ChatterBank1 min ago
what is the reason for islamophobia?
183 Answers
Yes, i understand recent years have not shown Islam in a good light, however other religion have and are doing bad things aswell, yet there is less hatred for these than there are for islam. Why?
Also people dont seem to understand the term "minority". Only a minority of muslims do bad things yet the whole religion is blamed. Again, why?
Also people dont seem to understand the term "minority". Only a minority of muslims do bad things yet the whole religion is blamed. Again, why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lightbulb247. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question (for cinéastes everywhere): Could Palin and co. make a film today called the Life of Mo?
Answer: No.
Question: Why not?
Answer:. They (and others) would be afraid of the reaction of a small group of nominally Muslim , but actually politically motivated people.
Question (for art lovers everywhere): Why did we not see the Danish cartoons of Mo on national TV or any of our national newspapers?
Answer: See above.
Are we all agreed about this?
Answer: No.
Question: Why not?
Answer:. They (and others) would be afraid of the reaction of a small group of nominally Muslim , but actually politically motivated people.
Question (for art lovers everywhere): Why did we not see the Danish cartoons of Mo on national TV or any of our national newspapers?
Answer: See above.
Are we all agreed about this?
VE, //Are we all agreed about this? //
No, not really. Palin & Co couldn’t make a film called ‘The Life of Mo’ because that small group isn’t so small. When the Danish cartoons were published, violent protests erupted in countries around the world; people were slaughtered and churches were burned – and although they didn’t condone the violence The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope also declared their objections. A small group? No – a group large enough to wield enormous influence - and that is why we didn’t see the cartoons on national TV or any of our national newspapers
No, not really. Palin & Co couldn’t make a film called ‘The Life of Mo’ because that small group isn’t so small. When the Danish cartoons were published, violent protests erupted in countries around the world; people were slaughtered and churches were burned – and although they didn’t condone the violence The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope also declared their objections. A small group? No – a group large enough to wield enormous influence - and that is why we didn’t see the cartoons on national TV or any of our national newspapers
not sure what Billy Idol has to do with this thread, but suggest if Ms Palin and her chums were to be openly opposed to Islam, on tv, news, the wrath of Allah will come falling on her and their heads. You cannot seemingly publish pictures of Mohammed, make jokes at his expense, not that you would want to perhaps without someone taking great offence. Not sure that if you burned a bible many would really mind.
Duncer, i wasn't doubting about the butchers, more that these crimes are often portrayed as religious in nature, as opposed to being simply callous murder.
don't we have one of the great sporting success stories in Britain, namely Mo Farah, great athlete, great Olympian, he would be all those things i am sure irrespective of being a Muslim.
don't we have one of the great sporting success stories in Britain, namely Mo Farah, great athlete, great Olympian, he would be all those things i am sure irrespective of being a Muslim.
Let’s try to answer Lightbulb’s question directly and unambiguously after another attempt at irony by VE fell flat on its face. (Note to self: stop trying it!)
My reference to the Life of Brian and the Danish cartoons, Naomi, was an attempt not to defend, but to scorn Sandy’s artful comment: “In the same way that the actions of a few cut-throats from Belfast can't be taken to represent all of Protestantism, the violence emanating from troubled parts of the Islamic world shouldn't be seen as representing the entirety of the Ummah”, and his conclusion (which is what, of course, the term Islamophobia was invented suggest) that all critics of Islam are bigots. I don’t think the 9/11 lot and the London bombers are typical of Muslims, especially those I live and work with. And neither, I imagine, do most people (Tambourine’s post with the “no phobia there” comment made the decent and obvious point well). My only point about the Sandy comparison is this: that the Muslim “terrorists” justified their acts by a particular interpretation for the Koran. I doubt that Sandy’s butchers attempted to adduce New Testament support for their thuggery. Lightbulb, do you think this is a fair point, or not? I make it clear that I am not suggesting that you and the majority of Muslims in the UK interpret your sacred texts in the same way as the terrorists did, only that they did in fact claim religious justification for their acts. Fair comment, or not?
Now I mentioned the Danish cartoons for two good reasons. The first is that Sandy’s tendentious comment didn’t (he’s a sly old b***r - some might say as slippery as a cranful of eels). The second (I address this to you, Lightbulb) is because the general Muslim reaction to the cartoons is probably one of the main causes of “Islamophobia”. The Ummah abroad (represented in some cases by rather unpleasant regimes) actively sought to ban the cartoons when it wasn’t seeking punishment for what in Denmark is still at the moment a lawful act Let’s forget the death threats; you have made clear you disagree with them by your dissociation of yourself from terror. A great many people here and abroad were calling for the banning of these cartoons. Would it be unfair to use the word demand? The people here were not just Muslims, they included the unlikely allies Sandy has alluded to and the normal appeasers. Why did nobody show the cartoons in the press or on TV? Is it because everybody was scared of a few lunatics like the Shankhill Butchers? I don’t think so. Do you? Does Sandy? Of course you don't. Of course he doesn't. We were told how deeply hurt and offended Muslims were by these portrayals of the prophet. The unrepresentative minority threatened the cartoonist and newspaper editor with death. The representative majority said…what? That we (non-Muslims) should understand Muslim pain and resentment at this attack on their faith. Implied in this (the inference is mine; correct me if I’m wrong) is that violence would occur as a result of such insults to the prophet and maybe we (non-muslims) would have only ourselves to blame if it did. Where there was not a direct threat of violence there was always an implied one. My perception (right or wrong) is, firstly, that mainstream Islam demands special rights for itself which it most certainly denies to others, the most irritating of which is the right to be protected from insult and offence. Since when have the religious of any stripe (especially yours, Lightbulb) bothered about offending me and others who don't share your beliefs? Secondly, that at least the imported Muslim community has no respect for western values like free speech and the rule of law. And thirdly, that the wider Muslim community is not squeamish about bullying when it means to have its way.
My reference to the Life of Brian and the Danish cartoons, Naomi, was an attempt not to defend, but to scorn Sandy’s artful comment: “In the same way that the actions of a few cut-throats from Belfast can't be taken to represent all of Protestantism, the violence emanating from troubled parts of the Islamic world shouldn't be seen as representing the entirety of the Ummah”, and his conclusion (which is what, of course, the term Islamophobia was invented suggest) that all critics of Islam are bigots. I don’t think the 9/11 lot and the London bombers are typical of Muslims, especially those I live and work with. And neither, I imagine, do most people (Tambourine’s post with the “no phobia there” comment made the decent and obvious point well). My only point about the Sandy comparison is this: that the Muslim “terrorists” justified their acts by a particular interpretation for the Koran. I doubt that Sandy’s butchers attempted to adduce New Testament support for their thuggery. Lightbulb, do you think this is a fair point, or not? I make it clear that I am not suggesting that you and the majority of Muslims in the UK interpret your sacred texts in the same way as the terrorists did, only that they did in fact claim religious justification for their acts. Fair comment, or not?
Now I mentioned the Danish cartoons for two good reasons. The first is that Sandy’s tendentious comment didn’t (he’s a sly old b***r - some might say as slippery as a cranful of eels). The second (I address this to you, Lightbulb) is because the general Muslim reaction to the cartoons is probably one of the main causes of “Islamophobia”. The Ummah abroad (represented in some cases by rather unpleasant regimes) actively sought to ban the cartoons when it wasn’t seeking punishment for what in Denmark is still at the moment a lawful act Let’s forget the death threats; you have made clear you disagree with them by your dissociation of yourself from terror. A great many people here and abroad were calling for the banning of these cartoons. Would it be unfair to use the word demand? The people here were not just Muslims, they included the unlikely allies Sandy has alluded to and the normal appeasers. Why did nobody show the cartoons in the press or on TV? Is it because everybody was scared of a few lunatics like the Shankhill Butchers? I don’t think so. Do you? Does Sandy? Of course you don't. Of course he doesn't. We were told how deeply hurt and offended Muslims were by these portrayals of the prophet. The unrepresentative minority threatened the cartoonist and newspaper editor with death. The representative majority said…what? That we (non-Muslims) should understand Muslim pain and resentment at this attack on their faith. Implied in this (the inference is mine; correct me if I’m wrong) is that violence would occur as a result of such insults to the prophet and maybe we (non-muslims) would have only ourselves to blame if it did. Where there was not a direct threat of violence there was always an implied one. My perception (right or wrong) is, firstly, that mainstream Islam demands special rights for itself which it most certainly denies to others, the most irritating of which is the right to be protected from insult and offence. Since when have the religious of any stripe (especially yours, Lightbulb) bothered about offending me and others who don't share your beliefs? Secondly, that at least the imported Muslim community has no respect for western values like free speech and the rule of law. And thirdly, that the wider Muslim community is not squeamish about bullying when it means to have its way.
V_E, Muslims seem to look for insults, even where no insult is intended. If I was to post up an image entitled Mohammed, then many muslims would take offence. If on the other hand I removed the image but left the word 'mohammed' would that imply that mohammed did not exist thus making me guilty of blasphemy?
The warp and weft that is religion and politics seems to be particularly tightly woven in the Islamic world.
For example, when Ayatollah Khomeini uttered his fatwa on Rushdie he was doing two things. The first was to give his opinion of the author's blasphemy and the second was to show that Iran's authority reached far beyond it borders.
If we could unravel the two we'd see that the greater part of the violence coming from the Islamic world is political.
If that wasn't the case then what would Islam be but a religion of lunatics? Whatever it is, it's not that.
For example, when Ayatollah Khomeini uttered his fatwa on Rushdie he was doing two things. The first was to give his opinion of the author's blasphemy and the second was to show that Iran's authority reached far beyond it borders.
If we could unravel the two we'd see that the greater part of the violence coming from the Islamic world is political.
If that wasn't the case then what would Islam be but a religion of lunatics? Whatever it is, it's not that.
@Sandy - I do not think anyone would argue that there is a strong link between religion and politics within the Islamic world.Your contention that the violence stemming from islam is mostly politically motivated requires much more example and evidence though. I think that most observers would conclude that religion shapes policy, rather than the other way around.
In the example you gave - that of the fatwah issued against Salman Rushdie- the crime was a spiritual crime, for which a death penalty was issued. It seems to me that religion holds primacy over politics.
Look at Iran - the Supreme Leader is a Spiritual Leader, elected by a college of experts - a body comprised of imams and religious figures. The president of Iran, the politician, is subordinate to the supreme leader.
Defending faith by claiming it is being warped by politics doesn't work.
In the example you gave - that of the fatwah issued against Salman Rushdie- the crime was a spiritual crime, for which a death penalty was issued. It seems to me that religion holds primacy over politics.
Look at Iran - the Supreme Leader is a Spiritual Leader, elected by a college of experts - a body comprised of imams and religious figures. The president of Iran, the politician, is subordinate to the supreme leader.
Defending faith by claiming it is being warped by politics doesn't work.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV20 mins ago
Road rules20 mins ago
I Can't Find A Santa Emoji Anywhere.
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.