Which is weird because China-Iranian relations seem to be pretty strong atm[0]. I guess Iran looks the other way when China eradicates their own Muslims and China looks the other way when Iran eradicates their own Taoists/Buddhists?
To be fair, a lot of Muslim countries, Shiite or Sunni, do not care for the Uighur plight. Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. are all happy to take Chinese money.
Iran has also rebuilt its own mosques with Persian design cues. In fact there is no single Islamic style anymore.
At one time mosques were like outposts that advertised the religion so they had to be built to be identifiable to strangers and mosques everywhere had a largely Arab design language. But given that these mosques were quickly erected they often needed repair and the differences in climate, culture and available building materials as well as advancing knowledge of construction techniques meant that parts of the mosque were modified.
There are only two structures in Islam that can't be modified, everything else just needs to serve the function of hosting a large group of people in accordance with local safety regulations. Yes, really. That's it. Most mosques are formerly abandoned buildings that look like warehouses. The holiest site in Islam is a simple cube. There is no specific shape or pattern you need to use to call it a mosque.
FT has been on a crusade to divide Muslims and the Chinese for a while now which is why they are upset about the shape of mosques in China but okay with Muslims dying everywhere else, this article is terrible even by their very low standards. These are all completely valid mosques.
Google's definition is "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." which means exactly what I intended.
Perhaps I don't understand the criticism -- it's supposed to be some sort of culture war thing? I'm using the normal, well-established word for this phenomenon. If you dislike the word, take it up with Oxford, I guess.
Far-right wing Catholic who wants to stop muslim immigration into Europe [1] here:
If you don't think islamophobia is real, and used to manipulate Western populations, you're delusional. The US is very scary right now and, in some circles, I only mention my wife's religious background with a dash of courage. It helps that we both obviously despise coastal liberals though.
It's not that I don't think islamophobia isn't real, I don't think islam"ophobia" is a problem. Every religion deserves to be criticized, especially when they have values that don't align with the free world.
I will sit here all night and talk about how the catholic church has a pedophilia and sexual abuse problem, and also sit here all night talking about the subjugation of women and jihadist ideas are rampant because of islam.
Can you see how your perspective is a little presumptuous? By calling it "islamophobia" you've skipped the part where we discuss if it's a problem or not - you've already assumed any dislike of islam is a bad thing.
"Thomas Jefferson’s well known anti-clericalism is generally treated as part of his advocacy for intellectual freedom, but it is also a sign of his participation in a much broader culture of anti-popery. Evan Haefeli will set Jefferson’s much lauded hope that America would “be to the world . . . the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves,” within a longstanding anti-popish tradition that contrasted liberty, knowledge, and science with stereotypes usually associated with Roman Catholicism. More than just anti-Catholic prejudice, the religious and political values derived from this tradition fused had been a fundamental part of how British Americans understood their liberty."
The US had an anti-Catholic tradition up until at least the 1960s, which JFK had to address directly in his presidential election campaign.
Just because we say "physics" instead of "physicology" doesn't mean it's not the same as other -ologies.
You're completely missing the point. No liberal is going to sit here and talk about how we are anticatholic for talking about sexual abuse in the catholic church, but they certainly will say "islamophobia" if we start criticizing islam because of jihadists, the subjugation of women, and the treatment of LGBTQ. Suddenly it's "not all muslims" and such...
We certainly can criticize jihadists without criticizing Islam in exactly the same way we can criticize participants of the Protestant/Catholic conflicts in (Northern) Ireland without criticizing the Catholic or Anglican churches, much less all Anglicans and Catholics.
The Islamophobia accusation comes in when people, for example, want to expel all non-citizen Muslims because of what a small number of jihaddists thousands of miles away did, or want to "bomb the region back to the Stone Age" for the same reason.
Where are the calls to expel all Catholic foreign residents because of systemic sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Where are the calls to nuke the Vatican? We should see far more of those if your two cases were really parallel, and were that so we would be hearing a lot of "not all Catholics."
My point is that we already use "anti-Catholic" what you describe as "Catholicphobic". The English Reformation era was DEEPLY anti-Catholic, and far more violent towards recusants than Islamophobia in the modern US, with some executed for their Catholic faith.
And yet we use the term "anti-Catholic", not "Catholicphobic" for that situation.
(To further muddy the waters, "jihad" has multiple meanings and you are using a particularly Western interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad points out "Most Western writers consider external jihad to have primacy over inner jihad in the Islamic tradition, while much of contemporary Muslim opinion favors the opposite view.[19]" Consider how US soldiers use "haji" has a slur when for Muslims it is an honorific title. Further, consider how George W. Bush called US action after 9/11 a "crusade" - a reference to a series of Christian military actions.)
Not OP, but Ill take a stab at it (not an endorsement, just an explanation):
While FT is hyperventilating over China, calling it an erasure of Islam there has been scant coverage that during the current conflict in the Levant, one of the two belligerent has destroyed millenarian places of worship of many various faiths. Also, said belligerent has a sizable, growing, and politically very powerful minority that wants to blow up the third most holy place of worship for the other belligerent's faith and build a temple for themselves in top.
Again, not the OP and I don't particularly care much about the ME.
Search HN. Look at how almost every single post critical of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza has been flagged to death. You’re not allowed to talk about it because it’s ostensibly not tech relevant.
And yet a post like this can make it to the front page and stay there.
You can bash China day and night on HN because it won’t cost you your career.
That’s why a story about China replacing Salafi style turrets and minarets with traditional Chinese Muslim architectural features is seemingly a greater crime and more worthy of outrage than Israel bombing not only mosques but refugee camps and hospitals with people in them also.
From the article, a printout of a municipal declaration posted at a school:
> Why minors cannot enter religious venues
> An open letter to parents and guardians of elementary and middle-school students in the entire city
> Minors are at a critical stage of physical and mental development…they do not have the ability to think independently… therefore, please could all parents and friends actively cooperate and keep minors far from religion.
-----
It actually seems logical to me!
43 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] thread[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Iran_relations
Both countries simply have a ruling class that is using an ideology to wield control.
At one time mosques were like outposts that advertised the religion so they had to be built to be identifiable to strangers and mosques everywhere had a largely Arab design language. But given that these mosques were quickly erected they often needed repair and the differences in climate, culture and available building materials as well as advancing knowledge of construction techniques meant that parts of the mosque were modified.
There are only two structures in Islam that can't be modified, everything else just needs to serve the function of hosting a large group of people in accordance with local safety regulations. Yes, really. That's it. Most mosques are formerly abandoned buildings that look like warehouses. The holiest site in Islam is a simple cube. There is no specific shape or pattern you need to use to call it a mosque.
FT has been on a crusade to divide Muslims and the Chinese for a while now which is why they are upset about the shape of mosques in China but okay with Muslims dying everywhere else, this article is terrible even by their very low standards. These are all completely valid mosques.
The current escalation reminds me of the early days after 9/11.
Perhaps I don't understand the criticism -- it's supposed to be some sort of culture war thing? I'm using the normal, well-established word for this phenomenon. If you dislike the word, take it up with Oxford, I guess.
If you don't think islamophobia is real, and used to manipulate Western populations, you're delusional. The US is very scary right now and, in some circles, I only mention my wife's religious background with a dash of courage. It helps that we both obviously despise coastal liberals though.
1. Ironically married to a muslim European.
It's not that I don't think islamophobia isn't real, I don't think islam"ophobia" is a problem. Every religion deserves to be criticized, especially when they have values that don't align with the free world.
I will sit here all night and talk about how the catholic church has a pedophilia and sexual abuse problem, and also sit here all night talking about the subjugation of women and jihadist ideas are rampant because of islam.
Can you see how your perspective is a little presumptuous? By calling it "islamophobia" you've skipped the part where we discuss if it's a problem or not - you've already assumed any dislike of islam is a bad thing.
Take https://www.monticello.org/research-education/for-scholars/i... as an example:
"Thomas Jefferson’s well known anti-clericalism is generally treated as part of his advocacy for intellectual freedom, but it is also a sign of his participation in a much broader culture of anti-popery. Evan Haefeli will set Jefferson’s much lauded hope that America would “be to the world . . . the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves,” within a longstanding anti-popish tradition that contrasted liberty, knowledge, and science with stereotypes usually associated with Roman Catholicism. More than just anti-Catholic prejudice, the religious and political values derived from this tradition fused had been a fundamental part of how British Americans understood their liberty."
The US had an anti-Catholic tradition up until at least the 1960s, which JFK had to address directly in his presidential election campaign.
Just because we say "physics" instead of "physicology" doesn't mean it's not the same as other -ologies.
The Islamophobia accusation comes in when people, for example, want to expel all non-citizen Muslims because of what a small number of jihaddists thousands of miles away did, or want to "bomb the region back to the Stone Age" for the same reason.
Where are the calls to expel all Catholic foreign residents because of systemic sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Where are the calls to nuke the Vatican? We should see far more of those if your two cases were really parallel, and were that so we would be hearing a lot of "not all Catholics."
My point is that we already use "anti-Catholic" what you describe as "Catholicphobic". The English Reformation era was DEEPLY anti-Catholic, and far more violent towards recusants than Islamophobia in the modern US, with some executed for their Catholic faith.
And yet we use the term "anti-Catholic", not "Catholicphobic" for that situation.
(To further muddy the waters, "jihad" has multiple meanings and you are using a particularly Western interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad points out "Most Western writers consider external jihad to have primacy over inner jihad in the Islamic tradition, while much of contemporary Muslim opinion favors the opposite view.[19]" Consider how US soldiers use "haji" has a slur when for Muslims it is an honorific title. Further, consider how George W. Bush called US action after 9/11 a "crusade" - a reference to a series of Christian military actions.)
Being against those who support anti-woman and anti-LGBTQ+ views isn't Islamophobic. It's common fucking sense.
The article seems to be documenting practices designed to remove Islamic symbols and stop it from being transmitted to a younger generation.
Tearing down Islam seems as good a description as any for that.
I think you’ll need to explain why you think this is connected to Palestine in some way. The practices documented in the article go back many years.
1. The actions of the US and allies towards Muslims the last few decades and/or weeks.
2. This bleeding heart article.
I'm just squaring the circle.
While FT is hyperventilating over China, calling it an erasure of Islam there has been scant coverage that during the current conflict in the Levant, one of the two belligerent has destroyed millenarian places of worship of many various faiths. Also, said belligerent has a sizable, growing, and politically very powerful minority that wants to blow up the third most holy place of worship for the other belligerent's faith and build a temple for themselves in top.
Again, not the OP and I don't particularly care much about the ME.
And yet a post like this can make it to the front page and stay there.
You can bash China day and night on HN because it won’t cost you your career.
That’s why a story about China replacing Salafi style turrets and minarets with traditional Chinese Muslim architectural features is seemingly a greater crime and more worthy of outrage than Israel bombing not only mosques but refugee camps and hospitals with people in them also.
It’s pure hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
In a pseudo-communist country, the only god is the state and leader Xi Jinping is the chosen prophet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China