Worried about FFI

[CuteCoot]

Muslims would like us to believe that religion and race are interchangable ...

It isn't only or even mainly Muslims that do this. A lot of the cries of racism come from the non-Muslim Islamophobiaphobes. If you look at gradual changes in the usage of the word "racism" you will find that it has been moving away from a reference to a purely genetic characteristic to an ethnic trait. For example, at wikipedia's article on racism it says: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination." Whether you like it or not (and like you I don't like it) the word "racist" has shifted meaning from a genetic to an ethnic or cultural (and therefore also a religious) bigotry. At the end of the day words mean what they come to mean through usage.

Now that you've put me on the spot, I can't really think of anything about Islam that is good or beneficial.

How then do you explain the Muslim love for his religion? How do you explain the religious fervour that has characterised Islam from day one? Have Muslims always been driven by nothing more than a lust for power and possession of stolen goods? This is how Islam is characterised by its detractors. And there is surely more than a grain of truth in that portrait. But is greed really enough to explain this phenomenon? I definitely think that it is enough to explain Islamism. Just not enough to explain Islam. If you watch a Muslim pray, is he really just expressing a greed and a lust for power? Is that really all it is about?

Tell me, what is good or beneficial about Australian Aboriginal religion or mythology? What do you take from it that is original and valuable? Because Aborigines had not yet developed a concept of ownership of land, this is often idealised as a kind of original wisdom. But give me an actual element or story within the corpus of Aboriginal myth and explain to me how it is good or beneficial. Explain to me why we should respect Aboriginal sacred sites but not an Islamic sacred text.

I haven't really made up my mind about Wilders yet.

I think your response to this was balanced and not very far from my own.

[CuteCoot]

I have a stubborn and complete intolerance of the belief system of Nazis. Am I a bigot?

Yes.

I have an obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance of the Aztec religion of human sacrifice. Am I a bigot?

Yes.

In its religious aspect Nazism was a resurgence of German pride following the humility of defeat in WWI. It actually began gradually through the previous (19th) century when Darwin and Nietzsche were killing off the Christian god and Wagner was setting Germanic myths to sublime music. After centuries of brutal Christian repression of their pagan mythology the Germans were "coming out". And yes, this did take on a fanatic form and did lead to tragic results. However, a lot of the elements of the belief system of Nazis was - and is, since Nazis are still around - wholesome from a strictly spiritual or religious point of view. The Nazis behaved abominably and it's fine to reject that behaviour totally. But to fail to see or sense anything "sacred" inside the belief system itself is bigotry. It is to see all Germans of the period as deranged. Well yes, they were deranged. But there was also some justification behind their particular form of madness.

As for the Aztecs, who are you to judge their religion? What do you know of it? I've read of archaeological and geophysical evidence that shows that the area that is now Mexico was blighted by severe climate change that wiped out the plant and animal basis of the regular food chain for the Aztecs and similar tribes of that region. That is why several of those civilisations died out. The Aztecs solved the problem by gradually eating themselves. This is often what people do in times of utter crisis. As each victim was killed, the body was taken down to butcheries to be prepared and carved up for the table. The Aztecs were no different from us. This was for them a hugely gruesome and emotionally painful thing to do. But necessary. They made the killing ritual a sacrifice. If you think about it for a moment it makes sense. A life is sacrificed so others can eat. That person is special because of that. It was tragic and pitiful. And not 100% a target for "obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance".

[Cassie]

When you defend the 'sacred' aspects of Nazism and the practical imperatives of human sacrifice you lost all credibility. I also wasn't aware the Aztecs were cannibals who ate their victims. They just cut out beating hearts as offerings to their gods. But hey, eating people is a necessity sometimes when the corn supply is low.

[CuteCoot]

But I do have the right, my constitutional right, to condemn and oppose any ideology and its practitioners that wish to do me harm. That, to me, is not bigotry, for I do not condemn and oppose Islam and Muslims for anything other than self-preservation and that of my friends and family, my country, and my civilization.

It is perfectly sensible and reasonable to be concerned about Islam and Muslims. I have defined bigotry here as the view that Islam and Muslims cannot be viewed or approached in anything other than a negative way. The PC brigade would have us view and approach Islam and Muslims only in positive ways. That is a corresponding or inverted form of bigotry that suggests that Muslims are not adult enough to take criticism of any sort. Many of them actually can take it but it's natural that those that can't are the loudest and most prominent on our news screens.

Islam, like any human cultural form (whether "divinely inspired" or not), has its good points and its bad points, its outdated features and its eternal verities.

Most importantly, you might try to put yourself in the shoes of Muslims, at least just for a little bit, to try to understand how things look from their perspective. Many of them believe that a lot of the violent acts of their fellow Muslims are at least partially justified. They might think this or that behaviour "went too far" but they will still often feel protected by it. This is because, to Muslims, many of these violent acts are being carried out precisely in defence of themselves, of their loved ones, of their system of values, of their civilisation, and ultimately of their God. Of course, Allah him/herself doesn't need them but, for a Muslim, the world needs Allah, the world needs to be worshipping Allah. It's an empty and meaningless world without Allah.

If self-preservation is a good enough excuse for you to engage in violence, why is it not good enough for Muslims?

[Cassie]

I am justified in defending myself because I do not believe in an ideology that says it is ok to oppress, persecute, murder or forcibly convert Muslims to my belief system. In short, I do not impose myself and my beliefs on Muslims. Nor do I wish to. In truth, I only wish they would all disappear and leave me alone.

They, on the other hand, have no right to an ideology that says it is ok to oppress, persecute, murder or forcibly convert me to islam. Muslims, by dint of their religion, impose themselves and their beliefs on me. Hence, their claim of self-preservation is spurious. A religion, and people who espouse or practise such religion, that seeks to limit what i can or cannot do has no place in my world. As I only have this world, they have no place in this world too, as far as i am concerned.

I also doubt that there is any 'eternal verity' in Islam. It is all nonsense or worse, hateful nonsense. But they're free to believe in such nonsense as long as these nonsense do not impact me in any way or form. You see, my rights transcend the rights of every single 1.3 billion Muslims. My rights are worth more to me than the rights of all Muslims combined. My life is worth more than the lives of all Muslims combined, past, present and future.

Until muslims can respect me enough to rid themselves of any dogma that seeks to oppress me in any shape or form, do not expect me to view them in a positive light. I do not think myself a bigot for opposing islam and Muslims. It is my right to self-preservation.

[CuteCoot]

We have 2 choices. Be a bigot(as per the dictionary) and oppose this ideology of hate /belief or allow crimes to be committed. I think I will go with the choice 1 even if it meant me being labeled a bigot.

These are not the only options available to you. It is typical of bigotry to justify itself by narrowing the field of possible responses. You could develop a mixed approach to Islam, perhaps by using Pipes' distinction between the faith tradition and the ideology. And you could treat the crimes as needing to be opposed in and of themselves, without necessarily assuming that this is the only or the main way that Muslims behave.

Bigotry does have the wonderful advantage of simplicity, though.

[CuteCoot]

But hey, eating people is a necessity sometimes when the corn supply is low.

It is indeed.

[CuteCoot]

My life is worth more than the lives of all Muslims combined, past, present and future.

Well y'see, many a Muslim feels just the same way. Just insert "infidels" where you have "Muslims" and it's just the same.

[Cassie]

Fine if they feel that way, but that still does not justify them believing an ideology that calls for my oppression or destruction. Nowhere in the laws of my land or the religious books of my forebears is there even one sentence that encourages me to oppress or destroy Muslims. Not even a single word. Hence in a war between Islam and the West, I am on the self-defense side, while Muslims are on the other side.

Respectfully, I think you need to reconsider your stance on the subject of bigotry. You are doing yourself no favours with your clearly ridiculous propositions. Condemning cannibalism is not bigotry. And there is nothing sacred about Nazism. In fact, there is nothing redeeming or eternal verities about Nazism - just like Islam.

I think you're asking people here to see the good in Muslims and not only the bad. Unfortunately, since Muslims define themselves by Islam, and there is nothing good in Islam, it is no wonder that some people cannot see anything good about Muslims - precisely because there isn't any. We expect people to behave like decent human beings - that is our default position. If someone behaves decently, there is no need to slap him on the back. It is like congratulating people for not robbing banks when they walk past.

[CuteCoot]

Respectfully, I think you need to reconsider your stance on the subject of bigotry.

So far, no one has offered me a better working definition that the one I currently use.

[Cassie]

I tend to use my own definition, which is an irrational dislike or hatred for someone or a belief. Otherwise, one would equate racism with a laudable viewpont. Not every viewpoint is equal - some are laudable, others are contemptible. We should be wary of which are contemptible and which are laudable. Bigotry is contemptible, but dislike of evil, condemnation of evil acts or evil people is laudable and should not be tarred with a prejorative.

[pr126]

According to CuteCoot, Muslims have a perfect right to oppress, to convert, to be intolerant, and wage war on infidels by any means necessary.

Anyone objects to that is a bigot.
Have I got it right?

One more thing. Who are we to judge?

If we do not judge, we cannot not make a distinction between good and evil. We throw away our moral compass.

[CuteCoot]

Have I got it right?

lol ...

[pr126]

Have I got it right?

lol ...

I'll take that as a yes.

[CuteCoot]

I tend to use my own definition, which is an irrational dislike or hatred for someone or a belief. Otherwise, one would equate racism with a laudable viewpont. Not every viewpoint is equal - some are laudable, others are contemptible. We should be wary of which are contemptible and which are laudable. Bigotry is contemptible, but dislike of evil, condemnation of evil acts or evil people is laudable and should not be tarred with a prejorative.

There are always both rational and irrational elements in any hatred (or fear). The word "Islamophobia" highlights the irrational aspects of Islam bashing. Indeed, it makes it look like the entire concern about Islam is an irrational fear. No, there are clearly quite rational aspects to concerns over Islam. You and I would agree on that but many Islamophobiaphobes do actually believe that much of your - and my - reasoning is irrational. We have nothing to fear from Muslims, etc. It all comes down to exaggeration. To tar the whole of Islam black is exaggeration.

Anyway, Cassie, it's been nice talking to you. But y'know, one man's rationality is another man's irrationality and one man's bigotry is another man's righteous stand.

Stick to how you see it and I'll stick to how I see it. Isn't it always the way on an internet forum?

[CuteCoot]

I'll take that as a yes.

You're welcome to read anything the way you want to read it.

[skynightblaze]

We have 2 choices. Be a bigot(as per the dictionary) and oppose this ideology of hate /belief or allow crimes to be committed. I think I will go with the choice 1 even if it meant me being labeled a bigot.

These are not the only options available to you. It is typical of bigotry to justify itself by narrowing the field of possible responses. You could develop a mixed approach to Islam, perhaps by using Pipes' distinction between the faith tradition and the ideology. And you could treat the crimes as needing to be opposed in and of themselves, without necessarily assuming that this is the only or the main way that Muslims behave.

Bigotry does have the wonderful advantage of simplicity, though.

I have included sensible options. You might also say that I didnt include the option of submitting to islam and merely say good things about islam and ignore the bad. Even that's an option but I didn't include it because it isnt a sensible option. Similarly I dont find your approach sensible at all. I have explained it in the para below. By speaking good things about the most destructive ideology we promote the ideology and encourage people to go for the ideology rather than turning them away from it upto some extent.
Now I will ask you one question. What do you aim to do by promoting a handful of good things in islam? Is it going to lead us anywhere??? When we all can see and agree that islam is leading the world towards the path of destruction, the right thing to do is eliminate the ideology. When we can clearly see that we need to eliminate such a vicious ideology why should we waste our time in promoting that ideology? What are we going to achieve by that especially when our aim should be to make the world islam free ??? With your approach there is a chance that people still cling to this vicious ideology by seeing some good stuff( that one can count on his fingers) and may even follow accidently its worst aspects .

[IoshkaFutz]

Dear pr126

Reading FFI is a never-ending source of wonder and amusement.

From Cutecoot
The Aztecs were no different from us.

Also from Cutecoot

Bigots like yourself, Brendalee, will not suffer.

I think I've figured out why that virago, that witch, that reprobate of Brendalee is so wicked. She didn't propose to eat the Muslims or pluck their hearts out in lavish ceremonies.

Moral compass?

The freedom of the Duchampian Urinal turns out to be the tyranny of mood and whim. The Aztecs are no different from us, but an elderly lady from the U.K. who argues pushing the little buttons of her keyboard is sinful because she won't suffer.

It can all be worked out.

[Brendalee]

Cute Coot says:

There is a problem in the anti-Islam world and you do recognise it. I don't like the word "Islamophobe" as it has been abused in order to silence anyone who even remotely criticises Islam or Muslims. I don't like the word "racist" since the Islamic world is multi-racial even though I do acknowledge that there is often an element of anti-Arab venom in much of the anti-Islam rhetoric. I ended up going for "bigot" even though it's not perfect and my working definition is my way of discriminating between the two types of people: those who have correctly identified aspects of Islam that are of grave concern and those who have ceased to bother to see any merit at all in what is a highly complex phenomenon.

You like the word "Islamophobe" well enough to use it in a negative way to apply to those who oppose ISLAM. Your statement that there is "often" an element of "anti-Arab venom" in "much" of the "anti-Islam rhetoric" is just your own assertion. You make these blanket statements regularly and think people should just accept it as fact. I would dispute your use of words like "often" and "much". The rest of your paragraph is just so much drivel. Who defines what "correctly identified" means? Islam is not a "highly complex phenomenon". It is definable by the Quran and the ahadith, and its scholars of fiqh and Islamic law.

Islam is ideology, yes, but it is also a faith tradition. It is a major world religion. And it was also the foundation of a vast empire and civilisation, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. It remains the foundational element of the worldview of that vast area now referred to as "the Islamic world". It is the backbone of the identity of all of those people, that 1.6 billion people.

FAITH, is a choice to believe when no evidence proves that belief. An ideology which, in its OWN jurisprudence, decrees DEATH for those who abandon it is not really a FAITH at all, is it? If FAITH is the defining element of "religion" then there are grounds to argue that ISLAM is not a religion in the way that religions are usually defined. The fact that its FOLLOWERS conquered so much of the planet is irrelevant. The hatred taught in its texts toward non-Muslims is the relevant part of it. The Quranic injunction to subject the entire world under Islamic rule is relevant. It matters not one whit how MANY people identify with it when they have no free choice to LEAVE it. Citing numbers is just rhetoric. There was a time when mankind as a whole thought the world was flat but that did not give any inherent value to that belief.

Daniel Pipes makes the useful distinction between Islam and Islamism and I know that hardly anyone on FFI is interested in retaining that distinction. For everyone here that is still posting it seems that Islam=Islamism. And once that equation is affirmed, religious bigotry can be blithely denied because ... Islam is ONLY an ideology and NOT a faith tradition or religion.

Its "usefulness" as a distinction is mainly to Islam itself, and its apologists; and it is based on an error in my opinion. It is a false distinction.Objectively, Islam must be judged on its texts. Its texts back up the concept of religious jihad and killing non-Muslims or according non-citizen status as dhimmis (selectively) as an alternative to conversion. If its followers follow its hate injunctions, they are not really "islamists" but merely more observant in regards their texts than Muslims than who do not.

[Brendalee]

From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

From thefreedictionary.com:
bigotry: obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

The first definition refers only to what is in people's minds. The second definition includes the people themselves. I think that what you've described is closer to "racism" and, in an odd but real way, it does apply in this context. A lot of the anti-Islam language does group all forms of Islam into one and all Muslims into one category. OK, it's not "race" in a genetic sense. But was "race" ever really a genetic thing?

Race IS a genetic thing. It refers to a commonality of genetic stock. The fact that Islam apologists are fond of exploiting the term in an attempt to gag critics of Islam does not make it otherwise. The idea that Muslims are a "race" is as stupid as asserting that Christians are a "race", or atheists are a "race". The only time such nonsense has ever been seriously promoted was when the Nazis pulled that nasty trick against the Jews; and it was ONLY because they did this that some countries in the world extended "race" to include Jews. We now see Islam Apologists trying to protect Islam AND Muslims from criticism by equating opposition with racialism. They want to present criticism as being racial in nature, once again trying to equate the suffering of the Jews under Hitlers RACE laws with opposition to Islam. This is so obviously a nonsense. Patently it is the valuable tool of Islam propagandists. Just as it has been to label its critics "right wing" in the most negative possible way.

Now, I am sympathetic to your definition and I am disturbed when I see evidence of it but I do think that a blanket categorisation of all aspects of Islam as evil, though it doesn't directly refer to Muslims, is nevertheless bigotry. OK, not necessarily racism, but it is bigotry. And bigotry, we know, whether it is specifically expressed in a racist form or not, is a very dangerous viewpoint. Not so bad if one person is a bigot. No harm in that. But when bigotry takes over a whole group of people that's when it becomes socially dangerous.

Well, now you are just being perverse. Condemnation of Islam, even if it does not refer to Muslims, is BIGOTRY! According to your Islam-propaganda correct, politically correct, acceptance of the above, nobody can oppose ANY doctrine fully (no matter how monstrous)without becoming "socially dangerous". Yet Islam can utterly condemn ALL doctines except its own but it is not "socially dangerous" in your view. Because surely if Islam IS "socially dangerous" in your view, you are quite wrong to condemn others for opposing it fully.