American Muslims fear a new wave of Islamophobia

[HannibalBarka]

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?

so when Christians are homophobic, it's because they are backward but when Muslim are homophobic it's because they are Muslims What about Buddist and Hindu than? and atheist for that matter?

 

[Funky]

While I wouldn't by any means claim that "Islamophobia" is only used to silence criticism of Islam - it is indeed a genuine phenomenon

Actually it isn't. "Islamophobia" is a propagandistic term created by the fascist Muslim brotherhood in the 1920s, and in the 1970s and 80s was used by Ayatolla Chomeini to silence any criticism of Islam. It was later adopted for the same reason by the theocratically led OIC, who shamelessly equate it with antisemitism and even consider the practise of "islamophobia" to be the worst form of terrorism. That some people in the West have fallen for this propagandistic and fascist buzz word is really inconceivable.

The term itself obviously makes no sense, since it not only confuses criticism of an ideology with criticism of people, it also labels any critic of Islam, however intellectually sincere, as phobic and thereby mentally ill.

Ironically, it does make sense when used in the opposite way. Critics of Islam actually show that they don't fear Islam and its threatened reprehensions. The "islamophobes" are those who don't dare to criticize Islam, for they are the ones displaying an irrational fear by refusing to speak out against it and by attempting to silence any criticism of the religion.

Thankfully, all this has slowly trickled into most Western heads, even those of the regressives. In Germany you very rarely see the term used anymore, after the people realized just how silly it is. Regressives still use other derogatory terms to smear reformers and their supporters, like "Islam hostility" or "Islam haters". But today, in 2015, years after the information has been out there, only completely backward and regressive morons, who still haven't aquired any knowledge on the topic whatsoever, use the term "islamophobia".


@HannibalBarka:

After you left some insightful comments in the thread where we had our first encounter, I am meanwhile appalled by your repeated smears and misrepresentations. I don't think your intellectual capability is too low to correctly understand what I said on the issue, you are just being a prick. Cut it out, man.

Moderator Action: Accusing someone of being a prick crosses the line into outright flaming, and is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HannibalBarka]

Actually it isn't. "Islamophobia" is a propagandistic term created by the fascist Muslim brotherhood in the 1920s, and in the 1970s and 80s was used by Ayatolla Chomeini to silence any criticism of Islam. It was later adopted for the same reason by the theocratically led OIC, who shamelessly equate it with antisemitism and even consider the practise of "islamophobia" to be the worst form of terrorism. That some people in the West have fallen for this propagandistic and fascist buzz word is really inconceivable.
The term itself obviously makes no sense, since it not only confuses criticism of an ideology with criticism of people, it also labels any critic of Islam, however intellectually sincere, as phobic and thereby mentally ill.
Ironically, it does make sense when used in the opposite way. Critics of Islam actually show that they don't fear Islam and its threatened reprehensions. The "islamophobes" are those who don't dare to criticize Islam, for they are the ones displaying an irrational fear by refusing to speak out against it and by attempting to silence any criticism of the religion.
Thankfully, all this has slowly trickled into most Western heads, even those of the regressives. In Germany you very rarely see the term used anymore, after the people realized just how silly it is. Regressives still use other derogatory terms to smear reformers and their supporters, like "Islam hostility" or "Islam haters". But today, in 2015, years after the information has been out there, only completely backward and regressive morons, who still haven't aquired any knowledge on the topic whatsoever, use the term "islamophobia".

Islamophobia, like anti-Semitism sometimes, is indeed invoked wrongfully by some Muslims, or Jews, to close a rightful debate and criticism about Islam as a Religion, or Israel as a State. That being said, some true Islamophobes (people who hate Muslims) use the rightful criticism of Islam as a hidden way of targeting Muslims as do some anti-Semite (people who hate Jews) by criticizing Israel.
The website you like so much to quote and consider “an excellent educational site”, Thereligionofpeace.com pretend to be a site criticizing Islam and “Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know “ which is indeed something I have no issue with. Problem when you go there, the first link I clicked on was “Dhimwit of the Month: Angela Merkel” blaming the German Chancellor for accepting Syrian refugees. A honest criticism of Islam indeed

@HannibalBarka:
After you left some insightful comments in the thread where we had our first encounter, I am meanwhile appalled by your repeated smears and misrepresentations. I don't think your intellectual capability is too low to correctly understand what I said on the issue, you are just being a prick. Cut it out, man.

I am going to do as JC and turn the other cheek

 

[El_Machinae]

so when Christians are homophobic, it's because they are backward but when Muslim are homophobic it's because they are Muslims What about Buddist and Hindu than? and atheist for that matter?

This made me wonder. We note the homophobia in Western society, and partially credit it to our Christian heritage. But how are homosexuals treated here, compared to Hindu or Buddhist societies?

Like, are post-Christian societies worse? Or is it basically that everyone sucks? If it's a case of 'everyone sucking', then you can battle homophobia by battling Christian heritage only to a certain point.

I'll admit that it doesn't help that the Abrahamics sanctify a text that calls for the murder of homosexuals. But does it cause the baseline to be worse?

 

[Formaldehyde]

A honest criticism of Islam indeed

That is the part I don't get. Who do they think they are fooling by using obvious Muslim hate sites as their "reference"? That is besides others who are engaging in spreading the very same Islamophobic nonsense?

I am going to do as JC and turn the other cheek

Wlecome to the group of the distinct few who have stood up against blatant Islamophobia in this forum!

This made me wonder. We note the homophobia in Western society, and partially credit it to our Christian heritage. But how are homosexuals treated here, compared to Hindu or Buddhist societies?

Like, are post-Christian societies worse? Or is it basically that everyone sucks? If it's a case of 'everyone sucking', then you can battle homophobia by battling Christian heritage only to a certain point.

I'll admit that it doesn't help that the Abrahamics sanctify a text that calls for the murder of homosexuals. But does it cause the baseline to be worse?

What makes you think so many people in Western countries find it perfectly acceptable to persecute and discriminate against homosexuals? Why does Congress still refuse to pass the very same laws protecting their basic human rights as any other group, especially when they even claim it would be violating the religious rights of Christians to properly show their hate for them if they did so? It is far more than partially responsible.

At least homosexuals who are murdered or are victims of brutal violent attacks have the consolation that the police are ostensibly working at least to some extent to find the perpetrator. Of course, not so much in some parts of the country.

As far as Hinduism and Buddhism are concerned:

Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. Referring to the nature of Samsara, the Rigveda, one of the four canonical sacred texts of Hinduism says 'Vikruti Evam Prakriti' (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems un-natural is also natural).[74] Sexuality is rarely discussed openly in the modern Hindu society, and LGBT issues are largely a taboo subject — especially among the strongly religious. A "third gender" has been acknowledged within Hinduism since Vedic times. Several Hindu texts, such as Manu Smriti[75] and Sushruta Samhita, assert that some people are born with either mixed male and female natures, or sexually neuter, as a matter of natural biology. They worked as hairdressers, flower-sellers, servants, masseurs and prostitutes. Today, many people of a "third gender" (hijras) live throughout India, mostly on the margins of society.

Several Hindu religious laws contain injunctions against homosexual activity, while some Hindu theories doesn't condemn lesbian relations and some third-gendered individuals were highly regarded. Hindu groups are historically not unifyed regarding the issue of homosexuality, each one having a distinct doctrinal view.[76][77][78]

The Indian Kama Sutra, written in the 150 BC,[79] contains passages describing eunuchs or "third-sex" males performing oral sex on men.[80][81] Similarly, some medieval Hindu temples and artifacts openly depict both male homosexuality and lesbianism within their carvings, such as the temple walls at Khajuraho. Some infer from these images that at least part of the Hindu society and religion were previously more open to variations in human sexuality than they are at present.

The most common formulation of Buddhist ethics are the Five Precepts and the Eightfold Path, one should neither be attached to nor crave sensual pleasure. The third of the Five Precepts is "To refrain from committing sexual misconduct."[88] However, "sexual misconduct" is such a broad term, and is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the followers. In fact, Buddhism in its earliest form did not clearly define sexuality rules for lay followers, restricting the subject mostly for monks. Therefore, the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not considered a religious matter by many Buddhists.[89]

Buddhism is often characterized as distrustful of sensual enjoyment and sexuality in general.[90] Traditionally, homosexual conduct and gender variance are seen as obstacles to spiritual progress in most schools of Buddhism; as such monks are expected to refrain from all sexual activity, and the Vinaya (the first book of the Tripitaka) specifically prohibits sexual intercourse, then further explain that both anal, oral as well as vaginal intercourse amount to sexual intercourse, which will result in permanent exclusion from Sangha.[91] A notable exception in the history of Buddhism occurred in Japan during the Edo period, in which male homosexuality, or more specifically, love between young novices and older monks, was celebrated.[92]

References to pandaka, a deviant sex/gender category that is usually interpreted to include homosexual males, can be found throughout the Pali canon as well as other Sanskrit scriptures.[93] Leonard Zwilling refers extensively to Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika, where pandaka are described as being filled with defiled passions and insatiable lusts, and are dominated by their libido. Some texts of the Abhidharma state that a pandaka cannot achieve enlightenment in their own lifetime, (but must wait for rebirth as a "normal" man or woman) and Asanga and Vasubandhu discussed if a pandaka was able to be enlightened or not. According to one scriptural story, Ananda—Buddha's cousin and disciple—was a pandaka in one of his many previous lives.

Some later classic Buddhist masters and texts (from both Theravada and Mahayana schools) disallow contact between Buddhists and pandakas and classify homosexuality as sexual misconduct, including for lay followers.[94][95][96][97][98][99]

It sounds like it is more of a cultural issue in India and elsewhere in Asia likely aggravated by British colonization and Christian missionaries because the direct antagonism seems to be relatively recent in their history.

 

[Funky]

Islamophobia, like anti-Semitism...

Sorry, you failed. Feel free to try again.

Islamophobes (people who hate Muslims)

Sorry, you failed again.

Yeah, I can be a prick too. The difference is that I am right.

Moderator Action: Again, don't call someone a prick.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The website you like so much to quote and consider “an excellent educational site”, Thereligionofpeace.com pretend to be a site criticizing Islam and “Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know “ which is indeed something I have no issue with. Problem when you go there, the first link I clicked on was “Dhimwit of the Month: Angela Merkel” blaming the German Chancellor for accepting Syrian refugees. A honest criticism of Islam indeed

The majority of the German population blames Merkel for accepting the vast numbers of unchecked migrants. Our interior minister de Maizière blames her. Many of her party colleges have openly blamed her. Two days ago 34 high-ranking politicians from almost all German parties wrote a letter to her criticizing her for her policy. Merkel is almost isolated in the German political sphere at the moment.

Meanwhile there are battles between the different groups of migrants on a daily basis. In Hamburg alone there were two huge fights between Syrians and Albanians and between Syrians and Afghans just in the last four days; in both cases almost a hundred people attacked each other with iron bars. The chief of our city police just said today that it was only the Muslims who are exhibiting this violent behaviour. And to add a personal experience, during our last week's school conference some of the migrants from a nearby camp came and stood outside beneath the window shouting allahu akbar.

Merkel should be criticized. And she is. Not just by the religionofpeace website, but meanwhile by an increasing amount of sane people in politics, in the media and among the populace in Germany.

So I am sorry to say, but you failed again.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

It obviously exists to a limited extent. But the cases we are discussing here are blatantly obvious. Again, it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to stop genuine criticism of Islam, which is even worse than Christianity and is more on par with Judaism in regard to sanctioning past historical atrocities, or even claiming their god was directly responsible for obviously reprehensible behavior such as genocide.

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.

Who do you think you are kidding by trying to claim that bigoted Canadians are that nuanced in their blatant hatred and rampant xenophobia?

Are you actually trying to claim that these individuals are not trying to vilify the entire religion regardless of which specific ethnic groups engage in wearing particular pieces of clothing?

 

[Flying Pig]

Are you actually trying to claim that these individuals are not trying to vilify the entire religion regardless of which specific ethnic groups engage in wearing particular pieces of clothing?

I'd be more inclined to go with the opposite - that those individuals are trying to vilify people that they see as 'foreign', regardless of which religious beliefs they happen to have. It was Catholics once, then it was Jews, then Communists, and now Muslims. All that these have in common is that people identify them with outside influences - 'Catholic' becomes shorthand for Irish, 'Communist' for Eastern European, and 'Muslim' for Middle Eastern.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd be more inclined to go with the opposite - that those individuals are trying to vilify people that they see as 'foreign', regardless of which religious beliefs they happen to have. It was Catholics once, then it was Jews, then Communists, and now Muslims. All that these have in common is that people identify them with outside influences - 'Catholic' becomes shorthand for Irish, 'Communist' for Eastern European, and 'Muslim' for Middle Eastern.

I agree with this and I have raised this point as well previously... that Islamophobia also carries a vein of racism within it which can sometimes get lost in the discussions focused on the comparisons of Islam to Christianity.

 

[REDY]

Islamophobia...

Ironically, it does make sense when used in the opposite way. Critics of Islam actually show that they don't fear Islam and its threatened reprehensions. The "islamophobes" are those who don't dare to criticize Islam, for they are the ones displaying an irrational fear by refusing to speak out against it and by attempting to silence any criticism of the religion.

Excellent observation with one mistake. To be honest, if I would be in islamic country I would never dare to criticise Islam. But I do not consider such fear to be irrational. Such people are becoming targets. Publicly state something againist islam is now becoming dangerous even in western Europe. To be honest I think that term itself doesnt silence anything, it just making cover up after attack. Attack itself silences enough.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'd be more inclined to go with the opposite - that those individuals are trying to vilify people that they see as 'foreign', regardless of which religious beliefs they happen to have. It was Catholics once, then it was Jews, then Communists, and now Muslims. All that these have in common is that people identify them with outside influences - 'Catholic' becomes shorthand for Irish, 'Communist' for Eastern European, and 'Muslim' for Middle Eastern.

The point is they feel the same way about the entire group. It doesn't matter one bit to most of them that they might be referring to an Arab, a Persian, a Punjabis, a Pashtun, or a Javanese. They are all Muslims who don't belong there, and they are all directly responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida, and ISIL due to their violent religious views.

They even include Sikhs on a regular basis merely because they wear turbans. In fact, there are more Sikhs in Canada than any other country but India, the UK, and the US. There are only 1 million Muslims in Canada and nearly 500,000 Sikhs.

And I daresay most people could distinguish an Irish Catholic from an Italian one. Or a Soviet "communist" from a Chinese.

Are there racist elements in all this? Obviously. But most xenophobes don't really care what ethnic group it might happen to be other than their own. They hate them all with a few relatively recent subtractions in the grand history of Western civilization.

 

[bhavv]

But the people who are that islamaphobic / xenophobic are clearly a tiny minority of the number of people referred to as Islamaphobes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Based on what? Your claim that Islamophobia doesn't even exist? Your own incessantly repeated statements which can be frequently found on most Muslim hate sites?

 

[Funky]

Excellent observation with one mistake. To be honest, if I would be in islamic country I would never dare to criticise Islam. But I do not consider such fear to be irrational. Such people are becoming targets. Publicly state something againist islam is now becoming dangerous even in western Europe.

You're right. I wanted to highlight the absurdity of the term "islamophobia" rather than create a new label for those who don't dare to criticize Islam. I certainly don't blame people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc for not speaking out against the religion. And the backward p*ssies in the West who refuse to do so despite having hardly anything to fear already have a name, they are regressives.

And indeed, the longer we wait to take a stance against Islam, the more difficult voicing criticism will become in the West, too. Many outspoken critics of Islam already live under police protection or have had to employ body guards. The only solution to support these people and curtail the further spread of the repugnant elements of Islam into our societies is to spread the risk. If German history has taught us something, it is the reprehensibleness of keeping silent towards the rise of totalitarianism and the transgression of human rights. It has become a moral duty to speak out against Islam.
I am personally taking some risks by doing so in my everyday life. But these risks pale in comparison to the risks that public figures, let alone Muslim reformers are taking. And the more I speak out, the more people I encounter who are aware of the problem and agree with most of what I say, yet had been cowed into silence by the regressive politically correct narratives which still dominate our media. We all share the same responsibility to speak out and combat this narrative.

 

[Flying Pig]

The point is they feel the same way about the entire group. It doesn't matter one bit to most of them that they might be referring to an Arab, a Persian, a Punjabis, a Pashtun, or a Javanese. They are all Muslims who don't belong there, and they are all directly responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida, and ISIL due to their violent religious views.

They even include Sikhs on a regular basis merely because they wear turbans. In fact, there are more Sikhs in Canada than any other country but India, the UK, and the US. There are only 1 million Muslims in Canada and nearly 500,000 Sikhs.

And I daresay most people could distinguish an Irish Catholic from an Italian one. Or a Soviet "communist" from a Chinese.

Are there racist elements in all this? Obviously. But most xenophobes don't really care what ethnic group it might happen to be other than their own. They hate them all with a few relatively recent subtractions in the grand history of Western civilization.

Precisely - the Sikh point settles it really. What people actually believe is irrelevant: people don't like ideas and people that they think of as alien. If the world's Muslims all converted to Christianity tomorrow, before long people would still find a reason to hate brown people who speak a different language and have different ideas.

 

[Funky]

What people actually believe is irrelevant: people don't like ideas and people that they think of as alien. If the world's Muslims all converted to Christianity tomorrow, before long people would still find a reason to hate brown people who speak a different language and have different ideas.

This is part of the regressive narrative I just touched on, which is not only intellectually unsustainable, it is morally reprehensible. That is not to say that there aren't bigots towards foreigners out there. But by pretending that the general criticism of politicized Islam is a result of xenophobia or racism, you are just making the problem worse. Not only are you preventing necessary criticism of detestable Islamic practises. By not dealing with the real concerns that many people have in regard to Islam, you are helping to create a vacuum, which is becoming increasingly occupied by people who indeed hold questionable beliefs.
If you want to fight xenophobia, start talking about the real problems and threats that Islam is posing to the world. Fill the void with legitimate criticism instead of surrendering it to the forces you oppose.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Precisely - the Sikh point settles it really. What people actually believe is irrelevant: people don't like ideas and people that they think of as alien. If the world's Muslims all converted to Christianity tomorrow, before long people would still find a reason to hate brown people who speak a different language and have different ideas.

This. What rings so true about this point is that the slaves brought to the US all had their own native religions and some were even Muslim. Eventually, by-and-large, blacks in the US were nearly all converted to Christianity, but there was still no acceptance or equality. There were just new excuses to hate, oppress, murder etc.

The same phenomenon is true for Hispanics. They are overwhelmingly Christian, and in many cases devoutly so... Still, Trump's (and any Republican's) promise to wall off the country to keep the Hispanics out and/or deport them all will be met with cheers... because they are reviled for being different, not for their religion. And the same would be true for Middle easterners, Arabs, Indians, Persians, Pakistanis, Indonesians etc if Islam disappeared overnight.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Precisely - the Sikh point settles it really. What people actually believe is irrelevant: people don't like ideas and people that they think of as alien. If the world's Muslims all converted to Christianity tomorrow, before long people would still find a reason to hate brown people who speak a different language and have different ideas.

Indeed.

What I think is so interesting about this particular case though, is that it shows that essentially any group can be turned into the next bogeyman based on a single incident committed by a very small group of people. This is possible because the underlying xenophobia has always been present.

 

[warpus]

The boogeyman threat that will destroy the country (tm) is a strategy used by many politicians.. It works very well.

The Americans did it with the communists and then later with "the terrorists", "the Muslims", and even "The illegal immigrants". Putin does it with "the west" and "the homosexuals". Harper does it with "niqab wearing non-Canadians".

It works so they will continue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The only real answer is to better the educational system so these people never get elected into responsible positions in the first place. Xenophobia, bigotry, and racism are the products of ignorance.