Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

There's some denial amongst the loons/Islamophobes that they are indeed Islamophobic and not just rational people who are critical of a major world religion.

Non-loons have no difficulty in distinguishing Islamophobia and Islamophobic rants from reasoned debates or critiques of Islam or Muslims.

I came across this comparison today.. it compares Islamophobia and the KKK. It should help clarify what is Islamophobia.

As with the accurate description I gave of the term 'feral underclass' in the UK, there will be some people who will be offended at the descriptions given. I recognise this fact and just ask those offended to not act like loons if they don't want to be lumped in with the loons. Being a loon is a choice.

Similarities between Islamophobia and the KKK:

1. Both are largely far-right movements. Some will undoubtedly claim that the KKK isn’t rightwing, but this is a misrepresentation. The KKK was reactionary, which is inherently rightwing.

2. Attempts are made to curtail the rights of the hated minority. JihadWatch fans talk of ways of getting around inconvenient laws that ensure the equality of people regardless of race or religion. Some argue that “exceptions” should be made in the case of Muslims, or that Islam isn’t a religion (the latter argument fails because political ideologies, regardless of whether they’re popular or not, are protected under the law). JihadWatch writers like Hugh Fitzgerald go further, arguing that “limits [be] put on contact between Muslims in the West,” that education be severely limited “not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area,” and that there should be a seizure of “Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West.” These suggestions by a popular JihadWatch writer are reminiscent of Jim Crow laws, if not fascism. Already in some European countries populist politicians are advocating for legislation that would restrict the basic rights of Muslims. In some supposedly progressive countries, a few such laws have already been passed, unfortunately.

3. Religious symbols and themes are often invoked. Spencer, for examples, often describes his anti-Islam effort as a “crusade.” His polemics against Islam are rife with pro-Catholic apologetics.

4. Religious symbols are burned. For the KKK, crosses were burned; for Islamophobes, Qur’ans are torched. The difference is, of course, that the former were proud Christians while the latter hated the religion that had its object burned. Islamophobes have also invented other ways to express their hatred of Muslims via defacing the Qur’an, sometimes making use of their feces.

5. Crimes committed by fellow ideologues are ignored, downplayed, or denied; crimes committed by the hated group are sometimes exaggerated or fabricated. Spencer, for example, completely ignored the murder of Marwa el-Sherbini by a German Islamophobe from Russia. The Solingen arson attack is another example, which also occurred in Germany, and in which five Turkish women and children were burned to death by far-right loons (if my memory is correct, more people have died in Germany because of anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant fanaticism than by terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals). An example of a fabricated incident includes the “mass child wedding in Gaza.”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/vandal ... community/

Can't be bothered to read your usual cut and paste, but is this to say that if you are not pro-Islam, you are suffering from Islamaphobia and/or a member of the KKK??

Bora Bora wrote: is this to say that if you are not pro-Islam, you are suffering from Islamaphobia and/or a member of the KKK??

No it isn't.

It is specifying what a loon is and distinguishing them from those who can rationally critique Islam and Muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

Bora Bora wrote: is this to say that if you are not pro-Islam, you are suffering from Islamaphobia and/or a member of the KKK??

No it isn't.

It is specifying what a loon is and distinguishing them from those who can rationally critique Islam and Muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

Congratulations!!!! Consider yourself a loon of the highest order!!!! (Key word: rationally)

HA!!!! Seems I have shut you up!!!!

Congratulations Shaf.

I will agree Shaf is going about it the wrong way. Your opinion backed up with something credible is always better than backing up someone else's ( Loonwatch.com in this instance )

I have no problems with critics at all. Infact I've spent a good deal of time talking with such and the conversation has always been lively.

But people like EH, BM, Herve, Capsi, Getrude and FD are not critics. FD could be a critic if he stopped being such a fan of fabrications like memri and such. There is hope for him yet

But the rest are clearly phobes and more, and this doesn't have to be really stated as it as obvious as the sunshine on a bright summer day. No one here takes these phobic rants seriously other than fellow phobes who join in to have a Islam/muslim bashing boot party.

It is entertaining to see them pat each other on their backs. Internet forums are a wonderfull thing indeed.

I actually like discussing issues - and indeed there's much that is worthy of discussion within the Muslim world and Islamic theology.

As for FD - it is interesting to note that early on we had some cordial discussions - I remember for instance discussing the preservation and transmission of the Quran. He also started a thread on contradictions in the Quran - where he listed the ones found on anti-Islam websites, but allowed me to address each in turn.

But what is very clear, is that there is really no benefit in engaging Islamophobes in debate - by definition, they are not interested in debate.

Cheers,
Shafique

Again that is very obvious other wise the person wouldn't be classed as a phobe but a critic instead, hence I never do, not anymore atleast

KKK's cigarette of choice? Marlboro's!

Critic: A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement. Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent.

Islamophobia: Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims.

Fanatic: Religious fanaticism is fanaticism related to a person's, or a group's, devotion to a religion. However, religious fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another's behavior or belief is determined by the core assumptions of the one doing the evaluation. As such, there is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position. As with any fanaticism (e.g. militantism, and anti-superstitious), it has the danger to be bigoted, rely largely on sweeping statements (in some cases entirely) and generalisations often twisting what its opponents are actually saying (or the meaning) to what the speaker wishes their oponent had actually said/ meant. Often the arguments come accross as bigoted, completely unwilling and unable to fully take on an opponents point at any stage, just like their religious extreemist counterparts, whom they openly dispise (although they are often assertions and not arguments, again just like many religious fanatics) and will actively demonise those they opponents.

No one here is a "critic" in the true sense because no one here really has full knowledge of Islam, but does have some. Opinions given are not with any "intent".

Not everyone is Islamophobic but can be perceived as an opponent. Because one does not agree with another's view, doesn't make them phobic. When discussing Islam we become opponents to the fanatic.

There are rarely "discussions" or "debates" on Islam because as soon as someone disagrees with a hardline Muslim they are labelled as being Islamophobic.

FD can hold a proper discussions because he speaks of the subject at hand without belittling or name calling those who don't agree with him, yet he gets the "label".

Shaf, you have two interests: Islam and Jews/Israel. Both controversial. If you are going to post something that is clearly controversial, then be prepared for people to have a different view without labelling them, unless their view is so extreme it warrants a label. You, IMO, are a fanatic as defined above. This is not meant to be a slap, just stating an obvious fact. I am your opponent, along with others who don't agree with you.

As was seen on the other thread, there are no attempts made as to define what a critic actually is.

The KKK was reactionary, which is inherently rightwing.

This statement doesn't hold ground. First of all, define 'right wing'.

People have this grossly distorted view of left and right these days. Most people never define their terms of left and right in the political spectrum.

I always refer back to the basis of the Founding Fathers and the measure of Liberty based on some 5000 years of history which is explained in below video.

Left side of the spectrum is total government (oligarchy/dictatorship) and right side of the political spectrum is anarchy. Center right lies the Constitution of the Founding Fathers. Limited government (merely needed for defense, justice and basic social order from police services), maximizing freedom. That is true Liberty and FYI, it is more right than left. However, anarchy is lawlessness, where you would have a dayjob defending once property. Hence the need for a Sheriff in frontier America, a requirement for social order and further capital development.

Enjoy.

Hi RobbyG!!!

RobbyG - interesting view.

I wouldn't argue with the statement that the KKK is right wing - so interesting that you dispute this point. (I'll go by the generally understood definition of 'right wing' and 'left wing' is.)

Bora - I totally agree with the premise that not everyone that disagrees with my views on Islam is Islamophobic. I'm at pains to point out that there is a difference between an Islamophobe and a person who has a different view point on Islam. Take Chocs and Kanelli and DK for examples - they aren't Muslim, have issues with some Islamic teachings and Muslim practices, but aren't Islamophobes.

One characteristic of an Islamophobe is the form in which their questions take - and how they receive the answers given. A Loon will typically ask a loaded question and then dispute the answer that is given - pretending that Guru Bob (et al) know the 'true' Islam. A non-Islamophobe will ask a question out of curiosity and listen to the answer and concede that this is the point of view of the answerer. They may not agree with the point of view, or they may ask for more explanation - but they won't pretend they 'know' what Islam is.

What others choose to label me and others is up to them - whether this view is based on actual posts and behaviour or fantasies about Muslims in general will colour the opinion.

But, there's clearly a distinction between an Islamophobe/Loon and a non-Loon critic of Islam.

Cheers,
Shafique

Once again, your point gets diluted with your name calling. Loon, non-loon, Islamophobe. But I do notice you don't mention the participation of a/any fanatic(s).

Well, as you know, I'm Muslim, and I sit on the middle of the fence and will debate on both sides. Not hardcore towards one side. That would make me neither a fanatic, Islamophobe, loon or non-loon. , so I guess I'm just someone with a opinion.

RobbyG can make statements with value, and probably due to the fact that he is an atheist he can see both or all sides, and for those who either agree or disagree and can have an intelligent exchange with him makes for good discussion/debate. It's interesting to see someone's view who has not had religion instilled in them. It's in the delivery and the content in which he presents his view. There is that one moment, which is forgiveable, when he went off the radar and thought the world needed to be better informed about Islam. I see that he has returned to his neutral zone.

event horizon wrote:As was seen on the other thread, there are no attempts made as to define what a critic actually is.

Looks like you somehow missed the huge post right above yours. BB's post gives the definition while shafs expands on it.

Maybe your in some kind of misunderstanding but let me put it clearly for you. A critic, you are not ! I know you would like to see your self as one, BTW was absolutely hillarious when in the other thread you said "I'm a critic and I'll remain one"

Thanks for the laugh.

Well, between BB's and my post, no one should be under any confusion over the difference between an Islamophobe and a 'normal' critic of Islam/Muslims.

RobbyG is not an Islamophobe, for example - and we certainly don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues.

If you're not an Islamophobe or loon as defined, you shouldn't be offended by references to loons.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:

event horizon wrote:As was seen on the other thread, there are no attempts made as to define what a critic actually is.

Looks like you somehow missed the huge post right above yours. BB's post gives the definition while shafs expands on it.

Maybe your in some kind of misunderstanding but let me put it clearly for you. A critic, you are not ! I know you would like to see your self as one, BTW was absolutely hillarious when in the other thread you said "I'm a critic and I'll remain one"

Thanks for the laugh.

Dude, unlike you and others who did read the posts, obviously he didn't!!!! I guess that wedgie of his is riding high.

I must confess, I misread EH's post. I thought he said "I'm a critter and I'll remain one".

LOOOL !!!

shafique wrote:Well, between BB's and my post, no one should be under any confusion over the difference between an Islamophobe and a 'normal' critic of Islam/Muslims.

RobbyG is not an Islamophobe, for example - and we certainly don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues.

If you're not an Islamophobe or loon as defined, you shouldn't be offended by references to loons.

Cheers,
Shafique

My point being Shaf, that you may develop more interesting discussions/debates without using labels.

If you notice there is no question of debate, everybody is more than willing. But as Shaf said when the poster posts a loaded question ( which ofcourse he has his own answer to, taken from someone else ) and not out of curiosity ofcourse but just to forward his own answer to the said question.

Thats no debate at all when the respose is NO what Spencer, Geller, Wilders, out of context mistranslated verses, Memri, Some random blogger, Unknow Youtube video etc etc says is RIGHT and your just making up stuff. Thats where the "debate" ends and the fun begins.

desertdudeshj wrote:If you notice there is no question of debate, everybody is more than willing. But as Shaf said when the poster posts a loaded question ( which ofcourse he has his own answer to, taken from someone else ) and not out of curiosity ofcourse but just to forward his own answer to the said question.

Thats no debate at all when the respose is NO what Spencer, Geller, Wilders, out of context mistranslated verses, Memri, Some random blogger, Unknow Youtube video etc etc says is RIGHT and your just making up stuff. Thats where the "debate" ends and the fun begins.

Then there is more than one person who is guilty of loaded questions and statements. One person cannot have it both ways - accusing people of doing the very same thing they are guilty of.

Yes there are, some people admit it and some don't And as an example a smoker can advise someone not to pick up the habit. Just because he does, does not make his advice null and void, maybe carries less weight but still true none the less

Stay/ing in context of the OP. We are talking about loons and so called "discussions" about Islam here on DF.

I have no problems calling a spade a spade and in this case, loon. Infact I would call it a very polite term to describe the antics of people like EH. Who still has delusions of being a critter....oops I meant critic !

desertdudeshj wrote:Yes there are, some people admit it and some don't And as an example a smoker can advise someone not to pick up the habit. Just because he does, does not make his advice null and void, maybe carries less weight but still true none the less

Stay/ing in context of the OP. We are talking about loons and so called "discussions" about Islam here on DF.

I have no problems calling a spade a spade and in this case, loon. Infact I would call it a very polite term to describe the antics of people like EH. Who still has delusions of being a critter....oops I meant critic !

Poor example the smoker giving advice to a non smoker. Both parties are fully aware of the impact. All the stats available come to the same conclusion. Unless, of course, someone can find otherwise where it promotes good health. *cough cough*

How successful is a debate when someone is labelling/insulting an opponent?? Calling/labelling someone is meant to be insulting.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a 'loonaphobe' - I have an intense aversion to loons. It is almost as my intense aversion to those who make up stats or misuse stats!

I freely admit that I may misinterpret some innocent critic's critique as an Islamophobic rant, but I do believe that I've demonstrated that I give people the benefit of the doubt and only denounce Islamophobia after it has manifested itself.

But coming back to this thread - we seem to be agreement that when an Islamophobe is identified, it is futile to debate with them (because they aren't actually interested in the truth).

Why not let's move on to actual debates then, talking about Islamophobes etc is a bit boring now we've reached a consensus that a. they exist and b. no point debating with them.

I'll happily debate with former Islamophobes too - if they wish to engage in actual debate rather than pass off what Geller, Spencer et al have to say as 'true Islam'. That's fair, isnt' it?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a 'loonaphobe' - I have an intense aversion to loons. It is almost as my intense aversion to those who make up stats or misuse stats!

I freely admit that I may misinterpret some innocent critic's critique as an Islamophobic rant, but I do believe that I've demonstrated that I give people the benefit of the doubt and only denounce Islamophobia after it has manifested itself.

But coming back to this thread - we seem to be agreement that when an Islamophobe is identified, it is futile to debate with them (because they aren't actually interested in the truth).

Why not let's move on to actual debates then, talking about Islamophobes etc is a bit boring now we've reached a consensus that a. they exist and b. no point debating with them.

I'll happily debate with former Islamophobes too - if they wish to engage in actual debate rather than pass off what Geller, Spencer et al have to say as 'true Islam'. That's fair, isnt' it?

Cheers,
Shafique

*Spit tea over screen laughing* You give people the benefit of the doubt???

Shaf, you are unbelieveable!!!!

You've got a short memory.

Gadfly, eh, FD all were given the benefit of the doubt in first encounters..

But hey, why don't you practice what you preach - start a thread on an interesting topic about Islam that we can debate, and then see what the responses are (from myself as well).

Cheers,
Shafique