The Islamophobia and the hate industry, search for the money

[stan1990]

Criticizing Islam is a favorite topic of American media, such as Fox News, the most famous of them. The workers in these stations are not fanatic Christians but are just opportunists who seek publicity and a monthly salary. But at the same time, they contribute to promoting Islam by raising the curiosity of their viewers to continue studying Islam. The result is the opposite, Islam is spreading in the United States. The problem is not in criticizing Islam or Christianity, but rather in providing misleading information. For example, Robert Spencer, an American anti-Islam author and activist, who criticize Islam without adhering to the lowest standards of credibility and objectivity, publishing false news about the discovery of a jihad training camp in the US state of Alabama. It is a simple example of the extent to which the likes of Spencer misleading Americans.

They demonize Muslims and raise the fear level of Americans and Europeans because that translates to more funds in their bank accounts. Another Conservative American journalist and activist, Brigitte Gabriel is another example of the industry of hate and bigotry. Brigitte claimed that she left her country Lebanon during the civil war because of Islamic jihadists. That lie is easy to expose because the parties to the conflict during the Lebanese civil war were belonging to communist, leftist and nationalist currents, and there were no Islamic jihad factions in Lebanon. Islamic extremists from all over the world were busy providing support to the states United in its conflict with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Another important concern is the demographic dilemma, which is considered one of the favorite topics for the conservative media and the European right-wing parties. Mark Stein is one of the best people talking about the demographic issue, and I read a number of his books, one of which talks about the environment, and I like his style. I even sympathized with him when I read his book "America Alone" and that he was sued in Canada by Canadian Islamic organizations to ban the book and withdraw it from libraries. But he talks about the demographic problem as if Muslim women should refrain from having children to maintain population balance in Western countries and Europe. While he ignores the fact that Muslims play no role in the declining birth rate in western countries, Western media are promoting that they need immigration and that immigration is essential to save the Western civilization due to the declining birthrate. Corrupt European politicians are the cause of the problem, the low birth rate in Western countries caused by the attack on the family values due to the prevalence of contraceptives, congenital decay, pornography and abnormal relationships is one of the most important reasons for the decline in the number of births in the West. Surprisingly, those people who talk about the demographic problem are themselves childless or have given birth to one or two children at the most.


Extremists constitute a minority of more than a billion Muslims. Conservatives and their supporters want to wage an all-out war against Islam in the name of the clash of civilizations. But on the other side, some Islamic extremists promote similar propaganda. Extremism is a problem that exists among followers of all religions. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism has nothing to do with peace or war. It is a reflection of one's own actions, personality, and environment of the individual in which raised. Religion is considered a catalyst. If a convert to Islam was well-mannered and treated others with respect, Islam will be recognized through him. And if the converts to Islam were an evil, criminal and murderer, others would recognize Islam through him. Therefore, the role of religion in a person’s life is not fixed, it is altered, and dependent on the moral standards of the person himself.

End

 

[Captain Adverse]

Criticizing Islam is a favorite topic of American media, such as Fox News, the most famous of them. The workers in these stations are not fanatic Christians but are just opportunists who seek publicity and a monthly salary. But at the same time, they contribute to promoting Islam by raising the curiosity of their viewers to continue studying Islam. The result is the opposite, Islam is spreading in the United States. The problem is not in criticizing Islam or Christianity, but rather in providing misleading information. For example, Robert Spencer, an American anti-Islam author and activist, who criticize Islam without adhering to the lowest standards of credibility and objectivity, publishing false news about the discovery of a jihad training camp in the US state of Alabama. It is a simple example of the extent to which the likes of Spencer misleading Americans.

They demonize Muslims and raise the fear level of Americans and Europeans because that translates to more funds in their bank accounts. Another Conservative American journalist and activist, Brigitte Gabriel is another example of the industry of hate and bigotry. Brigitte claimed that she left her country Lebanon during the civil war because of Islamic jihadists. That lie is easy to expose because the parties to the conflict during the Lebanese civil war were belonging to communist, leftist and nationalist currents, and there were no Islamic jihad factions in Lebanon. Islamic extremists from all over the world were busy providing support to the states United in its conflict with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Another important concern is the demographic dilemma, which is considered one of the favorite topics for the conservative media and the European right-wing parties. Mark Stein is one of the best people talking about the demographic issue, and I read a number of his books, one of which talks about the environment, and I like his style. I even sympathized with him when I read his book "America Alone" and that he was sued in Canada by Canadian Islamic organizations to ban the book and withdraw it from libraries. But he talks about the demographic problem as if Muslim women should refrain from having children to maintain population balance in Western countries and Europe. While he ignores the fact that Muslims play no role in the declining birth rate in western countries, Western media are promoting that they need immigration and that immigration is essential to save the Western civilization due to the declining birthrate. Corrupt European politicians are the cause of the problem, the low birth rate in Western countries caused by the attack on the family values due to the prevalence of contraceptives, congenital decay, pornography and abnormal relationships is one of the most important reasons for the decline in the number of births in the West. Surprisingly, those people who talk about the demographic problem are themselves childless or have given birth to one or two children at the most.


Extremists constitute a minority of more than a billion Muslims. Conservatives and their supporters want to wage an all-out war against Islam in the name of the clash of civilizations. But on the other side, some Islamic extremists promote similar propaganda. Extremism is a problem that exists among followers of all religions. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism has nothing to do with peace or war. It is a reflection of one's own actions, personality, and environment of the individual in which raised. Religion is considered a catalyst. If a convert to Islam was well-mannered and treated others with respect, Islam will be recognized through him. And if the converts to Islam were an evil, criminal and murderer, others would recognize Islam through him. Therefore, the role of religion in a person’s life is not fixed, it is altered, and dependent on the moral standards of the person himself.

End

I don't buy into "Islamophobia" as the cause of such reporting myself.

IMO citing Islam is a topic of media reporting because it lends itself toward public interest.

For unlike most other "major religions" it is growing both in adherents and threat to societal security.

It is labeled the "religion of peace," when IMHO it should more correctly be labeled the "religion of submission."

It demands submission of women to men; of secular law to religious law; of all belief to IT's belief system. To do so it is willing to force adherence by the sword.

Small wonder it draws attentions to itself outside it's current areas of control. :shrug:

 

[swing_voter]

I'm sorry for any Islamaphobia you may have experienced.

Once you get the radical Muslims all under control and peace is established, this will all be over.

 

[ecofarm]

CNN is more famous than Fox. I stopped reading at that false claim.

 

[Fledermaus]

Criticizing Islam is a favorite topic of American media, such as Fox News, the most famous of them. The workers in these stations are not fanatic Christians but are just opportunists who seek publicity and a monthly salary. But at the same time, they contribute to promoting Islam by raising the curiosity of their viewers to continue studying Islam. The result is the opposite, Islam is spreading in the United States. The problem is not in criticizing Islam or Christianity, but rather in providing misleading information. For example, Robert Spencer, an American anti-Islam author and activist, who criticize Islam without adhering to the lowest standards of credibility and objectivity, publishing false news about the discovery of a jihad training camp in the US state of Alabama. It is a simple example of the extent to which the likes of Spencer misleading Americans.

They demonize Muslims and raise the fear level of Americans and Europeans because that translates to more funds in their bank accounts. Another Conservative American journalist and activist, Brigitte Gabriel is another example of the industry of hate and bigotry. Brigitte claimed that she left her country Lebanon during the civil war because of Islamic jihadists. That lie is easy to expose because the parties to the conflict during the Lebanese civil war were belonging to communist, leftist and nationalist currents, and there were no Islamic jihad factions in Lebanon. Islamic extremists from all over the world were busy providing support to the states United in its conflict with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Another important concern is the demographic dilemma, which is considered one of the favorite topics for the conservative media and the European right-wing parties. Mark Stein is one of the best people talking about the demographic issue, and I read a number of his books, one of which talks about the environment, and I like his style. I even sympathized with him when I read his book "America Alone" and that he was sued in Canada by Canadian Islamic organizations to ban the book and withdraw it from libraries. But he talks about the demographic problem as if Muslim women should refrain from having children to maintain population balance in Western countries and Europe. While he ignores the fact that Muslims play no role in the declining birth rate in western countries, Western media are promoting that they need immigration and that immigration is essential to save the Western civilization due to the declining birthrate. Corrupt European politicians are the cause of the problem, the low birth rate in Western countries caused by the attack on the family values due to the prevalence of contraceptives, congenital decay, pornography and abnormal relationships is one of the most important reasons for the decline in the number of births in the West. Surprisingly, those people who talk about the demographic problem are themselves childless or have given birth to one or two children at the most.


Extremists constitute a minority of more than a billion Muslims. Conservatives and their supporters want to wage an all-out war against Islam in the name of the clash of civilizations. But on the other side, some Islamic extremists promote similar propaganda. Extremism is a problem that exists among followers of all religions. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism has nothing to do with peace or war. It is a reflection of one's own actions, personality, and environment of the individual in which raised. Religion is considered a catalyst. If a convert to Islam was well-mannered and treated others with respect, Islam will be recognized through him. And if the converts to Islam were an evil, criminal and murderer, others would recognize Islam through him. Therefore, the role of religion in a person’s life is not fixed, it is altered, and dependent on the moral standards of the person himself.

End

A few reasons Islam is in the news regularly.

Honor killing

Boko Haram

Throwing gays off roof tops

Burkas

ISIS

Hamas

Women forbidden to drive (until now)

Hezbollah

Islamic courts

Al Qaeda

9/11

7/7

Paris

Etc, etc., etc.

 

[stevecanuck]

Criticizing Islam is a favorite topic of American media, such as Fox News, the most famous of them. The workers in these stations are not fanatic Christians but are just opportunists who seek publicity and a monthly salary. But at the same time, they contribute to promoting Islam by raising the curiosity of their viewers to continue studying Islam. The result is the opposite, Islam is spreading in the United States. The problem is not in criticizing Islam or Christianity, but rather in providing misleading information. For example, Robert Spencer, an American anti-Islam author and activist, who criticize Islam without adhering to the lowest standards of credibility and objectivity, publishing false news about the discovery of a jihad training camp in the US state of Alabama. It is a simple example of the extent to which the likes of Spencer misleading Americans.

They demonize Muslims and raise the fear level of Americans and Europeans because that translates to more funds in their bank accounts. Another Conservative American journalist and activist, Brigitte Gabriel is another example of the industry of hate and bigotry. Brigitte claimed that she left her country Lebanon during the civil war because of Islamic jihadists. That lie is easy to expose because the parties to the conflict during the Lebanese civil war were belonging to communist, leftist and nationalist currents, and there were no Islamic jihad factions in Lebanon. Islamic extremists from all over the world were busy providing support to the states United in its conflict with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Another important concern is the demographic dilemma, which is considered one of the favorite topics for the conservative media and the European right-wing parties. Mark Stein is one of the best people talking about the demographic issue, and I read a number of his books, one of which talks about the environment, and I like his style. I even sympathized with him when I read his book "America Alone" and that he was sued in Canada by Canadian Islamic organizations to ban the book and withdraw it from libraries. But he talks about the demographic problem as if Muslim women should refrain from having children to maintain population balance in Western countries and Europe. While he ignores the fact that Muslims play no role in the declining birth rate in western countries, Western media are promoting that they need immigration and that immigration is essential to save the Western civilization due to the declining birthrate. Corrupt European politicians are the cause of the problem, the low birth rate in Western countries caused by the attack on the family values due to the prevalence of contraceptives, congenital decay, pornography and abnormal relationships is one of the most important reasons for the decline in the number of births in the West. Surprisingly, those people who talk about the demographic problem are themselves childless or have given birth to one or two children at the most.


Extremists constitute a minority of more than a billion Muslims. Conservatives and their supporters want to wage an all-out war against Islam in the name of the clash of civilizations. But on the other side, some Islamic extremists promote similar propaganda. Extremism is a problem that exists among followers of all religions. Islam, Christianity, or Judaism has nothing to do with peace or war. It is a reflection of one's own actions, personality, and environment of the individual in which raised. Religion is considered a catalyst. If a convert to Islam was well-mannered and treated others with respect, Islam will be recognized through him. And if the converts to Islam were an evil, criminal and murderer, others would recognize Islam through him. Therefore, the role of religion in a person’s life is not fixed, it is altered, and dependent on the moral standards of the person himself.

End

- The Qur'an exists for the sole purpose of defining Islam.
- The Qur'an contains hate speech against unbelievers (8:55 - The lowest of God's creatures are those who believe not)
- The Qur'an contains direct commands for Muslims to fight unbelievers. (2:216 - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.)

How does knowing and disliking that make me an 'Islamophobe'?

 

[bomberfox]

I'm sorry for any Islamaphobia you may have experienced.

Once you get the radical Muslims all under control and peace is established, this will all be over.

Nyeh me thinks you wouldnt be telling that to the Rohingya muslims who are now being slaughtered en masse.

 

[TheEconomist]

In the interest of mutual understanding, it might be worthwhile to take just a minute to make a small commentary about the author of this thread, stan1990. I have encountered him in other threads and he generally seems like a reasonnable person. I say this simply because I do not want him to read too much into my reply: I do not have any hostility specifically directed toward him. In fact, I wonder how he managed to stay so clam in some economics threads when trying to deal with James972.

With that being said, I have a problem with how the issue is being formulated. In the past few years, I have encountered many people who take advantage of certain ideas such as "islamophobia" (homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism and others) in a very unfair manner. Very often, after digging into those issues, I came to realize a few things: (1) the accusations are unfounded and made almost as a knee jerk kind of reflex; (2) the accusations are designed to work as gaslighting would, casting doubt on the credibility of people; (3) the accusations were almost always accompanied by demands to censor the other people; (4) it often involved guessing the mental state of other people and, ultimately, putting words they never used in their mouths (sometimes, litterally lying about quotes). I will grant immediately that I don't think these people are representative of the entire left. In particular, I've never seen stan1990 do any of the above and most people who lean to the left on DP do not behave like this.

So, the first point I want to make, stan1990, is that, even if you think that some people are wrong in ways that might harm other, perfectly fine law-abiding citizens, you're not helping the public discourse by going directly for the personal attack. It's also very unlikely that if you use the language of the radical left and go for personal attacks that you will manage to get your message across to conservatives... If anything, you might get them to take unreasonable positions they wouldn't normally take.


The second point I want to make concerns criticizing Islam. I think that some conservatives make a fair point when they point out that some of the values promoted from within Islam conflict with our liberal ideals. In particular, Muslims tend to have a problem with freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. If an artist can submerge a curcifix in urine without fearing for their lives, someone else should be able to disrespect Islam and Muslims all the same. It's granted that all of the above are absolute d*** moves and you would have every right to scorn all of it publicly. However, bullying people and calling for the heads of people over controversial art or opinions is not something we can accept.

That part of the complaints made by people on the right is absolutely legitimate. If someone migrates to the western world, they have to understand the rules of the game here is everybody is free to think, free to talk and free to act. As far as I am concerned, the only human way to treat people is as individuals capable of making their own decisions. We're an enclave of freedom in a world that constantly oppresses everyone. It's not up for negociation, period. To be entirely fair, this sort of issue has been more of a problem in Europe than in the United States. For some reason, Muslims seem to integrate better within the American culture than within the culture of Europe. So, it's fairly possible that some conservatives will exaggerate sometimes. It's none of my business what you do in the privacy of your home or with your spare time in a public or private space. I only have a problem with you if you step on my toes -- and, yes, sometimes Muslims migrants will do just that.

In places like Canada and the United States, we seem to have largely good things going on. Most of the time, people can live alongside each other in spite of sometimes substantial disagreements about all sorts of things. We're societies that offer a very large spectrum of opportunities and socially acceptable options for how to live one's life to the largest set of people ever. That's a largely a good thing, even if there always are some problems to deal with. I think people such as you or me have a duty to replicate those conditions so that future generations and any immigrant comming into our respective countries will get to enjoy the same freedom and opportunities we enjoyed ourselves. We're missing voices taking the side of western values, we're missing voices saying we're doing really well, we're working on doing things better and we can't let anyone screw this up with authoritarian nonsense.


I disagree in part with your diagnostic. It's just hatred or prejudice... It sounds more like people being angry that nobody is taking their side. The core concerns are legitimate, though they sometimes come out in a very bad way.

 

[TheEconomist]

- The Qur'an exists for the sole purpose of defining Islam.
- The Qur'an contains hate speech against unbelievers (8:55 - The lowest of God's creatures are those who believe not)
- The Qur'an contains direct commands for Muslims to fight unbelievers. (2:216 - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.)

How does knowing and disliking that make me an 'Islamophobe'?

I do not think it makes you islamophobic.

If we want to be entirely fair, someone more knowledgeable about the tenets of Islam might object to how you read the Qu'ran. It's not like the vast majority of Muslims living in the United States did not figure out some way of respecting our way of life. Some of them even praise the country and its core values. And it's not like Christianity is short on troubling and challenging statements, especially in the Old Testament and it is still the religion which produced our culture of science and individual rights. But, if we want to be fair with you, the same type of criticism could be raised against Atheists who dislike Judeo-Christian scripture. Most of them aren't Bible scholars who spent decades giving it deep thought and it's okay: it's litterally impossible to know every detail about everything.

As long as you make your statement with a degree of humility, there is no problem in criticizng an idea that you find objectionable, even if there is a fair chance you don't see the whole picture. Moreover, most people will fail to live up to that standard. You're not a bad person for holding on strongly to your view or for having trouble seeing things from a different point of view. That's just you being human.

 

[stevecanuck]

I do not think it makes you islamophobic.

If we want to be entirely fair, someone more knowledgeable about the tenets of Islam might object to how you read the Qu'ran.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't mean anything without an example, or even a hint at an example. There is no "how" in reading the Qur'an. There is only the words and what they mean. Context is helpful in knowing why the verses say what they say, but nothing mitigates what they say. Verse 9:29 (the Qur'an's last word on fighting), tells Muslims the fight Christians and Jews (primarily) until they either accept Islam or agree to live as second class citizens while paying a special protection tax. That is what it says, and that is what it means. Hence, jihad for the last 1400 years.

It's not like the vast majority of Muslims living in the United States did not figure out some way of respecting our way of life. Some of them even praise the country and its core values. And it's not like Christianity is short on troubling and challenging statements, especially in the Old Testament and it is still the religion which produced our culture of science and individual rights. But, if we want to be fair with you, the same type of criticism could be raised against Atheists who dislike Judeo-Christian scripture. Most of them aren't Bible scholars who spent decades giving it deep thought and it's okay: it's litterally impossible to know every detail about everything.

As long as you make your statement with a degree of humility, there is no problem in criticizng an idea that you find objectionable, even if there is a fair chance you don't see the whole picture. Moreover, most people will fail to live up to that standard. You're not a bad person for holding on strongly to your view or for having trouble seeing things from a different point of view. That's just you being human.

I'm not talking about individual Muslims, and I'm not talking about Christians. I'm simply pointing out that Islam, as created and shaped by Mohamed, is a religion that specifically preaches hatred and hostility toward all things and people non-Muslim. Take a year and read it for yourself.

 

[TheEconomist]

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't mean anything without an example, or even a hint at an example. There is no "how" in reading the Qur'an.

Let me give you an example of the problem.

A few years ago, Jordan Peterson made a series of lectures on the psychological significance of biblical stories. The story of Kane and Abel is just a few sentences long in the book of Genesis, but his commentary was about two hours long and he is not a Bible scholar. Denis Praeger has written a commentary on the Old Testament. I think he has done Genesis and Exodus so far. When he tells the stories contained in those books, he makes cross references the stories, highlight details about the grammar of the original Hebrew, sometimes also makes reference to historical events and, other times, etc.

The difference between taking a translated text and reading statements in the most literal sense possible and the range of what can be done can be immense. In this particular case, do you think that you have done everything in your power to make the Qu'ran as humanly acceptable as possible? Have you been as charitable as possible with every line you referenced thus far? I doubt you went into so much trouble. You can state your case as best as you can, but there is always the possibility that someone could find ways to work around your criticism. I don't know personally, but in my experience it is not uncommon for people to point out things we didn't see.

I'm not talking about individual Muslims, and I'm not talking about Christians. I'm simply pointing out that Islam, as created and shaped by Mohamed, is a religion that specifically preaches hatred and hostility toward all things and people non-Muslim.

The reason I brought these things up is that they illustrate my point. What I meant is that there clearly are people who aren't peculiarly violence or hateful who by all appearences would disagree with you.

 

[stevecanuck]

Let me give you an example of the problem.

A few years ago, Jordan Peterson made a series of lectures on the psychological significance of biblical stories. The story of Kane and Abel is just a few sentences long in the book of Genesis, but his commentary was about two hours long and he is not a Bible scholar. Denis Praeger has written a commentary on the Old Testament. I think he has done Genesis and Exodus so far. When he tells the stories contained in those books, he makes cross references the stories, highlight details about the grammar of the original Hebrew, sometimes also makes reference to historical events and, other times, etc.

The difference between taking a translated text and reading statements in the most literal sense possible and the range of what can be done can be immense. In this particular case, do you think that you have done everything in your power to make the Qu'ran as humanly acceptable as possible? Have you been as charitable as possible with every line you referenced thus far? I doubt you went into so much trouble. You can state your case as best as you can, but there is always the possibility that someone could find ways to work around your criticism. I don't know personally, but in my experience it is not uncommon for people to point out things we didn't see.



The reason I brought these things up is that they illustrate my point. What I meant is that there clearly are people who aren't peculiarly violence or hateful who by all appearences would disagree with you.

It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't read the Qur'an just how much hatred of unbelievers drips from just about every page. I suppose that one day (actually it would take months) I could catalog every verse that tells Muslims what horrible people the rest of us are. Such verses would number in the many hundreds. We are "the worst of God's creatures", "unjust", "evil", "like panting dogs", "like donkeys who can carry books, but not understand them", have "diseased hearts", and are "cursed for our unbelief". There is no nuance, no translation, no context, no mitigation of any kind to make those verses mean anything else.

Verse 2:98 - "God is the enemy of unbelievers". <<<<<<< There's the Qur'an in a nutshell for you.

 

[TheEconomist]

It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't read the Qur'an just how much hatred of unbelievers drips from just about every page. I suppose that one day (actually it would take months) I could catalog every verse that tells Muslims what horrible people the rest of us are. Such verses would number in the many hundreds. We are "the worst of God's creatures", "unjust", "evil", "like panting dogs", "like donkeys who can carry books, but not understand them", have "diseased hearts", and are "cursed for our unbelief". There is no nuance, no translation, no context, no mitigation of any kind to make those verses mean anything else.

To be entirely fair, I probably have underestimated the effort you actually put into forming an opinion on the matter.

It's simply that absent more details, my experience debating issues of religion with Atheists is that people who make the kind of commentary you make tend to not have put in a reasonable amount of effort. I know that biblical scripture can be made to seem horrifying in some places and there certainly are verses with which even staunch believers struggle, but I also know that the same text can be presented a completely different light. I also have a natural tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt. It takes a lot for me to go for a very harsh criticism. I don't have anything peculiarly against you and, frankly, you probably know a lot more than I do.

It is also somewhat troubling that Islam was initially spread by the sword in ways that Judaism and Christianity were not. Islam also seems to inspire different attitudes in different countries. If we focus our attention to muslim countries with a largely Arab population, we are looking at countries where Islam was imposed by force: it conquered people as it conquered land. The same doesn't apply everywhere around the world. In particular, there are some Muslim majority countries in Asia where religiously motivated violence clearly is not condoned. The same cannot be said in the Middle East.

And it is also troubling to see the place given in the media and on social media to commentaries such as the original post made in this thread. There is something that cannot be reconciled between our western point of view and what seems to be very popular ideas within the muslim world. We have seen so much violence and horrors in western Europe just a few centuries ago over theological disagreements between Christians. It's certainly one of the catalyst behind the importance people gave to religious freedom later in the 18th century discussions around the legitimacy of governmental authority. The same kind of idea applies to freedom of speech: we're essentially taking violence off the table. Now, if you're going to go in the street and call for the cold blooded murder of people because they drew the wrong kind of picture or said the wrong kind of thing in public, there clearly is a problem. But all too often, if you try to raise this issue, even if you do it as carefully and politely as possible, you will be branded as some kind of racist or islamophobe. The streets of Britain have been packed several times with angry mobs of muslim migrants calling for the death of people over drawings or comments. If you ask for the death of someone in public, that's incitation to violence and it is absolutely criminal. You should be arrested, charged, prosecuted and either jailed or, if you aren't a citizen, see your resident status permanently revoked. You do not belong in any western country if you believe you not only have the right to police the speech of other people, but take it upon yourself to warrant the use of lethal force against dissidents.


To be fair to all muslims, I have met and talked with many muslims in Canada. I study in a big city and have gone through a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and currently study for a Ph.D., so I did meet and talk with a lot of very different people. Anyway, I must say that I've not met a single lunatic in all of those people. They all seemed perfectly normal people who were just busy with their personal business, like any other Canadian would. The only way you can tell they are muslim is that the women tend to wear a head scarf and, sometimes, you hear them talk about it. But it's not because you might have just a few rotten apples that you shouldn't care about it because they seem to be very dangerous.

 

[stevecanuck]

To be entirely fair, I probably have underestimated the effort you actually put into forming an opinion on the matter.

It's simply that absent more details, my experience debating issues of religion with Atheists is that people who make the kind of commentary you make tend to not have put in a reasonable amount of effort. I know that biblical scripture can be made to seem horrifying in some places and there certainly are verses with which even staunch believers struggle, but I also know that the same text can be presented a completely different light. I also have a natural tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt. It takes a lot for me to go for a very harsh criticism. I don't have anything peculiarly against you and, frankly, you probably know a lot more than I do.

It is also somewhat troubling that Islam was initially spread by the sword in ways that Judaism and Christianity were not. Islam also seems to inspire different attitudes in different countries. If we focus our attention to muslim countries with a largely Arab population, we are looking at countries where Islam was imposed by force: it conquered people as it conquered land. The same doesn't apply everywhere around the world. In particular, there are some Muslim majority countries in Asia where religiously motivated violence clearly is not condoned. The same cannot be said in the Middle East.

And it is also troubling to see the place given in the media and on social media to commentaries such as the original post made in this thread. There is something that cannot be reconciled between our western point of view and what seems to be very popular ideas within the muslim world. We have seen so much violence and horrors in western Europe just a few centuries ago over theological disagreements between Christians. It's certainly one of the catalyst behind the importance people gave to religious freedom later in the 18th century discussions around the legitimacy of governmental authority. The same kind of idea applies to freedom of speech: we're essentially taking violence off the table. Now, if you're going to go in the street and call for the cold blooded murder of people because they drew the wrong kind of picture or said the wrong kind of thing in public, there clearly is a problem. But all too often, if you try to raise this issue, even if you do it as carefully and politely as possible, you will be branded as some kind of racist or islamophobe. The streets of Britain have been packed several times with angry mobs of muslim migrants calling for the death of people over drawings or comments. If you ask for the death of someone in public, that's incitation to violence and it is absolutely criminal. You should be arrested, charged, prosecuted and either jailed or, if you aren't a citizen, see your resident status permanently revoked. You do not belong in any western country if you believe you not only have the right to police the speech of other people, but take it upon yourself to warrant the use of lethal force against dissidents.


To be fair to all muslims, I have met and talked with many muslims in Canada. I study in a big city and have gone through a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and currently study for a Ph.D., so I did meet and talk with a lot of very different people. Anyway, I must say that I've not met a single lunatic in all of those people. They all seemed perfectly normal people who were just busy with their personal business, like any other Canadian would. The only way you can tell they are muslim is that the women tend to wear a head scarf and, sometimes, you hear them talk about it. But it's not because you might have just a few rotten apples that you shouldn't care about it because they seem to be very dangerous.

If you want to see a real example of the Qur'an put into practice, just look at the country in which it was born. There are no other religions that are allowed to be publicly practiced in Saudi Arabia. Women are chattel. Non-Muslims are kept away from Mecca because they are "dirty". That is real Islam.

Pakistan has blasphemy laws including the death penalty for "insulting Islam".

I don't have to make up a single thing - I only need to point.

 

[stan1990]

- The Qur'an exists for the sole purpose of defining Islam.
- The Qur'an contains hate speech against unbelievers (8:55 - The lowest of God's creatures are those who believe not)
- The Qur'an contains direct commands for Muslims to fight unbelievers. (2:216 - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.)

How does knowing and disliking that make me an 'Islamophobe'?

- The Bible exists for the sole purpose of defining Christianity.
Mathew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

- The Bible contains hate speech against unbelievers
Luke 19:27" But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."

- The Bible contains direct commands for Christians and Jewish to fight unbelievers.
Luke 22:36 "He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Jos 6:21 "Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword."

1Sam 15:3 "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

 

[stan1990]

A few reasons Islam is in the news regularly.

Honor killing

Boko Haram

Throwing gays off roof tops

Burkas

ISIS

Hamas

Women forbidden to drive (until now)

Hezbollah

Islamic courts

Al Qaeda

9/11

7/7

Paris

Etc, etc., etc.

Honor killing is not just Islamic but in the Middle East and Africa, it is common even among Arab Christians. Islam condemn honor killing and punish it by death.

The last country in the Islamic world that didn't allow woman to drive was KSA, they did left the ban few months ago.

Hamas grew and nourished under the supervision of the Israeli authority. I can tell you why but it is very long story and i don't have time for it. Go google it and do your homework. Stop being lazy.

Jewish and some Christians wear Burkas. You can find the mention of Burkas in the Holy book too.

Isis, Islamic courts, Throwing gays off roof tops...Isn't Islamic
Read Christians history including the inquisition courts, you will find answers

 

[stan1990]

I don't buy into "Islamophobia" as the cause of such reporting myself.

IMO citing Islam is a topic of media reporting because it lends itself toward public interest.

For unlike most other "major religions" it is growing both in adherents and threat to societal security.

It is labeled the "religion of peace," when IMHO it should more correctly be labeled the "religion of submission."

It demands submission of women to men; of secular law to religious law; of all belief to IT's belief system. To do so it is willing to force adherence by the sword.

Small wonder it draws attentions to itself outside it's current areas of control. :shrug:

I do respect people opinion as they are talking with respect which you did. However, i disagree with you otherwise, i won't write that thread.

 

[Fledermaus]

Honor killing is not just Islamic but in the Middle East and Africa, it is common even among Arab Christians. Islam condemn honor killing and punish it by death.

The last country in the Islamic world that didn't allow woman to drive was KSA, they did left the ban few months ago.

Hamas grew and nourished under the supervision of the Israeli authority. I can tell you why but it is very long story and i don't have time for it. Go google it and do your homework. Stop being lazy.

Jewish and some Christians wear Burkas. You can find the mention of Burkas in the Holy book too.

Isis, Islamic courts, Throwing gays off roof tops...Isn't Islamic
Read Christians history including the inquisition courts, you will find answers

Time to first lie... Second sentence.

And if you can't handle the truth you can't handle this forum.

 

[stevecanuck]

This thread is about Islamophobia.

I questioned the legitimacy of the claim of Islamophobia with a very specific answer, and all you did was copy everybody else on DP who is afraid of having a real discussion about Islam by deflecting onto Christianity. If you truly want a dialogue, then please answer my post. If you don't, I'll just add you to the growing list of disingenuous posters.

- The Bible exists for the sole purpose of defining Christianity.
Mathew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

- The Bible contains hate speech against unbelievers
Luke 19:27" But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."

- The Bible contains direct commands for Christians and Jewish to fight unbelievers.
Luke 22:36 "He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Jos 6:21 "Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword."

1Sam 15:3 "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

 

[stevecanuck]

- The Bible exists for the sole purpose of defining Christianity.

No it doesn't. It's a mish-mash of books written over several hundred years by about 40 authors that was only turned into Christianity AFTER it was written. There is no single theme, and certainly no discernible agenda.

The Qur'an, on the other hand, was authored by one man (of course you believe it was God dictating to Mohamed, but I don't) over a 22 1/2 year period. One author, one language, one agenda. Christianity was invented AFTER the bible - Islam was invented BY the Qur'an.

Mathew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

And when did Jesus EVER encourage anyone to use a sword? Hint: The answer is never. In fact, he actually stopped Simon Peter from attacking the servant of the priest sent to arrest him.

Now compare Jesus to Mohamed. Mohamed built an army and directed it against pagans, Jews, and Christians. He slaughtered, raped, and pillaged. Those are historically verifiable facts. Even the Qur'an says so in verse 33:26 (speaking of the Banu Quraiza and the genocide he unleashed against them), "And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you [Mohamed] killed and you took captive another part.".

- The Bible contains hate speech against unbelievers
Luke 19:27" But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."

This is NOT God talking to believers. It's a parable told by Jesus as a prediction - not a command. (What is the meaning of the Parable of the Ten Minas? | GotQuestions.org)

From the link:

Christ uses the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:11–27 to teach about the coming kingdom of God on earth. The occasion of the parable is Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem. Many people in the crowd along the road believed that He was going to Jerusalem in order to establish His earthly kingdom immediately. (Of course, He was going to Jerusalem in order to die, as He had stated in Luke 18:33.) Jesus used this parable to dispel any hopeful rumors that the time of the kingdom had arrived.

- The Bible contains direct commands for Christians and Jewish to fight unbelievers.
Luke 22:36 "He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

What?

Jos 6:21 "Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword."

1Sam 15:3 "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

One-off stories from the OT do NOT constitute an on-going command to kill.

And there lies a major difference between bible and qur'an. The former is a story book, and the latter is a direct sermon from God telling Muslims explicitly what to do. When 9:29 says to fight the people of the book, it means just that. No parable has to be massaged. No indirect wording has to be scrutinized. Fight means fight. And it means it now every bit as much as it did 1400 years ago.

 

[stan1990]

No it doesn't. It's a mish-mash of books written over several hundred years by about 40 authors that was only turned into Christianity AFTER it was written. There is no single theme, and certainly no discernible agenda.

The Qur'an, on the other hand, was authored by one man (of course you believe it was God dictating to Mohamed, but I don't) over a 22 1/2 year period. One author, one language, one agenda. Christianity was invented AFTER the bible - Islam was invented BY the Qur'an.



And when did Jesus EVER encourage anyone to use a sword? Hint: The answer is never. In fact, he actually stopped Simon Peter from attacking the servant of the priest sent to arrest him.

Now compare Jesus to Mohamed. Mohamed built an army and directed it against pagans, Jews, and Christians. He slaughtered, raped, and pillaged. Those are historically verifiable facts. Even the Qur'an says so in verse 33:26 (speaking of the Banu Quraiza and the genocide he unleashed against them), "And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you [Mohamed] killed and you took captive another part.".



This is NOT God talking to believers. It's a parable told by Jesus as a prediction - not a command. (What is the meaning of the Parable of the Ten Minas? | GotQuestions.org)

From the link:

Christ uses the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:11–27 to teach about the coming kingdom of God on earth. The occasion of the parable is Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem. Many people in the crowd along the road believed that He was going to Jerusalem in order to establish His earthly kingdom immediately. (Of course, He was going to Jerusalem in order to die, as He had stated in Luke 18:33.) Jesus used this parable to dispel any hopeful rumors that the time of the kingdom had arrived.



What?



One-off stories from the OT do NOT constitute an on-going command to kill.

And there lies a major difference between bible and qur'an. The former is a story book, and the latter is a direct sermon from God telling Muslims explicitly what to do. When 9:29 says to fight the people of the book, it means just that. No parable has to be massaged. No indirect wording has to be scrutinized. Fight means fight. And it means it now every bit as much as it did 1400 years ago.

I will go along with you to believe that the sole purpose of the Bible isn't to define Christianity and that it is a mish-mash of writing. What is Christianity? Define it for me and explain from where Christians get their spiritual reading and instructions?
You are trying to make a nice run but it won't work. The verses about buying swords and order the killing of the disbelievers in Jesus is very clear. He didn't order his followers to use the swords, why he ordered them to buy? To cut fruits and vegetables.
I can use the same excuse you do "One-off stories from the OT do NOT constitute an on-going command to kill." However, I won't, Because of this what losers do. They try to write apologetic but pathetic answers. Dual standards, this what is your reply all about.

 

[stan1990]

This thread is about Islamophobia.

I questioned the legitimacy of the claim of Islamophobia with a very specific answer, and all you did was copy everybody else on DP who is afraid of having a real discussion about Islam by deflecting onto Christianity. If you truly want a dialogue, then please answer my post. If you don't, I'll just add you to the growing list of disingenuous posters.

The real discussion is what you guys and people like you to get away from it.

 

[stan1990]

Time to first lie... Second sentence.

And if you can't handle the truth you can't handle this forum.

I am handling the forum pretty well until now. Your comments on my threads are the evidence.

 

[Fledermaus]

I am handling the forum pretty well until now. Your comments on my threads are the evidence.

Incorrect.

You make a fool of yourself weekly.

 

[stevecanuck]

I will go along with you to believe that the sole purpose of the Bible isn't to define Christianity and that it is a mish-mash of writing.

So far, so good.

What is Christianity? Define it for me and explain from where Christians get their spiritual reading and instructions?

There is no scripture 'from God' to help me, or anyone else, do that. The bible was written by men. That's why councils have to be convened and consensus arrived at. Christianity is a man-made religion, and I wasn't part of the committee.

Islam, on the other hand DOES have a scripture 'from God' to define it. Big difference, mish kiddah?

You are trying to make a nice run but it won't work. The verses about buying swords and order the killing of the disbelievers in Jesus is very clear. He didn't order his followers to use the swords, why he ordered them to buy? To cut fruits and vegetables.

Then show me a verse in which he gave the order to use the swords. Name a battle he fought in. In fact, I can show you where he STOPPED his disciple from using his sword.

I can use the same excuse you do "One-off stories from the OT do NOT constitute an on-going command to kill." However, I won't, Because of this what losers do. They try to write apologetic but pathetic answers. Dual standards, this what is your reply all about.

Fail. You're obviously trying to paint commands to fight from the Qur'an as being similar to the bible's one-off stories. Epic fail. The Qur'an does contain stories; it contains clear commands. It uses the imperative. It tells Muslims that "fighting is prescribed for you even though you may not like it".