Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    An easy way to resolve this turmoil would be to dismiss any fallacious, even abhorrent comparisons between Nazism/racism and Islam. By all means avoid and condemn Wahabi extremists where you see them, but I'm sure the counter-intuitiveness of any simplistic comparisons between racist ideologies and Islam is reflected in the fact that we wouldn't have a problem associating with, and even befriending the average Muslim who most likely does believe in the infallibility of the Qur'an and Muhammad, whereas the same probably wouldn't be the case with a neo-Nazi.
    Not so sure.

    I would find it just as difficult to be comfortable in the company of a Muslim who believes that apostates should be killed, as I would with a Nazi who believes that Jews should be killed.

    Yet one of these is publicly reviled by all, while publicly reviling the other can draw accusations of bigotry.

    #stillturmoily!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Society deems a lot of things worthy of a ban. Why should certain drugs not be allowed? It is after all, as you so say, a person's own choice!

    Just as drugs are banned it is a society's right to ban a garment that they deem unfit, be it because it resonates badly with others or because it stands for the oppression of women or whatever reason really.
    There are actual reasons to ban drugs. Drugs can cause people to harm themselves or others, or even directly damage their health. That causes a strain on the NHS which is obviously harmful to society. A burkini on the other hand hurts no one. Frankly it lowers the chances of skin cancer so hooray. Also we live in a developed country where people are free to wear what they like. That means if they wish to cover up then they can. If you want your government to dictate what to wear then go to North Korea, they will even choose a haircut for you.

    Also your argument assumes I'm 100% against drugs and don't disagree with the current laws at all. But frankly I'm only against things that hurt others and infringe on someone else's rights. A burkini doesn't hurt anyone, just because a woman stays covered up doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Women not taking advantage of being able to wear a bikini doesn't support opression of women. Certain drugs can however be harmful and therefore should be banned.

    That's why banning the burkini is plain bigotry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Islam is a sickening, vile and revolting set of beliefs that deserve all the criticism they can get and more. I'm not even bothered anymore about being labelled an islamophobe by people who can't tell the difference between insulting an ideology and insulting people.
    The problem isn't a failure to differentiate between insulting a religion and insulting people.
    The problem is a failure to differentiate between criticising a religion and hating a religion.

    We should be free to criticise all we want. But going around incriminating all Muslims with the actions of terrorists is not criticism, going around yelling "religion of peace" or "mohamed was a pedo" in response to every single attack in Europe before we've even confirmed the motive is not criticism, going around telling us about backwards cultures without acknowledging that there are in fact different ways of life to us is not criticism, going around blaming refugees and immigrants for problems that a minority of them cause is not criticism, suggesting that we cease immigration to Muslim countries or round them up in prison camps is not criticism.

    too many people think the right to criticise gives them the right to hate, and there is no doubt that Islamophobic hate contributes towards radicalisation in a small way
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    There are actual reasons to ban drugs. Drugs can cause people to harm themselves or others, or even directly damage their health. That causes a strain on the NHS which is obviously harmful to society. A burkini on the other hand hurts no one. Frankly it lowers the chances of skin cancer so hooray. Also we live in a developed country where people are free to wear what they like. That means if they wish to cover up then they can. If you want your government to dictate what to wear then go to North Korea, they will even choose a haircut for you.

    Also your argument assumes I'm 100% against drugs and don't disagree with the current laws at all. But frankly I'm only against things that hurt others and infringe on someone else's rights. A burkini doesn't hurt anyone, just because a woman stays covered up doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Women not taking advantage of being able to wear a bikini doesn't support opression of women. Certain drugs can however be harmful and therefore should be banned.

    That's why banning the burkini is plain bigotry.
    My argument assumes nothing. I used drugs as an example of something that is banned. It is 100% irrelevant what your thoughts on drugs are.

    God, I wish people were better at thinking abstractly.

    With regards to the rest, we also live in a democracy, yes, and if the majority elect someone, and that someone says well this isn't allowed, you can't go around and cry "muh freedom". Plus you have failed to see my point regarding the burkini as a symbol. Objectively viewed, women covering up to be "modest" is misogynist. I very well appreciate that many think they want it or its the right thing, but if that's all you have been told since you were a little girl...not to mention this objective view is one our society holds. And if in our society we say, we don't want to have to tell our daughters this horrible truth when she asks "mummy why is that woman hiding herself", then it is not juts our right but even our moral obligation to ban it. If you don't like it, go to a culture that celebrates this oppression.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The problem isn't a failure to differentiate between insulting a religion and insulting people.
    The problem is a failure to differentiate between criticising a religion and hating a religion.

    We should be free to criticise all we want. But going around incriminating all Muslims with the actions of terrorists is not criticism, going around yelling "religion of peace" or "mohamed was a pedo" in response to every single attack in Europe before we've even confirmed the motive is not criticism, going around telling us about backwards cultures without acknowledging that there are in fact different ways of life to us is not criticism, going around blaming refugees and immigrants for problems that a minority of them cause is not criticism, suggesting that we cease immigration to Muslim countries or round them up in prison camps is not criticism.

    too many people think the right to criticise gives them the right to hate, and there is no doubt that Islamophobic hate contributes towards radicalisation in a small way
    Hate: Feel intense dislike for: Have a strong aversion to. (OED)

    Why are people not allowed to feel intense dislike for an ideology that permits slavery, sex slaves, wife-beating, etc?
    What is wrong with having a strong aversion to gender inequality and sexual oppression?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    An easy way to resolve this turmoil would be to dismiss any fallacious, even abhorrent comparisons between Nazism/racism and Islam. By all means avoid and condemn Wahabi extremists where you see them, but I'm sure the counter-intuitiveness of any simplistic comparisons between racist ideologies and Islam is reflected in the fact that we wouldn't have a problem associating with, and even befriending the average Muslim who most likely does believe in the infallibility of the Qur'an and Muhammad, whereas the same probably wouldn't be the case with a neo-Nazi.
    But why? Mo was just as bad as Hitler.

    Hitler attacked others militarily, Mo attacked others militarily.

    Hitler killed those he didn't like, Mo killed those he didn't like.

    Hitler wanted people to be Aryans, Mo wanted people to be Muslims.

    Yet one is the synonym of evil, and probably the most infamous man in history while the other is seen by 1.6bn people as second only to God himself. How history is written by the victors...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Hate: Feel intense dislike for: Have a strong aversion to. (OED)

    Why are people not allowed to feel intense dislike for an ideology that permits slavery, sex slaves, wife-beating, etc?
    What is wrong with having a strong aversion to gender inequality and sexual oppression?
    Because its negligent to hate an ideology which was clearly designed for a very different society 1500 years ago, and also when the majority of Muslims have moved on and evidently ignore the ills of Islam.

    Our own society, even closer than 1500 years ago, had some stupid aspects to it - such as burning alive / drowning women for witchcraft.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    There are actual reasons to ban drugs. Drugs can cause people to harm themselves or others, or even directly damage their health. That causes a strain on the NHS which is obviously harmful to society. A burkini on the other hand hurts no one. Frankly it lowers the chances of skin cancer so hooray. Also we live in a developed country where people are free to wear what they like. That means if they wish to cover up then they can. If you want your government to dictate what to wear then go to North Korea, they will even choose a haircut for you.

    Also your argument assumes I'm 100% against drugs and don't disagree with the current laws at all. But frankly I'm only against things that hurt others and infringe on someone else's rights. A burkini doesn't hurt anyone, just because a woman stays covered up doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Women not taking advantage of being able to wear a bikini doesn't support opression of women. Certain drugs can however be harmful and therefore should be banned.

    That's why banning the burkini is plain bigotry.
    France is unique in the regard that it has a historical policy on public religiosity and secularism.
    The issue isn't helped by Muslim journalist listing "annoying the French" as a good reason to wear the burkini (although I'm sure there have recently been other displays of Islamic dogma that have annoyed them more).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Because its negligent to hate an ideology which was clearly designed for a very different society 1500 years ago, and also when the majority of Muslims have moved on and evidently ignore the ills of Islam.

    Our own society, even closer than 1500 years ago, had some stupid aspects to it - such as burning alive / drowning women for witchcraft.
    But they haven't moved on.

    The Protestant Church moved on when they had enough of Catholics.

    Why has no Muslim group said "enough is enough" Islam has caused so much violence in this world, we will take the Quran and the hadiths and whatnot and open a new school of thought based on our good interpretation of it. Let these ISIS freaks call themselves Muslims, we are something better.

    Why not? Because the word of Mo, the word in the Quran is true and just for eternity. And because deep down, they haven't moved on, they just ignore it.

    I am getting so sick of reading your posts. In fact, the far bigger problem in our society is not the danger of extremism, but people like you trying to sweep it under the table.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not so sure.

    I would find it just as difficult to be comfortable in the company of a Muslim who believes that apostates should be killed, as I would with a Nazi who believes that Jews should be killed.

    Yet one of these is publicly reviled by all, while publicly reviling the other can draw accusations of bigotry.

    #stillturmoily!
    I'm strongly against capital punishment, but just under 50% of Britons support it. Nevertheless I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in the company of a random Briton despite my belief in the sanctity of human life. Putting aside the fact that more than 60% of young Muslims believe apostates should not be executed, I think there's a difference, I think there's still a huge difference. From my experience with conservative Muslims around these boards, those who support capital punishment for apostasy almost always add a treason clause. Viewed in this context, belief in capital punishment for apostasy makes more sense than a Nazi who believes Jews should be killed simply for being Jews.

    Another distinction, which is perhaps why we tolerate religious teachings antithetical to our world-views (i.e. slavery, patriarchy, the belief that people who don't accept Jesus/Allah/whatever will go to Hell) in general is that religious ideologies, unlike Nazism, are not solely political. They're intimately tied to the spiritual elements of a religion, which is probably why wearing religious garments and symbols is considered acceptable in the public but wearing Nazi uniforms is not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Because its negligent to hate an ideology which was clearly designed for a very different society 1500 years ago,
    You won't find many Muslims who agree with you that Islam was designed only for society 1500 years ago and not today. Pop over to ISOC and ask them.

    and also when the majority of Muslims have moved on and evidently ignore the ills of Islam.
    Wouldn't it be better if the majority actively rejected and condemned the ills of Islam, rather than just ignoring or defending them. That way it would remove the legitimacy from the actions of those Muslim who choose not to ignore the bad bits.
    As I have repeatedly said, you cannot condemn slavery while at the same time claiming that divine permission to keep slaves is "perfect". Likewise with many other beliefs.

    Our own society, even closer than 1500 years ago, had some stupid aspects to it - such as burning alive / drowning women for witchcraft.
    Indeed. And 50 years ago, you would see signs on guest-houses saying "No Blacks, No Irish".
    But those attitudes are universally rejected now. If someone put such a sign up, or tried to test a witch, they would be ridiculed and vilified. However, you are claiming that when it comes to the beliefs of Islam (which are not just still believed, but are actually the law in many countries), we should give them a free pass.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Why has no Muslim group said "enough is enough" Islam has caused so much violence in this world, we will take the Quran and the hadiths and whatnot and open a new school of thought based on our good interpretation of it. Let these ISIS freaks call themselves Muslims, we are something better.
    The Ahmadiyya sort of had a go. And we all know what the majority of Muslims think of them!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    But why? Mo was just as bad as Hitler....
    Lol, stopped reading there. I disagree with Muhammad's teachings as much as the the next non-Muslim, and in the past I've highlighted my disagreements, but refrain from invoking Godwin's law every time Islam is mentioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Lol, stopped reading there. I disagree with Muhammad's teachings as much as the the next non-Muslim, and in the past I've highlighted my disagreements, but refrain from invoking Godwin's law every time Islam is mentioned.
    Ok. Will you read it if I replace Hitler with Stalin? Or Genghis Khan? Or Pol Pot? Or any other known warlord psychopath in history?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The Ahmadiyya sort of had a go. And we all know what the majority of Muslims think of them!
    Point proven. They have not moved on. This guy is seriously starting to get on my nerves. He has turned from just arguing poorly to straight up lying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You won't find many Muslims who agree with you that Islam was designed only for society 1500 years ago and not today. Pop over to ISOC and ask them.

    Wouldn't it be better if the majority actively rejected and condemned the ills of Islam, rather than just ignoring or defending them. That way it would remove the legitimacy from the actions of those Muslim who choose not to ignore the bad bits.
    As I have repeatedly said, you cannot condemn slavery while at the same time claiming that divine permission to keep slaves is "perfect". Likewise with many other beliefs.

    Indeed. And 50 years ago, you would see signs on guest-houses saying "No Blacks, No Irish".
    But those attitudes are universally rejected now. If someone put such a sign up, or tried to test a witch, they would be ridiculed and vilified. However, you are claiming that when it comes to the beliefs of Islam (which are not just still believed, but are actually the law in many countries), we should give them a free pass.
    The Quran was written 1500 years ago, so there's no doubt that the writer aimed it for their exact type of society. That doesn't mean that Islam hasn't moved on, its community which constitutes some 1.5 billion people has moved on, so Islam has moved on.

    Yes, it would be ideal if the ills of Islam are condemned or rejected.

    And if you travel to the right places in the UK, or southern-state parts of America, those racist values are still very existent today. I watched a documentary on Trump supporters about a month ago, and racism is still extremely prevalent in some parts of the US. They are simply not 'universally rejected'.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well apparently the student room can't tell the difference seeing as they deleted my comment criticising islam, note, criticising islam not muslims.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I'm strongly against capital punishment, but just under 50% of Britons support it. Nevertheless I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in the company of a random Briton despite my belief in the sanctity of human life. Putting aside the fact that more than 60% of young Muslims believe apostates should not be executed, I think there's a difference, I think there's still a huge difference. From my experience with conservative Muslims around these boards, those who support capital punishment for apostasy almost always add a treason clause. Viewed in this context, belief in capital punishment for apostasy makes more sense than a Nazi who believes Jews should be killed simply for being Jews.
    I'm sure that the Nazi would give some equally plausible argument as to why the Jews aren't being killed simply for being Jews.

    The capital punishment argument is a red herring as it would only apply to capital crimes as defined by UK law. Wanting to kill someone simply because they changed their mind on a contentious issue cannot be compared.

    Another distinction, which is perhaps why we tolerate religious teachings antithetical to our world-views (i.e. slavery, patriarchy, the belief that people who don't accept Jesus/Allah/whatever will go to Hell) in general is that religious ideologies, unlike Nazism, are not solely political. They're intimately tied to the spiritual elements of a religion, which is probably why wearing religious garments and symbols is considered acceptable in the public but wearing Nazi uniforms is not.
    I absolutely agree with this, but I don't see why it should colour serious discussion. Mutilating a child's genitals cannot be made acceptable simply by wearing a special hat and scarf!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Ok. Will you read it if I replace Stalin with Hitler? Or Genghis Khan? Or Pol Pot? Or any other known warlord psychopath in history?
    Come back when those warlords drafted documents akin to the Constitution of Medina.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Come back when those warlords drafted documents akin to the Constitution of Medina.
    Roman emperors? Greek emperors? Cradle of democracy and yet had slaves and rampaged through the world.

    Not to mention, doing something worthwhile (and I would beg to differ that this document is worthwhile, it was merely yet another another way of consolidating his empire), in no way shape or form, outdoes any of the evil he did.

    The mere fact you are trying to argue that, speaks VOLUMES.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.