Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

[Sabine Grant]

To Jokodo and Sabine.

What is your stance on ideologies in general? Can they be dangerous? Can the beliefs of individuals be dangerous? If they can be, then what is the appropriate action for society to take?

IMO a rewinding on how nationalism in the 20th Century festered regimes such as the Third Reich, Italian fascism and Franco ought to give you an answer to your question. IMO rewinding on how such nationalism also festered secondary ideologies targeting specific ethnic groups ought to answer your question. Of course, nationalism is dangerous. Xenophobia being closely related to nationalism. Redefining who is a "True(place whichever nationality)" is dangerous. Suggesting that anyone not conformed to those re- definitions is to be stripped of their Constitutional Identity is dangerous. Endorsing and promoting uniformity in culture, credo, ethnicity, sexual orientation, origin, language etc...as the mean to accomplish unity is dangerous as it is the direct entry into eliminating "whom is different". Any non conformed group at any time can become the target. To include atheists.

To never forget that atheists were defined by GHWB as unworthy of deserving Constitutional Identity. You say "society" while not realizing that you would empower governments to decide who is to be targeted by measures while evaluating what is a dangerous ideology. Are you not aware that atheists rank as one of the most hated groups in your country? Not aware that it would take a shift towards a theocratic government in the US for atheists to be defined as "individuals with a dangerous ideology" and join the list of groups who were declared personae non gratae by the government of a "society"?

As a member of the French society and empowered to vote due to my French Constitutional Identity as all other French citizens are, it is via my vote in our democratic system that I will do my part by never supporting any political group endorsing a nationalistic agenda. That is my own measure. Aside from my vote, I will actively participate in the marketing of ideas and rebuke nationalistic agendas. Whether I do it by writing an article in a French paper (letter to the editor) or join a group of activists with a greater access to the media/press.

 

[Zeluvia]

I took nothing out of context. I said that she promotes stripping Muslims of their constitutional rights, and that's what the quotes I provided demonstrate. Nothing you posted changed that. If anything, it makes her position even more offensive to rational people by outlining the absurd, fearmongering overgeneralizations and sky-is-falling rhetoric she couches her position in. It's the same agitprop bullshit that's been used to justify persecuting others for thousands of years.

These discussions never go to the actual ideology. It's always but "X said this horrible thing, all people that have problems with Islam and agree with X are horrible people and Islamophobes".

No, it's "all people that promote violating the basic principles of a free society by treating everyone who happens to be Muslim like second-class citizens regardless of what they actually think are Islamophobes." It is not an issue of attacking Islam as a religion, it's an issue of people like Ali attacking Muslims as an entire group of people. And your continued attempts to blur the lines of that distinction are disingenuous and unpersuasive. Ditto Sam Harris.

The only thing I see in your quotes that could even be close to "stripping Muslims of their constitutional rights" is her discussion of shutting down Muslim schools.
I don't see her saying property should be seized, they should not be allowed to vote, or to speak, or to assemble, ect.

And she gives her example from her own experience, that of being taught to hate Jews. Now I have no idea if Muslim schools in the US teach kids to hate Jews, but I seriously doubt they do.

I agree with shutting down ALL religious based schools that take the place of primary education. So I don't see the right to educate your child any way you want as a constitutional right. That opinion is not based on Muslim schools in the US, but on Evangelical Christian schools that oppose teaching science because it contradicts the Bible.

 

[Zeluvia]

To Jokodo and Sabine.

What is your stance on ideologies in general? Can they be dangerous? Can the beliefs of individuals be dangerous? If they can be, then what is the appropriate action for society to take?

IMO a rewinding on how nationalism in the 20th Century festered regimes such as the Third Reich, Italian fascism and Franco ought to give you an answer to your question. IMO rewinding on how such nationalism also festered secondary ideologies targeting specific ethnic groups ought to answer your question. Of course, nationalism is dangerous. Xenophobia being closely related to nationalism. Redefining who is a "True(place whichever nationality)" is dangerous. Suggesting that anyone not conformed to those re- definitions is to be stripped of their Constitutional Identity is dangerous. Endorsing and promoting uniformity in culture, credo, ethnicity, sexual orientation, origin, language etc...as the mean to accomplish unity is dangerous as it is the direct entry into eliminating "whom is different". Any non conformed group at any time can become the target. To include atheists.

To never forget that atheists were defined by GHWB as unworthy of deserving Constitutional Identity. You say "society" while not realizing that you would empower governments to decide who is to be targeted by measures while evaluating what is a dangerous ideology. Are you not aware that atheists rank as one of the most hated groups in your country? Not aware that it would take a shift towards a theocratic government in the US for atheists to be defined as "individuals with a dangerous ideology" and join the list of groups who were declared personae non gratae by the government of a "society"?

As a member of the French society and empowered to vote due to my French Constitutional Identity as all other French citizens are, it is via my vote in our democratic system that I will do my part by never supporting any political group endorsing a nationalistic agenda. That is my own measure. Aside from my vote, I will actively participate in the marketing of ideas and rebuke nationalistic agendas. Whether I do it by writing an article in a French paper (letter to the editor) or join a group of activists with a greater access to the media/press.

Okay, I see our disconnect. You see oppression of Muslims as similar to oppression of other ethnic minority groups. I see Islam as an ideology that is as totalitarian and authoritarian as fascism and Nazism and calls for the oppression of other people.

The meta discussion Muslims are having in most of the "Arab Spring" countries concerns whether to go with an Islamic State or a Secular State.

That is a very important discussion. There is still no consensus.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Well, if you want to defend Harris and/or Hirsi Ali as rational voices in this debate, you're going to have to defend the superficially most irrational (a.k.a. "worst") thingsthey say. By refusing to do so, you force Warpoet to remind you of them. That's not a tactic of his, that's the only way to deal with your tactic of elusion.

You answer no questions, you do not discuss, you just beat people over the head with the smelliest dead horse you can find. You post in no threads but ones about Islam. You do not seem to be an atheist. And you choose Warpoet as your handle. As though there is something poetic to be found in war.

Pure ad hom.

Yes you were on a break the last discussion I had with him. It is ad hom. It was meant to be. My point is that Warpoet took comments out of context, out of the context of Ali's experience and entire viewpoint.

As if that was Warpoet's first time exposure to Hirsi Ali's entire viewpoint. As to willfully throwing ad homs at other members, do not push your envelope too far. What you threw at this member was totally inappropriate. You are going after the person of the poster of the idea. Bad move.

The point of Ali's that really brings it home for me is the difference between assimilation in the US and Europe.

Assimilation = "Borg" system. Integration implies an adaptation to the social and cultural norms WITHOUT demanding the integrated person denies their beliefs and subsequent practices as long as they do not clash with the local civil and criminal laws. The fact you used "assimilation" is telling.

This closely parallels some RL discussions I have both with Muslims and a European immigration officer.

I have had far more exchanges and socialization with Muslims of various schools of thoughts than you could claim to have, Zeluvia. Your lack of socialization and exchanges with French Muslim women who want to wear their veil in public spaces profoundly tainted your comments in a thread in GRD (on FRDB) a couple of months back.

Of course I know that all Muslims are not terrible horrible people. I object to the word islamophobia being used to beat up people that point out the various ideologies that are in the Tent called Islam are problematic when contrasted with the Western ideals.

The objection in this thread is clearly about Hirsi's stances implying that ALL Muslims be "crashed under our boot". Further implications of striping all Muslims from their Constitutional Identity. Shes does not tolerate any Muslims, no matter how liberal or progressist. She is going AFTER the people/persons while making claims portraying Muslim schools in the West as teaching to children to hate Jews and calling them "pigs and monkeys". The woman is a a feeding tube of inflammatory rhetoric to audiences who will not do their home work to check her claims. Some of us do check fear/hate mongering based claims. If you actually read the data I posted early regarding Muslim schools in France, you should know by now that her portraying of Muslim schools in the West is inflammatory. Did you read it?

The balanced parts of her message end up being invalidated because of the all too familiar fear/hate mongering rhetoric oozing from some of her stances. With an ample of inflammatory portraying.

I have read apologetics showing that Islamic Ideals and Western Ideals are compatible, and then I have read polemics saying they are not.

These discussions never go to the actual ideology. It's always but "X said this horrible thing, all people that have problems with Islam and agree with X are horrible people and Islamophobes".

I can assure you that when the Southern Poverty Law Center lists and documents which persons and groups in the US are engaged in fear/hare mongering, they are correct. Again, it is a matter of informing and educating ourselves so we can actually have "critical discussions". 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.

 

[Zeluvia]

oh, so now we are all too stupid to have a discussion about ideology on this forum if we don't have a PHD?

And I should shut up?

And I am pushing things

Bye

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My main concern about Islam actually isn't the radicalism and terrorist cells, etc. That is mostly explained by what you say. The downtrodden and desperate mixed with a charismatic leader offering acceptance and radical violent ideology is what breeds it. That leader can be a radical muslim imam, or a non-religious inner city gang leader. That will always exist in society so long as we create outcasts, which is what we should be striving to minimize, and I see Islam as a major barrier to that.

This is part of it but there are also the personal failures and those will exist in any society. The suicide bombers aren't downtrodden and desperate, they are ones whose lives have gone badly (although often they look good to outsiders.) You have a religion that says suicide is wrong--but then the Imam provides a means of suicide that will make you a hero and get you into paradise. Is it any wonder that some of the suicidal take up the offer?

- - - Updated - - -

Tokenism. I can still clearly remember the thousands of Palestinians dancing in the streets after news of 9/11 had spread worldwide. Anti Americanism and anything Jewish is widespread in islamic communities.

Do you remember when they took two cameras to the US Embassy in the late 70's? To film the crowd that was demonstrating there?
The producer rigged one camera so the 'recording' light did not come on. They filmed a crowd of bored Iranians just hanging out in the street. When the second camera's 'record' light came on, they started waving the effigies and dancing and hollering. It's made me skeptical of quite a lot of the media reports of 'dancing in the streets' with respect to America's woes.
So, did you see these communities partying or did you see news programs showing you the dancing in the streets? Just asking....

I haven't heard of the incident but it doesn't surprise me. An awful lot of the stuff is carried out for the cameras, these days often with the full knowledge of the reporters.

 

[Warpoet]

The only thing I see in your quotes that could even be close to "stripping Muslims of their constitutional rights" is her discussion of shutting down Muslim schools.
I don't see her saying property should be seized, they should not be allowed to vote, or to speak, or to assemble, ect.

That's because you don't pay attention. Try reading more carefully:

There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

So on top of closing down Muslim schools, this is an obvious call for infringement upon free speech and opens the door to a heavy-handed crackdown on any Muslim voicing their opinion in a way nutjobs like Ali don't approve of. And since she argues in the same article that the constitution doesn't apply to Muslims because they pose such a dire threat beyond its intended scope, and we have to force them to accept "our" values, there's no telling where the line is drawn.

This sort of nutty, neofascist reasoning sets off all kinds of alarms in the minds of those of us who actually care about the principles free societies are built on. But as your "why should we let Muslims enjoy our freedoms?" line of reasoning made clear, you aren't one of those people.

I agree with shutting down ALL religious based schools that take the place of primary education. So I don't see the right to educate your child any way you want as a constitutional right. That opinion is not based on Muslim schools in the US, but on Evangelical Christian schools that oppose teaching science because it contradicts the Bible.

This isn't about you. It's about AHA's assertion that ONLY Muslim schools should be shut down, because Muslims collectively are the only ones who can't be trusted with the same freedoms as everyone else, in her fucked up, hateful, irrational world.

Closing down all religious schools is extreme, but a different argument. It's the difference between saying "I don't think people should be allowed to have guns" and saying "I don't think black people should be allowed to have guns." The latter argument would never be tolerated here, but because it's Muslims we're talking about, so-called "liberals" will bend over backwards to make excuses for it.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Time for a breath of fresh air...or happy air. That to introduce the "Happy Muslims" movement designed to show that Muslims can be "normal" people whether they be in London, Chicago, D.C etc...most probably never heard about by folks whose wishful thinking is "to crush Muslims under our boot". The Happy Muslims project launched by

http://www.honestypolicy.co.uk/?portfolio_category=media-2

with the most popular one being in London,

http://www.honestypolicy.co.uk/?p=166

Particularly interesting, this commentary from U Tube,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tm-KLGvqSE

Any changes within Islam will come from the inside out. History has demonstrated that persecutions and oppression do not produce positive changes. They worsen and aggravate radicalism.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>It's always but "X said this horrible thing, all people that have problems with Islam and agree with X are horrible people and Islamophobes".

Not in this thread. You aren't primarily being criticised for having problems with Islam, you're specifically being criticised for defending specific people who've said specific things.

 

[Togo]

Any changes within Islam will come from the inside out. History has demonstrated that persecutions and oppression do not produce positive changes. They worsen and aggravate radicalism.

I work with Muslims, went to school with Muslims, share streets, housing and shops with Muslims. I eat with them, share social engagements with them, go the weddings, and so on. They're just people. Some of them are religious extremists, but then some of the Christians are religious extremists, and some of the atheists are religious extremists.

What's the problem?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Any changes within Islam will come from the inside out. History has demonstrated that persecutions and oppression do not produce positive changes. They worsen and aggravate radicalism.

I work with Muslims, went to school with Muslims, share streets, housing and shops with Muslims. I eat with them, share social engagements with them, go the weddings, and so on. They're just people. Some of them are religious extremists, but then some of the Christians are religious extremists, and some of the atheists are religious extremists.

What's the problem?

You would have to ask that question to posters who endorsed Hirsi Ali's anti Muslim stances.

 

[angelo]

Yeah, no. I think you are grossly exaggerating. The part about not dating non-Muslims is correct in a lot of cases, although that's oftentimes due to the families and not the children. But that's not something unique to Muslims. I have never once met a Muslim who said they can't have non-Muslim friends.

Pew surveys have shown that at least here in the U.S., Muslims identify as "Muslim" before "American" at pretty much the same rate as Christians do. And most don't see a conflict between the two. If it's different elsewhere, it's obviously due to the surrounding sociopolitical circumstances and not what the Qur'an says.

- - - Updated - - -

She's a bigot? The imman at the moslem school or mosque who tells his followers that Jews are monkeys and death to the infidels is not a bigot??

How in the hell does this follow from what I posted?

I haven't seen you make a single rational statement anywhere in this thread. Or the other one, for that matter.

Typical response. Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.

 

[angelo]

Any changes within Islam will come from the inside out. History has demonstrated that persecutions and oppression do not produce positive changes. They worsen and aggravate radicalism.

I work with Muslims, went to school with Muslims, share streets, housing and shops with Muslims. I eat with them, share social engagements with them, go the weddings, and so on. They're just people. Some of them are religious extremists, but then some of the Christians are religious extremists, and some of the atheists are religious extremists

What's the problem?

Where did that come from? Atheism is non belief in god or gods! Since when has atheism been a religion?

 

[angelo]

Tokenism. I can still clearly remember the thousands of Palestinians dancing in the streets after news of 9/11 had spread worldwide. Anti Americanism and anything Jewish is widespread in islamic communities.

Do you remember when they took two cameras to the US Embassy in the late 70's? To film the crowd that was demonstrating there?
The producer rigged one camera so the 'recording' light did not come on. They filmed a crowd of bored Iranians just hanging out in the street. When the second camera's 'record' light came on, they started waving the effigies and dancing and hollering. It's made me skeptical of quite a lot of the media reports of 'dancing in the streets' with respect to America's woes.
So, did you see these communities partying or did you see news programs showing you the dancing in the streets? Just asking....

This was faked? [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Warpoet]

Wow, a clip from FOX News showing a handful of people yelling and clapping with zero context provided. That sure looks like the "thousands of celebrating Palestinians" you talked about.

And of course, it's not as if the U.S. pursues any policies that might explain why some Palestinians view it as their enemy, or that there is any other group of people who might celebrate attacks on a perceived enemy.

Nope, it's just because they are Mooslims and Mooslims are violent.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Yeah, no. I think you are grossly exaggerating. The part about not dating non-Muslims is correct in a lot of cases, although that's oftentimes due to the families and not the children. But that's not something unique to Muslims. I have never once met a Muslim who said they can't have non-Muslim friends.

Pew surveys have shown that at least here in the U.S., Muslims identify as "Muslim" before "American" at pretty much the same rate as Christians do. And most don't see a conflict between the two. If it's different elsewhere, it's obviously due to the surrounding sociopolitical circumstances and not what the Qur'an says.

- - - Updated - - -

She's a bigot? The imman at the moslem school or mosque who tells his followers that Jews are monkeys and death to the infidels is not a bigot??

How in the hell does this follow from what I posted?

I haven't seen you make a single rational statement anywhere in this thread. Or the other one, for that matter.

Typical response. Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.

Typical response from someone who dismissed corrections focusing on several of his claims in his previous thread and now statements correcting claims made in this thread. Why do you not address the central point of Hirsi Ali's stances implying that ALL Muslims should be "crashed under our boot"? Why have you not addressed the central point of her implying that they be stripped of their Constitutional Identity in Western nations? Why have you not addressed her inflammatory portraying of Muslim schools in Western nations teaching children that Jews are "pigs and monkeys"? Why are you dismissing the vast experience of socialization with Muslims of posters who have attested that they have never encountered Muslims telling them "they cannot have non Muslim friends"?

Why did you state :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-of-islamophobia&p=15187&viewfull=1#post15187


"Isn't it a fact that the silence from muslims is deafening after many muslim terrorist attacks?"

when I had previously commented about the response to Islamist terrorism and counter measures adopted by the Muslim nation of Morocco targeting the expansion of radical Islamist terrorist factions into Mali as well as counter measures targeting the same groups attempting to recruit and radicalize young Moroccans in Morocco? Is that what you refer to as "deafening silence"?

Your one liner I quoted above was addressed by me yet you did NOT acknowledge my correction of your statement,

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-of-islamophobia&p=15407&viewfull=1#post15407

Am I to expect that you will trot the same claim in another one of those anti Muslims fear/hate mongering propaganda threads?

 

[angelo]

Wow, a clip from FOX News showing a handful of people yelling and clapping with zero context provided. That sure looks like the "thousands of celebrating Palestinians" you talked about.

And of course, it's not as if the U.S. pursues any policies that might explain why some Palestinians view it as their enemy, or that there is any other group of people who might celebrate attacks on a perceived enemy.

Nope, it's just because they are Mooslims and Mooslims are violent.

Palestinians view the US as the enemy simply because it backs the only democracy anywhere in the Middle east...........Israel!

 

[angelo]

Yeah, no. I think you are grossly exaggerating. The part about not dating non-Muslims is correct in a lot of cases, although that's oftentimes due to the families and not the children. But that's not something unique to Muslims. I have never once met a Muslim who said they can't have non-Muslim friends.

Pew surveys have shown that at least here in the U.S., Muslims identify as "Muslim" before "American" at pretty much the same rate as Christians do. And most don't see a conflict between the two. If it's different elsewhere, it's obviously due to the surrounding sociopolitical circumstances and not what the Qur'an says.

- - - Updated - - -

She's a bigot? The imman at the moslem school or mosque who tells his followers that Jews are monkeys and death to the infidels is not a bigot??

How in the hell does this follow from what I posted?

I haven't seen you make a single rational statement anywhere in this thread. Or the other one, for that matter.

Typical response. Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.

Typical response from someone who dismissed corrections focusing on several of his claims in his previous thread and now statements correcting claims made in this thread. Why do you not address the central point of Hirsi Ali's stances implying that ALL Muslims should be "crashed under our boot"? Why have you not addressed the central point of her implying that they be stripped of their Constitutional Identity in Western nations? Why have you not addressed her inflammatory portraying of Muslim schools in Western nations teaching children that Jews are "pigs and monkeys"? Why are you dismissing the vast experience of socialization with Muslims of posters who have attested that they have never encountered Muslims telling them "they cannot have non Muslim friends"?

Why did you state :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-of-islamophobia&p=15187&viewfull=1#post15187


"Isn't it a fact that the silence from muslims is deafening after many muslim terrorist attacks?"

when I had previously commented about the response to Islamist terrorism and counter measures adopted by the Muslim nation of Morocco targeting the expansion of radical Islamist terrorist factions into Mali as well as counter measures targeting the same groups attempting to recruit and radicalize young Moroccans in Morocco? Is that what you refer to as "deafening silence"?

Your one liner I quoted above was addressed by me yet you did NOT acknowledge my correction of your statement,

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-of-islamophobia&p=15407&viewfull=1#post15407

Am I to expect that you will trot the same claim in another one of those anti Muslims fear/hate mongering propaganda threads?

Are we supposed to be celebrating the fact that in two countries out of the whole moslem world are trying to ferret out the radicals? Not having much success in Nigeria are they.
Can you prove these muslim schools and mosques are not teaching young impressionable young kids that Jews are pigs and infidels are apes? That both are the enemy? That they should not associate with them?
It seems that Ali Hirsi would be a lot more knowledgeable than you as she was and still is a muslim.

 

[Togo]

Wow, a clip from FOX News showing a handful of people yelling and clapping with zero context provided. That sure looks like the "thousands of celebrating Palestinians" you talked about.

And of course, it's not as if the U.S. pursues any policies that might explain why some Palestinians view it as their enemy, or that there is any other group of people who might celebrate attacks on a perceived enemy.

Nope, it's just because they are Mooslims and Mooslims are violent.

Palestinians view the US as the enemy simply because it backs the only democracy anywhere in the Middle east...........Israel!

You don't think the guns, armed checkpoints, denial of rights, occupation, seemingly random murders and appropriation of land have anything to do with it? It's just a disagreement over political structures? Really?

It seems that Ali Hirsi would be a lot more knowledgeable than you as she was and still is a muslim.

So you're just taking her word for it, and have no means of making up your own mind?

 

[angelo]

Good lawd. You expect Israel to keel over and accept their decimation by the Palestinians? Has Israel no right to defend itself? The armed checkpoints would not be neccecery if the Palestinians stopped firing rockets into Israeli civilian centres.