Top Menu

Religion News Service: Muslims surpass atheists as most unpopular group in US

CHANTILLY, VA - SEP12: Muslims pray at the Dulles Expo Center during Eid al-Adha, the "Feast of the Sacrifice", the second of two major holidays in Islam, September 12, 2016, in Chantilly, Vriginia.  The holiday honors the willingness of Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his son, as an act of submission to God's command. (Photo by Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Disturbing news. The question is why is there such an increase. Some of the obvious reason is the Islamophobia industry and its manufacturing of hate, the rise of ISIS and the sensationalization of their threat to the West and of course the US presidential campaign of 2016. What are some other reasons?

via. Religion News Service

About 40 percent of Americans say atheists “do not at all agree” with their vision of America, according to a new study from sociologists at the University of Minnesota who compared Americans’ perceptions of minority faith and racial groups.

But the study marks a grimmer milestone — Americans’ disapproval of Muslims has jumped to 45.5 percent from just over 26 percent 10 years ago, the last time the question was asked.

Continue reading

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Walt Morrow

    Lighting and Earthquake strike Muslim city, suspect a group of Old Irish Priest.

  • MichaelElwood

    Wulf Nesthead wrote: “There appears to be the possibility of some misapprehension. I have never recommended camel urine for use in modern times, in fact I explicitly said the opposite to Khizer in this discussion. . . .”

    I know that you didn’t recommend camel piss, bro. I never said or that you did.

    Wulf Nesthead wrote: “As I observed previously, what some Sunnis do has no bearing on the hadith itself; as such promotion is adding things which are not in traditional sources. The fact that camel urine is being promoted as a cure-all is does not reflect on Prophet (sawa) unless he said that it was a cure-all: and he (sawa) did not.”

    The problem is that other Sunni hadiths do falsely attribute cure-alls to Muhammad. For example, there’s a hadith that says that black cumin seeds are a cure “for every disease (min kulla daa’in)”:

    Abu Hurairah narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: “In black seed there is healing for every disease, except the Sam.” “Sam means death. And black seed is Shuwniz.”

    http://sunnah.com/urn/1274920

    Wulf Nesthead wrote: “My point–my *only* point–is that regardless of whether the hadith is or is not authentic, there is nothing *inherently* wrong with the Hadith of Urine and it made sense in the context of the seventh century. With the exception of scholars, the people who cite this hadith are either students of tibb an Nabawi (sawa), people citing it to bolster their proposition that the hadith cannot be trusted, hucksters trying to pass it off as a panacaea, and Islamophobes who cite it as “proof” that Islam is [fill in the blank with Something Bad].”

    I disagree. I don’t think the hadith is authentic. However, as I pointed out in my previous comment, Muslims wouldn’t obliged to follow it even if it were authentic. I do think there is something inherently wrong with the with the camel piss hadith, and not simply because following it could spread disease. These hadiths falsely attributed to Muhammad also spread a mindset that has a deleterious effect on Muslims. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the same “moderate” Sunnis who accept the camel piss drinking part of this hadith, also accept the killing whom they consider apostates part of the same hadith. And since “moderate” Sunnis like Hamza Yusuf and the al-Azhar establishment consider those who reject Sunni hadiths as apostates, it jeopardizes the lives of Muslims. For example, I mentioned the 14th century Spanish scholar, Ibn al-Khatib, who was declared an apostate and murdered for his skepticism of hadiths like this. And as we speak, the Egyptian TV host, Islam al-Buhairi, was declared an apostate and is being persecuted for his skepticism of hadiths like this. These are the same “moderate” Sunnis who won’t declare “extremist” Sunnis like ISIS apostates:

    “While Al-Azhar refused to call ISIS militants infidels (Kafer) claiming not to have the right to call Muslims infidels no matter what their sins were, Al-Azhar initiated court proceedings against Al-Buhairi. Consequently, Al-Azhar committee, on behalf of Ahmed Al-Tayeb, filed a case against Al-Buhari in April 2015 for ‘calling the precepts of religion in question and inciting a communal strife among Muslims.'”

    https://intpolicydigest.org/2016/01/15/don-t-blaspheme-in-egypt/

    Moreover, I think some Sunnis display a nonchalance about fabricating hadiths like the one in question. Falsely attributing things to God and his prophet is a serious offense:

    “Among them are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.” [Quran 3:78]

    “You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful,’ to fabricate lies and attribute them to GOD. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to GOD will never succeed.” [Quran 16:116]

    “Who is more evil than one who fabricates lies and attributes them to GOD, or rejects the truth when it comes to him? Is Hell not a just retribution for the disbelievers?” [Quran 29:68]

    “Who is more evil than one who attributes lies to GOD, while disbelieving in the truth that has come to him? Is Hell not a just requital for the disbelievers?” [Quran 39:32]

    As for the efficacy of tibb an-nabawi, that was never really my concern. Some modern medicines have their origins in traditional medicine. In the future, some medicines might be made from these traditional medicines after extensive testing. Who knows! Until that happens, however, Muslims shouldn’t be stocking up on camel piss and black cumin seeds because they mistakenly believe that this is what Muhammad prescribed. And they certainly shouldn’t denounce as apostates and kill Muslims who are skeptical about the hadiths which this medicine is based.

  • 786 I took adc714’s comment to be about the cause of the increase in hatred, which is based on perceptions; not a statement concerning the causative factors of the current chaos.

  • 786 I believe most ponies who frequent LW are likely to engage in research; but the sad truth is that the rest of the population does not do so.

  • 786 You seem to be laboring under some misapprehension.
    I have never recommended camel urine for use in modern times, in fact I explicitly said the opposite. The alkaloids were neither identified as such in the seventh century nor were they capable of extracting them, they just knew that something in the piss helped some people with dropsy.

    As I said above, what some Sunnis do has no bearing on the hadith itself; as such promotion is adding things which are not in traditional sources. The fact that it is being promoted as a cure-all is meaningless unless Prophet (sawa) said that it was a cure-all: and he (sawa) did not.
    My point is that regardless of whether the hadith is or is not authentic, there is nothing *inherently* wrong with the Hadith of Urine and it made sense in the context of the seventh century. With the exception of scholars, the people who cite this hadith are either students of tibb an Nabawi (sawa), people citing it to bolster their proposition that the hadith cannot be trusted, hucksters trying to pass it off as a panacaea, and Islamophobes who cite it as “proof” that Islam is [fill in the blank with Something Bad].

  • 786 I had the misfortune to date a girl who would scream “rape!” at the top of her lungs in public if she didn’t get what she wanted: the one time I was on the receiving end was when I wouldn’t give her her car keys because she was drunk. I relented but unfortunately she did not get into a fatal accident; instead her behavior deteriorated and she became physically abusive. Remarkably, she also accused me of raping her once after she initiated sex. Fortunately even she knew that her blustering was groundless and we remained an item. (Yea, I know…but love is not always rational)
    I dated another girl who initiated almost all of our, umm, intimacy–we never engaged in coitus–then accused me of sexually assaulting her. That was fifteen years ago and to this day I am incredulous that she would do such a thing.
    But one of my favorites has to be a species I encountered at University. These are young human females who frequent frat parties and other questionable venues practically in their underwear, then smoke a mondo-spliff and down a fifth of 80 proof alcohol and pass out in the middle of the floor and then when they are taken advantage of, they moan, oh how could this happen to me?
    There is no excuse for sexual violation of any kind whatsoever; but there is sometimes a clear explanation for what happens. See above. It’s like people rubbing chum on their bodies and going for a swim in the great white tank at the zoo. I could not have imagined such disingenuous and apparently dimwitted people existed before Uni. Now I shudder to think that they have been unleashed on the world with degrees–probably in womens’ studies.
    I cannot say enough bad about people who trivialize the horrible, devastating crime of sexual assault and rape by inventing their own versions of “rape lite.” I’m not supposed to say bad about people generally, but these beings are perpetrating clear evil.

  • George Carty

    WikiIslam is one of Ali Sina’s projects IIRC.

  • Khizer

    Also I have seen many anti thiests say downright wrong and stupid things regarding the Quran, here is a video (some animated music video) stating the ‘scientific fallacies’ of Quran.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=POJdu4HV-Ng

    And another video showing the ‘true’ origins of the Quran:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJow

    What is your input regarding these videos?, I have met many anti-Muslim islamophobes on YouTube who use these videos as a reference (checking their fav YouTube videos showed me these videos).

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I don’t find your views on usury objectionable. Those are fair grounds for intellectual debate. (Personally, I could make the argument that voluntary usury with non-Jews, meaning both sides agree with the transaction with no deception on either part, is a lot better than forced jizya on non-Muslims.)

    Rather, it’s the claims of an international banking cartel running or ruining the world (which I understand you did not know is a common anti-Jewish canard) that really started this. I’m also not a fan of telling those of other religions what they must believe or how they must behave, especially in a way that says that their texts are so wrong that they are likely fabricated at least in part. Though your views come from a very, very different place, in practice if one is not careful, the end result has some similarities with those of people who find their interpretations of the Qur’an objectionable and then claim that therefore no one should consider the Qur’an as unaltered divine revelation.

    Still, I think your heart is in the right place, so I hope there are no hard feelings.

    Salaam.

  • Awesome

    Given the first part of your quote above, I suggest you not claim to know how Jews who adhere to their religion act or what they believe (especially if your view of adhering to a religion seems to require believing that its texts contain fabrications so that one would act in a manner contrary to the text — would you accept the same about the Qur’an from someone who disagreed with Muslim practices and/or beliefs?). I honestly don’t believe you have bad intentions here, but what you say is cringe-worthy.

    Then I should probably clarify. I was assuming without knowing for certain, because usury is regarded as immoral and thus sinful in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which is clear from the texts that define all 3 religions. A person who is religious tends to try to avoid what is sinful in his/her respective religion. If a person does not care about avoiding what is sinful in their respective religion, then it can only be concluded that they are not that religious or that their beliefs in regards to their religion are not orthodox.

    Since usury is, in principle, sinful in Judaism, I only assumed that an orthodox religious Jew would try to avoid it. I assume the same about orthodox religious Christians and Muslims as well, and for the same reason: because I prefer to give people the benefit of a doubt, and assume positively rather than negatively. As a Muslim, I know that I personally would try to avoid it. In regards to saying texts are fabricated, I was only saying that the portion of Deut. 23:20 – that permits charging usury to gentiles – was most likely a fabrication – not that it was a fabrication – because it seems to contradict that principle, by permitting a sin against people because of their lineage, which is unsupported virtually everywhere else in those same religious texts and others, while the principle that usury is a sin, is only affirmed.

    There may be other explanations that resolve this apparent discrepancy, which I am open to. But I am unaware of them. I’m not asking or expecting anyone to act in a manner contrary to their own texts, as I am only pointing out an apparent moral discrepancy in them and suggesting a possible explanation for it. I don’t regard those texts as inerrant, even if I believe that they originally were, so I have no problems with that explanation. I only believe the Qur’an’s text to currently be inerrant. Others are going to disagree with that and may even believe the opposite. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, even if they are disagreeable and/or offensive to others. However, that doesn’t require others to accept what they find disagreeable or offensive about those beliefs, even if they tolerate them.

    I would think that everyone would find usury to be disagreeable and offensive, regardless of what religion (or lack thereof) they associate themselves with. Usury is one of the cruelest forms of slavery, and allowing it be charged to some, but not to others, based on lineage, reeks of greed and tribalism of the worst kind. But, perhaps I’m wrong, and there are people who genuinely believe that usury is morally acceptable. In which case, I apologize if my beliefs and views on usury offend them.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    “I mentioned usury because i know that the international banking cartel – who also seem to be Zionists – are bankrolled by it, as well as control and ruin economies and countries with it, with Haiti being one example of that. It wasn’t intended as an insult to Jews or to Judaism, as Jews who adhere to their religion know that it is sinful and try to avoid it.”

    Given the first part of your quote above, I suggest you not claim to know how Jews who adhere to their religion act or what they believe (especially if your view of adhering to a religion seems to require believing that its texts contain fabrications so that one would act in a manner contrary to the text — would you accept the same about the Qur’an from someone who disagreed with Muslim practices and/or beliefs?). I honestly don’t believe you have bad intentions here, but what you say is cringe-worthy.

  • Awesome

    Sorry, but perhaps I jumped the gun here. I now genuinely think you don’t understand what you wrote or where it likely came from. (Yeah, that’s actually a compliment.)

    So, you mention usury. Usury is a long-standing Judeophobic/anti-Semitic accusation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… or http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/U… , for example. It is not a typical anti-Zionist accusation (other than via Judeophobia), notably since the core of the original Zionist movement was socialist and believed that all value should go to labor, not capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… “Labor Zionism or Socialist Zionism[1] (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת סוֹצְיָאלִיסְטִית, translit. tziyonut sotzyalistit) is the left wing of the Zionist movement. It was, for many years, the most significant tendency among Zionists and Zionist organizations.”)

    I truly doubt you meant any religious insult, but the section I quoted from your post sounds like someone thinking “Jews” and then replacing that with the more acceptable “Zionists,” which for some reason one can demonize as a monolithic group. That word switch is pretty common among certain groups, and occasionally gives rise to nonsensical statements that make sense (though often only from a bigoted perspective) once the switch is undone. My guess is that you got the usury trope form some Judeophobic website or other source without even realizing where it comes from or what it meant.

    Anyway, sorry if I made an incorrect assumption, but I think I have a better understanding of your comment now.

    I’ve honestly never heard of that before. I mentioned usury because i know that the international banking cartel – who also seem to be Zionists – are bankrolled by it, as well as control and ruin economies and countries with it, with Haiti being one example of that. It wasn’t intended as an insult to Jews or to Judaism, as Jews who adhere to their religion know that it is sinful and try to avoid it. Where Deut. 23:20 permits charging gentiles/foreigners interest is likely a fabrication, especially given its lack of corroboration anywhere else and the fact that it contradicts the principles of governing according God’s laws.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Sorry, but perhaps I jumped the gun here. I now genuinely think you don’t understand what you wrote or where it likely came from. (Yeah, that’s actually a compliment.)

    So, you mention usury. Usury is a long-standing Judeophobic/anti-Semitic accusation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard#Accusations_of_usury_and_profiteering or http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Usury#Role_in_Antisemitism , for example. It is not a typical anti-Zionist accusation (other than via Judeophobia), notably since the core of the original Zionist movement was socialist and believed that all value should go to labor, not capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism “Labor Zionism or Socialist Zionism[1] (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת סוֹצְיָאלִיסְטִית, translit. tziyonut sotzyalistit) is the left wing of the Zionist movement. It was, for many years, the most significant tendency among Zionists and Zionist organizations.”)

    I truly doubt you meant any religious insult, but the section I quoted from your post sounds like someone thinking “Jews” and then replacing that with the more acceptable “Zionists,” which for some reason one can demonize as a monolithic group. That word switch is pretty common among certain groups, and occasionally gives rise to nonsensical statements that make sense (though often only from a bigoted perspective) once the switch is undone. My guess is that you got the usury trope form some Judeophobic website or other source without even realizing where it comes from or what it meant.

    Anyway, sorry if I made an incorrect assumption, but I think I have a better understanding of your comment now.

Powered by Loon Watchers