Let's talk about Islamophobia

[ZRod]

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

[The Dude]

 

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

And?

[The Dude]

Islamophobia is presumably a non-existent word being used to suggest that there is a widespread (irrational fear or hate of Muslims or of their religion generally). The problem is that there is a very real concern and fear of the continuation of growing and worsening radical Islamic terrorism and violence against peoples all over the world. This is NOT a phobia (generally used to indicate a fear not based on real facts or circumstances but being irrational or unreasonable). Reasonable people have great reason to be fearful of terrorism and particularly terrorism committed by radical Muslimes.

 

I mean, obviously there's bigotry towards Muslim people. That's a real thing, and a real problem.

 

The problem with the term "Islamaphobia" is how it's so often (mis)used to shout down any criticism of Islam. It's really the only religion that is allowed this sort of safe space free from criticism.

 

Just a bizzare, mindboggling phenomenon.

 

It's the religion I think liberals, and especially feminists, should be the most critical of.

[zoogs]

It's really the only religion that is allowed this sort of safe space free from criticism.

I'd argue that it's the only religion where prejudice against them is currently a major issue in America. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, et. al. -- all already enjoy that safe space; Islam should, too.

 

I'd be happy to discuss feminist criticisms of mainstream Islam, but it just isn't a topic that comes up. There isn't a single Muslim board member here to advance a contrary argument to argue against. In a country where they are so minority, it's also an issue that simply doesn't register. That shouldn't be mysterious. If the US were 80% Muslim, then, yeah, we'd be dissecting cultural attitudes more often.

 

But we aren't talking about liberal or feminist critiques of the religion. We're talking about how justified or not it is to casually (and officially?) associate the entire brand with violent radicalism. How acceptable proposals that suggest everyone from citizens to the government should treat this segment of the American population differently and with suspicion. It's a pushback against the darker shades of blue in these charts:

 

 

 

So that's a narrower, and hopefully more understandable position.

 

*come think of it, maybe Judaism somehow still does, but it seems that on here, anyway, backlash against Antisemitism is completely uncontroversial.

[funhusker]

I really don't have much to add at the moment, but thought this would be a decent place to share. I spent the afternoon at the Islamic Center of Omaha with a group from my church and other people from the Omaha area. The second Saturday of each month they put on what I would call "Islam 101" presentation, and on the fourth Saturday a presentation of what Islam says about issues. For example, Islam and terrorism. These are open houses and everyone is invited.

 

It was a very informative afternoon, the Q&A was awesome. We talked about everything from the "proper" way to drink water to ISIS. As long as a question was asked with curiosity and respect it was thoughtfully and thoroughly answered. I went in to learn more about the historical relationship between Islam and Christianity but came away with so much more.

 

I would highly recommend this if any of you are in the Omaha area and interested in the topic, from any perspective. They did a great job and were nothing but gracious to us "infidels"

[ZRod]

 

 

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

And?

And, what's your point?

[The Dude]

But we aren't talking about liberal or feminist critiques of the religion. We're talking about how justified or not it is to casually (and officially?) associate the entire brand with violent radicalism.

 

How justified is it to associate law enforcement with police brutality? The association exists whether we like it or not. We can pretend Islam has no association with Islamic terrorism, but that's intellectually dishonest.

 

How acceptable proposals that suggest everyone from citizens to the government should treat this segment of the American population differently and with suspicion.

I would say unacceptable.

[The Dude]

 

 

 

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

And?

And, what's your point?

Black terrorism isn't a thing because black isn't an ideology that motivates terrorists.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

And?

And, what's your point?

Black terrorism isn't a thing because black isn't an ideology that motivates terrorists.

Crazy people will use whatever excuses they want to convince themselves to hurt people who are different. It could be religion, could be race, could be lots of other things.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

 

Why aren't people referring to the guy who shot the police officers in Dallas as a Black terrorist?

Because that'd be stupid.

Because black isn't a religious or political ideology.

But it's a group/category of people.

And?

And, what's your point?

Black terrorism isn't a thing because black isn't an ideology that motivates terrorists.

The new black panther party seems pretty close to a terrorist group. It's certainly a race based hate group like the KKK, which jas an ideology based on race that motivates them.

[zoogs]

 

But we aren't talking about liberal or feminist critiques of the religion. We're talking about how justified or not it is to casually (and officially?) associate the entire brand with violent radicalism.

How justified is it to associate law enforcement with police brutality? The association exists whether we like it or not. We can pretend Islam has no association with Islamic terrorism, but that's intellectually dishonest.

 

I don't agree with the analogy -- though I also wouldn't agree with "too many cops are bad people." I think that misses that issue entirely. Somewhat similar to the roots of religious discrimination, it's an association that deserves pushback.

 

I also disagree that intellectual dishonesty is on this side of the argument.

 

Any and all people and religions are prone to radical violence. We don't deal with Catholic or Buddhist terrorism here; as a consequence those phobias are not issues.

 

The heavily Muslim Middle East, on the other hand, is a place that has been particularly ravaged by war and instability. The West is complicit and intertwined, in a way that reaches back at least decades and is ongoing. The West can't have the kind of history it has there and then blame inherent qualities of the region's dominant religion for the hate engendered back at us. That would be intellectual dishonesty.

[AFhusker]

 

 

But we aren't talking about liberal or feminist critiques of the religion. We're talking about how justified or not it is to casually (and officially?) associate the entire brand with violent radicalism.

How justified is it to associate law enforcement with police brutality? The association exists whether we like it or not. We can pretend Islam has no association with Islamic terrorism, but that's intellectually dishonest.

 

I don't agree with the analogy -- though I also wouldn't agree with "too many cops are bad people." I think that misses that issue entirely. Somewhat similar to the roots of religious discrimination, it's an association that deserves pushback.

 

I also disagree that intellectual dishonesty is on this side of the argument.

 

Any and all people and religions are prone to radical violence. We don't deal with Catholic or Buddhist terrorism here; as a consequence those phobias are not issues.

 

The heavily Muslim Middle East, on the other hand, is a place that has been particularly ravaged by war and instability. The West is complicit and intertwined, in a way that reaches back at least decades and is ongoing. The West can't have the kind of history it has there and then blame inherent qualities of the region's dominant religion for the hate engendered back at us. That would be intellectual dishonesty.

 

The middle east was ravaged by war and instability for thousands of years before the west showed up.They are going to find a reason to fight because that is all they know how to do. Calling radical Islam what it is, separates it from the 99% good Muslims in the religion. It isn't a phobia, and even if it was, if we had better homeland security then we wouldn't have any reason to have a phobia. People don't trust our government to keep us safe anymore and you can't blame them for thinking that way.

[zoogs]

Europe was ravaged by war and instability for thousands of years.

 

Asia was ravaged by war and instability for thousands of years.

 

War and instability ... it's all people in general know how to do. To suggest this is a particular defect of Middle Easterners reflects a truly unfortunate view towards them.

 

No amount of homeland security will keep us completely safe. The West in general and the US in particular has had more than one misadventure in the ME recently. Fair or not, it's fostered anti-American sentiments. And ideas do not simply die, not if we sent our military to "throw [more countries] against the wall", not if we install an Orwellian surveillance state.

 

Radical Islam recruits from other Muslisms, by the way. Casting these guys as not Muslim at all seems the most sensible way to combat radicalization to me. We KNOW their argument is "I am your fellow Muslism, and the West is out to get you." Why give them the assist? For the empty satisfaction we gain from the declaration?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

But we aren't talking about liberal or feminist critiques of the religion. We're talking about how justified or not it is to casually (and officially?) associate the entire brand with violent radicalism.

How justified is it to associate law enforcement with police brutality? The association exists whether we like it or not. We can pretend Islam has no association with Islamic terrorism, but that's intellectually dishonest.

I don't agree with the analogy -- though I also wouldn't agree with "too many cops are bad people." I think that misses that issue entirely. Somewhat similar to the roots of religious discrimination, it's an association that deserves pushback.

 

I also disagree that intellectual dishonesty is on this side of the argument.

 

Any and all people and religions are prone to radical violence. We don't deal with Catholic or Buddhist terrorism here; as a consequence those phobias are not issues.

 

The heavily Muslim Middle East, on the other hand, is a place that has been particularly ravaged by war and instability. The West is complicit and intertwined, in a way that reaches back at least decades and is ongoing. The West can't have the kind of history it has there and then blame inherent qualities of the region's dominant religion for the hate engendered back at us. That would be intellectual dishonesty.

The middle east was ravaged by war and instability for thousands of years before the west showed up.They are going to find a reason to fight because that is all they know how to do. Calling radical Islam what it is, separates it from the 99% good Muslims in the religion. It isn't a phobia, and even if it was, if we had better homeland security then we wouldn't have any reason to have a phobia. People don't trust our government to keep us safe anymore and you can't blame them for thinking that way.

Well, that and create modern math and science...

 

Your bolded is literally the definition of a racist statement. Just as an FYI.

 

By the way, Islam isn't "thousands of years" old and leaving aside the fact that the west showed up early and a good portion of fighting in the region was imported in the form of western crusades.

[Landlord]

They are going to find a reason to fight because that is all they know how to do.

 

...remember the Iraq war?