The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why do people defend Islam?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by KingBradly
I agree that violence and conflict will always exist. But by your logic Nazism is justifiable, and no one should criticize it. Clearly this isn't the case. Some ideologies patently cause more of a harmful effect than others.



everyone is free to criticize whatever they want.

not saying you did, but obviously within limits where the criticising doesnt become mocking and bullying.

but my point was to do with you saying if islam didnt exist, such and such wouldnt happen, but you can say that for every single nation then lol
Reply 61
Original post by Asariond
*Criticises Islam for being close-minded and intolerant*
*Is close-minded and intolerant*

You have to remember that the vast majority of Muslims find Islam to be an inspiring and wonderful part of their life and it moves them to become better, happier people. That is worth defending. Political Islam is, perhaps, a different story, but draw a distinction between the two, lest you come across as amoral and deluded.


Accusing people of being 'close minded and intolerant' for criticizing a religion for being intolerant isn't a cogent argument. In fact the whole idea of condemning things as being intolerant is a pretty flimsy area, which is why I was careful to never accused Islamism of being intolerant, because I don't for a second deny that I am in turn intolerant of Islam.

I am not so sure about being close-minded though. Would you also call me close-minded for criticizing an ideology which is more popular to criticize, such as Nazism, Capitalism, Communism, or Satanism?

Its narrow-minded in itself to condemn people simply for criticizing an ideology.
I agree, it is a repulsive ideology.
Reply 63
Original post by presidential_
everyone is free to criticize whatever they want.

not saying you did, but obviously within limits where the criticising doesnt become mocking and bullying.

but my point was to do with you saying if islam didnt exist, such and such wouldnt happen, but you can say that for every single nation then lol


I didn't say anything about such and such not happening. I simply said that "if Islam didn't exist then the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Sharia Law wouldn't either. Nor would 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings have happened."

Just in the same way that if Nazism never existed, the holocaust wouldn't have happened, so I think its fair to criticize Nazism.
Original post by awais-iqb
your not from an Islamic background and your not an ex-Muslim your a fake ciao


That's really unfair, do you have a substantive reason to believe that Amoo is not an ex-Muslim? His posting history would suggest he is telling the truth, he hasn't made many posts and yet has been a member for about 5 years, he mentioned that he was not a practicing Muslim a couple of years ago.

To be honest, I think you need to be a little more respectful of the fact that, just as you're free to believe in Islam, Amoo is free not to believe. I find it offensive when people imply that an ex-Muslim has no right to exist
Reply 65
Original post by ash92:)
What were your thoughts on my post? :curious:


I thought that you didn't answer my question.
Original post by KingBradly
I thought that you didn't answer my question.


As expected... :rolleyes:
This is bull**** people use terrorism or treatment of women in those countries as an excuse to be racist apart from anything else the west (Britain and America) are the biggest terrorist organisations around
Original post by ash92:)

I could list many Muslim women who have taught and studied Islamic subjects, and were famous for doing so. Whole books have been written on this subject. In fact, al-Sakhawi dedicated a volume of one of his works on female scholars of Islam, beginning around the year 700.


Interesting, are there are any free online translations, or any works available online with similar kinds of material? There are women like Khawlah bint Al-Azwar (like the Muslim Joan of Arc), though such examples (like in medieval Christendom) tend to be one-offs and don't have a great effect on the status of women generally. For example, women did not experience any great advancement under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in England.

I think the difficulty is two-fold. The first is a fundamental difference in definitions. Many Muslims believe that it is an act of respect and demonstrating how much women are valued for them not to have to work, for them to be veiled (on the basis that women are perceived as being a precious jewel, etc). My own personal belief is that women should have the choice; if some women would prefer that, then good for them. But equally a woman should have the choice to be the head of a household, to work, and so on.

The second is the issue of culture; to what degree can the status of women be ascribed to cultural, rather than religious, values? Of course the status of women in the Middle East is, for most of its history, quite comparable to the status of women in Europe. It's in the last 150 years particularly that you see the great divergence. And I would certainly accept that culture has a lot to do with it; in Bangladesh, for example, it is extremely common for women to be political leaders (it has been ruled by women for the last 15 years), and of course Pakistan and Indonesia have had female leaders. I think this seems to be less likely in the Arab world, but Pakistan and Indonesia are not to be considered as being less authentically Muslim.

What do you think?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by KingBradly
I didn't say anything about such and such not happening. I simply said that "if Islam didn't exist then the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Sharia Law wouldn't either. Nor would 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings have happened."


Counterfactual historical assertions are a difficult subject because we don't know what might have been in its place if Islam had never existed; there might have been a belief system that made 9/11 look tame by comparison.

Also, I think one does need to objectively assess the degree to which these things are truly unique to Islam. For example, the Catholic church was deeply involved in the Rwandan genocide, and Christian Europe engaged in genocide in the Holocaust in living memory, so it would be hard to say that European civilisation has a high moral ground to stand on.

I personaly abhor misogyny and homophobia, and I do have strong objections to the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. I also accept that these are regimes that self-identify as Muslim. However, you also have the examples of Bangladesh and Indonesia where you have had female leaders. These countries are also Muslim, their conception of the role of women would be clearly different from Iran and Saudi but they are not to be considered less authentically Muslim. That being the case, there has to be an additional element that is not just religion
(edited 9 years ago)
OP is a dick. If he defends himself, it makes him an even bigger dick.

Period.
Original post by ash92:)
There are various examples to challenge this thought: IRA, Tamil Tigers, etc.
As said, the reasons given by terrorists are often sociopolitical ones.


I will point out in the words of Stuart Lee in that with other groups such as the IRA, there is a chance of siting round a table with a goal in mind such as union of their country etc. With Islamic extremists it's a bit hard to do when their goal is the utter destruction of the west and its principals.
Reply 72
Original post by MostUncivilised
Counterfactual historical assertions are a difficult subject because we don't know what might have been in its place if Islam had never existed; there might have been a belief system that made 9/11 look tame by comparison.

Also, I think one does need to objectively assess the degree to which these things are truly unique to Islam. For example, the Catholic church was deeply involved in the Rwandan genocide, and Christian Europe engaged in genocide in the Holocaust in living memory, so it would be hard to say that European civilisation has a high moral ground to stand on.

I personaly abhor misogyny and homophobia, and I do have strong objections to the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. I also accept that these are regimes that self-identify as Muslim. However, you also have the examples of Bangladesh and Indonesia where you have had female leaders. These countries are also Muslim, their conception of the role of women would be clearly different from Iran and Saudi but they are not to be considered less authentically Muslim. That being the case, there has to be an additional element that is not just religion


There's no denying that Christianity has been just as bad if not worse than Islam in the past. I detest that ideology as well. However, currently Islam is the religion which is influencing the most oppression political regimes, as well as conflict.

Also, yes there may have been a belief system that might have made 9/11 look tame, but its irrelevant really, because as it stands there isn't. If there was, we should definitely be trying to get rid of it, but there isn't. In this universe, 9/11 was caused by Muslims.
Reply 73
Original post by hdaindak
This is bull**** people use terrorism or treatment of women in those countries as an excuse to be racist apart from anything else the west (Britain and America) are the biggest terrorist organisations around


If you think 'Muslims' are a race, then you are a racist yourself.
Original post by KingBradly
There's no denying that Christianity has been just as bad if not worse than Islam in the past. I detest that ideology as well. However, currently Islam is the religion which is influencing the most oppression political regimes, as well as conflict.


I would certainly accept that Islam is the religion that is presently most associated with oppression, and the abuse of womens' and sexual minorities rights (and the rights of heterosexuals too; if you are a young straight guy in Iran or Saudi, you face severe punishment merely for engaging in normal consensual sexual behaviour with a girl you fancy).

I think the problem can be assessed with reference to a three-fold question. To what degree are these issues uniquely related to Islam, to what degree does culture play a role in promoting the literal interpretation of particular elements of the religion, and what is the best way to respond to this?

The extent to which these issues are unique to Islam is difficult insofar as the rights of women in the Islamic world are quite comparable to what we saw in Western Europe in medieval times. If you look at depictions of Henry VIII's mother, Elizabeth of York, she would almost always be wearing a veil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:colone:lizabeth_of_York_from_Kings_and_Queens_of_England.jpg

Just as Christianity has verses in the Bible which are unfavourable to women, so does the Quran, and yet the Christian world managed to modernise and accord women rights even before the decline of religion. I am confident the Muslim world will be able to do the same, particularly as Muslim women can look to the West for inspiration and can point to that when arguing the case for their rights, whereas in Western Europe the men could say that giving women these rights was completely unprecedented and a dangerous experiment.

In terms of culture playing a role, I think the fact that Islam is a multicultural religion will assist greatly in the process of liberalisation in that Muslims from cultures that are more favourable to women will be able to stand their ground and assert that they too are Muslims, and Muslim women from the more oppressive cultures will be able to point to their sisters in the less oppressive ones and demand they be treated the same.

In terms of the best way to respond to this, I believe that we should encourage the Muslim world, and Muslims in the West, to adopt equal rights for women. We should emphasise that economic, social and technological development is inextricably tied to being open-minded, progressive in respect of the rights of minorities and women, that the West's technical and social superiority is fundamentally bound up in ideas about freedom and equality, you can't just adopt the technology but hold onto the old ways of thinking in other areas (otherwise you will always be playing catch up; if you want to be the one who is actually developing the technology and making a contribution, creating things the West wants to adopt, then you need social and intellectual freedom).

We will be far more effective by raising these issues in those ways than simply calling Islam barbaric and backwards, especially as that will alienate liberal Muslims and give ammunition to the fundamentalists who will say, "We told you so; we told you that they hate our religion and they want to destroy Islam, and you're proving us right".

Also, yes there may have been a belief system that might have made 9/11 look tame, but its irrelevant really, because as it stands there isn't. If there was, we should definitely be trying to get rid of it, but there isn't. In this universe, 9/11 was caused by Muslims


I agree that we are living in this universe, so shouldn't we proceed on that basis rather than constructing counterfactuals about what might have been if Islam didn't exist? Surely we can agree on that?
I'm a Muslim, and to be completely honest, I'm absolutely fine with answering criticisms or debating about topics in a decent manner, but that almost never happens. Islam is hardly EVER given a fair shake. If I was given a penny for every time I've heard someone who hadn't read the Qur'an or tafseer make a ridiculous comment, I'd be a millionaire. Nobody opens up a book randomly, reads a sentence and decides to deduce what the entire book is about- it's ludicrous, yet it's frequent when it comes to the Qur'an. That's not to say that sometimes comments aren't sincere or accurate, it's just that often people don't understand the importance of context, especially in the case of the Qur'an. I know it's a very frequent 'excuse' that Muslims make, but perspective is everything and if you don't make the effort to read the context/exegesis you're likely to misconstrue the actual meaning of a verse.

I mean it's astounding how insincere people are regarding looking into Islam, by that I mean they formulate a definitive, rigid opinion of Islam before even making an effort to study it as it is meant to be studied. For example, your comment about women in KSA not being educated is completely wrong. According to KSA's Ministry of Economy and Planning, 268,080 males and 368,165 females are enrolled into higher education, meaning that more women have degrees than men. The World Bank database of 2008, found that gross enrollment for women on higher education courses was 36.1 percent whilst for males it was only 24.7. Of course, I'd still agree that there a lot of things wrong with Saudi but instead of assuming things it'd be better for those on TSR to actually consider issues fully and fairly before making judgements.
Reply 76
Original post by KingBradly
Ah... right... of course it was.


Do some research. might be helpful :borat:
Original post by HeavyTeddy
I'm a Muslim, and to be completely honest, I'm absolutely fine with answering criticisms or debating about topics in a decent manner, but that almost never happens. Islam is hardly EVER given a fair shake. If I was given a penny for every time I've heard someone who hadn't read the Qur'an or tafseer make a ridiculous comment, I'd be a millionaire


I am inclined to agree that, very often, criticisms of Islam are not conducted in a sincere and genuine manner. Those doing the criticism many times resort to hurtful and cruel generalisations.

But I do also feel that, in defending their religion, Muslims often do not give a fair answer when certain issues are raised, and my own feeling is that they sometimes have a tendency to say, "That's a misunderstanding/misinterpretation, the Quran is in Arabic and you could never possibly understand, and no English translation is accurate". I also feel that it can be a little disingenuous to make a blanket assertion that quoting a verse is "out of context", sometimes such a quotation is salient, rather than out of context.

I'm a law student and I often quote a single line from a case as authority for a proposition, as you can often take a sentence or a few sentences out of a case as the ratio decidendi; I know Islamic jurisprudence has many parallels with the common law (in terms of its approach to precedent and authority, and heirarchy of juristic authority... part of the reason I find it so interesting), and many times you will see an Islamic scholar quote one verse as authority for a position

Nobody opens up a book randomly, reads a sentence and decides to deduce what the entire book is about- it's ludicrous, yet it's frequent when it comes to the Qur'an. That's not to say that sometimes comments aren't sincere or accurate, it's just that often people don't understand the importance of context, especially in the case of the Qur'an.


The problem with this is that the verses upon which atheist critics rely to criticise Islam are often the same verses on which the fundamentalists rely to justify particular behaviour, so it's not as though such an interpretation is totally bizarre and out of left-field. Some Muslims have indeed come to the same conclusions about the verses that atheist critics have.

For example, your comment about women in KSA not being educated is completely wrong. According to KSA's Ministry of Economy and Planning, 268,080 males and 368,165 females are enrolled into higher education, meaning that more women have degrees than men.


That's a little bit disingenuous, academic opportunity for women in Saudi Arabia is extremely limited, and the education system is segregated.

The University I work for has a close relationship with the Saudi government, we have a large number of Saudi students studying everything from nursing to petroleum engineering, and a number of my colleagues have been there to work. I've heard a number of anecdotes about, for example, an academic planning meeting taking place where the ten men on the committee were allowed to be present, while the women could only "attend" by way of a phone conference with a speakerphone set up on the table. I don't think defending KSA's record on women is a strong position
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 78
Your lack of intelligence and research makes me laugh!
9/11 was done by Muslims? if you had done your correct research and read up the definition of what Islam stands for and not the definition the media use then you would understand that Islam doesn't condone in killing innocent people. So if you believe that the people that were behind 9/11 were 'Muslims' then you could ask the mass population of Muslims and they will educate you that the people behind it aren't really Muslims because that is forbidden and can never be forgiven.
Also if there wasn't such a corrupt system behind the UK and USA, their wouldn't be innocent families being killed in middle eastern countries.
Your quick to point a finger and suspect and blame other countries just because you live in a society in which you're being socialized into a one sided view by the media
did i say that I'm talking about the islam religion and peoples stereotypes

Latest