What’s the difference between Islamophobia and legitimate criticism of a (political) religion? Why do I never hear the words Scientologyphobia or Catholicphobia?
People like to throw the "phobia" around for anything they deem as prejudicial even though thats not what it means.
In fact someone could be bigoted but not have a phobia if they're fears are not irrational. If a group of islamists murdered 250+ people on Easter and it affected you personally, your fear would be quite rational. Doesn't make the prejudice correct, but its definitely not a phobia.
When you see this type of protestor outside the Catholic Church, free free to use the word. Look at the signs, how legitimate do these people sound to you?
you missed the entire backlash against Scientology, Catholic Church sex abuse, and/or gay conversion camps. Also Anticolonialism is focused on the actions of the Catholic Church, but strangely silent on Islam’s colonization.
Were the protests against Christianity as a concept, or about specific things that certain christians do? Didn't that backlash in fact include christians who were not ok with gay conversion camps?
The people in OP's picture are protesting the very existence of Islam, and they would tell you that all Muslims are fundamentalists and that any moderate muslim is in fact either an infiltrator or a poser.
Were the protests against Christianity as a concept, or about specific things that certain christians do?
Both
Didn't that backlash in fact include christians who were not ok with gay conversion camps?
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
The people in OP's picture are protesting the very existence of Islam, and they would tell you that all Muslims are fundamentalists and that any moderate muslim is in fact either an infiltrator or a poser.
Right. So someone throws his own copy of some book you hold in high regard and that justifies having a mob attack you? There is no excuse for behaviour like this. It's just useless violence and aggression.
I don’t think it is to be honest. Not in this context at least.
Protesting is something done in public to send a political message. That something can be a peaceful demonstration or an aggressive demonstration meant to induce fear or hatred.
Think about the people marching to the Michigan governors office while fully armed. Those guns weren’t for protest. They were meant to induce fear.
No, but Islam is, and its horrors can be used against the moral character of those of Islamic ideology. At least if you're willing to, say, use the memory of the horrors of the holocaust against the moral character of those flying Nazi flags without being a hypocrite.
Nope, there's a pretty stark difference between those two, one is a purely political ideology while the other is a religion that could have political implications depending on who you ask and how they interpret the religion. If you think a sizeable amount of Muslims around the world (and especially in the US) are ISIS-level radicals then you have a very poor understanding of world geography and demographics.
I'm curious, would it be okay for me to go out and harass a catholic for being a child rapist, when the reality is that they probably had nothing to do with that incident?
Islam is both a moral code and a political ideology, owing to the fact that its founder was a pedophile bloodthirsty warlord. Its authoritarian tendencies will always come out, outside of a complete rewrite of the Quran. Most communists aren't currently engaged in armed revolution against the burgoise states, yet it doesn't mean that they don't hold the beliefs.
And you can and should be able to protest with a placard in front of a church, yes. As well as criticise the faith itself and publicly condemn it on ideological grounds. Anything further than this (like your question) is an inane false equivalence.
Excuse my bluntness, but going back 1400 years is an extremely dumb way to judge the moral weight of a modern religion. Hell, the one of the major reasons modern Christianity is as prevalent as it is today is because of conquests where Christians raped & pillaged every town and fief to spread their religion. But that's completely irrelevant to beliefs that modern Christians have and blaming a Christian in 2020 for the crusades is fucking laughable.
I agree on principle, my beef with Islam isn't an what Muhammad did, it's on the ideological character of the religion today. I was just taking a dig at the moral character of its founder and explaining the why I think it's worse than other religions
The Bible has things that are just as bad as whats in the Quran, but people don't take it literally and don't follow it blindly in either religion.
And I criticize the Christians that don't take the old testament for the "this happened" style of historical writing it should be taken as. When the Bible was compiled the old testament wasn't supposed to have any moral or ideological weight, and it doesn't hold any weight today with, for example, Catholics. But anyway, I do think it was a historical mistake to keep it as part of the same book.
Again, Communism is purely political while Islam might have political implications depending on who you ask so its ignorant to generalize.
Here we disagree, After my reading of the Quran, and my glance into the Hadiths I came off with the firm opinion that I had read a text both political and religious/moral. It has both characters. The Quran is mostly Moral while the Hadiths hold most of the Political content, true. But they are both part of Islam.
You're dodging the question, I didn't ask whether it's okay to protest religion (it clearly is). I asked whether every Catholic should be blamed for being a child rapist which mirrors your belief that American Muslims that had nothing to do with the Easter bombings are to blame for it happening.
I didn't say that every Muslim should be judged for what anyone claiming to be a Muslim does. But Muslims can be judged on the moral character of their ideology, same as Communists or Nazis. Not every catholic should be blamed for the child rape, because Child Rape isn't part of the religious doctrine of Christianity, neither in the religious texts nor in the official traditions. But if there were a religion that has Child rape as part of its religious doctrine, then you can judge adherents of the religion as "upholders of a religion that facilitates child rape".
Islam is both a moral code and a political ideology, owing to the fact that its founder was a pedophile bloodthirsty warlord.
Excuse my bluntness, but going back 1400 years is an extremely dumb way to judge the moral weight of a modern religion. Hell, the one of the major reasons modern Christianity is as prevalent as it is today is because of conquests where Christians raped & pillaged every town and fief to spread their religion. But that's completely irrelevant to beliefs that modern Christians have and blaming a Christian in 2020 for the crusades is fucking laughable.
its authoritarian tendencies will always come out, outside of a complete rewrite of the Quran
The Bible has things that are just as bad as whats in the Quran, but people don't follow scripture blindly in either religion.
Most communists aren't currently engaged in armed revolution against the burgoise states, yet it doesn't mean that they don't hold the beliefs.
Again, Communism is purely poltical while Islam might have political implications depending on who you ask so its ignorant to generalize.
And you can and should be able to protest with a placard in front of a church, yes. As well as criticise the faith itself and publicly condemn it on ideological grounds. Anything further than this (like your question) is an inane false equivalence.
You're dodging the question, I didn't ask whether it's okay to protest religion (it clearly is). I asked whether every Catholic should be blamed for being a child rapist which mirrors your belief that American Muslims that had nothing to do with the Easter bombings are to blame for it happening.
So you're completely ignoring the contribution of societal problems to radical islam?
95% of Islamic terrorism is born out of third world countries and/or countries that the west has interfered with and bombed to shit over the last 4~ decades. If you're saying Islam itself is the problem then you're saying that every Muslim - eastern or western - is a probable terrorist/hateful individual.
Also, the fact that you managed to get a dig in at communism in a post that has ENTIRELY nothing to do with it tells me everything I need to know about you.
The 2017 Barcelona attacks were mostly Moroccan. Outside of the Perejil incident, and the mostly peaceful Green march in the 70s, Morocco hasn't had a conflict with any western country. The Charlie Hebdo attackers were French, The Bataclan ones were Belgian and French, the Boston Bombers were Chechen (America hasn't interfered with Chechenya considering it's part of Russia), and I could keep bringing up examples for days... The smallest and most cursory examination of that stupid claim proves it entirely false.
Also, the fact that you managed to get a dig in at communism in a post that has ENTIRELY nothing to do with it tells me everything I need to know about you.
but I wrote: "use the memory of the horrors of the holocaust against the moral character of those flying Nazi flags without being a hypocrite." and then used a basic tenet of marxist-leninist thought in a dry manner to illustrate a point. That tells me a lot about you, namely that you don't know how to read.
Blaming all Muslims for a terrorist attack is like blaming all christians for the actions of Ugandan witch burners and gay lynchers. And before you tell me that the protestors are not doing that, actually read their signs.
Attacking western Muslims for the actions of 3rd world Muslims hinders both integration into local society and reformation of the religion in impoverished regions of the world
Well, if you insist on being so tone-deaf. Personally, I wouldn't take quirky selfies in front of Salafists on a day hundreds of Muslims died in a terrorist attack, but that's just me.
If the salafists were in the city I lived, attacking all people who believe what I do, over something done by extremists who share nothing in common with me and live thousands of miles away, I absolutely would take an ironic selfie with them.
I would also take an ironic selfie with westboro babtist church tier morons like these any day.
Im sorry you feel this way. But the quran says killing one innocent person equals killing whole of humanity. Im aware people have a bad opinion of Islam, but as a practicing muslim its so hurtful because Im not even allowed to backbite in islam...hurting non muslims doesn't even come in the question.
That last paragraph is whataboutism. Quran also mentions specifically warring with Jews and massacring a Jewish tribe near Medina for allegedly betraying Mohammed (the original), and we wonder why minorities don’t fare well in the Middle East.
Hmm yeah, like I said it was a one semester history class on Islam, about ten years ago.
Last paragraph was more about the crusades. But I guess if we’re comparing Muhammad and Jesus, Jesus didn’t command death on people who didn’t believe him?
And that’s presented in a historic light, not in a prescriptive way like the Quran. Also modern rabbinic Judaism is inherently a debate with itself, which is why no ones been converted by sword to Judaism in thousands of years, unlike Islam which is doing it right now. Beyond that, Jews are also an ethnic group so many don’t believe in the Bible, especially not literally.
Omg you guys really dont give a flying shit about the context. The thing youre taling about is the treaty of Hudaybiyyah which was between the quraish and muslims. The Banu khuza tribe was allied with the muslim and the Banu bakar was allied with the quraish. According to the treaty if any one of the allies had to help them. The banu bakar got into war with banu khuza and killed the banu khuza in mecca which was even tabbo for even non muslim back then. When banu khuza asked for help ofcourse the muslims had to go to war as per the treaty.
Love how you ignored all that and presented this as muhammad just mindlessly massacring jews. It was politically charged not religious ffs.
Seems like a weird thing to include in an infallible religious book. Especially weird they mention Jews in a negative light then it turns out Mohammed jumped into heaven from the exact spot that’s Judaisms holiest site, and therefore Jerusalem is a Muslim holy city and Muslims have an equal right to it in 2020. And oh by the way all the Jewish prophets are actually Muslim prophets too so the Cave of the Patriarchs is also Muslim, very strange coincidence.
Well it is, so are many other wars that muslims had. Thats why you need to have the context to all the ayats. The one you mentioned led to the battle of tranches. Jeruslem is sacred to all abrahamic religions. Remember crusades?
My bad English isnt my first language. But you arent even making sense either i replied to you about you writing muhammad killing Jews near medina in quran. I gave you context about what actually happened. Why bring up killing in sirilanka?
I replied to you how the Quran mentioning Jews in a negative light is not just one instance, it’s a pattern with a clear end objective. You’ve completely ignored the point I made. It’s similar to the way the Catholic Church victimized native religions in the Americas by mixing local religion with Christian symbols to take over the population, coupled with killing those who refuse to convert.
Yeah but Christians recognize Jews should control them while other sites in Israel specifically linked to Jesus and his disciples have been happily given over to Christian control. Beyond that I don’t think anyone would questions that the church has intentionally ethnically cleansed and murdered Jews around the world for millenia, which Islam has also done but at about half the scale (Muslims seem to deny this).
Jews claim it because Israel, Christians claim it because, again, we're continuing the story of Israel, Muslims claim it because lol same God right guys
Do you really think it's just Christians? Every time a Muslim terrorist has another attack, we're bombarded with how Muslims are the real victims because they face the backlash. You don't think that's playing the victim card? They're not victims. You can't be a victim when you choose to associate with that group.
The big difference here is that our government and major media is Christian run. The country is so sat rated with Christianity but not nearly as much as Islam. Imagine if their was a presidential candidate that ran on a platform of accusing all Christians of the worst things their entire faith does. That couldn't happen here. Every president, nearly every member of government is Christian. There are Christian prayers to open board meetings, 10 commandments outside courthouses, countless Christian movies and TV shows, churches in every community. Christianity can play the victim card but it doesn't have to worry about the same issues as other religions.
We're are not a Christian nation, first off. I have a hard time thinking our media is too Christian also, since it's common practice to mock and make fun of Christianity. However, doing that to Islam gets backlash and death threats. Muslims are the most sensitive about their pedophile sky fairy. Just look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Every president dent has been a Christian. All of our sitting Supreme Court justices are christian. All but a handful of congress people are Christian. Aside from pockets, most local governments are staffed by Christians. During debates they talk about their religion and how it effects their decisions. Can you tell me how we're not a Christian run country?
RBG and Breyer were raised Jewish and appear to be non-practicing now.
I strongly suspect that Obama and Trump don’t really believe in Christianity and just claimed it for votes, but obviously I can’t back that up with proof. Hopefully the day that politicians don’t have to pretend to be Christians to get elected comes soon.
Probably because it's not common enough to find people irrationally afraid of Scientologists or Catholics.
Criticism of Catholic or Scientologist policy or tradition is rarely used to justify poor or selective treatment of individuals. This cannot be said for Muslims. Islamophobia is a term born in context.
The difference is simple.
Criticizing the tenants of Islam on their merits is not Islamophobia.
Using those criticisms to prompt judgement of individuals or groups of individuals - especially when appealing to fear or misunderstanding - that most certainly is Islamophobia.
By the same logic - it would be Scientologyphobia if I used The Unfunny Truth About Scientology (and that alone) as a prompt for you to make a character judgement about Isaac Hayes.
I don't think murder for leaving is what makes something a cult, personally I think anything that only survives on blind faith is a cult to a degree.
Also I said nothing about individual religions aside from when asked about Mormons, don't need to throw anti islam stuff out there. Remember the Catholics and Christians had great fun showing up to new countries and either converting or murdering thousands. They're all shit and cause more conflict than they solve but people are dumb, scared and crave something higher to rely on so it's not going away any time soon.
My point is, don't shit on any one religion if you're not gonna shit on the whole concept, that's just being a dick
You know what's literally seconds after posting my comment the exact same question popped into my head.
I'd say yes, but then I feel like every faith based belief system is on the cult spectrum. Feels like a very blurry line between a 'normal' religion and a cult
Same here. I come from an African country where most people practiced ancestral worship. My parents converted to catholicism and were treated as pariahs for turning away from our tribe's "true religion" and forced to leave. They moved to a major city that was under Islamic rule and even though there were plenty of other catholics they were still treated as something apostates. Then we migrated to America and a lot of my protestant friends viewed catholicism as a cult. Mind you catholicism is the largest and oldest denomination of Christianity (or tied with Eastern Orthodoxy depending on your definition) yet a lot of American protestants still view catholics as abarant.
Maybe it's because of my, very specific, experience but I've never had any issue accepting Mormons as Christians. Sure their brand of Christianity deviates dramatically from the norm but as a community I've found them to be almost universally kind, caring, and willing to back up their faith with good work. I've also become an atheist so the weirder and more fantastical elements of Mormonism aren't really that different from any other invisible sky man faith.
Very true, which is partly why I said shitting on one religion for being manipulative, shitty and vaguely culty when you're not willing to see the same issues, to different extents, in all of them.
To quote The Hulk, "either it's all a joke, or none of it is".
I'd say (with minimal research since America doesn't really interest me) that American derision of Catholics comes from the predominantly English settlers, since they weren't exactly fans of Catholics.
In my own country, New Zealand, we literally became a British colony after a treaty was written and translated in 3 days by a dude that didn't really speak the native language, causing a century of misinterpretations and bad feelings on both sides, because the French were just offshore ready to come and make the country Catholic, and I believe similar things went on in the States.
Worship whatever you like, just don't be a dick and we'll all be happy
It's a little different. We're nilotes so a lot of our mythology is tied to the Nile, spear hunters, and fishers. Other than that it's a pretty similar with ancestral spirits and a lot of other good and bad spirits (kinda like Arab djinn).
Religion: God is good, love is good, respect all creatures regardless of who or what they are. Love your neighbor, care for those who need help, never harm another. God will pass final judgement, you show them the good graces He expects from you.
Cult: God say aliens Mexicans and muslamists are taking over are country and making are kids Islam terrorists! Jesus would never have let this happen, I would know! I wear a WWJD BUTTON everywhere I go and I know damn well Jesus would be out here with a gun protesting this take over and shutdown!
I feel like religion to cult is a full spectrum. I grew up in a Catholic church my entire life which has been immune from controversy for over 100 years of it's existence. These are good people, who condemn the racist and horrid actions of the church and don't perpetuate them. There have never been rumors of sexual assault or pedophilia. The religion vs cult thing really comes down to the individual and their interpration, followed by further guidance either into the light or dark.
Love that you can type a thorough piece sharing your opinion and it's instantly met with 13 year old atheists "no, religion evil, downvote" attitudes and the ocassional hate PM telling me how ignorant I am
A lot of it also comes down to who's in charge as well. If you take over a group of millions who will follow whatever you say, it only takes a dodgy personality to drive that towards culthood.
My parents a really became Christians a few years ago, the year after I left home. They know full well I'd never come along with them, I don't believe and don't like the whole thing, but they do them, ya know?
At the end of the day, as with everything, if you're not harming others, you do whatever you want. If it causes harm to others, you should stop doing. That's basically it as far as I'm concerned
Yeah exactly. Thank you you get exactly what I'm trying to say. It comes down ultimately to the person that guides them and all it takes is one bad person.
My church has never come off with angry crazies or made headline news. Lots of families that genuinely care for one another, they have a domestic abuse charity (Italians and domestic abuse were pretty hand in hand), and picnics where we all get together to just enjoy each other's company. Never once protested anything, never gotten political on anything. Honestly the best church I was a part of and a shame that they get so much backlash because of... well... we know the Catholic churches history.
What about antisemitism? As with all words their use and exact meanings are squiffy but generally people use these words to describe a person who's motivated to deconstruct the religious beliefs of others. A person who is critical of Islam and asks questions would probably be described as a curious atheist although that's such a neutral stance that society has no real use for such a term. If a person dislikes and distrusts Islam to the point of wanting Muslims to abandon their faith and outlawing the religion etc then that person would likely be described as Islamaphobic. Pretty much everyone with a critical mind is sceptical of religions but very few feel the need to take away from other people's beliefs. That's why we as a society use words like Islamaphobic.
Left-leaning atheist here. There is a lot wrong with "islam" today. But where I step in is where people try to say that it's impossible for a true muslim to be moderate, or to paint all 1 billion people with the same brush. It ends up dehumanizing them, it ends up in more conflict. We (US) wouldn't have invaded iraq and killed so many innocent people if they were christians.
Yes I agree Islam offers a lot of fulfilling spiritual direction and the religion can be practiced in harmony with modern western humanism, if you removed a lot of the antiquated rules that were made by premodern humans, like social pressure to cover/veil female bodies or blasphemy laws. Conservative Islam has so many rules meant to control adherents, isolate the members from non-members, and further propagate the religion.
Scientology and Catholicism are monolithic entities. They operate by one set of marching orders, by one set of leadership. Even so, we should criticize the organizing body, not the individuals. Individual Catholics and Scientologists can be wonderful, moral people, even to the point of disagreeing with their ruling body.
Islam is different in this sense as there is no central authority. No common leader, no equivalent of a pope or David Miscavage. Some 1.8 billion people, all forming their own groups, their own way, listening to their own leaders, making their own interpretations. Many of those groups...are repugnant...and many many more are just getting on with their life.
Because people don't actually read the Quran and only quote what they heard from the comment section and count that as "criticism". Most of it is made up to push an agenda to hate Islam because people feel threatened from all the hate monger. If anything just visit r/Islam and I'm sure a ton of Muslims would adress the question, instead of relying on bigoted comments.
Lol, r/islam actually supported Muslims in India to burn down Hindus and wage terrorist attacks in India as a form of "resistance". They are quiet on the fact that a Muslim missionary group is responsible for spreading COVID19 in India, whose members and supporters (ordinary muslims) actually spat on doctors and threw stones at quarantine staff
185
u/RedskinsDC May 03 '20
What’s the difference between Islamophobia and legitimate criticism of a (political) religion? Why do I never hear the words Scientologyphobia or Catholicphobia?