Why do people not like Muslims?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Personally speaking, I don't know if my attempt at objectivity in this matter, or my subjectivity (that you may say is neglected) would win through. Either way, that is irrelevant to my argument. Nowhere did I say or indicate (if i indicated it was an error on my part) that I consider the West superior, even for myself. I merely prefer it. Does one consider mint ice cream superior to vanilla? That is the same kind of decision, if with somewhat less magnitude. You speak using the terms of "problem", "good", "bad", "ok", "not ok" etc. I maintain that is not useful. As hard as that is, if we are to judge another culture objectively, we cannot approach it with our own subjective morality. That's good for us of course, but we can't go round treating our own arbitrary cogitations as gospel.

Moral preference is different from tastes - unless you happen to prefer the West simply because you find it more comfortable. You've missed that there can be a subjective view that another morality is inferior, without being inconsistant with relativism.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ted Striker:

It is difficult for a Muslim cleric to speak up and be listened to, because the Sunni are a disorganized bunch, without an equivalent to our pope. You speak about Sistani, and he's a shi'a, a religion where there is a hierarchy, and a main priest (the Ayatollah).
The Sunnis don't have this kind of hirerachy - as such, any imam condemning a barbarous act (and I trust there are some) will do it in his own little corner.

For example, in France we have tried to prop up the leader of the Paris mosque as the main guy in our Muslim scene. He's an agreeable guy who defends the ideas of tolerance and integration in the French society. Whenever the TV needs a PC Muslim, he gets broadcasted. Yet, it is a purely articificial job done by the TV and the State, because this guy is no more representative of French Islam than Chicago's chief priest is representative of American christianty.

Good point

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is uninformed BS.

It's actually literal truth. As I said, I'm not placing any value judgements on the fact that essentially all Muslims are fundamentalists. Please read the post more carefully; my guess is that you are confusing fundamentalism with extremism.

[Cyclotron]

Just to be crystal clear, I'll rehash the argument for your benefit, Whaleboy, and maybe you'll be able to respond with something besides "BS."

- Fundamentalism means the literal interpretation of a religious text. I don't have the OED in front of me, but as far as Webster's Dictionary goes: "Fundamentalism: Religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible."

- Obviously that definition is a bit Christian-centered, so I took the liberty of expanding "Bible" to "religious text of choice." No doubt you will agree to this, because if you don't that means you can't logically call any muslims fundamentalist at all.

- The Holy Koran is, according to Muslims, a revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad; it is the supreme revelation from God. As far as I am aware, even a "moderate" Muslim will hold that that to be true. In other words, the Koran is not a book written about God, but rather a text from God.

- The Bible, on the other hand, is held to be God's literal truth by only some Christians. Many, perhaps most, believe it to be written by men even if it was divinely inspired, and thus open to significant interpretation. I am not saying that the Koran is not interpreted, only that there is less leniency in this regard because it is universally held by believers to be stright from the big guy upstairs Himself.

- Thus, I conclude that all Muslims are fundamentalists, while only some Christians and Jews are fundamentalists.

- Fundamentalism does not mean extremism, no matter what CNN tells you.

That's about it. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal, if in fact you have more to say than "that is uninformed BS."

[Tuberski]

Having actually been to Islamic countries, I have no problem with Islam and actually respect it in many ways.

ACK!

[Zevico]

Interesting, you would choose to like or dislike someone based upon their opinions, not their intent to act upon them?

Well if they in principle agree with the murder of me and my family for no other reason other than that I am Jewish, I think that is cause to dislike them. By the way, Whaleboy, I would remind you that the section of the population I am talking about- and it isn't some "small minority"- wants to kill you whether or not you are zionist, anti zionist, capitalist, communist, or what have you.
Also, if enough come together-as they have before- their intent can turn lethal even if they were 'average citizens' previously. For example, when a few Israeli army reservists drove into a town by mistake they were quite literally lynched by a mob of 'ordinary palestinians'.
Should I not dislike supporters of Nazis for wanting to kill me? What is the difference in principle here?
I do not justify in any way the killing of these Muslims by anyone, nor any ill treatment or discrimination towards them.

[Az]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Needless to say, that is a non-starter. If you support such an action, then I doubt we're going to have a particularly constructive debate.

I said that I don't support it. Who's attacking a strawman now? Adress the point.

Personally speaking, I don't know if my attempt at objectivity in this matter, or my subjectivity (that you may say is neglected) would win through. Either way, that is irrelevant to my argument. Nowhere did I say or indicate (if i indicated it was an error on my part) that I consider the West superior, even for myself. I merely prefer it. Does one consider mint ice cream superior to vanilla? That is the same kind of decision, if with somewhat less magnitude. You speak using the terms of "problem", "good", "bad", "ok", "not ok" etc. I maintain that is not useful.

As hard as that is, if we are to judge another culture objectively, we cannot approach it with our own subjective morality. That's good for us of course, but we can't go round treating our own arbitrary cogitations as gospel.

Umm, what I say ain't morality. It's ethics, and that's why we judge another culture, remember? That's the whole point, they are not arbitrary. we derive them logically.

Your strawman held that I claimed that we must not help them. That is woefully in error. I am saying that we can help, according to our own morality, but our actions can only go so far and cannot force outselves upon them. The confusion is yours .

so, basically, if you can't force it, don't do it, no matter what? You know I can invoke that hyperbole to illustrate a point here. If you cannot force something for a greater good because of a person's or a culture's morality, Then you're limiting yourself to enforcing the law, for example, only against those that believe that what they're doing is wrong.

Semitic God is held to be absolute, eternal, good, immortal, infinite and whatnot. Can even a nationalist say the same about their nation?

Wait, that's an argument for religion being better?

The semitic religions have a (mostly) coherent moral code going for them. I don't like it myself but it does seem to work in the sociological sense.

Well, ain't that a lot of new age bull****! Say, did you ever study hebrew religious law?

A nation has self-interest, megalomania, militarism and a tendency towards self-destruction. See where I'm going with this?

right, and religion doesn't? Let me remind you of the religious wars of history?

Now I'm at the atheist end of agnostic so I suspect we'd sympathise in that regard, but if you asked me what I thought did more harm, a belief in God or a belief in ones nation, I have to say the latter. I find it much more satisfying, easy and productive to discuss matters with religious people (Christians, Jews and Muslims) than nationalists who call me an "ivory tower intellectual" and the like whenever I say something that threatens their narrow-minded view.

This is the "personal experience" fallacy.

You strawman'd GePap by implying that he was saying it was all America's fault. Both my opinion and interpretation of his post (I cannot speak for him of course) is that it is largely America's doing, not it's fault. Fault implies direct responsibility, guilt based upon intent. America is only guilty by consequence, its intent was a harmless desire for world domination (cough), not the humiliation of Islam.

It wasn't a serious argument. notice the smiley, and get the broom-stick out of there.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
[q] Originally posted by Spiffor
Moreover, support for US military actions isn't comparable to support for damage directly inflicted upon civilians.

Oh wait, that's not funny. I know what you meant, it just didn't come out the right way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

just say "It's america's fault", and get it over with.

If i remember my own post, I think I blame it on massive socio-economic change. Unless America is defined as that, no, It is not America's "fault". America's actions, as well as the actions of other western states have invariably influence on what has occured since they have significant interests in the area and have extensive connections with the existing political system's there.

[Cruddy]

I reckon a lot of people are jealous of a religion that allows more than one wife.

The married folks actually think this is a bad idea, it's the wannabe's and hard up types that villify Islam.

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Upon what basis? That someone who uses Western-based ideas sees a culture that doesn't have those ideas as inferior because they are different to his?

A religion/culture that purposely denegrates women, etc., and refuses to check its radical elements is seriously flawed. Muslims, and those who wish to marginalize this truth, are only fooling themselves if they think the Western and Asian civilizations are going to sit back and do nothing.

Christianity has had its "Dark Ages," but it has evolved to the extent that one is no longer put to death for not converting. Referring to Judaism, well,....if my people had been the target of mass genocide I'd be a little more radical myself. The Israelis at least are saying, "This is our side here, and that is your side over there."

I've heard it stated that Islam is growing faster than other religions. If so, it is because it attracts and nurtures hate, not because it provides a pathway to "heaven." Until Muslim nations take responsibility for their the radical wing of Islam, they will garner no respect from the world's nations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by dojoboy


I've heard it stated that Islam is growing faster than other religions. If so, it is because it attracts and nurtures hate, not because it provides a pathway to "heaven." Until Muslim nations take responsibility for their the radical wing of Islam, they will garner no respect from the world's nations.

Maybe Islam is the fastest growing religion for the same reason evangelicals in the US have grown-people are nervous about the modern world and look for celestial solutions to earthly problems, the worse the problems, the more radical the celestial solution called for.

As for "respect from the worlds nations", the US hardly counts as "the world's nations". Last time I checked there were at least 190. 1 of them being the US, at least 30 or more being primarily or fully Muslim.

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by GePap
As for "respect from the worlds nations", the US hardly counts as "the world's nations". Last time I checked there were at least 190. 1 of them being the US, at least 30 or more being primarily or fully Muslim.

Assuming I meant only America, you're statement would be accurate. Do you really believe America is the only nation behind the containment of radical Islamic fundamentalism?

[our_man]

~~~

[GePap]

Originally posted by dojoboy


Assuming I meant only America, you're statement would be accurate. Do you really believe America is the only nation behind the containment of radical Islamic fundamentalism?

Depends on 'containment' by which means. We had 30-40 states on board for the Coalition of the Willing. That makes it at most 4/19, or 21% percent of the world's nations. Hardly a mayority. Perhaps you mean the war on terror as a whole. Last time I looked, one of our key partners in that is, guess who (accoridng at least to the latest paper from the Government), Saudi Arabia..yep, I am sure the saudi government has nothing but contempt for Islam........And then there is pakistan, a state created for the sole purpose of getting Msulims out of a Hindi Mayority India., yes, they hate Islam there!

Anyway you cut it, your statement is more a statement of personal opinion vs. islam as opposed to a statement having significant basis in fact.