At which point does criticism of Islam turn into Islamophobia?

[Humes fork]

The meme-cluster Anders Behring Breivik was got his ideas and inspiration from is often called the counter-Jihad movement, or simply Islamophobic groups. But at what point does a site enter from simply criticism of Islam to Islamophobia, or the counter-Jihad side of the spectrum?

Let's consider two sites on the opposite sides of the spectrum: Internet Infidels (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/) and Gates of Vienna (not sure if linking to the latter is ok, but if you want to read just use Google). Internet Infidels has a bunch of critical articles against Islam, both from a factual and moral point of view. Gates of Vienna espouses Eurabia conspiracies (Fjordman used to be a regular poster there). Only a total idiot would consider Internet Infidels to be racists of any kind. If you think they are, you are beyond the point of a reasonable conversation.

Let's move a little further, to Apostates of Islam (http://www.apostatesofislam.com). It is more forcefully critical than Internet Infidels, and actively tries to persuade Muslims to leave their religion. But from what I can find, there is no racism or conspiracy theories promoted there. In main it is what it says it is, a collection of testimonies of former Muslims.

Faith Freedom is somewhat of a mix, as it mixes testimonies of ex-Muslims and serious critiques with more wacky beliefs.

And what about Richard Dawkins? Would you consider him an Islamophobe? He has stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8) that he thinks Islam is "one of the great evils in the world" and raised for consideration the idea to support Christian missionaries in Africa (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but) in order to counter the spread of Islam there (he doesn't think atheism has any chance there for the foreseeable future).

In short, exactly when does criticism of Islam turn into Islamophobia? Islamophobia is such a slippy, ill-defined word whose utility is questionable.

[JJM 777]

Idunno, but beware of commenting anything critical about the politics of Israel.

[Unabogie]

Bigotry is when you criticize an entire group of people for the wrongs or perceived wrongs of their peers. So criticizing muslims for bad acts is different from criticizing "Islam", unless you are attacking from the the point of view that all religions are harmful.

I have a neighbor who fervently believes that all muslims are actively breeding in order to violently overthrow the U.S. He is not attacking a tenet of Islam he dislikes, but instead is accusing an entire group of people of a vast conspiracy.

It seems like the line may be fuzzy somewhere in there, but I think we all know bigotry when we see it.

Also, see the "Ground Zero Mosque" for an example of "Islamophobia".

[MG1962]

And what about Richard Dawkins? Would you consider him an Islamophobe? He has stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8) that he thinks Islam is "one of the great evils in the world" and raised for consideration the idea to support Christian missionaries in Africa (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but) in order to counter the spread of Islam there (he doesn't think atheism has any chance there for the foreseeable future).

You probably should have read that link before tabling it as evidence

[Earthborn]

I would distinguish "islamophobia" from "anti-Islamism". Islamophobia is indeed a vague term that denotes some level of fear or distrust of Islam, but not necessarily political opposition to it. Anti-Islamism is more precise: it is a political ideology that opposes Islam.

I think criticism of Islam turns to anti-Islamism if critics... ... assume that Islam is a singular thing, instead of a large variety of barely related religious movements.
... not merely describe Islamic beliefs, but prescribe to Muslims what they ought to believe to be legitimately Muslim.
... base their criticism solely on their own (mis)interpretation of Islamic texts, and insist that their interpretation is the only valid one.
... claim that Islam is inherently and inevitably evil.
... argue that Muslims should abandon their religion completely.
... believe that society should not do anything to promote religious tolerance or mutual understanding.

[Toontown]

At which point does fear of criticism of Islam become Islamobigotophobia?

[Humes fork]

Idunno, but beware of commenting anything critical about the politics of Israel.

What have you been smoking? In political debates (at least here, I would be surprised if it is not the case in your country too) Israel is frequently singled out for criticism and negative special treatment.

[Rufo]

If Islamophobia denotes an actual phobia, it is distinguished by an irrational fear of Muslims and Islam. If it denotes a form of ethnic prejudice, it shows an irrational bias against cultures. Whichever definition is used, irrationality and inconsistency are the qualifiers. Since there is reason to be afraid or critical of some aspects of most dogmas, pinning down irrational elements seems to be the only way to identify Islamophobia and as I believe many skeptics are aware, irrationality is difficult to identify and easy to justify.

Many critics of Islam wonder why their arguments are immediately met by comparisons to Christianity and other world religions. It is exactly because of the nature of Islamophobia and bias in general: To identify if the criticism is displaying irrational traits, you have to find some point of comparison and see if the argument is being applied consistently.

At which point does fear of criticism of Islam become Islamobigotophobia?
I'd actually like to see someone who is strongly critical of Islam describe at what point they think legitimate concerns about bias and racism turn into stifling debate.

What have you been smoking? In political debates (at least here, I would be surprised if it is not the case in your country too) Israel is frequently singled out for criticism and negative special treatment.
I think the point of the comparison is that you risk being accused of antisemitism. Islam gets plenty of singling out as well. Because of this, both Islamophobia and antisemitism are legitimate concerns.

[Trakar]

The meme-cluster Anders Behring Breivik was got his ideas and inspiration from is often called the counter-Jihad movement, or simply Islamophobic groups. But at what point does a site enter from simply criticism of Islam to Islamophobia, or the counter-Jihad side of the spectrum?...

Probably right around the time you create a website dedicated to the criticism of Islam.

[MsFortune]

And what about Richard Dawkins? Would you consider him an Islamophobe? He has stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8) that he thinks Islam is "one of the great evils in the world"



Yes, of course. He's also a christianaphobe, etc. He thinks all religions are great evils.

I also think it's a cop out to say things like, I'm anti-islam, but i'm not anti-muslim. That's a pretty thin hair you are splitting.

[angrysoba]

Presumably if this boozy lady retraces her steps she should be able to find it somewhere.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=237939

[Jontg]

Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam. That implies that there is a rational response to Islam other than fear.

[gnome]

At which point does fear of criticism of Islam become Islamobigotophobia?

When you start mistakenly believing that someone irrationally fears that all of Islam is about violence and terrorism, when in fact they are an innocent person that has come to that conclusion with careful research and logic?

[Trakar]

When you start mistakenly believing that someone irrationally fears that all of Islam is about violence and terrorism, when in fact they are an innocent person that has come to that conclusion with careful research and logic?

You seem to be saying that irrational conclusions can be rationally derived?

[JJM 777]

At which point does criticism of homosexuality turn into homophobia?

[angrysoba]

Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam. That implies that there is a rational response to Islam other than fear.

Curiosity, indifference, interest, amusement. A mixture of those. But you imply there is no rational response other than fear.

[KevinCanada]

Yes, of course. He's also a christianaphobe, etc. He thinks all religions are great evils.

I also think it's a cop out to say things like, I'm anti-islam, but i'm not anti-muslim. That's a pretty thin hair you are splitting.

I am both of these, I am anti-Islam due to well, mass torture, genocide and everything disgusting that goes with it.
I am not anti-Muslim, because I believe the Muslim suffer from a mental disease and should be treated as a medical condition that is hopefully one day curable.
I hate the religion and the beliefs but not the individual. I welcome everyone to their own beliefs, as long as it leaves me out of it and no one gets hurt.

[Jontg]

Curiosity, indifference, interest, amusement. A mixture of those. But you imply there is no rational response other than fear.
Well, that's the default response to any magical behavior--but only Christianity and Islam are currently producing homicidal maniacs, and when the Christians come for you all you need to do is sing a few hymns.

[angrysoba]

Well, that's the default response to any magical behavior--but only Christianity and Islam are currently producing homicidal maniacs, and when the Christians come for you all you need to do is sing a few hymns.

The default response to any magical behavior is fear? Really? Besides, maybe what you mean is that religion is the belief in magical behaviour rather than actual magical behaviour. I also find your claim that only Christianity and Islam currently produces homicidal maniacs to be ignorant. By ignorant I don't mean it as a jibe I just mean it as a statement of fact.

[ANTPogo]

I think criticism of Islam turns to anti-Islamism if critics... ... assume that Islam is a singular thing, instead of a large variety of barely related religious movements.
... not merely describe Islamic beliefs, but prescribe to Muslims what they ought to believe to be legitimately Muslim.
... base their criticism solely on their own (mis)interpretation of Islamic texts, and insist that their interpretation is the only valid one.
... claim that Islam is inherently and inevitably evil.
... argue that Muslims should abandon their religion completely.
... believe that society should not do anything to promote religious tolerance or mutual understanding.

This pretty much describes exactly my own answer to the OP's question.

[Dcdrac]

Ther are several fantasies peddld in US right wing circles about Eurabia that indicates islamphobia and distinct ignornace of modern Europe as well for that matter.

Fear of Islamism I feel is justified as a political ideaology in the same way that fearr of politicised christainity is wholly jsutified, the religious imposing their will politically on the non religious has to be opposed.

[epepke]

The answer to the OP is instantly, as soon as the word crops up.

The first use of the term was islamophobie in French in 1916. This was translated into "feelings inimical to Islam." So you're automatically guilty of islamophobie.

A good article can be found at http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf

[DC]

The meme-cluster Anders Behring Breivik was got his ideas and inspiration from is often called the counter-Jihad movement, or simply Islamophobic groups. But at what point does a site enter from simply criticism of Islam to Islamophobia, or the counter-Jihad side of the spectrum?

Let's consider two sites on the opposite sides of the spectrum: Internet Infidels (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/) and Gates of Vienna (not sure if linking to the latter is ok, but if you want to read just use Google). Internet Infidels has a bunch of critical articles against Islam, both from a factual and moral point of view. Gates of Vienna espouses Eurabia conspiracies (Fjordman used to be a regular poster there). Only a total idiot would consider Internet Infidels to be racists of any kind. If you think they are, you are beyond the point of a reasonable conversation.

Let's move a little further, to Apostates of Islam (http://www.apostatesofislam.com). It is more forcefully critical than Internet Infidels, and actively tries to persuade Muslims to leave their religion. But from what I can find, there is no racism or conspiracy theories promoted there. In main it is what it says it is, a collection of testimonies of former Muslims.

Faith Freedom is somewhat of a mix, as it mixes testimonies of ex-Muslims and serious critiques with more wacky beliefs.

And what about Richard Dawkins? Would you consider him an Islamophobe? He has stated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8) that he thinks Islam is "one of the great evils in the world" and raised for consideration the idea to support Christian missionaries in Africa (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but) in order to counter the spread of Islam there (he doesn't think atheism has any chance there for the foreseeable future).

In short, exactly when does criticism of Islam turn into Islamophobia? Islamophobia is such a slippy, ill-defined word whose utility is questionable.

the moment you conclude the beliefs or actions of a minority can be applied to all or most moslems.

i only shortly went over the two websites you mention and have seen nothing islamaphobic.

[Mark6]

Bigotry is when you criticize an entire group of people for the wrongs or perceived wrongs of their peers. So criticizing muslims for bad acts is different from criticizing "Islam", unless you are attacking from the the point of view that all religions are harmful.
How about the point of view that all religions are harmful, but some are much more harmful than others? I am not aware of any Wiccans blowing themselves up, or shooting abortion clinics.

[Humes fork]

At which point does criticism of homosexuality turn into homophobia?

You are beyond the point of a reasonable conversation.

[Humes fork]

If Islamophobia denotes an actual phobia, it is distinguished by an irrational fear of Muslims and Islam. If it denotes a form of ethnic prejudice

Islam is not an ethnicity.

it shows an irrational bias against cultures.

What is an "irrational bias"? I have biases to some cultural practices, and I'm sure have too.

Many critics of Islam wonder why their arguments are immediately met by comparisons to Christianity and other world religions. It is exactly because of the nature of Islamophobia and bias in general: To identify if the criticism is displaying irrational traits, you have to find some point of comparison and see if the argument is being applied consistently.

So you can't criticize Islam unless you simultaneously criticize other religions? Why is that never asked for of critics of Christianity? When someone criticizes the Old Testament, nobody says "Well duh, that's in the Quran too!".

I'd actually like to see someone who is strongly critical of Islam describe at what point they think legitimate concerns about bias and racism turn into stifling debate.

The assumption that Islam = Muslims, and the view that criticism of Islamic beliefs are racist.

I think the point of the comparison is that you risk being accused of antisemitism. Islam gets plenty of singling out as well. Because of this, both Islamophobia and antisemitism are legitimate concerns.

At least in Sweden antisemitism is more common among people from the Middle East than the population at large. I can tell from anecdotal experience that of the Muslim co-workers I've had over the years, quite a few of them were rabid antisemites.

[Rufo]

Islam is not an ethnicity.
No, but that doesn't mean 'Islamophobia' is not used to refer to prejudice relating to ethnicity. It's a misnomer - but then again, so is 'anti-semitism'.

What is an "irrational bias"? I have biases to some cultural practices, and I'm sure have too.
Part of my point was that it's not necessarily easy to identify. Inconsistency and disproportionate reactions as well as devaluing the people along with the practices would be good places to start. Others have suggested other identifiers above.

So you can't criticize Islam unless you simultaneously criticize other religions?
Of course you can. It's just that many people who suspect the criticism is rooted in prejudice will probe your opinion of similar issues elsewhere to see if you're being consistent. Do you have a better idea for how to migitate their concerns?

Why is that never asked for of critics of Christianity? When someone criticizes the Old Testament, nobody says "Well duh, that's in the Quran too!".
In regions where Christians are in minority and where bias against Christians is a major problem, I'd expect that argument to pop up.

The assumption that Islam = Muslims, and the view that criticism of Islamic beliefs are racist.
Criticism of the followers of a religion rather than the religion itself is probably something all sensible parties want to avoid. That still leaves the problem of how to define the religion. As for racism, I think those accusations are more about ulterior motives than the criticism itself, but that still tends to cut any discussion short.

At least in Sweden antisemitism is more common among people from the Middle East than the population at large. I can tell from anecdotal experience that of the Muslim co-workers I've had over the years, quite a few of them were rabid antisemites.
I'm Swedish as well and have been fortunate enough not to encounter a lot of antisemitism, but your experience would support my assertion that it remains a legitimate concern along with other prejudice.

[Humes fork]

No, but that doesn't mean 'Islamophobia' is not used to refer to prejudice relating to ethnicity. It's a misnomer - but then again, so is 'anti-semitism'.

So Islamophobia is about racism? But then why not refer to racism toward the specific groups? It's not like Bosniaks and Tajiks have a terribly lot in common.

Part of my point was that it's not necessarily easy to identify. Inconsistency and disproportionate reactions as well as devaluing the people along with the practices would be good places to start. Others have suggested other identifiers above.

In other words, whatever fits the purpose.

Of course you can. It's just that many people who suspect the criticism is rooted in prejudice will probe your opinion of similar issues elsewhere to see if you're being consistent.

Why is that only applied to criticism of Islam?

Do you have a better idea for how to migitate their concerns?

It's not really a valid concern. I could be a Mossad hitman with an axe to grind, yet still make perfectly valid critiques.

The validity of person X's critique of belief Y is not affected by his attitude to belief Z.

In regions where Christians are in minority and where bias against Christians is a major problem, I'd expect that argument to pop up.

You could say that in Sweden Christians are a minority, yet it doesn't pop up at all.

In the Middle East, the religious groups rarely criticize each other (most of them haven't read their books to begin with), they go by more violent means.

Criticism of the followers of a religion rather than the religion itself is probably something all sensible parties want to avoid. That still leaves the problem of how to define the religion.

Yes. And believe it or not, Islamic beliefs can easily be criticized on moral and factual grounds.

[tomwaits]

Criticism of the followers of a religion rather than the religion itself is probably something all sensible parties want to avoid.

Why? Religion is simply an idea. Religion can't kill people, perpetuate discrimination, hold science back, etc. People do that. A religion is only important enough to care about if there are followers of it. Criticizing a person for following a silly religion is perfectly valid.

[Rufo]

So Islamophobia is about racism? But then why not refer to racism toward the specific groups? It's not like Bosniaks and Tajiks have a terribly lot in common.
It may serve as an outlet for racism directed at several groups. Maybe xenophobia would be a more accurate term in some cases.

In other words, whatever fits the purpose.
I don't think that's an accurate description. You don't seem to think implying ulterior motives is very constructive when your opponents do it, so why do it yourself?

Why is that only applied to criticism of Islam?
It's not. I already mentioned criticizing Israel can prompt similar concern about bias against Jews, for example.

It's not really a valid concern. I could be a Mossad hitman with an axe to grind, yet still make perfectly valid critiques.

The validity of person X's critique of belief Y is not affected by his attitude to belief Z.
It's true that you can't dismiss an argument with it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid concern. Prejudice still leads to poor and unbalanced discussions and a worse society in general.

You could say that in Sweden Christians are a minority, yet it doesn't pop up at all. [...]
You could say that, given that the country is highly secular, but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the situation of Christians in Sweden is comparable to that of Muslims.

Yes. And believe it or not, Islamic beliefs can easily be criticized on moral and factual grounds.
Yes. Who contests that?

Why? Religion is simply an idea. Religion can't kill people, perpetuate discrimination, hold science back, etc. People do that. A religion is only important enough to care about if there are followers of it. Criticizing a person for following a silly religion is perfectly valid.
I should have been more specific: Blanket criticism against followers tends to be destructive.

[gnome]

You seem to be saying that irrational conclusions can be rationally derived?

Have your irony meter adjusted :)

[Earthborn]

Criticism of the followers of a religion rather than the religion itself is probably something all sensible parties want to avoid. The text you quote appears nowhere in my post. It is something Rufo wrote. Please attribute quotes to the correct person. The quote button makes this easy.

Why? Religion is simply an idea. Religion can't kill people, perpetuate discrimination, hold science back, etc. People do that. A religion is only important enough to care about if there are followers of it.I'd say that if a group of people do bad things you can criticise them for it. If you think a religion promotes bad things, you can criticise it.

I think Rufo responds to the common claim by anti-Islamists that they are "criticising Islam, not Muslims" to deflect charges of bigotry, while attacking Muslims because they follow Islam. I think it is strange to distinguish between a religion and its followers in this way; a religion is made by the people who believe in it so any criticism of a religion ultimately reflects on at least some of its followers.

Any claim that "Islam = Muslims" is wrong assumes that Islam has some objective unchanging meaning separate from its followers' interpretations, and that claim is awfully close to the claim that its teachings come directly from God.

Criticizing a person for following a silly religion is perfectly valid.All religions seem silly to those who don't believe in it.

[JJM 777]

You are beyond the point of a reasonable conversation.
I think it is very relevant for the topic to critically and objectively (hmmm, skeptically) compare these:

At which point does criticism of Islam turn into Islamophobia?

At which point does criticism of Israeli politics turn into Anti-Semitism?

At which point does criticism of homosexuality turn into homophobia?

At which point does criticism of any X thing turn into X-phobia?

[tomwaits]

The text you quote appears nowhere in my post. It is something Rufo wrote. Please attribute quotes to the correct person. The quote button makes this easy.

Weird, I don't know how that happened. My mistake.

I'd say that if a group of people do bad things you can criticise them for it. If you think a religion promotes bad things, you can criticise it.

If a person follows a religion that promotes claims that are not based on evidence, I say you can criticize a person for believing in it, just like psychics and UFOs. If a person does "bad things" you can criticize them for that, too. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

All religions seem silly to those who don't believe in it.

Perhaps saying "silly religion" is redundant then. Make it "all religion" if you like.

[C_Felix]

When Muslims become "them" or "they"
When you/me/him/her/etc... stops trying to understand and makes judgements.
When you/me/him/her/etc... choose to not actively learn about their beliefs and repeat "stuff I heard".
When you/me/him/her/etc.. starts making broad generalizations about an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

[KevinCanada]

I think it is very relevant for the topic to critically and objectively (hmmm, skeptically) compare these:

At which point does criticism of Islam turn into Islamophobia?

At which point does criticism of Israeli politics turn into Anti-Semitism?

At which point does criticism of homosexuality turn into homophobia?

At which point does criticism of any X thing turn into X-phobia?

lol :) a Islamist will strap a bomb on themselves and blow you up. Afghanistan Islamist produce heroin and encourage western civilians to become slaves to the needle.

All the gay dude did was wink at ya. The two so called phobia's cannot even be measured the same and may even required different sets of protocols to measure the extent.

Lastly, harm from Islam is obvious and known look at all the wars. It is not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you.

[DC]

lol :) a Islamist will strap a bomb on themselves and blow you up. Afghanistan Islamist produce heroin and encourage western civilians to become slaves to the needle.

All the gay dude did was wink at ya. The two so called phobia's cannot even be measured the same and may even required different sets of protocols to measure the extent.

Lastly, harm from Islam is obvious and known look at all the wars. It is not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you.

fearing Islamist terrorists is not paranoia, fearing moslems because of those islamists however is paranoid.

[tsig]

You are beyond the point of a reasonable conversation.

He did give a nice demonstration of what happens when you merely question about questioning Islam.

[KevinCanada]

When Muslims become "them" or "they"
When you/me/him/her/etc... stops trying to understand and makes judgements.
When you/me/him/her/etc... choose to not actively learn about their beliefs and repeat "stuff I heard".
When you/me/him/her/etc.. starts making broad generalizations about an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

This is a half truth it depends, I say that because you are assuming others are making judgements due to misunderstanding or not understanding it all. It's the "religion of peace" approach.

When it comes to Islam, the Qur'an, unlike the bible is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope. When we discuss christian or Jewish faiths. We all recognize that the books can contain man made errors and most people openly reject the violence.

The quran to be a muslim you have to submit to the Quran, in other words you put the teaching of the Quran above your own reasoning. Yes I am saying you take a knife, cut your frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran.

You are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it. You must accept it as being aspired from god, people will claim the bible is a testimony of accounts, not the direct world of god. The quran is the direct word of god, and the hadiths are the acts. So when the quran says kill the jews, It means kill them all. No if or buts around it. This is why you keep hearing "wipe Israel from the map" speech in the news.

If the bible makes these kind of claims or not I don't know. But if it did a christian would go no that's not right, it can't be because it goes against the turn the other cheek teachings of Jesus. Plus it could of just been human error.

Sorry in short, you are the one who is generalizing base upon a western biblical stand point. we cannot apply western thinking to eastern. To do so is to project our view on others and is incorrect. You cannot be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. Being a Muslim means you also accept and embrace the violent aspects if you like it or not.

[tsig]

lol :) a Islamist will strap a bomb on themselves and blow you up. Afghanistan Islamist produce heroin and encourage western civilians to become slaves to the needle.

All the gay dude did was wink at ya. The two so called phobia's cannot even be measured the same and may even required different sets of protocols to measure the extent.

Lastly, harm from Islam is obvious and known look at all the wars. It is not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you.

I predict TQ's.

tu quoques

[Trakar]

Have your irony meter adjusted :)

strangely this forum tends to keep it, near permanently, strained beyond manufacturer specifications,...guess I'm gonna have to upgrade to better quality gauge-ware.

[ANTPogo]

This is a half truth it depends, I say that because you are assuming others are making judgements due to misunderstanding or not understanding it all. It's the "religion of peace" approach.

When it comes to Islam, the Qur'an, unlike the bible is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope. When we discuss christian or Jewish faiths. We all recognize that the books can contain man made errors and most people openly reject the violence.

The quran to be a muslim you have to submit to the Quran, in other words you put the teaching of the Quran above your own reasoning. Yes I am saying you take a knife, cut your frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran.

You are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it. You must accept it as being aspired from god, people will claim the bible is a testimony of accounts, not the direct world of god. The quran is the direct word of god, and the hadiths are the acts. So when the quran says kill the jews, It means kill them all. No if or buts around it. This is why you keep hearing "wipe Israel from the map" speech in the news.

If the bible makes these kind of claims or not I don't know. But if it did a christian would go no that's not right, it can't be because it goes against the turn the other cheek teachings of Jesus. Plus it could of just been human error.

Sorry in short, you are the one who is generalizing base upon a western biblical stand point. we cannot apply western thinking to eastern. To do so is to project our view on others and is incorrect. You cannot be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. Being a Muslim means you also accept and embrace the violent aspects if you like it or not.

You are pretty much entirely wrong on all counts. Like, facepalmingly wrong.

[Ladewig]

'Which comes closer to your view, even if neither is exactly right? Local communities should be able to prohibit the construction of mosques in their area if they don't want them. OR, Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups to build houses of worship in local communities." Options rotated

"Localities should be able to prohibit Muslims" 25%

from Pew Research Center Aug 2010 poll

.....................
"Do you think that a Muslim should be allowed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?"

"no" 25%

from Time Aug 2010 poll


_______________________

As for answering the question in the OP. I do not know exactly where the line is, but I am abso********lutly sure that when you want to deny Constitutional rights to members of a religion, then you are over the line being discussed.

[ANTPogo]

As for answering the question in the OP. I do not know exactly where the line is, but I am abso********lutly sure that when you want to deny Constitutional rights to members of a religion, then you are over the line being discussed.

Or when you find yourself doing stuff like this (http://www.wbir.com/news/article/222853/2/Anti-Muslim-activists-take-aim-at-Haslam-hire).

The Center for Security Policy, a Washington, D.C., organization that has frequently attacked Muslims for perceived ties to Islamist groups, and the 8th District Tea Party Coalition, an umbrella organization of West Tennessee tea party groups, have urged their members to pressure Haslam and Economic and Community Development Commissioner Bill Hagerty to dump Samar Ali, an attorney appointed last month as the department's new international director.

The groups depict Ali as an Islamic fundamentalist with close ties to President Barack Obama. The claims are spurious and ECD has no intention of firing Ali, said Clint Brewer, a department spokesman.

[...]

Its head, Frank Gaffney, testified in litigation seeking to stop construction of a Rutherford County mosque. An attorney associated with the organization drafted legislation that would have let Tennessee officials label as terrorist any organization that follows Shariah, a loosely defined set of rules and religious laws.

[...]

Tea party and anti-Muslim activists have zeroed in on one aspect of Ali's resume: experience as a corporate lawyer in helping Muslim-owned companies structure deals so they fit Islam's ban on collecting interest and comply with other religious rules.

In their calls to action, opponents portray her as working, now and in the past, with "financial jihadists" who "seek to embed Shariah law into America's financial system."

Ali's duties have nothing to do with Shariah law - or even finance - Brewer said.

As international director, Ali oversees the department's TNTrade program, an effort to boost the state's exports. She also supervises the department's four branch offices, in Canada, China, Germany and Japan.

[...]

Ali was recommended to the position by Will Alexander, the son of U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander who was promoted to chief of staff of the department in May. Hagerty and Haslam signed off on the appointment, which is an executive-level position.

Before the fellowship, Ali was an associate with Hogan Lovells, a prestigious law firm based in Washington, D.C.

Ali helped open the firm's office in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and she specialized in mergers and acquisition law, cross-border transactions, project finance, international business and structuring Shariah-compliant transactions, according to a biography released two years ago by the White House.

Ali also clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and Edwin Cameron, a high court judge in South Africa. She has worked with a YMCA program that encouraged dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian youth, the Palestine Diabetes Institute and World Islamic Economic Forum, a trade association for Muslims.

Ali also is a regional taekwondo champion, according to the White House biography.

Ali, 30, grew up in Waverly, the daughter of a local physician who once served as president of the Tennessee Medical Association. After high school, Ali attended Vanderbilt University, where she received a bachelor's degree and a law degree.

She also was the school's first Arab-Muslim student body president. Earlier this year she was elected to the Vanderbilt University Alumni Association's board of directors.

"She's as Tennessee as they come," Brewer said. "We're glad she's back in Tennessee."

[Ladewig]

From linkIn their calls to action, opponents portray her as working, now and in the past, with "financial jihadists" who "seek to embed Shariah law into America's financial system."



Also, if you are so frightened of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. that you pass legislation outlawing Sharia Law, you are on the phobic side of the line.

Yes, I am looking at you, Oklahoma.

[JJM 777]

lol :) a Islamist will strap a bomb on themselves and blow you up. Afghanistan Islamist produce heroin and encourage western civilians to become slaves to the needle.

All the gay dude did was wink at ya. The two so called phobia's cannot even be measured the same and may even required different sets of protocols to measure the extent.

Lastly, harm from Islam is obvious and known look at all the wars. It is not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you.
Hmm, this looks like a case of Islamophobia.

Islam is a factor in some wars, not in all or even most wars.

Some Islamists do produce drugs, but most drugs are produced by others.

Some Islamists do kill people in suicide attacks, but most murders are done by others, and mostly without killing themselves in the act.

[C_Felix]

I typed:

When Muslims become "them" or "they"
When you/me/him/her/etc... stops trying to understand and makes judgements.
When you/me/him/her/etc... choose to not actively learn about their beliefs and repeat "stuff I heard".
When you/me/him/her/etc.. starts making broad generalizations about an entire religion based on the actions of a few.

To which KevinCanada replied:


This is a half truth it depends, I say that because you are assuming others are making judgements due to misunderstanding or not understanding it all. It's the "religion of peace" approach.

When it comes to Islam, the Qur'an, unlike the bible is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope. When we discuss christian or Jewish faiths. We all recognize that the books can contain man made errors and most people openly reject the violence.

The quran to be a muslim you have to submit to the Quran, in other words you put the teaching of the Quran above your own reasoning. Yes I am saying you take a knife, cut your frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran.

You are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it. You must accept it as being aspired from god, people will claim the bible is a testimony of accounts, not the direct world of god. The quran is the direct word of god, and the hadiths are the acts. So when the quran says kill the jews, It means kill them all. No if or buts around it. This is why you keep hearing "wipe Israel from the map" speech in the news.

If the bible makes these kind of claims or not I don't know. But if it did a christian would go no that's not right, it can't be because it goes against the turn the other cheek teachings of Jesus. Plus it could of just been human error.

Sorry in short, you are the one who is generalizing base upon a western biblical stand point. we cannot apply western thinking to eastern. To do so is to project our view on others and is incorrect. You cannot be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. Being a Muslim means you also accept and embrace the violent aspects if you like it or not.

I brought up the Bible? Yes, I can understand the concept of "eastern thought" vs. "western thought", but, I'm talking about trying to understand, to put forth an honest effort to understand their mindset.

To steal some lyrics from a Rush song (Witch Hunt)

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.

[angrysoba]

Or when you find yourself doing stuff like this (http://www.wbir.com/news/article/222853/2/Anti-Muslim-activists-take-aim-at-Haslam-hire).

You have to admit though that Frank Gaffney is totally on the mark when he identifies Grover Norquist of pushing a radical Islamist agenda!

[ANTPogo]

You have to admit though that Frank Gaffney is totally on the mark when he identifies Grover Norquist of pushing a radical Islamist agenda!

I confess I derive an unseemly amount of pleasure from that.

Though the "boy band jihad" thing is a strong contender.

[Humes fork]

As for answering the question in the OP. I do not know exactly where the line is, but I am abso********lutly sure that when you want to deny Constitutional rights to members of a religion, then you are over the line being discussed.

That's an extreme case, and not what we are talking about.

I can show you a very recent case of a scholar who doubted the traditional Islamic view of its early history (which is poorly sourced). For example, he found it unlikely that Islam emerged in Mecca, and instead thinks southern Jordan is more likely. He also viewed the success of the early Arab empire as a cause for the success of Islam rather than the other way around. He was quickly made suspect of mean intentions due to his theories.

[DC]

This is a half truth it depends, I say that because you are assuming others are making judgements due to misunderstanding or not understanding it all. It's the "religion of peace" approach.

When it comes to Islam, the Qur'an, unlike the bible is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope. When we discuss christian or Jewish faiths. We all recognize that the books can contain man made errors and most people openly reject the violence.

The quran to be a muslim you have to submit to the Quran, in other words you put the teaching of the Quran above your own reasoning. Yes I am saying you take a knife, cut your frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran.

You are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it. You must accept it as being aspired from god, people will claim the bible is a testimony of accounts, not the direct world of god. The quran is the direct word of god, and the hadiths are the acts. So when the quran says kill the jews, It means kill them all. No if or buts around it. This is why you keep hearing "wipe Israel from the map" speech in the news.

If the bible makes these kind of claims or not I don't know. But if it did a christian would go no that's not right, it can't be because it goes against the turn the other cheek teachings of Jesus. Plus it could of just been human error.

Sorry in short, you are the one who is generalizing base upon a western biblical stand point. we cannot apply western thinking to eastern. To do so is to project our view on others and is incorrect. You cannot be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. Being a Muslim means you also accept and embrace the violent aspects if you like it or not.

oh when you go out partying with muslims you can clearly see, that many of them do not take the koran above drinkin smoking and making party.

but the same goes for other religions, so many things you are not allowed to do that are done anyway.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

and do catholics stick to that? no

[ANTPogo]

I can show you a very recent case of a scholar who doubted the traditional Islamic view of its early history (which is poorly sourced). For example, he found it unlikely that Islam emerged in Mecca, and instead thinks southern Jordan is more likely. He also viewed the success of the early Arab empire as a cause for the success of Islam rather than the other way around. He was quickly made suspect of mean intentions due to his theories.

Who? Because there have been plenty of recent scholars who have doubted the traditional Islamic view of its early history, and while their theories have certainly not been without challenge and controversy, I can't recall a single one of them being accused of Islamophobia. The highly influential John Wansbrough, for instance, or his students and successors Michael Cook and Patricia Crone (whose book, Hagarism (http://www.amazon.com/Hagarism-The-Making-Islamic-World/dp/0521297540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339889685&sr=8-1&keywords=hagarism), expands on Wansbrough's thesis that Islam actually originated as an offshoot of an apocalyptic Judaic sect, and that Muhammad's authorship was a much later interpolation in the development of Islamic scriptures).

And even now, despite the controversial nature of their scholarship, they're still an active and welcome part of the academic community. Andrew Rippin himself published a revised version of Wansbrough's seminal Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (http://www.amazon.com/Quranic-Studies-Sources-Scriptural-Interpretation/dp/1591022010/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890180&sr=1-1&keywords=rippin+wansbrough), and both Cook and Crone (in addition to continuing to publish) were contributors to the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an (http://www.amazon.com/The-Encyclopaedia-Quran-Volume-One/dp/9004114653/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890382&sr=1-2&keywords=encyclopedia+of+the+quran).

Which stands in sharp contrast to actual Islamophobic authors and pseduoscholars, like Robert Spencer.

EDIT: You aren't talking about Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism (http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300122632/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890535&sr=1-1&keywords=islamic+imperialism), are you?

Another EDIT: No, I guess you're not...a quick flip through my copy shows he doesn't say anything about southern Jordan being the true birthplace of Islam.

[ANTPogo]

It is well-known that the consensus of scholarly opinion on the origins of Islam underwent what has been called 'a seismic shift' in the last quarter of the past century. This change of view was initiated by John Wansbrough in his Quranic Studies, published in 1977, and by his colleagues Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, who published their work Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World in the same year. These two books made a radical break with the traditional picture of the origins of Islam. The shift is one of both place and time, in that the location for that origin is no longer the Hijaz in the lifetime traditionally attributed to the Prophet, but the Fertile Crescent some time after his death and subsequent to the Arab conquests. Their hypothesis thus implies a total dismissal of the Qur'an in its hitherto assumed understanding as a literary unit. It is rather looked upon as a later compilation.

[…]

The genesis of the new faith is staged by Wansbrough in a sectarian community that emerged in the fertile crescent, far north of the Hijaz, and that at a later stage, after the conquests, invented the scenario of the Prophet preaching to pagan Arabs in Mecca. To quote the summary of Ibn Rawandi: 'Staging the narrative of the genesis of Islam in the Arab homeland regions of the Hijaz this community achieved to set Islam apart, both geographically and theologically, from Judaism and Christianity with which it obviously had so much in common'. The agency behind these developments, the 'redactors' of the Qur'an, are assumed to be part of the intellectual elite of the later community, those learned men to whom the vast corpus of Islamic tradition, the sira, the diverse corpora of hadith-literature and tafsir works that emerged in the 8th and 9th centuries are due. Andrew Rippin has unfolded the implication of Wansbrough's theory: 'The genius of Muslim interpretational strategies in dealing with the Qur'an, probably starting with the redaction of the text itself, has been to provide a consistent and coherent picture of Muhammad as a background to the text. Through this process, an opaque text was rendered intelligible (...) to the living Muslim community. This was likely done by both creating a sira based upon imaginative readings of the Qur'an and grafting a pre-existent and emerging sira onto the Qur'an. The process also created a unified text of the Qur'an'. Fred Donner has convincingly demonstrated that for ideological and terminological reasons the Qur'an cannot have evolved from the milieu that produced hadith-literature and sira.

[…]

But revisionism is primarily rewriting of history. To quote Ibn Rawandi once more, 'the only fact about which there can be no doubt is that in the second quarter of the seventh century there was a large-scale occupation of the Hellenic Middle East by Arabs. The crucial point at issue is the exact nature of this event. Was it simply an act of political opportunism, taking advantage of an exhausted opponent, or was it driven by some kind of religious zeal? Wansbrough views the development of Islam as wholly subsequent to the establishment of a religiously unspecific polity. Both the Muslim and Christian accounts of "what happened" are read as indicating "the persistence of Judaeo-Christian sectarianism in the Fertile crescent under Arab political hegemony, the establishment of a modus vivendi between the new authority and the indigenous communities, and the distillation of a doctrinal common denominator acceptable initially to an academic elite, eventually an emblem of submission (islam) to political authority".

As against Wansbrough, who holds that 'what really happened' was not known, 'that the traditional picture of the origin of Islam was not a massive rewriting of events that were common knowledge, but the pious filling of an embarrassing void', Crone and Cook put forward a positive thesis, a counter-narrative to the traditional account. In view of the fact that there are no Arab chronicles from the first century of Islam, they turn to several non-Muslim, seventh-century accounts suggesting a new image of the Prophet. He is perceived not as the founder of a new religion but as a preacher in the Old Testament tradition, hailing the coming of a Messiah. Early documents refer to the followers of Muhammad as 'hagarenes', as descendants of Hagar - Crone and Cook thus assume that the followers of Muhammad may have seen themselves as retaking their place in the Holy Land alongside with the Jews.

Angelika Neuwirth, 'The Quran and History: A Disputed Relationship', Journal of Quranic Studies, 5/1 (2003), 1–18.

Dr. Neuwirth also contributed quite extensively to the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an.

[Ladewig]

That's an extreme case,

What do you mean by extreme case?

[Humes fork]

Who? Because there have been plenty of recent scholars who have doubted the traditional Islamic view of its early history, and while their theories have certainly not been without challenge and controversy, I can't recall a single one of them being accused of Islamophobia. The highly influential John Wansbrough, for instance, or his students and successors Michael Cook and Patricia Crone (whose book, Hagarism (http://www.amazon.com/Hagarism-The-Making-Islamic-World/dp/0521297540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339889685&sr=8-1&keywords=hagarism), expands on Wansbrough's thesis that Islam actually originated as an offshoot of an apocalyptic Judaic sect, and that Muhammad's authorship was a much later interpolation in the development of Islamic scriptures).

And even now, despite the controversial nature of their scholarship, they're still an active and welcome part of the academic community. Andrew Rippin himself published a revised version of Wansbrough's seminal Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (http://www.amazon.com/Quranic-Studies-Sources-Scriptural-Interpretation/dp/1591022010/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890180&sr=1-1&keywords=rippin+wansbrough), and both Cook and Crone (in addition to continuing to publish) were contributors to the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an (http://www.amazon.com/The-Encyclopaedia-Quran-Volume-One/dp/9004114653/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890382&sr=1-2&keywords=encyclopedia+of+the+quran).

Which stands in sharp contrast to actual Islamophobic authors and pseduoscholars, like Robert Spencer.

EDIT: You aren't talking about Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism (http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300122632/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339890535&sr=1-1&keywords=islamic+imperialism), are you?

Another EDIT: No, I guess you're not...a quick flip through my copy shows he doesn't say anything about southern Jordan being the true birthplace of Islam.

I was talking about In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire by Tom Holland. I have not read the book so I can't comment on its soundness. But one critique looks like this (http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/04/review-shadow-sword-tom-holland):

I find Holland’s total dismissal of Muslim scholarship arrogant (which I know he is not), insulting (which I know he does not mean to be) and based on spurious scholarship (though his scholarship is usually sound). His message is tailor-made for a time when Isla*mophobia is a global fashion, and everything that is labelled “Islamic” or “Muslim” is looked upon with suspicion. Not surprisingly, this book has already been feted in certain right-wing circles.

As for Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq, I agree that the former is a lunatic, but I have a higher opinion of the latter.

[ANTPogo]

I was talking about In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire by Tom Holland. I have not read the book so I can't comment on its soundness. But one critique looks like this (http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/04/review-shadow-sword-tom-holland):

As the comments to the review point out, Sardar's comments don't exactly reflect the consensus opinion of academia. In fact, they're almost bizarrely harsh, verging on the polemical (he compares the above-mentioned Patricia Crone to David Irving, for goodness sake!). I certainly wouldn't take this review as emblematic of any kind of troubling tendency to label serious scholars with "unorthodox" theories about the origins of Islam as Islamophobes.

As for Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq, I agree that the former is a lunatic, but I have a higher opinion of the latter.

In the same Journal of Quranic Studies I quote above, Dr. Neuwirth says of Ibn Warraq:

Ibn Warraq has lately contributed meritoriously to Qur'anic Studies by reprinting a number of relevant essays throwing light on textual cruces and presenting proposals of solution worked out by earlier scholars: What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, & Commentary Edited with Translations (Amherst/New York, 2002). He has also indulged in much preliminary work, expounding to his readers' linguistic and historical basic knowledge, to make sure that they will benefit from the essays presented, obviously with the good intention to pave the way for a secular approach to the Qur'an. It is therefore sad to notice that in his introduction his own credulity outweighs his methodological demands. It seems to be primarily the results that count, less the arguments - thus only attempts at deconstruction of the 'Qur'anic narrative' are considered. He therefore risks - certainly unintentionally - to foster cultural polarisation rather than supporting objective and unbiased scholarship.

She's a lot more charitable than I am, because I think Warraq almost certainly lets his biases overrule his scholarship. But he's certainly far better (and much more of an actual scholar) than people like Spencer.

[AlBell]

Other thoughts.

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/06/18/conservatives_for_shariah

[Ryokan]

Other thoughts.

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/06/18/conservatives_for_shariah

Using words like "stealthy civilization jihad" is, IMO, good evidence of islamophobia. If you're North American or European and fear the imminent establishment of Sharia law in your country, that's another.

[ANTPogo]

Other thoughts.

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/06/18/conservatives_for_shariah

Frank Gaffney is a deranged liar (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/10/the-fraudulent-sharia-in-ameri/) who thinks that Grover *********** Norquist is a puppet Fifth Columnist for the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/247341/) and is helping the Brotherhood in their efforts to impose "Saudi-style shariah" on the US.

So yes, those are "other thoughts", like Alex Jones has "other thoughts" about the US government's role in 9/11.

[KevinCanada]

fearing Islamist terrorists is not paranoia, fearing moslems because of those islamists however is paranoid.

This creates a new problem. Which one is a Islamist disguised as a Muslim?

Part of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was to interact with local towns, try to build rapport. Just chit chat with local folks when possible.

They took a few teenager detainees in one video I saw. The town elders said they are just kids and innocent, elders are pretending not to be Islamists. No bomb making in their town etc etc...

The army tested the fingers of the detainee's and they were positive for bomb making chemicals on their skin. It doesn't appear the Army told the the test results to the towns people. The elders just kept on lying and lying and lying in the meeting.

There is a way to tell who is nuts and who isn't. You can ask a couple critical questions about Jewish people and Mecca. It will draw lines in the sand in a hurry.

[KevinCanada]

oh when you go out partying with muslims you can clearly see, that many of them do not take the koran above drinkin smoking and making party.

but the same goes for other religions, so many things you are not allowed to do that are done anyway.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

and do catholics stick to that? no

This is western thinking. Our laws supersede religion in all cases, except for human right instances then it's a coin flip. like being a cop and wearing a head wrap over a helmet, in the east. Religion for the most part comes first. then the laws and in some cases common sense laws just don't even exist. The 9/11 plane hijackers were taped drinking in the bars. Islamists can break their own rules if they believe it serves the greater good of God.

[KevinCanada]

You are pretty much entirely wrong on all counts. Like, facepalmingly wrong.

Really? Prove it.

[KevinCanada]

Hmm, this looks like a case of Islamophobia.

Islam is a factor in some wars, not in all or even most wars.

Some Islamists do produce drugs, but most drugs are produced by others.

Some Islamists do kill people in suicide attacks, but most murders are done by others, and mostly without killing themselves in the act.

Hey, Hey.

Please don't be taking it out of context. I was being vague saying look at all the wars, I never said Islam was the cause of them all. I never said a thing about quantity of drugs or who is producing them. Afghanistan heroine production is well known and documented. It is a serious problem, plus I said Afghan Islamist, I was not generalizing Muslims. I never said all islamists engage in suicide attacks or produce drugs.

[DC]

This creates a new problem. Which one is a Islamist disguised as a Muslim?

Part of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was to interact with local towns, try to build rapport. Just chit chat with local folks when possible.

They took a few teenager detainees in one video I saw. The town elders said they are just kids and innocent, elders are pretending not to be Islamists. No bomb making in their town etc etc...

The army tested the fingers of the detainee's and they were positive for bomb making chemicals on their skin. It doesn't appear the Army told the the test results to the towns people. The elders just kept on lying and lying and lying in the meeting.

There is a way to tell who is nuts and who isn't. You can ask a couple critical questions about Jewish people and Mecca. It will draw lines in the sand in a hurry.

so because some lie, wich is to be expected, we are save to assume that all of them are liars?

[DC]

This is western thinking. Our laws supersede religion in all cases, except for human right instances then it's a coin flip. like being a cop and wearing a head wrap over a helmet, in the east. Religion for the most part comes first. then the laws and in some cases common sense laws just don't even exist. The 9/11 plane hijackers were taped drinking in the bars. Islamists can break their own rules if they believe it serves the greater good of God.

so should i report my friends because they might be terrorists? or shall i start distructing them? because some that had the same religions did terrorism?
what is your point?

[ANTPogo]

Really? Prove it.

All right. First of all, your biggest mistake is in conflating "the literal word of God as spoken by him" with "must (and can only) be read literally". Most Muslims believe the former, but the latter is only the purview of fundamentalist groups like the salafists. The Shia especially are against what they call "the disease of literalism", often seeing the batin (hidden) meaning of the Qur'an as more important than the zahir (outward) meaning.

From the entry on "Metaphor", in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, volume 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopaedia-Quran-Jane-Dammen-McAuliffe/dp/9004123547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340568001&sr=8-1&keywords=encyclopedia+of+the+qur%27an+j-o):

The Qur'an is replete with metaphors. It is useful to distinguish, however, between two types. On the one hand, there are metaphors whose import is mainly stylistic and figurative — such as “wing of humility” or “the morning (q.v.), when it takes breath” (Q 81:18; see AIR AND WIND) — and which may be taken as examples of the i'jaz or inimitable style of the Qur'an. On the other hand, there are expressions that may or may not be deemed as metaphorical, depending on the theological stance or persuasion of the commentator. Prominent examples of this second category are quranic expressions attributing physical attributes or mental or emotional operations to God (see ANTHROPOMORPHISM). Such metaphors became the subject of much theological controversy between the Mu'tazila and their opponents (see Gimaret, Mu'tazil, see also MU'TAZILS). Examples are the Qur'an’s attribution to God of such physical attributes as “face” (q.v.), “hand” (q.v.) or “thigh”; such emotional states as “mercy” (q.v.) or “wrath” (see anger); or quranic representations of God’s agency or acts by means of physical description (God’s creation of Adam, or his descent to his throne, for example; see THRONE OF GOD; CREATION; ADAM AND EVE). At issue here is the question of whether such attributions were “metaphorical” or “real.” On the one hand, there was the theological position of the Mu'tazila,who held that God transcended physical representation; hence, references in the Qur'an to divine possession of physical attributes or human emotions were “metaphorical” (Gimaret, Mu'tazil, 788-9).

Other theological schools, such as the Hanbalis and the Zahiris, however, believed that literal meanings in the Quran should be upheld as true. The position that the Ash'aris developed was intermediate; they held that one should take the literal meaning of the Quran “without asking how” (bi-la kayf). Of particular interest for the topic of metaphor is that this provides a case study of how even deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical may easily develop into a matter of heated theological controversy, especially when the literal truth of a religious text is a principle of faith (q.v.; see also THEOLOGY AND THE QUR'AN).

[...]

If traditionalist commentators restrict the limits of interpreting metaphor through reliance on non-figurative verses of the Qur'an, the Islamic philosophers did the same by relying on rational interpretation (see PHILOSOPHY AND THE QUR'AN). Typical of this approach is Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 595⁄1198) in his work Fal al-maqal, “The decisive treatise.” Similar to the approaches of Ibn Sina (Avicenna, d. 428⁄1037) and al-Farabi (d. 339⁄950) and following an hermeneutical tradition that can be traced back to Plato and the Stoics, Ibn Rushd distinguishes among classes of human intellectual ability and their resultant capacity to “assent” to the truth value of a text. For him, “demonstration,” i.e. reliance on syllogistic argument, is the clear path to truth (q.v.).

[...]

Typical of al-Ghazali's method is his discussion of the metaphor: “God is the light of the heavens and the earth.” Al-Ghazali proceeds to distinguish among three levels in regard to the meaning of light. The first is that of physical phenomenon whereby the human eye sees the earth by means of the light of the sun. The second is the mental plane, whose eye is the faculty of intelligence as illuminated by the light of the truth found in the Qur'an itself. Finally, there is the spiritual dimension, where gnostic intuition is illuminated by the rays of the light of the divine presence. For al-Ghazali, a mature believer is someone who attains perception of each of these levels of knowledge (Ghazali, Mishkat alanwar, 41-64; Eng. trans. 79-121; see MATURITY).

It is clear that the theological or hermeneutical issues that the presence of metaphors in the Quran may provoke can be just as significant as their rhetorical or aesthetic effects — as important as these latter are. This suggests the pertinence of the idea that much of how one understands a text depends on the exegetical approach ortheological stance that one brings to its study. See also LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE QUR'AN; LITERARY STRUCTURES; SYMBOLIC IMAGERY.

This same diversity of interpretation and reading of the Qur'an is, contrary to your assertion, absolutely found in Christianity. Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) and Biblical literalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism) are probably the two most defining hallmarks of evangelical Protestantism. People like Tim LaHaye, the author of the frighteningly popular Left Behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind) books, read the Bible the very same way you think all Muslims read the Qur'ran. In his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself (http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Bible-Yourself-LaHaye/dp/0736916962/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340566754&sr=1-1&keywords=study+the+bible+for+yourself) he says "Much harm has been done by trying to 'spiritualize' the Bible instead of taking it literally", and his Golden Rule of Interpretation for the Bible is "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."

And finally, you most certainly can be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. There is an entire branch of quranic commentary and interpretation (naskh, also called abrogation) which is dedicated to arguing that parts of the Qur'an can be rejected, and trying to figure out (with usually hardly any agreement) which parts those are. One of the main criticisms of the salafists leveled by Dr. Khaled Abou El-Fadl (trained in fiqh and a contributor to the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an) in his book The Great Theft (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Theft-Wrestling-Extremists/dp/0061189030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340567297&sr=8-1&keywords=the+great+theft) is that they're the ones who are rejecting God's Holy Word, via this doctrine of abrogation, not the Muslims who disagree with them:

Unfailingly, puritans [his term for salafists] seek to find whatever doctrine or mechanism that will enable them to project their worldview onto the Islamic faith. Significantly, it is exactly because their worldview is not supported by the Qur'an that they have to resort to dubious methods such as declaring that parts of the Qur'an have been abrogated, not by human beings interpreting the text, but by God. This way they can avoid taking responsibility for ignoring parts of the Divine book, and instead attribute the responsibility directly to God.

Oh, and the Qur'an doesn't say to kill the Jews, and that's not why Ahmadinejad has been repeating Khomeini's quote about wiping Israel off the map.

[ANTPogo]

Here's how influential evangelical minister and author Tim LaHaye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Lahaye) reiterated his methodology for Biblical interpretation, in his book No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians will Escape All the Tribulation (http://www.amazon.com/No-Fear-Storm-Christians-Tribulation/dp/0880705140/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340579532&sr=8-1&keywords=No+Fear+of+the+Storm%3A+Why+Christians+wi ll+Escape+All+the+Tribulation):

The best guide to Bible study is "The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation." To depart from this rule opens the student to all forms of confusion and sometimes even heresy.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.

Here's how he put it in Are We Living in the End Times? (http://www.amazon.com/Are-We-Living-End-Times/dp/1414347936/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340579832&sr=1-1&keywords=are+we+living+in+the+end+times+tim+lahaye ) (I own far too many Tim LaHaye books for my own good, I think):

A good rule of thumb when studying any Scripture is found in the golden rule of biblical interpretation:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise. - Dr. David L. Cooper

If you follow this rule, it is relatively easy to understand Scripture; if you ignore it, you will always be in error.

Here's a virtually identical methodology, espoused by slightly-less-influential evangelical minister and author Ron Rhodes (http://www.ronrhodes.org/meet-ron.html), in his book Northern Storm Rising: Russia, Iran, and the Emerging End-Times Military Coalition Against Israel (http://www.amazon.com/Northern-Storm-Rising-End-Times-Coalition/dp/0736921745/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340579702&sr=1-1&keywords=northern+storm+rising):

Here is a basic rule of thumb for interpreting the Bible: When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense.

(It should be noted that not even every fundamentalist evangelical follows this methodology - Gary DeMar, a leader of the Christian Dominionist movement and a proponent of reconstructing American government so that "Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil" [Christian shariah, in other words], has written a number of books and articles criticising LaHaye specifically for his literalist approach to the interpretation of the Bible)

Now compare that to A. Kevin Reinhart's description of how the Qur'an is read from "the standpoint of the Islamic science of principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh)", in the essay "Jurisprudence", in the Blackwell Companion to the Qur'an. (http://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Wiley-Blackwell-Companions-Religion/dp/1405188200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340579220&sr=8-1&keywords=blackwell+companion+to+the+qur%27an)

Zahir, “manifest,” is a term for a text whose meaning seems initially to be, perhaps or in fact, obvious, whether through the utterance itself, or some other factor. A manifest text, according to Ibn Qudama (1378: 92) is one which “one understands first in its unrestricted sense, though the possibility exists of another [sense].” It is “when two meanings are possible, it is the most manifest . . . one may not ignore [this meaning] without reflection (ta'wil).” An example could be Q 2:275 “God has permitted selling.” It would take a very strong indicant to lead one to suppose that the plain sense of this utterance – ”selling is permitted by God” – is not operative.

The concept of zahir is a kind of stand-in for the master-view of the entire Qur'an. It has an initial meaning, in most cases, that strikes the reader, and that meaning must be taken seriously. Yet the encounter with the zahir text does not end at the first experience of it. Various cues may turn the reader to reflection upon other possible understandings of the text.

[…]

Ta'wil, “reflection,” is, according to Ibn Qudama (d. 620/1223; 1378: 92), “the diversion of the utterance from the probable manifest meaning to a probability that is preferable to its alternative; [the means] is an indicant that [the secondary meaning] is more likely than the meaning to which the manifest sense points.” He adds that the secondary meaning may be quite remote from the manifest or primary meaning; in that case the indicant that prompts diversion must be proportionally powerful. The indicant may be contextual, or another manifest text, or a piece of [I]qiyas – reasoning that gives rise to a preference for the unlikelier sense of the utterance.

For the student of Islamic thought, the significance of zahir as a concept may be that unreflective “literalism” is impossible for the competent jurist. Every text, no matter how bald-faced, must be subject to reflection because of the possibility that somewhere in the revelational discourse there is a text that might be brought to bear on the manifest text so as to divert its meaning from the obvious to a more obscure, but more correct, sense.

[…]

In the destabilized text of the legist, in which no verse can be presumed to mean only what it “says,” without further reflection, in which, in fact, both Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic material must be considered in order to understand a given Qur'anic verse, the legist finds flexibility. This combination and recombination allows the legist to extend the scope of the Qur'an to new cases, to read the Qur'an in new ways and, in effect, to restore the immanence of the Qur'an to what would seem to be a transcendent, closed text. The legists’ approach also makes true literalism impossible. No text is read in isolation, as an isolated dictum laying down the law. Instead, it is recognized that meaning does not inhere in expressions in a simple, one-to-one way, but what is meant by a text may lie entirely outside the terms of its locutionary thrust. This realization makes true literalism impossible, or at least, un-Islamic.

The hermeneutics of Islamic legal scholars has a great deal to teach us about scriptural hermeneutics in general. It also tells us how the Qur'an functioned in the formation of both Islamic ideal and practice.

[KevinCanada]

so because some lie, which is to be expected, we are save to assume that all of them are liars?

That one is your call. I am saying research it Islam, Research why we are in Afghanistan, research Wahhabism. Look at the Facts, Look at the Individual countries and what they are doing. How the citizens behave. Take somilia for instance. My memory is rough I beliveve the statistics are a 95% female genital mutilation rate. (stitching of the vagina) It is a painful and sometimes deadly procedure. It is done for "Honour" Reasoning and again to my knowledge which is a little rough is a muslim only practice. The females frequently die from bleeding to death or infection. The ones that don't are often left in pain for the rest of their lives.

I am not saying all Muslims are bad, I am saying that the goods ones probably do not understand their roots. Research is key. Ignore the religion aspect and just look at individual Muslim majority nations and look at the state of them, Majority of them are a disaster with varying degree's of danger.

[ANTPogo]

It is done for "Honour" Reasoning and again to my knowledge which is a little rough is a muslim only practice.

No, it's not (http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf).

Religion

While religion can help explain FGM/C distribution in many countries, the relationship is not consistent. In six of the countries where data on religion are available – Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal – Muslim population groups are more likely to practise FGM/C than Christian groups (see Figure 10, page 11). In five countries there seems to be no significant differences, while in Niger, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania the prevalence is greater among Christian groups.

Looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status. The most marked differences can be observed in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Senegal. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 79 per cent of Muslim women have undergone FGM/C, compared with 16 per cent of Christian women.

This trend is reinforced in the analysis of FGM/C status of daughters (see Table 2C, page 37). In four countries, Muslim women are more likely to have circumcised daughters than women of other religious affiliations. In Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women. This could be attributed, however, to other factors such as ethnicity and the overall distribution of the various religious groups within these countries.

Ethnicity

Among all socio-economic variables, ethnicity appears to have the most determining influence over FGM/C distribution within a country. As stated by Dara Carr in an analysis of DHS data, “This finding is not surprising, because many researchers have noted that FGC prevalence varies with ethnicity or that FGC serves as an ethnic marker.” In discussing the role of ethnicity, Ellen Gruenbaum writes: “Female circumcision practices are deeply entwined with ethnic identity wherever they are found. Understanding this should provide an important insight into the tenacity of the practice and people’s resistance to change efforts, and it can help to explain why the practice may even spread in certain situations.”

[KevinCanada]

All right. First of all, your biggest mistake is in conflating "the literal word of God as spoken by him" with "must (and can only) be read literally". Most Muslims believe the former, but the latter is only the purview of fundamentalist groups like the salafists. The Shia especially are against what they call "the disease of literalism", often seeing the batin (hidden) meaning of the Qur'an as more important than the zahir (outward) meaning.

I will have to read what I wrote again so I don't throw thi context off, maybe a edit coming. I believe my words were you replace your frontal cortex with a quran and submit to it. Not take it literally word for word.

since this thread we are debating the Quran and the bible, I'll use both.

Bible:

- to be taken as word as god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law
- is not encourage to govern our state laws
- is considered to contain flaws

Quran:
- to be taken as word of god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law
- is encouraged to govern our state laws
- is considered flawless

From the entry on "Metaphor", in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, volume 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopaedia-Quran-Jane-Dammen-McAuliffe/dp/9004123547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340568001&sr=8-1&keywords=encyclopedia+of+the+qur%27an+j-o):



This same diversity of interpretation and reading of the Qur'an is, contrary to your assertion, absolutely found in Christianity. Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) and Biblical literalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism) are probably the two most defining hallmarks of evangelical Protestantism. People like Tim LaHaye, the author of the frighteningly popular Left Behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind) books, read the Bible the very same way you think all Muslims read the Qur'ran. In his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself (http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Bible-Yourself-LaHaye/dp/0736916962/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340566754&sr=1-1&keywords=study+the+bible+for+yourself) he says "Much harm has been done by trying to 'spiritualize' the Bible instead of taking it literally", and his Golden Rule of Interpretation for the Bible is "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."


Sorry no comment, I have failed to comprehend what you just tried to communicate.


And finally, you most certainly can be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an.


Of course you can. Everything is subjected to opinion. I do not argue this. What I am arguing is that present day understanding is that the Quran is to be taken as truth a system of governance for how we conduct our lives.

If the bible calls for lashes or chopping of a hand for punishment, it is ignored and state laws take affect. In a Islamic nation, notably a Sharia law ruled one. The hand cutting off will proceed as per Quranic instruction. Christian nations had stake burnings and all kinds of atrocities. They have been mostly removed from law. Islamic nations on the other hand openly encourage Islamic law and painful punishments we have deemed barbaric take place, like whippings. Saudi Arabia, still engages in beheading as encourage by Sharia based upon the Quran and/or Hadiths.


There is an entire branch of quranic commentary and interpretation (naskh, also called abrogation) which is dedicated to arguing that parts of the Qur'an can be rejected, and trying to figure out (with usually hardly any agreement) which parts those are. One of the main criticisms of the salafists leveled by Dr. Khaled Abou El-Fadl (trained in fiqh and a contributor to the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an) in his book The Great Theft (http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Theft-Wrestling-Extremists/dp/0061189030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340567297&sr=8-1&keywords=the+great+theft) is that they're the ones who are rejecting God's Holy Word, via this doctrine of abrogation, not the Muslims who disagree with them:


Lets look at christian factions. Pentecost versus Roman Catholics. Obvious disagreements there. Physical harm between the two? In history? maybe, Present day? NO

Sunni versus Shia = it's a daily event, they blow each other up. Just last week Sunni Muslims murdered I think 8 Shia muslims in Iraq.


Oh, and the Qur'an doesn't say to kill the Jews, and that's not why Ahmadinejad has been repeating Khomeini's quote about wiping Israel off the map.

Sheik Yusuf Estes says you are correct it does not say kill the jews in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wasfo0yXVLo

And here we have Egypt Television showing calling to kill all the jews due to Quranic beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlGPu1m3ig4

One is taking the killing of jews out context. Which brings us back to interpretation. Both arguments are neither right or wrong, it depends on your belief system.

I personally don't care who side of the argument you or anyone takes, as I see all Muslims as being delusional. But I do care what you do with that information. Sadly to to many choose bullets, bombs, and murder, no matter how you look at it, It all traces back to Mohammed.

But there is another factor here rarely talked about Relating to jew killing. That the Mahdi yes google it if you don't know what it means.

Then one of the Hadith's say:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

While the Qur'an does not directly say kill Jews, Muslim belief systems is nearly all circles do believe in the Mahdi. The Mahdi cannot be established until the battle of Muslims against Jews. Therefore the Qur'an does not say kill Jews, but on the other hand the Prophecy cannot be fulfilled until the Jews are battled and being killed.

It's all a game of word play with the end result of a lot of dead Jewish people.

[KevinCanada]

No, it's not (http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf).

As stated my memory is a little rough, we are discussing islamophobia. And there is a high rate of female genital mutilation in some Muslim nations, now for everyone that called me a Islamophobe. Am I wrong to fear having people I know genitals mutilated with risk of death? That came out of a Islamic dominated nation?

Of Course not, death from mutilation is a real fact of life. Fear of heights with no risk of harm is a phobia, fear of bleeding to death because you may very well die is not a phobia, It's factual. As stated earlier, cannot be compared with homophobia. Being gay is not forced onto people. If you are female and lived in Somilia, Mutilation can very well be forced onto you.

[ANTPogo]

I will have to read what I wrote again so I don't throw thi context off, maybe a edit coming.

It's right in this thread, and this thread is only two pages! Why didn't you reread it before you hit "reply"?

I believe my words were you replace your frontal cortex with a quran and submit to it. Not take it literally word for word.

Here's what you said in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8375444#post8375444):

When it comes to Islam, the Qur'an, unlike the bible is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope. When we discuss christian or Jewish faiths. We all recognize that the books can contain man made errors and most people openly reject the violence.

The quran to be a muslim you have to submit to the Quran, in other words you put the teaching of the Quran above your own reasoning. Yes I am saying you take a knife, cut your frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran.

You are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it. You must accept it as being aspired from god, people will claim the bible is a testimony of accounts, not the direct world of god. The quran is the direct word of god, and the hadiths are the acts. So when the quran says kill the jews, It means kill them all. No if or buts around it. This is why you keep hearing "wipe Israel from the map" speech in the news.

If the bible makes these kind of claims or not I don't know. But if it did a christian would go no that's not right, it can't be because it goes against the turn the other cheek teachings of Jesus. Plus it could of just been human error.

Sorry in short, you are the one who is generalizing base upon a western biblical stand point. we cannot apply western thinking to eastern. To do so is to project our view on others and is incorrect. You cannot be a Muslim and reject portions of the Qur'an. Being a Muslim means you also accept and embrace the violent aspects if you like it or not.

And that's wrong in pretty much every particular. Some Christians certainly do think that the Bible "is law and truth and perfection all folded up into one envelope", while the fact that most Muslims think that of the Qur'an does not at all hamper their ability to find a surprisingly large and varied range of meanings for what it says. Most Muslims certainly do think you not only can, but have to use your own reasoning when interpreting the Qur'an...qiyas and r'ay and ijtihad all form, to one degree or another depending on sect and creed and point in history you're looking at, important aspects of both tafsir and usul al-fiqh. A lot of Christians, especially where I live, do think the Bible is indeed the direct word of God "inerrant in its original languages and saying exactly what God meant for it to say". The Qur'an doesn't say to kill all the Jews. A lot of Christians not don't think you can just ignore parts of the Bible because of human error in assembling it. You absolutely can be a Muslim and reject parts of the Qur'an - that's whole basis for the doctrine of abrogation.

since this thread we are debating the Quran and the bible, I'll use both.

Bible:

- to be taken as word as god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law

Some Christians do, some don't. Depending on the sect and the individual Christian.

Same with Muslims and the Qur'an.

- is not encourage to govern our state laws
- is considered to contain flaws

Wrong and wrong.

I'm currently reading Gary North and Gary DeMar's Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Reconstruction-What-It-Isnt/dp/0930464532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340758101&sr=8-1&keywords=christian+reconstructionism), which basically states that the Bible is absolutely supposed to be the basis for our state laws. That, as I quoted before, "Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil".

Right in the introduction, the authors state "the thesis if Christian Reconstructionism is correct; biblical law does apply to real-world situations: economics, education, civil government, welfare, politics, foreign policy, and family relations".

This group, it should be noted, isn't as fringe as you might think, either. They have some pretty close ties (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html) to several people who at various times during the recent primary race were front-runners for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.

And it most certainly is considered by a lot of Christians to be without any errors whatsoever. That's why in the very post you replied to I gave you the link to Wiki's entry on Biblical Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy).

Quran:
- to be taken as word of god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law
- is encouraged to govern our state laws
- is considered flawless

Like with the Bible, the latter two points are believed by some Muslims, but certainly not all Muslims. Neither currently nor historically.

Sorry no comment, I have failed to comprehend what you just tried to communicate.

That, contrary to your assertion and as I repeated above, it's far from unusual for the Bible to be considered the flawless, literal Word of God.

Of course you can. Everything is subjected to opinion. I do not argue this. What I am arguing is that present day understanding is that the Quran is to be taken as truth a system of governance for how we conduct our lives.

The present day understanding of some Muslims, not all. This is, in fact, why Islamism (ie, political Islam) exists as its own separate thing and is not actually synonymous with "Islam" itself as a religion.

If the bible calls for lashes or chopping of a hand for punishment, it is ignored and state laws take affect.

And there are Christians like the aforementioned Reconstructionists who are working very, very hard to change that (http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning). Note that Gary North himself, co-author of the book I'm reading, is featured in this article.

In a Islamic nation, notably a Sharia law ruled one. The hand cutting off will proceed as per Quranic instruction. Christian nations had stake burnings and all kinds of atrocities. They have been mostly removed from law. Islamic nations on the other hand openly encourage Islamic law and painful punishments we have deemed barbaric take place, like whippings. Saudi Arabia, still engages in beheading as encourage by Sharia based upon the Quran and/or Hadiths.

And Saudi Arabia is an aberration even among Muslim countries.

Lets look at christian factions. Pentecost versus Roman Catholics. Obvious disagreements there. Physical harm between the two? In history? maybe, Present day? NO

Unless you take "in history" to mean the really, really short term (like, barely more than a decade ago), this is entirely false.

Sheik Yusuf Estes says you are correct it does not say kill the jews in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wasfo0yXVLo

So why did you explicitly state otherwise?

And here we have Egypt Television showing calling to kill all the jews due to Quranic beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlGPu1m3ig4

No we don't. The Qur'an is neither mentioned, cited, nor quoted anywhere in this clip.

One is taking the killing of jews out context. Which brings us back to interpretation. Both arguments are neither right or wrong, it depends on your belief system.

Yes. And the "belief system" and "interpretation" of a rather sizeable chunk of Muslims are not, in fact, in accord with your claims.

Then one of the Hadith's say:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Are you even aware of not only the wildly varying views among Muslims regarding the Mahdi (Wikipedia even has a whole article about people who have claimed to be the Mahdi! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_claiming_to_be_the_Mahdi)), but the wildly varying views regarding the hadith collections, both within and between the various sects and subsects?

While the Qur'an does not directly say kill Jews, Muslim belief systems is nearly all circles do believe in the Mahdi. The Mahdi cannot be established until the battle of Muslims against Jews. Therefore the Qur'an does not say kill Jews, but on the other hand the Prophecy cannot be fulfilled until the Jews are battled and being killed.

It's all a game of word play with the end result of a lot of dead Jewish people.

Do you even know the history of Jewish communities in Muslim lands during most of the millennia-and-a-half history of Islam? And what changed so dramatically regarding that in the 20th Century?

Even no less a leading Orientalist than Bernard Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis) knows who's to blame for the current virulent and violent anti-Semitism in far too much of the Muslim world: European Christians. In his book What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (http://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wrong-Between-Modernity/dp/0060516054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340760577&sr=8-1&keywords=what+went+wrong), he writes:

Another European contribution to this debate [why the Islamic world is "behind" the Western world at present] is anti-Semitism, and blaming "the Jews" for all that goes wrong. Jews in traditional Islamic societies experienced the normal constraints and occasional hazards of minority status. In most significant respects, they were better off under Muslim than under Christian rule, until the rise of Western tolerance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

With rare exceptions, where hostile stereotypes of the Jew existed in the Islamic tradition, they tended to be contemptuous and dismissive rather than suspicious and obsessive. This made the events of 1948 - the failure of five Arab states and armies to prevent half a million Jews from establishing a state in the debris of the British Mandate for Palestine - all the more of a shock. As some writers at the time observed, it was bad enough to be defeated by the great imperial powers of the West; to suffer the same fate at the hands of a contemptible gang of Jews was an intolerable humiliation. Anti-Semitism and its demonized picture of the Jew as a scheming, evil monster provided a soothing answer.

The earliest specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East occurred among the Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to European originals. They had limited impact, and at the time or example of the Dreyfus trial in France, when a Jewish officer was unjustly accused and condemned by a hostile court, Muslim comments usually favored the persecuted Jew against his Christian persecutors. But the poison continued to spread, and from 1933 Nazi Germany and its various agencies made a concerted and on the whole remarkably successful effort to promote and disseminate European anti-Semitism in the Arab world. The struggle for Palestine greatly facilitated the acceptance of the anti-Semitic interpretation of history, and led some to blame all evils in the Middle East and indeed the world on secret Jewish plots. This interpretation has pervaded much of the public discourse in the region, including education, the media, and even entertainment.

[ANTPogo]

As stated my memory is a little rough, we are discussing islamophobia. And there is a high rate of female genital mutilation in some Muslim nations, now for everyone that called me a Islamophobe. Am I wrong to fear having people I know genitals mutilated with risk of death? That came out of a Islamic dominated nation?

If religion is not determinative of whether or not FGM is practiced, and there are countries (Christian-dominated and otherwise) where FGM is practiced more among Christians than among Muslims, then if you fear having people you know having their genitals mutilated with risk of death, and you focus on the "came out of a Islamic dominated nation" part despite the above cited lack of any consistent relationship between religion and the practice of FGM, then yes, that is absolutely Islamophobic.

If not, why aren't you as concerned about the Christian girls living in Tanzania who are forced to undergo mutilation as you are about the Muslim girls in Somalia who are forced to undergo this horrific procedure?

[Ryokan]

Lets look at christian factions. Pentecost versus Roman Catholics. Obvious disagreements there. Physical harm between the two? In history? maybe, Present day? NO

Ever heard of Northern Ireland?

Or the war between Serbia and Croatia?

Or the Rwandan civil war?

Sure, none of these are literally present day, but neither are they quite history yet.

[Ryokan]

As stated my memory is a little rough, we are discussing islamophobia. And there is a high rate of female genital mutilation in some Muslim nations, now for everyone that called me a Islamophobe. Am I wrong to fear having people I know genitals mutilated with risk of death? That came out of a Islamic dominated nation?

Of Course not, death from mutilation is a real fact of life. Fear of heights with no risk of harm is a phobia, fear of bleeding to death because you may very well die is not a phobia, It's factual. As stated earlier, cannot be compared with homophobia. Being gay is not forced onto people. If you are female and lived in Somilia, Mutilation can very well be forced onto you.

Fearing that I might bring a topic from another thread over here, but what about male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. It's not as horrible as the worst forms of female genital mutilation, but it's still 'genitals mutilated with risk of death'.

But he thing is.. Female genital mutilation has been a part of the culture of Northern Africa for centuries before Muhammed was even born. Also, in the areas where female genital mutilation is the norm, it's also done by people of other religions. Yes, Christians do it too.

That's not to say it's ok. Far from it. It's a despicable and barbaric tradition, and we're right to condemn the people and countries that practice this. But to just label it a 'Muslim thing' and say that by fighting Islam you fight this practice, you're not doing the issue any favors.

[DC]

I will have to read what I wrote again so I don't throw thi context off, maybe a edit coming. I believe my words were you replace your frontal cortex with a quran and submit to it. Not take it literally word for word.

since this thread we are debating the Quran and the bible, I'll use both.

Bible:

- to be taken as word as god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law
- is not encourage to govern our state laws
- is considered to contain flaws

Quran:
- to be taken as word of god
- to be used to generate personal morals
- must be interpreted and everyone will have opinions
- is a ideology
- is a system of law
- is encouraged to govern our state laws
- is considered flawless

From the entry on "Metaphor", in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, volume 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopaedia-Quran-Jane-Dammen-McAuliffe/dp/9004123547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340568001&sr=8-1&keywords=encyclopedia+of+the+qur%27an+j-o):




Sorry no comment, I have failed to comprehend what you just tried to communicate.



Of course you can. Everything is subjected to opinion. I do not argue this. What I am arguing is that present day understanding is that the Quran is to be taken as truth a system of governance for how we conduct our lives.

If the bible calls for lashes or chopping of a hand for punishment, it is ignored and state laws take affect. In a Islamic nation, notably a Sharia law ruled one. The hand cutting off will proceed as per Quranic instruction. Christian nations had stake burnings and all kinds of atrocities. They have been mostly removed from law. Islamic nations on the other hand openly encourage Islamic law and painful punishments we have deemed barbaric take place, like whippings. Saudi Arabia, still engages in beheading as encourage by Sharia based upon the Quran and/or Hadiths.



Lets look at christian factions. Pentecost versus Roman Catholics. Obvious disagreements there. Physical harm between the two? In history? maybe, Present day? NO

Sunni versus Shia = it's a daily event, they blow each other up. Just last week Sunni Muslims murdered I think 8 Shia muslims in Iraq.



Sheik Yusuf Estes says you are correct it does not say kill the jews in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wasfo0yXVLo

And here we have Egypt Television showing calling to kill all the jews due to Quranic beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlGPu1m3ig4

One is taking the killing of jews out context. Which brings us back to interpretation. Both arguments are neither right or wrong, it depends on your belief system.

I personally don't care who side of the argument you or anyone takes, as I see all Muslims as being delusional. But I do care what you do with that information. Sadly to to many choose bullets, bombs, and murder, no matter how you look at it, It all traces back to Mohammed.

But there is another factor here rarely talked about Relating to jew killing. That the Mahdi yes google it if you don't know what it means.

Then one of the Hadith's say:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

While the Qur'an does not directly say kill Jews, Muslim belief systems is nearly all circles do believe in the Mahdi. The Mahdi cannot be established until the battle of Muslims against Jews. Therefore the Qur'an does not say kill Jews, but on the other hand the Prophecy cannot be fulfilled until the Jews are battled and being killed.

It's all a game of word play with the end result of a lot of dead Jewish people.

lcNTVT0NUv4

[Polaris]

Fearing that I might bring a topic from another thread over here, but what about male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. It's not as horrible as the worst forms of female genital mutilation, but it's still 'genitals mutilated with risk of death'.
But he thing is.. Female genital mutilation has been a part of the culture of Northern Africa for centuries before Muhammed was even born. Also, in the areas where female genital mutilation is the norm, it's also done by people of other religions. Yes, Christians do it too.

That's not to say it's ok. Far from it. It's a despicable and barbaric tradition, and we're right to condemn the people and countries that practice this. But to just label it a 'Muslim thing' and say that by fighting Islam you fight this practice, you're not doing the issue any favors.

Nonsense, that's just a religious and cultural traditional deeply cherished by millions! :rolleyes:

[KevinCanada]

[QUOTE=@ANTPogo;8403475]

I'm sorry but you have taken the fence on every single reply. Anyone can do that when quoting statistics or percentages and using words like some do and some don't. Sorry it really doesn't prove anything. I would like to see hard evidence, (a Imam saying we need to love all jews and build a society with them and be friends, in a mosque on video tape) Please tell us how you feel about this. I've gone on out on the limb stated how I feel about Islamophobia.

There are groups actively trying to remove the barbarism of abuse in Saudi Arabia? North America is gonna feed all the poor for a dollar a day and the Tea Party will win the next election. The world has been there tried that. Didn't work so we sent around a half million soldiers to Afghanistan.

As for the Egypt clip? It's about Islamophobia not Qur'an itself be it is part of the problem, but one piece. Read what I wrote please. At the very end of my last reply I clearly stated, no matter who side you are on, at the end of the day when you factor in everything that is Islam, IE, The hadiths and Mahdi. The end result no matter what it is a lot of Dead Jewish people.

The Qur'an is cleverly written to include hateful context without actually using hateful words. Islamist apologist use this argument all the time, "Oh your taking it out of context" By omitting the fact that you cannot fully understand the Qur'an without researching the actions of Muhammad the prophet.

When you add prophecy and the actions of the prophet which is very much Islam. You get a new picture, a picture of someone who's life was a mass murderer.
I'm not looking to get into any kind of scripture war. I do feel showing one line of the Hadith and one of the Quran for comparison to back up the video I posted is relevant to show the end result of Islam.



Qur'an
5:51 (Asad) O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another [72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.

Hadith
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

The Qur'an is like a rose, The flower is beautiful, But the roots are evil which is the hadiths. You don't dare pick up the rose with a bare hand as the thorns will draw blood. When you combine the two, watch this video again and now tell me I'm wrong.


Watch The Video Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlGPu1m3ig4 fast forward to 0:49 seconds if you wish.

Now anyone reading this tell me after reading those quotes and watching that Egyptian video. Am I Islamophobic? OR are you just uneducated on the subject?

PS. Iran keeps calling for wiping Israel off the map not due to the Qur'an, but it is very much Islam when you read the reasoning behind it from the Hadiths.

[Xero]

A phobia is an irrational fear. If your complaints are rational and based in fact, I don't see the "phobia" part of it. :)


I have an irrational fear of heights, and while I can "cope" with it, being up on so much as a step ladder makes me nervous, even tho I recognise that it is irrational.

[ANTPogo]

I'm sorry but you have taken the fence on every single reply. Anyone can do that when quoting statistics or percentages and using words like some do and some don't. When you are not speaking like a politician all I am getting is quotes of other people work and books.

You yourself admonished people in this thread to "research Islam" and "look at the facts". The "other people's work and books" that I repeatedly quote are written by actual professional scholars who have spent their lives and careers doing just that.

You couldn't even bother to look up information about FGM before (falsely) blaming the practice solely on Muslims.

There are groups actively trying to remove the barbarism of abuse in Saudi Arabia?

Yes.

As for the Egypt clip? It's about Islamophobia not Qur'an itself abeit is part of the problem, but one piece. Read what I wrote please.

I did read what you wrote. And what you wrote, explicitly and repeatedly, was about the Qur'an, and it was wrong.

At the very end of my last reply I clearly stated, no matter who side you are on, at the end of the day When you factor in everything that is Islam, IE, The hadiths and Mahdi. The end result no matter what it is a lot of Dead Jewish people.

No, because Muslim eschatology and the sunna have been around for a long, long time in the history of Islam, while (as Bernard Lewis points out) the current virulent and violent hatred of Jews in the Muslim world is a relatively recent development mostly resulting from the influence of European Christians.

The Qur'an is cleverly written to include hateful context without actually using hateful words.

No, it's not. The ambiguity of the Qur'an, and the millennia-long tradition of reading multiple meanings in the Qur'an, allows those Muslims who want to get a hateful message out of the Qur'an to do just that, while also allowing those Muslims who don't want to get a hateful message out of the Qur'an do to that also.

Islamist apologist use this argument all the time, "Oh your taking it out of context" By omitting the fact that you cannot fully understand the Qur'an without researching the actions of Muhammad the prophet.

No, I'm trying to tell you that even Muslims not only don't all read the Qur'an and the ahadith the same way, they never have read the Qur'an and the ahadith the same way since the very beginning. A lot of them can't even agree on which ahadith to trust!

Qur'an
5:51 (Asad) O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another [72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.

You quote the Asad translation. Do you even know what Asad actually said about that exact ayah?

As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or - in Qur'anic terminology - "allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a combination of two terms - is always dependent on the context.

The "corresponding note" for 4:139 mentioned reads:

However, the term "allies" (awliya, sing. wali) does not indicate, in this context, merely political alliances. More than anything else, it obviously alludes to a "moral alliance" with the deniers of the truth: that is to say, to an adoption of their way of life in preference to the way of life of the believers, in the hope of being "honoured", or accepted as equals, by the former. Since an imitation of the way of life of confirmed unbelievers must obviously conflict with the moral principles demanded by true faith, it unavoidably leads to a gradual abandonment of those principles.

In other words, Muslims can be personal friends with non-Muslims or political allies with non-Muslims just fine. They just aren't supposed to live and act in the same unbelieving way as non-Muslims. [EDIT: As he puts it in his introduction to the fifth surah, "They [Muslims] are also warned not to take the Jews and the Christians for their 'allies' in the moral sense of the word: that is, not to imitate their way of life and their social concepts at the expense of the principles of Islam (verses 51 ff.)."]

Muhammad Asad was big on the Muslim world living at the very least in peace with the Western world. He was especially critical of the Ottoman Caliphate's entry into World War I and its use of the call to jihad in that war since it was an offensive war, writing in The Road to Mecca (http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Mecca-Muhammad-Asad/dp/1887752374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340815710&sr=8-1&keywords=road+to+mecca+asad):

Moreover, the Berlin-inspired 'jihad' which the Ottoman Sultan had proclaimed certainly did not fulfill the requirements laid down by the Koran: the Turks were not fighting in self-defence but rather had joined a non-Muslim power in an aggressive war. Thus, religious and political considerations alike pointed to one course alone for the Grand Sanusi: to keep out of a war which was not his.

However, he also thought the Muslim world should reject Western influences and develop along its own lines or it would forever be behind the West (see his book Islam at the Crossroads (http://www.amazon.com/Islam-at-Crossroads-Muhammad-Asad/dp/B003DRH9TW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340815369&sr=8-1&keywords=Islam+at+the+Crossroads+asad)), and that's what he's referring to above with his tafsir of 5:51.

Hadith
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Yes. This is even cited in Hamas' charter. But citing hadith, even from Bukhari, is not like citing the Qur'an. This is even more critical when when you're doing things like trying to explain the reasoning used by different Muslim groups. Most Sunni, for instance, think everything in Bukhari is reliable. Most Shia, on the other hand, do not.

The Qur'an is like a rose, The flower is beautiful, But the roots are evil which is the hadiths. You don't dare pick up the rose with a bare hand as the thorns will draw blood. When you combine the two, watch this video again and now tell me I'm wrong.

No, the only thing that video tells you is that the Muslims who produced it think a certain way and have reached a certain conclusion based on the non-Qur'anic writings they quote. And to think that's applicable to or reflective of either what Muslims as a whole think or what Islam as a whole stands for is not just incorrect, it's invalid.

That's what Islamophobia is - it's not thinking that some Muslims believe a certain thing (even incredibly terrible and violent things). It's thinking that all Muslims, everywhere, believe those exact same terrible things, and that anyone who dares say otherwise is either an "Islamist apologist" if they're non-Muslim or (as you said in another post in this thread) that they "probably do not understand their roots" if they are Muslim.

Because I'm pretty sure that this guy (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/all-faculty-profiles/professors/Pages/khaled-abou-el-fadl.aspx) understands the "roots" of his religion just fine, thank you very much. And that's even setting aside the fact that the the most violent, backwards Muslims, the salafist/Wahhabists, are the ones explicitly and deliberately rejecting the "roots" of their religion, casting aside a thousand years of history and development in Islam.

Am I Islamophobic? OR are you just uneducated on the subject?

Okay, I admit it. I laughed when you said this.

PS. Iran keeps calling for wiping Israel off the map not due to the Qur'an, but it is very much Islam when you read the reasoning behind it from the Hadiths.

No, it is not "very much Islam". It's due to a whole lot of different factors, which is why (as I keep trying to tell you) every Muslim does not think this way, and they certainly have not always done so, either.

There is no one "Muslim view". Especially not about killing Jews. There isn't even one single "Muslim view" about Israel.

[Trakar]

oh when you go out partying with muslims you can clearly see, that many of them do not take the koran above drinkin smoking and making party.

but the same goes for other religions, so many things you are not allowed to do that are done anyway.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

and do catholics stick to that? no

Strictly speaking there are very few instances in which the Pope is actually considered infallible, and even these are subject to later interpretation, redefinition and subsequent "revisions." There are several instances of early church ex cathedra pronouncements that have been "clarified" by more modern Sancta Sedes (holy see). For the most part, Catholics that understand the concept of papal infallibility accord it the respect it deserves, but we are all human and if we are prone to turning our backs on God (sinful) it should be no great shock that we are prone to occasionally turn our backs on the Pope.

[KevinCanada]

@ ANTPogo:

The work you quoted are of scholars? I have to say so what? I mean it who cares. The Vatican is full of scholars, and look what happen to children under their rule. Scholar status means nothing. Furthermore I mapped some of the countries of origin for your "statistics" they were obscure countries in Africa, where it is extremely difficult to get trustworthy information from.

I am not going to be so anal to look up every detail on FGM. 95% rate of FGM occurrence in Somalia is more than enough if other religions are guilty of it, So be it, Don't care Catholic FGM has nothing to do with Islamophonia. If the topic was Christianphobia, I'd discuss, but it is not.


I did read what you wrote. And what you wrote, explicitly and repeatedly, was about the Qur'an, and it was wrong.

No you did not, I have always been speaking of Islamophobia in this thread, Some quranic, some sharia law, some biblical statements, some naming of countries, some homosexuality have been tossed into the mix, The point is and always has been about Islamophobia.

No, because Muslim eschatology and the sunna have been around for a long, long time in the history of Islam, while (as Bernard Lewis points out) the current virulent and violent hatred of Jews in the Muslim world is a relatively recent development mostly resulting from the influence of European Christians.

I don't know, nor care who Bernard Lewis is. Don't care how long Jew hatred been around, I care what is happening today, this minute. Which is Jew hatred. We could plot a time line of major events going back to the beginning of Islam, But what is the point? It's silly, what matters is what happening now.


No, it's not. The ambiguity of the Qur'an, and the millennia-long tradition of reading multiple meanings in the Qur'an, allows those Muslims who want to get a hateful message out of the Qur'an to do just that, while also allowing those Muslims who don't want to get a hateful message out of the Qur'an do to that also.

Exactly and what is encourage due to this ambiguity to resolve it? hint hint... Hadith's =)
What do we find in the Hadiths? Killing of Jew speech like the video I posted LOL


No, I'm trying to tell you that even Muslims not only don't all read the Qur'an and the ahadith the same way, they never have read the Qur'an and the ahadith the same way since the very beginning. A lot of them can't even agree on which ahadith to trust!


I don't argue this, I've always stated religious scriptures outcomes vary due to interpretation. That is the root of the problem, the Qur'an, is ambiguous, no one knows which hadiths to trust and yet we still have Muslims. Sigh Oxymoron.

You are indirectly accusing me of saying that all muslims think one way, or at least for whatever reason keep reiterating that in your replies. I never said all Muslims at anytime think in one way. I have consistently stated that different people will have different views. I've also stated I don't care what those views are I care what the outcome is. A very large portion of that outcome is why we are at war in Afghanistan.


No, it is not "very much Islam". It's due to a whole lot of different factors, which is why (as I keep trying to tell you) every Muslim does not think this way, and they certainly have not always done so, either.

There is no one "Muslim view". Especially not about killing Jews. There isn't even one single "Muslim view" about Israel.


I'm well aware there is not one Muslim view, same applies to Christians. The point is the people with the ability to take the negative (jew killing) views have the ability to see it through. If you are a jew killing muslim or not, both views are still Islam.

The question becomes, you go to Saudi Arabia start preaching the God of the bible and the God of the Quran is the same, or preach you love jews. Which Muslim will agree with you? which one will cut your head off?

I can't tell the difference can you?

[KevinCanada]

On Female Genital Mutilation

Since there was some controversy on this, I decided to do a very fast reference on the subject. While this is not accurate, it is a strong indicator of it being Dominantly Muslim practice.

If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

There is a chart naming countries with prevalence rate of FGM, then if you click the country and compare it to the % of FGM shown in the chart and compare it again to the Muslim population ratio of that particular country. Out of the 7 to 9 I clicked at random, not one of the countries had a FGM rate higher than the percentage of Muslim living in the same country.

While this is a fast reference. It does raise a major red flag for the origins of such a practice and who actually is participating in it.

[Ryokan]

It does raise a major red flag for the origins of such a practice and who actually is participating in it.

Did you actually read about the origins in the Wikipedia article, or did you just look at the list of countries and drew your conclusions from that?

[ANTPogo]

The work you quoted are of scholars? I have to say so what? I mean it who cares.

People who are actually interested in learning about a topic. Especially one as complex and wide-ranging as an entire 1500-year-old religion with 1.6 billion adherents.

How can you in one post tell people to research Islam, and then in another post completely dismiss people whose entire careers are dedicated to doing exactly that, and publishing books about the results of said research? Especially when you get such basic details as whether the Qur'an itself commands Muslims to kill Jews or not, whether Muslims can ignore parts of the Qur'an, and the role of individual reasoning in the interpretation of the Qur'an completely wrong.

And that's even before we start talking about your equally-incorrect assertions about Christians and the Bible.

The Vatican is full of scholars, and look what happen to children under their rule.

No, it's not, and it's not academics who were responsible for what happened in the Church.

I am not going to be so anal to look up every detail on FGM. 95% rate of FGM occurrence in Somalia is more than enough if other religions are guilty of it, So be it, Don't care Catholic FGM has nothing to do with Islamophonia. If the topic was Christianphobia, I'd discuss, but it is not.

"Catholic FGM" may have nothing to do with Islamophobia, but saying "95% of Muslims in one particular anarchic, practically government-less country performing FGM is all I care about, and I don't care how many people of other religions in other countries do it too, even if more Christians than Muslims in those countries do it, so therefore I'm going to post saying it's a Muslim-only practice and argue against any attempts to correct me that it's actually otherwise", however, has plenty to do with Islamophobia.

I don't know, nor care who Bernard Lewis is. Don't care how long Jew hatred been around, I care what is happening today, this minute. Which is Jew hatred. We could plot a time line of major events going back to the beginning of Islam, But what is the point? It's silly, what matters is what happening now.

The problem comes when you say that what's happening now is the result of what Muslims have to believe and they have no other choice but to accept that particular interpretation (because, according to you, they "take a knife, cut [their] frontal cortex and replace those brain cells with the Quran" and "are not allowed to argue the Quran, cannot reason it").

Because if what's "happening now" regarding Muslim attitudes towards Jews is not anywhere close to being the same as it has been throughout the history of Islam, but those very bits of the Qur'an and ahadith that you say are behind what's happening now have been the same all throughout that history, then you might want to spend a little time thinking about why Muslim attitudes towards Jews hasn't also been the same all this time, and explain why it did change sometime in the 20th Century.

Exactly and what is encourage due to this ambiguity to resolve it? hint hint... Hadith's =)
What do we find in the Hadiths? Killing of Jew speech like the video I posted LOL

And that's how one group of Muslims resolve the ambiguity. Do you have any idea how many Muslim-Jewish interfaith groups there are just in the United States? What about about their view about how Muslims should treat Jews? Why are the views expressed in that video "correct", while the completely contradictory views expressed here (http://cmje.org/) not "correct", when it comes to what Muslims who want to follow their religion are supposed to do?

I don't argue this, I've always stated religious scriptures outcomes vary due to interpretation. That is the root of the problem, the Qur'an, is ambiguous, no one knows which hadiths to trust and yet we still have Muslims. Sigh Oxymoron.

I'm sorry, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here? What do you mean by "and yet we still have Muslims"?

You are indirectly accusing me of saying that all muslims think one way, or at least for whatever reason keep reiterating that in your replies. I never said all Muslims at anytime think in one way. I have consistently stated that different people will have different views.

Because, in that very post I quote above, you flat-out state that Muslims cannot argue with what the Qur'an and ahadith supposedly tell them (that, in fact, they have to do the equivalent of cutting out their own brain cells), and then have spent several more posts since then arguing that the Qur'an and the ahadith tell them to kill Jews.

That's kind of difficult to reconcile with your statement here that you recognize that not all Muslims think the same way and there are multiple interpretations of what Islam says.

The question becomes, you go to Saudi Arabia start preaching the God of the bible and the God of the Quran is the same, or preach you love jews. Which Muslim will agree with you? which one will cut your head off?

I can't tell the difference can you?

The God of the Bible is the God of the Qur'an. That's why Jews and Christians are called "the People of the Book", and the Qur'an itself states that Allah sent down the Tavrat (the Torah) and the Injil (the Gospels) (Q 3:3)!

And I'm not sure what else you're saying here, either. Difference between what? Why Saudi Arabia and not, say, Turkey or Egypt or Syria, or even Malaysia or Indonesia (or heck, Dearborn, Michigan)?

[Reivax]

I just want to throw some names around and see what people think:

Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Geert Wilders

Are these people islamophobic?

[Ryokan]

No, No, Yes.

Although for the middle one, sadly, the question is if he was, not if he is... :(

[Reivax]

Thanks Ryokan. The reason I asked is because I just came across the concept of 'islamophobia' and am currently reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris and just finished his Letter to a Christian Nation in which he heavily criticized religion in general but particularly Islam and Christianity and makes some big claims. He makes a convincing argument, but after reading around here (and on related threads), it seems a lot of people think his views are exaggerated and he commits a guilt by association, but I would need to learn more to really formulate an opinion. Also, Sam Harris is known to defend Geert Wilders, particularly in this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html) 2008 article to Huffington post.

As for Hitchens, he had always criticized religion, but also had some pretty strong takes on Islam and Catholicism in particular from memory of his debates. And yes, it's a shame that he is no longer with us. :(

[Ryokan]

Note that that was, of course, just my opinion.

I think one important distinction between criticism of Islam and islamophobia is if you're ok or not with Muslims coming to and living in your own country. Despite not liking the religion of Islam, I don't think neither Harris nor Hitchens have any problem with people that happen to be Muslim. Geert Wilders, on the other hand, would prefer (to put it mildly) if they didn't come to his country anymore.

[dudalb]

For me the lines are:
1.The belief that all Moslems are fundamentalist Jihadis.A slighty more spohisticated version of this is the "those who are not fundies are enablers" theory.
2. A belief that Muslims do not really "Belong" in a country.
3. One sided presentation of history to paint the Muslims as the Bad Guys throughout history.

You have extremes, as usual. Those who paint all Muslims as potential terrorists, and those who refuse to admit that Muslim Fundementalism exist and is a serious problem.