Forums → WEPR → Why do so many hate Muslims
| 185 | 65183 |
People can't seem to understand that one group does not define a religion. I know several Muslims and studied Islam and it is a noble religion if you ask me.
- 185 Replies
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 ''rogressive'' 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its against Islam you know. The cultures who do that done it even befor Islam.
i do not care to look for what cultures it was required. but i'm quite sure it involved some islamic countries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!