The inspiration for myself creating this thread was a post made by Zeno in the history forum detailing the topic of preventing Holocaust Denial. So I hope this thread can serve as a template on how we can take necessary steps to prevent discrimination against Muslims.

What is Islamophobia?

Islamophobia is "generally used to refer to prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of Muslims or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

How does Islamophobia occur?

Instances of Islamophoibia include the media consistently depicting Muslims in a negative light, Fox news is a prime example of this. This occurrence is not limited to national media but also makes its way to internet forum discussions. And in quote possibly the worst type of example, Islamophobia includes violence committed against innocent Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim. I.E the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting in 2012.

Wade Michael Page, the Perpetrator of the Sikh temple shooting had ties to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. I believe this to be key information as we can now prove Page was a massive racist, this is important because we can tie Islamophobia along with racism into the motive of the attack .


Examples of Muslim Hate groups located in the USA

"Stop Islamization of America is an American anti-Islam/anti-Muslim (Islamophobic) organization. Which stated goals are, SIOA describes its goals as focusing on human rights, religious liberty, and freedom of speech, and opposing Sharia law (Islamic religious law). One of its founders described it as "a human rights entity dedicated to the freedom of speech, which is under attack, as well as to the freedom of religion and to individual rights"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Is...ion_of_America

In the USA the SIOA was allowed to distribute its hate speech in the NYC subway. The organization itself continues to prosper and is well financed mostly by republican organizations. Financing also comes from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, another hate group operating in America.

"SIOA ran another series of ads in the New York City subway in September 2012, these ones reading "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad"

"In late December 2012 both Al-Jazeera and Salon mentioned the advertisements creating an anti-Muslim atmosphere that led to the December 27, 2012 murder of Sunando Sen, who was killed by a subway train after being pushed onto the racks by Erika Menendez, and similar acts of violence. Menendez told police: "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims"


The founders of SIOA Robert Spencer and Pam Geller are barred from entering the UK for 3-5 years for the reason of supporting anti-Muslim hate groups.


Ways to Prevent Islamophobia

Islamophobia is sparked by ignorance, so the best way to address it is simply to show how Muslims live regular everyday lives around the world. I would ask other posters to expand on this part.

Discrimination and hate speech against Muslims happens and is an increasing problem in many non-muslim and muslim countries (typically by denomination in the latter) alike. I doubt any of the posters you have tried to get banned would deny this, in fact I think most of them would protest it as much as you do.

However, this thread comes of as somewhat pathetic in light of the fact that you consistently categorize any criticism of Islam as Islamophobic in the threads you have partaken. This is worrying, because we know many people in the world suffer from brutalities commited by Islamic institutions. These institutions might not speak for the majority of Muslims in their respective regions, but their impact is huge. We can not and should not ever exempt them from criticism.

You are not openminded, you are blinding yourself with the ideal of openmindedness. And you seek to have those who disagree with you censored and banned.

While I applaud any effort to stop Islamophobia, the sad fact is that you are the last person who should be making this thread in RGT.

Firstly did you even read the opening sentence of my OP?

I'm not trying to get anyone banned, I outlined this and you must have missed it.


BTW Here is a case of myself criticizing a Muslim majority nation

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...56&postcount=4

From reading the ATF thread you equate criticism of religion with racism. You seem to have an issue with people criticising religion, this is a world away from racism or persecution based on beliefs etc. This is just lol bad.

Is your issue with criticism of islam specifically or all religion?

I literally never equated racism and criticism of religion nor was this my intention in the ATF thread. My belief is that extremist criticism of religion is equally as bad as what racism can lead too.

As for your second point, I made this thread to specifically see what we can do to combat Islamophobia, that's my intention itt.

You might notice that combating Islamophobia is offensive to some

Same with combating antisemitism.

Instead you might combat x-ism where x is caused by ignorance, or something along those lines.

Otherwise you aren't combating ignorance, instead you are solidifying divisions.

People need to realize some facts about Islam. Being opposed to the religion as a whole is to be expected if you know anything about it. It's a bad religion, that doesn't mean that all muslims are bad people, but a lot of them are ignorant about what their religion preaches.

Fact- There have been roughly 22,000 terrorist attacks carried out by muslim terrorists since 9/11

Fact- There were over 1400 killed in islamic terrorist attacks last month and about 3000 injured

Fact- Muhammad married and had sex with a 9 year old girl

Fact- Muhammad encouraged his men to rape enslaved women

From the Quran and Hadith

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).

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."

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Just to show a few, and there's a whole lot more. It's impossible to look at this objectively and not say that this religions holy book doesn't actively promote violence against "disbelievers". And even goes as far as saying that those who do commit acts of violence are viewed more favorably than those that don't. So this thread shouldn't be called how to prevent Islamophobia it should be how to educate people on what islam is.

I heavily disagree with this but when I created this thread I actually expected there to be criticism. That being said I still do hope folks can add on to the points of how we can prevent Islamophobia.

Your argument almost mimics what Ann Coulter feels about Islam



Your thoughts on the video?

This most likely falls under the catagory of Islamophobia, What website did you pull this off before I can prepare a response?

Folks this is what I am talking about, this post is 100% critical of Islam w/o mentioning one benefit, not one single benefit. Also your misconceptions would be debunked by many Islamic scholars.

Well, this can be said of all Abrahamic religion. All three major holy works (Quran, Bible, Torah) contains brutal practices and pretty much the same laws. Stone people for adultery etc.

So if that is your basis for criticism, you must apply it to all Abramahic believers.

Well, you have actually defended a monarch's right to impose brutal religious law that does not contain checks and balances on grounds of "cultural understanding" and you strongly implied that people who criticized this country were Islamophobes.

That very country you defended (Brunei) is also one of the countries that bans import of the bible (link here). When Dogg mentioned such practices you proceeded to report him in your ATF thread as someone who was engaging in such extremist criticism. He might have taken some sources as more credible than he should (I have not heard of a ban of bible-import in Turkey), but I don't really think you are coming of as someone with a healthy perspective on these matters either.

It would be natural to disagree, isn't it that you are suggesting conflict might lead to resolution?

Tough for Islamic scholars to disagree with the Quran as if they did they wouldn't really be Islamic scholars. I'm not super familiar with the Torah so I won't comment on it, but the big difference between the Quran and the Bible is that the Quran becomes progressively more violent and the bible has no suggestions of violence in the new testament. Also the Bible instructs people to "love their enemies" and "turn the other cheek" and the Quran instructs people to kill their enemies. The Bible also never encourages the beating and rape of women and even has several female leaders in the old and new testaments, Deborah, Miriam, Ruth, Esther, and Martha to name a few. I don't mention any benefits because the negatives FAR outweigh any benefits. It's not some amazing coincidence that many Muslims who read the Quran come to the conclusion that it's their duty to kill the "disbeleivers", they're not seeing something that's not there, it's all there. I won't give thoughts on the video because I'm not going to take the time to watch it. If she presents some of the facts that I've presented it would have no bearing on my opinion. I base my opinion on facts and not some misguided desperation to be politically correct.

Racism is bad because it involves false beliefs or stereotypes about groups of people that are generally used to dominate the members of that group. Criticism of religion is different in at least two ways: first, many of the criticisms are not based on false beliefs or stereotypes, and often the criticism is directed towards that religion as a cultural institution rather than the adherents of that religion. Thus, saying that "extremist" criticism of religion is bad because it is like racism and racism is bad is based on a false equivalence.

Until you resolve this problem, your argument - really your entire approach to this topic - will be unpersuasive. That is, you need to clearly lay out when and in what ways you think it is acceptable to criticize religions in order to show that the people here are doing it wrong. If you have just a blanket prohibition then everyone will think you are just a fanatic (like newguy1234) and so not worth paying attention to.

I'm not quite sure the context of this, if you mean they disagree with the whole quran and therefore are likely to be atheist or Christian etc.

Or if you are suggesting the Quran says something certain from your understanding if a scholar disagrees then they are unscholarly?

I don't think you can really not comment but then point out differences. And if you can't comment on the Torah are you suggesting that you do know the Quran?

This seems crazy too say.

This seems just as crazy that we might suggest criticism is not often directed towards the practicers and that we could/should successfully and rightfully seperate the peoples from the cultural institution they subscribe to.

Curious to what you would say I am fanatical about, or is it just fanatical in general?

The context of the first comment is me responding to when you said that what I had said in my first post would be debunked by Islamic scholars. I was pointing out that for it to be "debunked" they would have to disagree with the Quran. Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" If a "scholar" were to say that this verse didn't promote violence against non-muslims then yes they would be unscholarly.

Also I didn't point out differences between the Torah and Quran, I only mentioned the Torah to say that I don't know enough about it to make any intelligent statement. And lastly yes I have studied Islam and the Quran.

From your posts the only actual facts that you have stated is instances of violence against muslims. You listed the death of the muslim who was pushed in front of the train which resulted in one wrongful death and the shooting in Wisconsin which resulted in 6 deaths. What astounds me is that you think those are important and should be discussed (I agree that these killings are wrong and misguided and don't have any place in a free America), but when responding to my first post you completely dismiss the 1400 killed and 3000 injured last month in Islamic terror attacks, and you also ignore the more than 22,000 Islamic terror attacks carried out in the last 13 years.

You also dismiss the facts I stated about Muhammad and the verses in the Quran. It's very obvious that you are in no way interested in accepting any facts, and are only interested in pushing your agenda regardless of if it means ignoring reality.

Firstly I would like to wish all 2 +2ers the best of of times now and in the future. Muslim or Non Muslim.

Btw Doggg did not specify Brunei's Bible policy's, instead he stated Honestly it was Doggg's misconception of every single Muslim majority country , basically the grouping together of over a Billion people that I felt was both offensive and Islamophibic. Dogg has yet to provide evidence of his extraordinary claims.

Most important I would like to work with folks like Doggg and not against them.

am not the op.

I think instead this would be an example of a scholar explaining the true meaning of the quran unless of course they are uneducated and ignorant, but who is to point out such ignorance?

In order to point out the differences I would think you would need to know both.
clearly democracy is crushing in this contest

seems the point of the op is we would need a learned muslims to interpret such information

What do you think leads to this religious fanaticism you speak of? Which throughout history shows us any of the big 3 monolithic religions are prone to this issue.

IMO it is the bullying and misconceptions which leads a young man to join a terrorist group. So for instance yes there are Islamic extremist terrorists and I fully believe it is our duty to prevent this from happening. The ways we can prevent terrorism is by showing Muslims around the world we respect them and want to work with them.


Like I said I sort of expected criticism but my intentions in creating this thread were honest. I want to see what we can do to prevent the bullying of Muslims.

Treated from this view point, it further solidifies us vs them divisions. In other words it leads other groups to say "don't you respect us?"

I'll explain everything you addressed although I wish you had some ability to independently draw conclusions without the need to be spoon fed everything by scholars before you can form an opinion for yourself.

First, I mistook you for the OP, but I was referencing his mention of Islamic scholars from an earlier post.

Second, I would hope that some of these verses didn't look innocuous and harmless to you. Secondly the the majority of theological scholars will agree that the Quran promotes violence (I'm not going to take the time to find every scholar who ever said this for you, but if you research it you'll find it). Many Muslim scholars will say that it doesn't promote violence, but rather self defense. A couple things to consider about this, firstly Muslims are commanded to never speak ill of other Muslims so they wouldn't even be allowed to say that these verses are violent or wrong. I had a conversation with some Muslims in Tunisia (Tunisia is probably the least militant Muslim country in the middle east) who liked America and Americans, but when it was brought up wouldn't disagree with or criticize Osama Bin Laden. When it was brought up they just got silent and one of them said that they aren't supposed to say anything bad about other Muslims. Secondly Muslim scholars have a vested interest in presenting their religion as non-violent whereas general theological scholars don't have a vested interest in making Islam look bad. Third (I'm going to use historical facts that scholars don't need to interpret) saying that they promote self defense and not violence contradicts Muhammad's actions. In his last 10 years Muhammad ordered 65 military campaigns, the Quran also contains over 100 verses which instruct muslims to wage war against disbeleivers, the vast majority of the verses don't contain historical context and are left open ended and not restrained to the historical context of the time they were written (just read the verses there's not historical context talking about a specific time, I've read it and if you insist on being so outspoken on the matter you should read it too).

Third, I said it incredibly plainly in my last two posts. I'm not comparing the Quran and the Torah. I'm comparing the Quran and the Bible. The Torah was only mentioned to say that I won't be using it in my arguments or discussing it at all.

Fourth, I don't know what contest you're referring to, but I'm saying that I'm more concerned about what has led to a death toll in the hundreds of thousands more so than what has led to one that has a death toll of 7 in your examples (I'm sure it's somewhat more than 7, but I'm also sure it doesn't come close to approaching the death toll of Islamic terror attacks).

Fifth, I've already addressed this in my second point, but it's foolish to think that a book can only be analyzed by a certain group. It's just as foolish as saying you can't discuss the Bible with any intelligence unless you're a Christian.

Kenan Malik wrote this piece a few days ago. There really isn't a quotable line, the whole piece is good.

When Does Criticism of Islam become Islamophobia?

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013...-islamophobia/

maybe scholars doesn't refer to what i mean, but i am talking about learned priests....those that can legitly explain the meaning of such words.

The worry about teaching oneself and drawing and marking ones own conclusions, is we cannot be sure our own conditioning and biases haven't leaked into our results.
many things we don't understand look scary and evil at first
Why might there be so many devout yet peaceful Muslims? I suppose you might suggest they are bad muslims, yet i suspect they know what it means to be muslim more so than you would.
So then we cannot say this is not true. Instead we might realize its a matter of interpretation.
Again this is you telling me your interpretation, but nontheless I don't think it supports your points. It tries to suggest peaceful muslims are liars, but it doesn't show that.
Do you see how you are about to get bias and stereotypical?
This would be a human issue not quaran, like an American saying they don't support the war but they still support the troops. We might find an intelligent muslim that believes the quran says not to speak bad of anyone. keeping in mind the book is a teachign tool and was not written in english or of this time.
Again this doesn't show what you are suggesting it does.
A muslim scholars chosen duty is to present the quran in its correct form. You cannot then suggest they will lie about it otherwise you have simply chosen a bad scholar. You cannot ignore this lest you become victim or your own critque

Our history is very clouded by prejudice, we need to admit that as a caveat to remain impartial

This does not the quran is promoting violence to its followers.
It seems to me that you have decided their interpretations, and closed them.

I may be confused I am somewhat new to this, what is the relation of the torah to the bible?
Democracy seems responsible for much more. It seems likely to me much of your causalities of muslims were cia facilitated. If we look at things objectively we might find that everyone of these lies were lost through ignorance. To try to pin point it further towards muslims, its just continuing such ignorance.
It seems just as foolish to think you should argue with a Christian about their interpretation of the bilbe.

Ban them and dont allow criticism?