Faithfreedom is a farce, it's just soooo anti that it can't be taken seriously even though Ali Sina makes valid points about Mohammad he comes across as someone who is foaming at the mouth.
The forums there just seem to be childish shouting matches between crazy fundies who call for blood and ex Muslims who call Muhammad Moohammad and shout pedophile worshiper at the top of their lungs whenever a Muslim shows up.
Thankfully this forum is a model of decorum and long may it stay like this
Now when you say "that there are racists" who use attacks on Islam to curb immigration would you say that anyone who criticises Islam and advocates tightening up immigration is a racist because I would have to disagree.
I don't think that we need to curb immigration but I know some pretty level headed people who are not racist but criticise Islam and also think we need to reform our immigration policy.
For me the word racist is a very important word, it's a heavy accusation, it should be handled with care. At the moment it is trotted out so regularly I fear it might lose it's meaning.
I would say that someone who comments on Islam and talks about deportations, accuses Muslims of deliberately out breeding us and says that no Muslims can be trusted is definitely a racist but in this day and age Nazis are careful to moderate their language.
You wont hear many racists being so outspoken in public. So it is difficult to tell the racist from the genuine critic.
I would like to try to find some kind of bench mark that highlights the bigots. But it's not easy.
I have moved to Thailand which is a nation afflicted with serious jihadi violence and my ex girlfriend is from The Philippines which also suffers from a violent Islamist campaign, Islamists are active across Western Europe, Africa, Russia, the USA, Argentina and China.
Yes some of these conflicts have land and politics as their cause not religion but they are all being fought in Allahs name to establish Islamic government not peace and justice.
I was talking to a friend in a bar and I said that I thought that this proved that Islamist violence was not caused by Western imperialism and that I thought that Islam had an intrinsically militant foundation that went all the way back to Mohammad who was of course a warlord. He said that this was a bigoted view.
It might be wrong and we can argue about that but is it bigotry?
This militancy that seems to afflict almost every corner of the planet I think is tied to this dogmatic idea of Muslim solidarity and Islamic perfection that I mentioned in the original post.
The idea that there is an almost supernatural connection between Muslim brothers and sisters which crosses borders, as if Islam was itself a living entity. Add to that dogmatically seeing a harsh warlord and politician like Mohammad as a perfect role model and I can see why Islam is in such a crisis.
Of course Muslims are the biggest victims of the militants and just like Christians most Muslims just want a peaceful life and don't want to be involved in violence lets not let us forget that.
How common are the ideas of reactionary Muslim solidarity, Islamic perfection and Mohammad emulation with moderate Muslims because for me it all seems like a recepie for extremism.
I'm just talking as someone who is trying to piece it all together. I hope I don't fall into the bigot camp
Sorry I like the parrot
Topic: Religion & identity. Bigotry & legitimate criticism.