AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Why do so many hate Muslims

185 67398
Lanod
offline
Lanod
28 posts
Nomad

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
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

If the experience overall is positive or at least neutral, than yes. If someone has had bad experiences with the Muslim faith, as Mosab Hassan Yousef, they would quite likely hold a dim view of Islam.

and where is your proof that the majority has bad experiences?
i meet allot of muslims for my work and i have yet to get any bad experience.
the only bad experience i had whit muslims was because of others reasons then their religious believe.

(you seem to be holding on very tightly about this 1 guy...)

But I don't have a strong opinion on "Muslims" and "Islam",

thats not visible in the way you act.
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
Peasant

National Post Canada tried, failed to deport VIA Rail terror suspect nine years ago


Canadian government inaction, folks!
It appears that you were right about that Imam.
This still doesn't mean though that the paper deliberately tried to cover this up. They could very well be too incompetent/lazy to actually bother to do any research on the guy's past. It wouldn't be the first time the MSM did so.

CIA gave Afghanistanâs President Hamid Karzai millions in âghost moneyâ


Yeah. Many of the most violent dictators/NGO's are financed quietly (or not so quietly) by large, powerful governments. The CIA never seems to learn from its past mistakes, instead choosing to fail the same way over and over again.

and where is your proof that the majority has bad experiences?
i meet allot of muslims for my work and i have yet to get any bad experience.
the only bad experience i had whit muslims was because of others reasons then their religious believe.


Where did I ever say majority? I was explaining why someone might hate Islam.

(you seem to be holding on very tightly about this 1 guy...)


He's a very good example of why someone might hate Islam.

But I don't have a strong opinion on "Muslims" and "Islam",

thats not visible in the way you act.

Nice quote mine there.
"A majority of Muslim political movements, governments, and NGO's behave in the worst of ways. But I don't have a strong opinion on "Muslims" and "Islam", since without further clarification, those terms cover a wide variety of both people and viewpoints."
I should have stated modern political movements.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

The fatwa could be seen as an excuse for marital rape. In Western society, rape is never considered acceptable.

then call it a loophole
Some people consider circumcision to be inhumane, as you are performing what they consider cosmetic surgery or worse on a child without his/her permission.

1.57 billion muslims and millions of jews consider it useful, medical science tells its useful it is not a cosmetic surgery there is a reason a child can not get in a contract.
If every or most Americans you had personally encountered were "racist pricks", you might begin to consider all Americans "racist pricks". You might even begin to hate them.

I don't consider them racist, but most of the americans I have encountered were ignorant and stupid all though I still don't think all of them are so.
A majority of Muslim political movements, governments, and NGO's behave in the worst of ways.

KKK, Pamela geller and that dude from holland.
They ain't muslims
He's a very good example of why someone might hate Islam.

Dude's a rat, he sold his own father don't you this discredits him a bit?
1) People are not generalities, or percentages.
2) Polls, either by dishonesty, error, or chance, can come up with inaccurate results.

If presidents can be elected over polls, why can't they work for you?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

medical science tells its useful

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.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

But that is kind of beyond the point anyway: in that particular quote I wasn't criticizing religious based oppression in general, just thepunisher's way of making it look like a caring heart's suggestions.


If your problem is that I "impose" my views based on freedom on other people, then allow me to remind you that those people are imposing (no inverted commas, this time) their views based on slavery on other people. And this is just a last resort stance assuming you refuse personal freedom as an universal value.


I don't go against personal freedom as a universal value, but I go against people who assume that democracy, liberalism, open-ness and progressive thinking are universal values, when they clearly are not, but are rather, culturally different.

For example, perhaps if you read more on Sharia law, you would realise that it's not as barbaric in the majority of areas that you think it is. 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. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments, encapsulates sharia. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness and mercy. The "sharia threat" argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time.

The equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death (Deut. 21:18- 21) or that Christians slay all non-Christians (Luke 19:27). In a more secular context it is similar to arguing that the use of printed money in America is unconstitutional -- ignoring the interpretative process of the Supreme Court.

How about the fact that you are against Sharia law being implemented, yet in 2013, more than half of young Pakistanis believe democracy has not been good for their country and nearly 40 percent are in favour of having Islamic sharia rule, according to a survey published by the British Council. Only 29 per cent of young Pakistanis believe democracy is the best political system for the country.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

perhaps if you read more on Sharia law, you would realise that it's not as barbaric in the majority of areas that you think it is. Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.

not all parts of the sharia law are able/allowed for change in interpretations.
some parts are really medieval ways of thinking.
sure it's part cultural, but in my eye's these parts of the culture have been set to a hold in the middle-ages and havn't been allowed for change ever since.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

not all parts of the sharia law are able/allowed for change in interpretations.
some parts are really medieval ways of thinking.
sure it's part cultural, but in my eye's these parts of the culture have been set to a hold in the middle-ages and havn't been allowed for change ever since.


No it isn't. Many nations that apply Sharia law are static, but not all are. During the time of the second Islamic caliph, Umar ibn-Khattab, there was a famine and, during this period, he didnât apply the punishment for stealing (cutting of the hand) because he knew people would act in ways they wouldnât normally. After all, people steal in times of desperation.

Stoning and amputation aren't the poster children, so to speak of Sharia. These penalties are not allowed in 52 countries that make up the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, encompassing most countries with a Muslim-identified government, around half of which have some form of Sharia law in place. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim majority country, along with Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco all use Sharia as a primary source of law and none allow these punishments.

In countries where extreme interpretations of Sharia are applied, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia and 12 states in northern Nigeria, stoning and amputations for adultery and theft are rarely used or enforced. Furthermore, Sharia laws aren't adopted in full across all nations, but in varying degrees.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Sharia laws aren't adopted in full across all nations, but in varying degrees.

making it hard to say if it really is sharia law.
what i was on about was the sharia law of it's own. no parts left out or changed.
what you called "where extreme interpretations of Sharia are applied"
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

and lets be fair. we can't compare egypt's culture whit that of iran. (for examples)

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

sorry for tripple...

sure we can compare it of course. but there are lots of differences.
(not sure where i'm going whit this. i'll hope you just understand. xD )

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

making it hard to say if it really is sharia law.
what i was on about was the sharia law of it's own. no parts left out or changed.
what you called "where extreme interpretations of Sharia are applied"


That's a wholly microscopic and generalizing view. You claim to state that Sharia Law has to be a the particular variation which is the extreme end of the spectrum, which ironically points out that it is the extreme and in the minority, yet claim that this is also the only version of Sharia law, as if not it would ''make it hard to say if it really is sharia law''.

Sharia is at the same time, not formally a code, nor a properly well defined set of laws and rules, but broadly a discussion on the duties of Muslims. It is vastly different from sect to sect, region to region.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

since the law is a interpretation of the quran. if you make changes in the original law dont you have to make changes in the interpretation of the quran aswel?

i can understand how different cultures have different interpretations of the quran. and that not all cultures are very strict about these interpretations (anymore). and thus use different degrees in their version of the law.
but to make a change in the law would need a change of interpretation of the religious scripture.
and like whit all religions. making these changes takes very very long. if at all.

(for the good order, i'm against any form of religion in a law system. but thats off-topic)

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

since the law is a interpretation of the Quran. if you make changes in the original law dont you have to make changes in the interpretation of the quran aswel?

i can understand how different cultures have different interpretations of the quran. and that not all cultures are very strict about these interpretations (anymore). and thus use different degrees in their version of the law.
but to make a change in the law would need a change of interpretation of the religious scripture.
and like whit all religions. making these changes takes very very long. if at all.


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.

Anyway, there's a whole legal field of jurisprudence (the study and theory of law.) regarding the Quran (Fiqh), and the rulings and interpretations of Islamic jurists which lay the foundation for Sharia Law.

A more secular example of law being open to interpretation would be the work I do now. I process and past limited advice on how to deal with army men who break military law. There are various directives, but many of them are open to discussion, such as whether the crime can be categorized into which domain, which would vastly alter the process and result.
gaboloth
offline
gaboloth
1,612 posts
Peasant

For example, perhaps if you read more on Sharia law, you would realise that it's not as barbaric in the majority of areas that you think it is.

Stoning and amputation aren't the poster children, so to speak of Sharia.  These penalties are not allowed in 52 countries that make up the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, encompassing most countries with a Muslim-identified government, around half of which have some form of Sharia law in place.

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.

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.
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. (bad explanations probably... please judge my rhetoric skill by the first paragraph)
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

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 ''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.


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.
Showing 46-60 of 185