Why do people not like Muslims?

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Oh, I see my error in terminology. The generalization of Islamic nations should not have been written as such. Often when I post I don't always catch how it reads. My apologies.

[Al B. Sure!]

I am shocked by the immense ignorance in this thread.
for example...

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.

There are no true imams as you describe in Sunni Islam. There is no priesthood of any sort. The imam simply leads the other believers in prayer. Any muslim can serve as an imam at any time there is more than one person praying at a location. these are not priests by any means.

[Al B. Sure!]

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.

what Christians are you speaking of? If they do not take the original texts as being literal, they are not Christians. All of Christian dogma, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, for the past two millenia, has stated that the original texts are the word of God.

The Koran on the other hand is God's word through the arch-angel gabriel, through mohammed and then unto the paper of his converts who transcribed what mohammed said (most of it was written after mohammed's death though).

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.

there is actually more leniency as the Koran says quite explicitly that moral Christians and Jews who follow the teachings of their faiths will have heaven. There are no doubt contradictions between the Old Testament/Torah, the Gospels, and the Koran yet God is merciful and lenient enough to allow these contradictions exist and those who subscribe to beliefs that defer from the Koran will still have paradise. Is this not more leniency than perhaps any religious faith has ever had?

Furthermore, there are numerous lines in the various surahs that hint at an interpretive nature of the Koran. There is no dogma in Sunni Islam, the individual believer interpreting the Koran himself. This may be the cause of extremism as, whereas, a religion like Catholicism will be moderate or liberal if the papal curia is moderate or liberal, Sunni Islam (and most protestant faiths) will have believers who interprete the koran in a reactionary way while others will not. the individualism of sunni islam allows for extremism.

Furthermore, many of the legal surahs (which are the basic point from which sharia originates), state such things as a sinner will be punished unless God (meaning an interpretation of God's Koran) finds a way to excuse their crime. just take a look at the surah translated "The Women", which has been often seen as very harsh on the surface, and you'll see such lines that show a very real tolerance.


thanks

[Whaleboy]

You can be a freedom fighter and a murderer at the same time - murder is a legal term, freedom fighter is a meaningless value-loaded one, that depends more on goals than methods. A terrorist is defined by methods. I'm not saying the goal is better, but rather the means are.

In that case, we could quite easily lump soldiers in an offensive campaign in with the definition of murderer. In that sense, the definition remains entirely arbitrary, though of course, I define an offensive soldier as a potential murderer anyway.

Why the heck should we view relativism wrt societies?!

Pacifism. At that level, they're very much reconcileable.

Anyways, I hold to the version of relativism that states that all moral statements are subjective; I just happen to be of the opinion that a more liberal society allows for a greater number of different moralities to coexist. I don't think it is objectively better.

Agreed, but that's not required, since contextual relativism can still apply.

Because that's your personal morality. For most of us, to stand by and watch while something like that happens is evil in itself. Since you don't want to compell other people to follow a morality, why are you trying to do so to us? Sure, try and convince us if you want, but please don't vote; you would forcing your opinion on us.

YOu mistake my desire for what I think should happen from my will to do so if I had the ability. Now recognise that I cannot make an objective scientific statement of course, so I can only state my opinion and hope people will concur. I take an emotivist view to morality, with a cap to it. That concept is amoral in my view. To put it another way, I don't want people imposing their morality on them, which you could view as a statement of imposition myself but a more accurate term would be disposition.

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.

Agreed, but I don't have that. You could call it first-order moral relativism as well as the second-order that we are both familiar with. Put simply, even though I prefer the West, I don't see Islamic civilisation as inferior, notwithstanding my relativism.

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.

I just find it incredible that all Muslims are fundamentalists, or take their texts literally. I know Muslims (admittedly very well educated and questioning) that do not. I am prepared to say, however, that those that are not (just like the rest of us) will think what they are told to think. Sorry about the BS and I do understand your arguments.

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

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.

I know many would kill me without question, but I still don't see why that's a necessary reason for them to dislike me. If they knew me in person, without knowledge of my background, and still wanted to kill me, then perhaps I would have cause to dislike, but if they choose to tar me with the same brush as everyone else, I'm not one to act AS everyone else in that regard.

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

I said "if you support", not "because you support". I know that you wouldn't advocate nuclear strikes, but I'm simply highlighting that I would be difficult to get through to someone that did, due to the unreasonableness (sp?) of that position.

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.

But we do so based upon our own premises. Again I call up emotivism in this regard, and you can easily conjure up a sociological version of that. As a result, I say that at the level where ethics differ from person to person, culture to culture, they are for all intents and purpose arbitrary. We're not talking about superior and inferior logic, we're talking about logic based upon the foundations of environment and history.

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.

No. Sociopaths make life painfully amusing. The only circumstance where you can use force in my opinion is where force has already been used, to defend yourself or another. To clarify my point, you can act for a greater good, but not act to impose for it.

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

Yep! Makes more sense to believe in something infinite than something whimsical like a nation. Remember in these matters, we're dealing with someone tying their whole identity in with something, and if I believed in God, I would rather tie my identity in with a faith in god, rather than my place of birth.

Well, ain't that a lot of new age bull****!

Hardly, the Ten Commandments are coherent in their own right.

Say, did you ever study hebrew religious law?

If anyone ever mentions Pomegranite, I will explode (in a non-terroristic sense of course )

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

You're naive if you think that they were fought on the basis of religion and not economics, using religion to justify them.

This is the "personal experience" fallacy.

Latterly, perhaps if it were an argument, but it was just a rhetorical example (which is very far from fallacy). Formerly, I don't see how.

A religion/culture that purposely denegrates women, etc., and refuses to check its radical elements is seriously flawed.

In your subjective opinion. Not in any objective sense. Furthermore, are there not elements in all cultures that do that, and you're merely picking up on theirs as a basis for attack?

The Israelis at least are saying, "This is our side here, and that is your side over there."

Apartheid. The Jews of all people should be against that, not using our own experience to justify it!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In that case, we could quite easily lump soldiers in an offensive campaign in with the definition of murderer.

No we can't, because only a soldier killing someone illegally would be a murderer.

In that sense, the definition remains entirely arbitrary, though of course, I define an offensive soldier as a potential murderer anyway.

The term murderer is meaningless and only used to as an appeal to emotion.

Pacifism. At that level, they're very much reconcileable.

Huh? My question was, why is the object of morality entire societies, rather than individuals?

Agreed, but that's not required, since contextual relativism can still apply.

Huh?

YOu mistake my desire for what I think should happen from my will to do so if I had the ability. Now recognise that I cannot make an objective scientific statement of course, so I can only state my opinion and hope people will concur. I take an emotivist view to morality, with a cap to it. That concept is amoral in my view. To put it another way, I don't want people imposing their morality on them, which you could view as a statement of imposition myself but a more accurate term would be disposition.

If you don't want the other people doing so, but also don't want to impose your morality on them, then you shouldn't vote, as that actually is imposition of your morality.

Agreed, but I don't have that. You could call it first-order moral relativism as well as the second-order that we are both familiar with. Put simply, even though I prefer the West, I don't see Islamic civilisation as inferior, notwithstanding my relativism.

Which shows that you prefer the West because you find it comfortable (for lack of a better word), not because you have any particular attachment to its values. Most of us do, though.

Yep! Makes more sense to believe in something infinite than something whimsical like a nation.

Why?

[DinoDoc]

His position is that you really shouldn't feel outraged at the intentional killing of civilians and should make an attempt to understand the cultural narrative of the people doing the killing.

[Whaleboy]

No we can't, because only a soldier killing someone illegally would be a murderer.

Illegal according to the killer? .

The term murderer is meaningless and only used to as an appeal to emotion.

But you just said it was a legal term?

Murder is defined as the killing of one person by another against the will of the killed. That begs the question of justifiable murder but I maintain that is only so in defense.

Huh? My question was, why is the object of morality entire societies, rather than individuals?

Fundamentally, it isn't. Societies are somewhat continuous, the only real discrete thing we can deal with here are individuals. So, the individual morality of a given Muslim. My argument would seem to stand.

Huh?

Simply put, while all subjectives are equally valid, we are faced with contexts in which we have to judge, and in that context some things may be more valid than another. Outside of that context, all are equally valid.

If you don't want the other people doing so, but also don't want to impose your morality on them, then you shouldn't vote, as that actually is imposition of your morality.

Wrong. You confuse direct imposition with environmental. If you are sitting on a bench, you are environmentally preventing me from sitting on that bench. If I walk over, pick you up and throw you 10 feet away, then I am directly impeding you.

Which shows that you prefer the West because you find it comfortable (for lack of a better word), not because you have any particular attachment to its values. Most of us do, though.

Fair enough, I'll go for that. I am not one to align myself with a particular value system except my own.

Why?

I would deal with a nation on a rational basis, a god would require "love" for want of a better word. That's not particularly clear so I'll clarify later if needed... I have a train to catch .

His position is that you really shouldn't feel outraged at the intentional killing of civilians and should make an attempt to understand the cultural narrative of the people doing the killing.

Wrong. One can feel outraged, I'm not telling anyone how they should feel about it. I'm saying one should attempt to understand it, since knowing more about people can't possibly hurt can it? (unless you're a conservative). One can take action based upon ones reaction, excluding war.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You're naive if you think that they were fought on the basis of religion and not economics, using religion to justify them.

And you're naive to think there's money to be made in crusades. War costs a lot. I'd like to see some evidence on why the crusades were started for economic reasons, and that the publicised religious reasons were just a front.

[Whaleboy]

And you're naive to think there's money to be made in crusades. War costs a lot. I'd like to see some evidence on why the crusades were started for economic reasons, and that the publicised religious reasons were just a front.

Sorry, forgot to add political motivation too . Religion and economics plays a part in that too, but I doubt that one could find a consistent series of wars whose motivations were primarilly religious.

[Al B. Sure!]

it is shocking how the two muslims here (Imran and myself) are ignored even though we have brought actual real knowledge of the religion that makes the matters that yall are squabbling over irrelevent. pity on you...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I'm not sure economic reasons is the answer for the Crusades, but it could have been based on power rather than religion. Urban II may have been concerned that he was losing a lot of his power to the Muslims. Not saying religion wasn't any part of it, but I think the power aspect was big as well.

[Al B. Sure!]

whaleboy:

but I doubt that one could find a consistent series of wars whose motivations were primarilly religious.

the early muslim conquests that conquered Persia and all of the Byzantine Empire except Greece were nothing else but religious wars, especially the campaigns against the idolatrous Persians. There is little possibility of any other motivations especially as the conquering Arabs had no real government.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Wrong.

Correct. As that is essentially what touched off our aborted debate earlier.

[Zevico]

I know many would kill me without question, but I still don't see why that's a necessary reason for them to dislike me. If they knew me in person, without knowledge of my background, and still wanted to kill me, then perhaps I would have cause to dislike, but if they choose to tar me with the same brush as everyone else, I'm not one to act AS everyone else in that regard.

Firstly, whether you act as everyone else is irrelevant, as this section of the population only cares whether you're Jewish by 'blood' or whatever.
Secondly, the main point of your statement is interesting. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. I do not so much dislike this segment of the population as I feel absolutely disgusted by the hatred they feel and utterly incapable of understanding how such brainwashing of so many people occurred.

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In your subjective opinion. Not in any objective sense. Furthermore, are there not elements in all cultures that do that, and you're merely picking up on theirs as a basis for attack?

Is an objective opinion possible by anyone? We can chase our tails all day long with this one. The point is, actions/behaviors are not always right simply because they exist in one's culture. There are universal turths and to say, culture A doesn't believe in those universal truths is bull****. (The expletive is not aimed at you Whaleboy, but is representative of my frustration.)