• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defining Islamophobia

That's a non-sequitur. Even if not one person in the world followed the Qur'an, it would not change the fact that it was created for the sole purpose of defining Islam. You simply can't deny that was the intention, yet you do.

The books were created for that purpose that i would not deny. But it is also true that every person chooses to interpret what they want out of it. It is not as if there is an actual god to make sure they all follow the book. It is nothing more than people using religion to justify their own beliefs.




There your fundamental error yet again. It's not THEY who dictate; it's "God".
What! You mean there is an actual god ?



Nothing "allows" me to hate Islam. Reading the Qur'an in it's entirety is what MAKES me hate Islam. Although I haven't done so, I imagine that reading Mein Kampf in it's entirety would make me hate Hitler (if I didn't already).
And what! the bible you are indifferent to? Neither book has any claim to a higher moral ground they are both full of crap. But that does not change the fact that youi still ned to first talk to the theist before judging whether theirs is religion of hate or love.



Yup, I've never denied that. Still doesn't change a word of what I'm saying about Islam.
I can understand not liking or accepting the religion of islam. I do not as well. But for me it is matter of courtesy to at least listen to the individual theist before judging them.



They must obey it if they want to avoid going to Hell (according to "God").
True that. Pity none of them can actually agree with each other on which book or what interpretation of the book to obey. Which is what makes religion such a laughable concept.


Yup. Never said otherwise. That's like saying speed limits don't exist because people drive at various speeds.

The rules exist. They're in the Qur'an. Some obey, some don't. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

That is quite a good analogy for me when you consider that speed limits are not a target they are a limit. One does not have to sit on the limit. Drivers can choose to vary according to conditions.

These books are written to be deliberately vague. One can use it to fly planes into buildings or help little old ladies across the street.
 
But in today's society, and especially in America, to have a fear of a people based on their religion is an irrational fear based on a generalization stemming from horror stories we hear about rather than personal experience. Neither Christians nor Muslims put people to death with any regularity at all. Some terrorists who identify as Muslims or Christians do, but they are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of those religions and in no way represent them.

99.999% of Muslims (and Christians) are no danger to anyone, therefore to fear them because of their religion is irrational.

Ask the native Americans of N, S, and Central American about your 99.999% of Christians not being any danger to them. That has to be the lie of the last 5 centuries.
 
With the word Islamophobia being thrown about like Frisbees in a dog park, isn't it time we actually defined it? Iqra Khalid's M-103 introduced and then condemned Islamophobia in Canada's House of Commons minus any explanation of what it is. Such vagueness leaves the door to abuse wide open. Canadians would be vulnerable to capricious and politically-motivated prosecution/persecution should parliament take M-103 to the next level and pass an imprecisely worded law criminalizing Islamophobia.

Our right to responsibly speak freely and debate uncomfortable subjects is at stake. In defining Islamophobia we have to recognize that legitimate criticism of some tenets of Islam, or any other religion, is neither hate speech, phobic, nor incitement to commit violence. This is Free Speech 101.

This is all very simple, Steve. If anyone here needs an example of what true Islamophobia is, they need only read your threads on Islam.

There...cleared that up. Next thread...
 
This is all very simple, Steve. If anyone here needs an example of what true Islamophobia is, they need only read your threads on Islam.

There...cleared that up. Next thread...

Ding ding ding ding
winner winner chicken dinner!

100% correct
 
Ask the native Americans of N, S, and Central American about your 99.999% of Christians not being any danger to them. That has to be the lie of the last 5 centuries.

Derp...why you talking about the last 5 centuries, quoting a post that talks about Christianity today?

Thought you guys were supposed to be the smart ones... ;) :lol:
 
Ask the native Americans of N, S, and Central American about your 99.999% of Christians not being any danger to them. That has to be the lie of the last 5 centuries.

I said "in today's society." I actually know quite a few Native Americans. None fear christians or christianity. Most are christians themselves.
 
I said "in today's society." I actually know quite a few Native Americans. None fear christians or christianity. Most are christians themselves.

You actually believe that the killing in the name of religion has stopped. Tell that to all the people fleeing their homes in the Middle East. Let them know they can back without fear. There are no religious nuts endangering their lives so no need for asylum. They can go back to raising unicorns.
 
Derp...why you talking about the last 5 centuries, quoting a post that talks about Christianity today?

Thought you guys were supposed to be the smart ones... ;) :lol:

You think the killing in the name of God has stopped all around the world. Dream on.
 
If you refuse to convert to Islam, refuse to pay the Jizya or in any way refuse to admit that Muslims are your masters, and you, as an infidel are their slave, you may be an Islamophobe.
 
You actually believe that the killing in the name of religion has stopped. Tell that to all the people fleeing their homes in the Middle East. Let them know they can back without fear. There are no religious nuts endangering their lives so no need for asylum. They can go back to raising unicorns.

I said, "especially in America." If you fear all Christians or Muslims in America, then you have an irrational fear. I suppose that's why they call it Islamophobia.
 
If you refuse to convert to Islam, refuse to pay the Jizya or in any way refuse to admit that Muslims are your masters, and you, as an infidel are their slave, you may be an Islamophobe.

How so?
 
The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender.

Let's try this again.

Please compare your claim above with historical fact. Mohamed committed genocide against the Jewish Banu Quraiza tribe of Yathrib AFTER they surrendered. He had all the men and youths beheaded, took the women and children as slaves, and distributed their wealth to his fighters. When Mohamed migrated to Yathrib, it was a mostly Jewish city with 3 major tribes. After about 5 years, he had turned it into a Muslim city named Medina with nary a Jew left.

So, how exactly does this "mercy" business work?
 
99.999% of Muslims... are no danger to anyone, therefore to fear them because of their religion is irrational.

Christians in Pakistan might beg to differ. The good Muslims of Pakistan, who have a democratically elected government, support blasphemy laws that call for death to anyone who insults Islam. Christians, and "wrong" Muslims such as Ismaelis and Ahmadiyas are particularly vulnerable.

Don't you think that if 99.999% of Muslims were "no danger to anyone", that there would be no such thing as blasphemy laws?
 
Christians in Pakistan might beg to differ. The good Muslims of Pakistan, who have a democratically elected government, support blasphemy laws that call for death to anyone who insults Islam. Christians, and "wrong" Muslims such as Ismaelis and Ahmadiyas are particularly vulnerable.

Don't you think that if 99.999% of Muslims were "no danger to anyone", that there would be no such thing as blasphemy laws?

Blasphemy laws in Pakistan apply almost entirely to Muslims and the vast majority of offenses result in fines.

But I agree that religiously conservative government is a bad thing. I do not support blasphemy laws any more than I support an irrational fear of an entire religion and therefore any who practice it.
 
Blasphemy laws in Pakistan apply almost entirely to Muslims and the vast majority of offenses result in fines.

That's because the vast majority of people in Pakistan are Muslims. There are Christians who have been sentenced to death, although that sentence has yet to be carried out. I'm sure the collective West would finally be forced to acknowledge the Islam-based hatred that is behind those laws.

But I agree that religiously conservative government is a bad thing. I do not support blasphemy laws any more than I support an irrational fear of an entire religion and therefore any who practice it.

All good.
 
This is all very simple, Steve. If anyone here needs an example of what true Islamophobia is, they need only read your threads on Islam.

There...cleared that up. Next thread...

Hey, time to take the old Trollodex out for a spin?

If you want to make me drop dead from surprise, you could try to actually rebut what I say. That would undoubtedly cause "the big one".
 
The books were created for that purpose that i would not deny. But it is also true that every person chooses to interpret what they want out of it.

Again, it's more a matter of choosing whether or not to obey more than it is a translation.

It is not as if there is an actual god to make sure they all follow the book.

It only matters that they believe they are being watched and that notes are being taken.

It is nothing more than people using religion to justify their own beliefs.

Could you be getting your cause and effect backwards? Doesn't the religion create beliefs rather than support existing ones?

What! You mean there is an actual god ?

If there is, I'm in BIG trouble.

And what! the bible you are indifferent to?

The NT contains stories about Jesus and his love for all mankind (I wish he really did exist). The Qur'an has literally hundreds of God-hates-infidels verses. Hundreds.

Neither book has any claim to a higher moral ground they are both full of crap.

Yes, but one of those books has worse crap than the other.

But that does not change the fact that you still need to first talk to the theist before judging whether theirs is religion of hate or love.

I already know Islam is a religion of hate. What I have to do is try not to judge individual Muslims until they show me the degree to which they have bought into it.

I can understand not liking or accepting the religion of islam. I do not as well. But for me it is matter of courtesy to at least listen to the individual theist before judging them.

Agreed.

True that. Pity none of them can actually agree with each other on which book or what interpretation of the book to obey. Which is what makes religion such a laughable concept.

Sometimes I look at the calendar just to reassure myself that we live in the 21st century.

That is quite a good analogy for me when you consider that speed limits are not a target they are a limit. One does not have to sit on the limit. Drivers can choose to vary according to conditions.

Not one of my best analogies.

These books are written to be deliberately vague. One can use it to fly planes into buildings or help little old ladies across the street.

Mohamed was not trying to be vague. He was trying to build an army. The least vague aspect of his 6,236 verse rant was in defining the bad guys. That would be us. After all, what's the good of building an army if you don't tell them who the enemy is (God is the enemy of infidels - 2:98).
 
Again, it's more a matter of choosing whether or not to obey more than it is a translation.



It only matters that they believe they are being watched and that notes are being taken.



Could you be getting your cause and effect backwards? Doesn't the religion create beliefs rather than support existing ones?



If there is, I'm in BIG trouble.



The NT contains stories about Jesus and his love for all mankind (I wish he really did exist). The Qur'an has literally hundreds of God-hates-infidels verses. Hundreds.



Yes, but one of those books has worse crap than the other.



I already know Islam is a religion of hate. What I have to do is try not to judge individual Muslims until they show me the degree to which they have bought into it.



Agreed.



Sometimes I look at the calendar just to reassure myself that we live in the 21st century.



Not one of my best analogies.



Mohamed was not trying to be vague. He was trying to build an army. The least vague aspect of his 6,236 verse rant was in defining the bad guys. That would be us. After all, what's the good of building an army if you don't tell them who the enemy is (God is the enemy of infidels - 2:98).

In your opinion, on a worldwide basis, what percentage of Muslims actually want to go to war with infadels/non-believers, and shed blood to install a world wide Islamic Caliphate in which Shariah Law is to be followed ?
 
In your opinion, on a worldwide basis, what percentage of Muslims actually want to go to war with infadels/non-believers, and shed blood to install a world wide Islamic Caliphate in which Shariah Law is to be followed ?

I happen to know the exact number: enough to be a problem. Enough to finance and man such organizations as AQ, ISIS, El shabaab, The Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, and many others. Enough to cause the rest of us to change our routines and to spend billions on security.

Pakistan voted in a president who supports the death penalty for those who insult Islam. In that case the number was around 17 million.
 
I happen to know the exact number: enough to be a problem. Enough to finance and man such organizations as AQ, ISIS, El shabaab, The Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, and many others. Enough to cause the rest of us to change our routines and to spend billions on security.

Pakistan voted in a president who supports the death penalty for those who insult Islam. In that case the number was around 17 million.

So the real truth is, you have no 'actual' number, nor any link that provides a credible, verifiable percentage. You do realize 17 million is a 'minute' percentage of the approximately 1.8 Muslims worldwide ? I'll let you do the math on that one.
 
Criticism of Islam = islamophobia and white supremacist/racist. Thanks liberalism.
 
Criticism of Islam = islamophobia and white supremacist/racist. Thanks liberalism.

^^^^ your words. Question now becomes 'Can you support them with verifiable, credible facts' ?
 
Back
Top Bottom