Islamophobes Exposed

by tomeile Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:43

Liz Fekete of the Institute of Race Relations delivered the Claudia Jones Memorial Lecture recently . Warning on the dangers of Islamophobia she called for a campaign against racism and Islamophobia in the media

"Could it be that we, too, are living in a world that is being shaped by a new form of McCarthyism? Only today the 'Islam scare' is replacing the 'red scare'? Could it be that whereas once Communists were treated as a dangerous 'fifth column' subject to 'foreign allegiance', such fears are now being transferred onto those European citizens and residents who happen to be Muslim? Could it be that just as the media in the US carried out its own 'hunt for subversives', the media in Europe are contributing to the 'Islam scare'.

See :
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

by Infidel Wed Nov 04, 2009 15:25

I'm an atheist and there is no discrimination built into my lack of a belief. No holy book telling me how to treat certain classes of people based on their beliefs.However muslim people follow an ancient book to the letter which contains passages that more or less say that people like me should convert to Islam or be killed. In their eyes people like me are godless infidels. They have respect for other religious people but no respect for people like us who have no religion. How are people like me supposed to feel about that?.I am generally tolerant of all people I meet and take them as I find them but it is rather upsetting to know that in certain holy books, you are reviled and If one of it's followers meets you, that assumption is the starting basis of your interactions. What is really upsetting is that the enshrined disrespect (to say the least!!) for people like me in this holy book is never questioned, yet if an atheist opens their mouth in public life, they are scorned. Any muslim I have talked to has eventually conceded their beliefs about infidels to me. Usually despite me always being nothing but kind and respectful to them as a person. I find that rather disconcerting to say the least.

Unquestioning belief is a very dangerous thing.

by pat c Wed Nov 04, 2009 16:13

You are of course correct, unreasoning belief is dangerous.

The Koran is a book of horror stories but so is the Bible

If you take a flick through the Bible you will see that that some very nasty punishments are prescribed for unbelievers: stoning, burning, stakinf, bering cut into pieces, fed to wild animals and torn apart by horses. This is not an exhaustive list.

This no longer happens in "Christian" countries but up to a couple of hundred years ago people were executed for apostasy and infidelism. In the US there are those of the Christian Dominion persuasion who believe in the the death penalty for many religious "crimes" including adultery, gaysex and fornication.

This is not to excuse what happens in some "Islamic" countries but quite often those that rule there misuse Islam as a means of retaining power. Islam is long overdue a Reformation and an Enlightenment.

All religion is myth. Lets build a better world where people won't require such opium.

by Infidel Wed Nov 04, 2009 16:40

I said muslims because they still seem rather gung ho on the stoning / killing front (and badly in need of a reformation as you pointed out). However I absolutely agree, christians were no saints (sic) in their day either. And I would certainly still be rather reluctant to take up residence in middle america as an atheist. I have heard some horror stories. Happily christianity does seem to have attenuated a bit on the stoning / killing / witch burning front though. These days they seem to limit themselves to a bit of community persecution which is in my mind at least a bit more "civilised". Also, (mostly!) they no longer tend to take the bible literally. If there are worrying passages about bears killing children, or throwing your virgin daughters to an angry mob to be raped etc (see numbers!) then they tend to be seen as stories with a moral (!) or parables and open to "interpretation" in keeping with our modern reality. A more flexible approach which bodes somewhat better for us witches and atheists!! I hopefully await a similar flexibility of mind on the words of the koran from those of the muslim faith. Alas, not holding my breath currently though.

by Cecil R Wed Nov 04, 2009 19:56

McCarthyism was a short lived parliamentary overreaction to something that was a real and unknown phenomenon – communist infiltration in the US – even if its scale was overstated with hindsight. It was eventually reigned in by wiser counsels such as President Eisenhower. While there is no excuse for the crude Islamophobia of the EDl and others it is not good enough to ignore valid concerns about Islamic extremists. There are real dangers – between the attacks in the US, the UK and Spain in this decade thousands of people in western societies have been killed. Large numbers have also been killed within the last decade in Indonesia and East Africa. It has to be recognized if one is to be reasonable about it that there must be means of countering Jihadist terrorism and the kind of threat to press freedom we saw on the Danish Cartoon issue. To take a one dimensional anti-Islamophobia view is not doing the substantial issue justice. The contrast with McCarthyism which was not a lethal phenomena is a false one. Terror is designed to instil fear, sow confusion and division and provoke overreaction. The right counterstrategy is moderation but robustness in defence of our societies and our freedoms.

The analogies drawn here with Christianity are not valid either. Terrorism is emanating from Muslims based on literalist Wahhabism. It is not relevant what violent interpretations are to be found in the Koran or the Bible. What is relevant is the degree to which these are acted upon by a religious motivated minority claiming to act on behalf of Islam as a whole and the reactions of the larger host community to it. There are terrorists who are nominally Christians but there are no Christian terrorists nowadays in the same way as there are Jihadists. Unlike the Koran the bible can be seen as an evolution from very early and primitive times to the beatitudes. The catholic and orthodox Christian traditions share with much of traditional Islam the notion of scriptures being mediated to the people by tradition preached by an accredited clergy. The problem with the Jihadis and with some of the wilder shores of Protestantism in the US is a scriptural literalism that is either unmediated at all or mediated by poorly educated and fanatical figures. But the Jihadis are the ones doing the mass killings. That is the fact. Conflating Bin Laden with Bob Jones won’t wash.

by Infidel Wed Nov 04, 2009 20:19

"It is not relevant what violent interpretations are to be found in the Koran or the Bible"

what? Surely first and foremost these people are justifying their actions to the devout by saying that they are simply adhering to the words of the profit as laid down in black and white in the koran. If the koran preached nothing but fluffy love then it would be rather more difficult to use it to justify murder. But it doesn't. It is a book of horrors which people are not supposed to question.

The contents of holy books DO matter. They are the "word of god" and as such, if the text allows for it, the ultimate justification for anything nasty people care to do.

And in the past christians used their bible to justify a myriad of unspeakable acts. Just because they don't do it much any more does not alter the pattern here. All you can really say is that islam and christianity are at different parts of their evolution as memes. The sooner humans reject these myths and texts and face reality without crutches the better for us all. However religion confers great power on those that administer the faith. For this reason alone, religion will be with us for a long time to come unfortunately.

by shoegirl Wed Nov 04, 2009 21:42

It is naive and simplistic to consider Islam as harmless as any other organized religion. The pressures on many western governments to permit Sharia laws to be recognised for Muslims is a real threat to the rights of many, especially women, and immigrants from Muslim areas. There is a real danger also in supporting any groups who puport support for these courts anywhere since there is no govverning body or set of standards for Sharia. As a result, there is no real telling what limits these courts would have in legal terms, if they are simply considered as "equal." I find it worrying that even moderate states like Malaysia are starting to shift towards a radcial interpretation that is highly harsh in terms of judgement and punishment, especially for women. Is a real step back.

by Cecil R Wed Nov 04, 2009 22:45

Infidel – scriptures do matter but they are only fully the “word of God” to a literalist which is why mediation and educated interpretation according to a cannon is desirable if extremism and intolerance is to be avoided. The catholic and orthodox position is that the revelation in the New Testament supersedes the old and tradition has an authority that is equal to scriptures and certain authorities are in a special position to interpret both scriptures and authority. Inerrancy is not claimed for the historical record – thus we can condemn certain things done or sanctioned in the past (either misguided or for the wrong motive) without invalidating the faith itself the interpretation of which is open to revision by insights of modernity. The assertion that all church leaders are motivated by power or prestige betrays prejudice not reason on your part.

It is perfectly possible to be a Muslim and not to be in any way a supporter of intolerance or of Jihadis as promoted by the Wahabbi sect and its offshoots such as the Taliban. The challenge for Muslims liberals themselves is to condemn extremism in the name of their faith. It’s not good enough to accuse others of Islamophobia who have the task of countering Islamic terror while not dealing with this aspect closer to home.

The record of the radical tradition from the Jacobites through to the twentieth century fascists and communist is very much less humane than anything emerging from Christianity at any point in its history.

The last contributor makes a point seldom voiced in leftist circles. There is no comparison between the record on women in the westernized world and that of swathes of the Muslim world or on many other areas of rights including very fundamental rights indeed. Intolerance is given a free pass so long as those being intolerant are in opposition to the west in some way.

by Infidel Thu Nov 05, 2009 04:23

Cecil...first of all, I'm not willing to engage with someone who blatantly misquotes me
I said:
"However religion confers great power on those that administer the faith. For this reason alone, religion will be with us for a long time to come unfortunately."

then you implied I said:
"The assertion that all church leaders are motivated by power or prestige betrays prejudice not reason on your part"

this is clearly a straw man. I did not assert that "all church leaders are motivated by power and prestige"
You say I lack reason but saying I am unreasonable on the basis of a misquote seems pretty unreasonable to me.
My point was that power and prestige are strong motivators. It was not a blanket statement that all church leaders were there for those reasons. Clearly quite a few are though.

"The record of the radical tradition from the Jacobites through to the twentieth century fascists and communist is very much less humane than anything emerging from Christianity at any point in its history."

yes yes, the old chestnut, essentially stalin was an atheist, stalin killed millions of people therefore atheists kill millions of people blah blah. Thats an illogical syllogism!
No, stalin was a paranoid mass murderer, THATS why he killed lots of people.
It was not the average "godless commie" in the street that was responsible for stalins excesses. It is fallacious to imply this

Also, contrary to popular belief, hitler was a christian and there are quotes of him praising the church! However, you won't catch me saying that this proves all christians are jew killers will you. That would also be a fallacious argument.

The fact is, mad despotic murdering leaders are mad despotic murdering leaders. This does not reflect on the book club they were a member of or the religion they claim to be a member of or of their lack of a belief in a deity. They were just bad people ok?

"It is perfectly possible to be a Muslim and not to be in any way a supporter of intolerance or of Jihadis as promoted by the Wahabbi sect and its offshoots such as the Taliban. The challenge for Muslims liberals themselves is to condemn extremism in the name of their faith"

Yeah. It's also perfectly possible to say you are a christian and work as a lobbyist in washington encouraging tacit US support for systematic killings of palestinians by Israelis to try to accelerate the conditions required in your holy book for the second coming and the rapture. Doesn't mean you are following the tenets of your faith properly though, does it?

Ok, sure, but to a certain extent it means they would have to turn a blind eye to the exact words of the profit, as enshrined in the koran. Stuff like where It says in black and white that certain folks should be "put to the sword" as infidels

You see, wheras christianity has been through it's literal bloody phase (mostly!), Islam is still not through that yet. Many of todays christian ministers are quite happy to say in bible class things like "I think what god meant to say was...." wheras many Islamic folk are not yet quite so confident in interpreting the exact words of their profit any which way that suits them. Maybe in a hundred years or so they will be, who knows?. Meanwhile, expect bloodshed. Taking everything these people have except their religion away from them in bloody pointless occupations and sanctions does not help to soften their interpretations of the harsh judgements of the profit in their minds either!

"Intolerance is given a free pass so long as those being intolerant are in opposition to the west in some way."

Bah...rubbish. You are misrepresenting the left here. It is more complex than you are implying. For example Look at HOPI. They are against attacks on the soverignty of Iran. They are also against the bad behaviour of the Iranian government and the lousy treatment of women, Gays and dissidents there.

Logically the falsehood of a blanket statement is disproved by a single counter example. So much for the voice of reason Cecil :-)

by tomeile Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:42

Infidel writes :

“However muslim people follow an ancient book to the letter which contains passages that more or less say that people like me should convert to Islam or be killed.”

This mischaracterization of “muslim people” by infidel should be seen in the context of the million Muslim murdered by western forces in Iraq since the invasion ;the torture of muslims in Guatanamo and US rendition sites , the bombing of afghan muslim wedding parties , the poverty of and the real discrimination against muslims in Europe , and the shoot to kill policies directed against muslim people by police forces in the west.. Islamophobia provides the scare stories to justify mistreatment of muslims just as anti-semitism provided the ideological underpinning for the murder of Jews in the 1930s .

African-American Muslim religious leader, Luqman Ameen Abdullah was shot last week by an anti terrorist unit in Detroit. .

From today’s World Socialist Website :

“FBI agents claim that Abdullah first opened fire on them before they fired dozens of rounds at him. No agents were injured, but authorities say Abdullah shot a police dog. The dog was given a life flight to a suburban Detroit veterinary clinic, where it perished. After being shot, Abdullah was reportedly handcuffed to a stretcher. It has not been reported whether or not he died instantly, or if he was offered medical assistance.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/abdu-n05.shtml

Abdullah who fed the hungry once a week and opened up his mosque to the homeless was portrayed by those who shot him as a violent Sunni extremist intent on imposing Sharia law on America.. This characterisation by law officials was contradicted by those who knew Abdullah . His son Omar Regan, said. “They don’t have anything! If my dad was involved in what they said, my dad would have some money—he didn’t ever have any money.”

by Infidel Thu Nov 05, 2009 16:29

"This mischaracterization of “muslim people” by infidel should be seen in the context of the million Muslim murdered by western forces in Iraq since the invasion ;the torture of muslims in Guatanamo and US rendition sites , the bombing of afghan muslim wedding parties , the poverty of and the real discrimination against muslims in Europe"

All of the above were / are brutal and wrong acts but they were not committed directly because of religion. Religion was just used to garner support. They were committed because the US is being run by a bunch of bad men with little empathy for poor people and a cruel but very profitable geopolitical strategy involving pipelines, oil , large no bid corporate contracts for reconstruction and drugs.

They cynically used the fear of fundamental Islam and sharia to drum up support for their actions. Do not associate me with these people. I don't want to hurt anyone. In fact quite the opposite. I actually would like to create a climate where people no longer fear Islam because the tenets of the holy book are no longer taught as the exact word of god or the profit and do not have to be obeyed literally and unquestioningly. Because if they are it's really not good for anyone. Just as the literal following of the old testament is not good for anyone. Or any other violent medievil text of it's ilk for that matter. The fear of literalism was used by these sociopaths to gain the support they required to allow them to kill muslims with impunity. I would like, BY DISCUSSION to help change the current literalist nature of Islam and in doing so, help remove that confused and fear driven support for such actions and expose these men.

For starters, I was merely asking that the matter of the cruelty towards my kind inherent in the holy book of muslims be opened up to serious questioning. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT OK?. I wasn't for a moment saying millions of muslims should be bombed tortured and killed. I demonstrated strongly against (both) the invasions in Iraq etc.and continue to stand up against imperialism in the middle east and elsewhere as best I can.

Again the actions of those men who pursued these policies, as with stalin et al were not because of the book club they were a member of or not because of their religion. They were because those particular men were sociopathic cruel greedy and essentially bad people. Religious fear merely helped get them gain more tacit support for their chosen actions at home.

by Infidel Thu Nov 05, 2009 16:42

Yes Cecil, Essentially I do agree with what you said in your first paragraph regarding the literalist interpretation of a holy book! That part of what you said was well put and correct :-)

by tomeile Thu Nov 05, 2009 18:19

“They were because those particular men were sociopathic cruel greedy and essentially bad people.”

The well-meaning type of idealist methodology employed by Infidel for complex historical problems and as explanation for political motivation and processes is what got Obama “the good guy” elected in last years US elections . But since then Obama has carried on the same policies as Bush the bad guy .So now he is a bad guy too. Or perhaps he was bad all the time . So what we really need is a genuinely good good guy to sort it all out. . George Bush used the same essentially religious rationale to launch the war on terrorism that infidel marched against.

Perhaps Infidel could clear this up a bit , I’m not exactly sure what it means :
“ The fear of literalism was used by these sociopaths to gain the support they required to allow them to kill muslims with impunity. I would like, BY DISCUSSION to help change the current literalist nature of Islam and in doing so, help remove that confused and fear driven support for such actions and expose these men”

I assume that Infidel must be referring to the literalism of Christian literalists in the above passage , and yet the thrust of his/her argument is directed against Muslims. Unless Infidel is saying that Muslims should try to persuade the people murdering them that they are not literalist Muslims and are in fact peacefully awaiting their Reformation and then the Christian people murdering them will stop murdering them.

Really Infidel , the reasons why these horrible crimes are being committed AGAINST Muslims are economic and political . Muslims are being murdered and subjected to torture and discriminated against because they are living in geo-politically important parts of the world which have large reserves of oil,gas, etc. or else lie on trade routes which western imperialists wish to dominate. Muslim countries have - again for historical and political reasons - been underdeveloped resulting in emigration of poor Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and Algeria to the richer west looking for work .Once in the prosperous west they tend to be the worst paid and most exploited part of the work force .

Demagogues throughout the years have found reasons and justification to malign the latest wave of poor immigrants so as to divert attention from issues of class. Islamophobia serves two purposes . It justifies the theft of resources from lands where Muslims live and divides workers on the basis of religion.Islamophobia is therefore the phobia of choice for the extreme right-wing forces that are driving our world towards world war.It is not something that is natural and spontaneous . Like anti-Semitism before the second world war it is being stirred-up used consciously and directed .

by Cecil R Thu Nov 05, 2009 21:33

Infidel – my own view and that of others more eminent than I is that abominations like the Holocaust, Stalinism, Maoism and the Killing Fields which consumed millions in the last century was made possible not just by tyranny and technology but the stridently anti religious nature of the regimes in question. Prior ethical restraining norms, such as those found in Christianity, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism were thrown out with derision by the intellectual fathers of communism (there was not much scholarly theory behind the Nazis). Marx and his like may have been well meaning in one sense but when put to the test tens of millions perished or endured unimaginable torments.

The only thing catholic about Hitler was that he was born a catholic. He was a lifelong rejectionist. He strove to use churches where he found them useful as marks of nationhood but in fact he despised Christianity and promoted the doctrines of will and superiority derived from Nietzsche which are its antitheses. It was those like Bishop Galen who spoke and acted against Hitler who quite often were motivated by Christianity.

The problem with Islam is that its formerly pacific and tolerant traditions are being squeezed out by the Whabbist tendency with its ill winds of hard line sharia and incessant large scale terrorism directed at Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This is only an issue that Muslims themselves can sort out. But all religions are not to blame any more than all atheists are to blame for Stalinism. Those who subscribe to Christianity are not in any way responsible for crimes committed in the name of Islam nor will these crimes cease if the Christians cease being Christians and embrace your atheism instead.

by Infidel Fri Nov 06, 2009 03:57

Tomeile, I largely agree with you about the cynical exploitation of religion as an excuse to invade and take control of the rich resources of the middle east and other places. I said much the same thing in one of my posts. Fear of literalist interpretation of the koran helped no end in garnering support for the imperialist schemes of GWB et al. in the middle east. Yes I agree, to these guys, money is god and religion is just an excuse to reach their geopolitical ends in the middle east. As you said, control of oil, gas reserves and profitable rebuilding contracts which result in large transfers of wealth from public to private purse in the US is their true aim. No arguments there. Also, some folk with influence on US policy believe in a very wacky fundamentalist brand of christianity which involves armageddon, the rapture and the second coming, and are gung ho in helping Israel along in creating some of the the conditions necessary for their second coming. They are nutjobs. No arguments there either. I think we are still on the same page up to this point.

Where you and I diverge is over the fact that the koran expresses some very harsh options for my kind (atheists / infidels) and I and others need assurances that most muslims believe the text is not to be followed literally. Normal day to day christians (with some dodgy exceptions) more or less agree that the old testament and it's horrors are no longer taken seriously as the exact words of god and they strive to live in the footsteps of jesus, who was a pretty ok example of how to live your life, and in my view, a definite long haired socialist! :-). (if nothing else, the principle of "do unto others " taken in it's negative form is a good way to behave...i.e. "do not do unto others anything that you do not want done to yourself") [as an aside...Interestingly, although most faiths express a version of "the golden rule", to my limited knowledge, the koran is one of those that does not. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this tho!) ]

However, I have yet to be convinced that most muslims are flexible enough in their beliefs to no longer take the koran as the exact unalterable words of the prophet and that they have to be followed to the letter. I have taken this up with every muslim I have met and so far it has always ended up with an admission that it is part of their belief system that atheists / infidels have a choice. They must convert to islam (or die basically). Also that they are somehow less of a person than a devout muslim because of their lack of belief in a deity. Religious folk get a better choice. They either convert to Islam or pay a "Dhimmi" tax to remain as christiians.

That normal muslim folk walking around have this view about people like me is worrying to say the least. I think this kind of inflexibility in the belief system worries lots of people, not just myself, and fuels support for scumbags like GWB or Obama (I never for a minute believed he'd "change" a thing BTW, except smoothen the rhetoric!) and their cynical actions in the middle east etc. If Islam were to soften it's stance in this area and also on some of the concepts like jihad holy war etc then I believe people like GWB etc would find it more difficult to stir up fear and would likely get less support for their murderous schemes. I myself would feel less ill at ease around muslim people too. Knowing that they didn't really believe deep down in their heart that I should either convert to their faith or die, and that somehow I was some sort of subspecies because I didn't believe in some IMHO non existent deity or other.

Yes Ideally muslims should sort out the extremist PR disaster and the whole Jihad thing once and for all by themselves. Thing is, I'm not convinced they are really making enough of an effort to do so. Perhaps it's because what these people (extremists) are doing is largely sanctioned by the holy book which is supposedly the exact word of the prophet. Thing is, how can people who believe the koran to be the exact words of the prophet, unalterable for all time, argue with an extremist who is adhering to the letter of the koran? They can't really do so effectively without essentially saying that somehow, erm..the bit about jihad / killing infidels and unbelievers was actually not really what the prophet said / meant. But that's not possible. Not as far as I understand things. I'm interested in your views on this point Tomeile.

by Infidel Fri Nov 06, 2009 04:48

you argue your point well Cecil, but I still cannot accept your premise that (essentially) having a non religious population is inevitably fertile ground for millions of people to suffer and die. All those examples show me is that any subjugated population ruled by an iron fisted regime with a sociopath / psychopath at the helm with waaaay too much power concentrated in one pair of hands is a recipe for some terrible atrocities.

IMHO, whether the population of the USSR went to church on sundays or not would not have significantly altered what stalin in his paranoid and psychopathic excesses, would have done to them. Essentially because he could. Same goes for hitler. Germany was largely a christian country but hitler still managed to do some pretty terrible stuff. Good catholic / christian germans did not speak up, not because they thought what hitler was up to was right in their eyes as christians, but because they feared the very real and terrible consequences here on earth for themselves and their families if they did so.

I would like to digress a little here.
I believe it is possible to have a good society in which nobody believes in gods or afterlives etc but instead face reality square on and do their best to make this world a better place because it is all there is. It wouldn't be anything like national socialism or stalism or maoism, thats for sure. It would be more along the lines of schumachers ideas of small maneagable communities without large concentrations of power etc. Perhaps taking a few ideas from the venus project etc.

The fact is, you don't need to have a deity to be a good person. In fact being good out of fear of a deity punishing you, or in order to get a big celestial reward at the end of it is in my book a rather lesser version of being a good person than just doing so because it's the right thing to do and the best thing in the long run for all living creatures to have a better existence. How does your philosophy (that societies need a religious tradition to guide them or else they are doomed to horrible atrocities) equate with atheists with these views or similar? (there are quite a few around)

The fact is all ethics are arbitrary choices and every time you accept a premise there is a possibility you are wrong full stop. In building a decent ethical system from scratch without gods or holy books, it is important to make the minimum of assumptions or premises. I make only two as the basis of my godless ethical system
(1) living things want to keep living
(2) living things do not like pain / suffering

do not do unto other creatures that which you do not want done to yourself essentially.

My entire system of ethics and how I choose to live my life from day to day falls out of these 2 simple premises. I don't always measure up very well but I do try. I believe that's all we need. No koran. No bible. Just these two very common sense and obvious first principles and then build continuously from there using the tools of the scientific method and reason. No gods. No holy books. No atrocities. Doesn't this sound like a reasonable way to try and live a meaningless and arbitrary life on a big rock whizzing around a giant nuclear fusion reactor in the vast icy wastes of space Cecil? Do we really need Gods?

by tomeile Fri Nov 06, 2009 15:17

It’s the Muslims who are getting murdered by the million by committed Christians and not the other way around. Do these Christians believe deeply in their hearts in Christ’s teachings on turning the other cheek, loving their enemies etc ? If so shouldn’t they take a more literalist attitude to their faith and stop murdering innocent Muslims ? If you think they should take Christ literally in this regard at least , then you’d surely have to agree that what you refer to as religious literalism in itself isn’t the problem .

Atheists don’t usually tend to care so much about the nuances and details of peoples’ religious beliefs and superstitions unless they think that some religions are more rational and conducive to notions of liberty and democracy than others :

“Yes Ideally muslims should sort out the extremist PR disaster and the whole Jihad thing once and for all by themselves. Thing is, I'm not convinced they are really making enough of an effort to do so.” ….Infidel

That’s what I meant when I wrote about Infidel's well-meaning idealism in my last post . It’s all in the realms of ideas and ideals and beliefs - it must be said with a dose of first-world paranoid fantasy thrown in . To people who are to be at the receiving end of US bombs currently being loaded onto planes at Shannon Airport , it must sound egotistical . The murder of a million Iraqi Muslims , was more than a PR disaster for the Christian George Bush’s Muslim victims . Muslims being murdered right now with the connivance of the Christian Irish government and we ask the victims’ families and co-religionists for assurances on some future abstract threat to our democratic freedoms from Sharia law . The bombs are being dropped on Muslims not by effort of will or by bad ideas but by aircraft manufactured by western arms companies to make money for their shareholders. “Prayers plow not!” , William Blake wrote in his anti-religious poem , The Marriage of Heaven and Hell . Neither do they drop bombs .

by Infidel Fri Nov 06, 2009 19:21

you aren't reading my posts properly at all. And you did not respond to my questions. How can we discuss anything if we don't do each other this small courtesy? And if, in this insulated forum, you and I cannot even do that, what hope is there for a reconciliation of christians and muslims??

From my posts it should be clear that I am not an apologist for any religion and I don't believe that any christians involved in dropping bombs on muslims are following in the path of jesus. They are just being very violently hypocritical. No argument there. However, disgusting as those actions by so called christians are, that is not what I was trying to talk about. I will happily discuss and condemn the hypocrisies of catholics / christians and their murdering of muslims with them too, but that is another thread. By all means start it and I'll participate! However in this thread I wished to address and discuss a few matters of what muslims believe.

And I don't care what you say, In this day and age, cynical though it may sound to you, PR is everything, even for a religion. It IS extremely important. Although the bombing of muslim people by christians (largely) is completely offside by any moral system including their own, they are enabled in committing these horrendous acts by deep public support helped along no end by wide public fear of literalist belief in the tenets of the koran. People fear the muslim faith. This IS a question of PR. Answering these fears is part of the PR campaign in winning the "hearts and minds" of other non participating american citizens, making them more sympathetic to the plight of the muslim people and polarising them against the cynical geopolitical actions of their leaders.

I am not ignoring the wrongful actions of christians while asking petty questions from their bombed muslim victims. I'm merely trying to address one wrong at a time as I come across them. This thread happened to be here so I joined in this particular discussion. If it was a discussion about christian hypocrisies in the modern age then I'd be a part of that one too. With plenty of dead bodies as evidence!. Serendipity does not imply apologism!! Do not mistake it for such.

Of course the actions you describe are completely wrong and I condemn them outright. But that does not mean that it is not also wrong, as part of your belief system, to give atheists a choice of converting to your religion or dying by the sword or (somewhat more reasonably!) paying a tax to stay as you are. This is what I was asking you about here. Giving you an opportunity to do some decent PR for the muslim faith essentially. Instead you just ignore half of what I say and complain about one rule for christians and another for muslims. One wrong at a time. Feel free to start a thread about christian hypocrisy and I'll enthusiastically discuss that too. It's long overdue!

However, you and I both know, and you have admitted as much, that this bombing and killing is more about money and politics than religion. religion is just a PR excuse. If the oil / strategic territories were underneath or belonged to buddhist goatherders then that is probably who we would be villifying in the media now instead of muslims. But thats not the current situation.

I would be equally happy to grill a christian on whether Jesus would shoot / bomb muslim women and children or support a war for profit among other things. I grill christians on such thorny matters whenever I get the opportunity! This is an equal opportunity griller you are talking to here Tom!

by Atheist Fri Nov 06, 2009 19:53

"Infidel – scriptures do matter but they are only fully the “word of God” to a literalist which is why mediation and educated interpretation according to a cannon is desirable if extremism and intolerance is to be avoided."

Or alternatively you could admit that these books are not the words of gods, just medieval ramblings on a page then get rid of them and their "interpreters" altogether.

by ApeKnees Sat Nov 07, 2009 05:54

"It’s the Muslims who are getting murdered by the million by committed Christians and not the other way around. "

Perhaps. But Is that just because currently the christians are the ones who own all the more sophisticated weaponry?

Or is it because muslims would never do such evil things, even if the roles were reversed?

Personally I think humans are just hairless primates and you can dress them up any way you like but they are still bastards at the end of the day and will always find an excuse to act like bastards. Religion is one of a wide repertoire of excuses.

by Mary. Sat Nov 07, 2009 14:29

I read "The Koran".
It makes "Mein Kampf" look mild.(Read that too.)
Lots of hands being chopped off for stealing sweets etc. etc..
Nasty stuff.

by tomeile Sat Nov 07, 2009 16:04

I could only find one question in Infidel’s post , but I’d be pleased to answer any others , please specify other points you’d like addressed Infidel .Apologies for not answering before - I was trying to finish my post yesterday before the Dublin march . No discourtesy was intended.

“Thing is, how can people who believe the koran to be the exact words of the prophet, unalterable for all time, argue with an extremist who is adhering to the letter of the Koran ?”

I really can't put myself in the position of a Koran literalist who would want to be arguing with an extremist. I take from Infidel’s earlier posts that he/she is using the word “extremist” as a synonym for “terrorist”. The thrust of this argument is that it isn’t possible for a Koran literalist to argue with an extremist or a terrorist because they all believe in the same thing . Islam is a terrorist religion in other words and there is a danger that muslims are going to take over the world starting with Temple Bar on a Saturday night . Public beheadings on Grafton St. To people with such fears I can only say that their fears are unfounded , that’s not what Muslims are like . Muslims are very nice people .

The “wide public fear of literalist belief in the tenets of the koran.” Infidel refers to- which those not afflicted by it call Islamophobia - has been manufactured by cynical PR people for the dirty purposes I outlined in an earlier post . Islamophobia in its present form is the PR exercise and not the Muslim or Christian religions both of which have long histories that pre-date the existence of PR .

Prejudice against Islam goes back to the middle ages ,or rather to the dark ages which the Islamic revolution did so much to dispel ,but that anti-Muslim prejudice has actually in certain respects changed form to its very opposite over recent years to suit the changes in the sordid agendas of those promoting it . I can remember a time for instance when Islam and sodomy were equated . Muslim men were up until very recently portrayed as more prone to the vice of homosexuality than white Christians were (as were soviet bloc women) . That was when homophobia was more prevalent of course. Oscar Wilde was frequently portrayed as a dusky , not quite white , Mohamedan . Lawrence of Arabia’s diaries perpetuated the prejudice/ fear . Nowadays Muslims are supposed to be more widely prejudiced towards gays than those of other religious are .

“In this day and age, cynical though it may sound to you, PR is everything”……..Infidel

It does sound cynical . PR is not everything in this day and age Infidel I hope you don’t really believe that because, if you do , then there wouldn’t be any point in seriously debating this important issue with you. . Important as PR may be for some people , telling the truth as you see it ,to the best of your abilities ,that’s what matters. I do think that you may have fallen for this PR when you write

“they are enabled in committing these horrendous acts by deep public support helped along no end by wide public fear of literalist belief in the tenets of the koran.”

You are wrong Infidel , quite the opposite was and is the case. There is no wide-scale popular support for the criminal policies of the US and its allies. The vast majority of decent people across the world , Catholics , Protestants , Muslims, Jews , atheists (we don’t get a capital letter ) Buddhists , Hindus were opposed to the invasion of Iraq and are opposed to the murders presently taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan .

Islamophobia (which was the subject of this thread btw - any thread creep came from yourself, Infidel ) has been and is being stirred up by the PR merchants and spin doctors just as anti-Semitism was stirred up before WW2 .Like any other form of racism , let’s show Islamophobia the door.

by Infidel Sat Nov 07, 2009 21:02

"The thrust of this argument is that it isn’t possible for a Koran literalist to argue with an extremist or a terrorist because they all believe in the same thing . Islam is a terrorist religion in other words and there is a danger that muslims are going to take over the world starting with Temple Bar on a Saturday night . Public beheadings on Grafton St. To people with such fears I can only say that their fears are unfounded , that’s not what Muslims are like . Muslims are very nice people ."

Whew! thank god for that (sic) . You've really reassured me here (not). Yes the muslims I met myself one to one were generally nice people but to be honest, their faith felt like a strait jacket which meant that there were many topics that we just could not talk about and to me it felt rather like treading on eggshells to keep the conversation pleasant and uncontroversial all the time. I felt I could not be truthful about myself and my non belief without incurring unvoiced but troubling disapproval. Nice and all as the people were, It's not a community I feel I could comfortably live in for very long. (Then again neither would the fundamentalist bible belt in the US be.).

Mind you, sharia might have a thing or two to say about corruption in public office or moneylending institutions and especially blatant alcohol abuse which destroys our society in so many ways so maybe it might be a good thing for Ireland!!

But seriously, If the koran says in black and white, an atheist must convert to Islam or face the sword. You believe as a tenet of your faith that the koran is the exact word of the prophet, then you as a muslim meet an atheist, a godless infidel like me, what are your actual thoughts toward that atheist as a muslim? (again I expect you'll wriggle out of it some clever way and won't answer honestly here).

It seems to me that either you bide your time and try to convert the atheist subtly or otherwise, or else drive him out some way or even kill him as a godless infidel, otherwise you go against the exact words of your prophet and your own religion by ignoring what the koran has to say and treating the person as just another person.

As cecil said, you need a body of scholars to create an official interpretation of the book that gets rid of these possible literalist interpretations of the book and does not endorse that these words are the exact words of god or the prophet. Because the exact words of god / the prophet are the ultimate excuse for people to kill each other and it will inevitably cause bloodshed. (So basically, it's time Islam had a decent reformation internally, had an "official" non violent "interpretation" of the holy text for all to consult, and kicked out the literalists and closed all the madrassas all over the world funded by saudi cash and pushing literalist islam. But thats not going to happen any time soon is it?)

Also, regarding taking over the world starting with temple bar. Well actually I believe world domination IS built into both christianity and islam (small letters :-) As demonstrated by the attitude of the catholic religion to condoms in the face of an aids epidemic, and as more or less stated in the koran. The systematic conversion clause for christians (dhimmi tax) / atheists (nasty death) is a remorseless force to eventually lead to conversion of these groups over a generation or two if only to save money or avoid death. In the modern world, There is a large upsurge in the numbers of people adhering to the muslim faith now living in europe and it is theorised that it is only a matter of time if this numerical trend continues before the nature of european laws will start to be altered by the influence of this large body of people who do not integrate very well and consider their faith should be entwined with their laws in what I consider a rather unhealthy way.
So even though you make a joke of it (they'd never start with temple bar!!) There is some factual evidence to indicate that it is a very real possibility that the majority of people will eventually be muslims in several european countries. We're not talking next week here but the trend would seem to be in that direction. I won't be around to worry about it but there will still be atheists and christians and I'm curious, without a proper reformation, how moderate and non literalist muslims will choose to be towards them then?

Again, I am conscious that it is not "PC" to discuss these thoughts about islam and that makes me some sort of islamophobe but before you hint at that (yet again) Let me assure you that I have regularly stood up against the wrongful treatment of muslims, both regarding those stupid "wars", guantanamo, human rights issues, palestine etc and do not support the wrongful treatment of human beings of any faith. When I meet someone, I am generally polite and friendly to them and treat them well unless they do not treat me well, regardless of race, creed etc. So in practice I am basically a pretty decent human being not some monster "phobe". I just have a few "concerns" about a text that many many people the world over choose to follow quite literally and believe to be the exact words of their prophet, (not the actual people themselves. ) which, in essence seems to say in black and white that harmless atheist folk like myself should be converted or killed.

regarding my questions, here was my first one which I was felt you ignored:
"I'm an atheist and there is no discrimination built into my lack of a belief. No holy book telling me how to treat certain classes of people based on their beliefs.However muslim people follow an ancient book to the letter which contains passages that more or less say that people like me should convert to Islam or be killed. In their eyes people like me are godless infidels. They have respect for other religious people but no respect for people like us who have no religion. How are people like me supposed to feel about that?."

To address a few of your statements T:
"Prejudice against Islam goes back to the middle ages ,or rather to the dark ages which the Islamic revolution did so much to dispel ,but that anti-Muslim prejudice has actually in certain respects changed form to its very opposite over recent years to suit the changes in the sordid agendas of those promoting it . I can remember a time for instance when Islam and sodomy were equated . Muslim men were up until very recently portrayed as more prone to the vice of homosexuality than white Christians were (as were soviet bloc women) . That was when homophobia was more prevalent of course. Oscar Wilde was frequently portrayed as a dusky , not quite white , Mohamedan . Lawrence of Arabia’s diaries perpetuated the prejudice/ fear . Nowadays Muslims are supposed to be more widely prejudiced towards gays than those of other religious are ."

I take it then that you yourself, if it was the case, would have absolutely no problems whatsoever being openly gay and walking around checking out the local talent in downtown teheran or saudi arabia?? If not, why not?

"The “wide public fear of literalist belief in the tenets of the koran.” Infidel refers to- which those not afflicted by it call Islamophobia - has been manufactured by cynical PR people for the dirty purposes I outlined in an earlier post ."

well though you say it is all just manufactured, to me some of those concerns about the tenets of the Islamic faith are very real and I share them and.I actually had them long before the term "islamophobia" came into such popular usage. I also understand how GWB et al tried to exploit those fears for their own ends. However putting all that cynical exploitation aside, the fact is, it remains in black and white that the koran thinks a lot of innocent folk like myself should convert or be put to the sword, and people choose to follow this book as the exact words of their prophet which must be scrupulously adhered to. This is still worrying to me. I don't support what has been done in the middle east at all and have resisted the PR I've been fed. But I still consider this one of a number of reasonable intellectual and practical concerns about the holy book of Islam which need to be properly addressed for "silly islamophobic" people like me.

(BTW logically, since you are continually indirectly alluding to the fact that you believe my views to be islamophobic, how could conversing with me ever be "off topic" on a thread about islamophobia? ;-)

by Robespierre - Peoople Before Prophet Sun Nov 08, 2009 15:45

Unfortunately this is the reality of Islam as imposed in Somalia by Islamists. It is not Islamophobic to report this truth. The man was stoned to death, the woman is still under sentence of death. The Islamists will stone her to death when her child is born. Last year they stoned to death a 13 year old girl who had been raped.

Islamists in southern Somalia have stoned a man to death for adultery but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth.

Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.

An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.

Islamist groups run much of southern Somalia, while the UN-backed government only control parts of the capital.

This is the third time Islamists have stoned a person to death for adultery in the past year.

Al-Shabab official Sheikh Suldan Aala Mohamed said Mr Abdirahman had confessed to adultery before an Islamic court.

"He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.