The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Cracking bit of commentary from Maajid Nawaz on the need for reform in Islam

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html?via=desktop


This is the kind of thing we need today :adore:

Just sensible, educated discussion. No reactionary ********. It'll take time, yes, but what doesn't?

Scroll to see replies

'Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them.'

indeed

as I've sad before you can't ask for tolerance while being intolerant or excusing it
Not far enough
Reply 3
Avatar for drogon
drogon
2
If you don't welcome this then it's obvious you have no interest in finding a solution
Original post by ODES_PDES
Not far enough


I think it's a start.
Reply 5
Avatar for Jebedee
Jebedee
17
I think deep down these liberals know what the problem is, they are just afraid of the solution because let's face it. It is going to get dirty and no one is really queuing up to take point in the issue. Apart from Trump of course.
Reply 6
Avatar for oShahpo
oShahpo
20
Original post by Jebedee
I think deep down these liberals know what the problem is, they are just afraid of the solution because let's face it. It is going to get dirty and no one is really queuing up to take point in the issue. Apart from Trump of course.


You mean murder of all the Muslims? Or repatriation of Muslims? If that's what you think is a solution, then you're no more than a disgrace for humanity.
Reply 7
Avatar for Jebedee
Jebedee
17
Original post by oShahpo
You mean murder of all the Muslims? Or repatriation of Muslims? If that's what you think is a solution, then you're no more than a disgrace for humanity.


No I do not mean the murder of all muslims. Take that strawman crap elsewhere.;
Reply 8
Avatar for oShahpo
oShahpo
20
Original post by Jebedee
No I do not mean the murder of all muslims. Take that strawman crap elsewhere.;


Then what's with the obfuscation? Why not be clear and point at the problem and its solution that apparently only the luminary Donald Trump knows?
Reply 9
Avatar for Jebedee
Jebedee
17
Original post by oShahpo
Then what's with the obfuscation? Why not be clear and point at the problem and its solution that apparently only the luminary Donald Trump knows?


Because it isn't relevant to the thread, the only point I was making is that there are actions necessary to fix the terrorism problem, no one wants to put themselves in the firing line by proposing it (apart from Trump) and liberals/muslims are not going to like them and will likely resist them.
Original post by Jebedee
Because it isn't relevant to the thread, the only point I was making is that there are actions necessary to fix the terrorism problem, no one wants to put themselves in the firing line by proposing it (apart from Trump) and liberals/muslims are not going to like them and will likely resist them.


Nothing Trump has proposed is actually solve the main problem, which is terrorism. Look, we can ostensibly solve a lot of problems if we put behind our principles and give up on many of our beliefs. The reason liberals may not like the facile solutions people like Trump are proposing, like straight out banning Muslims from the US or even kicking Muslims out, is because it's against our principles and morality. It's funny that America, the land of the free, is the first country to propose a ban on a whole race of people contradicting any principle of freedom.
Original post by oShahpo
Nothing Trump has proposed is actually solve the main problem, which is terrorism. Look, we can ostensibly solve a lot of problems if we put behind our principles and give up on many of our beliefs. The reason liberals may not like the facile solutions people like Trump are proposing, like straight out banning Muslims from the US or even kicking Muslims out, is because it's against our principles and morality. It's funny that America, the land of the free, is the first country to propose a ban on a whole race of people contradicting any principle of freedom.


I said he would be willing, I didn't point to any specific proposition because we haven't yet got to that point.

What race of people are you referring to exactly?
Original post by drogon
If you don't welcome this then it's obvious you have no interest in finding a solution


The fact that moderates like Maajid Nawaz are ostracised by the Muslim community (while extremists like Mo Ansar are labelled "community leaders") is a disgrace. Perhaps almost as disgraceful as the fact that more British Muslims are members of ISIS than members of the Armed Forces.
Reply 13
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Nawaz is indeed a sensible commentator on this issue, although in my view he concedes too much to those who have an obsession with Islam.

My view is more aligned with that of President Obama's, as described in this article and as he himself described yesterday when he destroyed Trump's ridiculous "arguments".

Trump's rhetoric plays into the hands of ISIL. As Obama says, "communism was not embedded in a whole bunch of cultures, communism wasn’t a millennium-old religion that was embraced by a whole host of good, decent, hard-working people who are our allies. Communism for the most part was a foreign, abstract ideology that had been adopted by some nationalist figures, or those who were concerned about poverty and inequality in their countries but wasn’t organic to these cultures... to analogize it to one of the world’s foremost religions that is the center of people’s lives all around the world, and to potentially paint that as a broad brush, isn’t providing moral clarity. What it’s doing is alienating a whole host of people who we need to work with us in order to succeed.”

Nevertheless, people who think that Nawaz is being too soft on Islam clearly have no interest in finding a solution.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jebedee
I said he would be willing, I didn't point to any specific proposition because we haven't yet got to that point.

What race of people are you referring to exactly?


Middle-Easterners and south-Asians (apart from Indians). A ban on Muslims will have to be a ban on Middle-Easterners because you literally can not differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. You can't tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by oShahpo
Middle-Easterners and south-Asians (apart from Indians). A ban on Muslims will have to be a ban on Middle-Easterners because you literally can not differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim Middle-Easterners. You can't tell the difference between an Arab Muslim, Christian, Ex-Muslim, Ahmadi or the rest.


Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.

I'm only giving you this idea because you pushed for it. It isn't relevant to the topic and my point still stands that there are ways of combating domestic terrorism but they do involve trampling on some people's freedoms. That is unfortunate but necessary.
Original post by Jebedee
Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.

I'm only giving you this idea because you pushed for it. It isn't relevant to the topic and my point still stands that there are ways of combating domestic terrorism but they do involve trampling on some people's freedoms. That is unfortunate but necessary.

I am Egyptian, in Egypt, you can only have Muslim or Christian on your ID card, as an Ex-Muslim, I have to go around with a "Muslim" ID card when I am in Egypt, not to mention the fact that I would probably face trouble if people knew I am an Ex-Muslim. People in the Egyptian parliament are protesting having religion on ID cards so maybe they'll scrap that off.
I think until Trump proposes an actual way of doing it without being banning the whole race, I think we shouldn't take him seriously.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jebedee
Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.


That would be ludicrously inaccurate; you're essentially proposing lie detectors via EEG the interpretation of which is held to be a highly subjective art.

What if an ex-Muslim's heart rate increases because they have bad memories of being beaten by the Saudi religious police when they said similar things?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jebedee
Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.

I'm only giving you this idea because you pushed for it. It isn't relevant to the topic and my point still stands that there are ways of combating domestic terrorism but they do involve trampling on some people's freedoms. That is unfortunate but necessary.


Also, if you're fine with trampling on some people's freedom to reduce crime, I assume you're up for banning guns right?
Original post by Jebedee
Middle eastern countries put religion on ID cards. So you can ban based on that and disregard any amendments to documents dated after the ban. To take it further they could implement a blade runner type interview system which monitors reactions to different sentences. For example, if someone claims to be non-muslim but hearing a sentence criticising Mohammed or looking at an image of Mohammed causes a spike in heart rate or brain activity in areas linked with anger. They can be rejected on that basis.

I'm only giving you this idea because you pushed for it. It isn't relevant to the topic and my point still stands that there are ways of combating domestic terrorism but they do involve trampling on some people's freedoms. That is unfortunate but necessary.


Did you set out to make that sound as dystopian as possible? Maybe throw in a 1984 comparison next time?

I don't understand why people use "Middle Eastern countries do it" as a justification for stuff like this. You want to combat barbarism by being barbarians? Terrorism thrives because of hate. I'd be hateful too if people were interrogating me with lie detectors and throwing me out of the country based on my religion. You're just giving ISIS free propaganda. They wouldn't be wrong to start telling people that the West is becoming like Nazi Germany, and persecuting Muslims. (If your suggestions were put in place, I mean)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you