Simple question if saying the religion of Islam is no different than Nazism represents Islamophobia or fair criticism
As long as you make a distinction that most Muslims follow Islam from a cultural perspective and not a moral perspective mainly because they just happened to be born into it, than no it's not bigoted. Stating that a belief system is evil is not bigoted. Am I bigoted for stating that Muhammad was an evil man? If the man who founded the religion is evil, is it a no no to state so? Islam practiced the way Muhammad intended is a damn draconian ideology that desires to eat up surrounding tribes/villages/nations just like Nazism.
Damn...over a 1/6 of the world's population is practicing this sort of fascism. I can only hope that the axis of evil hasn't invaded, enslaved, and pillaged half the countries out there.
I guess you didn't read my post. 1/6th of the world's population doesn't practice Islam the way Muhammad intended. They just practice menial traditions of it that have no moral consequences such as saying gibberish with arbitrary movements 5 times a day primarily because majority of them were just born into and didn't chose the religion themselves. Those people just mainly invoke their human empathy to make moral judgments in practice. Again, it's the difference between an opt-in vs opt-out ideology. The Islam that was created by Muhammad is dangerous and as fascist as Nazism. Don't agree with me? I'll be glad to have an actual nuanced debate with you instead of you and Sweet Lou pretending to be on a moral high horse and just generate labels such as 'bigoted'. Let's have a nuanced discussion if you disagree with me.
In what sense? Elaborate. No one wants to ever actually have a nuanced discussion about the life of the prophet, his teachings, his actions etc here and make stupid excuses like "it's irrelevant" when the whole religion is almost centered around following Muhammad's life as an example of what a great Muslim out to be. You think ISIS is pulling their barbaric practices out of their asses? They have source material. They just want to go after the low hanging fruit and just say "islamophobic", "bigoted" etc. Can anyone have a nuanced explanation why it's a bad comparison?
I don't think that the whole of Islam = Nazism. The spiritual elements of Islam and the elements of peaceful teaching that encourage people to be kind and generous to others are certainly nothing like Nazism. Also, saying that the whole of Islam = Nazism could be misinterpreted as implying that all followers of the religion are as bad as Nazis, which would of course be completely untrue, and an unjust statement. However, there are elements within the doctrines of Islam which are incredibly intolerant and which, because Wahhabist teachings and the equivalent extremist teachings of Ayatollahs for shiites have gained more influence within the Muslim world, are sadly nowadays core to the religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims. These intolerant elements include, but are not limited to: - death penalty for apostates - treating women as human beings with lesser rights - treating people of other beliefs as beings with lesser rights - hate against Jews - hate and discrimination against gay people - draconian and inhumane punishments (such as stoning, beheading) - supremacist goals of achieving domination over non-believers through violence - revering a superhuman leader/god-like figure as infallible that actually was a mass murderer These elements are part of a movement that can be described as political Islam. Are these doctrines fascist, and in that sense equivalent to elements of Nazi fascism? Yes. Can they be completely separated from the spiritual elements and the arguably positive moral teachings of Islam? Not always, unfortunately, as is evidenced by hundreds of millions of Muslims seeing all of those elements as non-negotiable elements of their religion. However, it is important to point out - for the 1001st time - that this does not mean that I regard all Muslims as Nazis - that would be insane. Those who happen to have been born into the religion and all those who "pick and choose" the positive elements, but ignore the terrible elements (like the above listed core elements of political Islam) - in other words, those who are secular - I have absolutely no problem with at all. Most people with a modicum of intellectual honesty understand this distinction, after it is explained to them. One can be critical of an ideology because of intolerant and intolerable elements of it, and therefore be critical of those who believe in these elements and want to force them upon others - while at the same time not having any beef or problem whatsoever with those who do not stand for these intolerable parts of the ideology.
The five pillars of Islam, don't really fit into Nazi practices at all. There are plenty of things I disagree with Islam about, but it doesn't seem to be equivalent to being a Nazi
Oh, and: For the newer posters who are not aware: NewYorker is the same poster as Sweet Lou 4 2. And if he continues to think he can play his act here - there are plenty more gems like that from him. Let's see if he wants them to be quoted as well.
Being a Muslim is not being equivalent to a Nazi. Not even close primarily because of what I mentioned earlier that most Muslims were born into the faith and just practice Islam traditionally with the cultural practices that have little to no tangible consequences besides wasting time(praying 5 times a day, jummah prayer, fasting) and use their natural empathy to make moral decisions. The 5 pillars of Islam have nothing to do with the moral teachings of Islam(women's rights, rights of the kaffir, desire to spread ideology through force). That is a very narrow scope. Nazis believed that the surrounding lands bordering Germany belonged to them. Muhammad believed that his new religion needed to be spread by any means necessary and that he did. He explicitly stated that Islam's end goal is global caliphate through any means necessary. Yes, I see the Nazi type rhetoric in that. No one else does?
The other aspect is that the term "Islamophobia" would imply that the criticism of Islam is irrational. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia It is fair to say that criticizing death penalty for apostates supremacist violence, war, rape against people of other beliefs suicide bombings and terror attacks general intolerance subjugation of women discrimination and murder of gays restrictions on freedom of speech and religion is not irrational. It is also not disproportional to the actual danger posed. These things actually happen - every day - in Muslim societies around the world, and on a large scale - these are not outliers. These terrible things are certainly comparable to Nazi fascism. Since the criticism is not irrational, it is not an anxiety disorder, but very legitimate. Therefore, applying the term "Islamophobia" is merely a trick used by apologists and proponents of said practices, in order to prevent an honest discourse.
I voted "other" because New Yorker/Sweet Lou 4 2 deliberately misworded the question. If the question had been "political Islam" or "extremist Islam", I would have voted that it is a fair criticism. When reviewing the thread that triggered this one, just to be very clear, contrary to what New Yorker/Sweet Lou 4 2 claims, I was referring to extremist Islam. Everyone who follows this chain of posts can see that New Yorker/Sweet Lou 4 2 basically lies and makes stuff up and then argues against what he himself made up. Even if you ignore the ad hominem attacks, you can see that. Just follow the bolded parts. And for good measure:
ATW, I'm fine with saying that Islam as intended to be practiced by the founder of the religion is as morally reprehensible as Nazism. I guess we can call it 'Islamic fundamentalism'. An 'extremist' would practice Islam the way their prophet intended the religion to be practiced while a more secular Muslim would assume that their morals based on their natural empathy matches Muhammad's teachings without any research(or research done with only apologetic sources). That is the primary difference.
If you make a cogent argument for how and why Islam is no different than Nazism and why it's important, it's not Islamophobia. If you're just using a comparison to Nazism as an unsupportable smear, then yes it is. ATW, for example, has his arguments for why he considers Islam dangerous. I don't buy most of his arguments and I think there are flaws in his logic, but he isn't being irrational. But most of the arguments in this vein I hear and read are unreasoned declarations -- a smear. Since the authors haven't put any work into defending the position, I won't put any work into rationalizing it and will feel comfortable dismissing it as Islamophobia. Maybe some such people do have reasonable arguments they haven't offered aloud and I do them a disservice. It is tiresome, after all, to have to start over every time and explain why you might think Islam is so evil (just like it's tiring for me to forever be explaining why I don't think Islam is so evil), so short-cuts (like comparisons) can be useful if you're talking to the like-minded. But if you make that comparison unsupported to someone who doesn't agree, what else should they do but dismiss the argument as specious? Not knowing someone's heart, it's maybe unfair to call it Islamophobia, but it's something just as illegitimate if it has no logical support.
So no one? No one wants an actual nuanced debate about Muhammad's life and his teachings and why it's as morally reprehensible as Nazism? Or are we just going to continue on with vague platitudes of "This is Islamophobic and this isn't because I say so"?
Muhammad never intended that people copy his every action. If that's your base claim, you ought to verify it. We can't have a nuanced discussion with you throwing statements like that around. The idea of carbon copying things Muhammad did comes out of opinion pieces written by people later that century (commonly referred to as tafseer). These were not verified by Muhammad. It was not popular in the Arab world, which understands that you're supposed to copy the principle (progressivism) and not the meaningless tasks (e.g. eating a specific number of dates before a meal). A cursory look at Islamic rules will tell you that in order to copy something, it has to be perfect. Muhammad is not perfect. He is a human being, as he stated so many freaking times. The idea that he is protected from error is a myth, seeing as the Quran itself cites him making errors at least twice. The sub-theology of worshipping Muhammad, which unfortunately is still referred to as Islam, comes from the bedouins and mountain dwellers of the time who merged Islam with pre-islamic barbary. Have a look at the books of rejected hadiths and you will see that the idea of Muhammad being perfect - back then, referred to as a beam of light - was a total myth. What you're talking about here is what Muslims call the Sunna. Muslims are under no obligation to imitate Muhammad. They are under the obligation to FOLLOW the lead of his sunna i.e. example. That's an extremely important distinction. That means, if he expands women's rights, then you should expand women's rights. It doesn't mean that if he beats his wife you should beat your wife. It doesn't mean that if he rolls over after every meal, you should do the same. Again, a made up phenomenon re-interpreted almost a century after Muhammad had passed away. This was popular among bedouins (shocker) who by their culture do not want change. It also then became popular in non-Arab states where the bedouins and eventually wahhabists took the lead in spreading Islamic ideology. That's why it's so popular in the Indian subcontinent. Bottom line: the Quran doesn't say to copy Muhammad. It says to follow the lead of an imperfect man. Additionally, there are no statements from Muhammad which say to copy him. There ARE statements from Muhammad where he says not to write down what he says, for fear of people worshipping his every word and action like a deity. If you are outlining his intention, there is absolutely no indication that he asked people to copy his every task, which is what the wahhabists do these days. ISIS too. At the base of this all, there is a very simple question. If Muslims are meant to copy Muhammad, and Muhammad is a Muslim, is Muhammad supposed to copy himself? There's no logic there. There are tons of these contradictions in wahhabist ideology. If you're supposed to mention Muhammad in the third person during your prayer, did Muhammad refer to himself in the 3rd person when praying to God? And now Muslims are copying that? Does. Not. Make. Sense. So is Muhammad's Islam fascistic? How is it that he allowed Jews and Christians in the cities he conquered to set their own laws within their borders? How is it that atheistic moon-worshipping bedouins were allowed to chill? How is it that a fascist is telling people to follow in Jesus' footsteps? I think you're mixing up what happened after he dies with what happened before he died. If you want to have the theoretical discussion that the Muslim God is fascistic, that's a different one. Every creator of the universe in every religious story is fascistic by our definition of fascism. But Muhammad's Islam as he personally outlined it? I can't see it anywhere, would love to see it.
I'm not a perfect man. I'm just a mere human. I make plenty of mistakes. I never: had sex with a 9 year old girl ordered the assassination of Jewish poets for satire of me ordered to assassination of a mother with her infant right next to her raided villages for not believing that I am the last messenger of God in the guise of a 'preemptive offensive'. extracted sex slaves from my conquests Those are not 'mistakes' buddy. That's like stating that Hitler wasn't perfect. He made a few mistakes. This GOES FAR BEYOND Muhammad being a perfect individual. There a literally billions of people that have existed that have committed far less atrocities than Muhamamd and thus are better examples to follow. George W. Bush is a better figure to have as an example of an outstanding human to emulate. Even Kim Kardashian is a better example to follow for moral guidance. Here's the thing Mathloom. You can deny that Islam teaches that he was 'perfect' but you can't deny that in Islam, he is one of the best examples to follow to be a good Muslim. Bro, I know what freaking Sunnah is. Half my life I peed sitting down because the prophet didn't pee standing up.
Some has a very distorted idea about Islam and they are almost certain of their false allegation when in reality it is far from Islam or the personality of Muhammad. True Islam prevents a person from even abusing a pet. There is a reward for feeding a hungry dog. The Best approach practices by Muslim is work and labor to support their family and those in needs in the community. Islam is a religion in line with development and modernity which does not prevent the mind to asks questions or thinks. True Islam gives freedom of belief and freedom of rejection if they are contrary to morality. Islam did not criticize exclusively some of the Jews , atheists and Christians, but Islam has criticized the actions of some Arabs came down while the state says they can not understand the limits of God. But at the same time he praised the conscience of people that they are good in their actions regardless of their beliefs . Divine oneness is the important thing, and the rest just perspective minor details,And more importantly, the Prophet Muhammad concluded his call by saying: You know better the things your world going into , Islam gave room for reforms whenever it was needed
