Sciforums Muslim/Arab Bias

[Shadow1]

Then some of the disappointed ones called you a troll instead of enjoying the joke.
If Hypewaders had not locked that thread I would not have made this one.

People seem to think that if you can't say something bad about Muslims or Arabs then you should not say anything about them at all. I don't like that attitude so I say bad things about the people who want us all to think bad things about Muslims and Arabs. They say Arabs and Muslims need to see and stop their evilness and I say these people who complain about Arabs and Muslims need to see and stop their own evilness.

But I liked your joke better than saying bad things about people. I thought your joke was more graceful than this thread. But Hypewaders did not appreciate your joke.

yeah i get what you mean, and apparently some people can't get a jocke
once, in a thread, about something related to israeil or jews, and when i aid something about jews, it wasn't actually serious thing, they deleted what i said, 3 times, even i didnt say anything insulting, why did they do that?

just wondering, if it was about muslims or islam, they'll keep saying bad things, even using bad words, and keep insulting and make bran new lies, and no one say anything to them, even if i report some posts, no one delet them, while if it is about jews, directly get deleted, you keep saying only only very good things about them, or delet your posts directly, as for muslims, you must only say bad things, or delet your posts.

I don't know.

maybe because you don't have one, i mean a serious complexe. where are you from anyway, u.s.a?

 

[nirakar]

yeah i get what you mean, and apparently some people can't get a jocke
once, in a thread, about something related to israeil or jews, and when i aid something about jews, it wasn't actually serious thing, they deleted what i said, 3 times, even i didnt say anything insulting, why did they do that?

just wondering, if it was about muslims or islam, they'll keep saying bad things, even using bad words, and keep insulting and make bran new lies, and no one say anything to them, even if i report some posts, no one delet them, while if it is about jews, directly get deleted, you keep saying only only very good things about them, or delet your posts directly, as for muslims, you must only say bad things, or delet your posts.

There is definitely a different standard for criticizing Muslims and Arabs than for criticizing other groups. But even people who want to be fair and neutral have a difficulty seeing the double standard because they incorrectly believe that there is something true and important about Muslims and Arabs being bad.

maybe because you don't have one, i mean a serious complexe. where are you from anyway, u.s.a?

I am from the USA.

 

[Shadow1]

There is definitely a different standard for criticizing Muslims and Arabs than for criticizing other groups. But even people who want to be fair and neutral have a difficulty seeing the double standard because they incorrectly believe that there is something true and important about Muslims and Arabs being bad.

yeah, first, they criticise, without even knowing how they really are.

 

[Shadow1]

I am from the USA.

would they call the police if i said "alhamdu lilallah" means, thank god, ? :facepalm:
:deal:

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

I think so-called moderate Islam creates the conditions for radical Islam to thrive, it's the gateway drug.

Come on, this argument is pretty absurd.

As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled.

Unrivaled my fucking ass. If you know anything about Islam is that hardly any scholars agree, especially nowadays. Not mentioning this new ideaology (which is what is) is a fairly recent one, authors like Sayyid Qutb come to mind and others which I can name later. There is no reason at all to assume that the Wahhabi extremists are following the "true," and "purest," version of Islam.

All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

This is bullshit on it's face. Notice how everytime I present an argument I also provide scriptural and textual evidences for my argument. I consider myself 'othrodox' Shi'a and I do not agree at all with the alleged actions such as those of 9/11 and elsewhere. Again, there is no reason at all to create this fictional dichotomy of Moderate-Fundamentalist, it doesn't exist. It's for these exact reasons that I strongly object to the terms of "Islamic radical," and "Islamic fundamentalist," and other such terms. These attacks are largely political and it's clear that the West will not portray it as such because surely there can't be ramifications and violent reactions to their foreign policies and actions. You don't want to admit that you're wrong and you need to create a boogeyman to convince the masses that X political enemy needs to be taken out and they can't be reasoned with. First it was the Communists and political left, their ideaologies where wrong, they inherently lead to brutal tactics and oppression and enslavement of it's people thus the capitalist West needed to liberate such lands and stop it's growth.

Now, it's the oil rich Middle-East, the "ideaology," or religion is Islam, their religion is wrong, they are irrational crazed savages with a lot of natural resources, it's religion inherently leads to opression and enslavement of it's people thus the Christian West needs to liberate such lands and stop it's growth and show us what "freedom," and "democracy," really is, as if we couldn't figure it out. Any deviation from this premise about Islam and the Middle-East conflicts with Western-American hegemoney. More or less, even in the liberal ideaological circles of the West, they rarely deviate from this false dichotomy and so forth. It's you whom are defining what is and isn't Islam and not Muslims, their is no ijma, I haven't gotten the memo.

Religious moderates imagine that theirs is the path to peace. But this very ideal of tolerance now drives us toward the abyss. Religious violence still plagues our world because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another.

Bullshit. Christians and Jews have always been considered ahl al-kitab. This West-East incompatibility bullshit is just that, bullshit. Crusader bullshit.

Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith.

Not true in the least. I am extremely devout and above all else, faith is above any mortal ideaology and so forth. To assume that "moderate Muslims," are only a byproduct of Western cleansing is racist and absurd.

If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.

I doubt this was written by a Muslim. "Religious war"? Holy war?

I really have no motivation to address the rest, I can if need be but all in all, it's all shit.

 

[iceaura]

This is bullshit on it's face. Notice how everytime I present an argument I also provide scriptural and textual evidences for my argument.

Scripture and such text is not evidence in these arguments, except of itself - i.e. the scripture and text exists and says whatever.

Do you accept quotations of scripture and theological text as evidence for the nature of American Christianity?

Now, it's the oil rich Middle-East, the "ideaology," or religion is Islam, their religion is wrong, they are irrational crazed savages with a lot of natural resources, it's religion inherently leads to opression and enslavement of it's people thus the Christian West needs to liberate such lands and stop it's growth and show us what "freedom," and "democracy," really is,

Accurately describing one side's propaganda, showing it for what it is, does not exonerate the other side of its own evils or deal with its own problems.

The British committed great evils in Ireland, with similar imperial use of propaganda in describing Catholic Christianity etc, for something like 800 years. That did not make Irish Catholicism a good thing, or its description of itself accurate.

First it was the Communists and political left, their ideaologies where wrong, they inherently lead to brutal tactics and oppression and enslavement of it's people

Drop the word "inherently", and you have an accurate description of the rise of Stalinist Soviet empire.

Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith.
”
Not true in the least. I am extremely devout and above all else, faith is above any mortal ideaology and so forth. To assume that "moderate Muslims," are only a byproduct of Western cleansing is racist and absurd.

You automatically equate "secular" and "Western". You assert that your faith is "above any mortal ideology". These symptoms are threats, to those of us who hope for the rise of an Islam that does not oppress women, abet and support authoritarian government, undermine human freedom and liberty wherever it takes root.

 

[nirakar]

A ugly dishonest self deluded thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104438 Q: "Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers"

There is a long tradition all over the world throughout history of trying to dress up bigotry as being intellectually and morally legitimate.

 

[GeoffP]

Yep.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Shadow1, you were totally right to see and criticize the Sciforums community for it's bias against the Middle East and Islam.

They can call you a troll. They can call me a troll but their bias is real and ugly.

Congo was and probably still is the most unjust, saddest, cruelest, place in the world but nobody cares. The USA toppled a democracy in Haiti and made Haiti a more dangerous more corrupt poorer place but nobody cares.

Meanwhile Iran gets lots of negative attention. Why?

I don't know to what degree the West's anti-Islamic hysteria is being created and promoted by powerful interests and to what degree it is natural hostility the "other" coming from the stupid masses. For a while it was fashionable in the USA to say bad things about Venezuela which was totally ridiculous but which makes me think the masses of fools are being given their enemy list by powerful interests rather than choosing their enemies for themselves.

For some despite their denials it is their loyalty to Israel that creates the hostility. One guy here is loyal to every underdog unless they are Islamic or Arab.

Arguing against majority is harder because simply being the majority creates a certain confidence that the majority can't be completely wrong.

The Islamic world is too culturally conservative for my tastes but the strange thing is that the West's cultural conservatives are the most anti-Islamic segment of the West.

Other than being more socially/religiously/culturally conservative than I like, I really like the Arabs I have met and their food, music, art, vibes, and warm friendliness.

I think we warned you when you arrived here that the anti-Islamic and anti-Middle East bias here might become aggravating. As bad as Sciforums is in this bigotry Sciforums is probably more worldly and less bigoted than the average person in the USA. But forgive these people because they have been brainwashed and don't know any better.

In my travels I find that the people all over the world are like each other. They have the same concerns. It is a pity that people everywhere seem to need somebody to hate.

I am glad you are here and putting out your point of view. These ignorant people might be slightly less ignorant because you are here.

I have a better question. Why are the Muslims on this board so obsessed with Islam? Seriously, most of us don't care.

 

[nirakar]

There may be Muslims here that never mention Islam. You would not know.


I the hostile obsession with Islam by a bunch of non Muslims would continue regardless whether Muslims choose to respond or not respond to the threads and posts about Islam.

I am not Muslim. I just don't like the way many elements in the West and people are encouraging and sometimes using hostility to Islam. I don't think this is good for the next few generations of children to be born in this world. I want a world who's people can work together for mutual benefit and trust each other. This hostility against Islam is counterproductive to my hopes for the children and future generations.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There may be Muslims here that never mention Islam. You would not know.


I the hostile obsession with Islam by a bunch of non Muslims would continue regardless whether Muslims choose to respond or not respond to the threads and posts about Islam.

I am not Muslim. I just don't like the way many elements in the West and people are encouraging and sometimes using hostility to Islam. I don't think this is good for the next few generations of children to be born in this world. I want a world who's people can work together for mutual benefit and trust each other. This hostility against Islam is counterproductive to my hopes for the children and future generations.

You're switching the goal posts. If you're worried about "western hostility to Islam" then the site feedback section is probably the wrong place to discuss it. If you are worried about "member hostility to Islam" then I'll point out that Islam doesn't appear to get any special treatment above any other religion. This is a science site and that tends to attract a crowd whom is science oriented and thinks all religious belief is pure crap. You can't do anything about that and you should never ever expect your religion or any other to receive any kind of respect from that kind of crowd.

 

[Bells]

A ugly dishonest self deluded thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104438 Q: "Why does Islam call Jews & Christians non-believers"

There is a long tradition all over the world throughout history of trying to dress up bigotry as being intellectually and morally legitimate.

You know, I agree. But in response to that bias, many seem to be afraid to point out the bias and bigotry from some Muslims on this site. A prime example would be one member who has gone on to equate homosexuality with bestiality and incest and accuses atheists of being hypocritical for accepting homosexuality but not accepting beastiality and incest (since to him, all are the same).

There is a negative issue here when it comes to Muslims. But in some instances, that negativity is brought about in response to negativity from Muslims who, for example, come out and say that to accept homosexuality in society would be akin to accepting incest and beastiality in society.

 

[nirakar]

You know, I agree. But in response to that bias, many seem to be afraid to point out the bias and bigotry from some Muslims on this site. A prime example would be one member who has gone on to equate homosexuality with bestiality and incest and accuses atheists of being hypocritical for accepting homosexuality but not accepting beastiality and incest (since to him, all are the same).

There is a negative issue here when it comes to Muslims. But in some instances, that negativity is brought about in response to negativity from Muslims who, for example, come out and say that to accept homosexuality in society would be akin to accepting incest and beastiality in society.

There are some differences between Muslim bashing here at Sciforums and Gay bashing here at Sciforums. Here at Sciforums homophobia is recognized as homophobia and disapproved of by a clear majority of us. Muslim bashing on the other hand gets excuses made for it and people claim that Muslims deserve it.

Homophobia is however accepted by the majority of the world beyond Sciforums and they make pathetic excuses for why it is OK.

There are higher quality excuses for why Islamophobia is OK than there are for why homophobia is OK but neither set of excuses passes an objective inspection for justifying treating Islam and Homosexuality enemies that need to be suppressed.

It seems that homophobia is stronger among people who are also uncomfortable with heterosexuality. Uncomfortableness with sexuality seems to correlate with general fear of chaos and fear of all things different. Everything new or unusual seems to provoke hostility from traditionalists. Homosexuality seems to run counter to their desire for order. This same sentiment that made homosexuality taboo probably uses religion to attack their fear of the unknown and fear of being overpowered and fear of being wrong by created a powerful God to protect them and give them order and a religious cosmology story that it is taboo to question that can be used to suppress their troubling doubts and fears.

Yes Islamic societies are more old fashioned and homophobic and chaos fearing than the West is. What Yosef was saying in the thread you linked to about not accepting homosexuals as religious leaders is also the official policy of the Catholic Church.

That thread was not made to attack homosexuals. I don't remember any threads at Sciforums made to attack homosexuality. There probably have been some but they are not common. Threads made to attack Islam are common. The Islam bashing threads may pretend to be something other than simple Islam bashing but usually you can see through disguised Islam bashing.

Fear of eating pork= a very old health issue that became part of religion.
Fear of homosexuals as best I can tell is a primitive irrational offshoot of fear of chaos which happens to be the same fear that created the authoritarian form of religion.

Fear of Muslims is primarily just a product of an instinctive desire to identify the external enemy as far as I can tell. Yes 9-11 happened and that made it easier to focus this instinct on Muslims. This instinct has room for more than one enemy so if homosexuals or Mexicans or blacks or Jews or liberals or conservatives or communists or whatever get that instinct focussed on them they become the enemy and attacking them becomes acceptable. This is the same instinct that Lions, wolves, and chimpanzees have towards their identified external enemy of their own species but humans need to make up stories to fit the instinct with our greater narrative.

Back to the thread you linked to:

Ejderha did not say if Ejderha was Muslim or Turkish but Ejderha was defending your position.

Yosef's position might be quite close to the position of 40% of Americans. This does not make his position rational and it does not mean that his position is not cruel but I don't think that the fact that many or most Muslims agree with him excuses a general hostility towards Islam particularly If the real hostility is just an irrational hatred of Muslims based on a a growing consensus that Muslims can fit in the designated external enemy slot that was waiting to be filled and pulling us to fill it.

Is scifes Muslim?
I have forgotten what I learned about scifes personality from past threads. I don't know how to interpret scifes in this thread. Is he being silly? Is he being excessively logical to be provocative?

Taking scifes seriously for a moment:
Incest and pedophilia have been shown to be harmful. It might theoretically be possible to have harmless incest and pedophilia but we should not let people attempt this because the probability of damage being caused is too high.

It is non-monogamy that spreads sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage only matters in terms of STDs because marriage correlates with monogamy. Monogamous Homosexuals are as STD safe as heterosexuals. Anal sex makes male homosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than male heterosexuals are. I believe that vaginal sex with men makes female heterosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than female homosexual sex makes lesbians. I might be wrong about that.

You would think that bestiality would be the safest sex since many diseases are not interspecies. Bestial sex would still be safer if it was monogamous Bestial sex. Bestial sex would be cruel to the animals but humans societies have barely begun to care about cruelty to animals. The fact the bestiality is in this discussion sort of indicates that the objection to homosexuality is part of an instinctive desire to oppress the abnormal. Bestiality certainly is the weirdest sex but it is probably second only to monogamy in terms of safeness.

I forgot about masturbation. Catholics had a problem with that too.

I don't think the thread you linked to is as problematic as many of the anti-Muslim threads mostly because prejudice against Gays is not as common on sciforums and because a larger proportion of the West (my home) recognizes homophobia as being homophobia than recognize Islamophobia as being Islamophobia. My guess is that about 30% of Americans recognize mild homophobia for what it is when they see it while only about 8% of Americans recognize mild Islamophobia for what it is when they see it.

A long time ago a friend of mine was a victim of an attempted homosexual rape while he was traveling in Turkey. Should I blame all Turks for that, all Muslims for that or all homosexuals for that and does that justify any general hatred against any of these groups?

I am going to post this in both threads.

 

[nirakar]

would they call the police if i said "alhamdu lilallah" means, thank god, ? :facepalm:
:deal:

No they would no arrest you.

 

[historicfuture]

Muslims don't like everybody else
Everybody else doesn't like muslims

The same for every other violent (to any degree) faction, and to some extent even peaceful ones (green energy ppl for example).

You're not going to stop it.
For the muslims, just give it a rest and wait until you take over the world with your cockroach baby making plan.

for everyone else here just enjoy the time you have left on top.

stop trying to change how the world is it's going to change how it will and there's nothing a group of people here or even 10,000 people can do about it.

 

[Stryder]

The sciforums website has no bias against anyone, it is after all a non-sentient discussion forum so therefore can hold no direct bias. Administration and moderation might have their own pet bias's but again while operating as apart of the forum those personal bias's are usually strongly refuted by other administrators or moderators.

So discussion on "Sciforums Muslim/Arab bias" is moot, read the general disclaimer about poster content when signing up for the forum.

Although the administrators and moderators of SciForums.com will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither not the owners of SciForums.com,