Islamaphobia?

[Onnedheil]

So, as feminists, women, fighting against patriarchy, against rape culture against male violence to women. My question is this.

Are we suddenly now supposed to be supporting a religion that is an actual rape culture, Openly accepted paedophilia, actual supremacy of toxic masculinity an actual patriarchy Which is responsible for female genital mutilation , based on a the word of a paedophile warmonger who propagates a monotheist singular God who is male .

And when Anyone, speaks out about these things We're labelled as a racist and as islamaphobe and told to silence our voice for the religion of peace?

Have I ended up in the twilight zone or something?

I don't understand what is so difficult about this.

What is wrong with the definition of "a lack of belief in a god or gods"? And if that isn't a satisfactory answer, then I'm afraid it's the questioner's problem not mine.

So far as the point about it existing independently in someone's mind, bearing no relation to any other beliefs that someone has- well it's a bit of a sweeping assumption to know what is in anyone's mind. It would be a bit rude to describe a committed belief in a god in that way.

All I can say is I have never believed in a god. I can remember sitting in an RE class aged about 7 and thinking this makes no sense to me.

If someone tells me they are an atheist, I assume it means they don't believe in God

Yup, exactly.

This thread is odd. A couple of things spring to mind:

1. Why can't people do a class analysis of Islam as it is practised In relation to feminism without being derailed? I thought feminism was okay with class analysis even though NAMALT. Surely it's a given that NAMuslims (or even half the Muslims) ALT; sure it is not the only religion ever to have mosogynistic traits. But does that mean any discussion of misogyny in relation to Islam must be derailed with talk of all the other things that are mosogynistic?

2. Violence. Whether it is sanctioned by the Koran or not, many Islamic doctrines in many parts of the world are underpinned by more violence than is the case, in the contemporary world, than any other major religion. Many, many quite moderate (in Islamic terms) Muslims believe it is justified to punish apostasy with death; that adulterers should be stoned; homosexuals killed etc etc. It is a religion used to sanction mass violence not historically, as Christianity was, but now. Much of this violence is directed at women who violate codes of sexual morality.

3. Theology. People are saying all religions are equally nasty and patriarchal. I think this is a bit woolly. You need to look at the scriptures of a religion, the principles and worldview it promotes, the practices that develop from it. Buddhism, for example, is strong on renouncing individual desire and materialism; it's been hugely influential in the relatively collectivist cultures of Asia. Christianity's big schtick is forgiveness, altruism and the equality of all humans before God. This has had (however dodgy the implementation) a fundamental influence on Western social and political philosophies and ideals. Others are better informed than me on Islam but my understanding is that ideally it sees no separation between priesthood and government, believes man should submit to the will of God (via the priest/rulers) and is energetically, often militantly evangelical. It goes without saying that different groups have varying interpretations of doctrine (there'd be no religious wars otherwise) but these different philosophical traditions can't, just can't, be lumped together by saying 'well they're all patriarchal so equally bad'. It's just lazy thinking. We have to be able to look critically at the effects of different doctrines and make value judgements, however partial our own perspective is. The only alternative is a total moral vacuum.

I have no beef with anyone who chooses to practise Islam any more than I would a Jain or Hindu. Why should I? But Islamic ideology, in many instances of mass practice, I do have a problem with. I reject the concept 'Islamophobe' because it's nonsense to conflate questioning a doctrine with prejudice against adherents to that doctrine. I do my think it's enough to just denounce all religion. Islam is the fastest-growing world religion, and as feminists, we need to be engaging critically with it - and ensuring people like the OP are not harassed into silence for doing the same.

Science, religion and atheism should be separated. I will try and expand on this later on.

am slightly reeling at the person upthread who sought to equate the US with repressive Islamic societies. It's Christmas so I'll be charitable and assume she's pissed.
One thing I don't understand in these discussions about Islam is the distinction people seek to draw between religion and culture. Unless you believe in the spiritual truth of Islam, which I imagine most people here don't, it's all culture, isn't it? And I think we should be able to criticise those aspects which are problematic without being told we're bigots.

This is my last post on this particular topic. Slugseatlettuce said: "Belief has no place in science."

So, Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1833. He put it together out of stuff he'd noticed on the Beagle voyage and things he'd read, most notably Malthus's Theory of Population, which is a work of political theory.

He had no evidence to back it up, it was pure speculation. It was belief without foundation in empirical evidence. He spent the next 25 years collecting evidence to back up his belief, and only published On the Origin of Species in 1859 because he thought someone else, who'd had the same idea, was going to get there first.

Does belief have no place in science?

Manatee I agree that you get nowhere fast by lumping together all religions into one category. As I've said about science, there's no such thing as religion that can be abstracted from the people who practice particular religions.

I think you are interested in understanding viewpoints Buffy.

I think that post structuralism can be very useful in understanding viewpoints and certainly positions. It is definitely useful in understanding the massive debate in the U.S. over science, which does have a connection to atheism.

But there are lots of different ways of understanding things (which I think we both agree on), and I think there are other valuable ways of looking at religion, the lack of it, theism and atheism.

And if we have the basic definition of atheism - not believing in God (or a similar sentiment), we can then look at that in lots of different ways. One of those is then looking at common connections between atheism and other beliefs. But I don't think we should go straight for that connections approach and only that approach, which we're pushed into if we define atheism as meaning - a system of beliefs based on the scientific understanding of material reality to the exclusion of all other forms of understanding including spirituality and the supernatural (or a similar sentiment).

And I don't think that is what a lot of people mean when they say they are an atheist anyway.

Surely Darwin had a theory rather than a belief. One which he was obviously keen on. That's not the same a a belief, as with a belief, no evidence is needed. Or do I not understand what a belief is?

Sorry, slugs, I have read Origin of Species, and I have read a lot of books and articles in the history of nineteenth-century science. Darwin didn't publish because he didn't have the evidence and he was worried about being labelled a speculative theorist. It's an open question how religious Darwin ever was, and he had certainly lost his faith well before 1859. He published Origin of Species jointly with Wallace because he was worried that if he didn't Wallace would publish first.

But he didn't gather evidence on the Beagle voyage. He gathered all the evidence, for 25 years, after he'd had the idea. It's been conclusively shown that the idea was formed by his reading of Malthus. It was his belief that natural selection must be the mechanism by which evolution worked but he did not have the evidence for it. Though he brought back some specimens from the Galapagos they did not constitute the kind of evidence he needed to support his belief.

I do know a bit about this stuff.

vestalvirgin Mormons are christian. I know, I am one. Please elaborate how awful the men in my life are. Genuinely curious about what you have heard.

And I think we should be able to criticise those aspects which are problematic without being told we're bigots

Yes , saying "I think homosexuality is a perversion" or "women should dress modestly" is no less bigoted just because you claim it's your religion which tells you that.

I wouldn't cut an atheist man or woman who said that any slack.

I agree with your point about the US too.

Buffy - I agree with you entirely about what we mean by belief, theory, evidence and the like.

In a way, that's the point about Darwin. If we say that our definition of belief is something that has no evidence to support it, that leads to the conclusion that the status of natural selection in 1833 was a belief. You could also describe it as a hunch.

If you define belief as something you trust - as in 'I believe in you and I know you'll manage to swim to the other side of the pool', then natural selection in 1833 might also count as a belief, because it was something Darwin believed in enough to spend 25 years on.

But if you think that belief can have no place in science then calling natural selection in 1833 a belief will cause a certain amount of friction.

Startrek I know almost nothing about Mormons apart from the Osmond so are (and you must get fed up of hearing that)

I was impressed how little fuss Mormons made (if any) about Matt Stone's The Book of Mormon.I haven't seen it and won't. Mormons are such an easy and lazy target for him , he could be as rude as he liked ; non-Mormons won't care and Mormons themselves very unlikely to turn to violence.