Racism about islam can't exist: islam isn't a race: Poll

[pErvinalia]

Wouldn't a person who says "Islam is Good" also be a racist then? It's the same kind of generalization, isn't it, just a favorable one.

That's an extremely good question, I'm glad somebody asked it. I'd treat the statement "Islam is good" differently from the statement "Islam is bad". Because although I don't think there is any single thing called Islam, there are really no hurtful consequences to anyone by saying "Islam is good".

I hold the idea that "Islam is bad", so you saying that it is good is raping my neurons. Please stop raping my mind.

[pErvinalia]

He's not being rational, he's erecting a strawman. "Anyone who broadly criticizes Islam is a RWNJ."

Absolute rubbish. Jim regularly criticises Islam. Where do you get this shit from?!?

[Brian Peacock]

So what about calling someone an islamophobe?

That depends on one's working definition of Islamophobia. Where some might confuse criticism of Islam with an irrational fear of the Faith 'Islamophobia' acts as a charge which effectively seeks to limit that criticism. Where someone categorises all Muslims of being of a certain or particular type then 'Islamophobia', as a term identifying bigotry or hatred, might indeed apply. Generally speaking the term is applied to bigotry and hatred and only applied as a charge in the face of criticism by those with some (self-declared) Islamic interest and/or authority.

So, who do you consider an Islamophobe here, and more importantly, why?

[pErvinalia]

All of us.

[laklak]

No, any fear of Islam I may have is far from unreasonable. I lived too many years among them to buy the politically correct, white-washed view of their religion. What you see in Oz or here or even in the UK is a pale imitation of what they do in their own countries. It ain't pretty, that's a fact.

[JimC]

It does seem that when Islam acts pretty much without restraint in a country it dominates the result is usually extremely intolerant of other religions or unbelief, that the rule of law becomes the violent rule of mullahs, and that oppression of women and gays is pretty well rife.

But it is also possible for a moderate version of Islam to coexist with other beliefs (or lack of them) in pluralist countries.

[pErvinalia]

No, any fear of Islam I may have is far from unreasonable. I lived too many years among them to buy the politically correct, white-washed view of their religion. What you see in Oz or here or even in the UK is a pale imitation of what they do in their own countries. It ain't pretty, that's a fact.

You're still generalising, though. I've spent plenty of time in Turkey, and I've known quite well some Muslims from Iran and Indonesia. They simply are cultural Muslims. They don't pray multiple times a day, if they even pray at all. Their wives don't wear head coverings. They almost certainly aren't as progressive as us atheists, but neither are most Christians and Jews.

Edit: actually the Indonesian I knew best did pray once during the work day. But fuck, easy going and a really nice guy.

[JimC]

No, any fear of Islam I may have is far from unreasonable. I lived too many years among them to buy the politically correct, white-washed view of their religion. What you see in Oz or here or even in the UK is a pale imitation of what they do in their own countries. It ain't pretty, that's a fact.

You're still generalising, though. I've spent plenty of time in Turkey, and I've known quite well some Muslims from Iran and Indonesia. They simply are cultural Muslims. They don't pray multiple times a day, if they even pray at all. Their wives don't wear head coverings. They almost certainly aren't as progressive as us atheists, but neither are most Christians and Jews.

Edit: actually the Indonesian I knew best did pray once during the work day. But fuck, easy going and a really nice guy.

As a counter example, in Indonesia right now there is a very nasty campaign, not being checked by government, against the LGBT community. This does not mean that there are not a fair number of your harmless "cultural muslims" around, but the action is happening in the fundamentalist side. And look at Pakistan, or Saudi, or Iran...

[Brian Peacock]

No, any fear of Islam I may have is far from unreasonable. I lived too many years among them to buy the politically correct, white-washed view of their religion. What you see in Oz or here or even in the UK is a pale imitation of what they do in their own countries. It ain't pretty, that's a fact.

And I'm sure you could explicate your concerns and criticisms of Islam rationally, and with appropriate context. I don't think you're generalising here either, as you've at least outlined some relevant qualification - that you are talking about Islam, and that Muslims of the West are not the theocratic autocrats of typical of nations run according to Islamic principles. Some may still criticise you of course, but there's no need to be extra, 'specially careful in one's language when talking about Islam.

[Exi5tentialist]

There are millions of muslims in islam. Islam is what they make it. Not all muslims are the same. Not all islams are the same. To "criticize islam" is to conceive of a single thing called islam. But there are many islams so it is an inaccurate construction. The edict that it is always and everywhere ok to "criticize islam" is a dualistic declaration of open season on muslims. Islam and muslims are not dualistically separated; they are one in the same. As with the dualism of "criticize the idea, not the person", this islam-muslim separation has philosophically religious roots. Dualism is valuable to people who need a get-out-of-jail-free card. People who want to act in a discriminatory way but at the same time give themselves a free pass to do so. That's why I'm not a dualist. These separate realities of muslim-islam or idea-person are cynical artificial constructions.

[JimC]

How very post-modern of you...

[JimC]

To give a somewhat more serious response, it is true that Islam is interpreted differently by many different religious authorities within the muslim world. It does remain true, however, that a significant number of those religious authorities interpret in a very rigid and authoritarian way, and promote violence against unbelievers. That is a fact, as is also that a very large number of muslims would prefer not to go down that track...

The big question is how to deal with this complex mixture...

[Forty Two]

Generalised anti-islamic rhetoric is used (or at least implied) all the time by racist, rightwing groups here in Oz who protest every time a new mosque is proposed.

Link? And, why is it that when we talk about about the radical left, folks say "oh, those dopey feminists who are off the charts are just a small irrelevant minority, but when some crackpot - who clearly isn't part of mainstream Australia or the US - makes a dopey racist comment, it's treated as if it's a problem with western society?

Their argument is that every mosque is a breeding ground for jihad, a generalisation if there ever was one.

it doesn't have to be that argument. It could be that mosques are more likely to be breeding grounds for jihad than places that aren't mosques, and that would be a correct statement. Mosques are places where jihadists spread their messages, because the audience tends to be more receptive than the general public. Like churches, they are places of indoctrination.

nothing racist about that at all.

If you were in the FBI or MI6, and someone asked you where you would look if you were looking for jihadists, wouldn't you say that Mosques would be good places to check into? It's like asking if you were looking for violent Christian dominionists. Would you start with the Barnes & Noble Bookstore, or would you check around the churches?

[Forty Two]

He's not being rational, he's erecting a strawman. "Anyone who broadly criticizes Islam is a RWNJ."

Jihad is a Pillar of Islam. Of course mosques are breeding grounds of jihad.

Mosques are also focal points of Zakat another Pillar of Islam that's not going to go away.

Struggle + Money...yet most places in the Muslim world have open sewers and low immunization rates. They blame us.

Incorrect. I'm talking about people making sweeping negative generalisations about all muslims, not about Islam as a religion or an institution.

Who made these sweeping generalizations? Any examples? Anyone prominent?

And it is pernicious nonsense to suggest that all mosques are breeding grounds of jihad

It's also not something anyone has suggested. Or, at least, there hasn't been one example given. If this were at all common or even a reasonably non-rare occurrence, it would be quite easy to find examples. If you were to find an example, I bet dollars-to-donuts that it would be some Stormfront type person, or a KKK member - not someone who is in the last taken seriously in general, and that any such comment would be shown to have been immediately met with strong, swift and overwhelming condemnation across the board.

Having said that, I would have no objection to mosques where it has been proved that jihad being preached be closed down.

Not me. I have a strong objection to any government action to shut down "preaching" of any sort. Now, if the people there were doing things to supply, finance, fund, harbor, coordinate with or conspire with, people who are committing acts toward the commission of crimes, then yes. But, there is nothing illegal about "preaching" that jihad is a good. Just like it's not illegal to write or talk about how a communist revolution is a good idea. Now, if you run guns to the Communist Party, or coordinate a bombing or plan one, that's another story. But, "preaching"? No.

[Forty Two]

Feck, it is clear from the context of the thread that this post:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1644830

was aimed at Exi. This is a reminder that such personal attacks are against our rules. Please keep the vigour of your posts to attacking arguments rather than posters.

Didn't Exi call JimC an racist in a "group attack?"

Still a bit too indirect. He said that islamophobia is a type of racism, and implied that the people he was arguing against in the thread were islamophobic. A little too tenuous, even for me, who usually likes to suspend 10 members before breakfast...

So just to be clear, does that mean I'm not supposed to call anyone here racist?

I am hard pressed to see how calling someone a racist could possibly be on point or on topic toward a serious discussion. If you're joking around and poking fun, that's one thing. But, what kind of argument is "you're a racist!"? I mean, it's a common one from the regressive left, but it really is a worthless argument.

That hardly seems like a personal attack, even if stated directly. It's more a charge that the other party should seek to refute.

Of course it's a personal attack. Like if one calls someone a progressive leftist. Or, a Marxist. Those are horrible things to call someone.

I don't know, this personal attack rule actually encourages personal attacks by getting people to shuffle the insulting words around even though the meaning is exactly the same and it discourages frank debate. No wonder the place is such a bickering nightmare.

Please take your issues regarding the rules to the appropriate section. The rules, like making sure not to diddle a person under the age 16, are pretty easy to follow. Just don't "call" someone names, or direct namecalling toward their person. That covers most of it, if not all of it.