Criticising Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry...

Original post by QE2

Tolerance of intolerance is no virtue.
Being intolerant of intolerance is not bigotry.

How is being tolerant of Muslims "being tolerant of the intolerant"?

Reply 162

Original post by howitoughttobe

But not all Germans were/are Nazis. Whereas all Muslims follow Islam so your point is massively flawed.

Is it?

check out this guy, @alevelstresss he won't reply to this post because he has blocked me, but check him out. He is probably the biggest Islam apologetic on this forum right now. One of his main arguments is that there are 1.6bn Muslims in this world that do not follow Mo's teachings to the letter, who ignore the violent parts of the Quran and live a peaceful life.

Reply 163

Original post by inhuman

I am sure exactly is rather difficult. But much more closely than most Muslims do Mo.

In what way? Arguably most Muslims follow Muhammad right down to what and how he ate, how he prayed, etc.

Reply 164

Original post by WBZ144

Where did I say that everyone was a bigot? Some are, no doubt, and it's important to challenge those who are, especially those who incite violence by posting "nuke them all" and the like.

You accused me of bigotry when in fact I was just debating. So as I said, why is debating when you do it, but when I do it, it's bigotry?

Original post by WBZ144

What has any of that got to do with anti-Muslim bigotry?Justifying it by saying "well Islam teaches such and such" only proves my point further. And it goes to show that you are one of those people who cannot differentiate between criticising Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry because yes, they exist on both sides.

Reply 165

howitoughttobe

I think what a lot of people forget is that religion is a choice. It's not like racism or sexism where you can't help being black/white/asian etc, it is a choice you've made and other people don't have to agree with you. I'm not justifying hate crime or anything like that but you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion especially when it harbours some of the awful beliefs and ideologies that Islam does.

Reply 166

Original post by inhuman

You accused me of bigotry when in fact I was just debating. So as I said, why is debating when you do it, but when I do it, it's bigotry?

I didn't call you a bigot, you need to chill.

Reply 167

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

In what way? Arguably most Muslims follow Muhammad right down to what and how he ate, how he prayed, etc.

Ask @alevelstresss it's his main point that 1.6bn peaceful Muslims do not do like Mo did, and ignore the violent parts of the Quran. Whereas if you were a Nazi, you were one because you were convinced by that guy, often in front of you or on the radio giving a speech. You weren't picking and choosing parts from the life of a someone a millennium ago or his book.

Reply 168

OP

Original post by WBZ144

such as comparing Muslims to Nazis,

I may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone saying Muslims are like Nazis.
I have seen people use ideological analogies to illustrate points, but that is not the same. Saying that societal attitudes towards certain groups can be compated and contrasted is not saying that the groups are the same. It is not bigoted to question why the same standards aren't always applied.

But then, you think I'm a bigot because I don't think Douglas Murray is a bigot, so whatever.

Reply 169

Original post by howitoughttobe

I think what a lot of people forget is that religion is a choice. It's not like racism or sexism where you can't help being black/white/asian etc, it is a choice you've made and other people don't have to agree with you. I'm not justifying hate crime or anything like that but you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion especially when it harbours some of the awful beliefs and ideologies that Islam does.

Most excellent point.

Reply 170

Original post by QE2

I may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone saying Muslims are like Nazis.
I have seen people use ideological analogies to illustrate points, but that is not the same. Saying that societal attitudes towards certain groups can be compated and contrasted is not saying that the groups are the same. It is not bigoted to question why the same standards aren't always applied.

But then, you think I'm a bigot because I don't think Douglas Murray is a bigot, so whatever.

I think Douglas Murray is a bigot, I never called you one and defended you when someone suggested it on a different thread.

Making comparisons between Muslims and Nazis at every topic related to Islam does eventually give that impression. A thread asking a genuine question about whether or not a Muslim woman can call herself a feminist being filled with comparisons with a Jew who identifies as a Nazi certainly leave that impression, especially as no one seems to care when women who follow other sexist faiths identify as feminists.

Reply 171

Original post by howitoughttobe

I think what a lot of people forget is that religion is a choice. It's not like racism or sexism where you can't help being black/white/asian etc, it is a choice you've made and other people don't have to agree with you. I'm not justifying hate crime or anything like that but you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion especially when it harbours some of the awful beliefs and ideologies that Islam does.

Not always. Most religious people don't consciously choose their religion; they're simply born into it and accept it as the norm. Religions may also be intimately linked to one's sense of ethnicultural identity; many ex-Muslims and ex-Christians for example continue to identify as Muslims and Christians respectively.

What do you mean by "you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion"? What does acceptance entail in your opinion?

Reply 172

OP

Original post by WBZ144

Anti-Muslim bigotry is about having something against Muslims as people, not against the religious teachings. Don't play naive.

But where is the dividing line.

I have something against people who condone domestic violence. I don't care what race or religion or culture they are. If we throw in homophobia, misogyny and barbaric violence as a punishment for non-crimes, I'm really starting to dislike them.

If someone explicitly states that they hold all these views, why on earth shouldn't I dislike them as an individual?

I know that not all Muslims actually and explicitly claim infallible immutability for the Quran - but many do. And those that do must fall into the category of people against whom I have something.
But then, it is only because of their beliefs.

"Anti-Muslim bigotry" is only having something against Muslims purely for being a Muslim - even if they explicitly reject all the unacceptable parts.
Having something against Muslims because of their unacceptable, expressed beliefs is entirely justified and reasonable.

Just as I would have something against Nazis who have expressed beliefs about race and society. I would not have to know them. All that would be necessary would be the knowledge that they believed Mein Kampf to be perfect in every way, and would not reject any part of it. According to you, that is bigoted. According to me, it is rational.

Some people seem so utterly desperate to be seen as ultra-tolerant that they end up being intolerant of anything that doesn't fit with their idea of what tolerance is and ironically, end up more intolerant than they were in the first place.

Reply 173

OP

Original post by mariachi

on the other hand while advocating violence is a clear concept, bigotry is fuzzy and unpractical . I have never seen a law defining or punishing bigotry

best

It's a bit like good old "Islamophobia", it is an almost meaningless term.
The OED defines it as
Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:
But I don't see this as necessarily bad. There are many opinions that I do not tolerate. This is common sense.
However, the Cambridge Dictionary adds "unreasonable" into this definition.
This seems more accurate. But it leads us into the grey area of what is "unreasonable".
Some people on here seem to be insisting that it is "unreasonable" to be intolerant of domestic violence, or slavery, or homophobia.

I think that "bigot" has become one of those trigger words that leads people to lose all sense of reason and perspective, and are petrified of even entering into a discussion of what it actually is, lest they suddenly find themselves accused of it, because that **** don't wash off. Luckily, you can count the number of ****s I give about that on no fingers.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 174

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

Not always. Most religious people don't consciously choose their religion; they're simply born into it and accept it as the norm. Religions may also be intimately linked to one's sense of ethnicultural identity; many ex-Muslims and ex-Christians for example continue to identify as Muslims and Christians respectively.

What do you mean by "you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion"? What does acceptance entail in your opinion?

So their refusal or inability to critically think what they are being spoon fed is an excuse?

Reply 175

howitoughttobe

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

Not always. Most religious people don't consciously choose their religion; they're simply born into it and accept it as the norm. Religions may also be intimately linked to one's sense of ethnicultural identity; many ex-Muslims and ex-Christians for example continue to identify as Muslims and Christians respectively.

What do you mean by "you can't go around expecting everyone to just accept your religion"? What does acceptance entail in your opinion?

It is though, I agree that some people are brainwashed into religion but too many people act like religion is something that can't be helped. And I don't see why any ex-religious person would continue to identify as that religion unless they feared the reaction of not identifying as it from friends and family.

Well for instance insisting that you wear a burka if you're employed in a job where it isn't appropriate. Or insisting that you have your own separate courts of law that are based on your religion's law rather than the country's law. Those are just two examples I could think off off the top of my head I'm sure there are more.

Reply 176

Original post by QE2

Anti-Muslim bigotry" is only having something against Muslims purely for being a Muslim - even if they explicitly reject all the unacceptable parts.
Having something against Muslims because of their unacceptable, expressed beliefs is entirely justified and reasonable.

Anti-Muslim bigotry is about hatred towards Muslims as individuals. Most Muslims, however imperfect their implementation of beliefs may be, DO believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, and Muhammad is infallible. Of course, they would probably interpret many of the more questionable teachings in a "less extreme" manner, but they're still Muslims by definition.

You're essentially saying hatred for most Muslims is justified on the grounds that they associate with a religion you deem abhorrent. That's anti-Muslim bigotry.

Looks like you've found a way of resolving the turmoil; the OP, and subsequently any distinctions you've made between hatred of Islam vs hatred of followers of Islam is no longer valid.

Reply 177

Original post by QE2

But where is the dividing line.

I have something against people who condone domestic violence. I don't care what race or religion or culture they are. If we throw in homophobia, misogyny and barbaric violence as a punishment for non-crimes, I'm really starting to dislike them.

If someone explicitly states that they hold all these views, why on earth shouldn't I dislike them as an individual?

I know that not all Muslims actually and explicitly claim infallible immutability for the Quran - but many do. And those that do must fall into the category of people against whom I have something.
But then, it is only because of their beliefs.

"Anti-Muslim bigotry" is only having something against Muslims purely for being a Muslim - even if they explicitly reject all the unacceptable parts.
Having something against Muslims because of their unacceptable, expressed beliefs is entirely justified and reasonable.

Just as I would have something against Nazis who have expressed beliefs about race and society. I would not have to know them. All that would be necessary would be the knowledge that they believed Mein Kampf to be perfect in every way, and would not reject any part of it. According to you, that is bigoted. According to me, it is rational.

Some people seem so utterly desperate to be seen as ultra-tolerant that they end up being intolerant of anything that doesn't fit with their idea of what tolerance is and ironically, end up more intolerant than they were in the first place.

Having something against Muslims based on the assumption that they believe in all of the things you mentioned above is bigotry for a simple reason and that is: you do not know. That just throws "innocent until proven guilty" out of the window where Muslims are concerned, and that isn't acceptable. I would not automatically assume that a Christian or a Jew believes in the abhorrent teachings of their religion unless they explicitly say so, and that appears to be the general consensus. So why is it OK to do it to Muslims?

Since when did Nazism have multiple sects, schools of thoughts and beliefs? The two are not comparable. I am not desperate to be "ultra-tolerant" as you would call it, I just do what I feel is natural. I am related to Muslims who are some of the best people I know, so anti-Muslim bigotry just comes across as the repulsive thing that it is.

Reply 178

Original post by inhuman

So their refusal or inability to critically think what they are being spoon fed is an excuse?

Nuance, sophistication and the collective human experience continues to elude your binary, fanatical perspective.

Reply 179

OP