Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Why do so many hate Muslims

Posted May 1, '13 at 6:52am

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,629 posts

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.

No, that's not the same question. To use the gun control example, you're sticking to the simplified image of a gun owner losing freedom and his neighbour losing it, but in fact, the law affects both in the same way: the gun owner loses his right to bear his gun, but he gains the freedom to live a safer life himself, just like his neighbour, while gaining the freedom to safety, he will lose the right to have a gun himself. So at this point there is really no reason to make a difference between people.
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.

You used yourself the word &quotractice": taking away Shariah doesn't prevent anyone from following its laws, just like I would be free to wear a veil even if there's nothing that tells me to do so. It would only prevent people to force the laws on other people who might disagree. ("taking away" begins to sound weird, just for clarification I'll remind that I have no desire to burn the texts and delete the memory, but only to make sure that it isn't held as a law and imposed on other people)

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.

Pretty much.

Yes, and I countered it by stating that even if a few Muslim communities progress (and they don't even 'rogress'' 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.

A reason why they should progress is to be more respectful of personal freedom, simply. I can accept if you counter this reason by saying that personal freedom breaks the Islamic tradition, but then you can't say that there are countries where the extra freedom didn't break the tradition because that denies your counter.
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.

Actually I was trying to depict the moderates/progressives. The radicals go "the Qu'ran is always right, the Qu'ran tells me to do this, so I do it". The moderates, on the other hand, seem to think this way: "the Qu'ran is always right, the Qu'ran tells me to do this, yet I'm not going to do it". (please don't tell me that the Qu'ran is against killing, I was using killing as a random example for any Koranic law)
 

Posted May 1, '13 at 10:58am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,299 posts

Knight

No, that's not the same question. To use the gun control example, you're sticking to the simplified image of a gun owner losing freedom and his neighbour losing it, but in fact, the law affects both in the same way: the gun owner loses his right to bear his gun, but he gains the freedom to live a safer life himself, just like his neighbour, while gaining the freedom to safety, he will lose the right to have a gun himself. So at this point there is really no reason to make a difference between people.


It is the same question - that of judging how freedom can be allocated. The fact that the gun owner gains the freedom of having a safer life is irrelevant simply because he does not want it, he wants the freedom of owning and using the gun, which is infringed upon.

You used yourself the word &quotractice": taking away Shariah doesn't prevent anyone from following its laws, just like I would be free to wear a veil even if there's nothing that tells me to do so. It would only prevent people to force the laws on other people who might disagree. ("taking away" begins to sound weird, just for clarification I'll remind that I have no desire to burn the texts and delete the memory, but only to make sure that it isn't held as a law and imposed on other people)


How can a country practice Sharia law if you take away and force them not to practice that law? Sharia is not just a moral code of enforcing veil-wearing, or petty superficial rules like that. Sharia law is often the legal system. It is a way of life, that in many ways is not inferior to Western law, like English civil law, which is the basis of law in many Commonwealth nations.

Pretty much.


You're skirting the examples given.


A reason why they should progress is to be more respectful of personal freedom, simply. I can accept if you counter this reason by saying that personal freedom breaks the Islamic tradition, but then you can't say that there are countries where the extra freedom didn't break the tradition because that denies your counter.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Not all communities value personal freedom, nor even think that they're freedom is impinged upon, unlike more open, often Western societies. They are respectful of personal freedom in many cases; if you want to direct your anger and mistrust, direct them to certain portions of rules and regulations in certain countries, but do not paint all of them in the same brush, and claim that Islam overall is a religion that is backward looking.

Actually I was trying to depict the moderates/progressives. The radicals go "the Qu'ran is always right, the Qu'ran tells me to do this, so I do it". The moderates, on the other hand, seem to think this way: "the Qu'ran is always right, the Qu'ran tells me to do this, yet I'm not going to do it". (please don't tell me that the Qu'ran is against killing, I was using killing as a random example for any Koranic law)


No, the moderate goes: "The Quran states this, which is open to interpretation, and my interpretation is based on the context in which I am living in. Hence the Quran means this."
 

Posted May 1, '13 at 12:07pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,629 posts

It is the same question - that of judging how freedom can be allocated. The fact that the gun owner gains the freedom of having a safer life is irrelevant simply because he does not want it, he wants the freedom of owning and using the gun, which is infringed upon.

Yes, that's the question, but it doesn't imply at all the necessity to make a difference between people. Everyone is given the same amount of freedom. It doesn't matter if he enjoys the freedom he gave up more than the one he gained. Or should we base laws on individual people's wishes? If one enjoys the freedom to kill more than the freedom to live safely, does he have the right to require a law fitting to his desire?
How can a country practice Sharia law if you take away and force them not to practice that law? Sharia is not just a moral code of enforcing veil-wearing, or petty superficial rules like that. Sharia law is often the legal system. It is a way of life, that in many ways is not inferior to Western law, like English civil law, which is the basis of law in many Commonwealth nations.

Until you give me a rational justification of why the Sharia gets the power to limit people's freedom (possibly better than "because our fathers did&quot, I'm not going to consider it a legitimate legal system, and I will consider its imposition as a breaking of human rights.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Not all communities value personal freedom, nor even think that they're freedom is impinged upon, unlike more open, often Western societies.

I thought you said it was an universal value?
You're skirting the examples given.

Am I? I'm only against imposition. How is building something, or wearing whatever one wants to wear, an imposition? Why would I ever oppose that, after all my rambling over freedom?
 

Posted May 1, '13 at 12:29pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,299 posts

Knight

Am I? I'm only against imposition. How is building something, or wearing whatever one wants to wear, an imposition? Why would I ever oppose that, after all my rambling over freedom?


Read my examples. Countries are infringing on the right of Muslims, yet have the cheek to also claim that Muslims need to change? Clearly some bias is at hand.


I thought you said it was an universal value?


It is. I should be more clear; not every society values personal freedom to the same degree, and most certainly not all place it upon the topmost pedestal like Western societies do.

Until you give me a rational justification of why the Sharia gets the power to limit people's freedom (possibly better than "because our fathers did&quot, I'm not going to consider it a legitimate legal system, and I will consider its imposition as a breaking of human rights.


Sharia law is much more than what you think of it; it isn't about harsh punishments. It shares many of the same facets of law that Westerners consider is law, such as a fair divorce process. Why do you have the power to limit my gun rights? Or my smoking rights? Why? Sharia law has bits and parts that do indeed infringe on freedom, but that's not the basis of the whole system, of which most non-Muslims are wholly unconcerned and uninterested in, seeing instead, only the bloody face of Sharia law.

Yes, that's the question, but it doesn't imply at all the necessity to make a difference between people. Everyone is given the same amount of freedom. It doesn't matter if he enjoys the freedom he gave up more than the one he gained. Or should we base laws on individual people's wishes? If one enjoys the freedom to kill more than the freedom to live safely, does he have the right to require a law fitting to his desire?


No, how can you claim that everyone is given the same amount of freedom, when the freedom I want is not allowed? Just like someone in a Western, 'rogressive'' society makes the laws that infringe on laws, someone in a Muslim society does, and they do it in vastly different ways that will end up at loggerheads at each other. Of course freedoms have different varying importance, but the crux of the question and whole discussion at this juncture, if you get it, is that different societies decide which of these freedoms get the priorities, and whether society as a whole accepts it.

If we accept Sharia law, who in the world are you to tell us that it's wrong? Go ahead and consider it an illegitimate form of legal system, but also remember the important caveat that only a small minority of Muslims embrace brutal punishments. If people cannot accept that, but only think that Muslims are violent fanatics, then it's your loss. We didn't get hung up on the fact that the racist beliefs, apartheid, KKK and Jim Crow laws discriminated against many people in the West and generalized all Westerners as such. Perhaps you should afford the Muslim community such a luxury.
 

Posted May 1, '13 at 1:17pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,629 posts

Read my examples. Countries are infringing on the right of Muslims, yet have the cheek to also claim that Muslims need to change? Clearly some bias is at hand.

Honestly I wouldn't consider myself as a country. I am stating my own views, why do you bring up other people's ones?
It is. I should be more clear; not every society values personal freedom to the same degree, and most certainly not all place it upon the topmost pedestal like Western societies do.

Okay, so conservative Muslim communities might have another value that they consider more important than freedom, and at that point they can give up freedom in order to preserve the other value, if they claim that such value would be damaged by freedom. But integrity of Islam cannot be that value, because the less conservative Muslim communities prove that freedom does not damage it. That was my point.
Sharia law is much more than what you think of it; it isn't about harsh punishments. It shares many of the same facets of law that Westerners consider is law, such as a fair divorce process. Why do you have the power to limit my gun rights? Or my smoking rights? Why? Sharia law has bits and parts that do indeed infringe on freedom, but that's not the basis of the whole system, of which most non-Muslims are wholly unconcerned and uninterested in, seeing instead, only the bloody face of Sharia law.

Yes, I get that Sharia contains parts equivalent to any other legal system, I have nothing against those parts.
The power to limit gun rights comes from the freedom distribution principle. Or better, that's how I justify such a law (because I'm not actually in charge of western legislation).
No, how can you claim that everyone is given the same amount of freedom, when the freedom I want is not allowed?

What is the problem? I really want to have the freedom to rule Europe, while a friend of mine is not interested in such freedom. Does that mean we are granted different levels of freedom? Am I less free because I desire something that my freedoms don't include?
Just like someone in a Western, 'rogressive'' society makes the laws that infringe on laws, someone in a Muslim society does, and they do it in vastly different ways that will end up at loggerheads at each other.

As I said, I only accept laws that are based on a logical principle. It doesn't matter if it's the one I'm using or not, it just has to be logical. And I'm not saying all western laws are logical and all Muslim laws are illogical, either.
We didn't get hung up on the fact that the racist beliefs, apartheid, KKK and Jim Crow laws discriminated against many people in the West and generalized all Westerners as such. Perhaps you should afford the Muslim community such a luxury.

Don't use such things against me just because they came from the west. It doesn't mean I agree with them. Just like I wouldn't repeat all this to someone coming from a Muslim country unless he actually agrees with the Muslim principles I'm opposing, and that's also why I'm not targeting the Muslim community as a whole, but just the ones that support those principles. There is no need for any generalization.
 

Posted May 5, '13 at 4:55am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,299 posts

Knight

Honestly I wouldn't consider myself as a country. I am stating my own views, why do you bring up other people's ones?


Because this discussion is not just limited to rebutting you, but also to highlight issues for others to be aware of?

Okay, so conservative Muslim communities might have another value that they consider more important than freedom, and at that point they can give up freedom in order to preserve the other value, if they claim that such value would be damaged by freedom. But integrity of Islam cannot be that value, because the less conservative Muslim communities prove that freedom does not damage it. That was my point.


Yes, but less conservative and more conservative Muslim communities are two different groups altogether, are they not?

Yes, I get that Sharia contains parts equivalent to any other legal system, I have nothing against those parts.
The power to limit gun rights comes from the freedom distribution principle. Or better, that's how I justify such a law (because I'm not actually in charge of western legislation).


And that principle of freedom distribution is not a universal value; freedoms are valued, distributed and differentiated, differently in each specific community.

What is the problem? I really want to have the freedom to rule Europe, while a friend of mine is not interested in such freedom. Does that mean we are granted different levels of freedom? Am I less free because I desire something that my freedoms don't include?


Yes! If even Western, progressive societies are apt to give out different freedoms based on whatever principles they want, then why should other communities be limited in such an expect?

As I said, I only accept laws that are based on a logical principle. It doesn't matter if it's the one I'm using or not, it just has to be logical. And I'm not saying all western laws are logical and all Muslim laws are illogical, either.


Logical? Then sorry, because logic is not universal in philosophy. It is logical for Muslims now to impose Sharia law, because from their point of view, to introduce other systems slap bang now will be to rock the boat in an already fragile society.

Don't use such things against me just because they came from the west. It doesn't mean I agree with them. Just like I wouldn't repeat all this to someone coming from a Muslim country unless he actually agrees with the Muslim principles I'm opposing, and that's also why I'm not targeting the Muslim community as a whole, but just the ones that support those principles. There is no need for any generalization.


I am not using them against you, but pointing out that alot of Islamaphobes are hypocritical. Perhaps the ''you'' in the statement is not clear, and I apologise, but it is directed towards irrational Islamophobes that dot the West like mushrooms. Quit thinking that my arguments are directed personally, and view it in light of a general discussion.
 

Posted May 5, '13 at 6:31am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

Yes, but less conservative and more conservative Muslim communities are two different groups altogether, are they not?

Yes and no. It depends what 'level' you mean by 'group'. It's almost like taxonomy; different in the sense that a pug is not a lab vs this "dog" doesn't fall under the higher classification of "wolf" and therefore isn't really a dog. The religious groups are both identify using the same main group label. Within the main, there are their sub-groups. Those are what generally depend upon disagreements in the details/lifestyles/dogmas/etc and it splits further from there. It depends on how broadly or narrowly the main group is defined, if it would really include the subs that claim to be a part of it. For example, Christian could simply mean "good/noble/kind", which would include a lot more people than would generally identify as Christians. In common use, wiki says the basic assumptions associated with the title "include belief in theism, the historicity of Jesus, the Incarnation, salvation through faith in Jesus, and Jesus as an ethical role model".
 

Posted May 5, '13 at 7:08am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,299 posts

Knight

Yes and no. It depends what 'level' you mean by 'group'. It's almost like taxonomy; different in the sense that a pug is not a lab vs this "dog" doesn't fall under the higher classification of "wolf" and therefore isn't really a dog. The religious groups are both identify using the same main group label. Within the main, there are their sub-groups. Those are what generally depend upon disagreements in the details/lifestyles/dogmas/etc and it splits further from there. It depends on how broadly or narrowly the main group is defined, if it would really include the subs that claim to be a part of it. For example, Christian could simply mean "good/noble/kind", which would include a lot more people than would generally identify as Christians. In common use, wiki says the basic assumptions associated with the title "include belief in theism, the historicity of Jesus, the Incarnation, salvation through faith in Jesus, and Jesus as an ethical role model".


A whole paragraph of words that end up beating around the bush.

A Hui Muslim is different from a Salafi Muslim, or a Sufi Muslim. Now that's simpler.
 

Posted May 5, '13 at 4:31pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,863 posts

Until you give me a rational justification of why the Sharia gets the power to limit people's freedom (possibly better than "because our fathers did&quot, I'm not going to consider it a legitimate legal system, and I will consider its imposition as a breaking of human rights.

This reminds me of the argument some people put in defense of 2nd amendement.
 

Posted May 6, '13 at 5:09pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

Last I had heard there are roughly 1.57 billion Muslims in the entire world, so to generalize roughly 20% of the entire population is, in my mind, idiotic. I would avoid people that hate such a large, diverse group.

 
Reply to Why do so many hate Muslims

You must be logged in to post a reply!