Criticism of Islam is not a hate crime, nor racist, nor enophobic

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Did this occur 1500 years ago in a very different society to our own? Pedophilia was more common across the entire world in 500 AD, not exclusively to Islam.
    But of every historical practitioner of child abuse, only one is still revered as the "best of creation", "pure guide", "perfect man", "moral guide", "ideal example", (all genuine quotes) etc, so your argument is fatally flawed.

    If Muhammad is the perfect example for Muslims to aspire to, then they cannot condemn child abuse today without condemning their prophet. Which obviously they will not do, so any claims of condemnation of child abuse must be viewed accordingly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    So was Muhammad a paedophile or not?
    Yes and no.
    He wouldn't have been viewed as one by the standards of 7th century Arabia, but by modern standards, yes he would. And in this context, it is difficult to see how he can be idolised as the "perfect human".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    That does not translate to 100% of Muslims thinking pedophilia is OK. They actively acknowledge that it was a long time ago.
    Ah, so you are claiming that Muslims do not revere Muhammad as the "perfect human", "ideal example", etc.

    Are they aware that they do not? I think you may need to tell them because I don't think they all got the memo.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    100% correct. Everyone has the right to make valid constructive criticism on any religion not just Islam. I as a theist support this very much.
    You will only find one brand of theism claiming that criticism should not be allowed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    It goes both ways, there are people who are constantly talking about how to be "tougher" on Muslims and make their lives harder then try to disguise this as "criticism of Islam".
    Who (outside of far-right nutjobs) wants to make life harder for Muslims?

    There are also people who say that it's OK to hate Muslims on the basis of their beliefs (without knowing what beliefs each individual Muslim holds) and claim that this is not bigotry.
    We know what Muslims (Islamists) believe. It is in the Quran (and the sunnah, to a lesser extent). Anyone who rejects any part of the Quran is, by definition, not a Muslim.
    And how is saying "Muslims believe that a husband can beat his wife (under certain conditions). I have something against anyone who holds this view", bigoted?

    It makes no sense to claim that you can't condemn someone because of their known views because you don't know what their views are! Are you suggesting that Muslims don't really know what they believe? I think you'll find that if you ask any Muslim the question "Are there any errors in the Quran", the answer will be a definite "NO!" So you cannot claim that Muslims do not believe what is in the Quran. It is entirely reasonable to assume that, if someone says "I believe in everything in the Quran, that they mean what they say. I, for one, will not accuse them of lying, or of not knowing what they are thinking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    And does that make all of the Muslims who aren't pedophiles not true Muslims?
    No. because it is not compulsory to mimic everything that Muhammad did. He is just idolised as the perfect example.

    For someone who dedicates their time to defending Islam, you don't know much about it, do you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    then are all of the non-pedo muslims not true muslims? im very confused by your assessment
    You are confused by your own lack of comrehension and critical faculties.

    So, again... IT IS NOT COMPULSORY IN ISLAM TO MIMIC EVERYTHING THAT MUHAMMAD DID!

    However, any Muslim who condemns or forbids something that Muhammad did or permitted is walking a tight theological line, and in some countries may well regret it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    1.6 billion Muslims worldwide evidently aren't pedophiles

    Mohammed is the timeless 'perfect' human, in their eyes (according to you)

    so why aren't they all mimicking his behaviour?

    please tell me because I don't understand, all I'm hearing is "straw man"
    So, by your faulty logic, any Muslim who isn't married to Aisha and doesn't live in 7th century Arabia wouldn't be a True Muslim.

    One final time...
    IN ISLAM IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO COPY EVERY ASPECT OF MUHAMMAD'S LIFE.

    The many countries that have laws against child sex may also have somethib=ng to do with it. It is noticable that some Islamic countries have a more relaxed attitude to child marriage than others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    A pointless reply, you are ignoring the fact that despite Mohammed being 'perfect', people do not follow his behaviour in this regard. So there is an obvious flaw in the criticism of Mohammed being a pedophile.
    Perhaps the majority of Muslim men just aren't sexually attracted to little girls, like their prophet was. I'm not sure if anyone's told you, but it's not compulsory to copy everything he did. But you are not allowed to condemn it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I have the decency to respect a constructive argument, even if it disagrees with me
    :rofl:
    No you don't. You block people who repeatedly dismantle your flawed arguments.
    Child.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Who (outside of far-right nutjobs) wants to make life harder for Muslims?
    Douglas Murray, for one.

    We know what Muslims (Islamists) believe. It is in the Quran (and the sunnah, to a lesser extent). Anyone who rejects any part of the Quran is, by definition, not a Muslim.
    And how is saying "Muslims believe that a husband can beat his wife (under certain conditions). I have something against anyone who holds this view", bigoted?

    It makes no sense to claim that you can't condemn someone because of their known views because you don't know what their views are! Are you suggesting that Muslims don't really know what they believe? I think you'll find that if you ask any Muslim the question "Are there any errors in the Quran", the answer will be a definite "NO!" So you cannot claim that Muslims do not believe what is in the Quran. It is entirely reasonable to assume that, if someone says "I believe in everything in the Quran, that they mean what they say. I, for one, will not accuse them of lying, or of not knowing what they are thinking.
    By putting "Islamists" in brackets after Muslims, is that suggesting that they are all Islamists. If you're talking about Muslims in general then just say so, ditto if you're talking about Islamists. The two are not mutually exclusive, by their definitions.

    I can say that someone who does not believe in stoning Gays is not a Christian, and that someone who does not believe that gentiles should be the subservient to Jews is not a Jewish. Are you now going to use the "no true Muslim" fallacy? Considering how much mental gymnastics so many Muslims use to claim that verse 4:34 doesn't actually mean that a man can beat his wife (claims that it means "leave" instead of "beat", for an instance. Or claims that it's a symbolic tap on the shoulder) it is clear that quite a number do not believe in wife beating. Are you going to perform takfir on them?

    Why not just say "I have a problem with Muslims" instead of rephrasing? It's the same thing.

    And how many of those Muslims have actually read the Quran? I had no idea what Muhammad did to Safiyya and her tribe, as teachers and imams romanticised it and claimed that she loved him dearly and that Muhammad never hurt anyone unless he was in combat. Someone believing in a softened version of Islam taught to them by others and believing that the religion is perfect does not equate to someone who has learnt the uglier side of it but still accepts it all without question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoshDawg)
    Islam is an ideology. Communism is an ideology. Capitalism is an ideology. Religions themselves are ideologies. We live in a society where we can critically think and criticise anything. People never held back when it came to criticising Christianity with abortion beliefs and Catholic schools with lack of sex ed classes; but as soon as someone brings up how a disproportionate amount of people who follow the Islamic ideology are against Western culture and values (despite living here), they become the bad guy!

    Get a clue people. You can criticise, you can support too. But shutting down debate doesn't do any good whatsoever.

    P.S. To anyone who would like to use the buzzwords like "bigot, racist, xenophobic, islamophobic etc.", it's getting old, and you've overused those words anyway they're losing their strength in scaring people into shutting up.
    What is xenophobia and what is enophobic?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Douglas Murray, for one.
    Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that Douglas Murray "wants to make life harder for Muslims".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that Douglas Murray "wants to make life harder for Muslims".
    He said that conditions for Muslims in Europe should be made harder across the board during his speech at the Dutch Parliament.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Douglas Murray, for one.
    I think you may have misunderstood the context of that soundbite.

    The point here is that the whole deal under which Muslims live in our societies must change. At present we ask "why do they hate us", "what did we fail to give them", and suchlike. It is time the West woke up to the fact that the militants in our midst – however large a percentage of the Muslim population – will never like us. And we should not want to be liked by them - so we should stop flattering and playing up to them. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs. There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one. Grievances become ever-more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to. So don't flatter them.

    So, as you can clearly see, he was not referring to imposing physical hardship, but to not pandering to demands for special privilege.

    By putting "Islamists" in brackets after Muslims, is that suggesting that they are all Islamists. If you're talking about Muslims in general then just say so, ditto if you're talking about Islamists. The two are not mutually exclusive, by their definitions.
    I was assuming that you remembered the conversation we had recently. I stated that to avoid confusion, I would use "Islamist" to refer to anyone who considers the Quran the be the infallible and immutable word of god, and Muhammad the perfect example for all humanity, and Muslim for those who merely have a cultural or social connection with Islam and reject the bits that they don't like, and so obviously don't believe what the Quran actally says.

    I can say that someone who does not believe in stoning Gays is not a Christian, and that someone who does not believe that gentiles should be the subservient to Jews is not a Jewish. Are you now going to use the "no true Muslim" fallacy? Considering how much mental gymnastics so many Muslims use to claim that verse 4:34 doesn't actually mean that a man can beat his wife (claims that it means "leave" instead of "beat", for an instance. Or claims that it's a symbolic tap on the shoulder) it is clear that quite a number do not believe in wife beating. Are you going to perform takfir on them?

    Why not just say "I have a problem with Muslims" instead of rephrasing? It's the same thing.

    And how many of those Muslims have actually read the Quran? I had no idea what Muhammad did to Safiyya and her tribe, as teachers and imams romanticised it and claimed that she loved him dearly and that Muhammad never hurt anyone unless he was in combat. Someone believing in a softened version of Islam taught to them by others and believing that the religion is perfect does not equate to someone who has learnt the uglier side of it but still accepts it all without question.
    Which is why I make the distinction.
    If someone has read all the Quran and still insists that it is all perfect and applicable, then yes I do have a problem with that person. And if you want to think that position is bigoted, then knock yourself out. I'm sure I'll get over it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that Douglas Murray "wants to make life harder for Muslims".
    It is a soundbite, taken out of context. See my post above for the relevant section.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed. Anybody should be able to criticise any set of ideas (which Islam is). Especially when the set of ideas, tells you to worship and glorify a pedophile.

    Plus, why is Islam put on a pedestal which no other religion is?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I think you may have misunderstood the context of that soundbite.

    The point here is that the whole deal under which Muslims live in our societies must change. At present we ask "why do they hate us", "what did we fail to give them", and suchlike. It is time the West woke up to the fact that the militants in our midst – however large a percentage of the Muslim population – will never like us. And we should not want to be liked by them - so we should stop flattering and playing up to them. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs. There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one. Grievances become ever-more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to. So don't flatter them.

    So, as you can clearly see, he was not referring to imposing physical hardship, but to not pandering to demands for special privilege.

    I was assuming that you remembered the conversation we had recently. I stated that to avoid confusion, I would use "Islamist" to refer to anyone who considers the Quran the be the infallible and immutable word of god, and Muhammad the perfect example for all humanity, and Muslim for those who merely have a cultural or social connection with Islam and reject the bits that they don't like, and so obviously don't believe what the Quran actally says.

    Which is why I make the distinction.
    If someone has read all the Quran and still insists that it is all perfect and applicable, then yes I do have a problem with that person. And if you want to think that position is bigoted, then knock yourself out. I'm sure I'll get over it.
    I understood very clearly and already addressed this in another thread. I strongly disagree that he was "clearly" suggesting what you claim he was suggesting but will leave it at that, as I do not like to repeat myself. What I will say is that there is a reason why he backtracked those comments once his critics pointed them out and if even he could see why he needed to backtrack but you see nothing wrong with those comments, I have nothing more to say to you on this.

    Religious people of any religion rarely reject unpleasant teachings. Or they may condemn certain practices such as child marriage but won't do so while admitting that these practices are allowed in their religion. When was the last time you heard of a Christian condemning the mass murder committed by their god? They will ignore these teachings and get uncomfortable when someone makes a reference to them. So why hold Muslims to a higher standard than other religious people and demand that they condemn certain parts of their religion before they can be deemed decent human beings. And then if they do, they are not "true Muslims" anyway.

    Until now you did not make that distinction, it was repeated generalisations, which obviously I will have a problem with.

    Besides, an Islamist is someone who supports a Shariah state, so I'm not quite sure why you are redefining the term. Someone who believes in a totalitarian system that will force everyone to live under Shariah cannot be compared to someone who believes that their religion is perfect, but believes that it is a peaceful religion based on what they have been told and is not incompatible with freedom of religion and a secular society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    What I will say is that there is a reason why he backtracked those comments once his critics pointed them out and if even he could see why he needed to backtrack but you see nothing wrong with those comments, I have nothing more to say to you on this.
    I agree that it was an unwise choice of words, especially as it should have been obvious that they would be repeatedly quoted out of context by his detractors. I am not surprised that he felt obliged to mitigate the situation. However, on reading the entire passage it is quite clear that he meant not giving in to demands for special privilege, not making life physically hard and it is only people with an agenda of discrediting him by smear tactics who would insist on it. Ironic that many of those people are often crying "context".

    Religious people of any religion rarely reject unpleasant teachings. Or they may condemn certain practices such as child marriage but won't do so while admitting that these practices are allowed in their religion. When was the last time you heard of a Christian condemning the mass murder committed by their god? They will ignore these teachings and get uncomfortable when someone makes a reference to them. So why hold Muslims to a higher standard than other religious people and demand that they condemn certain parts of their religion before they can be deemed decent human beings. And then if they do, they are not "true Muslims" anyway.
    Because most Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, don't claim that their stories are the perfect, unchangeable, universal guide for all humanity, and it is highly disingenuous to claim that they do. On top of which, have you not seen the news in the last 15 years? If not, today might be a good day to start catching up!

    Besides, an Islamist is someone who supports a Shariah state, so I'm not quite sure why you are redefining the term.
    Surely a Muslim who believes in the infallible immutability of the Quran and the perfection of the example of Muhammad must support this, because it is enshrined in the Quran and sunnah. By definition they are Islamists. It seems that it is you that is trying to redefine terms.

    Someone who believes in a totalitarian system that will force everyone to live under Shariah cannot be compared to someone who believes that their religion is perfect, but believes that it is a peaceful religion based on what they have been told and is not incompatible with freedom of religion and a secular society.
    Someone who rejects parts of Islam is obviously not an Islamist, by definition!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    That does not translate to 100% of Muslims thinking pedophilia is OK. They actively acknowledge that it was a long time ago.
    Example.

    Pakistan was going to increase the age of consent to prevent pedophilia but the motion wasn't carried because the Islamic council said it was un-Islamic and this was this year.

    Ergo, even though it was a long time ago, because Muslims have to follow scripture and it is unlawful to change scripture, it means that Islam is still tolerant of such acts that aren't exactly politically correct or morally correct in today's society. And therefore will continually will have to be tolerated as scripture cannot be changed as per sanction of "Allah".

    So even though the rest of society adapts to new issues, Islam will not and cannot change and that is the problem.

    If something is tolerated, it is acceptable.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
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

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