Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

[angelo]

<snip>Actually, it's scary having Turkey as a member of Nato.

Turkey is moving in the wrong direction in many way (but also in the right direction in some other ways, ironically, given the Islamist rhetorics of the current government, including when it comes to the recognition of religious minority). But implying that that should make it incompatible with NATO shows an ignorance of the scope and purpose of NATO. NATO never was an alliance of free countries. Remember Greece, Spain and Portugal during the 60s and 70s? They were members when they were run by military juntas - and Portugal almost got kicked out for becoming a democracy (given that the revolution that ousted the generals was explicitly leftwing, the other members feared that they might gravitate towards the USSR).

Whatever Turkey under Erdogan is (and I agree it's far from a shining beacon of democracy), it still is much freer than the Portuguese "Estado Novo", Spanish "Franquismo", or the Greek regime of the colonels were.

Nato is a defence org set up during the cold war in opposition and against the Soviet led Warsaw Pact. What would that madman Erdogan do in a conflict with Russia today? I wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him. I see the Turkish high court knocked back his attempt to ban You Tube in Turkey. That gives a glimmer of hope that his regime which is loaded with his cronies may be on the way down.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Angelo : Don't hold your breath while waiting for rational reform of islam.

Since 2004, the Moroccan Mudawana has undergone important reforms demonstrating the clear intent to distance Moroccans from a traditional Islam while enhancing principles (now reflected in the modifications of the Moroccan Constitution) which could not be without undertaking a rational reform of Islam. But of course folks who claim that there is only "very few liberal Muslims" and dump all Muslims in the same bag are not going to do their home work. Their drive being to perpetuate anti Muslim fear/hate mongering propaganda. Thus sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" every time their claims are being refuted. Such as your above quoted claim duly refuted by the ongoing social and judiciary reforms in Morocco which specifically target the traditional Muslim Mudawana.

You keep harping on about Morocco. What about the other 95% of muslim countries? I'll give an example. Turkey, A once secular muslim nation who elected a hard line muslim PM and since then is slipping more and more under the islamic yoke. This pm's last attempt was to curb social media, or place it under scrutiny. Turkey, a once Israeli ally is now another of it's enemies. And the worrying thing is this country is a member of Nato, who wants to join the EU with just Germany standing in it's way of becoming a fully fledged member nation.

I brought up the Mudawana reforms Morocco because of your quoted claim. As if a rational reform of Islam is impossible. Which is obviously not true. It is a lengthy process but it can happen. And once more prompted from the inside out, by Muslims of a liberal and moderate profile. According to you and metachristi, such Muslims are only "very few". Yet the very leadership in Morocco has been leading the nation towards distancing itself from a traditional and conservative Islam.

As to the portraying of all Muslims hating Jews, already during WW2, Sultan Mohammed Vth had refused to surrender Moroccan Jews to the Nazis. Morocco remains a strong ally to Israel.

Further and dispersed in 8 Muslim nations, Muslims supporters of the existence of the State of Israel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel

If you will actually read this article, you will notice that some are Muslim scholars who even support Zionism.

From your wiki link................Modern times

A number of Muslim groups that have histories of conflict with Arabs, including Kurds and Berbers, have also voiced support for Israel and Zionism.[28] Ramin H. Artin, of the Kurdish-American Education Society, argues that the creation of Israel has been "a thorn in the eye of fascists who would rather eliminate the Jewish state". He concluded that an Israeli-Kurdish alliance is "natural", and that sincere mutual respect and recognition of each other's rights can lead to peace and prosperity.[29]

Palazzi noted that although in present days support for Israel among Muslims is a minority orientation, there are some exceptions, such as former President of Indonesia and leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, Shaykh Abdurrahman Wahid, and the Grand Mufti of the Russian Federation, Shaykh Talgat Tajuddin, the Mufti of European Russia, Shaykh Salman Farid, who wrote a fatwa against the intifadah. According to Palazzi, more examples for Pro-Israeli Muslim clerics are the Muftis of Chechnya, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.[17][s And further................
Intolerance towards Muslim supporters of Israel

In the Muslim world, support of Israel is mostly met with opposition. In 2004, Sarah Nasser, a Muslim college student in Canada known for her pro-Israel views, received death threats after expressing support for the Jewish state's right to exist. "Being a supporter of the existence of Israel does not conflict with Islam, it complements Islam," she said. "The Koran does not have any verses that do not allow for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel (...) "I love Jews as I love true Muslims," she said. "Therefore, I believe Jews should have a right to live legitimately in their homeland."[11][106] In Bangladesh, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper and self described "Muslim Zionist", was attacked and beaten in 2006 by a mob of nearly 40 people, leaving him with a fractured ankle. During the assault, the attackers shouted at Choudhury, labeling him an "agent of the Jews."[12]

In 2011, Alaa Alsaegh, a Muslim from Iraq who posted online a poem expressing support for Jewish people in Israel, was reportedly attacked in St. Louis, with a Star of David being carved into his back.[107]

How does that invalidate the reality that one can be a Muslim yet not hate Jews?

 

[jab]

Aha, see, her misogynist treatment is only "supposed"; according to your fingertips as you typed or your tongue as you dictated: "I'm not attacking AHA because she 'shares her thoughts' about her supposed 'misogynist treatment.'".
Point 1: Palestines were never members of the Jewish comunity, and their critiques about their mistreatment come from outside it, unlike Hirsi and Islam.
"And neither you nor anyone else would say a fucking word if I did that to someone other than Ali speaking about any group other than Muslims." Proof? You have none. thius is just name calling.

 

[jab]

There's certainly no shortage of takers for terrorists causes. They are finding these volunteers from within islam not from without. The often repeated : "not all muslims are terrorist, but most terrorist are muslim " is fact whether you agree or not.

The core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism;

Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?

where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status

I guess that's why most churches and few sects of Islam have a rigid clerical hierarchy.

If those are the premises you start with, I don't even have to read the rest to know it's mostly bullshit. Unfortunately, I did nonetheless, and was not surprised.

Um, lots of Chrisitians claim that the Bible is not inerrant and perfect <snip>

metacristi's claim was specifically that Islam is in principle and unlike Christianity incompatible with a non-fundamentalist interpretation due to its "internal logic". That's a very different claim than saying that at this point in history Christians tend to be less fanatic. Trying to use one as evidence for the other is futile.

um, I was dealing with one specific point you made by the fallacious use of a rhetorical question:" Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?"

 

[jab]

So Ali Hirsi is making it all up. She and those who criticise islam are wrong to criticise the religion of peace. We should just shut the fark up and stop criticising them when they mutilate a baby girl, marry off a 9 year old to a 50 year old uncle.
Shut up when a rape victim is then charged with adultery and given 50 lashes and perhaps stoned to death as well. Let the so called moderates have their sharia laws superimpose western laws in Western countries. Turn a blind eye to their treatment of women in general and just let them be.

Can you try and reply to my post rather than to something that exists only in your head? Thank you!

evading the issue--you're making up slurs about angelo's post.

How can it be making up slurs to say that angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post when ... angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post?

My previous post which 1) did not say that Ali Hirsi is "making it all up"; did not say that it is wrong to criticise any religion; C) did not call for Sharia laws or any of the other positions he is attributing to me. If anybody was slurring anybody else in that part of the dialogue, it isn't me.

Here's my preceding post for context. He still hasn't, best as I can tell, explicated how he would like to go about denying rights "to a religion" that doesn't curtail people's religious freedoms, nor provided evidence that "muslims in general" accept the shit extremists tell them.

Religions don't have rights. People have rights, among them the right to practice their religion in any way they see fit as long as it doesn't contradict the law of the land. It's therefore logically impossible to "deny rights to a religion" without denying rights to people.

Ali Hirsi is correct in branding muslims in general as sheeple for accepting what their sheiks and imam extremists teach them.

For that statement to be able to be correct, it would have to be true that "muslims in general accept what extremists teach them. It isn't.

To hate the Jew and infidel. They do so without a word of protest.

Why should anyone believe that you have any insight whatsoever into the political and theological debates among Muslims? It's not like your track record in this thread suggests that the quality of information you're building upon goes much beyond making up stuff that fits your narrative.

Slur "something that exists only in your own head".

 

[jab]

Warpoet, I think, and perhaps others on this thread, have said that Hirsi Ali is doing so. Perhaps they are confusing making allies with unsavory people for one's own cause with siding with unsavory people to support their cause. The first alternative is dangerous, because one can get co-opted.

Her own words, the rhetoric she engages in and the policies she advocates are more than reason enough for any rational person to completely disregard her. That she cozies up with right-wing Christian nutters merely is a secondary reason. She has just as much as credibility as they do (zero).

And neither you, nor any of the other apologists who have come rushing to her defense, have made any sound arguments to the contrary. Not one.

actually, in other posts, I am criticizing the intemperance of some of your statements, not "rushing to her defence", to quote a cliche. In this post I am being somewhat critical of Ali--but not intemparately enough for you, it seems. Are you aware that this post leaves itself open to the inference that you do not see yourself as a rational person?-->You are not "completely disregad[ing]" her (to quote another cliche).

 

[Warpoet]

Point 1: Palestines were never members of the Jewish comunity, and their critiques about their mistreatment come from outside it, unlike Hirsi and Islam.

Oh, there are plenty of Jews who have been victimized by their coreligionists as well. But it doesn't matter; AHA is not an expert on Islam because she grew up in a Muslim country. She can speak to her own personal experience, but her broad-brush generalizations about the entirety of the religion hold no more weight than those of a Palestinian who spews hatred against Jews in the exact same manner. So any way you try to slice, your case falls on its ass.

This has been the main point -- really the only important one -- hence you've dodged it shamelessly:

"Islam" did not do anything to Hirsi Ali. Muslims may have done things -- although her own personal narrative is highly questionable, as I've outlined in the past -- but regardless, whatever those Muslims did can in no way, shape or form justify her vilification and calls for the wholesale discrimination of all Muslims, everywhere. Whether or not you and the rest of her apologists can get that through your skulls is another matter entirely.

I don't expect you to address it directly, because if you could, then you would have from the start. But you can't, and thus, you didn't.

 

[Warpoet]

actually, in other posts, I am criticizing the intemperance of some of your statements, not "rushing to her defence", to quote a cliche. In this post I am being somewhat critical of Ali--but not intemparately enough for you, it seems. Are you aware that this post leaves itself open to the inference that you do not see yourself as a rational person?-->You are not "completely disregad[ing]" her (to quote another cliche).

Why? Because I have to explain to her apologists, like you, shit that shouldn't need to be explained in the first place?

What your case amounts to is a plea that AHA's blatant, boldfaced bigotry against Muslims ought to be treated with kid gloves because she comes from a Muslim family and was subjected to some degree of abuse by certain Muslims.

And that's fucking bullshit that would never fly around here were it someone other than AHA with her sights aimed at a group other than Muslims. But you'll find that some of us on this board, myself included, actually do give a shit about the values we "liberals" are supposed to uphold and we don't make exceptions on calling out bigotry for what it is. If you don't like it, that's tough shit.

 

[Warpoet]

And honestly -- if you think complaining about my "intemperance" when it comes to a subject like this one is going to get you anywhere, you must REALLY not have been paying attention.

 

[Jokodo]

There's certainly no shortage of takers for terrorists causes. They are finding these volunteers from within islam not from without. The often repeated : "not all muslims are terrorist, but most terrorist are muslim " is fact whether you agree or not.

The core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism;

Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?

where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status

I guess that's why most churches and few sects of Islam have a rigid clerical hierarchy.

If those are the premises you start with, I don't even have to read the rest to know it's mostly bullshit. Unfortunately, I did nonetheless, and was not surprised.

Um, lots of Chrisitians claim that the Bible is not inerrant and perfect <snip>

metacristi's claim was specifically that Islam is in principle and unlike Christianity incompatible with a non-fundamentalist interpretation due to its "internal logic". That's a very different claim than saying that at this point in history Christians tend to be less fanatic. Trying to use one as evidence for the other is futile.

um, I was dealing with one specific point you made by the fallacious use of a rhetorical question:" Which part of the internal logic of Christianity or Judaism suggests that the book is less than perfect?"

That's not a rhetorical question when the person before me specifically claims that "The core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism".

If metacristi wants to build an argument upon that claim, he or she has got to provide evidence for the "internal logic" of Christianity/Judaism providing for taking the book as "far from being 'perfect'". Demanding that an assumption the rest of the argument rests upon be explicitly discussed is not a "fallacious use of a rhetorical question", it's standard practice among people striving to lead a rational debate.

 

[Jokodo]

So Ali Hirsi is making it all up. She and those who criticise islam are wrong to criticise the religion of peace. We should just shut the fark up and stop criticising them when they mutilate a baby girl, marry off a 9 year old to a 50 year old uncle.
Shut up when a rape victim is then charged with adultery and given 50 lashes and perhaps stoned to death as well. Let the so called moderates have their sharia laws superimpose western laws in Western countries. Turn a blind eye to their treatment of women in general and just let them be.

Can you try and reply to my post rather than to something that exists only in your head? Thank you!

evading the issue--you're making up slurs about angelo's post.

How can it be making up slurs to say that angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post when ... angelo's post does not engage any of the points in my previous post?

My previous post which 1) did not say that Ali Hirsi is "making it all up"; did not say that it is wrong to criticise any religion; C) did not call for Sharia laws or any of the other positions he is attributing to me. If anybody was slurring anybody else in that part of the dialogue, it isn't me.

Here's my preceding post for context. He still hasn't, best as I can tell, explicated how he would like to go about denying rights "to a religion" that doesn't curtail people's religious freedoms, nor provided evidence that "muslims in general" accept the shit extremists tell them.

Religions don't have rights. People have rights, among them the right to practice their religion in any way they see fit as long as it doesn't contradict the law of the land. It's therefore logically impossible to "deny rights to a religion" without denying rights to people.

Ali Hirsi is correct in branding muslims in general as sheeple for accepting what their sheiks and imam extremists teach them.

For that statement to be able to be correct, it would have to be true that "muslims in general accept what extremists teach them. It isn't.

To hate the Jew and infidel. They do so without a word of protest.

Why should anyone believe that you have any insight whatsoever into the political and theological debates among Muslims? It's not like your track record in this thread suggests that the quality of information you're building upon goes much beyond making up stuff that fits your narrative.

Slur "something that exists only in your own head".

Me defending any of those things he mentioned is something that only exists in angelo's head indeed.

 

[angelo]

What is wrong with islam only exists in my head, right! Apologists for islam are on a sticky wicket defending the indefensible. Attacking the messenger in this case Hirsi Ali is the oldest trick in the book. But them muslims are very good at that sort of thing aren't they. Silencing the criticism and many Western governments turning a blind eye is exactly what the imams and extremist islamics are seeking and getting while the naive believe the muslim problem will somehow go away.

 

[Jokodo]

What is wrong with islam only exists in my head, right! <snip>

Care to try and read what people are actually saying? That would be much appreciated.

No-one on this thread, as far as I'm aware of, is denying that some Muslims do awful things in the name of Islam. What is under debate is whether that justifies treating all Muslims as second-class citizens. You're not making that argument by repeating that which is not disputed, much less by creating a strawman version of our argument where we are disputing it.

 

[angelo]

Perhaps when islam start to treat their women as equal to men, Western society may treat them all as equals as well. Or when ordinary muslims protest muslim atrocities.

 

[Jokodo]

Perhaps when islam start to treat their women as equal to men, Western society may treat them all as equals as well.

Let me se if I can parse this. Are you implying that individuals' civil rights should be conditional on all members of the groups they belong to accepting those same civil rights for others? Like, no full rights to any Muslims as long as some, or even many, Muslims don't accept full rights for women?

What you're proposing is essentially giving up the post-Enlightenment concept of unconditional, innate individual rights and replacing them by the old feudal-day concept of privileges which a sovereign can grant or not grant to a group. The "Western society" of your dreams would thus in effect emulate the way a Sharia state would treat minorities. Do you really want to stoop down to that level?

And even so, how to define the groups? If some misogynist Muslim men treat women awfully, why make all Muslim the category to which to deny equal rights, rather than misogynists, or for that matter men?

Or when ordinary muslims protest muslim atrocities.

Which they already do. Argument from ignorance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Perhaps when islam start to treat their women as equal to men, Western society may treat them all as equals as well.

But then, Western society would have to treat most of the West as 2nd class citizens until we can finally wipe out all racial bigotry, no? I mean, it wouldn't be at all fair if, for example, our justice system treats blacks and whites differently, then we point fingers at how Islam treats men and women differently.

Or how we treat gays, maybe?

Are you also campaigning against the Boy Scouts, Angelo?

 

[angelo]

"Muslims against Democracy and Western values" "The Holocaust Is A hoax." "Ban the Talmud," while selling books on jihad with guns and barb wire on the cover. This comes from the same groups who complain of discrimination and islamophobia.
I'm citing a parade in New York on Sept. 9th, 2007, two days before the sixth anniversary of 9/11.
This in America, how would they go parading with anti muslim signs with such slogans in say Pakistan, or Syria?
Whatever can be done to reduce or eliminate the scourge of islam and it's fascist ideology must be done even if it does discriminate against islam.

 

[Jokodo]

"Muslims against Democracy and Western values" "The Holocaust Is A hoax." "Ban the Talmud," while selling books on jihad with guns and barb wire on the cover.

Oh, you mean that fringe group of, according to their own homepage and confirmed by the photos on which they appear, less than a handful of people who staged what was effectively a small counter-demonstration to the more mainstream leadership that organised the Muslim Day Parade? Who are dead set against the latter whom they consider as apostates, and thereby as worse than infidels? Who say their main mission as warning their fellow Muslims about the dangers of following those "apostate" mainstream leaders of the Muslim community?

This comes from the same groups who complain of discrimination and islamophobia.

No it doesn't. Saying that they are "the same" is almost like equivocating between the Lutheran Church of Sweden (which is performing homosexual marriages), and the Westboro Baptist Church, on the grounds that both ar Protestants.

I'm citing a parade in New York on Sept. 9th, 2007, two days before the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

I had to google it, but when you actually look at the photos without having someone interpret them for you, you'll find that what you're talking about is a roadside stall, manned by, it seems, probably no more than three people and at most five men, who were trying to obstruct a parade that they found un-Islamic. Here's their own words (although it seems referring to the same event in a different year): "The Islamic Thinkers Society will be there [...] to give authentic da’wah to the moderate and confused Muslims who will be there." In other words, even they know and acknowledge that they are a fringe minority as it is.

Here's one Muslim source talking about that fringe group (also an example of Muslim denouncing their extremists, something you keep claiming doesn't exist). And here's professional islamophobe Pamela Geller's post about the day. If you skip the misleading text between the lines and look at the photos without instruction, you will find that they are not representative of the Parade in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Warpoet]

Threads like this really need some sort of off button. Or perhaps a "credibility meter" for the people who use them to advance their propaganda, like angelo, whose credibility went negative long ago and dips lower with every post he makes.

 

[metacristi]

The problem with islam is actually very simple no matter how much some people 'muddle the waters' in lengthy posts in the hope that this will pass as a successful argument against the secular criticism of islam:

1. The basics of islam (quran + hadith + medival Islamic jurisprudence, still largely with us today) has many injunctions (explicit, clear meaning) in stark contradiction with Modernity. Muhammad's deeds are often very far from today's morality. The basics of islam may be amenable to some degree of interpretation but it is definitely not infinitely elastic in (rational) interpretation, no mental gymnastics can make some dark parts of islam disappear (other than by recognizing mistakes).

2. The quran however is viewed all over the muslim world as 'perfect' (pre-existent with god in heaven thus above historical criticism) and Muhammad as the 'perfect being' who deserves emulation at all times (this is what even the quran itself teaches explicitly).

3. At the same time unaided, rational, Human Reason is severely played down in the muslim traditions, starting with the quran itself (after all islam means 'submission', people 'slaves' of allah).

That's why al Ghazali's views won so easily over the sunni world (unfortunately the shia are not far away in spite of a slightly better situation, this is why we have a theocratic iran and not a secular and democratic one, still too much reverence to the traditions). And the value attributed to Human Reason remains far from what it should be (in spite of centuries now of exposure to Modernity) to really make islam fully compatible with Modernity (via the transformation of islam, the only real option, going well beyond the mainstream islam of today). Finally usually those aware of the limits either prefer to hide or make sure that their proposals are modest enough to not be called 'apostates' (they are what I call passive carriers of the same islam of the past; in contrast the vast majority of more progressive muslims are unaware of the basics of islam, they are unconscious carriers of the same old islam which they never really challenge at the core).

4. The consequence of these is that in the muslim world it is still religion (islam) that strongly shapes culture and not the other way around (as in the other parts of the globe), no surprise that the level of secularism and liberal democracy is way lower than what is needed for the creation of really modern states.

There is a difference of degree here between the 'radicals' and many peaceful muslims indeed but sadly not of real substance (what even many of the 'progressives' of islam advocate fall way too short from what is needed to create a real and durable muslim Enlightenment). The outcome is much of the same: severe curbing of personal freedoms and free inquiry which put huge brakes to progress.

5. This brings naturally the next point, we have to use the same standards when defining who is moderate and who is radical / conservative in islam. A reasonable standard is that used to define moderate Christianity, the public attitude toward the status of the holy book and secularism is crucial for only rationality at this level, seconded by a healthy religious education can push the religion beyond a certain threshold of 'no return', that is a return, be it partial, toward the 'dark' practices of the past appears implausible. The cutting point is not between terrorists and peaceful but between those advocating publicly a healthy level of secularism + modern values + openly admitting that even the holy book is fallible and those falling short of this.

I'm afraid many muslims are not moderate in the western standard, including many of those considered 'moderate' today in the West (they never confront publicly sharia, preferring instead to claim that it is fully compatible with Modernity, or the view that the Jews are 'pigs and monkeys' and so on).

I do however make an exception for those like Tawfiq Hamid who, while not advocating directly that even the quran is fallible*, let us read clearly 'between the lines' that he is fully aware even about its limits (we deal with moderation in the Western sense, at the very limit; at the same time we must never forget that even he is labelled 'islamophobic' by muslims and their western defenders). The real moderates at the practical level are limited to a few elites at the moment. there is still no moderate islam.

7. Finally the 'others do the same' 'argument' is a red herring, those who know well the basics of Christianity and Judaism know equally well that there is an important difference between the basics of these religions and islam, enough to produce significantly different outcomes at the practical level.

For example the fact that Christianity had since the beginning a bent toward interpreting symbolically the Old Testament and Jewish Law (and gives much more support pro the value of the unaided human reason**) than islam lead naturally to an expansion of what should be interpreted symbolically or contextualized historically (ever since Reason was rehabilitated in the 13th century) and finally made easy the 'quantum jump' to the view that at least sometimes the conclusions of the unaided Human Reason are more important than what is written in the holy book. As I said before it is not that difficult to remain a Christian whilst still accepting that the Bible is far from being 'perfect'. Sadly the particularities of islam make this jump extremely difficult.


*it is clear that he's forced by the very reactionary basics of islam to not make explicitly this step

**after all Job argues with God when he think he was mistreated, people can know what is good and evil via reason in Christianity and Judaism (unlike the theology of islam where submission is the only option, whatever god defines as moral via the holy book and muhammad is necessarily good)