Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Why do so many hate Muslims

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 6:23pm

razer13

razer13

22 posts

Im a Muslim and to be a muslim you cant do bad things. and by bad things i mean a variety. Such as you cant kill some one, or you cant steal from someone etc. So what i just tell myself and others if you break a religion law than your basically not in that religion anymore so we conside bin ladin and other religion terrorist not what their religion is. So to simplify it we dont consider bin ladin as a muslim.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 6:50pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

So what i just tell myself and others if you break a religion law than your basically not in that religion anymore so we conside bin ladin and other religion terrorist not what their religion is. So to simplify it we dont consider bin ladin as a muslim.

Ah, the good old No True Scotsman fallacy. No, Bin Ladin was a Muslim. However, you're correct in that he is not representative of all Muslims.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 9:43pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,871 posts

Knight

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.

No, that is an assumption that is highly improbable and incredibly slanted. Why? Because it is impossible to give everyone the same amount of freedom. Is the right to smoke, but only in certain areas, thereby allowing other people to be free of second hand smoke giving everyone the same amount of freedom, OR trying to make the system as fair as possible, and setting up compromises? As a smoker, I would argue it's the latter, because I have few places to smoke, severely compromising my freedom.

Freedom CAN be given and taken, but that doesn't make it tangible, tangible referring to the fact that freedom can be measured, split, and done accurately, like a cake cut into equal slices. Freedom cannot be split accurately, because people have different notions of what is and equal balance and compromise in freedom given, unlike measurements of units which are clear cut definite. Let's give another example. I want to own a gun. But my owning of a gun might endanger someone else if I'm mentally unsound. So you take my gun away. I would argue that that violates my freedom. So who's freedom is more important? That's the question I'm getting at, which you don't answer. That's why Muslims, and say another culture have different views on freedom.

The burqa is only mandatory for a select few Muslim nations; if you want to slam Muslims, at least make sure to add the caveat that the vast majority DO NOT NEED TO, and are not the narrowminded parochial people you think they are.

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.

No I did not. Go back and read my post again. And no, to refute your point that Muslim nations that are progressive are just evident that more radical communities are unnecessary; that lies on the egocentric assumption that Muslim nations will all follow the trajectory that Western nations have taken, and will become democratic. As any anthroplogist worth his salt will tell you, that's not the case, and most Muslim nations who are progressive have all stuck firmly to their own beliefs, and certainly not turned completely secular. They tried it in the 60s and 70s with disastrous results, as the populace clung fiercely to their religion.

Secondly, I think you have a very narrow-minded view of what Muslim culture is. It's not a tradition of being slaves, and Muslim nations were often afforded more freedom than Christian ones in the past, such as the right for a woman to initiate divorce. Thirdly, they are proud of their tradition, that is positive (Duh right? Go back and think through it.). Lastly, maybe it doesn't to you, but as an example, I come from a Chinese society, and I believe more in conformity and putting society over my needs in more cases than you, due to my Confucian roots. I am repelled by the liberal, rather self-centred values perpetuated by more progressive Western nations. And I resent being called backward, based on their own rather exclusive criteria which they judge by their standards.

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

The fact that you called people who believed directly in God's omnipotence are dangerous as they can apply such beliefs.

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.

Well, then sorry for your narrow-mindedness if you can't trust a Muslim because a small minority does all that, whilst you unfairly blame the rest of the moderates for not being able to overpower that minority, who are often in places of power.

That's an ignorant view, given that both religions are different. I could meet one Italian, and tell the Germans that all Europeans are like that. Or a Texan, and tell all Americans that they're like that. Is that fair? NO.

Also, the fact that they can disagree with certain parts of the book because it does not fit with their beliefs is not something to be slammed, but on the contrary, applauded, because it shows that they aren't as constrained by their religion as you think.

Ah, the good old No True Scotsman fallacy. No, Bin Ladin was a Muslim. However, you're correct in that he is not representative of all Muslims.

I disagree. They're not even saying that he's not a true Muslim, but not even a Muslim.

Person A: "All true Scotsmen drink ale"
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I don't drink ale."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

This is a valid argument and not a fallacy. In this case, Razer has already stated clearly that he believes that Muslims who commit such atrocities have already broke clear of the rest of the flock.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 10:18pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

They're not even saying that he's not a true Muslim, but not even a Muslim.

I'm not seeing the difference.

This is a valid argument and not a fallacy.

Uh, Nicho, it's not a valid argument. There's a reason it's called a fallacy.

So what i just tell myself and others if you break a religion law than your basically not in that religion anymore so we conside bin ladin and other religion terrorist not what their religion is. So to simplify it we dont consider bin ladin as a muslim.

In other words, he's saying that he doesn't consider Osama a Muslim because he broke some arbitrary defining rule. This is no different than the Scotsman definition of saying he's not a Scotsman/not a 'true' Scotsman because he doesn't drink.

In this case, Razer has already stated clearly that he believes that Muslims who commit such atrocities have already broke clear of the rest of the flock.

And as I already stated, this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, Osama was an extremist. Yes, he does not represent all Muslims. Yes, he is in the vast minority. However, he WAS still a Muslim.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 10:36pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,871 posts

Knight

I'm not seeing the difference.

A common mistake among people identifying Scotsman fallacies is to point out a fallacy has been made when the topic of the argument was actually clearly defined and never changed, which is the example that I gave, where it clearly states what a true Scotsman is, and which Razer has identified as a true Muslim. This would be valid, because from the beginning "True Scotsmen" were defined as the topic of the argument, and it was given the characteristic of "those who drink ale". Of course, the topic must always be properly defined to avoid confusion or fallacious reasoning.

In other words, he's saying that he doesn't consider Osama a Muslim because he broke some arbitrary defining rule. This is no different than the Scotsman definition of saying he's not a Scotsman/not a 'true' Scotsman because he doesn't drink.

Then Osama is not a Muslim, because he broke a rule. I find it hard that you find that hard to understand.

And as I already stated, this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, Osama was an extremist. Yes, he does not represent all Muslims. Yes, he is in the vast minority. However, he WAS still a Muslim.

Understand fallacies before you try to spot them! The fact that you can have 2 individuals, both claiming to be Muslim, yet both having very different definitions of what is a Muslim, allows those two sides to both claim that "no true Muslim would [ Whatever action is in question" and they would both be correct by their own definition but they would be wrong by the definition of the other.

However in this case, if the Quran states that if you commit such an action, you're not a Muslim, then that should be taken as the definition, since no Muslim would disagree with the Quran.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 11:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Then Osama is not a Muslim, because he broke a rule. I find it hard that you find that hard to understand.

He broke an arbitrary defining rule vaguely stated by Razer, is what I said.

Osama did not see it as breaking a rule, nor do the others who are extremists such as he was. Further, whether he actually broke a rule is up to how you interpret the book itself.

"Im a Muslim and to be a muslim you cant do bad things. and by bad things i mean a variety. Such as you cant kill some one, or you cant steal from someone etc."

None of the above is what classifies someone as a Muslim. The definition of a Muslim is:

1) "A Muslim, also spelled Moslem,[1] is an adherent of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Qur'anâ€"which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God as revealed to prophet Muhammadâ€"and, with lesser authority than the Qur'an, the teachings and practices of Muhammad as recorded in traditional accounts, called hadith. "Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits to God"."

Wikipedia

2) "an adherent of Islam"

Merriam Webster

3) "a follower of the religion of Islam."

OxfordDictionaries

You even have acknowledged that there are varying interpretations to religious institutions which still constitute as a part of that belief system and that parts differ.

Radical Muslims are a small minority, but not small enough.

Yes, many sects call for such acts. But so do many other religions.

Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.There is no one thing called sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands sharia in its own way.

The Quran is taken as infallible, but the Quran doesn't lay down ground rules. Only 80 verses actually contain legal prescriptions, the rest are moral statements that are very open to interpretation. These are open to different understandings because different Muslim sects use and understand different hadiths (Sayings of the Prophets) to read the Quran. Just like all books are open to interpretation, the Quran is too.

Many different sects have different interpretations, and it's mostly the Salafis that prescribe the headveil.

The fact that you can have 2 individuals, both claiming to be Muslim, yet both having very different definitions of what is a Muslim, allows those two sides to both claim that "no true Muslim would [ Whatever action is in question" and they would both be correct by their own definition but they would be wrong by the definition of the other.

*Facepalm*

That's why it's called a fallacy! It's not a valid argument! Any side can add an addendum to what it means to be something, then declassify everyone/everything that does not fit into that as not being a part of it! They're correct by their own definition, which is why it's a logical fallacy.

However in this case, if the Quran states that if you commit such an action, you're not a Muslim, then that should be taken as the definition, since no Muslim would disagree with the Quran.

Except the Qur'an is as open to interpretation as anything else. We don't even have to get into the contradicting parts. One person's definition is not the same as another's.

 

Posted Apr 30, '13 at 11:47pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,871 posts

Knight

He broke an arbitrary defining rule vaguely stated by Razer, is what I said.

Osama did not see it as breaking a rule, nor do the others who are extremists such as he was. Further, whether he actually broke a rule is up to how you interpret the book itself.

"Im a Muslim and to be a muslim you cant do bad things. and by bad things i mean a variety. Such as you cant kill some one, or you cant steal from someone etc."

None of the above is what classifies someone as a Muslim. The definition of a Muslim is:

1) "A Muslim, also spelled Moslem,[1] is an adherent of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Qur'an��"which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God as revealed to prophet Muhammad��"and, with lesser authority than the Qur'an, the teachings and practices of Muhammad as recorded in traditional accounts, called hadith. "Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits to God"."

That is true, BUT, much of the religious justification of violence against nonbelievers  by the promoters of jihad is based on the Quranic sword verses which has grounds and roots on the messy Arabic political situation in the 6h century; which is further open to varied interpretation, and the majority of Muslims concur that violence is not applicable for whatever reasons extremists give. If we take this to be true, then the extremists are going against the Quran. Are they then Muslims? There's a strong case to be made that they are not.

That's why it's called a fallacy! It's not a valid argument! Any side can add an addendum to what it means to be something, then declassify everyone/everything that does not fit into that as not being a part of it! They're correct by their own definition, which is why it's a logical fallacy.

You didn't get what I meant. According to most Muslims, violence is not the solution, nor even allowed. Therefore they are not Muslims in the majority's eyes. Then, it would be much more valid for Muslim baiters to say that they hate on a ''Small-sect-that-claim-they-are-true-Muslims-yet-are-not-recognised-by-the-vast-majority-of-Muslims-as-Muslims".

Except the Qur'an is as open to interpretation as anything else. We don't even have to get into the contradicting parts. One person's definition is not the same as another's.

Yes of course, but if we take the often well loved democracy-majority-wins-view of Westerners, they aren't Muslims.

 

Posted May 1, '13 at 3:09am

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,372 posts

Lastly, maybe it doesn't to you, but as an example, I come from a Chinese society, and I believe more in conformity and putting society over my needs in more cases than you, due to my Confucian roots. I am repelled by the liberal, rather self-centred values perpetuated by more progressive Western nations.

I've been raised in a leftwing oriented family and I still hold many leftwing views, and I'm denifitely favorable to socialist institutions and other ways to put society over my needs. Yet, unlike you, I can't in good conscience just say that I do so because my ancestors did and the tradition can't be broken. That's why I tried my best to conciliate those views with the only values that make sense to me: freedom and equality. Resulting with the freedom distribution thing.

Freedom CAN be given and taken, but that doesn't make it tangible, tangible referring to the fact that freedom can be measured, split, and done accurately, like a cake cut into equal slices. Freedom cannot be split accurately, because people have different notions of what is and equal balance and compromise in freedom given, unlike measurements of units which are clear cut definite.

So who's freedom is more important?

Asking who's freedom is more important is irrelevant, beside the fact that I already said everyone deserves the same, because your gun and smoking examples are unrelated to such a problem: the freedoms to be lost and gained are different, so the only question is "what freedoms are more important, and what can be sacrificed?" And I agree that there are cases where it is not possible to decide objectively and where freedom is not easy to divide equally with an absolute judgement. Yet, this is hardly the case for religious impositions, as they usually result in no freedom gained for anyone, making the judgement rather easy.

No I did not. Go back and read my post again.

because we have other factors to weigh in, such as our culture and tradition.

Sounded like we have no other factors to weigh in. Anyway.

And no, to refute your point that Muslim nations that are progressive are just evident that more radical communities are unnecessary; that lies on the egocentric assumption that Muslim nations will all follow the trajectory that Western nations have taken, and will become democratic.

I don't get it? All I was saying is that if you can consider good Muslims the ones that live in progressive nations, as you seem to do, then there is no reason why another community should limit the freedom of its people since the progressive nations prove that good, true Islam can coexist with freedom. I'm really not taking any western nation as a model, I'm considering exclusively progressive and conservative Muslim nations.

Secondly, I think you have a very narrow-minded view of what Muslim culture is. It's not a tradition of being slaves, and Muslim nations were often afforded more freedom than Christian ones in the past, such as the right for a woman to initiate divorce. Thirdly, they are proud of their tradition, that is positive (Duh right? Go back and think through it.).

Slavery was a bit of an hyperbole I guess, but you are failing to answer my point. When I said that, I obviously weren't referring to the ones who are happy and satisfied with Islam, but to the ones that would happily live without it, yet are FORCED to adapt just because they live in the same nation. I think that is the core point: just like we can't assume the fanatics are representative of the whole Muslim community, you can't assume that the happy and proud Muslim community is representative of every single individual living in a Muslim country and thus subject to Islamic impositions. Even when you talk about tradition, you have to realize that while the majority is favorable to it, there will always a minority of people who disagree, but the tradition is forced over them.

Well, then sorry for your narrow-mindedness if you can't trust a Muslim because a small minority does all that, whilst you unfairly blame the rest of the moderates for not being able to overpower that minority, who are often in places of power.

That's an ignorant view, given that both religions are different. I could meet one Italian, and tell the Germans that all Europeans are like that. Or a Texan, and tell all Americans that they're like that. Is that fair? NO.

That one Muslim was a quite normal person and as I said my distrust of Islam didn't affect the way I behaved to him. As I said I'm not basing my opinion on Islam on him.

Also, the fact that they can disagree with certain parts of the book because it does not fit with their beliefs is not something to be slammed, but on the contrary, applauded, because it shows that they aren't as constrained by their religion as you think.

But how am I supposed to take their beliefs seriously, if they are so much contradictory? Basically it's like if someone told you: "I would never kill you, it's a bad thing and it's against my values. But you know that guy who told me I should kill you? He was totally right." (killing is just an example.)

 

Posted May 1, '13 at 3:58am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

Also, the fact that they can disagree with certain parts of the book because it does not fit with their beliefs is not something to be slammed, but on the contrary, applauded, because it shows that they aren't as constrained by their religion as you think.

Or they think their faith isn't strong enough now and they don't know enough about God, but when it is and when they do, they'll fully agree.

 

Posted May 1, '13 at 5:44am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,871 posts

Knight

I've been raised in a leftwing oriented family and I still hold many leftwing views, and I'm denifitely favorable to socialist institutions and other ways to put society over my needs. Yet, unlike you, I can't in good conscience just say that I do so because my ancestors did and the tradition can't be broken. That's why I tried my best to conciliate those views with the only values that make sense to me: freedom and equality. Resulting with the freedom distribution thing.

That's your personal take; I am only giving an example to show you why Muslims might not want to accept Western values shoved down their throat, as helpfully demonstrated across the Arab world.

Asking who's freedom is more important is irrelevant, beside the fact that I already said everyone deserves the same, because your gun and smoking examples are unrelated to such a problem: the freedoms to be lost and gained are different, so the only question is "what freedoms are more important, and what can be sacrificed?" And I agree that there are cases where it is not possible to decide objectively and where freedom is not easy to divide equally with an absolute judgement. Yet, this is hardly the case for religious impositions, as they usually result in no freedom gained for anyone, making the judgement rather easy.

No they aren't. Who's freedom is more important IS the question. You claim that the question should be ''what freedoms are more important, and what can be sacrifised?", that's essentially the same question. And I disagree, with religious impositions, there are usually freedom gains. By taking away and accusing Sharia law of being barbaric when in most cases it isn't, the problem is with you, and not the Muslims, because you're taking their freedom to practice their own laws (which is what most want these days), or at the very least, decrying it as demonic, and painting an unfairly negative picture of it. When France tried to ban the Burqa itself, that's infringing on religious freedom. When Switzerland banned the construction of minarets, that is infringing on religious freedom. When the US tried to ban the building of a mosque at ground zero, that is infringing on religious freedom.

Sounded like we have no other factors to weigh in. Anyway.

Yes there are others. Culture, tradition, peoples' choice, societal good, just to name a few.

I don't get it? All I was saying is that if you can consider good Muslims the ones that live in progressive nations, as you seem to do, then there is no reason why another community should limit the freedom of its people since the progressive nations prove that good, true Islam can coexist with freedom. I'm really not taking any western nation as a model, I'm considering exclusively progressive and conservative Muslim nations.

Yes, and I countered it by stating that even if a few Muslim communities progress (and they don't even ''progress'' like Westerners think they do), there's no basis that all Muslims communitites need, will, should, simply because cultures and countries are different even internally. What I discuss as progress here is not your progress of democracy and liberalism, it's progress of adapting Islam to more modern contexts, whilst still holding on very strongly to their beliefs.

But how am I supposed to take their beliefs seriously, if they are so much contradictory? Basically it's like if someone told you: "I would never kill you, it's a bad thing and it's against my values. But you know that guy who told me I should kill you? He was totally right." (killing is just an example.)

Those are radicals. Would asked you to trust them? Talk to more Muslims. Most don't agree with killing of any form, even if the Quran states it.

Slavery was a bit of an hyperbole I guess, but you are failing to answer my point. When I said that, I obviously weren't referring to the ones who are happy and satisfied with Islam, but to the ones that would happily live without it, yet are FORCED to adapt just because they live in the same nation. I think that is the core point: just like we can't assume the fanatics are representative of the whole Muslim community, you can't assume that the happy and proud Muslim community is representative of every single individual living in a Muslim country and thus subject to Islamic impositions. Even when you talk about tradition, you have to realize that while the majority is favorable to it, there will always a minority of people who disagree, but the tradition is forced over them.

I disagree. If the majority agrees, then the majority wins, which is the brutal nature of democracy and Sharia law is enacted, unless you're telling me that your democratic system is disposable. Furthermore, people ahve a choice; in Nigeria, only the Northern states have Sharia law. Like several Middle Eastern countries, Egypt recognizes Sharia as part of its jurisprudence but chooses not to enforce severe Hadd penalties as part of state law. Furthermore, other denominations are not subject to Sharia law, only Nigerian Muslims. Instead, adultery is often punished with short prison sentences. I answered your point raised.

 
Reply to Why do so many hate Muslims

You must be logged in to post a reply!