Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

So, as a blanket fear, it is completely irrational.

And I say that as someone who despises religions of all kinds.

My uncle assumes that most (if not all) Muslims are terrorist sympathizers, and that Muslims are sneakily trying to take over America and force everyone to live under Sharia law. There is nothing even vaguely rational about this view. The term refers to actual people, even if it's also misused to discredit people with legitimate concerns about Islam.

Does that make some here Judaiaphobes? Christianophobes? Because the "[Torah/Old Testament] Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the [Abrahamic] god hates non-[believers] and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in [the Abrahamic religions] for the unbeliever."

Makes sense to me.

I don't fear Islam, I detest it (as I do all religions). Yes, it's a nonsensical term.

/thread

stevecook172001 wrote:No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

So, as a blanket fear, it is completely irrational.

And I say that as someone who despises religions of all kinds.

I wish people would differentiate between the religions, in this case Islam, and it's 'followers' (victims).

The way the term is generally used, yes it is nonsensical. For example, using it to squash any criticism of Islam, or its literalist followers.

SafeAsMilk wrote:My uncle assumes that most (if not all) Muslims are terrorist sympathizers, and that Muslims are sneakily trying to take over America and force everyone to live under Sharia law. There is nothing even vaguely rational about this view. The term refers to actual people, even if it's also misused to discredit people with legitimate concerns about Islam.

Oh, I agree, there are legitimate concerns over some people some of the time who may be broadly termed as fundamentalist Islamists. Fundamentalist islamists are, from my own secular atheist perspective, people who hold very unpleasant views that are blatantly incompatible with secular society. However, even then, it becomes a chicken and egg thing. It's more than mere coincidence that the most extreme of the islamists tend to hail from counties that have had the shit bombed out of them and/or have been invaded by the West, most notably by the UK and USA. Or, if not invaded, have propped up local puppet regimes/dictators who have behaved even worse to the people, not having had the inconvenience of a secular public opinion back home to manipulate and assuage. all of the above, has led to a fgeeling of solidarity by lots of different muslims from different countries that they, as muslims are being targeted because they are muslims. This, in turn, is leading to a more coherent muslim dispora across the world than would ever have been the case before. At the larger geo-political level, this may turn out to be......problematic.

It aint simple and nobody's hands are clean.

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

Yeah but this term "Islamist" is itself suspect. I don't really understand how it is different from "Muslim". Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers. How could you love a god so much He brings you to tears sometimes, and yet be friends with people he hates? It's nonsense. You're not even meant to make friends with dhimmis, let alone marry them or anything.

So it seems to me that, by the objective measurement of whether somebody follows an interpretaton of the Quran, anyone who is a true Muslim does not interact with non-Muslims if possible, and does not make friends with or marry them. Of course there are many pseudo-Muslims who don't follow the Quran fully, but I don't put them into the category of Muslims. Given the category of Muslims that I have defined, the word "Islamist" is basically the same. Therefore, "Islamophobia" is an irrational term because there really is something to be afraid of from Muslims properly carrying out their religious duties; being treated like crap because you don't believe Islam.

jez9999 wrote: Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers.

Does it? You have researched every interpretation of the Quran and found that they all require muslims to hate all non-muslims? Interesting.

jez9999 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

Yeah but this term "Islamist" is itself suspect. I don't really understand how it is different from "Muslim". Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers. How could you love a god so much He brings you to tears sometimes, and yet be friends with people he hates? It's nonsense. You're not even meant to make friends with dhimmis, let alone marry them or anything.

So it seems to me that, by the objective measurement of whether somebody follows an interpretaton of the Quran, anyone who is a true Muslim does not interact with non-Muslims if possible, and does not make friends with or marry them. Of course there are many pseudo-Muslims who don't follow the Quran fully, but I don't put them into the category of Muslims. Given the category of Muslims that I have defined, the word "Islamist" is basically the same. Therefore, "Islamophobia" is an irrational term because there really is something to be afraid of from Muslims properly carrying out their religious duties; being treated like crap because you don't believe Islam.

My large...

Or really believing in the koran and god, and still being treated like crap. Just for being female, or gay etc.

jez9999 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

Yeah but this term "Islamist" is itself suspect. I don't really understand how it is different from "Muslim". Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers. How could you love a god so much He brings you to tears sometimes, and yet be friends with people he hates? It's nonsense. You're not even meant to make friends with dhimmis, let alone marry them or anything.

So it seems to me that, by the objective measurement of whether somebody follows an interpretaton of the Quran, anyone who is a true Muslim does not interact with non-Muslims if possible, and does not make friends with or marry them. Of course there are many pseudo-Muslims who don't follow the Quran fully, but I don't put them into the category of Muslims. Given the category of Muslims that I have defined, the word "Islamist" is basically the same. Therefore, "Islamophobia" is an irrational term because there really is something to be afraid of from Muslims properly carrying out their religious duties; being treated like crap because you don't believe Islam.

Hang on a minute, there are million way to be a Christian. But, you may have noticed, the bible has some pretty horrendous proclamations of it's own regarding non-believers. You don't need to tell me that all of these ancient texts were written by bronze age warriors and are anything but civilised. My query is why you should specifically single out the Quran?

by the way, are you a pseudo-Christain?

Assuming that one isn't facing down a tiger or an angry mob, and that adrenaline contributes nothing to immediate survival prospects, what exactly does living in fear achieve anyway? Perpetual fear tends to lead to rashness and stupidity, precisely the opposite of cool and rational thoughtfulness.

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it. Assuming that somebody being described as "Islamophobic" is not a Muslim, isn't it very likely that that person's fear of Islam is rational? Islam's Quran contains a large number of verses saying that the Islamic god hates non-Muslims and generally implies that they should, at best, be treated as second-class citizens. There is, in short, something to be rationally afraid of in Islam for the unbeliever.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

Yeah but this term "Islamist" is itself suspect. I don't really understand how it is different from "Muslim". Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers. How could you love a god so much He brings you to tears sometimes, and yet be friends with people he hates? It's nonsense. You're not even meant to make friends with dhimmis, let alone marry them or anything.

So it seems to me that, by the objective measurement of whether somebody follows an interpretaton of the Quran, anyone who is a true Muslim does not interact with non-Muslims if possible, and does not make friends with or marry them. Of course there are many pseudo-Muslims who don't follow the Quran fully, but I don't put them into the category of Muslims. Given the category of Muslims that I have defined, the word "Islamist" is basically the same. Therefore, "Islamophobia" is an irrational term because there really is something to be afraid of from Muslims properly carrying out their religious duties; being treated like crap because you don't believe Islam.

Hang on a minute, there are million way to be a Christian. But, you may have noticed, the bible has some pretty horrendous proclamations of it's own regarding non-believers. You don't need to tell me that all of these ancient texts were written by bronze age warriors and are anything but civilised. My query is why you should specifically single out the Quran?

by the way, are you a pseudo-Christain?

Why not single out the Koran? What makes it "Untouchable"?

We have seen throughout history what happens to certain people in Christian states. Thanfully, there are none left, that i can think of.

We can look at what is happening now to gays, women and others in existing, modern day Islamic states, and judge if it is irrational to fear being treated the same way as these states treat gays, women and others. Why shouldnt we do that?

Matthew Shute wrote:Assuming that one isn't facing down a tiger or an angry mob, and that adrenaline contributes nothing to immediate survival prospects, what exactly does living in fear achieve anyway? Perpetual fear tends to lead to rashness and stupidity, precisely the opposite of cool and rational thoughtfulness.

Tell that to the gay people who are currently living in fear of being hung, in Iran and other Islamist states. Women, being stoned to death in those same states, for merely being suspected of petty offences, like owning a mobile phone, or speaking to a non-related male. Im sure they will calm down, and their fear dissipate.

james1v wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

jez9999 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:No that's too simplistic. Islam and Muslim culture and politics in some parts of the world are certainly a lot more conflated than religion and the wider culture and state are here in the secular West. However, there is a significant amount of variability in that conflation from country to country and so to lump all Muslims together as hard line Islamists is silly at best and dangerously mischievous at worst. Even those who would define themselves as islamists will vary in the depth and radical expression of that islamism considerably.

Yeah but this term "Islamist" is itself suspect. I don't really understand how it is different from "Muslim". Look, there may be 1000 ways to interpret the Quran, but each one of them involves hating non-believers. How could you love a god so much He brings you to tears sometimes, and yet be friends with people he hates? It's nonsense. You're not even meant to make friends with dhimmis, let alone marry them or anything.

So it seems to me that, by the objective measurement of whether somebody follows an interpretaton of the Quran, anyone who is a true Muslim does not interact with non-Muslims if possible, and does not make friends with or marry them. Of course there are many pseudo-Muslims who don't follow the Quran fully, but I don't put them into the category of Muslims. Given the category of Muslims that I have defined, the word "Islamist" is basically the same. Therefore, "Islamophobia" is an irrational term because there really is something to be afraid of from Muslims properly carrying out their religious duties; being treated like crap because you don't believe Islam.

Hang on a minute, there are million way to be a Christian. But, you may have noticed, the bible has some pretty horrendous proclamations of it's own regarding non-believers. You don't need to tell me that all of these ancient texts were written by bronze age warriors and are anything but civilised. My query is why you should specifically single out the Quran?

by the way, are you a pseudo-Christain?

Why not single out the Koran? What makes it "Untouchable"?

We have seen throughout history what happens to certain people in Christian states. Thanfully, there are none left, that i can think of.

We can look at what is happening now to gays, women and others in existing, modern day Islamic states, and judge if it is irrational to fear being treated the same way as these states treat gays, women and others. Why shouldnt we do that?

I haven't said it was untouchable. Far from it. I am quite happy to state that the quran's main prophet seems to have been a deeply unpleasant mass murderer. But, then, that does not especially make him stand out from the crowd when it comes to these ancient texts originating in a patch of stony and barren land many centuries ago. Indeed, the three big monotheist religions, between them, have been responsible for a good deal of the suffering and mayhem in the world that has ensued since their creation.

The point I am getting at is that much of the fundamentalist islamicism which has undeniably grown over recent decades is far more directly the result of very real geo-political developments and got sod all to do with the Quran directly. The Quran has merely provided the focal point around which these other material discontents have been able to coalesce. To focus on the Quran, in the absence of that broader geo-political analysis, then, is to focus on symptoms rather than causes. The Quran, of course, is a simple and easy target to pull apart. full, as it is, with inconsistencies and brutalities, just like any other bullshit religious text. that it is so easy and unproblematic to pull apart, is probably why it is the focus of attention, and not those larger, more problematic geo-political considerations.

james1v wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Assuming that one isn't facing down a tiger or an angry mob, and that adrenaline contributes nothing to immediate survival prospects, what exactly does living in fear achieve anyway? Perpetual fear tends to lead to rashness and stupidity, precisely the opposite of cool and rational thoughtfulness.

Tell that to the gay people who are currently living in fear of being hung, in Iran and other Islamist states. Women, being stoned to death in those same states, for merely being suspected of petty offences, like owning a mobile phone, or speaking to a non-related male. Im sure they will calm down, and their fear dissipate.

You missed the first part of the post. In that case, their survival is directly at stake. Given that the victims are generally Muslims themselves, it's not the Quran they're in fear of, it's the cretinous murderers using that book to justify their bigotry and mania, just as people do with the Bible. In either case, blanket fear contributes nothing to actually stopping these horrors, however justifiable the fear.

Was it fear that stopped the Inquisitions and the witch trials?

jez9999 wrote:Simple argument: in order to have a phobia of something, you must have an irrational fear of it.

Also, if the term is nonsensical, shouldn't we be trying to stop ourselves using it?

Unfortunately it's too simple.

Calling someone 'phobic' dates back to the 1960s Gay Rights movement in the US.

Homophobic is also a nonsense term, it would mean fear of things that are the same, but it is short hand for expressing the Ick Factor that (especially religious) people attached to homosexuality.

So it had some validity in that context. Now, nearly 50 years later, it has become divorced from the Ick Factor and is now used as a general term for discrimination.

The format was picked up on by people to coin the phrase for Islamophobia (as they picked up on Racism too), so it then became thoroughly detached from the literal meaning of phobia (although there could be similarities, perhaps, between Ickiness, Yuckiness and other emotional states).

So focusing on a literal meaning of phobia is too simplistic and alternatives such as muslimophobia would retain that element.

The problem with the phrase is that the Islam part, that it relates to ideology not people and is used to prevent criticism of Islam, as such it has racist overtones and calling someone Islamophobic should be treated as a racist insult, just like Kuffar should be.

stevecook172001 wrote:Hang on a minute, there are million way to be a Christian. But, you may have noticed, the bible has some pretty horrendous proclamations of it's own regarding non-believers. You don't need to tell me that all of these ancient texts were written by bronze age warriors and are anything but civilised. My query is why you should specifically single out the Quran?

Are you Warsiing the thread?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p1858058