Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

[metacristi]

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; where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status). Thus the strategy to attempt to contextualize and interpret symbolically* the very violent passages of islam (little reason for doing this in the basics) is therefore inherently much less efficient than what can be done in the other Abrahamic religions.

In other words the basics of islam are not infinitely elastic in interpretation (thus the postmodernist stance that many alternative rational interpretations are possible or that there is no 'true' islam falls apart, I'm afraid we can come close enough to understanding rationally what Muhammad had in mind and unfortunately the 'progressive' interpretations are eons apart from that). What islam really needs is CONFRONTING the violent passages (admitting mistakes) but this cannot be done if one still follow the old path of trying to save with all costs the tenet that the quran is 'perfect' (or Muhammad is the 'perfect' being) instead of recognizing frankly that the holy book is fallible and that at least sometimes the conclusions of the unaided Human Mind are more important than what is written in the quran.

The mental gymnastics used today to 'solve' the problem of violence in islam cannot stop people very committed to the basics of islam to come, via plain rational reasoning, to the same old conclusion that islam must wage war against the infidels, impose islamic law on them and the plethora of other 'dark' parts of islam Keeping the proportions let's imagine that there exist a movement of 'Nazis' who claim that 'Mein Kampf' is 'perfect', Hitler is the 'perfect' being, but who nonetheless act as Jains do (via very very tortuous mental gymnastics leading to that). Of course at any time one of those very commited to the movement Nazis (who want to be rational) could wake up the next day (or the next generation) with the realization that Hitler and Mein Kampf actually teach the opposite, adjust his actions accordingly, and recruit other 'Nazis' to the 'right path'. After all all one has to do is to say 'Don't just believe me, read Mein Kampf rationally once you accept the essential basics'.

As a conclusion poverty, imperialism and other factors can only 'modulate' the theological factor which unfortunately is extremely important in the case of islam. The most efficient cure is a nontrivial change in the educational, organizational and theological aspects of islam (of course action at the level of the other factors is needed as well).

Finally a word for the apologists of islam who I know will try again to 'debunk' me with all costs (instead of engaging in an exchange of ideas). Arguing rationally that islam is more radical than other religions** and that we have to apply the same criterions when labelling someone 'moderate' is not 'islamophobia' (unfortunately we are not using the same standards with islam at the moment; that's why for example many imams who are not even capable to reject publicly the view that jews are 'pigs and monkeys', not to mention other 'dark parts' of islam, are considered, misleadingly, 'moderate' in the West).

If many muslims (in the religious establishment is crucial, they give the direction taken by the islam tomorrow) were indeed moderate in the Western acceptation of the word then one would see a lot of Tawfiq Hamids presenting openly their ideas and, even more, there would be also people arguing, without any fear, that the Quran is not 'perfect' (still considering themselves muslims).

Sadly at the moment islam still shapes very strongly culture in the Islamic world (those in the West included) instead of the other way around thus quranic criticism is inexistent (the quran still seen as 'perfect'), the level of secularism very low, personal freedoms not that important, free inquiry severely curbed, self criticism entirely missing, Human Reason not important, the level of militancy very high and so on. The key factor behind are the theological, educational and organizational 'defects' of islam, act against them and a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment becomes at least very probable (although of course the moderate islam which results from this will have quite little in common with the mainstream islam of today). Only people fully aware of the important limits of their religion and willing to be very rational can really 'direct' it where they want.

Frankly I am often puzzled on how some of these western islamophiles require from Christians (but not only) to renounce the view that the bible is perfect (fully in agreement, this is the first mark of moderation) but at the same time claim that it is somehow 'bigotry' and 'islamophobia' to request the same from muslims regarding the quran.


*whilst still preserving the central tenet that the quran is 'perfect', the muslims want the cake and eat it

**plenty of very strong reasons, I've presented often my view on the old site, but do not believe me search in Google 'Is Islam a More Radical Religion? An Inside View – by Kaveh Mousavi', 'Is Islam a More Radical Religion? Part 2' and 'The Quiet Death of Moderate Islam' (the situation now is worse than during the colonial era when no one made easy concessions to islam and thus muslims really tried to modernize; today there is no incentive to do that, aren't the 'western progressives' saying that everything is OK with the direction islam takes today? In reality those who really block a real modernization of islam are those too busy with labelling all valid criticism of islam 'islamophobia' and 'bigotry')

 

[angelo]

A great post metacristi. Often you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[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.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Frankly I am often puzzled on how some of these western islamophiles require from Christians (but not only) to renounce the view that the bible is perfect (fully in agreement, this is the first mark of moderation) but at the same time claim that it is somehow 'bigotry' and 'islamophobia' to request the same from muslims regarding the quran.<snip>

Where do you even get this idea? I couldn't care less whether Christians think their Bible is perfect/literally correct/whatever. I'm objecting when people start to push for legislation based on their interpretation of their holy book (and even then I don't care whether it's a literal or figurative interpretation, neither has a place in a secular state). Here and now, it's Christians doing that. It's Catholic Christians who reacted with riots to the enactment of gay marriage in France last year. It's Catholic Christians who successfully demanded a constitutional amendment in Croatia that would forever exclude gay marriage. It's Catholic Christians who are making legal abortion all but unavailable in Poland and Ireland. Their actions and interpretations, literalist or not, directly affect my life.

 

[angelo]

Is homosexuality tolerated in any of the muslim nations? It's just stupid religious bigots and hypocrites who are anti gay and anti abortion. Most educated people in Croatia and Poland as well as in Ireland do not agree with xtian fundamentalist and their primitive beliefs.

 

[Jokodo]

Is homosexuality tolerated in any of the muslim nations? It's just stupid religious bigots and hypocrites who are anti gay and anti abortion. Most educated people in Croatia and Poland as well as in Ireland do not agree with xtian fundamentalist and their primitive beliefs.

Most educated people anywhere don't agree with their local religious fundamentalists. That does not change the fact that at this time and place, Catholic fundamentalists, or for that matter nationalist extremists, are a far greater threat to my liberties than Muslim fundamentalists ever will be. Allying with either of the former to fend off the latter is thus beyond stupid.

 

[angelo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

 

[Jokodo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

 

[metacristi]

A great post metacristi. Often you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

No one can be made rational with force indeed. In the meantime the liberal muslims themselves (sadly a minority at the moment) draw attention to the same obvious fact that Muslims must be honest about Qur’an (by the way we have here one of the many examples of why some very commited muslims will continue to accept the view of those in Bokre Haram, I'm afraid attempts at contextualization won't suffice and cherry picking is a perfect non solution for rational enough persons who take very seriously the view that what is written in the quran is perfect and the deeds of muhammad deserve to be emulated at all times). The solution is elementary still some prefer to continue ad infinitum with the same red herring 'others do the same' (when in fact the difference is abysmal*) seconded inevitably by attempts to block all rational criticism of islam via fraudulent use of words such as 'islamophobia'. Not my fault that the basics of islam are more radical than those of other religions (leaving also way less 'holes' for important change via unaided Human Reason) and thus, inevitably, it is much more difficult to reform it to become fully compatible with Modernity. There is as much 'islamophobia' here as unicorns on Earth.


*Christianity and Judaism, of course, have their fundamentalists but it would be a delusion to think that these religions are on the same level with Islam. The crucial difference is that they have a much stronger internal logic inside the basic tenets leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts and limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts. Christianity for example is way less the religion of Jesus than the religion ABOUT Jesus and ever since Paul the symbolic interpretation of the Old Testament and the Jewish Law was stressed making the path way easier to today's view that what counts to still be a Christian is to believe in the Ressurection of Jesus and that he died for Humanity's sins plus a few other basic tenets. Accepting that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' whilst still being a Christian is not that difficult to justify rationally.

Also both Christianity and Judaism give a much more importance to unaided Human Reason (after all Job argues with God when he thinks is treated unjustly whilst in islam only 'submission' is acceptable) and at least since the 13th century Reason became more and more prominent (Judaism may be closer to islam given the importance accorded to the Jewish Law but its rabbis were able centuries ago to renounce the barbaric practices of the torah and this paved the way to today's Reform Judaism).

The 'quantum jump' necessary to accept that the conclusions of the unaided Human Reason are sometimes more important than what is written in the holy book is much less important and indeed both Christians and Jews already did that many centuries ago whilst we still wait for a real and durable muslim Enlightenment in spite of centuries now of exposure to Modernity (still no counterpart of liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism, the rather few liberal muslims are far from the 'critical mass' needed for that; I cannot count here people who are liberal inside but who prefer to hide, they are indeed no more than passive carriers of the same islam of the past).

 

[angelo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

Who said anything about siding with xtian or any other fundies?

 

[angelo]

A great post metacristi. Often you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

No one can be made rational with force indeed. In the meantime the liberal muslims themselves (sadly a minority at the moment) draw attention to the same obvious fact that Muslims must be honest about Qur’an (by the way we have here one of the many examples of why some very commited muslims will continue to accept the view of those in Bokre Haram, I'm afraid attempts at contextualization won't suffice and cherry picking is a perfect non solution for rational enough persons who take very seriously the view that what is written in the quran is perfect and the deeds of muhammad deserve to be emulated at all times). The solution is elementary still some prefer to continue ad infinitum with the same red herring 'others do the same' (when in fact the difference is abysmal*) seconded inevitably by attempts to block all rational criticism of islam via fraudulent use of words such as 'islamophobia'. Not my fault that the basics of islam are more radical than those of other religions (leaving also way less 'holes' for important change via unaided Human Reason) and thus, inevitably, it is much more difficult to reform it to become fully compatible with Modernity. There is as much 'islamophobia' here as unicorns on Earth.


*Christianity and Judaism, of course, have their fundamentalists but it would be a delusion to think that these religions are on the same level with Islam. The crucial difference is that they have a much stronger internal logic inside the basic tenets leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts and limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts. Christianity for example is way less the religion of Jesus than the religion ABOUT Jesus and ever since Paul the symbolic interpretation of the Old Testament and the Jewish Law was stressed making the path way easier to today's view that what counts to still be a Christian is to believe in the Ressurection of Jesus and that he died for Humanity's sins plus a few other basic tenets. Accepting that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' whilst still being a Christian is not that difficult to justify rationally.

Also both Christianity and Judaism give a much more importance to unaided Human Reason (after all Job argues with God when he thinks is treated unjustly whilst in islam only 'submission' is acceptable) and at least since the 13th century Reason became more and more prominent (Judaism may be closer to islam given the importance accorded to the Jewish Law but its rabbis were able centuries ago to renounce the barbaric practices of the torah and this paved the way to today's Reform Judaism).

The 'quantum jump' necessary to accept that the conclusions of the unaided Human Reason are sometimes more important than what is written in the holy book is much less important and indeed both Christians and Jews already did that many centuries ago whilst we still wait for a real and durable muslim Enlightenment in spite of centuries now of exposure to Modernity (still no counterpart of liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism, the rather few liberal muslims are far from the 'critical mass' needed for that; I cannot count here people who are liberal inside but who prefer to hide, they are indeed no more than passive carriers of the same islam of the past).

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

 

[Jokodo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

Who said anything about siding with xtian or any other fundies?

That's exactly what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and to a lesser extent Sam Harris are doing.

 

[Jokodo]

*Christianity and Judaism, of course, have their fundamentalists but it would be a delusion to think that these religions are on the same level with Islam.

It doesn't matter whether, in some abstract sense, Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism are "on the same level". What matters is that one of them is an acute threat to my liberties as a citizen of Austria and the European Union while the other one isn't. In this context, playing the fascists' and Christian fundamentalists' game of bashing immigrants, thus strengthening the former who are a much greater threat than the latter, is suicidal - even if it were true in principle that there's a categorical difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists.

The rest is just the usual declarations without argument.

 

[angelo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

Who said anything about siding with xtian or any other fundies?

That's exactly what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and to a lesser extent Sam Harris are doing.

Both are atheist, so taking a xtian side is really taking the western culture side not it's religions.

 

[Togo]

I'm struggling to understand how metachristi's lengthy apologetics for religious discrimination could only apply to Islam, and not to any other religion or ideology. Yes, various holy texts associated with Islam have violent sections, but that doesn't mean that followers of the religion inevitably drift towards violence, any more than the violent passages in the Bible mean that Christians inevitably drift towards violence. Christianity has a history of violence against others in the name of religion, including the violent overthrow of governments, torture of individuals over religious beliefs, and the provision of blanket religious sanction for violent acts. So where's the case for picking on Islam over any other ideology?

This seems to me to be a wilful refusal to face facts. The fact is that most Muslims are no more violent than any other group. There is no case or evidence for believing otherwise.

 

[Jokodo]

Depends on where one lives. Muslim fundamentalist can be a threat if one is surrounded by them. The same as catholic fundies are a threat if surrounded by them. Certainly they are causing untold misery to millions of people in South America, Philippines, Sub Sahara Africa where xtianity is well entrenched and sometimes in government. In the latter case been anti birth control while sexual transmitted diseases and over population is rampant.
The same can be said about countries under the islam yoke such as in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc.

And how is any of that an argument for siding with Christian fundamentalists when in a Christian-majority country?

Who said anything about siding with xtian or any other fundies?

That's exactly what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and to a lesser extent Sam Harris are doing.

Both are atheist, so taking a xtian side is really taking the western culture side not it's religions.

She may be an atheist, but she's advocating for Christianity more so than for secularism, and has no qualms closely collaborating with US conservatives (and I don't have to tell you that those are a religious bunch).
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.co.at/2011/08/this-is-what-happens-when-you-join-neo.html
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...urges-oppressed-muslims-to-become-christians/

 

[angelo]

I'm struggling to understand how metachristi's lengthy apologetics for religious discrimination could only apply to Islam, and not to any other religion or ideology. Yes, various holy texts associated with Islam have violent sections, but that doesn't mean that followers of the religion inevitably drift towards violence, any more than the violent passages in the Bible mean that Christians inevitably drift towards violence. Christianity has a history of violence against others in the name of religion, including the violent overthrow of governments, torture of individuals over religious beliefs, and the provision of blanket religious sanction for violent acts. So where's the case for picking on Islam over any other ideology?

This seems to me to be a wilful refusal to face facts. The fact is that most Muslims are no more violent than any other group. There is no case or evidence for believing otherwise.

I will name you just two. 9/11 and the London bombings.

 

[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.

 

[jab]

Yeah, I keep forgetting that bigotry against an entire subset of the population somehow becomes acceptable so long as the person spewing it has been wronged by someone belonging to that subset of the population. Racists and xenophobes across the globe will rejoice at that revelation. And I'm sure that if we were talking about some Palestinian who thinks that all Jews are an enemy who should be crushed and calling for them to be treated like second-class citizens, you'd be rushing to his defense like you are Ali's and chastising others here for labeling him a bigot. Not.

If one should be careful not to associate oneself with Far Right elements in one way, one should think carefully about dipping one's bodily appendages into the fetid pool of misogynist piss.

And luckily, anyone with at least a few functional brain cells can see that that's not what I or anyone else here is doing.

YOUR FIRST POINT: Bad analogy--use your brain cells: "A Palestinian" is not to Jews as Hirsi Ali is to Islam.
YOUR SECOND POINT: luckily I have more than a few brain cells functions and can see and smell just fine.
Why is it not misogynist for a man to induge himself in pesornal attacks on a woman because she is talking about her thoughts deriviing from her misogynist treatment?

 

[jab]

As to discussions "going to the actual ideology", I would be thrilled to have a Faculty Member with a PhD in Middle Eastern and Islamic Culture to be a participant in our discussions here. I already know that there would be no inflammatory rhetoric. Hopefully, we would all recognize how poorly informed we are about the diversity of the schools of thoughts within Islam, keep our mouths shut and take the opportunity to learn.

This appeal to a hyphothetical PHD is an example of a fallacious appeal to authority. Not good enough to make "us" shut "our" mouths.