Defining Islamophobia

[btthegreat]

delete

 

[btthegreat]

Theoretically, yes, we have all the same protections. But, we've already taken the first step to criminalizing 'Islamophobia' when parliament ratified the non-binding motion to denounce it without saying exactly what 'it' is. If Trudeau thought he could get away with it, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He is 100% form, 0% substance.

Its a non binding resolution. We had one declaring National Arbor day, but it did not define a tree. Another commemorated the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz but it failed to define genocide. How much committee time do you want to go into these non-binding resolutions?

 

[stevecanuck]

Its a non binding resolution. We had one declaring National Arbor day, but it did not define a tree. Another commemorated the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz but it failed to define genocide. How much committee time do you want to go into these non-binding resolutions?

The difference is that trees and genocide were already well established entities. "Islamophobia" is a relatively new agenda-driven make-believe word that can mean anything the social engineers want it to mean.

 

[PersianCavalry]

My experience is that not knowing the context in which the Qur'an was written would not cause misinterpretation, but simply ignorance as to why a given verse was written. There is no way that, "God is the enemy of unbelievers (2:98)" could be misunderstood. It means what it says. Historical context would help you understand why it was said, but does not stop you from knowing that it was said. We have to know that such verses exist (even if we don't know the context), and we also have to realize that every devout Muslim in the world is very well aware of them.

The reason 'God' decided to reveal the Qur'an to Mohamed was to communicate in no uncertain terms his demands and desires. It makes no sense that such a communication be difficult to understand. How would people be expected to obey if they had no idea what was being asked of them? Apparently, 'God' agrees with me as shown in these verse: "We have made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember (54:17)", "We have made the Qur'an easy in you own tongue(19:97)", and "We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an in order that you may learn wisdom (12:2)". Those who want to set themselves up as scholars who are the only ones capable of 'interpreting' the Qur'an are actually contradicting their own god.

That would make sense if this was 7th century Arabia. But neither of us is a 7th century Arabian, and the world and culture in which we live is so vastly different to the one in which the Quran appeared. The text is full of assumptions and references that would be self-evident to a reader in that specific time and place, but which don't work when a person from a modern secular western society (for instance) reads the text.

 

[PersianCavalry]

I think the question we're discussing is whether the conditions Muslims live in lead them to increase their devotion to Islam, or if Islam is a least partly responsible for said conditions.

Either way, I don't think it can be denied that Islamism has greatly increased in the last half century, and is sill on the rise. I don't think it's any coincidence that the creation of Israel happened at the same time.

For the first part - I do believe the increasing ossification of the Islamic law schools after the medieval period may have been unhelpful, as well as the longer-term backlash against the Mutazila philosophers, and the triumph of the Asharite theology. But I think all of that is secondary really to the Great Divergence, beginning circa 1750. Simply put, the rise and industrialisation of the West left the rest of the world unable to compete, and the result was colonialism and the decline and fall of the Islamic world and its current sorry condition. If today the Islamic countries were at an equal level of economic, military, scientific, technological and cultural output as the west, things would be drastically different in the Middle East and the global balance of power would be vastly different. That would have enormous effect on the Islamic world; in general, confident, successful societies are much less prone to extremism and are much more likely to be tolerant and open; the converse also applies.

The Byzantine/Persian wars were simply not an issue

I don't agree. They were the two dominant powers of the Near East at the time. There are also Quran references to the war between the Romans and the Persians, including a prediction of the eventual Roman victory (despite the fact that they were losing badly at the time).

The link you gave tells a bare-faced lie. Darab (the root of iDrubu) means hit or strike. Here are the seven most used and trusted translations: The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Sahih International: Strike them.
Pickthall: Scourge them.
Yusuf Ali: Beat them.
Shakir: Beat them.
Muhammad Sarwar: Beat them.
Mohsin Khan: Beat them.
Arberry: Beat them.

Here is Darab written in Arabic: ضرب If you paste that into any number online translators, you will see it means 'strike/hit/beat' (as well as multiply, which surprised me). Now put that in context with the verse, and there is simply no doubt what it means.

I reject that interpretation. Hitting wives is inconsistent with everything else we know about Muhammad (including his own quote, that the best of you is the one who treats his wife best - hadith via Abu Hurairah, at Tabarani al Awsat and many other sources), not to mention the well-known story of Muezza (in which he cut off the sleeve of his own garment rather than wake a sleeping cat and thereby inconvenience it) and countless similar examples, and what Islam teaches more generally about treating others with respect, which has filled entire hadith collections. The argument you are trying to make does not fit with all else we know. One might as well attempt to argue that snow is black, or that the sky is green.

That article should be used to show what Islamopropaganda looks like. It wins the buzzword bingo contest - 'Islamophobe', 'out of context', 'Trump', 'far right extremists'. Next were a series of gratuitous assertions, "intercourse has to be consensual", "Even consensual sexual relations with a slave were not permissible if it caused harm and abuse elsewhere (e.g. to a wife)", "it is not an entitlement". I'm going to stop there because the article is just too long to finish right now. None of those excuse were accompanied by a verse for proof. There's a reason for that.

Then there's this:

Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

I don't see anything even remotely approaching 'consent' in any of this.

See, this is why discussions like this are pointless. Person A gives resource that supports A point of view. B then attacks the source and continues believing what he thought anyway. It's pointless. Can you see a point? I can't. I see little point in going away again to gather more sources that support my point of view; why bother when I've already done that. I can't see enough reward in it to be worth the trouble. Sorry if this sounds a little flippant but I am incredibly jaded about the value of these kind of discussions; I just don't see the point.

 

[PersianCavalry]

No, it's extremely clear. If there were only a few verses that you might take that way, then it could be argued that they are being misunderstood. However, after you've waded through several hundred, it's pretty obvious.

It would only be possible to have written the above, if you did not take in what I wrote earlier. I see little point in repeating myself.

 

[PersianCavalry]

Islamaphobia is the natural and correct feeling regarding Islam's objective to turn the world into an Islamic Caliphate.

I find it ironic that your username, Bodhisattva, means:

"(in Mahayana Buddhism) a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so through compassion for suffering beings."

Your post is incompatible with what you propose to believe in. Making such a comment, which is both trite and petty, as well as somewhat offensive and insulting, I see little evidence of empathy or compassion, only a desire to take a swipe at others. Is that what Buddhism is supposed to be about? Mocking other people, or making trite pronouncements to justify bigotry? Maybe you should take a look at your own actions before insulting others?

 

[PersianCavalry]

The difference is that trees and genocide were already well established entities. "Islamophobia" is a relatively new agenda-driven make-believe word that can mean anything the social engineers want it to mean.

Right, okay... "agenda-driven make-believe word"...? Yeah, just like the Holocaust is an "agenda-driven make-believe word" too. Piss off, stevecanuck. I will not participate where such offensive, vile, obnoxious and insulting rubbish is being openly posted. I find it ironic that you talked about civility earlier, and yet it is you who broke the bounds of civility by insulting the victims of hate crime (Islamophobia is NOT a made up word, try telling that to the families of people that died in the New Zealand mosque shooting). Congratulations, you are a hypocrite as well as an ignorant Islamophobic bigot. My only regret is that I wasted my time talking to you. Good bye.

In case I didn't make it clear enough, my contribution here ends now. Do not bother quoting or messaging me, I will not respond to further posts, messages or comments. Thanks.

 

[stevecanuck]

That would make sense if this was 7th century Arabia. But neither of us is a 7th century Arabian, and the world and culture in which we live is so vastly different to the one in which the Quran appeared. The text is full of assumptions and references that would be self-evident to a reader in that specific time and place, but which don't work when a person from a modern secular western society (for instance) reads the text.

It doesn't matter what century it is. Words are words. They mean what they mean. And those words are the reason we have jihad in the 21st century.

 

[stevecanuck]

For the first part - I do believe the increasing ossification of the Islamic law schools after the medieval period may have been unhelpful, as well as the longer-term backlash against the Mutazila philosophers, and the triumph of the Asharite theology. But I think all of that is secondary really to the Great Divergence, beginning circa 1750. Simply put, the rise and industrialisation of the West left the rest of the world unable to compete, and the result was colonialism and the decline and fall of the Islamic world and its current sorry condition. If today the Islamic countries were at an equal level of economic, military, scientific, technological and cultural output as the west, things would be drastically different in the Middle East and the global balance of power would be vastly different. That would have enormous effect on the Islamic world; in general, confident, successful societies are much less prone to extremism and are much more likely to be tolerant and open; the converse also applies.

Saudi Arabia is confident and successful. Their main exports are oil and extremism.

I don't agree. They were the two dominant powers of the Near East at the time. There are also Quran references to the war between the Romans and the Persians, including a prediction of the eventual Roman victory (despite the fact that they were losing badly at the time).

I don't recall any mention of the war between the two. Do you have a verse number?

I reject that interpretation. Hitting wives is inconsistent with everything else we know about Muhammad (including his own quote, that the best of you is the one who treats his wife best - hadith via Abu Hurairah, at Tabarani al Awsat and many other sources), not to mention the well-known story of Muezza (in which he cut off the sleeve of his own garment rather than wake a sleeping cat and thereby inconvenience it) and countless similar examples, and what Islam teaches more generally about treating others with respect, which has filled entire hadith collections. The argument you are trying to make does not fit with all else we know. One might as well attempt to argue that snow is black, or that the sky is green.

You reject that the Arabic word for 'beat' means 'beat'? I think your golly-gee mask is starting to slip.

See, this is why discussions like this are pointless. Person A gives resource that supports A point of view. B then attacks the source and continues believing what he thought anyway. It's pointless. Can you see a point? I can't. I see little point in going away again to gather more sources that support my point of view; why bother when I've already done that. I can't see enough reward in it to be worth the trouble. Sorry if this sounds a little flippant but I am incredibly jaded about the value of these kind of discussions; I just don't see the point.

There's no attack. I'm just showing that your arguments come from sites that are clearly propaganda site that spew outright lies. That's how this works.

 

[stevecanuck]

It would only be possible to have written the above, if you did not take in what I wrote earlier. I see little point in repeating myself.

What you wrote earlier was a gratuitous assertion that clear words are somehow being misunderstood.

 

[stevecanuck]

Right, okay... "agenda-driven make-believe word"...? Yeah, just like the Holocaust is an "agenda-driven make-believe word" too. Piss off, stevecanuck. I will not participate where such offensive, vile, obnoxious and insulting rubbish is being openly posted. I find it ironic that you talked about civility earlier, and yet it is you who broke the bounds of civility by insulting the victims of hate crime (Islamophobia is NOT a made up word, try telling that to the families of people that died in the New Zealand mosque shooting). Congratulations, you are a hypocrite as well as an ignorant Islamophobic bigot. My only regret is that I wasted my time talking to you. Good bye.

In case I didn't make it clear enough, my contribution here ends now. Do not bother quoting or messaging me, I will not respond to further posts, messages or comments. Thanks.

Aaannnnddd there we have it.

I suspected all along that you were a phony Islamoapologist wearing a 'golly-let's-have-a-neato-discussion' mask. But, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and treated you with respect and courtesy. Consider yourself busted. Buh-bye.

 

[Bodi]

I find it ironic that your username, Bodhisattva, means:

"(in Mahayana Buddhism) a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so through compassion for suffering beings."

Your post is incompatible with what you propose to believe in. Making such a comment, which is both trite and petty, as well as somewhat offensive and insulting, I see little evidence of empathy or compassion, only a desire to take a swipe at others. Is that what Buddhism is supposed to be about? Mocking other people, or making trite pronouncements to justify bigotry? Maybe you should take a look at your own actions before insulting others?

Your response is known as a Red Herring... that is a logical fail. Can you construct a proper counter argument this time?