Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Why do so many hate Muslims

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 11:37am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

Still that's far from saying that the Sharia is never applied against human rights. To me, just forcing the veil on women looks like a way to limit personal freedom on its own. In general, and starting from our assumption of personal freedom as an universal value, a law which operates a restriction on someone's freedom isn't justified unless it is intended to preserve freedom for someone (example, take away people's freedom to kill to preserve people's freedom to live). That is, more or less, the ideal to which western laws tend: the veil, on the other side, is just one of the many examples of laws sacrificing freedom for baseless religious reasons.

That's a very baseless argument. Then why are people allowed the freedom to own guns when guns have been proven to kill far more than protect? Why are people allowed to smoke, when it infringes on others' freedom to better health? Why are people allowed to drink, when it infringes on others' freedom to a safer society? Indeed, if the principle that the protection of another's freedom is more important than your freedom, who decides? Culture, history, and regional beliefs do.

If you even research further, you would realise that the Burqa issue is not only of contention in the Western ''progressive'' world, but also within the Muslim community. Many different sects have different interpretations, and it's mostly the Salafis that prescribe the headveil. The Arabic word for these headveils are jilbab and khumur which can mean veils, head-coverings and shawls, or any matter of head-dress, hence Muslim theological scholars are often at loggerheads. Are Muslim societies backward looking? Certainly not in my part of the world, where the women choose or choose not to wear the hijab, and many indeed do, due to their conservative stance.

Also, democracy, open-ness, liberalism to a certain extent, and such, are more or less a consequence of personal freedom. Antidemocratic government takes away personal freedom, doesn't it? So democracy is a solution more respectful of personal freedom. Open-ness and progressive thinking, well, one has the right to be open or closed, progressive or conservative as he wishes towards everything as long as it is a personal opinion, but if it becomes a "state" closedness with discrimination and actual punishments for those who disagree, then it's breaking their freedom to be open.

Is democracy more inclined towards personal freedom most of the time? Yes. Is that the good thing? That is up to contention. Are we to introduce democracy slap-bang and change the whole shake up of society? No. You might decry that human rights are not followed in the world barring the Western world, but the argument that the UNHR Declaration does not take on the cultural differences and human rights interpretations of other regions is valid, and makes it a very very narrow Western declaration that does not fit into our ideals. Who are you to tell us that our ideals and values are sub-standard, just because they don't fit yours?

Open-ness and progressive thinking, well, one has the right to be open or closed, progressive or conservative as he wishes towards everything as long as it is a personal opinion, but if it becomes a "state" closedness with discrimination and actual punishments for those who disagree, then it's breaking their freedom to be open.

The same arguments can be hurled back at the West. What about gay marriage? Is it fully allowed? Or the fact that Western societies too employ spying methods on their own people, therefore compromising freedom? Was it not a stigma not too long ago in the West, and even now, to be racist?

That's also what I'd answer to Pakistan people disliking democracy: I can respect it as a personal opinion, but if they take it away they will compromise other people's freedom.

No it doesn't. If it goes by your principle of democracy and majority decision, ironically, Pakistan should discard of democracy. There are a whole array of other factors that determine an end result and how well a nation is run, other than something intangible as freedom.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 12:23pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,372 posts

Don't assume I agree with every western law. Freedom to bear weapons, gay marriage denial, intolerance towards racism when it is just a personal opinion, and government spying are indeed things I disagree with.

That's a very baseless argument.

How do you justify laws then? If freedom is a value, then you can't take it away without a good reason.

Indeed, if the principle that the protection of another's freedom is more important than your freedom, who decides? Culture, history, and regional beliefs do.

There's no need to differentiate freedom basing on whose freedom it is, just judge the amount of freedom taken and the one gained. Sure there are grey areas, but in many cases there's more than enough to judge, including the burqa one, in my opinion.

If you even research further, you would realise that the Burqa issue is not only of contention in the Western ''progressive'' world, but also within the Muslim community. Many different sects have different interpretations, and it's mostly the Salafis that prescribe the headveil. The Arabic word for these headveils are jilbab and khumur which can mean veils, head-coverings and shawls, or any matter of head-dress, hence Muslim theological scholars are often at loggerheads. Are Muslim societies backward looking? Certainly not in my part of the world, where the women choose or choose not to wear the hijab, and many indeed do, due to their conservative stance.

That's nice, but not enough, in my opinion. Now the burqa issue is probably a bad example because I think the Qu'ran doesn't actually present it as an imposition, but in general, the ones that believe in a religious principle and state it is the true word of God while not supporting its application, are still responsible of carrying over dangerous ideas that can lead to the birth of extremists, even if that's in contradiction with their actual values. That falls inside freedom of thought, I guess, so I can't really say anything against it, yet this doesn't take away the fact that this can be dangerous to other people.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 12:42pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

How do you justify laws then? If freedom is a value, then you can't take it away without a good reason.

Laws set out rules and regulations to run our society, and to ensure that freedom is parceled out as deemed fit, such that everything is as fair as possible as freedom as a ''tangible'' unit will never be sufficient. Different from your argument that laws are in place such that it protects one person's freedom when another's person impinges upon it.

There's no need to differentiate freedom basing on whose freedom it is, just judge the amount of freedom taken and the one gained. Sure there are grey areas, but in many cases there's more than enough to judge, including the burqa one, in my opinion.

Freedom is not a unit to be physically judged and maintained. That's only your opinion, which is a very Western-centric one, centered on the idea that it is good to have as much freedom as possible. Well, the rest of the non-Western world disagrees with that, because we have other factors to weigh in, such as our culture and tradition.

Now the burqa issue is probably a bad example because I think the Qu'ran doesn't actually present it as an imposition, but in general, the ones that believe in a religious principle and state it is the true word of God while not supporting its application, are still responsible of carrying over dangerous ideas that can lead to the birth of extremists, even if that's in contradiction with their actual values. That falls inside freedom of thought, I guess, so I can't really say anything against it, yet this doesn't take away the fact that this can be dangerous to other people.

Perhaps it's time to rehash the idea that the vast majority of Muslims aren't radicals who want to impose a Caliphate, or theocracy on the rest of the world, but seek to use Sharia law in its modern context. For example, the Iranian Green Movement in 2009 has always been seen in the West as an example of democracy coming to fruition; yet this is ignoring the fact that the main reformist parties involved were often conservative in their principles, and stuck to sharia law, as seen in the main opposition candidate's refusal of the electoral watchdag Guardians Council to hold a partial recount of presidential election votes, but rather, asked for a panel staffed by clergymen and grounded in Sharia law.

I don't see how people who believe in the true word of God should be barred or limited from politics, in the fear that they will spread extremist beliefs. Many Americans believe firmly in God (Has the highest rate of adults who believe angels exist, and God is supreme in the Western world), yet they are allowed in office. Rick Perry was allowed to be a candidate, even though he convened a crowd of thousands to pray for his victory.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 12:43pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

Which highlights another issue nicely. Why do people hate or fear or distrust Muslims? One possible reason; Because they don't understand them. Because they don't fit into a nice mold that we understand. Because their culture is different.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 1:37pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,372 posts

Laws set out rules and regulations to run our society, and to ensure that freedom is parceled out as deemed fit, such that everything is as fair as possible as freedom as a ''tangible'' unit will never be sufficient. Different from your argument that laws are in place such that it protects one person's freedom when another's person impinges upon it.

I don't see much difference. Taking as an assumption that the only way to parcel freedom is to give everyone the same amount, your parceling is not different from my idea of preserving freedom elsewhere. I'm not sure I get what you mean when you say "tangible", but as you suggested, freedom is a rather concrete unit as it can split and distributed: generally speaking if freedom is given to someone it will be taken from someone else, and vice versa. Give someone the freedom to kill and you'll take the freedom to live from someone else. And by taking away the freedom to kill, you make sure the levels of freedom are equal. The process sounds like what you would do do parcel freedom fairly: take away from those who have too much freedom, in order to give too little. If the killing example is a little too far fetched, we can go back to burqa: take away the freedom to impose it from someone, give back to someone else the freedom to chose by himself.

Freedom is not a unit to be physically judged and maintained. That's only your opinion, which is a very Western-centric one, centered on the idea that it is good to have as much freedom as possible. Well, the rest of the non-Western world disagrees with that, because we have other factors to weigh in, such as our culture and tradition.

Hum, did you just imply that the west has no culture and no tradition? Because we do, but that doesn't stop us to let everyone choose if he wants to follow the tradition or not, and our freedom hasn't destruced our tradition either (this also applies to your examples of progressive Muslim nations: mentioning them just makes evident how the impositions of the more radical communities are not only inhuman, but also unnecessary). Besides, a culture or a tradition is hardly worth anything if is forced on those who practice, don't you think? I doubt many people were ever proud of their tradition of being slaves. And lastly I think all this in unnecessary because personal freedom looks way more important to me than a tradition that comes from above. That's westernocentric, I guess. But I can't find a reason why external factors should matter in my decisions. It was already hard enough to convince myself of the freedom distribution thing.

I don't see how people who believe in the true word of God should be barred or limited from politics

I am not saying they should be limited from politics, where did you get that from? I was just criticizing their beliefs.

Which highlights another issue nicely. Why do people hate or fear or distrust Muslims?

As I more or less said in my first post in this thread, I distrust the fundamentalists that don't respect other people's freedom, as well as those who support Institutions that to such while doing nothing harmful personally because, well, they don't respect personal freedom. I distrust the ones that do nothing of the above but still call themselves Muslim, because they hold contradictory beliefs, and I find it hard to take their good intentions seriously when they regard as God's word a book that actually tells them to behave as the fundamentalists of the first two groups.

Even if I met only one Muslim in my life, I can use the example of all the Catholics I know to tell you that this third point wouldn't actually affect the way I would consider them if I knew them, because I know how little these people tend to care about what they call their religion and have no problems ignoring the part of their holy books they don't like while somehow considering the whole thing true and sacred.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 2:40pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

it does not. there is nothing to gain from circumcision except when someone has phimosis (tightening of the foreskin) wich happens only at 1% of the man who are 17 year old.
a woman circumcision has never medical use whatsoever. it only gives problems.

I linked something, you should click links more often
Also female circumcision is not required in Islam, I don't know whether it is allowed or not, but it is not required, neither is it considered a good deed.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 3:08pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

I linked something, you should click links more often

on the page whit over 30 links?
i aint clicking all of them.
plz. link again. cause there is medically nothing to gain from circumcision except in the cases that i said. what does not happen often.

and woman circumcision is just mutilation.
it happens, in some cultures it is even required as a tradition for a girl to become a woman.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 3:51pm

danielo

danielo

1,396 posts

Its against Islam you know. The cultures who do that done it even befor Islam.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 3:54pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

i do not care to look for what cultures it was required. but i'm quite sure it involved some islamic countries.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 4:09pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Its against Islam you know

it isn't. here is a good link (coming from insideislam.wisc.edu) explaining what is and what is not allowed.
it's a mix of the both since the quran said nothing about circumcision, neither for man or woman

The cultures who do that done it even befor Islam.

it comes from befor the islam yes. but so does male circumcision.

 
Reply to Why do so many hate Muslims

You must be logged in to post a reply!