Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    How do you know? There is an anti-slavery consensus amongst the Islamic scholarly community.
    But for this argument to be valid, you need to make the assumption that the opinion of modern scholars overrules the explicit permission in the Quran and sunnah.

    And there is certainly no blanket "anti-slavery consensus". As with many of such claims, it merely says that slavery is illegal due to man-made laws, so Muslims are obliged to obey them. It does not say that slavery is wrong. In fact, many scholars will go to great lengths to explain why "Islamic slavery" is actually not inherently bad.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The context of the discussion however was, what do the majority of the Muslims believe? Poll after poll from around the world shows most Muslims denounce ISIS and its activities i.e. sexual slavery.
    Yes, but most Muslims also believe the Quran to be perfect, universal and timeless (and the example of Muhammad). And these explicitly allow sex slavery.
    There is a fundamental logical disconnect or a disingenuity at play here. The two positions are mutually exclusive, and to highlight one position and ignore the other is to be complicit in the problem.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, perhaps you could tell me the rational basis to believing that Mohammed flew across the Arabian desert,
    Typical ignorance of Islamophobes. He didn't "fly". He rode a magical mega-donkey with telescopic legs.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Most TSR'ians are such unfortunately. The assumption that it's somehow full of liberal open minded people is erroneous.
    TSR is full of "people".
    Some are liberal, some are conservative. Some ore open-minded, some are close-minded.
    But to pejoratively label everyone simply of the basis of whether they share your position or not is neither open-minded nor liberal.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    instead of the usual stories of tolerance and love most children hear within their respective religious frameworks.
    Having read both the NT and the Quran, it is patently clear that one of them is not a book of tolerance and love.

    If Islamic schools and mosques choose to heavily edit the Quran in order to present a more child friendly version of Islam, that that is a good thing. But it also speaks volumes about its perfect immutability!
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Is it OK for a Muslim to ban all Jews from his restaurant?
    Not in my view.

    Although this was clear from my post, so I am puzzled as to why you felt the need to ask it again.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It seemed you were playing on semantics quite a lot.
    Yes. Necessarily so.

    Two people were refused service because they were Muslim and that was quite clearly wrong. I'm not sure why there is so much 'yes but...' going on. It's simply wrong to refuse someone service for holding a belief that you disagree with, whatever that belief is.
    Agreed. But the discussion had moved on to the nature of discrimination because of some posters shaky logic and unfounded assertions. The OP case was no longer relevant.

    If two Jewish people were refused service there would be nothing but condemnation and nor should there be. There wouldn't be lots of 'yes but' comments.
    Yes, but...
    Only joking! But read my reply to you about context.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    And this context was one of a French citizen who had lost a friend in the Bataclan attack, railing against a visible and explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks.

    Do you condemn Palestinians for having something against Israelis?

    Ah, but this is where you are wrong. They may claim this, but it is not supported by the evidence. Every attack and every statement from Islamic State comes with supporting Quran quotes.
    For example, ISIS use female captives for sex. The Quran states that female captives can be used for sex. Sahih hadith confirm in detail that female captives can be used for sex.
    So, who is the "better Muslim", the one who accepts a particular passage in the Quran, or the one who rejects it?

    Indeed. So which is the more legitimate interpretation? The one that accepts everything in the Quran, or the one that rejects parts of it?

    I don't blame you for not liking ISIS's interpretation. I don't like it either, but it is simply wrong to say that it has no basis in the Quran and sunnah. It is fundamentally grounded in both.
    And my elder sister is also a French Muslim citizen who lost her close friend in the Paris attacks. The French Muslim community are just as hurt and appalled by those incidents. I cried upon hearing of the Bataclan attack in the same way I cried when I heard of the Beirut bomb blast. I am not an 'explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks', neither is my sister(s), the two French Muslim females denied service, or any other normal Muslim. We are not Daesh, Daesh do not represent us.

    If a Palestinian held a negative and prejudiced belief about every single Israeli, then yes I'd condemn this.

    I'm talking about what Muslims believe their religion to be. This discussion is not about Islamic theology or whether Islam permits sex-slaves. If the majority of Muslims, including learned scholars, reject Daesh, then you cannot claim that Muslims support the actions of Daesh.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vegito)
    K.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I responded. Now go get a life racist.
    Oh, boo hoo. Someone who hasn't yet learned joined-up thinking called me a racist because they aren't clever enough to understand me.

    I think I may get over it.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by childofthesun)
    And my elder sister is also a French Muslim citizen who lost her close friend in the Paris attacks. The French Muslim community are just as hurt and appalled by those incidents. I cried upon hearing of the Bataclan attack in the same way I cried when I heard of the Beirut bomb blast. I am not an 'explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks', neither is my sister(s), the two French Muslim females denied service, or any other normal Muslim. We are not Daesh, Daesh do not represent us.
    I have never claimed that ISIS represent all Muslims. Only that ISIS represent a particular interpretation of Islam.
    Jeez, why is it so hard for some people to understand anrguments and grasp simple concepts. It's like they have a set of stock answers that use used to respond to certain trigger words. They don't address the actual argument.

    If a Palestinian held a negative and prejudiced belief about every single Israeli, then yes I'd condemn this.
    Many of them seem to, or at least, against the concept of "Israel".

    I'm talking about what Muslims believe their religion to be. This discussion is not about Islamic theology or whether Islam permits sex-slaves.
    So, are you claiming that most Muslims don't really believe that the Quran is perfect, universal and timeless?

    If the majority of Muslims, including learned scholars, reject Daesh, then you cannot claim that Muslims support the actions of Daesh.
    I do not claim that most Muslims support ISIS, but they do support the same ideology and cannot reasonably condemn sex slavery while at the same time, believing in the acceptability of sex slavery.

    So basically, a Muslim has a simple choice. Be necessarily associated with ISIS (NOTE: I did not say "support"), or admit that the Quran is not perfect, universal and timeless.
    It really is very simple.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I don't see why the mere fact that it's "all ideology" should prevent us from distinguishing the ideologies and applying appropriate rules/exemptions thereof accordingly.
    Because it's an absurd, morally-dubious situation where you allow some ideologies to discriminate and yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating on the basis of [insert subjective, feelings-based reasoning here]. There is absolutely no logical justification for privileging religion in this sense other than subjective bias.

    In the case of religion, the general exceptions to the Equality Act 2010 are in compliance with the right to free exercise of religion and is rooted in common sense (i.e. it would be ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, or a Temple to hire a Muslim Imam). Such discrimination is, and should not be, unlawful on the basis that it respects the doctrine or the principles of the religion, and to avoid offending the religious beliefs of a significant number of people who follow the religion.
    Why is it ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, but it's not ridiculous to force a political party or other ideologically-driven organisation to hire someone they ideologically oppose on the basis of a protected characteristic?

    The principle of freedom of religion has rarely ever been freedom to practise your religious beliefs however you so choose. Also, why should discrimination principles be based on whether or not they offend a significant number of people? I am sure a significant number of racists are offended by anti-racial discrimination laws.

    I disagree. Even the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which extends marriage to same sex couples nevertheless protects freedom of religion by giving explicit protection to religious organisations and their officials from being compelled by any means to carry out same sex marriages.
    That was merely inserted to keep the Conservative membership happy. It also does not answer why it is morally justifiable to allow religions to discriminate, yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating.

    It's not always a matter of discriminating due to the belief that x minority is inferior for some y reason, but even if it is then the nature of religions is such that these exemptions must be made for the sake of common sense. It's not even about appeasing the religious voters since religious organisations are granted these rights and exemptions under Articles 9 and 11 of the ECHR.
    I struggle to see how it is common sense unless you are saying that religions are superior to all other ideologies and deserve to discriminate, whereas other ideologies should be forbidden from discriminating. Why do you believe that religions should be allowed to discriminate above other ideologies? "Common sense" is not sufficient.

    Also, Article 9 includes other ideological beliefs so you can't reference that as the justification for why religions should be privileged in this sense.

    Yes, that is the logical conclusion. Of course, those same Christians would not be allowed to discriminate when providing a service on behalf of a public authority.
    So you would be content with a situation in which a large amount of Christians could refuse to marry interracial couples?

    Being "packaged in terms of sacredness" is not the only criterion I have in mind. I would give free passes to discriminate to specific conditions charities, LGBTQ+ events and support groups, etc.
    My view is that we need to decide as a society whether we permit discrimination in an equal manner, or forbid it. We cannot have a situation where religions, as ideologies, are allowed to discriminate, whereas other ideologies cannot, without any tangible justification other than the subjective biases of a few.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    Because it's an absurd, morally-dubious situation where you allow some ideologies to discriminate and yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating on the basis of [insert subjective, feelings-based reasoning here]. There is absolutely no logical justification for privileging religion in this sense other than subjective bias.
    The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real. Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.

    Why is it ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, but it's not ridiculous to force a political party or other ideologically-driven organisation to hire someone they ideologically oppose on the basis of a protected characteristic?
    For the same reason it's ridiculous to force LGBT support groups to hire non-LGBT people, or to force women-only feminist events/institutions to hire men despite the fact that protected characteristics like sex, gender and sexual orientation are being discriminated upon.

    Not all instances of discrimination are unfair.

    I find it absolutely absurd that someone would be in favour of forcing Churches to hire non-Christian officials. What next, secular/atheistic organisations should be forced to hire religious representatives?

    The principle of freedom of religion has rarely ever been freedom to practise your religious beliefs however you so choose.
    Provided that no one is being harmed, the principle of freedom of religion has always been in the form of negative liberty.

    Also, why should discrimination principles be based on whether or not they offend a significant number of people? I am sure a significant number of racists are offended by anti-racial discrimination laws.
    I'm sure there are, but once again you must assume absolute equivalence of a socio-political racist idealogy and religions for your argument to apply.

    That was merely inserted to keep the Conservative membership happy. It also does not answer why it is morally justifiable to allow religions to discriminate, yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating.
    Evidence?

    I struggle to see how it is common sense unless you are saying that religions are superior to all other ideologies and deserve to discriminate, whereas other ideologies should be forbidden from discriminating. Why do you believe that religions should be allowed to discriminate above other ideologies? "Common sense" is not sufficient.
    I've already explained why.

    Also, Article 9 includes other ideological beliefs so you can't reference that as the justification for why religions should be privileged in this sense.
    Article 9 is exclusively concerned with religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    So you would be content with a situation in which a large amount of Christians could refuse to marry interracial couples?
    Sure.

    My view is that we need to decide as a society whether we permit discrimination in an equal manner, or forbid it. We cannot have a situation where religions, as ideologies, are allowed to discriminate, whereas other ideologies cannot, without any tangible justification other than the subjective biases of a few.
    And my view is that we as a society do not engage in simplistic, binary "all or nothing" reasoning and appreciate the nuance and differences, and afford exemptions accordingly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The question that should be asked is if the muslim woman that wanted to be served committed any terror attack herself, because this is just plain stupid.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real.
    And what is the objective difference?

    Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.
    Yes, they have their subjective differences, like everything, but the whole argument here is that there is no objective distinction to allow you to say that religions should be able to discriminate, whereas other ideologies should be forbidden from discriminating.

    For the same reason it's ridiculous to force LGBT support groups to hire non-LGBT people, or to force women-only feminist events/institutions to hire men despite the fact that protected characteristics like sex, gender and sexual orientation are being discriminated upon.
    So why is it only ridiculous in certain situations? Your concept of ridiculousness is obviously based on your subjective views. Why is it not ridiculous for a honeymoon-specialising holiday company with a deeply homophobic management to be forced to provide packages to gay couples, yet it is not ridiculous to expect a church to provide religious ceremonies to gay couples?

    I find it absolutely absurd that someone would be in favour of forcing Churches to hire non-Christian officials. What next, secular/atheistic organisations should be forced to hire religious representatives?
    I find it equally as absurd for someone to be in favour of forcing a political party to allow membership from people it opposes or to have to hire them as staff.

    Provided that no one is being harmed, the principle of freedom of religion has always been in the form of negative liberty.
    That doesn't invalidate my statement that it has rarely sanctioned people to manifest their beliefs however they so choose; Article 9(2) highlights this.

    I'm sure there are, but once again you must assume absolute equivalence of a socio-political racist idealogy and religions for your argument to apply.
    What it boils down to is you saying that religious people being offended should carry more weight, and thereby influence discrimination law to a greater extent, than other ideological followers being offended. You have not provided a justification for this.

    Evidence?
    I don't have time to trawl Google, so I will call it an opinion only and not a statement of fact.

    I've already explained why.
    Sorry, but I don't feel you have. You've just told me I am making a false equivalence, and that's it. You have not outlined what you consider the objective or subjective distinctions are which mean that religions should be able to discriminate, whereas other ideologies should be limited in this respect.

    Article 9 is exclusively concerned with religious beliefs or lack thereof.
    Page 12 of the following seems to suggest otherwise: http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/...S-20(2005).pdf

    Sure.
    I think that is an undesirable situation, in that a small racist bookshop can be prohibited from discriminating against ethnic minorities, whereas numerous churches can get away with refusing to marry interracial couples.

    And my view is that we as a society do not engage in simplistic, binary "all or nothing" reasoning and appreciate the nuance and differences, and afford exemptions accordingly.
    Fine, but there need to be sound, objective justifications for allowing such distinctions, especially between ideologies, and not based on subjective biases.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    You consider Islamic law of marriage as unjust, but Muslims don't agree.
    Really ?

    now, that's a surprise
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real. Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.
    So philosophical ideas are wrapped into the law of the land, are they? I don't think so. Anyway, how is the self-identification of the modern warlord and demagogue Adolf Hitler as a Nazi any less valid than the self-identification of Mohammed (a mediaeval warlord and demagogue) as a Moslem? Why should the latter be protected?

    Religions are no more protected than any other ideology and with good reason - as any study of the pre-renaissance catholic church will illustrate. In fact, Islam in particular is both a political and a religious ideology.

    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    For the same reason it's ridiculous to force LGBT support groups to hire non-LGBT people, or to force women-only feminist events/institutions to hire men despite the fact that protected characteristics like sex, gender and sexual orientation are being discriminated upon.
    Churches and such support organisations do employ people who are, for example, non-LGBT or non-Christian. As employers they must obey the law. The exemptions allowed mean that the CofE can insist on a bishop being a member of the church, or a mosque can insist its imam is a Moslem, but does not allow them to insist on the cleaner being of the religion. Similarly, pressure and support groups cannot discriminate against able-bodied or heterosexual applicants for, say, administrative roles.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    Really ?

    now, that's a surprise
    Islamic marriage 'law' is why Muslims can never be identified as a 'race'
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Of course! No religion in France. They can kick out every religious person they want.

    Maybe they should to truly exemplify their secular values.
    I don't think you understand what secular means.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't think you understand what secular means.
    It was sarcasm.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by childofthesun)
    And my elder sister is also a French Muslim citizen who lost her close friend in the Paris attacks. The French Muslim community are just as hurt and appalled by those incidents. I cried upon hearing of the Bataclan attack in the same way I cried when I heard of the Beirut bomb blast. I am not an 'explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks', neither is my sister(s), the two French Muslim females denied service, or any other normal Muslim. We are not Daesh, Daesh do not represent us.

    If a Palestinian held a negative and prejudiced belief about every single Israeli, then yes I'd condemn this.

    I'm talking about what Muslims believe their religion to be. This discussion is not about Islamic theology or whether Islam permits sex-slaves. If the majority of Muslims, including learned scholars, reject Daesh, then you cannot claim that Muslims support the actions of Daesh.
    There's no point arguing with these people.

    I have become more and more convinced over time that the human race is doomed to repeat the horrors of history over and over again.

    Most people are unbelievably thick unfortunately. This is the same type of person who justified their role in the atrocities of the Holocaust with "I was just following orders".

    Anyway sweet Childofthesun, it's been a while. Update me- you know where
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.