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

How does being concerned about spread of Islam in the West make someone far-right? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. Islam's biggest problem is that its base scripture states unequivocally that it was dictated directly by the supposed deity to a chosen "prophet", that it is complete and perfect, applicable for all time in all places, and that there is no room in the religion for interpretations. No other religion makes such claims for itself, which suited Mohammed in his quest to get his superstitious desert followers to do his bidding, but those statements leave modern Moslems with no room for wriggling against the Islamists.

    The same Islamic scripture demonstrates that Islam condones slavery, treats women as second class citizens (as are unbelievers, of course) and has many other dogma that are contrary to twenty-first century morality and political thinking in the west. This will always cause massive tensions between Moslems and other western citizens.

    How do you plan to overcome these problems?
    19th century Christian Britain would cause tensions with 21st century Christianity. So perhaps the solution lies in encouraging social change as quickly as possible, which is never as fast as we would like.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    In that case, it is apparent that you do not fully understand the nature of Islam, especially compared to other religions.

    It is meaningless and unhelpful to simply say "But I don't believe X..." when presented with an explanation for X.
    Well since it is a pretty subjective dicussion it is entirely meaningful to inform you that I don't agree with your viewpoint. I haven't been convinced by your explanations, as you might have gathered.

    It is pretty meaningless to state that I don't understand just because I disagree with you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    19th century Christian Britain would cause tensions with 21st century Christianity. So perhaps the solution lies in encouraging social change as quickly as possible, which is never as fast as we would like.
    That merely illustrates how other religions can change with the times. Islam doesn't. It cannot get out of the eighth century desert. How can it when it has a book that specifically tells its adherents that no interpretations are allowed and these rules are appropriate for all people for all time - including slavery and the subjugation of women.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That merely illustrates how other religions can change with the times. Islam doesn't. It cannot get out of the eighth century desert. How can it when it has a book that specifically tells its adherents that no interpretations are allowed and these rules are appropriate for all people for all time - including slavery and the subjugation of women.
    The Bible hardly finishes with but, you know, figure it out for yourself. Many societies ate lagging behind the Western world in terms of these changes due to the extremist regimes and history, not because Islam or the people themselves are unable to change over time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    The Bible hardly finishes with but, you know, figure it out for yourself. Many societies ate lagging behind the Western world in terms of these changes due to the extremist regimes and history, not because Islam or the people themselves are unable to change over time.
    You don't seem willing to face the truth. The Bible does not claim to have been written by the deity. The Koran does, and makes it clear that Islamic rules are compulsory and not to be cherry-picked.

    Can you not see how Islam, given that base document, is completely different?

    The other major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former's guiding principle is Love your enemy, while the latter's is Let's make the world Islamic.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The OP is clearly misrepresenting

    1) First of all he is not just "concerned" about the spread of Islam in the west, his post history makes that clear. If he is just "concerned" about Islam, then Hitler was just "concerned" about jews.

    2) Second of all, he has clearly been labelled as far right due to his post history.

    His defense is to attempt to misinterpret his "concern" for Islam as others being confused and labeling him as far right for no reason. He clearly lives in his own version of the matrix. His post history makes it clear that is is an extremely partisan poster who is prone to stereotyping entire groups and "us vs them" reasoning.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Do you expect Irish people to continually apologise for sectarian violence? Do you expect Christians across USA to continually condemn those who attack abortion doctors? Do you expect Buddhists to continually apologise for Buddhist monks in Tibet murdering men, women and children?
    Buddhist monks in Tibet murdering people? You need to get your facts straight. The monks in Tibet are the ones setting themselves on fire to protest against the Chinese occupation so as not to harm anyone other than themselves, even though the Chinese are treating them atrociously. Myanmar/Burma is the country which is struggling with Muslim violence against Buddhists. The kalar (Rohingya) have been waging Jihad against the indigenous Buddhists for decades. I've got a detailed account of it all here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4110849 and here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4110849&page=4.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Buddhist monks in Tibet murdering people? You need to get your facts straight. The monks in Tibet are the ones setting themselves on fire to protest against the Chinese occupation so as not to harm anyone other than themselves, even though the Chinese are treating them atrociously. Myanmar/Burma is the country which is struggling with Muslim violence against Buddhists. The kalar (Rohingya) have been waging Jihad against the indigenous Buddhists for decades. I've got a detailed account of it all here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4110849 and here http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4110849&page=4.
    Myanmar was indeed what I meant to write. Let me ask you a simple question, with essentially a yes or no answer:

    Have Buddhist monks been murdering men, women and children in Myanmar?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Liberalism is about this, I will fight your absurd claim that homosexuality should not be allowed, but I will defend your right of having it.
    Also, a Liberal should realise that not all Muslims are homophobic. So, the point is that a Liberal would not attack individuals, until their views are known. And as being a Muslim does not guarantee one's a homophobe, a Liberal would not attack Muslims, but would happily criticise their beliefs if shown to be homophobic.

    As to your quote, you can't be intolerant for just thinking that gays should not be allowed to marry. One can only be intolerant if they act on their intolerant beliefs, so a Liberal would defend the Muslims right to hate gays or whatever, but would fight those who should decide to act upon it.

    In the end, it boils down to this: what do you mean by anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic?
    Do you mean criticising Islam, its prophet and the actions carried out by Muslims? That's pretty liberal to me.
    Do you mean discriminating against Muslims for having certain beliefs, specially if you are not even sure what exactly the individual you're judging believes in? That's pretty illiberal.
    Do you mean spreading awareness against the current form of Islam, and helping Muslims to reform it, or at least develop and embrace better ways of understanding it? That's liberal.
    Eloquently put. PRSOM
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Myanmar was indeed what I meant to write. Let me ask you a simple question, with essentially a yes or no answer:

    Have Buddhist monks been murdering men, women and children in Myanmar?
    No. The victims of the attacks have been retaliating, but monks have been giving shelter to the few innocent Rohingyas. Buddhist monks are also the most educated people, so they're often the ones who pass the news around. Because of this, the media likes to claim that they're instigating the violence on purpose, which is absurd because if they were they wouldn't be monks. They'd have been kicked out of the Sangha the moment they did so.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Well since it is a pretty subjective dicussion it is entirely meaningful to inform you that I don't agree with your viewpoint. I haven't been convinced by your explanations, as you might have gathered.

    It is pretty meaningless to state that I don't understand just because I disagree with you.
    The simple point is that Islam is an ideology that covers all walks of life and whose followers consider to be absolute in its applications and rulings.

    Christianity, Hinduisn, Budhism, Sikhism are not.

    Whether or not you understand or accept that does not change the ways things are.
    As DP Moynihan pointed out, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The simple point is that Islam is an ideology that covers all walks of life and whose followers consider to be absolute in its applications and rulings.

    Christianity, Hinduisn, Budhism, Sikhism are not.

    Whether or not you understand or accept that does not change the ways things are.
    As DP Moynihan pointed out, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
    You are simply mistaken if you think that your statement in bold is true.

    Islam exists in many different forms for over a billion Muslims in the world. Different levels and systems of democratic government, despots and extremist regimes. Sunni and Shi'ite. Modernists, tradionalists and reformers. Saudi Arabia and ISIS in Iraq, Turkey and Muslim communities in the US.

    Many Muslims live in an environment where Islam is adopted as an ideology. Many Muslims live in an environment where Islam is their religion, compatible with modern progressive society, in the same way Christians can live in societies with relative equality for homosexuals.

    You aren't trying to argue that 2+2=4, so don't be so silly as to claim that you're stating a fact. You're stating your own opinion just as I'm stating mine. The only difference here it seems is that I'm not stupid enough to believe that such a complicated question can be reduced to a true/false answer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    No. The victims of the attacks have been retaliating, but monks have been giving shelter to the few innocent Rohingyas. Buddhist monks are also the most educated people, so they're often the ones who pass the news around. Because of this, the media likes to claim that they're instigating the violence on purpose, which is absurd because if they were they wouldn't be monks. They'd have been kicked out of the Sangha the moment they did so.
    That's the narrative told by one side though, and many reputable sources are reporting that what we are seeing is not mere self-defence and retaliation against attackers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You don't seem willing to face the truth. The Bible does not claim to have been written by the deity. The Koran does, and makes it clear that Islamic rules are compulsory and not to be cherry-picked.

    Can you not see how Islam, given that base document, is completely different?

    The other major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former's guiding principle is Love your enemy, while the latter's is Let's make the world Islamic.
    All religions are different, of course. And again of course you're putting your own spin on them to help make your point. But aside from that let's not try to pretend that one religion is a danger to society that must be stopped whilst the others are all roses.

    Millions have people worldwide have died essentially because of Christianity. The situation hasn't improved just because someone suddenly took a look at the Bible and decided that it was actually just a guide. The situation took centuries of gradual social change helped by access to education. A number of Muslim-majority countries need the same.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    That's the narrative told by one side though, and many reputable sources are reporting that what we are seeing is not mere self-defence and retaliation against attackers.
    You're forgetting that those "reputable" sources are actually very biased. The west has gone very "pro-Islam" in recent years and so to reinforce this they won't report what started the violence in the first place nor the atrocities committed by the kalar, who also happen to be illegal aliens in Myanmar. If you read my posts you'll see that I've even included Islamic sources which are reporting the same thing, like I said in those posts massive kudos to them for doing that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    You are simply mistaken if you think that your statement in bold is true.

    Islam exists in many different forms for over a billion Muslims in the world. Different levels and systems of democratic government, despots and extremist regimes. Sunni and Shi'ite. Modernists, tradionalists and reformers. Saudi Arabia and ISIS in Iraq, Turkey and Muslim communities in the US.

    Many Muslims live in an environment where Islam is adopted as an ideology. Many Muslims live in an environment where Islam is their religion, compatible with modern progressive society, in the same way Christians can live in societies with relative equality for homosexuals.
    Again, you seem to misunderstand the issue.
    Claiming that Islam is an ideology does not mean that its adherants must be some monolithic group with one single, homogeneous interpretation.
    Communism is an ideology, but I'm sure that even you would accept that it varies in detail and application depending on the individual and system. However, that does not mean that it is no longer an ideology.
    Just because people have different interpretations of an ideology, does not mean that it cannot be an ideology! Look at fascism, or capitalism, or any other ideology. Are any of them without differing of conflicting groups and sub-divisions? Obviously not.

    Pick any dictionary and look up "ideology". You will see that the definition fits any religion, but especially Islam because of its social, political and economic elements. Here's one to get you going, from Merriam-Webster...
    "the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party"
    Now, explain how that does not apply to Islam.

    You aren't trying to argue that 2+2=4, so don't be so silly as to claim that you're stating a fact. You're stating your own opinion just as I'm stating mine. The only difference here it seems is that I'm not stupid enough to believe that such a complicated question can be reduced to a true/false answer.
    Unfortunately, it is a simple issue with a simple answer, determined by the definition of "ideology".
    For some reason, you seem to have an issue with using that word. I have no idea why that is, but your inability to grasp simple concepts does not mean that the concept is complicated - just that you have trouble understanding it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Again, you seem to misunderstand the issue.
    Claiming that Islam is an ideology does not mean that its adherants must be some monolithic group with one single, homogeneous interpretation.
    Communism is an ideology, but I'm sure that even you would accept that it varies in detail and application depending on the individual and system. However, that does not mean that it is no longer an ideology.
    Just because people have different interpretations of an ideology, does not mean that it cannot be an ideology! Look at fascism, or capitalism, or any other ideology. Are any of them without differing of conflicting groups and sub-divisions? Obviously not.

    Pick any dictionary and look up "ideology". You will see that the definition fits any religion, but especially Islam because of its social, political and economic elements. Here's one to get you going, from Merriam-Webster...
    "the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party"
    Now, explain how that does not apply to Islam.

    Unfortunately, it is a simple issue with a simple answer, determined by the definition of "ideology".
    For some reason, you seem to have an issue with using that word. I have no idea why that is, but your inability to grasp simple concepts does not mean that the concept is complicated - just that you have trouble understanding it.
    "Ideology - A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"

    My inclination not to use the word stems from the connotations associated with it, coming mostly from that second part of the definition. The meanings of many of the words we use go beyond dictionary definitions, and their meanings are instead defined by a blend of their dictionary definition and how they are used by people. Of course there are some words which have very specific and inflexible meanings in some or all contexts, but this isn't one of them.

    So with that out of the way there is really only one conclusion, which I hinted at before and you yourself essentially confirmed. Either all the major religions are also ideologies, or none of them are.

    Now given all that I do take issue with the way some people are keen to say that Islam is an ideology whilst other maor religions are not because the connotations of this enables them to spin a certain narrative setting Islam utterly apart. The same tactic has been used countless times in a range of topics, the most recent one coming to mind for me being some of the words used to Describe the EU.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    "Ideology - A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"

    My inclination not to use the word stems from the connotations associated with it, coming mostly from that second part of the definition. The meanings of many of the words we use go beyond dictionary definitions, and their meanings are instead defined by a blend of their dictionary definition and how they are used by people. Of course there are some words which have very specific and inflexible meanings in some or all contexts, but this isn't one of them.

    So with that out of the way there is really only one conclusion, which I hinted at before and you yourself essentially confirmed. Either all the major religions are also ideologies, or none of them are.

    Now given all that I do take issue with the way some people are keen to say that Islam is an ideology whilst other maor religions are not because the connotations of this enables them to spin a certain narrative setting Islam utterly apart. The same tactic has been used countless times in a range of topics, the most recent one coming to mind for me being some of the words used to Describe the EU.
    Yes. All religions are ideologies.
    Yes, Islam* is different in its nature to others, due to the content of its ideology.
    2+2=4.
    See, not that difficult.

    * Insert religion as required.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the problem is that you're concerned with the spread of Islam in the west, it's that you've allowed it become an all-consuming obsession.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    "Ideology - A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"

    My inclination not to use the word stems from the connotations associated with it, coming mostly from that second part of the definition. The meanings of many of the words we use go beyond dictionary definitions, and their meanings are instead defined by a blend of their dictionary definition and how they are used by people. Of course there are some words which have very specific and inflexible meanings in some or all contexts, but this isn't one of them.

    So with that out of the way there is really only one conclusion, which I hinted at before and you yourself essentially confirmed. Either all the major religions are also ideologies, or none of them are.

    Now given all that I do take issue with the way some people are keen to say that Islam is an ideology whilst other maor religions are not because the connotations of this enables them to spin a certain narrative setting Islam utterly apart. The same tactic has been used countless times in a range of topics, the most recent one coming to mind for me being some of the words used to Describe the EU.
    All religions are ideologies, whether you like to admit it or not, just as they are all irrational beliefs (or superstitions).

    Islam contains strong political elements, which is what makes it especially dangerous - the infliction of laws based on mediaeval superstitious beliefs is anathema to any sensible western educated person in the twenty-first century.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.