Muslim-American terrorism suspects to national attention, creating the impression - perhaps unintentionally - that Muslim-American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is." Never mind that since 9/11, the Muslim-American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent nearly two of every five al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening the United States[2] and that tips from the Muslim-American community are the largest single source of initial information to authorities about these few plots.[3]

 

[Formaldehyde]

I mean, I have as little patience for right-wing Islamophobia as the next guy, but come on, we can't pretend that all religious doctrines are equal here.

Now, that is starting to sound like the "leftist" complaints that Funky just made, and which you even just quoted.

Let me leave it up to a Muslim to try to explain what is wrong with this rhetoric. Rhetoric which even comes from Bill Maher when he attacks Islam, instead of the terrorists and fanatics who also ironically misuse the teachings of Islam, much less what Islam now is as practiced by the overwhelming majority of peace loving adherents:

5 Facts Islamophobia Deniers Just Don't Get

1. No, Islam is not above criticism -- it never was and never will be -- and neither are Islamophobia deniers

Rizvi writes, "When you're unable to introduce Pakistan-style blasphemy laws in a secular, Western society, you have to find alternative ways to silence those who offend you... and that's where the 'Islamophobia' smear comes in."

As I sit in pain for my immediate family that has and currently suffers, been tortured, shot at, lynched, murdered and certainly silenced as a result of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, I'm appalled that Rizvi would even make this shameless comparison.

I'm grateful, however, that Rizvi says "Pakistan-style blasphemy laws" and not "Islam-style blasphemy laws." He's right. While Pakistan has let extremism and unjust political forces write its narrative, a matter I address thoroughly in The Wrong Kind of Muslim, nothing in Islam permits, promotes or prescribes any form of blasphemy law. Thus, as Rizvi admits, this is a Pakistan issue, not an Islam issue.

Political regimes that forbid dissent are not the issue here -- Islam is. And the fact is that Islam does not forbid nor punish dissent. It is no accident that the Qur'an repeatedly commands reflection, investigation, inquiry and contemplation. That upon reclaiming Mecca Prophet Muhammad offered carte blanche forgiveness on the single condition that universal freedom of conscience remain free. I delve deep into this topic in my upcoming book EXTREMIST.

The West, likewise, promotes dialogue and debate. Thus, Muslims have every right to claim Islamophobia as they see fit. Rather than flat out denial, Islamophobia deniers should descend from their ivory tower and engage in a healthy conversation based on facts, not demonization. Islam is not above criticism, and neither are Islamophobia deniers.

2. The ones denying Islamophobia are often the ones creating it most.

The anti-Islam campaign has forged an amazing alliance between the far-right neo-conservative and the far-left new-atheist movements. While both would not be caught physically near one another, both are united in their antagonism of Muslims and their vehement denial that Islamophobia exists.

Ironically, both are also names that surface in terrorist manifestoes of those like Anders Breivik -- who cited far right anti-Islam personalities like Geller and Spencer and far left new-atheist personalities like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Let's be clear -- I'm not "blaming" any of these individuals for Breivik's violent acts. Unlike these individuals who shamelessly blame the Qur'an for the acts of terrorists, I have enough good sense to hold each individual accountable for his or her own actions -- Breivik included. But to claim that Breivik profusely praises Spencer and Hirsi Ali as potential Nobel laureates for their anti-Islam propaganda had nothing to do with his hatred of Muslims is denying common sense.

And no, the results are not always violent but create hatred none-the-less. In 2012, Sam Harris, while recognizing my Muslim organization, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, practices a "moderate strand" of Islam, then defamed Ahmadi Muslims by adding, "I'm not sure I would want to put these assertions [of peace] to the test by venturing into an Ahmadi mosque with a fresh batch of cartoons of the Prophet."

Let me logically explain, as I did once before, how Harris -- an Islamophobia denier -- is clearly promoting Islamophobia.

In 125 years, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has spread to 204 nations with tens of millions of adherents, runs over 15,000 mosques, over 1000 schools providing secular education to kids of all backgrounds, and over 300 hospitals to people of every creed -- all without a single act of religious violence in any form. Indeed, as Harris acknowledges, Ahmadi Muslims face brutal persecution and "our mosques are regularly bombed." Despite the violence and persecution we face (and our clear cut condemnation of the post-Danish cartoon violence) we instead champion separation of mosque and state, universal freedom of conscience, women's rights, and have uncompromisingly condemned all religious violence.

Instead, Harris ignores all this, maintains "Islamophobia doesn't exist", and asserts it would be dangerous to venture into one of our mosques. His fear of the "moderate strand" of Islam practiced by Ahmadi Muslims despite an unprecedented history of peace and service to humanity is by definition Islamophobia. Despite Harris's claims that he condemns Islam, not Muslims, the only person his meritless claim of "dangerous Ahmadi mosques" helps is himself, as it advances his narrative that all Islam is evil, no Muslim is trustworthy, and silences dissent.

You have to distinguish between the culture and the religion when making statements concerning what Muslims believe. Just as it would be wrong to judge modern day Judaism by passages in the Old Testament that nobody really believes anymore, you must also do the same with Islam.

No, all religious doctrines are not equal. But there is a huge amount of similarity between all the Abrahamic faiths. After all, they share the very same roots. And they have all changed to a great extent since the time when they were first written down. at least they have to the vast majority of believers.

 

[Phrossack]

Yes, yes, sounds like, but isn't. You're arguing out of reflex and muscle memory.

I don't deny the existence of Islamophobia. That's perfectly obvious. I said that in the very bit you quoted! Don't lump me in with others, take the time to read and understand my posts or don't address them at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I didn't claim you were. As you just pointed out, I even quoted you. Yet here you are making the same arguments by making the same false assumptions that those who are Islamophobic do.

How about you? Are you selectively ignoring the statements that Funky just made?

You said:

I want Islam and the actions of Muslims to be subject to the same kind of criticism and scrutiny as any other ideology and any other people, rather than set aside as something above scrutiny just because bigots also like to criticize Islam.

That is simply not true, as I just clearly showed. Islam doesn't mind criticism and scrutiny - just the opposite. But some of its practitioners do, just as some Christians get all upset over the very same sort of "sacrilege" and "blasphemy".

 

[Phrossack]

I didn't claim you were. As you just pointed out, I even quoted you. Yet here you are making the same arguments by making the same false assumptions that those who are Islamophobic do.

How about you? Are you selectively ignoring the statements that Funky just made?

You said:

"I want Islam and the actions of Muslims to be subject to the same kind of criticism and scrutiny as any other ideology and any other people, rather than set aside as something above scrutiny just because bigots also like to criticize Islam."

That is simply not true, as I just clearly showed. Islam doesn't mind criticism and scrutiny - just the opposite. But some of its practitioners do, just as some fundamentalist Christians get all upset over the very same sort of "sacrilege" and "blasphemy".

It's not Islam that minds the scrutiny, it's those in the West who leap to its defense no matter what and accuse of Islamophobia those who criticize it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Try criticizing it in a manner which is actually true, instead of doing so based on misconceptions typically found on Muslim hate sites.

And most of all, try to keep in mind that you both believe in the same god. While there are obviously differences between the various Abrahamic religions, they also have much in common. This is particularly true with their fundamentalists.

I sure wish more Muslims participated in these threads. But the ones who do frequent this forum seem to avoid them like the plague.

 

[Phrossack]

Try criticizing it in a manner which is actually true, instead of doing so based on misconceptions typically found on Muslim hate sites.

And most of all, try to remember that you and Muslims believe in the same god.

What, then, is a misconception about Islam? Do you deny that it allows for slavery, for example? Don't try to wriggle around the question by saying, "...yeah, but what about the Old Testament?" I'm not a Christian and do not believe in their god, so don't tell me to remember that.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can you point me to Muslim slaveholders in the United States?