I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[Science Fan]

Would the Left attack anyone for making fun of and insulting neo-Nazis? Doubtful. So, why is the Left so obsessed with defending Islam? Sharia is very similar to neo-Nazism. It's totalitarian, it oppresses all freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it outlaws any science that calls into question any claim made by Islam, it oppresses women, it sanctions anti-Semitism, and I can't think of a single reason why anyone should support Islam or Sharia. Attacking ideas -- especially bad ones that involve totalitarian political ideologies like Sharia --- is a good thing, not bad. There is nothing racist about attacking Islam's fraudulent claims. No more so than attacking the claims of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi is anti-Semitism or questioning the Holy Trinity is a "racist" attack against Catholics.

This is why the Left is now on the ropes --- it is openly engaged in hypocrisy.

[Londoner]

Stay with the now... Today in 2017 it is Muslims who are committing rampant terrorism. Irish have their problems I'm sure, alcoholism it is commonly said. Germans apparently have anxiety and sexuality issues. Hindus are filthy slobs. If we were having a discussion about littering then Hindus would be front and center!

Even today, most terrorism is in Latin America, committed in the name of drugs and money. I'm sure you can point to some character flaw amongst Latin Americans which explains that. There is a lot of brutal warfare in Africa, so perhaps you could cover what is defective about Africans too. And Immanuel Can can provide a list of atrocities committed by atheists, so you might as well include them too...

Me: Let's start trying to break out of the loop by asking if you agree that non-Muslims have ever been violent towards those with a different ideology? Or whether there has been any example of a good Muslim?

I for one am not saying that there are no decent people who identify as Muslim or otherwise have it on their ID card, are of Muslim heritage and so on.

Good, then coupled with your acceptance that violence towards others is not exclusive to Muslims, we have established that it is not the case that being Muslim is what causes people to be intolerant, terrorists etc.

That is a very scary and concerning problem. It is a manifestation of historical and cultural factors.

That is my position. Like you, I note that violence and intolerance is neither restricted to Muslims, nor is it universal in Muslims, therefore the causes must be something other than 'being Muslim'.

Let us just get to what matters here:

Now is the time to get very serious about what to do about Islam.

That is a non-sequitur. After many posts we have now clearly established that the cause of the problems is not Islam. We should therefore look at factors beyond Islam for both the cause and the solution to problems like terrorism.

[Science Fan]

The problem is Islam and millions upon millions of Muslims support violent oppression against non-Muslims. Saudi Arabia has made atheism a crime. Saudi Arabia makes it a crime for a Christian to show a Bible in public. Saudi Arabia sanctions marriages between middle-aged men and girls as young as eight, which is nothing less than slavery and child-rape combined. Similar examples of oppressive laws can be found in every single Islamic nation that exists today or has ever existed. There has never been an Islamic nation that gave equal political rights to non-Muslims. Islamic nations tell the world exactly what Muslims do when they are in power, and it is not good for the rest of us.

The claim that Islam has nothing to do with violence against non-Muslims is demonstrably false.

[Immanuel Can]

After many posts we have now clearly established that the cause of the problems is not Islam.

Not so. Nothing to that effect has been "established" at all.

Those of us who have read the Koran and lived in countries with a significant and domineering Muslim population know better.

The problem is not moderate Islam...because moderate Islam ignores the Koran, the Hadiths and the Imams, and goes forward on pragmatic grounds. Fundamentalist Islam IS the problem.

Moreover, "terrorism" of an undefined, vanilla sort is not the problem in hand. That sort of terrorizing behavior is always around, but it's isolated, rare and for various motivations. We aren't having terrorist epidemics everywhere, or for every reason today.

We ARE having an Islamic terrorist problem.

[Londoner]

Ban Sharia. Ban it constitutionally, totally, and for all nations in Europe and around the world. Be completely open to the private practice of Islam, if individual people still want to do that: but grant it no footprint at all in the public or political sphere.

There's nothing racist about banning Sharia. To focus on that is merely to focus on banning a set of public demands, not banning people or their beliefs. Let people believe in Islam if they wish: but prevent them using any part of the law or public policy to force it on anyone else.

That's the right solution, it seems to me.

I agree. That is the situation in the UK - and I assume in the USA People can consent to conduct their private lives according to Sharia, but they cannot force it on others who are unwilling and cannot be bound by it. (The same applies to Jewish law, Seventh Day Adventists, and everyone else). Nor can they do something they consider valid under Sharia but which would be a crime in common law.

(That demand is rather different from 'ban it constitutionally, totally', in the sense of forbidding even the private practice of one's beliefs.)

The laws that limit - or perhaps embody - ethical systems should be decided democratically. I would say that allows a people to create a society that reflects their core beliefs (which would sometimes be religious) but not to the extent that it blocks basic rights, which includes having minority views. This is always going to be a balancing act; individual freedoms against the majority will, but we can often find that balance because all of us will find ourselves in some sort of a minority, in some area of our lives.

That is what I would call democratic liberalism.

Regarding racism, racism is treating individuals not according to the individual's behaviour, but according to their membership of a particular group. So, for example, we should avoid saying 'Muslims are terrorists' for the same reason as 'blacks are criminals' or 'men are rapists'. Such things are simply untrue, but once again, the pragmatic reason we would want to avoid doing that is because any group, including our own, could one day find ourselves on the wrong side of the gas chamber door.

So to be against racism is not so much liberalism as self-interest.

[Londoner]

Not so. Nothing to that effect has been "established" at all.

If you think that, you need to explain why (a) not all Muslims are terrorists and (b) not all terrorists are Muslims.

[Londoner]

There has never been an Islamic nation that gave equal political rights to non-Muslims.

Only if you use the 'no true Scotsman' argument.

[Seleucus]

Western liberals love to preen themselves as proponents of "acceptance" and "tolerance."

Oh goly! I can tell you that while I had see this stuff on CNN and the BBC I honestly had not encountered this delusional cognitively distorted mind game too much before joining this forum!

And you'll never change their minds,

Not only will they not change, "what you resist persists", they dig in deeper!

because they aren't interested in the facts,

These useful idiots, lost in their mind-games, are obviously not reading tafsir, the history of the Umayyads, or Ibn Khaldun.

they're just fascinated by the opportunity to virtue-signal and pose as "understanding."

In counseling jargon sometimes its called "one upping". Blaming self and blaming other are big moves too. Rescuer role is very central, then the switch-up to victim and designation of persecutor with the "I'm offended" move. Eric Berne would roll over in his grave if saw this stuff.

Because to the Lefty Islam-supporters in the West, it's not about truth, goodness, light or even survival: it's about the chance to show themselves off as "liberal."

It's mind games. Serious pathology. Very ill people.

Ban Sharia. Ban it constitutionally, totally, and for all nations in Europe and around the world. Be completely open to the private practice of Islam, if individual people still want to do that: but grant it no footprint at all in the public or political sphere.

That is a practical and doable approach.

[Seleucus]

Would the Left attack anyone for making fun of and insulting neo-Nazis? Doubtful. So, why is the Left so obsessed with defending Islam? Sharia is very similar to neo-Nazism. It's totalitarian, it oppresses all freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it outlaws any science that calls into question any claim made by Islam, it oppresses women, it sanctions anti-Semitism, and I can't think of a single reason why anyone should support Islam or Sharia.

My understanding of it, is mostly in terms of mind games and various forms of ego inauthenticity and cognitive distortion. I guess I also understand it in terms of Social Dominance Theory where leftists identify as losers and outsiders and take up the "hierarchy attenuating" role.

[Seleucus]

Let us just get to what matters here:
Now is the time to get very serious about what to do about Islam.

That is a non-sequitur. After many posts we have now clearly established that the cause of the problems is not Islam. We should therefore look at factors beyond Islam for both the cause and the solution to problems like terrorism.

Blah blah blah.

This is the part you will be better off to quote. Doable actions:

Myself, I favor an escalation of war against terrorist organizations worldwide; in the West I support limiting immigration, intense policing, repatriating refugees, not giving ground on accommodating Islamic culture i.e. prosecuting FGM, not permitting prayer in the streets or megaphones on mosques, ensuring Islamic schools are teaching national curriculum; in Muslim countries I support assisting oppressed minorities, pressuring Muslim governments to reform, and funding establishment of rational secular education such as philosophy departments among other things. That's what I'll vote for, work for, and donate money for.

[Seleucus]

The problem is Islam and millions upon millions of Muslims support violent oppression against non-Muslims. Saudi Arabia has made atheism a crime. Saudi Arabia makes it a crime for a Christian to show a Bible in public. Saudi Arabia sanctions marriages between middle-aged men and girls as young as eight, which is nothing less than slavery and child-rape combined. Similar examples of oppressive laws can be found in every single Islamic nation that exists today or has ever existed. There has never been an Islamic nation that gave equal political rights to non-Muslims. Islamic nations tell the world exactly what Muslims do when they are in power, and it is not good for the rest of us.

The claim that Islam has nothing to do with violence against non-Muslims is demonstrably false.

Yes.

[Londoner]

Blah blah blah.

If that is the best counter-argument you can think up, I think I will leave it there.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the right solution, it seems to me.

I agree. ...(The same applies to Jewish law, Seventh Day Adventists, and everyone else).

Absolutely. But they're not the problem, so I wouldn't bother...unless they become the problem.

(That demand is rather different from 'ban it constitutionally, totally', in the sense of forbidding even the private practice of one's beliefs.)

No one suggested that. "Constitutionally" means "by constitution," meaning law and public life, not private conviction. Nobody can ban private conviction...and nobody should try.

Regarding racism, racism is treating individuals not according to the individual's behaviour, but according to their membership of a particular group.

No it isn't. "Racism" applies only to race as an issue.

Muslims aren't a race. They'll happily tell you that themselves. They're what they call an "ummah," a collective of all the people of all races who subject themselves to Islam.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think that, you need to explain why (a) not all Muslims are terrorists and (b) not all terrorists are Muslims.

Oh, that's easy.

Not all Muslims are fundamentalist.

But to be a Muslim fundamentalist (i.e. an Islamic terrorist or Islamic terrorist-supporter, or supporter of publicly imposed Sharia) you have to first be a Muslim. Muslim fundamentalism is the problem...not people who only call themselves Muslims, but don't live it out or impose themselves on the public.

Meanwhile, fundamentalisms of other kinds are not a problem here. Hassidic Jews, Protestant Quakers, devout Buddhist mystics or even ardent Atheists are not currently blowing anyone up. Why not?

And if fundamentalism isn't the problem, then what part of "Islamic fundamentalism" is?

Obvious, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

Western liberals love to preen themselves as proponents of "acceptance" and "tolerance."

Oh goly! I can tell you that while I had see this stuff on CNN and the BBC I honestly had not encountered this delusional cognitively distorted mind game too much before joining this forum!

These useful idiots, lost in their mind-games, are obviously not reading tafsir, the history of the Umayyads, or Ibn Khaldun.

You're right.

And that's why they're not listening to you -- not because you're wrong, and certainly not because you're not a whole lot more real-world knowledgeable about this than they are. The problem is that you're not offering them support for their pose of "tolerance," upon which their fragile self-images draw so much. To agree with you would make them "feel bad." So they're not listening, even though you're right.

I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to that sort of self-serving and hypocritical posing from the Western Lefties. It's their mother's milk; they live on it.