Question for muslims: What to do about my "islamophobia"?

[carn]

My opinion about the theological content of islam - which is something vastly different from a opinion about muslims in specific or general - would be characterized by many as islamophobia.
I disagree because a phobia is a fear without cause, being afraid of something dangerous is not a phobia. For example one does not suffer from socialismophobia, if one thinks socialism to be dangerous. And such fear does not exclude thte possibility to have normal relationship with people fond of socialism.

Now if i truly suffer from a phobia it would mean, i lack reason for being worried by islam and i should get more information about islam, so that i realize i lack reason for being worried.

The problem is that all such attempts i made so far intensified my worries. E.g.:

• reading koran:
  
  I assumed that it is like the bible with many hard to understand passages, but some
  obvious more or less moral core, which anyone reading it would see, compiled by some
  pious individuals guided by showing others ways to improve as human beings.
  After reading it in part, i currently assume it is authored/composed by some power- and
  sexhungry would-be world conquerers. The alternative is even less nice.
• looking at muhammeds life:
  
  I assumed that though he had to fight some wars, he was a rather moral character for a
  7th century military leader and ruler.
  Looking closer it seems Muhammed was sub-par even compared to standard war
  leaders, maybe something like the scientology founder (who founded scientology to get
  rich) just with different aims (money, conquest + women) in a different century
• looking at islams history
  
  i assumed it somehow had spread like christianity, a bit of “convert or die” at times, but
  mostly through convincing others
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests
  Whatever one calls it, these were not defensive conquest, far too fast for that, only
  mongols and alexander conquered territory faster. And mor worrysome islam seems to
  have spread except for indonesia region nearly exactly as far conquest was possible.
  That europe is not islamic was not decided by preaching but in the battle of tours and
  others, at the walls of constantinople (at least temporary) or/and by the limits
  of military conquest with horses and swords. Furthermore military exapansion stopped
  only when muslim empires grew weak due to internal struggle and renewed again when
  under the turks internal struggle was reduced. And this stopped only when europe rose
  in power in the 18th century.

-looking at muslim moderates today

whenever i do that i think “if these are the moderates …oh my God.” example:
acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
When i read it, i had in mind, how the less peace inclined european politicians might
have answered that. Probably with something like “We received your declaration of war.
Our forces are ready.” Because that letter is just one step short of a declaration of war. If
these are the moderate peaceful fraction, they are either not that different from the non-
moderates or not competent in using words and therefore unlikely to win any argument
against the non-moderates.

Any suggestions?

 

[Sam_777]

Whenever someone points out the true face of Islam Muslims call that “islamophobia” .

That expression should be changed to “islamofacts” .

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

My opinion about the theological content of islam - which is something vastly different from a opinion about muslims in specific or general - would be characterized by many as islamophobia.
I disagree because a phobia is a fear without cause, being afraid of something dangerous is not a phobia. For example one does not suffer from socialismophobia, if one thinks socialism to be dangerous. And such fear does not exclude thte possibility to have normal relationship with people fond of socialism.

Now if i truly suffer from a phobia it would mean, i lack reason for being worried by islam and i should get more information about islam, so that i realize i lack reason for being worried.

The problem is that all such attempts i made so far intensified my worries. E.g.:

• reading koran:
  
  I assumed that it is like the bible with many hard to understand passages, but some
  obvious more or less moral core, which anyone reading it would see, compiled by some
  pious individuals guided by showing others ways to improve as human beings.
  After reading it in part, i currently assume it is authored/composed by some power- and
  sexhungry would-be world conquerers. The alternative is even less nice.
• looking at muhammeds life:
  
  I assumed that though he had to fight some wars, he was a rather moral character for a
  7th century military leader and ruler.
  Looking closer it seems Muhammed was sub-par even compared to standard war
  leaders, maybe something like the scientology founder (who founded scientology to get
  rich) just with different aims (money, conquest + women) in a different century
• looking at islams history
  
  i assumed it somehow had spread like christianity, a bit of “convert or die” at times, but
  mostly through convincing others
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests
  Whatever one calls it, these were not defensive conquest, far too fast for that, only
  mongols and alexander conquered territory faster. And mor worrysome islam seems to
  have spread except for indonesia region nearly exactly as far conquest was possible.
  That europe is not islamic was not decided by preaching but in the battle of tours and
  others, at the walls of constantinople (at least temporary) or/and by the limits
  of military conquest with horses and swords. Furthermore military exapansion stopped
  only when muslim empires grew weak due to internal struggle and renewed again when
  under the turks internal struggle was reduced. And this stopped only when europe rose
  in power in the 18th century.

-looking at muslim moderates today

whenever i do that i think “if these are the moderates …oh my God.” example:
acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
When i read it, i had in mind, how the less peace inclined european politicians might
have answered that. Probably with something like “We received your declaration of war.
Our forces are ready.” Because that letter is just one step short of a declaration of war. If
these are the moderate peaceful fraction, they are either not that different from the non-
moderates or not competent in using words and therefore unlikely to win any argument
against the non-moderates.

Any suggestions?

I dont think there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim.
Or rather we have to change the idea of “moderate”.

 

[the_7th_one]

I dont think there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim.
Or rather we have to change the idea of “moderate”.

I use to work with a guy who taught English for 10 years in Saudi Arabia, he said he met many who were moderate, but also agreed that the masses were kept pacified by alowing them to embrace more radical ideas.
Iran, Iran is run by such radicals.

 

[Dapamadame]

Moderate - the term can only be defined by the extremes at either end.

 

[agnes_therese]

I dont think there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim.
Or rather we have to change the idea of “moderate”.

How many Muslims do you personally know?

 

[carn]

How many Muslims do you personally know?

May i point out that i am trying in this thread to discuss the “theological content” of islam and my dislike for it. In that regard the existence or non-existence of moderate muslims can at best influence my dislike (and so far did not lessen it) and only if these moderate muslims are somehow muslim scholars, as ordinary muslims have not much influence of the theological content. E.g. for a discussion about the content of the teachings of the Church it is pretty irrelevant whether lay catholics think about it or how far they act accordingly, individual persons would only be relevant insofar they are in a position to influence the churchs teaching (e.g. what a bishop says is relevant for teaching).

Therefore the question of the existence of moderate muslims is pretty irrelevant. I can only state that those islamic scholars, which were labelled somehow as moderate, only strenthened my “islamophobia”.

 

[manualman]

As poster Contarini has several times pointed out, Islam is more fractured in self-understanding and doctrine than christianity is.

Those who contend that Islamic dominated cultures have always and will always be despotic and tyrannical towards non-muslims need to do more homework on the conditions in the late Ottoman Empire: dhimmi status and teaching had been abolished, christians were allowed many civil rights, etc. Nothing like Saudi Arabia today.

I have my concerns about Islam and its teachings, but catholics are foolish and counter-productive to take the jihadi side in internal Islamic debates about “what Islam really is!” How about we let them decide what Islam really is and in the meantime hold a stance of cautious and wary optimism about what Islam has been culturally in the past (Ottomans) and could be once again.

 

[scipio337]

As poster Contarini has several times pointed out, Islam is more fractured in self-understanding and doctrine than christianity is.

Those who contend that Islamic dominated cultures have always and will always be despotic and tyrannical towards non-muslims need to do more homework on the conditions in the late Ottoman Empire: dhimmi status and teaching had been abolished, christians were allowed many civil rights, etc. Nothing like Saudi Arabia today.

I have my concerns about Islam and its teachings, but catholics are foolish and counter-productive to take the jihadi side in internal Islamic debates about “what Islam really is!” How about we let them decide what Islam really is and in the meantime hold a stance of cautious and wary optimism about what Islam has been culturally in the past (Ottomans) and could be once again.

Yes, the late Ottoman treatment of Greeks and Armenians was exemplary. Previous to that, the centuries-long Ottoman practice of “devşirme” was a model for human rights.

No, wait…

Are you serious???

Carn, the obvious solution to your (contended) “islamophobia” is to repeat “BUT CHRISTIANS DID IT TOO!!” after every criticism of Islamic belief, doctrine, or jurisprudence, even if it isn’t true.

 

[carn]

As poster Contarini has several times pointed out, Islam is more fractured in self-understanding and doctrine than christianity is.

But that doesn’t mean there is no common ground. In christianity for example there is common ground that Jesus died and rose from the dead and that that has to do something with salvation.

In islam as far as i know its common ground that the korans author is allah the creator and that mohammed was his prophet and was a human with little errors, who was good at carrying out allahs will and therefore is an example for good muslim behavior.
That alone is enough for a decent amount of “islamophobia”.

Those who contend that Islamic dominated cultures have always and will always be despotic and tyrannical towards non-muslims need to do more homework on the conditions in the late Ottoman Empire: dhimmi status and teaching had been abolished, christians were allowed many civil rights, etc.

Evidence?

What i found in quick googlind sounded like from 1843 on it was not that fun to be christian under ottoman rule.

Besides, i do not think that islamic dominated cultures ave always and will always be despotic towards non-muslims. I also do not think that all Popes were always upholding the commandment not to commit fornification. And that does not mean that fornification is not forbidden in catholic teaching. So the ottomans not being tyrannical towards christians in their later years, do not offer much information about what islam teaches in that regard.

I have my concerns about Islam and its teachings, but catholics are foolish and counter-productive to take the jihadi side in internal Islamic debates about “what Islam really is!” How about we let them decide what Islam really is and in the meantime hold a stance of cautious and wary optimism about what Islam has been culturally in the past (Ottomans) and could be once again.

But when we spend billions of unwilling taxpayers to help the creation of hopefully democratic states then its important whether there are some elements in islam problematic in regard to that attempt.

And considering that the main achievment of the ottomans is the conquering of constantinople and turning it into their islamic capital - an achievment that is still honored by “moderate” muslims by naming mosques after the conquerer - looking at the ottomans does not help my “islamophobia” much.

 

[Contarini]

My opinion about the theological content of islam - which is something vastly different from a opinion about muslims in specific or general - would be characterized by many as islamophobia.

Well first of all, I don’t use that term. The coinage of terms ending in “phobia” to label views you think are prejudices is an unfortunate one. It obfuscates the discussion.

I do think, however, that there’s some irrational fear going around, some of which seems to me to be embodied in your post. For instance, your reading of “A Common Word” seems downright weird to me. It’s hard to see why anyone would interpret the text that way unless because they went into it determined to put the worst possible construction on it.

I disagree because a phobia is a fear without cause, being afraid of something dangerous is not a phobia. For example one does not suffer from socialismophobia, if one thinks socialism to be dangerous.

But actually there is a lot of irrational fear of “socialism” as well. There is a lot of irrational fear of conservative Christianity among left-wing folks. Any time people strongly disagree with something but see it apparently gaining ground, they tend to do two things:

1. Exaggerate how evil the object of their fear is; and
2. Exaggerate how widespread and powerful it is, often by using the term describing it an an extremely broad sense (I notice this a lot with “socialism,” and on the left with terms like “Dominionism”).

These are natural human fears. And as you note, they may be rooted in genuine, rational concerns in the first place (which is why the use of the word “phobia” only gets in the way). But as a general rule, it’s wise to modify downward your own estimate of both the evil and the prevalence of something you dislike precisely in proportion to your feeling of dislike for it. The more convinced you are that something is both evil and powerful, the more likely it is that you are exaggerating. Of course that doesn’t mean that powerful evil forces don’t exist, so I’m not suggesting that you simply disregard your fears. What I’m saying is that emotions increase exponentially where the rational basis for them increases arithmetically. So on a scale of 0 to ten billion: if your fear and dislike of something is only 10, then probably it’s fully justified; if it’s 10,000, then probably the basis for it is at something like 40; while if it’s all the way to ten billion, then probably the basis is 100. (OK, it’s not as precise as this–but hopefully you get the idea.)

My own level of fear and dislike of Islam is at about 100, which I thus reason to have a justification of approximately 20!

Note that I’m talking about feelings that do have justification–obviously for some people there are other factors that magnify the irrationality of their reactions.

I’d like to address your more specific points but don’t have time at the moment.

 

[sedonaman]

This thread has hardly begun when it is taking on the typical patterns of threads on Islam. There are at least two:

Pattern 1: Usually, this begins with some statement that Islam advocates X, where X is something evil. Within a few posts, someone states, “I know some nice Muslims,” implying that Islam must be good. Thus the confusion between Islam the idea and Muslim the person begins.This then launches a lengthy debate in which Muslims and Islam become synonymous and/or confused.

Shortly, after Pattern 1 begins, a second pattern emerges from it:

Pattern 2: Usually, this begins as an offshoot of the statement that Islam advocates X, where X is something evil. This is followed by the statement, “But Christians did X, too!” [Notice that the idea of Islam is confused with Christians the persons, and also notice the fallacy that Christians having done X mitigates Islam’s advocacy of same.] This then launches a lengthy debate about Christianity’s sins.

 

[carn]

For instance, your reading of “A Common Word” seems downright weird to me. It’s hard to see why anyone would interpret the text that way unless because they went into it determined to put the worst possible construction on it.

Cant remember exactly what i had in mind starting to read it. Just remember that i was shocked how they could write a letter supposedly about bridging differences that way. When i try to reconcile with someone, i do not throw right into his face what i think is wrong and despicable about his views. And certainly i do not do it 26 times. And threaten him with war, if he continues to do what he is currently doing. And if i haved statements that could be misunderstodd that way, i adress the issue somehow.

But actually there is a lot of irrational fear of “socialism” as well. There is a lot of irrational fear of conservative Christianity among left-wing folks.

I do not know what in principle is irrational about fearing something, which was and is sometimes upheld as mans bright future, but has left 100 million dead behind.
And if one considers embryos to be humans, than “left-wing folks” are to be feared because they have a tendency to declare embryos to be not or sub human.

But as a general rule, it’s wise to modify downward your own estimate of both the evil and the prevalence of something you dislike precisely in proportion to your feeling of dislike for it. The more convinced you are that something is both evil and powerful, the more likely it is that you are exaggerating. Of course that doesn’t mean that powerful evil forces don’t exist, so I’m not suggesting that you simply disregard your fears. What I’m saying is that emotions increase exponentially where the rational basis for them increases arithmetically. So on a scale of 0 to ten billion: if your fear and dislike of something is only 10, then probably it’s fully justified; if it’s 10,000, then probably the basis for it is at something like 40; while if it’s all the way to ten billion, then probably the basis is 100. (OK, it’s not as precise as this–but hopefully you get the idea.)

Yes, but that only helps so much. I do not put islam on par with nazism or one of the pre-columbian south american religions.

 

[Contarini]

Cant remember exactly what i had in mind starting to read it. Just remember that i was shocked how they could write a letter supposedly about bridging differences that way. When i try to reconcile with someone, i do not throw right into his face what i think is wrong and despicable about his views. And certainly i do not do it 26 times. And threaten him with war, if he continues to do what he is currently doing. And if i haved statements that could be misunderstodd that way, i adress the issue somehow.

Well, I repeat that I simply don’t see these things in the document. I don’t know what it is that they supposedly do 26 times. Do you mean the references to “associating partners” with God? Yes, they state differences, as is right and proper. True dialogue doesn’t proceed on the basis of ignoring differences. I don’t know where you get the “threatening with war,” unless it’s

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them**—**so long as they do not wage war against Muslimson account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes,

This seems an admirably “moderate” opinion to me–how do you find this disturbing or threatening?

Later on they point out that a war between Christianity and Islam would be destructive. Again, if you read this as a threat I think you’re revealing your bias and a certain degree of irrationality. How is a statement about the need for peace a threat of war? This is invidious and unjust exegesis.

Perhaps I’m wrong as to the basis for your claim–but these are the only two passages I can find that even remotely support your interpretation. I shouldn’t have to do the work for you, by the way.

Edwin

 

[mathematoons]

I’m not a Muslim, but I have something that can help.

I’ve seen atheism from the inside. It is the worst religion imaginable. (Atheism is a religion, because a religion is a set of ideas about God. Atheists basic idea about God is that He does not exist.) It makes Islam look holy by comparison even if you see Islam as a terrorist religion.

If you think I’m exaggerating, consider the following:

Atheism has brought us the Nazis, the Communists, the abortion holocaust, the persecution of Christians in modern Western culture, relativism, and all kinds of other horrors. This is because without God, anything is permissible.

I may not care for Islamic theology, but at least they believe in God and some kind of morality.

 

[eo_chibears]

I don’t know many Muslims but the few that I do know are hard working honest people. I would assume that the vast majority of Muslims are good people. It’s probably a very small fraction that are extremists. Just my two cents. Try getting to know some of them and see for yourself.

 

[carn]

First and foremost, they do not suggest peace in itself, but they make it conditional “peace and justice” line 2-4 or so. That means that if the justice requirements set forth in the document cannot be met, its war.

Asking for justice in itself is not wrong, but it depends on what you mean with this term.

They define justice or suggest as basics for this following Gods/allahs 2 central commands, one to love God and second to love your neighbor. If the recipients are unable to agree to these commands, peace is not possible according to the document.

Do you mean the references to “associating partners” with God? Yes, they state differences, as is right and proper. True dialogue doesn’t proceed on the basis of ignoring differences.

The clear and obvious and for the writer of the letter obvious problem for christians to agree to these conditions necessary to peace is the concept of trinity and what muslims think of it. If trinity is in muslims eyes a unexcuseable violation of the first commandment, then justice is not possible and according to document this means peace is not possible.

Knowing this they nonethless they say “we shall ascribe no partner” 4 times and throw the various versions of God being only one about 20 times or so in the readers face.

This would not be a problem if in any part they would have indicated something like “And we heard about that trinity thing, though we do not understand it, we understand that in this way you honor God as being unity.” or something like that.

But they say something about trinity:
“Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s u nature),”

Or more precisely they do not say anything about it, but instead claim wrongfully that christians have no idea what Jesus was.

Didn’t they google christianity at least before writing the ltter?
They would have found:
"Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, God having become human and the saviour of humanity. "
"Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They are a small minority of Christians. " (noting here inconsistencies in wikipedia, but who cares, point is large majority of christians believe that Jesus is God, no “Christians themselves anyway” )

and last and certainly not least
" The concept of trinity is totally rejected, with Quranic verses calling the doctrine of the Trinity blasphemous. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism—believing in three gods rather than just one."

So they claim that finding common ground in first commandment is necessary for peace, but fail to address or even acknoledge the problem, that christians have a different concept of “on God” and that these different concept is directly attacked in the quran as blasphemous, meaning that christians do not adhere to this commandment?

All they do is to imply that christians have no real concept about Jesus and that nonetheless they should agree to the muslim definition of the first commandment, with nowhere the main problem adressed. The only way to understand this is as a call for christians to abandon the concept of trinity so they can adhere together with muslims to the first commandment and peace is made possible. Or in other words, if christians do not give up the concept of trinity its war.

Maybe thats not a threat, but just a statement of fact. But thats from the moderate muslims.

I don’t know where you get the “threatening with war,” unless it’s This seems an admirably “moderate” opinion to me–how do you find this disturbing or threatening?

First they adress church leaders. Currently no church leaders have standing armies and are capable of driving muslims from their homes. So why this statement? (And it can be a threat of war, statements along the line “we can have only peace, if …” are threats of war depending on context - here not in favor of peaceful meaning.)

The only explanation is that currently such “christians driving muslims from their homes due to their religion” is happening. They might mean US assisted Israel (the us being considered christian). Or they might mean US war in Iraq. Or they might mean war in Afghanistan. Or hunting down el-quida. Here they should have specified. Because as they do not, we must assume they mean all this. Especially fighting al-quida fits nicely, al-quida does what it does for their religious beliefs and we fight them for that.

If they meant with that statement that we must stop driving bin laden and co. from their homes or otherwise there can be no peace between us, then it is a threat of war and they take sides with al-quiada in an ongoing war.

Later on they point out that a war between Christianity and Islam would be destructive. Again, if you read this as a threat I think you’re revealing your bias and a certain degree of irrationality. How is a statement about the need for peace a threat of war? This is invidious and unjust exegesis.

Calls for peace are usual in declarations prior a war, because one has to wash his own hands in innocence - “we only wanted peace and justice”. (and i am quite certain that in diplomacy such a letter between two nations could cause a war.)

Now there is one alternative to this letter being a siding with islamists:
The writers were totally unaware of this possible interpretation and would be astonished that their letter could be understood in such way, that Bin Laden could have considered signing it.

But that means that they lack the understanding and ability to argue with the islamists, they cannot take islam back from the islamists, if they are so sloppy in religious matters and arguments. Therefore:
“If these are the moderates … oh my God!”

 

[sedonaman]

… (Atheism is a religion, because a religion is a set of ideas about God. …

Interesting definition of religion. I would venture to add, “that attempts to motivate people to do good and avoid evil.”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How many Muslims do you personally know?

I was raised among muslims. I would go to sleep to the sound of the Iman in the tower and would awake to the sound of him.

The problem is not with the people but with the religion. Muslims are like anyone else. But Islam preaches conversion through violence. the whole north of Africa was Christian and Muslims conquered it by the sword. they tried to conquer Europe but were stopped by Charles Martel. Spain was liberated by the sword too but Quran says that Spain should be Muslim. Muslims get offended by Crusades but it were the Muslims who conquered Iarael by th sword, for Isral was not Muslim !!!

Again, Turks tried to conquer Europe and were stopped in Wien.

A muslim cannot convert to Christianity, a muslim woman cannot marry a christian and if you want I will give you a Youtube video where a Iman says in the UK, that non-muslims should be killed and it is all right to kill non-muslims.

Unless Quran changes (many who learn Quran do not understand what they memorize, for Quran is said in Arabic), There will never be peace between Christians and Muslims.

 

[carn]

Interesting definition of religion. I would venture to add, “that attempts to motivate people to do good and avoid evil.”

Then a lot of what is called religion by many people are no religions. E.g. the aztecs had something which is called religion by nearly everyone and important rituals of that “religion” included ripping out hearts and making children weep, bleed and die to honor some god. Would take some argument to bring that in line with “to do good and avoid evil.”