We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Islamophobia
| 429 | 37078 |
As you know things have been going for muslims for last decade.All the discrimination and hatred they have been facing.
Led to the rise of the term Islamophobia.
What r ur thoughts on it.
- 429 Replies
Good point but it is morally wrong to discriminate against one group and pay almost no attention to another.
welcome to reality, my friend. in here, the majority writes the rulebook, and decides the fate of many. she is a cruel mistress, and very hard to overcome.
-Blade
This is completely racist their are some Muslim terrorists but there are also Christian terrorists and Jewish terrorists we don't disriminate againgst Christians even though there are Christian terrorists as well.
How so?
If you actually bothered to read the thread rather than jumping in without researching, there has been discussions throughout this thread about terrorists other than Muslims. But when the discussion is about islamophobia, OP being a Muslim, did you expect terrorist activities committed by religious fanatics, who happen to be Muslim, to be ignored?
And who is discriminating? We're holding a discussion where we're all sharing our views, or is it now classed as racist to do that? Why not start a thread discussing ETA or the IRA? Or maybe a thread relating to religious intolerance from all sides?
Then someone can come along and cite you as racist for holding a discussion... good eh?
How so?
If you actually bothered to read the thread rather than jumping in without researching, there has been discussions throughout this thread about terrorists other than Muslims. But when the discussion is about islamophobia, OP being a Muslim, did you expect terrorist activities committed by religious fanatics, who happen to be Muslim, to be ignored?
And who is discriminating? We're holding a discussion where we're all sharing our views, or is it now classed as racist to do that? Why not start a thread discussing ETA or the IRA? Or maybe a thread relating to religious intolerance from all sides?
Then someone can come along and cite you as racist for holding a discussion... good eh?
Islamophobia of course raises the issues of having irrational fears of people of the Islamic faiths. What Exit has pointed out, perhaps without clarifying and unclearly, is that there are many Westerners who have a notion of the Muslim scourge especially after 9/11, yet are totally clueless about other terrorists from different faiths. I'm going to assume that Exit is not a Muslim, and he raises such the above point, which is valid.
Anti-Islamic opinion has risen consistently in the last ten years in the United States. Today, a majority of people think very negatively of Islam and Muslims; Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam, the lowest rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third think they should be barred from running for president.
As a result of the above stated policy, as well as for the sake of 9/11 investigations, by 2007, about 700,000 Muslims in America were interviewed by the FBI.
There have been many Christian influenced terrorists in America, such as the Hutaree, but none of them sparked such a massive backlash by the public and the government as compared to Muslims.
Since there is no similar backlash against Christians even though we have seen pretty gruesome acts of terror by them, then isn't it discriminatory?
Either way, I don't see why you always have to be so defensive and acidic when you post.
I think 'always' is a bit of an exaggeration but tell it how you see by all means.
I completely disagree that people in general are unware of other terrorist organisations. Perhaps Americans are unaware, but the world is a whole lot bigger than just America.
With reference to a backlash against non-Muslim terrorist organisations, again, perhaps if the good people in Irish bars throughout New York who openly collected funds for the IRA should have considered the sheer terror brought to towns throughout the UK by the IRA and maybe rather than being so closed minded as to think that anyone with an Irish accent at the time wasn't viewed with suspicion.
Whilst you may consider my post before as defensive and acidic, I was simply pointing out that Exit hadn't bothered to read the discussions earlier and had jumped to the conclusion that this part of the thread (and possibly others) had overstepped the mark and had become racist.
It may be true that in America there are pockets of people with little or no understanding of the Muslim faith, and could perhaps be branded as racist or islamophobic, but this thread has been quite moderate and discussed the issue sensibly. And as I stated before, the world is a whole lot bigger than just the population of America.
With regards to terrorists incidents influencing public opinion, could you point out any terrorist incident by any group that had the scale and effect that the twin towers being brought down had? What would we be discussing now if that incident had been caused by the IRA or ETA? Would America have looked again at Irish immigrants or in the case of ETA, would there have been a nervous reaction to the Hispanic community?
Whilst you may consider my post before as defensive and acidic, I was simply pointing out that Exit hadn't bothered to read the discussions earlier and had jumped to the conclusion that this part of the thread (and possibly others) had overstepped the mark and had become racist.
There are 37 pages, and we can't expect people to actually read all of them before posting in since half of it is mindless garbage or repeated stuff. Also, time.
As far as I can tell, Exit's post neither stated that this part of the thread was racist, or that the people posting was racist. It seems to me that it was a general comment on Islamophobia.
With regards to terrorists incidents influencing public opinion, could you point out any terrorist incident by any group that had the scale and effect that the twin towers being brought down had?What would we be discussing now if that incident had been caused by the IRA or ETA? Would America have looked again at Irish immigrants or in the case of ETA, would there have been a nervous reaction to the Hispanic community?
Are we set on playing hypothetical parlour games? Yes, the scale of the attacks has definitely caused it to stand out amongst other acts of terror, but by doing so, it has released a wholly exponential and irrational fear of Muslims, as though it instantly drove in a stereotype of Muslims being suicide bombers overnight.
Yes, I made a bad point with the Irish/Christian example, so take that out of the equation, sorry. But that doesn't mean current views of many on Muslims is stereotypical and discriminatory.
Even without the point of scale of attack and such, it has been blown way out of proportion, with fears of Muslims at decades high. Islamophobia is a social phenomenon that just reflects the stereotypical and hysterical nature of people, and it is discriminatory, and it has led to more Muslim hating/baiting and discrimination overall.
There are eight signs of Islamophobia that we are seeing increasingly:
-Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
-It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
-It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
-It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
-It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
-Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
-Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
-Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.
Tell me that you didn't hear any of those stereotypes in recent years. Tell me that those are in no way discriminatory?
The country?
Oh, so its the family who lives in the suburban neighbourhood. The fatehr who works at the local warehouse that distributes milk? The mother who works at the accountants office? The kids, one of whom delivers newspapers, another who dreams of being a vet or perhaps the child that sits building rocket ships out of Lego?
They are to blame because someone in government decides to launch a drone attack? Those busily getting on with paying taxes and bills, trying to give their children a good upbringing?
Taint all those with the same brush just because of an accident of birth. That same family could have been born in any country, any society. Do you really think they have a voice? Do they really have the say so to order a drone strike
Country in the sense its establishment, other wise killing civilians is a sin in Islam.
I mean I will retaliate by attacking on military sites simple as that.
If you talk about those who do sucide attacks, they are considered to be terrorists by everyone.(although a person enraged, will do what ever he can to hurt his enemies wether right or wrong)
Yes, I made a bad point with the Irish/Christian example, so take that out of the equation, sorry.
Okay, we'll ignore that as it doesn't now favour your adapted argument. Let's pretend that isn't part of the discussion and concentrate solely on what you'd like to focus on.
Very much like the way you've worded your stereotype examples. Firstly, in the manner which you have presented them, it would be difficult to argue that discrimination was on the cards, but then you've been a little over zealous with the wording so lets put them in a more rational phrase.
Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change
Certain countries which practise the Muslim faith are indeed unresponsive to change, but that would be by Western standards. I haven't heard anyone considered Islam as a monolithic bloc, but then I don't get out much.
It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them
As does virtually all religions. Are you seriously telling me that there are not people in the Muslim faith who view other religions as seperate and "other"?
It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist
The key word you inserted there is inferior, that would be subjective. As far as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist, that does seem a succient description of certain countries that practise Islam, but it would also count for many other non-Muslim countries as well when compared to Western ideology.
It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations
Certainly there is a clash in civilisations, but every culture has its violent, aggressive and threatening quarters. Many cultures also have groups who are supportive of terrorism, but I fail to see how this proves any point whatsoever unless it was a widely held view about Islam specifically. Something you've yet to prove.
It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage
What is? You'll have to be a little more clear as lots of things are used for political and military advantage.
Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand
And how would that be any different if "the West" made criticisms of countries with a Muslim faith? Would they reject 'the West's criticism out of hand in favour of their own opinions? This is not unique to the Muslim faith though is it?
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society
That is true of many races and cultures, both in Western and Eastern countries. I fail to see how this is unique simply towards Islam.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal
That isn't my experience, but I'd be happy to read of some examples where the majority see it as natural and normal.
I'll ask a simple question and I'd like a relatively simple answer if that is okay. What do you think the reaction would be if a Christian church was built in predominantly Muslim country? Would that church be accepted with open arms, and would the Christian faith be accepted as natural and normal?
I'll ask a simple question and I'd like a relatively simple answer if that is okay. What do you think the reaction would be if a Christian church was built in predominantly Muslim country? Would that church be accepted with open arms, and would the Christian faith be accepted as natural and normal?
Yes it will be welcomed, muslims have no problem with churches and forcing someone to convert to Islam or killing some one innoccent(no mater of which faith), destroying religiouse places of other religions is a sin and a crime in Islam, punishable according to severity.
I haven't heard anyone considered Islam as a monolithic bloc, but then I don't get out much.
Living in a region where the main terrorists group aims to unite most of the neighbouring nations into a single Caliphate, I do.
As does virtually all religions. Are you seriously telling me that there are not people in the Muslim faith who view other religions as seperate and "other"?
I am stating so because when they view it as ''the other'' they now take it to extremes. And yes, I have Muslim friends who view everyone as the same, different religions aside. Muslims are these days viewed as the other in the sense that as Bush mentioned, either you are with us or not. They are not accepted members of the community despite being citizens in a wide array of European nations for example, unable to assimilate into the society they migrate to.
The key word you inserted there is inferior, that would be subjective. As far as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist, that does seem a succient description of certain countries that practise Islam, but it would also count for many other non-Muslim countries as well when compared to Western ideology.
Indonesia and Malaysia, and Singapore with a significant Muslim minority aren't barbaric, or irrational or primitive. Sexist to a certain extent, but much better than what the West proclaims.
Certainly there is a clash in civilisations, but every culture has its violent, aggressive and threatening quarters. Many cultures also have groups who are supportive of terrorism, but I fail to see how this proves any point whatsoever unless it was a widely held view about Islam specifically. Something you've yet to prove.
Every civilisation has, BUT Islam is not portrayed by the media as nothing more than the faith of bloodthristy fanatics waving rifles and stoning women. I ahve already quoted survey results above to prove my point that it is a key area of Islamophobia.
What is? You'll have to be a little more clear as lots of things are used for political and military advantage.
Simple. Islam, which is after all what we are discussing right? Unless we live in separate dimensions and are somehow shifting the discussion from Islamophobia to something else.
And how would that be any different if "the West" made criticisms of countries with a Muslim faith? Would they reject 'the West's criticism out of hand in favour of their own opinions? This is not unique to the Muslim faith though is it?
Just because it isn't unique to them doesn't mean it isn't part of the set of characteristics that define Islamophobia. Or are you telling me apples aren't red because red is not a unique property of apples?
That is true of many races and cultures, both in Western and Eastern countries. I fail to see how this is unique simply towards Islam.
Read above post.
I'll ask a simple question and I'd like a relatively simple answer if that is okay. What do you think the reaction would be if a Christian church was built in predominantly Muslim country? Would that church be accepted with open arms, and would the Christian faith be accepted as natural and normal?
Jordanian Christians.
Syrian Christians.
Malaysian Christians.
Religious Freedom in Turkey.
Well treated in MANY Muslim majority nations.
Also, did I mention that all eight points I listed out were first summarised and pointed out by the Runnymede Trust, the leading pro-multiculturalism think-thank which in 1997 coined the term and concept of Islamophobia?
I'll qoute an incident here which took place before partition of India.
In lahore (a muslim majority city)
There was a masjid and a hindu temple side by side.
Now muslims wanted to expand masjid but hindus did not want to destroy temple.
few people took it to court, where judge said if the temple land is proven to be of hindus, temple stays(in those days property record was not in very good shape)
Now masjids IMam was a very old man who had seen building of temple and masjid and knew that temple land is of hindu's.
He was called for testimony.
Few extremists forced him to lie threatning him ti kill his family.
But he didnot lied.
and temple was saved.
Guess what happened next?
Whole hindu community in that area(around 1000 people)
Converted to Islam on tha Imam's hand.
Every civilisation has, BUT Islam is not portrayed by the media as nothing more than the faith of bloodthristy fanatics waving rifles and stoning women.
Wholeheartedly agree. Islam is not portrayed as nothing more than the faith of bloodthirsty fanatics waving rifles and stoning woman by the media. Although the media do tend to focus on the differences between East and West.
As you know, the churches you have quoted are established churches, some having been around for centuries. I'm asking about a new Christian-based church in any predominantly Muslim country, not just the ones you cherry-pick out that would be relatively tolerant.
Indonesia and Malaysia, and Singapore with a significant Muslim minority aren't barbaric, or irrational or primitive. Sexist to a certain extent, but much better than what the West proclaims.
I never stated all Muslim countries, nor did I insinuate it. Would you like to comment on other Muslim countries, Iran perhaps?
As I said earlier in this thread, the majority of people from any culture are no problem at all and want to live their lives in peace, it is only the extremists and the small minority who wish to make a huge issue out of the differences between East and West. Forgive me, but I don't care for polls. They are more often than not inaccurate and they don't give a true picture to general attitudes.
One thing I would like to pick up on if I may is your statement that:
They are not accepted members of the community despite being citizens in a wide array of European nations for example, unable to assimilate into the society they migrate to.
I don't think the local communities are entirely to blame for that lack of assimilation. Effort has to made on both sides for there to be acceptance of two cultures coming together, and in certain communities whilst I would accept that the indigenous population may not be perfect, the incoming migrants equally have a flawed attitude to integration.
I'm asking about a new Christian-based church in any predominantly Muslim country, not just the ones you cherry-pick out that would be relatively tolerant.
Example then. Almost all Muslim nations, if all already have had established churches. Just as there are Muslim nations that are intolerant, there are equally as many Muslim nations that are tolerant.
Islam is not portrayed as nothing more than the faith of bloodthirsty fanatics waving rifles and stoning woman by the media."
I typed it wrongly. Islam is often portrayed as nothing more than the faith of....by the media.
Forgive me, but I don't care for polls. They are more often than not inaccurate and they don't give a true picture to general attitudes.
So....do you have evidence on your end that the majority of people are tolerant? Or are you just assuming? On what basis are you asserting that polls are more often than not inaccurate? Or are you assuming again?
I don't think the local communities are entirely to blame for that lack of assimilation. Effort has to made on both sides for there to be acceptance of two cultures coming together, and in certain communities whilst I would accept that the indigenous population may not be perfect, the incoming migrants equally have a flawed attitude to integration.
I live in a society that is almost a quarter composed of immigrants, and yes both sides have to make concessions, but on one hand it is also ridiculous that the construction of minarets are banned in societies that call themselves religiously tolerant, and yet allow the construction of churches.
Ah, so I'm making assumptions now? Care to revisit earlier in the thread with the Irish/Christian discussion? Oh, sorry, that is off limits to discussion now because you don't want to include it, whether it is relevant or not.
Sorry, but this is like debating with a child. I'm sure someone else will come along who is willing to waste time with you, but it isn't going to be me.
Ah, so I'm making assumptions now? Care to revisit earlier in the thread with the Irish/Christian discussion? Oh, sorry, that is off limits to discussion now because you don't want to include it, whether it is relevant or not.
I took it out because I realise that it was not the argument I was pursuing, and that with or without the Irish example, Islamophobia is still a discriminatory phenomenon.
And yes, weren't you assuming about the IRA that they too would be discriminated if they committed a 9/11 scale attack? I wasn't actually making assumptions, since I gave an example of a Christian terrorist group that was not targeted as much as the Muslims. You were assuming.
Sorry, but this is like debating with a child. I'm sure someone else will come along who is willing to waste time with you, but it isn't going to be me.
I think anyone can actually see who isn't even responding to my posts but just debunks my argument based on ''My past argument being non valid'', and that person is you. Also, I have seen your other posts in other threads and the factual errors you make are hilarious.
And yes, you are making assumptions over polls, no one can deny that. You make a sweeping statement, yet have nothing to back it up. Assumption. Derp. Period.
You must be logged in to post a reply!