Islam

Post Reply New Topic

They might be silly beliefs to you, but they're not to me.

I have tried to discuss matters elsewhere - with ruveyn, for example, who ignored my points and didn't engage when I tried to reason and converse.

It's not about sacred cows. It's about treating other people with the kind of respect that I would expect to be treated.

I don't start gazillions of hostile threads about, for example, US Christian fundamentalists and creationism, because while I disagree with their beliefs, I believe they're entitled to be treated with a modicum of respect.

If someone was being racist or homophobic or anti-semitic, then people would rightly complain about such things. But seemingly, Muslims including myself aren't entitled to the same kind of courtesies and respect that other people are? And people aren't starting threads with the intention of engaging and discussing. You talk about facing arguments and cold facts. I'm quite prepared to discuss and reason. But when the initial premise isn't querying, but is a hostile attack, you're automatically going to get off on the wrong foot with people.

If you want to challenge, then by all means, ask questions. But when you say things like this: "Thus, I can deduce that anyone who claims to be a muslim is most certainly a muslim due to indoctrination," you really show your ignorance.

For one, I'm a muslim who wasn't born into the religion, I freely converted/reverted and not as a result of indoctrination, but through learning and through choice, through my own free will.

Thus, I can deduce that anyone who makes sweeping generalisations about muslims is almost certainly someone who has a little knowledge that they have extrapolated and misused to form the basis of their prejudices.

Is it really necessary to be so antagonistic and hostile towards people who you obviously know very little about?

EDIT: Never mind.

Last edited by Henriksson on 14 Mar 2009, 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What has it to do with respect, when I say that their believe:

1) Ridiculous
2) Unreasonable
3) Hostile to reason
4) For mankind as a whole dangerous

Making jokes about attributes of people which are objective mad and are within the power of those people to change shows more respect for the Majesty of the Human Mind than to let them believe that you take their madness for serious or even something which deserves any kind of special protection.

Écrasez l'Infâme!



Not against the people - they are of no real interest - but against the logic consequences of an irrational system of interpreting the world.

There are some adherents to religious faiths who argue that sexuality *is* a matter of choice, or alternatively that it's a mental illness.

If, for example, a fundamentalist Christian said that gay people were abhorrent sinners who should be 'cured' of their illness (until the 1950s or 60s homosexuality was classified as such, even until about 2000 in China), I would argue that whatever personal, religious beliefs they might have about homosexuality, they ought to treat homosexuals with respect, and they ought not to promulgate hate speech against homosexuals.

So while I agree with you that sexuality is perhaps intrinsic, and not chosen, although I believe it's more on a spectrum than polar opposites of straight and gay, more people fall somewhere between the two, I would disagree with the premise of your argument from the perspective of religious conservatives, who think it is a choice. So if you think their religion is a matter choice, likewise they will argue that your sexuality is a matter of choice.

Personally speaking, I have no problem with homosexuality or heteroflexuality, but if I encountered another muslim who was posting hate speech on forums about gays and lesbians or bisexuals, then I would challenge them and tell them that those people deserved to be treated with respect, because my fellow muslim didn't have a right to impose their own belief system on others, so again I ask why isn't the respect reciprocated? It's possible to treat someone with respect and courtesy even if you disagree with them.

I agree with you in a qualified way. I have had friends of various religions and related to them as people and with respect and courtesy. However, with religion there is often not a clear boundary between the person and their religious beliefs, especially if the person has very strong beliefs. While I believe in live and let live I have grave concerns about religions that have proselytization at their core and are intent in nothing less than world domination by various means. I only have to hear about the Muslims in the UK wanting Sharia law introduced and various other extreme changes for my blood pressure to rise and to feel defensive and resentful of those people. Similarly with the fundamentalist Christian bible thumpers. Some are seemingly really nice people until you discover the hatred they hold in their hearts for those who do not comply with their beliefs.

They argue in total ignorance of the facts. Such "arguments" can't hardly be taken in any way serious.



Their premise by objective facts simply wrong and therefore of no importance whatsoever.



Respect means in the first place to understand to respect the very basis of our modern societies: The intellectual exchange based on facts. We may argue that - to take an extreme example - that for the prevention of AIDS restriction on promiscuous homosexual sex may be imposed (I think it would be utterly nonsense), but such an argument must be based on facts insofar they can be estabilished, to argue that homosexuality is bas because any "holy book" said so in simply not based on facts.

Religion can't be an exception from this exchange and critic of ideas. No serious scientist would make a big fuss if his colleague would try to prove that his idea regarding any research is based on false facts of wrong interpretation, but some religious people cry out when this universal method is applied to their irrational system of ideas. Such a protection zone does not fit with very basis of the modern world.

Precisely. So why stoop to their level and express irrational hate against a random group of people?

It's possible to think they're perhaps misguided and/or entitled to their own opinions, while asking that whatever our own personal belief systems are, or our differences, in terms of sexuality or ethnic origin, or gender, or disability, that we're all entitled to be treated with respect and not subjected to hate speech.

Why it is a random group: Religion is a irrational system picked up by people. I do not see this as random group! Those idiots do believe this regardless having an instrument to abolish such irrational, and therefore harmful, ideas.

I'm now a bit confused about what we're arguing about.

What I'm saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone, in a polite and courteous way, say if you don't believe in creationism, you might say that you don't share their beliefs and you believe in Darwinist style evolutionary theory, as you believe this has a basis in evidence that can be scientifically proven.

I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't disagree with people. But what I am saying is that hate speech isn't the same as polite disagreement, or 'agreeing to disagree'.

Personally speaking, I thought ruyveyn's comments - and I paraphrase here - about 'should have nuked them' (referring to muslims/Iraqis) was abhorrent. And it's indicative of the Islamophobia that some people on WP seem to find acceptable. I actually find things like that to be offensive. Because it's not saying, ok, you have your beliefs, and I have mine, and we may disagree, and we can have a polite and courteous disagreement. It's wishing death and destruction on other people. It's arguably incitement to racial and religious hatred. And there have been quite a few anti-Islam/anti-muslim comments that amount to just abuse, instead of trying to engage and discuss and reason, and to 'agree to disagree'.

And why can't I be condescendingly dismissive of obvious nonsense? Why can't I denounce monstrous and evil ideas?


"Agreeing to disagree" is stupid. And most Muslims tend to take even the slightest criticism of Islam, Muhammed, or Muslims as "hate speech." Interesting way of trying to take advantage of Western-style protections for minorities, when in their own societies Muslims are so repressive and intolerant.


Ruveyn's an extremist, and you know full well that he is less representative of PPR in general than the people calling for assassination of Rushdie are of Muslims. Look at your own camp's behavior before criticizing others.

Excluding speech which incites riots and speech which suborns felonies, there is no such thing as "hate speech". There is speech that pleases and speech that displeases. There is speech one agrees with and speech one objects to. Taken literally the expression "I hate ants at a picnic" would be regarded as hate speech. After all, ants have rights and ants have their place in the world. Who are we to criticize the ants.

This notion of "hate speech" is one of the recent manifestations of Political Correctness which is a quasi Marxist idea for undermining burgoise culture. Any speech which does not conform to the latest Left Wing Fad and Fashion de jure is by definition Politically Incorrect. Thus any speech contradicting the quaint notion that all religions are equally good, bad or indifferent is Politically Incorrect. Any speech which militates against tolerance of others, even if the others are nasty and evil, is Politically Incorrect.

In this pomo age, truth and fact take a back seat to Political Correctness.

Aside from "hate speech", there is speech that denigrates and insults. One of the consequences of freedom of speech, is the freedom to denigrate and to insult, to demean and belittle. Heaping scorn and disrespect, contempt, loathing, low regard and contumely on another is a RIGHT. If the fellow being verbally dumped on does not like what he hears, he may leave or he may give as good as he gets.

Speech that does not incite riots or crimes are puffs of air coming from the lungs. Sticks and stones may break bones, but protected speech is never objectively harmful, rather it can be unpleasant. Thank God or the deity of your choice for the First Amendment. We in the U.S. are lucky to have it. How much longer we will have it, is a question.

ruveyn

You can say that about any NT non-scientific belief system.

HA!
Chrisitanity is based on the pagan religion, did you not know that? I thought it was well known XD
It just evolved to worship some omnipowerful thing in the sky

It seems to go through cycles, usually driven by a handful of people. At one point this forum was full of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories posted by people like Codarac.

Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.

I love it. Objecting to a bunch of male bonded religious crazies hijacking a commercial airline flight and crashing the plane into a tall building is bigotry. Yup, I guess I am a bigot. I am also a 9/11 Patriot. On 9/10/2001 I did not think of Islam much one way or the other. On 9/12/2001 I wanted to expunge Islam from the face of the Earth.

ruveyn

No chaveiri, that's not bigotry, it's perfectly normal to object to such violence.


This is bigotry. Extrapolating from the actions of some members to an entire group. That kind of collectivist thinking is the basis of all forms of bigotry, racism and prejudice.

And it's something you need to tackle if, as you said in the "If you could change the world" thread, you truly desire decency and justice.