Does the term "Muslim" refer to race or religion?

True or false... Christian and Muslim mean the same thing to their respective religions.

There are many ethnic groups who practice Islam and can be described as Muslim just as there are many ethnic groups who practice Christianity.

It seems almost automatic that any criticism of "Muslims" invites accusations of racism. If the term "Muslim" is associated with one's religious beliefs... how is that racism?

Are we over-using the term "racist" and "bigot" to the point where it's losing it's meaning?

I am an atheist and I can find fault in all religions. If I criticize a group who does not believe in equality between men and woman or is intolerant of gays I don't believe I would be called a bigot. Yes, I'm intolerant of those who espouse those values.

However, if I criticize a religion who doctrine explicitly supports ideology I judge to be false and damaging to society I am labeled "bigot". I don't understand why religion gets a pass from criticism over it's ideology.

As long as a religion's ideology is aligned with the interests of an integrated, tolerant, compassionate society where the religion's devotees are afforded the basic rights of freedom of speech and equality, and respects other's same basic rights, I do not have a problem. However if the religion's doctrine does not treat woman equally or does not respect a women's choice when it comes to abortion or if it demands unquestioning devotion and suppresses criticism - I have a problem with that.

I will criticize that religion as a group and I will criticize the members of that religion and anyone who supports that religion just like I would criticize individual Republicans and any group who call themselves Republicans.

I criticize Republicans because I disagree and am intolerant of their policies. I reject their beliefs. I use a broad brush to criticize anything Republican and that is applauded here. Why doesn't the same standard apply to religions who espouse ideology is that is sexist and repressive? Is it because they invoke "God" or "Allah" as the source of their doctrine? I don't see the difference because I don't accept the existence of God. To me the source of religious doctrine/ideology is the same as any political group... from the fallible and imperfect minds of their founders.

So as an atheist who believes that religions should be held to the same standards as political groups... am I a "religious hypocrite" as the term "bigot" is defined?

Same as Jewish. Neither are races.

Just saying...

Just saying ...

"Jewish" is as much an ethnicity as "Persian" or "Arab" or "Turk" is. The question of "who is a Jew?" is not an easy one to answer, but "nobody" isn't an answer most would find acceptable

I don't really understand your question. My Muslim son-in-law is Australian of South African and Indonesian descent. Obviously, he's not Semitic (in the broad sense of the term), if that's what you're getting at.

When they refer to Muslims they really mean Middle Eastern.

Maybe that's what you're thinking. They mean the religion and you think they mean middle eastern. Is it possible you're making an unwarranted assumption?

A lot of Americans who hate Muslims do assume that all Muslims are Arab and Middle Eastern (even though the vast majority of Muslims in the world are actually Indonesian). They're just THAT stupid.

color and their facial features, they are clearly referring to their race.

I get it, you're an atheist and you know the difference.

It's time to stop denying just how stupid and hateful many people are.

... how Muslims should be screened at airports, how Muslims could be sneaking across the Mexican border, etc. The question should be asked, "How do you know they are a Muslim?"

Indonesia has one of the biggest Muslim populations in the world, but you don't hear calls for screening Asians at the airport. Too many people use "Muslim" as shorthand for "Arab" or "Persian".

>Too many people use "Muslim" as shorthand for "Arab" or "Persian".<

That seems to be the same thought process of the people you're describing. You assume they are something different than what they represent on the surface.

No one "looks Muslim" because there are Muslims of every race. So, when you hear anyone talk about screening Muslims, being nervous around Muslims, keeping an eye on suspicious looking Muslims, etc., they are obviously picking up on some kind of visual queue. By doing so they are attributing certain attributes or making assumptions about a person based upon their appearance. That is racism or bigotry.

Their is a difference between honest critiques of Islam and using Islam as a basis for suspicion.

god(s).

I can't think of one good thing ever accomplished by the irrational worship of nonexistent deities but the list of atrocities done by them is well nigh endless.

-- than radical Judaism or radical Christianity is fucking ABSURD!!!

Whether you are Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Quaker or fucking Scientologist -- whatever...

If you are on the radical end of the spectrum, you are a MENACE.

That is all.

Always someone trying to tell someone else how to live their lives. Either in the name of the almighty dollar or god (your lifestyle costs us money, and money is our god, so therefore we should be able to tell you how to live because it costs us less).

Blame things on religion if you want, but even without it you have people doing the exact same thing.

-- being anti-Muslim is being anti-People With Brown Skin. That's just the way it is.

So -- yes, True -- Islamophobia is racism of the worst sort.

There are many ethnic groups who are Muslim... black, white, Persian, Arab, Asian etc... Not all are "brown skin".

Muslim refers to the Islamic religion - it has nothing to do with race.

Albanian and Bosnian Muslims do not have brown skins.

The Muslims in the "stans" of the southern rim are the old Soviet Union tend to be lighter skinned.

The classic Muslim of course is a Semitic Arab (son of Ishmael), but Muslims cross the color spectrum as much as do Christians.

Jews obviously have maintained a national identity as well as a religious identity.

And that's all there is to it.

You can't find anything wrong with Islam?

-- and not included in a larger, more inclusive critique of ALL the major religions, than yes, such rhetoric is probably akin to "Fox News"-style bigotry.

It's not that black and white. I don't think you can equate Christianity with Islam as having the same values on freedom of speech, equality of the sexes and separation of church and state.

Some religions have core values that are more aligned with western values and some have values that are less alligned.

When the subject is gay rights, Catholicism and Islam cannot be criticized equally. The Catholic church's ban on gay marriage pales in comparison to Islam's outright condemnation, public flogging and executions. Homosexuality is illegal in every Islamic controlled state. Turkey is the only country I know of with an Islamic majority where homsexuality is not illegal but Turkey is still a sectarian state. Turkey has no laws to protect LBGT's from discrimination however.

Fundamentalist Christians in the West would be only too happy to impose "Sharia-style" penalties against LBGT's given half a chance. I know it, you know it (or at least you should), and 90% of the people on DU know it too.

There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world ranging from the very fundamentalist to absolutely secular.

nt

...etc, to be exactly same?

I don't blame liberal denominations of Christianity for the thoughts/actions/ideas of Catholics, so why should all Muslims be lumped together as one monolithic entity?

To be honest, I don't know the position of Lutherans or Baptists on the subject of abortion. If their belief was the same as Catholics on abortion and birth control I would lump them in with the Catholics.

I was brought up Catholic... 12 years of catholic schools. I limit my criticisms to the Catholic church when I criticize Christianity.

As far as Islam goes, your right, there are offshoots of Islam but the main sects are Sunni and Shiite. Even within the Sunni and Shiite sects there are different movements, schools of thought and interpretations of the Quran.

Even so, there are some core beliefs which are common to all Muslims just as there are core beliefs common to Christians.

If they weren't so brown, you see.

You have to account for the undeniable ignorance that prevails amongst so many. Shiites, Arabs, Sunnis, Iranians, Muslims, Palestinians, Pakistanis, hell even Turks... there are plenty of people who don't know what the differences are, don't care, and think of the whole lot as angry Muslim terrorists.

Some are, yes, but many are not (Tim McVeigh, anyone?) and it is high-time the MSM acknowledged that!

is a perfectly good word for religious intolerance. However, you can not entirely remove racism, because many see Muslims as vaguely Arabic men wearing beards and turbans. Would Juan Williams feel uncomfortable if the Muslim next to him wore an Armani Suit, was clean shaven, short haired and read the Wall Street Journal? Or was that discomfort based on the way people looked.

Bigot, is a perfectly good word for that intolerance, but there are also elements of racism in feeling uncomfortable around men who wear ethnic middle eastern garb.

It's extremely simple, as far as concepts go.

The article you link states that the word used to have such a meaning. It no longer does.

Anyway, if you reject a Republican idea on its merits, that's well and good. If you reject a new idea without considering it because it is Republican (or Republican-backed), then you're prejudiced. If you reject a person solely because they're a Republican, then yeah, you're a bigot.

Same goes for religion. If you reject an article of faith on its merits, that's just peachy. If you reject a religious claim because it comes from a certain (or any) religion, you're prejudiced. If you reject a person because they profess religious beliefs you do not hold, then you are a bigot.

because their religion says so... I'm a bigot?

>If you reject a person because they profess religious beliefs you do not hold, then you are a bigot.<

It is possible to vehemently disagree with someone and not reject them as a person. Of course, if they're acting upon their belief (and speech is indeed an act), then you can comfortably reject them on grounds of their actions. Beliefs and thoughts are sacrosanct. Acts are not.