Why are a lot of people Islamophobic?

Scroll to see replies

No, but Muslims as a whole need to recognise why many Westerners feel hostile towards Islam. Mainly, that all recent terror attacks in Europe have been perpetrated by Muslims, in the name of Islam, with theocratic justification from some parts of the Qur'an. No one is saying that "all Muslims" are terrorists, obviously that's incorrect. But it is also undeniable that violence seems to be far more prevalent amongst Muslims too.

Additionally, whenever Islam is (rightly) criticised for issues such as women's rights, gay rights, and general hostility towards outside groups, Muslims instantly take the defensive position and claim they're "not real Muslims", when such views evidently are held by large swathes of the Middle Eastern population, and even a substantial number of people here in Britain. Meanwhile, girls in Germany are being advised to cover up so as not to 'offend' refugees, French publishers dare not make a satirical comic book about religious figures, and people are wondering why people associate Islam with violence and other bad things?

I also find it deeply unsettling that Muslims believe that all non-Muslims are going to burn in hell for eternity, and apparently are fine with this and think it is deserved, simply for not being a Muslim due to being born into a different part of the world. Although, this does of course apply to other religions, but is no less unsettling.

But to address the OP, 'Islamophobia' has essentially taken on the new meaning that anyone who even vaguely questions the tenets of Islam is apparently a monstrous bigot.

That's like asking"Westerners" to recognise they create the environment, means and ecosystem for 'terrorists' to operate. Al Qaeda, ISIS are western creations. These are organisations at their heart that were supported materially and covertly. The West continues to support the next "rebel" group, knowing full well there is no way to control the dog.

In the meantime, the West are busy bombing the middle East, killing innocent people, resulting in millions of orhpans and refugees...Who then want to escape the war and are told they can't enter the West.

World politics isn't simple is it

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Reply 161

troubadour.

Original post by AishaGirl

Just because A Muslim may commit a terrible crime doesn't suddenly not make them a Muslim. Their understanding of the religion is skewed by they still believe in the Quran, sunnah and the prophet Muhammad saw.

So you wouldn't put them in the same class as the IS, who are considered by many of TSR Muslims to be a modern-day Kharijites? Interesting.

So it's OK for a country to encroach and oppress others to further their own self interest? Interesting.

I haven't said that - in fact, I've said nothing of my own views on Israel-Palestine so far. I was probing to see whether I could get you to see that you are not being consistent. You are for Muslim nationalism - so it's okay for Muslims to look after only Muslim interests, even at the expense of non-Muslims, but it's not okay for the United States to look after its interests and that of its allies at the expense of people who happen to be Muslim (remember, the US is officially allied with most Muslim countries). Can you see why those two views are incompatible to an outside observer?

Something like 95% of Palestinians are Muslim what are you talking about?

In Gaza, yes. In the West Bank it's something like 80 - 85 percent (not accounting for any conversions, which must necessarily be kept unofficial), which is hardly grounds to conclude that more or less all Palestinians are Muslims. Moreover, 17 - 20 percent of the population of Israel is Muslim. The point is that this simplistic characterisation that Palestinian = Muslim and Israeli = Jew does not work, and is believed only by those who like to imagine an existential struggle for survival between persecuted Muslims and persecutor non-Muslims. As I said a few pages back, reality is rarely a standard good guy vs. bad guy story.

Muslims should defend Muslims, I already told you that.

And is flying planes into buildings full of civilians defending Muslims, in your view?

It's worth noting, since consequentialism is popular with many people of this bad west vs. righteous Ummah mindset, that acts of terror and other outward displays of extremism have only made the condition of Muslims worse - indeed, much of the claimed oppression of Muslims couldn't have happened without the work of Muslim nationalist groups like al-Qaeda. I'm sure you're a fan of 'knock-on effect' morality (your stance on Iraq certainly indicates that), so it's worth bearing that in mind before you term these actions a defense of Muslims...

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 162

Josb

Original post by ward47

could you please provide statistical evidence of this it would be much appreciated.

Coalition only deaths: 12.4%. Note that the count stops in 2008. Violent deaths since 2008 are not included.

journal.pmed.1000415.t001.png

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000415

Reply 163

BigTraderBoi

Those people have hate in their heart.

Reply 164

Josb

Original post by silent ninja

"The West" did not create the Islamic State, not Al Qaeda. Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

We are not "busy bombing the Middle West". The three countries that actually bomb civilians in the Middle East are Russia, Syria and Saudi Arabia; none of them can be associated with "the West".

Reply 165

EternalLight

Original post by Hydeman

So you wouldn't put them in the same class as the IS, who are considered by many of TSR Muslims to be a modern-day Kharijites? Interesting.

"An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The view of ash-Shaafa‘i and the majority of his fellow scholars is that the Khawaarij are not to be described as disbelievers; this also applies to the Qadariyyah and the majority of the Mu‘tazilah and other groups that follow whims and desires." Sharh Muslim, 7/160

"Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Saalih al-Mahmoud (may Allah preserve him) was asked: Are the Khawaarij kaafirs (disbelievers)?
He replied:
The scholars differed as to whether they are disbelievers, but the correct view is that they are not to be regarded as disbelievers. ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about them: Are they disbelievers? He said: They fled from disbelief, but they fell into the innovation of labelling others as disbelievers; we will not fall into the innovation of labelling others as disbelievers and thus label them as such. This is the correct view, in sha Allah, even though their innovations may be described as innovations that constitute kufr." Lam‘at al-I‘tiqaad, 7/26

So to answer your question yes they are khawaarij but they are not to be regarded as disbelievers. For the simple reason that they still believe in the Quran, sunnah and the prophet saw. Muslims should be wary of making takfir. It is truly for Allah swt to judge. Allahu alim.

No it is not OK for Muslims or Muslim countries to invade and attack other peaceful nations therefore we expect the same level of respect from the kuffar and when they respect is not shown, Muslims should come the defence of Muslims who are unable to defend themselves. It is permissible to be offensive to defend what is yours. If the U.S invade a country, that country has every right to defend themselves, the same goes for Palestine. Slaughtering innocents however is not defence...

Apples and oranges, not all Palestinians are Muslims but the overwhelming majority are. I don't know what kind of argument you're trying to make.

And is flying planes into buildings full of civilians defending Muslims, in your view?

If you're not even going to bother reading what I say then this conversation has run its course. I never have and never will condone the killing of innocent people.

Reply 166

BigTraderBoi

Original post by Josb

"The West" did not create the Islamic State, not Al Qaeda. Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

We are not "busy bombing the Middle West". The three countries that actually bomb civilians in the Middle East are Russia, Syria and Saudi Arabia; none of them can be associated with "the West".

I disagree. The West, particularly America and Britain, have heavily bombed and killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. They've invaded Muslim nations, destroyed buildings, homes and the local people's sense of pride and belonging. They have let everyone there know through their actions that they hate the Muslims there. One should probably expect groups like this to form in response to decades of bombing and destruction. If the West did not interfere in the Middle East, these groups would never exist on the scale that they are today because people would feel safe and happy in their homes, and would have a good relationship with western nations.

Reply 167

Josb

Original post by BigTraderBoi

Al Qaeda was created in 1988 to fight against the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, which cannot be considered as a western nation.

What triggered the creation of the Islamic State was the "de-Baathification" of Iraq done by the Shia government of Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The Shia government sacked most Sunni officers, who then defected to the Islamic State. The latter's primary focus was in fact the Shia government rather than the USA/UK.

It is very naive to think that the Middle East would be in peace if the USA hadn't intervened there, considering the countless wars between Muslim powers in the area since the creation of Islam.

Reply 168

troubadour.

Original post by AishaGirl

So to answer your question yes they are khawaarij but they are not to be regarded as disbelievers. For the simple reason that they still believe in the Quran, sunnah and the prophet saw. Muslims should be wary of making takfir. It is truly for Allah swt to judge. Allahu alim.

That's fine - my claim was that they are not considered proper Muslims, or at least not the proper defenders of Muslims, as they have historically been regarded as misguided vigilantes. So my argument stands: AQ cannot be viewed by mainstream Muslims to have any special obligation to the Palestinian cause, as they are neither Palestinian nor properly following Islam, a distinction which other groups, like Black September, can claim.

You've dodged the question. You explained away al-Qaeda's actions against the US - American civilians, to be exact - by saying that Muslims have an obligation to defend other Muslims and that AQ had simply gone about it the wrong way. My question was why you won't apply this line of thinking when it comes to non-Muslims. From the point of view of the US government, Israel is an ally with close cultural ties to the west and neighbours that are hostile to it; therefore, they financially and militarily support Israel. From the point of view of al-Qaeda, Palestinians are fellow Muslims in distress whose cause must be backed; therefore, they do the best they can (as they see it) to do so. What is the material difference between the two, in your view? Either it's wrong for nations to pursue their own self-interest at the expense of others, or it isn't. It can't be right for Muslims but not right for non-Muslims.

Regarding being offensive only to defend 'what is yours' and 'it is not OK for Muslims or Muslim countries to invade and attack other peaceful nations' - this is arbitrary and you only need look at a map of the early Muslim conquests, led by men believed by the majority of Muslims to be righteous, to see that it clearly is okay in some cases. Otherwise you wouldn't have had the Umayyad conquests of north Africa and the Iberian peninsula.

Apples and oranges, not all Palestinians are Muslims but the overwhelming majority are. I don't know what kind of argument you're trying to make.

I think I was pretty clear: the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot correctly be described as a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims/Jews, as so many Muslims are fond of doing. The basis for this view is the claim that the Muslims of greater Palestine are oppressed for being Muslims by Israel - this is not true, since a sizable proportion of them hold Israeli citizenship and have pretty much the same rights and representation as an Israeli Jew. Therefore there's no basis for any righteous chest-thumping over the cause of 'our poor Muslim brothers in Palestine', as many Muslims do.

If you're not even going to bother reading what I say then this conversation has run its course. I never have and never will condone the killing of innocent people.

I have been reading what you say. I just think you're not being clear. On the one hand you make statements like the one I've highlighted, but on the other you continue to characterise al-Qaeda attacks on the US as 'defending Muslims' - you ignored the second half of my argument here, which explained the problem with viewing such actions as a defense of Muslims (nutshell: life for Muslims has only been made worse by the emergence and activity of groups like this, as well as creating a lot of bad blood that didn't previously exist, or at least was not as potent).

I do apologise for the length of my replies. :tongue:

Reply 169

Cherub012

Original post by mariachi

Interesting. I recently discussed with a Muslim who considered that the Quran's ruling on theft (cutting the hand of the thief) should be interpreted as "put the thief in a situation where he cannot steal anymore"

This is very positive in my view, but few Muslims would follow this sort of creative thinking: they are afraid of pushing "interpretation" too far, ending up in "innovation".

But, where exactly lies the limit ? Christians are much more flexible on this, and this -in my view - is their strength. But Muslims see it as a weakness.

Best

I would actually be eager to hear an answer to that. ^^^

Reply 170

user 42005

Original post by silent ninja

The Middle East has been filled with sectarian conflict for decades; the root of the conflict goes all the way back to the 7th century. As has already been stated by another user, ISIS formed due to the post-Saddam Shia government. Al-Qaeda formed in resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The latter cannot be attributed to the West at all, and the former only by the deposition of Saddam by Western powers. However, this occurred due to (admittedly, flawed) intelligence indicating the possession of WMDs, so it is arguable that this was a matter of self-defence.

I've already addressed the conflicts in the Middle East in my other posts, so please read them so I don't have to repeat myself. But the West use targeted strikes against ISIS; blame the blitzkreig of places like Aleppo on Russia. The refugees are largely as a result of ISIS and/or the Syrian government-rebel conflict, not the West. Why should they have entry into the West? A far better approach would be to provide humanitarian aid to the surrounding countries, where they will fit in far better (culturally) than here, and this is also safer for our own society. But no, they come here because it's wealthier here. Once they're out of Syria/Iraq, it's clearly not about safety anymore.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 171

EternalLight

Original post by Josb

It is very naive to think that the Middle East would be in peace if the USA hadn't intervened there, considering the countless wars between Muslim powers in the area since the creation of Islam.

The middle east has been in relative peace for centuries until the west stuck their noses in.

Reply 172

jape

Original post by AishaGirl

The middle east has been in relative peace for centuries until the west stuck their noses in.

You mean when the entire region was run from Istanbul?

Reply 173

Joey Joe.

Terrorism.

The rape epidemic going over all over Europe.

It comes from fear.

The fact that you can be killed in many Muslim countries for being gay.

They still kill animals with big knives, which is a harsh way to do it, but because of a ancient book it's carried on, and because it's a religion we accept it, yet we don't accept cults like Scientology.

It's just fear.

Reply 174

EternalLight

Original post by Joey Joe.

They still kill animals with big knives, which is a harsh way to do it, but because of a ancient book it's carried on, and because it's a religion we accept it, yet we don't accept cults like Scientology..

Killing an animal by slicing it's neck is a very humane way to kill it. The animal loses consciousness very quickly and it's painless providing the knife used is incredibly sharp.

Compare that to chicken on a conveyor belt that fall into a spinning grinder which may end up grinding them feet first. And large cattle and shot in the head with an electric bolt which sometimes doesn't stun correctly and leaves the animal suffering and going into shock.

At least when you eat halal meat you know the animal was killed with respect, dignity and the blessings of Allah.

Reply 175

Josb

Original post by AishaGirl

The middle east has been in relative peace for centuries until the west stuck their noses in.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 176

EternalLight

Original post by Josb

I said relative peace... I would link the list of wars the UK has been in since the 1700's but unfortunately the list is too long to post here.

Reply 177

Josb

Original post by AishaGirl

I said relative peace... I would link the list of wars the UK has been in since the 1700's but unfortunately the list is too long to post here.

Great Britain (the UK was founded in 1801) was involved in wars throughout the world, not in a specific area. Between 1500 and 1850, the Middle East witnessed 80 years of war (and I didn't count the numerous revolts within the Ottoman Empire).

Reply 178

user 42005

Original post by AishaGirl

Killing an animal by slicing it's neck is a very humane way to kill it. The animal loses consciousness very quickly and it's painless providing the knife used is incredibly sharp.

Well that's bullsh*t, unless it's stunned. If it isn't stunned, then it's not humane at all.

Compare that to chicken on a conveyor belt that fall into a spinning grinder which may end up grinding them feet first. And large cattle and shot in the head with an electric bolt which sometimes doesn't stun correctly and leaves the animal suffering and going into shock.

In other words, instant. Chickens are also often passed through electrical water baths to stun them before being killed.

Regarding cattle, there is no way you can argue that it is more cruel than slitting it's throat. At least it's rendered unconscious (and thus pain-free), rather than having to feel the blood gushing out of its throat.

At least when you eat halal meat you know the animal was killed with respect, dignity and the blessings of Allah.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.