How to solve islamophobia.

[Majed]

The solution to islamophobia is to make a distinction between islam and muslims. Islam is a toxic belief system, misogynistic, patriarchal, homophobic, antisemitic, bigoted, irrational, fantastical, and just false. However muslims are people who have been indoctrinated by the islamic culture to be misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic... So it's not the fault of muslims that they are this way, it's the fault of the culture at large of which they're a part of. What we should combat is the ideology of islam, not muslim people. People are a product of their culture and upbringing. It would be irrational to attack muslims, because if they were born in a secular society, they would be secular. What we should combat is the ideology of islam, by educating people around its hateful nature and falseness. Islamophobia is a form of bigotry that can affect negatively muslim people, however by combating islam and not muslims, we must fight islamophobia as well, which like i said targets people not the ideology of islam. Because it conflates the symptoms (muslims), with the root cause (muslim ideology).

[Integral Mystic]

As someone who has never been a Muslim but has studied Islam quite a bit, I want to ask if you believe Islam as a belief system is totally inflexible or if you think it can evolve with people and with society? 

The reason I ask is because I have struggled with similar questions. I once studied History of Religions at the university where the social constructivist perspective reigned supreme. According to most any of my professors, a religion isn't really anything, it is just a label that is attached to a bunch beliefs and social practices but which cannot ultimately be reduced to anything other than what its believers think it is. The suggestion that "Islam is a toxic belief system... etc" would, in that environment, have been met with quick accusations of "essentialism", the ultimate sin in postmodern academia. But also: It is clear that there are Orange Muslims and Green Muslims (in Spiral Dynamics terms), the Green variety pops up as soon as Muslims migrate to Western countries or convert in these countries. There are Muslim feminists, anti-racists, anti-colonialists, even LGBT Muslims who try as best they can to reconcile their faith with Green values.

At the same time I personally have a suspicion that a religion has a centre of gravity, and that this centre of gravity in the case of Islam is towards the lower end of the Blue spectrum. Buddhism has a higher centre of gravity, with Christianity arguably somewhere in-between. The reason for this "suspicion" (which I never managed to present in an acceptable way in Green academia) is partly because, at some point, you simply cannot interprety away the core religious texts of a tradition. If the Quran says the hand of the thief should be chopped off, you can point out that this only applies for more serious forms of theft, that the Sharia requires witnesses and so on, but at the end of the day you cannot deny the gruesome reality of the chopping off of hands. A modern Muslim reading this text essentially faces a choice either to 1) accept and try to embrace this as the eternal wisdom of God or 2) try to explain it away based on context. In case 1) you are forced to adopt Blue values to an extent, even if have grown up in a Green society, thus we see a kind of downward gravity of values with Islam in this case. In case 2) you may be able to maintain Green values, but at the cost of appearing insincere and relativistic.

I am still sympathetic to integral thinkers such as Ken Wilber and Steve McIntosh who have suggested that religions will simply grow along with society. There will be an integral or Yellow form of Christianity, a Yellow form of Islam, and so on... it may be possible, but in the case of Islam at least I think you then have to abstract it down to the bare essentials of Muslim tradition, such as the Five Pillars and not much else. 

[Basman]

But people ARE their culture. If you attack any ideology you attack its ideologues by proxy by virtue that your undermining their identity.

I think Islamophobia is going to be to certain extent inevitable, with the terrorism of Islamic extremists in the recent past and the backwardness of certain majority Muslim countries. The solution is that people just need to feel that their borders are secure and solid and that their values aren't being compromised. So no honor killings, genital mutilation, burqas, etc. Respect the liberal culture, etc. Basic stuff which are already mostly present to be fair.

There was a recent incident in Holland where a Muslim family conspired to and murdered their daughter because she refused to wear a hijab. They are all in prison now but they really should've gotten the death penalty in my opinion. Politically, that would calm some of the fascisation of locals. The trend of the progressive treating the political issue of Muslim integration as if it is not an issue at all backfires as it hurts their credibility and subsequent trust in institutions. Progressives seem very aware of how easily people can develop islamophobia. It's why they covered up the rape scandal in Cologne. It is also probably a big reason why feminists don't really criticize Islam much (in fact, you see a bunch of attempts at whitewashing the concept of hijab for example, to avoid the issue). But then you got to question if there is perhaps is some legitimate cultural incompatibility to a certain extent that needs to be acknowledged.

But Muslims do gradually secularize as they grow up in western countries. I've met a bunch of Muslim guys who the only thing they are really pious about is not eating pork. You still see them drink and fuck casually. Getting into combat sports and shit. They are probably less strict on boys though, I imagine.

[Basman]

Islam is written as a rule set for a medieval society. It makes sense to perhaps avoid eating pigs in the middle of a desert where sanitation isn't the greatest. Our survival standards rise, thus much of Islam is outdated as a guide for living. 

[Hojo]

Its up to them to make that distinction. Maybe change their outfits.

This is how you solve it.

Edited 22 hours ago by Hojo

[Raze]

This user is trolling for attention

Just a couple month prior he was insisting he was Muslim and posting about how Islam is true, I even called him out that he is just trying to bait arguments 

Here in the past in the dating forum to win an argument he starts insisting he is a high value man who is experienced in pickup yet I point out less then a month prior he was saying he’s a incel and giving up on pickup 

He lies about who he is and what he believes to seek attention and cause arguments. 

[Apparition of Jack]

Islam needs a serious reform movement to bring it in line with the modern world imo. 
 

There are tons of abhorrent teachings in the Bible (how to own slaves, which heathens to kill etc) yet if you seriously suggested bringing back slavery 99% of modern Christians would scoff at the idea.

I don’t see why Islam couldn’t be any different. Yes the Quran says to kill nonbelievers, to chop hands off thieves etc, but ultimately a society’s development level will influence which teachings they listen to, not the other way around. 

I think Islam needs a serious, internal reform movement that uses Quranic teaching to emphasises non-violence, religious tolerance, etc. Greater emphasis on doing good deeds and generosity rather than a strict, literalist interpretation that supports violence and oppression. 
 

How this would work? I don’t know. I’m not Muslim, and I don’t know much about Muslim countries. Maybe some Sufi leaders or other humanistic preachers could lead this movement.

Whatever the case, I think Islam as an institution needs to do some serious soul-searching in the coming years. The wanton acceptance of violence in too much of modern Islamic thought is unacceptable. 

[Apparition of Jack]

To add to this, I really think promoting education in Islam societies will go a huge way to diminish the extremism. Perhaps moreso than any other religion in the modern age, Islam tends to be an all-encompassing ideology for its believers that can be used to explain away just about anything, regardless of how helpful or not it is.

A young kid struggling with school? He’s not depressed and needs to see a counsellor, he just doesn’t pray enough and is ungrateful to God! Someone got cancer? It wasn’t because they were drinking 2L of Pepsi every day, it was because they watched too much Western tv and lost faith in Islam! A sheik got caught embezzling $100 million from the state treasury? Well he’s a holy man, who are we to judge?

Basically, I think Islamic societies need a strong dose of Stage Orange rationality, science, free-thinking and secularism, rather than the toxic Stage Blue(/even Purple in some cases) fundamentalism and superstition that defines too much of conservative Islamic thought. More Muslim scientists, academics, engineers, blogposters, journalists, businesspeople, mathematicians, etc etc and less insane sheiks, muftis, imams etc spewing highly dogmatic and oppressive nonsense.

Edited 20 hours ago by Apparition of Jack

[Ramasta9]

What is a Phobia but a Phantom?

[Majed]

@Raze Watch out for your projections.

[zazen]

20 hours ago, Majed said:

The solution to islamophobia is to make a distinction between islam and muslims.

Your claiming the solution is to distinguish Islam from Muslims, but then talk about Islam as a single, fixed “toxic” ideology to which you apply no distinctions. You conflate Islam as a whole with a caricature of it - which actually produces more Islamophobia. 

On 11/9/2025 at 11:13 AM, zazen said:

A good way to look at (religions) is the container (structure, construct) vs consciousness. Religions and government structures (democracy vs monarchy) are containers - that the peoples conciousness within them is distinct from. Although there is a relationship between the two also. So it’s not about the doctrine alone but about the development of those engaging with it.

Some containers are perhaps better than others at elevating our conciousness - because some containers have more trappings than others. This is why non-duality and actualized (Leo’s body of work) is better at elevating conciousness - it just has way less trappings than religion does.

For example in Islam the idea of jihad (struggle) or in Judaism - the chosen people. Both of these can be approached form a lower or higher place. A lower conciousness turns jihad into ISIS and the notion of chosen people into candy for the ego. A higher conciousness turns jihad into struggle against ego/impulses and chosen people into a burden or responsibility to embody good virtues. These trappings are higher risk than a neutralised scientific approach to spirituality which has less baggage, words or ideas that can be conflated or confused.

Osho actually did this and said it was his intention - he spoke from a higher place on all the world religions. He drew in people of all walks by doing this, and then he went onto the next step and said to even drop those containers (religions) and approach spirituality without them ie more scientifically.

But like I said to breakingthewall - there is a place for both the scientific approach to spirituality, and the art of spirituality which is more colourful and localised to where people are from. We don’t necessarily have to drop our identity - otherwise how do we culturally “belong” with everyone around us without feeling alien. We need to synthesise the two approaches and view the scientific approach like a formal universal language and the artful approach like a local cultural language.

In other words transcend the container but live within it - the same way we’re told to be in the world but not of it.