[Space Jockey]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rt-of-comments

We know what this is and we should call it by its name: it is racism, of the crudest kind. That last quotation is the easiest example, but the subtler ones are not much better. They can be confusing, because they often dress up in progressive, Guardian-friendly garb – slamming Islam as oppressive of gay and women's rights, for example – but the thick layer of bigotry is visible all the same. Call it progressives' prejudice.

I have highlighted the part I am mainly referring to but the whole piece should be read for context.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what the author is trying to say (and I apologise if this is the case), but as one commentator below the article says: 'Sorry, that sounds suspiciously like a means of dismissing any rationally argued point that happens to ask uncomfortable questions of the Islamic faith.'

Now, I am the first to deplore vicious attacks against Muslims as individuals; however, despite having a number of admirable tenets, Islam (to someone with a liberal outlook) is not an infallible ideology. If an ideology contains tenets which are anti-gay, for example, then I will criticise such tenets.

The Guardian piece seems to imply that criticising Islam for some of its more disagreeable tenets, even if someone has nothing against Muslims as individuals, renders that person a bigot or at least raises the suspicion of "progressives' prejudice".

Is this not a dangerous thing for the Guardian to at least imply?

[Annoying-Mouse]

Yeah, it's a pretty ****ty point. The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims and Sunni Islam is oppressive of women (and men) and gay's rights (that we believe they should have).

"Bigotryis the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group

Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. "

Going by that definition it could be argued that his correct. But, then I'm willing to bet him and most of us are bigoted to those who hold the following positions; women are inferior, lesbians should be raped to be cured, disabled people should be exterminated , countries should only consist of one ethnic group, all others should be forcefully removed or exterminated, we should be allowed to enslave the weak etc etc.

[Snagprophet]

Guardian should stop slamming people intolerant of intolerance and grow up.

[Ray Bradbury]

The Guardian for a long time has been hypocritically looking the other way when the oppression of women and gays by Islam is brought up. This is one of the main reasons I stopped reading it.
Garton-Ash has a past history of mealy mouthed defence of abuses.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

What on earth did you expect from the Grauniad?

[Florrick]

I agree with you OP. But then I did read the article, just above the quote you emboldened, it said:

You can dislike Mehdi's views on these and other grounds as much as you like and still be appalled at the treatment he receives, apparently routinely. Even when he writes on a subject that has no connection to Islam, he is still attacked in lurid, anti-Muslim terms. As Hasan recalls: "A recent interview of mine with the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, elicited the following response: 'Get out of my country, goat****er.'"

I think what the author of the article is trying to say here, that fine, disagree with Islam's tenants, but don't use that as a punchbag to start hating against the Muslims.

[snozzle]

My issue is that I am not sure one can distinguish Islamic personal beliefs from Islamic political, legal, moral commitments. The Koran is basically a series of assertions about what should be and this includes, legal, political, moral, spiritual aspects.

I think Islams legal, political, and moral commitments must be criticized ad nauseum.

If that is Islamophobic then so be it.

[Florrick]

(Original post by snozzle)
My issue is that I am not sure one can distinguish Islamic personal beliefs from Islamic political, legal, moral commitments. The Koran is basically a series of assertions about what should be and this includes, legal, political, moral, spiritual aspects.

I think Islams legal, political, and moral commitments must be criticized ad nauseum.

If that is Islamophobic then so be it.

Criticise it. That's nothing new. Before, I know in India, the most common criticism was polygamy, now since 9/11, it's Muslim are terrorists. Here in Europe, it was Muslims are following the Moon-God, now that's gone away with mostly to a whole host of new criticisms and some old such as the famous Crusader propagation of Islam spreading by the sword.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Florrick)
Criticise it. That's nothing new. Before, I know in India, the most common criticism was polygamy, now since 9/11, it's Muslim are terrorists. Here in Europe, it was Muslims are following the Moon-God, now that's gone away with mostly to a whole host of new criticisms and some old such as the famous Crusader propagation of Islam spreading by the sword.

Erm that is how Islam was spread, by conquest. It's a religion of success and that is one reason now that Muslim are so distressed at their inferiority in politics and economics.

I'm not saying that Islam's history of conquest makes it 'bad' now though, I couldn't care less. It's like saying Christianity is bad because of the Crusades.

I'm more interested in if Islam is tractable and compatible with secularism.

[Florrick]

(Original post by snozzle)
Erm that is how Islam was spread, by conquest. It's a religion of success and that is one reason now that Muslim are so distressed at their inferiority in politics and economics.

I'm not saying that Islam's history of conquest makes it 'bad' now though, I couldn't care less. It's like saying Christianity is bad because of the Crusades.

I'm more interested in if Islam is tractable and compatible with secularism.

'fraid you have to take your post here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1865128



More relevant than here.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Florrick)
'fraid you have to take your post here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1865128



More relevant than here.

The nature of the Islamic empires expansion isn't a theological question.

[Florrick]

(Original post by snozzle)
The nature of the Islamic empires expansion isn't a theological question.

Fine. But you're conflating two different concepts together incorrectly. Just because Islam permits conquest as you have rightly stated, to expand the Islamic empire doesn't necessarily mean that Islam was spread by the sword i.e. forced conversion of Non-Muslims to Muslims.


Yes, Islam does permit an Islamic state but Islam doesn't say go ahead and convert the Non-Muslim population you take over by force.


Sincerity generally correlates with belief.



Now I'm off. Bye.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Florrick)
Fine. But you're conflating two different concepts together incorrectly. Just because Islam permits conquest as you have rightly stated, to expand the Islamic empire doesn't necessarily mean that Islam was spread by the sword i.e. forced conversion of Non-Muslims to Muslims.


Yes, Islam does permit an Islamic state but Islam doesn't say go ahead and convert the Non-Muslim population you take over by force.


Sincerity generally correlates with belief.



Now I'm off. Bye.

Sure it wasn't just forced conversion and I didn't mean that. If the only incentive to join Islam was to avoid death then it wouldn't have been successful.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Going by that definition it could be argued that his correct. But, then I'm willing to bet him and most of us are bigoted to those who hold the following positions; women are inferior, lesbians should be raped to be cured, disabled people should be exterminated , countries should only consist of one ethnic group, all others should be forcefully removed or exterminated, we should be allowed to enslave the weak etc etc.

Umm as a straight white male that doesn't sound half bad as I have no feeling for others.

[Space Jockey]

(Original post by Florrick)
Criticise it. That's nothing new. Before, I know in India, the most common criticism was polygamy, now since 9/11, it's Muslim are terrorists. Here in Europe, it was Muslims are following the Moon-God, now that's gone away with mostly to a whole host of new criticisms and some old such as the famous Crusader propagation of Islam spreading by the sword.

I wouldn't say those a criticisms though. If someone came and said 'all Muslims are terrorists' I would call that an insulting generalisation than any sort of constructive criticism.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Florrick)
Fine. But you're conflating two different concepts together incorrectly. Just because Islam permits conquest as you have rightly stated, to expand the Islamic empire doesn't necessarily mean that Islam was spread by the sword i.e. forced conversion of Non-Muslims to Muslims.


Yes, Islam does permit an Islamic state but Islam doesn't say go ahead and convert the Non-Muslim population you take over by force.

The means by which Islam was spread is no big mystery. Broadly speaking, Muslim armies conquered, over hundreds of years and in several stages, most of what is now known as the Islamic World. They established empires in which there were great social, political, and financial advantages to being Muslim, and in which there were severe social, political, and financial disadvantages to not being Muslim. Islam was also, in addition to being the official state religion, the only religion that was allowed to advertise and seek converts; proseletysing by other religions, converting away from Islam, or trying to prevent someone from converting to Islam were all prohibted. This was supplemented by the forced conversion of large numbers of slaves taken as children from non-Muslim communities within and immediately surrounding the empire. Over many centuries, it is unsuprising that these areas went from having relatively small Muslim ruling classes to being overwhelmingly Muslim.

This is properly history, not theology, and it is this process, relying on conquest and subjugation, not missionary effort, in the first instance, that is generally meant in references to the religion being "spread by the sword."

[mr_miagi]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
The means by which Islam was spread is no big mystery. Broadly speaking, Muslim armies conquered, over hundreds of years and in several stages, most of what is now known as the Islamic World. They established empires in which there were great social, political, and financial advantages to being Muslim, and in which there were severe social, political, and financial disadvantages to not being Muslim. Islam was also, in addition to being the official state religion, the only religion that was allowed to advertise and seek converts; proseletysing by other religions, converting away from Islam, or trying to prevent someone from converting to Islam were all prohibted. This was supplemented by the forced conversion of large numbers of slaves taken as children from non-Muslim communities within and immediately surrounding the empire. Over many centuries, it is unsuprising that these areas went from having relatively small Muslim ruling classes to being overwhelmingly Muslim.

This is properly history, not theology, and it is this process, relying on conquest and subjugation, not missionary effort, in the first instance, that is generally meant in references to the religion being "spread by the sword."

Total bull****

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by mr_miagi)
Total bull****

If you think that, I suggest you read, oh I don't know, anything at all scholarly on the topic. The worst that can be said of my characterisation is that it, while providing a basic outline of the core process, is incomplete.

[snozzle]

(Original post by mr_miagi)
Total bull****

No he's completely right.

One could probably add also that Islam as a religion was salutary to people to some extent...I don't think that is unreasonable but the key idea that being a Muslim had political, social, economic advantages it pretty much incontestable.

[Elipsis]

In the article and comments they slam the BNP and EDL for being intolerant, but we're told that we are intolerant for not accepting people who follow one of the most intolerant, supremacist, barbaric texts in existence? We aren't accepting of fascists, so why would we be accepting of fascism dressed up as religion?!