Lessons Learned: Anti-Muslim Bias Goes Mainstream (Farhana Khera & Aziz Huq)

[graz]

What's your plan for "drying it up"?

[harkin]

Premlinary reports from Norway say that the 'Helpers Of Global Jihad' are taking credit. Looking for a good portion of the 99.99% of non-violent Muslims to take to the streets in the arab world condemning this violence.

now there is not solid confirmation it was muslim terrorists that carried out that particular event, but who would be surprised if it was?

As Del Gue said to Jeremiah Johnson when asked if indians had buried him up to his neck to be pecked to death by vultures:

"T'were'nt Mormons"

Norway !!! That's like attacking a squirrel or a panda bear.

Even the left in Norway is starting to notice:

""Throughout history we managed to fight totalitarian ideas like Nazism and later Communism. As a liberal I will always fight against such ideas and movements. Radical Islam is a dark and scary ideology and fighting it is our era's most important struggle," Jensen told Klassekampen (Norway's Communist newspaper).

"It's most probably an expression that they don't know what's happening in the society around them. They shut their eyes and try to appear tolerant and liberal, while in reality they are deeply intolerant," says Jensen. She explains the argument by saying that her opponents, regardless of how well-meaning they are, ignore attacks against individuals in Norway. The women's movement is the worst, Jensen thinks."

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

The double standard is glaringly obvious. Especially when you consider that Obama got called a racist for comments his pastor made.

I don't think Obama was called a racist so much for the doings of Rev Wright as he was called out (don't worry if you aren't aware, no one on the left cared) for not only his willingness to take his entire family and sit in the pews and listen to this hateful racist, but also to list the guy as one of his mentors. When Obama picked Wright to introduce him at a political event (in 2008 I think) and then disinvited him, it was because he realized the mainstream (even for democrats) was not going to accept Wright's schtick.

True enough when the facts came out he was instant Obama bus road surface but Obama had already shown his true self on this.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

The double standard is glaringly obvious. Especially when you consider that Obama got called a racist for comments his pastor made.

Yes, because not liking Islam is racism.

Did you think for even a second before spitting this out??

Originally Posted by graz

What's your plan for "drying it up"?

It's impossible, as Islam is not severable from Islamic barbarity. People will have to stop being Muslims, for Islamic barbarity to dry up. Islam cannot be reformed.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by apple

Yes, because not liking Islam is racism.

Did you think for even a second before spitting this out??

I never said Cain was racist, I would say he supports bigotry.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Convert them to Christianity.

It's interesting though that:

A small minority of Christians blow up abortion clinics but that says nothing about the majority of Christians.

A small minority of Christians commit pedophilia, but that says nothing about the majority of Christians.

A small minority of Muslims commit or support terrorism, and that tells us all we need to know about Muslims.

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus

I mean jesus, even freaking Norway was attacked.

Which is in no way surprising. Islam does not distinguish between infidel states. In the Islamic world, there's the House of Islam, and the House of War. Muslims are commanded to wage war against the House of War, "until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection" (Koran 9:29).

This is not Islamic extremism. This is not Islamic terrorism. This is mainstream Islam - you know, the religion of peace.

Norway made the fatal mistake of not submitting to the religion of peace, Islam (which means submission and not peace). Hence, Norway is a legitimate target for Islamic attacks. I don't get leftists who praise Islam as a religion of peace, and simultaneously call mainstream Islamic thought and theology "extreme". If Islam is a religion of peace, then there is nothing wrong with its teachings.

[opposable_crumbs]

I'm not sure why you are telling me about Norway.

Glenn Beck said Obama had a hatred of white culture, but you know what those Mormons are like, right?

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

I never said Cain was racist, I would say he supports bigotry.

What makes you think that he supports bigotry? Because he opposes ideologies of violence and hatred? Am I a bigoted Naziphobe, because I do not like Nazism?

[opposable_crumbs]

He is opposing the building mosques. It's a pretty open and shut case.

[opposable_crumbs]

I think Muslims are way behind the west when it comes to dishing out violence.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

PEW Research: Muslim Americans 2007


Homosexuality should be
27% accepted
61% discouraged

Government and morality
59% should do more
29% worry it's too involved

How about we start putting some of these questions on the immigration application?

I think a better way to ask the homosexual question would be:

If the majority of Americans agree, should homosexual sex be criminalized?

Then if they answer yes, they are deported. No matter what religion they are.

We could also ask questions such as:

If the majority of Americans were to agree, should blasphemy be criminalized?

If the majority of Americans were to agree, should conversion from Islam to another religion be criminalized?

If the majority of Americans agree, should atheism be criminalized?

Should extra-marital sex be criminalized?

I think if anyone answers 'yes' to any of these questions, and others that would show improper respect for liberties, they should not be given citizenship and should be deported.
And the more the questions could be disguised so they couldn't be gamed, the better.

Of course, some current American citizens would answer these questions wrong, but there is nothing we can do about them. They are already citizens. But we can sure as hell stop from adding to the problem.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

He is opposing the building mosques. It's a pretty open and shut case.

And he is under an obligation to support building mosques, exactly why? If a bunch of local Nazis want to build a Nazi community center, am I obliged to support it, or do I have the right to speak out against it?

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

I think Muslims are way behind the west when it comes to dishing out violence.

No, no, you're mistaken, if that is your conclusion, I doubt that any thought was involved.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by apple

No, no, you're mistaken, if that is your conclusion, I doubt that any thought was involved.

The only way that's true is if you depend on some private definition of "violence."

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by apple

No, no, you're mistaken, if that is your conclusion, I doubt that any thought was involved.

It's a matter of mathematics.

[Ocean]

How many hours before they figure out what the answers should be?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

And he is under an obligation to support building mosques, exactly why? If a bunch of local Nazis want to build a Nazi community center, am I obliged to support it, or do I have the right to speak out against it?

Is Al-Qaeda trying to build a mosque?

Originally Posted by Ocean

Is Al-Qaeda trying to build a mosque?

No, but their co-religionists are. Just like Hitler and his Nazi war criminals aren't the ones trying to build a Nazi community center in my example, but their co-ideologists are.

[piscivorous]

Kill em all; let Allah sort them out?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

No, but their co-religionists are. Just like Hitler and his Nazi war criminals aren't the ones trying to build a Nazi community center in my example, but their co-ideologists are.

Since you have been all over this forum about Muslims I won't start this discussion again. Obviously for you, people who share a religion are responsible for what a tiny radical minority of them do, just because they are "co-religionists".

Nazis are adherents or advocates of policies characteristic of Nazism. It's rather specific. People aren't born into Nazism. There's no Nazi culture flourishing across many countries. People who embrace Nazism in the present are accepting an ideology of hatred and antisemitism.

The equivalence to Muslims -terrorist groups would be Germans or all Europeans-Nazis.

You've had multiple examples about other religious groups and their radical actions. You're blind to those arguments and makes your ability to persuade others weaker.

You would be better off finding a different angle to your plea, IMHO.

[opposable_crumbs]

Maybe that new angle should be directed at conservative/nationalists.

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

All it takes is one bad apple.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Obviously for you, people who share a religion are responsible for what a tiny radical minority of them do, just because they are "co-religionists".

Not really, but they are responsible for what they believe in. In the case of Islam and Nazism, it's an ideology of hate, violence and mass murder.

As for Islamic radicals (they are not really radicals) being a tiny minority, search for my comment that mentioned the country of "Egypt". Islamic 'radicals' are anything but a tiny minority.

Originally Posted by Ocean

People aren't born into Nazism. There's no Nazi culture flourishing across many countries.

No one is born into Islam, people are brainwashed into Islam. As for Islamic culture 'flourishing' - if you call stoning, religious tyranny, genital mutilation, terrorism "flourishing", then indeed, Islamic culture is flourishing across many countries.

It's interesting that the two differences you deem important enough to name are that Muslims brainwash their children, and that it's more prevalent. Apparently, if Nazism was more prevalent, and Nazis brainwashed their children, then Nazism would be perfectly respectable, and critics of Nazism would be called 'Naziphobes'.

Originally Posted by Ocean

People who embrace Nazism in the present are accepting an ideology of hatred and antisemitism.

And people who embrace Islam, accept an ideology of hatred, anti-Semitism (and more). On the other hand, people who are brainwashed into Islam, are brainwashed into an ideology of hatred and anti-Semitism.

Originally Posted by Ocean

You've had multiple examples about other religious groups and their radical actions.

Actually, I haven't. But there's a simple answer to such criticisms. Jesus never told his followers to hate, murder, steal, whereas Muhammad did. The teachings of Jesus are good, while the teachings of Muhammad are evil. People who murder for Jesus are acting in violation of the commandments of Jesus, while people who murder for Muhammad act in perfect concordance with his teachings.

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Maybe that new angle should be directed at conservative/nationalists.

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

All it takes is one bad apple.

And if conservatives/nationalists worshiped and admired a man who married and raped a child, committed mass-murder, and forced his ideology on others, you'd be right to despise conservatives/nationalists.

[opposable_crumbs]

This suspected terrorist seems to have shared a lot of your ideology, therefore you are culpable for his actions, right?

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

This suspected terrorist seems to have shared a lot of your ideology, therefore you are culpable for his actions, right?

What do you know about my ideology?

Like I said, if I call a mass murdering, child molesting barbarian 'the best man who ever lived', then you absolutely have the right to call me a disgusting person. If doing that is a prerequisite for being a conservative or nationalist, then you have the right to call conservatives and nationalists disgusting people.

[Wonderment]

Not really, but they are responsible for what they believe in. In the case of Islam and Nazism, it's an ideology of hate, violence and mass murder.

I'd be careful about throwing around the N word if I were you, Apple, since you are about as close to embracing a Nazi-like mindset as I've seen on Bheads.

Your views on Muslims are structured in a very similar way to Nazi views on Jews. That is not to say, of course, that you would embrace a Hitlerian policy against Muslim, just that you fanatically vilify Islam in the same way the Nazis (and some fringe Islamicist groups) fanatically vilify Judaism.

[opposable_crumbs]

What do you know about my ideology?

From what you have written I know too much, though I will admit it is rather inconsistent to be sure. Sadly, I don't have the mind reading capabilities of Hermain Cain just yet.

[Ocean]

You're repeating arguments that have been mentioned by you or others who hold similar position as you, many times over. It's simple. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. It's really psychotic to imply that they are all terrorists or pro-terrorists.

Have you ever read the Bible? Do you endorse the evil intentions of the alleged god in the Old Testament? Do you remember the "wrath" of god? How about the abominations cited in the Bible? Are you lined up with those principles?

Religious texts have a lot of crazy stuff. They also have some good teachings. It's up to those who choose those religions (any of the religions) to figure out the good from the bad. Don't blame the religion or the texts but the intentions of those who created the texts and those who follow them.

Many people follow the religions that they were born into with good intentions and in peace. Others, radicals, literalists, and fundamentalists use those texts to express their hatred against others. Just like you are expressing your hatred against a quarter of the world population.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'd be careful about throwing around the N word if I were you, Apple, since you are about as close to embracing a Nazi-like mindset as I've seen on Bheads.

Translation: you are the person with whom I disagree most here on Bheads.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Your views on Muslims are structured in a very similar way to Nazi views on Jews.

Unfortunately, you happen to be wrong - again. Nazis hated Jews because of their race. That is the dumbest thing imaginable. On the other hand, ideas should always be open for criticism. At least, in free societies, they are. We get to judge thoughts, ideas and ideologies by their merits. It is this freedom that allows us to conclude that Nazism is a particularly vile ideology. That is not Naziphobia. That is not racism. That is not Nazism (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by Wonderment

That is not to say, of course, that you would embrace a Hitlerian policy against Muslim, just that you fanatically vilify Islam in the same way the Nazis (and some fringe Islamicist groups) fanatically vilify Judaism.

Nazis had a problem with people of the Jewish race - no matter whether these people were actually believers. They hated secular Jews and atheist Jews just as much as the ultra-orthodox. Their problem was not with Judaism, but with the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by Ocean

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. It's really psychotic to imply that they are all terrorists or pro-terrorists.

Not psychotic, just wrong. Polls clearly show that most Muslims disapprove of mass murdering terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, all Muslims approve of mass murdering barbarians like the prophet Muhammad and the caliph Umar (except for Shi'ites).

Originally Posted by Ocean

Have you ever read the Bible? Do you endorse the evil intentions of the alleged god in the Old Testament?

I do not. And neither does any serious Christian or Jew. Most view God as a transcendent being, not a petty, anthropomorphic bully. The fact that Christians and Jews (except Christian fundamentalists) have never taken the Bible literally allows them to dismiss such tales as the mad ravings of desert-dwelling shepherds.

In Islam, you have a mere man committing the worst atrocities imaginable, and being praised as the best man who ever lived. Can Muslims disapprove of these atrocities? Not really, because they trust this man to have given an authoritative recitation of the holy book. If his credibility collapses, their religion collapses. There can be no Islam without Muhammad. On the other hand, there can be Judaism and Christianity without the petty, murderous God you mention, and the vast majority of Jews and Christians are living examples of that.

Originally Posted by Ocean

It's up to those who choose those religions (any of the religions) to figure out the good from the bad.

That presupposes that the believer believes in an independent idea of right and wrong. If God tells you to fight the unbelievers until they are subdued, who are you to say that this is bad?

Originally Posted by Ocean

Many people follow the religions that they were born into with good intentions and in peace.

This is correct (with the exception that one is not born a Muslim). However, the fact that some Muslims do not follow the evil of the 'prophet', does not make his teachings any less evil. It does not make the religion of Islam any less evil. It reflects on those individuals, and not on the religion.

I recognize that people are brainwashed into this ideology of hatred and violence. But this does not mean that I should therefore approve of it, as it is still an ideology of hatred and violence. I prefer to have less hatred and violence in this world, not more, and Islam is not helping.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by apple

Polls clearly show that most Muslims disapprove of mass murdering terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

Good. Some agreement there.

Unfortunately, all Muslims approve of mass murdering barbarians like the prophet Muhammad and the caliph Umar (except for Shi'ites).

No. All that shows is how people get blinded by religion. They can hold contradictory principles because religion goes through belief and not reasoning.

That's why those absurdities in the Bible that we just referred to, haven't been condemned and rejected by the corresponding religions. They are still standing and used by many to justify bigotry.

I do not. And neither does any serious Christian or Jew. Most view God as a transcendent being, not a petty, anthropomorphic bully. The fact that Christians and Jews (except Christian fundamentalists) have never taken the Bible literally allows them to dismiss such tales as the mad ravings of desert-dwelling shepherds.

So, can you conceive that other religions may also take some aspects of their religious texts more seriously than others?

In Islam, you have a mere man committing the worst atrocities imaginable, and being praised as the best man who ever lived. Can Muslims disapprove of these atrocities? Not really, because they trust this man to have given an authoritative recitation of the holy book. If his credibility collapses, their religion collapses. There can be no Islam without Muhammad. On the other hand, there can be Judaism and Christianity without the petty, murderous God you mention, and the vast majority of Jews and Christians are living examples of that.

How do you explain that there can be Judaism and Christianity without the biblical god?

Aren't the vast majority of Muslims living examples that they can live in peace with others? How come Muslims in the US live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors? Have you ever met a Muslim?

That presupposes that the believer believes in an independent idea of right and wrong. If God tells you to fight the unbelievers until they are subdued, who are you to say that this is bad?

With the same reasoning, who are you to reject the anthropomorphic bully god of the Old Testament?

This is correct (with the exception that one is not born a Muslim). However, the fact that some Muslims do not follow the evil of the 'prophet', does not make his teachings any less evil. It does not make the religion of Islam any less evil. It reflects on those individuals, and not on the religion.

So, it looks like you agree that individuals that belong to a religion, including Islam, don't necessarily follow the evil of their prophet, just like you don't follow the evil of the anthropomorphic irascible god.

I recognize that people are brainwashed into this ideology of hatred and violence. But this does not mean that I should therefore approve of it, as it is still an ideology of hatred and violence. I prefer to have less hatred and violence in this world, not more, and Islam is not helping.

Fundamentalist religious followers of any religion aren't helping. They are the corrupted version of their religions. Instead of choosing peace and tolerance, they choose violence, hatred and intolerance.

Each of us has to be careful not to fall in the same trap of hatred. It just doesn't lead to a good outcome for anybody.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by apple

Just like it's a fact that the teachings of Jesus are noble, but that does not make every single person who calls himself a Christian a noble person, as following Jesus is sometimes a rather difficult thing to do.

Actually, that's not what it is like at all. You are painting all Muslim interpretations as uniform, when most clearly do not support violence. Your analogy is between the ideal that 100% of Christians hold, with an ideal that a tiny percentage of Muslims hold. And before you go quoting opinions on criminal punishment, let me point out that a majority of American Christians support the death penalty.

The level of Islamophobia displayed by you and others in this thread sickens me. I haven't wanted to contribute to any of your trolling, but since y'all were having a group session, I just thought I'd mention one tiny example of the sort of flawed logic that arises out of intolerance and hatred.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Good. Some agreement there.

That was a factual issue, not up for agreement or disagreement.

Originally Posted by Ocean

No. All that shows is how people get blinded by religion. They can hold contradictory principles because religion goes through belief and not reasoning.

With this I agree, but the mere fact that religion goes through belief and not reasoning makes it potentially very dangerous. Not every religion makes a nuisance out of itself. On the other hand, Islam makes a nuisance out of itself from Dearborn to Dover, through Thailand and the Philippines to Japan.

Originally Posted by Ocean

So, can you conceive that other religions may also take some aspects of their religious texts more seriously than others?

In theory. But I caution you that the Bible and the Koran are very different, and that you cannot really compare them.

Originally Posted by Ocean

How do you explain that there can be Judaism and Christianity without the biblical god?

Not without the Biblical God. Without the fairy tale version of the Biblical God that sometimes appears. Ask Christians whether they believe whether the tales of divine barbarity are true or false. On the other hand, there is no Islam without Muhammad, as the entire religion rests on his credibility. To condemn the man for his many crimes is to say that he is of dubious moral character, and that the Koran is of dubious legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Aren't the vast majority of Muslims living examples that they can live in peace with others?

Like I said, see my post that mentions 'Egypt' to see just how peaceful the Muslims in Egypt are. Also, I will point out that most Nazis are also living examples of that they can live in peace with others. That does not negate the fact that their ideology is a hateful, violent one.

Originally Posted by Ocean

With the same reasoning, who are you to reject the anthropomorphic bully god of the Old Testament?

Like I said, because Christians and Jews do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. They are free to reject bizarre parts of the Bible. With the Koran, inerrancy is not a proposition made by fundamentalists, it's a necessity. Or it's not a recitation (Arabic: Koran) of the eternal book.

Originally Posted by Ocean

So, it looks like you agree that individuals that belong to a religion, including Islam, don't necessarily follow the evil of their prophet, just like you don't follow the evil of the anthropomorphic irascible god.

Obviously. However, I also disagree with your (apparent) claim that there is zero relation between the teachings of Islam and the actions of Muslims.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Fundamentalist religious followers of any religion aren't helping. They are the corrupted version of their religions. Instead of choosing peace and tolerance, they choose violence, hatred and intolerance.

Why is Islamic fundamentalism a corruption of Islam? It is closer to the version of Islam Muhammad followed than to the version of peaceful Muslims. Did Muhammad follow a corrupted version of Islam?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

The level of Islamophobia displayed by you and others in this thread sickens me. I haven't wanted to contribute to any of your trolling, but since y'all were having a group session, I just thought I'd mention one tiny example of the sort of flawed logic that arises out of intolerance and hatred.

Amen to that, brother. Here, it isn't quite the same topic, but this TNC post ought to make you feel better:

First, it's really startling to read about the utter barbarism which Europe sank to during the War, and then contrast it with popular images of Africa as "the dark continent." I hope this doesn't sound cold, but immediately it occured to me that all the sins the proto-white racists put on Africa--cannibalism, slavery, wanton rape--were very much known to them. The very Germans who fled from Palantinate to a country that derided Africans as savages, were, themselves, the children of such savages.

From that perspective, racism is again revealed as not simply amoral but as phrenology, as Intelligent Design. Its mission is to evade, or conceal a painful past, and overlay with the legacy of the Greeks or the Romans. But the Moors and Muslims have as much claim to classical civilization as the Germans. Any exploration of Muslim scholarship reveals that not simply to be philosophically true, but tangibly true.

This is not schadenfreude. Much to the contrary, it's the continuous realization that humans are humans.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by apple

Norway made the fatal mistake of not submitting to the religion of peace, Islam (which means submission and not peace). Hence, Norway is a legitimate target for Islamic attacks.

You've gone too far, apple, jumping to unfortunate conclusions. You should try to keep a cooler head.

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Actually, that's not what it is like at all. You are painting all Muslim interpretations as uniform, when most clearly do not support violence.

Actually, all Muslim schools of Sharia law are barbaric, though they are different. For example, one school thinks that homosexuals should be stoned to death, whereas another says that they should be thrown off a mountain. So yes, there is diversity in barbarity.

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Your analogy is between the ideal that 100% of Christians hold, with an ideal that a tiny percentage of Muslims hold.

Only a tiny percentage of Muslims see the prophet Muhammad as their role model? I wish that were true.

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

The level of Islamophobia displayed by you and others in this thread sickens me.

My apologies for opposing the Islamic practice of throwing people off mountains. My apologies for opposing Islamic genital mutilation. My apologies for opposing child marriage and child molestation, which Islam allows (especially for prophets). My apologies for opposing polygamy, which Islam allows (up to 4 wives for mortals and 11 for prophets). My apologies for opposing murdering people for not wanting to be Muslims. My apologies for opposing unprovoked holy wars of aggression, which Islam mandates.

I realize that all these extreme points of view make me a vile person, and an Islamophobe. I'm sorry, I can't do anything about it, this is just what I believe. I hope you won't be too bothered at my bigotry, hatred and intolerance against the edifying Islamic practices I just mentioned.

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

You've gone too far, apple, jumping to unfortunate conclusions. You should try to keep a cooler head.

Sorry buddy, it's a fact. In Islamic theology, the entire non-Islamic world is called the 'House of War', and can legitimately be attacked by Muslims (without provocation). Norway is part of the House of War. Hence, Norway can be legitimately attacked by Muslims.

Don't blame me if you don't like this aspect of Islamic theology. I'm the messenger.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by apple

... I'm the messenger.

For whom? Even Hitchens would disavow the way you frame the issue. The people who do hold a comparable point of view seem to be sociopaths (e.g. Pamela Geller, Terry Jones) and disingenuous cynics like Daniel Pipes.

Norway, btw, was apparently attacked by a Norwegian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

The level of Islamophobia displayed by you and others in this thread sickens me. I haven't wanted to contribute to any of your trolling, but since y'all were having a group session, I just thought I'd mention one tiny example of the sort of flawed logic that arises out of intolerance and hatred.

Who are these others who fear Islam in this thread? Are any and all critics of Islam doing so out in tolerance, hatred and flawed logic? Is there a single liberal here that's willing to separate wheat from chaff instead of being reactionary?