Islamophilia

[SteelCurtain]

I think coming to an atheist forum criticising "Islamophilia" is the wrong place. Atheists, on the whole, are very vocal critics of Islam

You don't get the "joke"?

Part of the "joke" is not telling the people who don't get it yet!!!

[Regina]

I would have had I not been an idiot and actually, yknow, read

In my defense the post above mine looked semi-serious. I also saw "true christian" and what looked like Christian victim tears and ran with it.

Oh well, my bad

[Seraphina]

You've been to Indonesia once.

Several times, actually.

I just want to know why Islam gets the kid-gloves treatment. Who made that religion the sacred cow?

You're asking a forum full of atheists who made Islam a "sacred cow". My friend, you're barking up the wrong tree. Why don't you ask a forum for Muslims?

Edit to add: Ok, apparently there's a "joke" in here somewhere. Give me a minute and I'll find it

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Fuck fuck fuck fuck, I almost had an extremely lengthy serious post done, hit the wrong button and lost everything. 

I'll repost later. 

Suffice to say a very long, serious "out of character" rant about Islamophilia and the double standards surrounding how we can criticize Islam is coming...

[YahwehIsTheWay]

The following post is completely “out of character”, a serious commentary on the subject of Islamophilia and the double standards that some on the left and even among atheists have when criticizing Islam. 

Consider that I’ve posted before that if Jesus is who Christians say he is, then he is a monster. Forget about the evil that we do to one another for non-religious reasons. We’ll mumble something about “free will” and give him a pass on that. Forget about the suffering that happens from natural disasters. We’ll just say “shit happens” and move on. Forget about the low profile evil that is perpetrated by his vicars on this earth. Let’s discuss only the headline-grabbing, history-making large scale evils that are done in his name by his vicars to promote his glory. Let’s make no mistake, the Protestants were just as bad as the Catholics when they had the opportunity. If Jesus is who Christians say he is, then he watched with indifference over centuries of Crusades, Inquisitions, pogroms and slaughter.

If any human general received reports of his men committing atrocities in his name and that general did nothing to discourage it, he’d be a war criminal even if he never personally ordered the atrocities. Why do we not hold our gods to the same moral standards that we hold one another to? Jesus is a war criminal, among the worst humanity has ever produced.

I’ve been asked what I would say to Jesus if I stood before him on Judgment Day. I’d say, “Who the fuck are you to judge me over MY sins? Yes, I stole a cookie from the cookie jar when I was a kid. YOU watched with indifference as your people slaughtered in your name. You are the least fit being in all the universe to stand in judgment over anyone. YOU should be begging OUR forgiveness and not the other way around.”

Moderate Christians are not responsible for the atrocities done by Christianity over the centuries and they shouldn’t apologize for them but the fact that their god allowed it all to happen in his name should be cause for them to give their devotion to Jesus a rethink. Of course, they can offer the usual lame-ass theodicies like “it’s a test”, “mysterious ways” and “free will” but the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of their deity makes all these feeble excuses as easy to shred as tissue paper. The only solid explanations for their deadbeat, absentee heavenly father are that (1) he’s evil (2) he’s criminally negligent or (3) he doesn’t exist. It’s time for moderate Christians to face the cold, harsh, unpleasant reality that there ain’t nothing up there but clouds, an occasional flock of birds and, depending on where you stand, a few Russian cosmonauts.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Now let’s replace the words “Jesus” with “Allah” and make a few other appropriate word replacements and we could make the same argument about Islam, right? I mean, it should be fair enough to hold Islam to the same criticism that we hold Christianity to, right?

Post that online somewhere and get ready to be shouted down and screamed at incoherently by Islamophiles who will call you a “bigot” and tell you to do anatomically impossible things with yourself.

Lest anyone think I was straw-manning in my list, rest assured that I have heard all 10 arguments made seriously by Islamophiles, not just online in forums but by professional commentators on television.

1.      You think Islam is a “race”.
Many Islamophiles will object at my characterization but they undeniably love to conflate Islam with issues of race. Read any published screed against New Atheist criticism of Islam and you are certain to see the words “brown people” used sarcastically within the first paragraph. In one essay published in Salon, Sam Harris was accused in the very title of being a “white supremacist”. Yeah, I guess that explains Sam’s affection with those European religions, Jainism and Buddhism.

2.      You think criticism of Islam is “bigotry”
This is the fallback position of Islamophiles when their conflation of Islam with race collapses. “OK, you’re not necessarily a racist but you are a bigot”. Set aside the irony of the word having its roots in Abrahamic oppression of Germanic pagans (“bei Gott” or by God) and so the New Atheists are Bei-Gotts? Set that aside. Why? Because we hold Islam to the exact same standards that we hold any other religion? Last I checked, this was the opposite of bigotry.

3.      You think religion is never, ever, ever to be blamed for sectarian violence.
I phrase this characterization with ridicule, admittedly, but that is the gist. Immediately following any Islamic terror attack, we’re sure to be treated to such vapid non-falsifiable bare assertions like “Terror has no religion”. Debate with any Islamophile and you’ll be assured that religion has no role in any sectarian violence. The real cause is political, economic or social (as if religion has nothing to do with any of these things). If all other scapegoats fail, the terrorists are just “bad people”.

Excuse me but America has fucked over Mexico, Central America and South America much harder, for much longer and more shamelessly than we have the Middle East. Strangely enough, we don’t have radical Catholics blowing up our embassies. And how many times have we seen that suicide bombers were well-educated with promising futures that they threw away for the glory of Allah? Personally, call it crazy, but there just might be a relationship between sectarian violence and sectarian ideology. Further, when 99% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by self-described Muslims, there’s a pattern that demands our attention. 

Maybe the reason Islam SEEMS so violent is because it IS violent.

4.      When someone is attacked for “blasphemy”, you suggest the victim should have been more sensitive.
We’re not just talking about Koran burners and cartoonists here. We’re talking about Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh. We’re talking about people on the news, journalists themselves, talking about the need for self-censorship and “sensitivity”. You’re sure to hear some invalid comparison to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Let’s put aside the free speech issue for a moment and recognize one simple fact about religion: the more sensitive you are, the more sensitive you will have to be.

There is no point where any criticism of “sacred” beliefs are academic enough, detached enough or professional enough. The religious fanatics will always play the “hurt feelings” card. Even being known to be an atheist is enough to get you hatred among the faithful.

5.      You react to any criticism of Islam, no matter how precise the language is about theocracy or extremism, as “painting all Muslims with a broad brush”.
Let’s not forget Ben Affleck’s emotional meltdown was provoked by Sam Harris saying “theocracy”. Such a word should be specific enough about Muslims seeking to impose Islam through the law, a factor which would preclude secular or moderate Muslims. It didn’t stop the “broad brush” argument from being trotted out. It’s the Islamophile’s second favorite phrase, right after “brown people”. Be assured that you will get the “broad brush” complaint if you are ever critical of Islam.

If I describe Christianity as a “monotheistic religion”, that would be accepted as a characterization. I could say “Nuh uh uh. There were the Marcionites who believed in two gods. And then there are the self-described ‘atheist Christians’ who don’t believe in any deity at all. So broad brush! Broad brush! Not all! Not all!”

We don’t have to account for every possible interpretation of an ideology by every single self-described follower to discuss an idea.

6.      You go “Godwin” on any critics of Islam
Listen to any Islamophile debate with a New Atheist long enough and you’re certain to hear a comparison to anti-Semitism invoked, complete with an allusion to Hitler. Mind you, we’re not talking about Donald Trump here but atheist critics of Islam. So ridicule and criticism of ideas are the same thing as calling for the extermination of an entire people?

7.      You immediately lump all critics of Islam with the neo-cons.
You think I’m joking don’t you? 

Interact with some Chomsky groupies online sometime. Granted, this argument isn’t heard among professional commentators the way the others are but, rest assured, it’s out there. I’ve been accused of being a neo-con. Me. A neo-con. Now, anyone familiar with any of my posts knows immediately how laughable that is but they will stick to their guns on that one. Criticize Islam and you’re one of Cheney’s minions. Of course, Sam Harris is a neo-con too. He’s probably secretly getting a paycheck from the PNAC.

8.      You believe in free speech “but…”
When you say “but” it usually means “ignore everything I said before”. You will often hear the word “but” coming when political commentators discuss the violence inspired by cartoons, videos or some idiot burning a Koran. I’m sorry BUT (I’m not really sorry) if you say “but” after talking about how you favor free speech and don’t follow the “but” with anything as severe as “screaming fire in a crowded auditorium” or “threatening to kill someone”, if you instead follow with “we need to be sensitive” or some other crap, then you are unworthy of being a journalist, for you have the heart of a coward and the mind of a sycophant.

9.      You suggest the problem with Islamic extremism is “extremism”, not Islam.
Not sure if Cenk Uygur counts as being a news commentator but he’s been a serious advocate of this position that should have been laughed out of existence before it made its way on camera.  “Extremism” isn’t an ideology. Extremism is a qualifier of how a particular ideology is held and interpreted by certain individual adherents. An “extremist pacifist” might have some nutty ideas but isn’t a threat the same way an extremist of another ideology might be.

10.  You’re a moral relativist.
A lot of Islamophiles are. I mean, who are we to say female genital mutilation, murder of homosexuals or honor killings are wrong? As Captain Kirk once said to a war criminal, “who must I be?” Abuse of human rights isn’t a matter of culture. It isn’t relative. It is absolute.

-----
I used to think that Islam and Christianity were equally dangerous. I once coined the term “Islamo-Christianity”. I once used the analogy that one was a rabid dog caged by civilization and the other was running amok. I have reconsidered that old opinion in light of new arguments and new evidence that I’ve since been exposed to (that’s how it works).

Islam is considerably more violent and barbaric than Christianity. Just consider which country you would rather live in as a Jew, as a gay, as a woman, as an atheist, a “moderate” Muslim majority country like Indonesia or a conservative Christian community? Even the ultimate nightmare scenario of Ted Cruz’s America would be a preferable place to live.

Christianity, for all its flaws, and I can go on and on about them, has two things going for it that Islam lacks:

1.      The Christian’s “kingdom” is in a “higher place”. Dominionism is just not very popular among Christians, even among fundamentalists. How many of you have even heard of “Dominionism”, the Christian analog to Sharia Law? It’s a tiny minority among Christians (Ted Cruz is one) likely because the other-worldly nature of its theology doesn’t necessarily support it. Now compare how many Christians are Dominionists to how many Muslims want Sharia Law. Islam is not so other-worldly. It was started by a conquering warlord, not a delusional hippy (set aside the JNE idea for another discussion).

2.      The Christian moderate has a big escape hatch summed up in three simple words: “Jesus fulfilled that”. What exactly? By how? Who cares? The point is, these simple words allow the moderate Christian to all but toss out the Bible completely and make it all up as they go along. All you really have to do is say you accept Jesus as your lord and the rest is pretty much up to the dominant local denomination. I’m not sure that Islam offers a similar escape route for the moderates who want to treat their sacred scripture like a buffet table.

OK, now that I’ve said my peace, Islamophiles here on this forum can tell me what a bigot I am.

[Minimalist]

Suffice to say a very long, serious "out of character" rant about Islamophilia and the double standards surrounding how we can criticize Islam is coming...

What's wrong with Fuck Allah?  It flows just as nicely as Fuck Jesus.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Suffice to say a very long, serious "out of character" rant about Islamophilia and the double standards surrounding how we can criticize Islam is coming...

What's wrong with Fuck Allah?  It flows just as nicely as Fuck Jesus.

Oh, fine, you're one to just sum it all up in a few words. 

Yours in Him,
YITW

[madog]

I often wonder if some apologists yearn for the good old days when they could do really heinous things in the name of their christian "God" fantasy and to return to when criticism had good old inquisitions to keep questioning minds on their track.

They probably use islampohilia as a prelude to christianophilia so they can make any talk against their christian "God" fantasy into christianophobia

Dog.