Why do people not like Muslims?

[Az]

The problems I see, and the things I hate about the arabic islamic society, and the islamic society in countries adjacent to the arab world, that are heavily influenced by it, are those:

-The society is rigid, and change is painful.
-The society doesn't have humanitarian values.
-The society is extremely self-righteous.
-The society is sexist.
-The society is homophobic.
-The society is against personal freedoms.
-The society is excessively allowing for violence.

This should be about it.

I don't hate arabs, I don't hate muslims. I just hate their ****ing society.

[Whaleboy]

Are you seriously arguing that collectivism isn't a barrier to individual thought? I hardly know what to say now.

Not at all, just that I don't think that Islam is entirely collectivist and that while it is more so perhaps now, it was not always so, and thus is not necessarily so now.

I'm aware of the fact that the Jews are much like the Muslims in this regard, and I do find that questionable as well. The thing is that the Jews are generally well-integrated, self-supporting and educated to an extent significantly above that of the Muslims. And there are a lot less of them, too.

Wow I wasn't expecting that from you! Do you not think that collectivity/individuality is a somewhat too simplistic a definition?

Specifically what makes you think I'm at all interested in getting diverted into a relativistic debate on if it is OK to go around murdering civilians to put forth a political/religious point?

Is that not a good point though? If you are not prepared to debate it, I take it that you concede. The issue of whether or not it is "OK" is irrelevant. It happens, and it is a factor in all human societies. The fact that these things haven't happened here for a fraction of our history is down to very flimsy sociology. You swap the peoples, and you'll find exactly the same thing.

-The society is rigid, and change is painful.
-The society doesn't have humanitarian values.
-The society is extremely self-righteous.
-The society is sexist.
-The society is homophobic.
-The society is against personal freedoms.
-The society is excessively allowing for violence.

Now where does that sound familiar? . Fundamentally, you need to get away from the notion that these things are somehow rarified evil, they are not. Things really have not changed that much and I find it hypocritical that those who extoll the virtues of the West are so fast to blindly condemn these factors without attempting to understand them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Is that not a good point though?

No. Now answer my question.

[Whaleboy]

No. Now answer my question.

What makes me think you need to debate this when brought up is that you are claiming objectivity from a subjective position, and thus need to be able to show that you have cause to do so. In other words, you need to take your "facts" and provide a necessary objective value from them. I maintain that you will be unable to do so.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What makes me think you need to debate this when brought up is that you are claiming objectivity from a subjective position..

Take it up with Imran. He's the one argueing that ceartain parts of the Islamic world (the smaller countries seem to be getting on well with the modern world though) are still stuck 600 years in the past and that's simply due to the age of the religion.

[Solomwi]

Because they have an annoying habit of killing, or trying to kill, non-believers.

Donning asbestos suit now...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In other words, you need to take your "facts" and provide a necessary objective value from them. I maintain that you will be unable to do so.

I maintain that I don't need to in order to condemn the intentional murder of a civilian population by a group of people trying to advance a political/religious agenda. Perhaps you should explain why I need to justify that position when it seems self-evident to most people other than you and che.

[Whaleboy]

Take it up with Imran. He's the one argueing that ceartain parts of the Islamic world (the smaller countries seem to be getting on well with the modern world though) are still stuck 600 years in the past and that's simply due to the age of the religion.

I concur with Imran though.

Because they have an annoying habit of killing, or trying to kill, non-believers.

A relatively new phenomenon, only among extremists. If that is your perception from sensationalist media, I suggest you examine the issue more closely.

I maintain that I don't need to in order to condemn the intentional murder of a civilian population by a group of people trying to advance a political/religious agenda.

For your own personal opinion or morality, I concur and I share your sentiments. For making a statement of fact, that is a different matter.

Perhaps you should explain why I need to justify that position when it seems self-evident to most people other than you and che.

Can't speak for Che, but it is my opinion that aspects of their culture that I dislike nonetheless do not constitute a reason to say that they are inferior. I merely have a preference to the Western ideology.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I concur with Imran though.

Then perhaps you could put forth a more cogent defense of the proposition than he has bothered to put forth to date. That at least would be more interesting than the moronic track you seem intent on trying to drag me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was only pointing out that the period ranging from the 8th century to the 14th probably wasn't worse than the Renaissance, contrary to popular belief. For instance, the Church was surprisingly tolerant to Aristotle when he reached the Latin West.

The Church was tolerante of Aristotle because they needed to be! They were losing people because Aristotle's idea of reason were winning over converts. As long as the Church backed Plato, which nobles were really falling for Aristotle, it would be marginalized.

And yes there were many burnings and killings of heretics before the Inquisition.

Don't they have some equivalent of excommunication?

No, the Sunni religion has NO centralization whatsoever.

Especially since you seem to be advancing the notion that Arabic civilization seems to be stuck 600 years in the past and you see nothing wrong with that.

Yep, a sense of proportion helps out in these things.

[Az]

Now where does that sound familiar? . Fundamentally, you need to get away from the notion that these things are somehow rarified evil, they are not. Things really have not changed that much and I find it hypocritical that those who extoll the virtues of the West are so fast to blindly condemn these factors without attempting to understand them.

Ok, cut the BS, do you think the things I've listed are a good thing, and OK thing, or a bad thing? You can shove your "understanding of the underlying narrative" you know there.

[Solomwi]

Whaleboy, 1300 years is "relatively new"? Theirs is a religion that was founded and spread by the sword.

[Whaleboy]

Then perhaps you could put forth a more cogent defense of the proposition than he has bothered to put forth to date. That at least would be more interesting than the moronic track you seem intent on trying to drag me.

Different cultures, as we have seen from our own history, go through different stages of development. We tend to head in a more libertarian direction with certain abberations as we go along (numerous reasons). This development is of course affected by several factors I shaln't go into here, but the basic anthropological trend remains.

We can place certain characteristics of some Islamic societies on our own timescale, and correlete them with certain periods in our development. Do we hate ourselves because of the Spanish Inquisition, the English Civil War, the reign of Elizabeth I? Of course not. The issue of OK or not is irrelevant here, we can judge for our society and whether stuff is applicable here, but for other societies? That I'm not certain about. I take a neutral stance, there are ideas I disagree with but their application elsewhere I'm somewhat indifferent about. As a result, there's no better or worse, only different.

[Az]

We can place certain characteristics of some Islamic societies on our own timescale, and correlete them with certain periods in our development. Do we hate ourselves because of the Spanish Inquisition, the English Civil War, the reign of Elizabeth I? Of course not. The issue of OK or not is irrelevant here, we can judge for our society and whether stuff is applicable here, but for other societies? That I'm not certain about. I take a neutral stance, there are ideas I disagree with but their application elsewhere I'm somewhat indifferent about. As a result, there's no better or worse, only different.

So, one shouldn't take offense if one's family was killed, say, in Egypt?

[Whaleboy]

Ok, cut the BS, do you think the things I've listed are a good thing, and OK thing, or a bad thing? You can shove your "understanding of the underlying narrative" you know there.

Benevolent here, indifferent in a neighbour society.

Whaleboy, 1300 years is "relatively new"? Theirs is a religion that was founded and spread by the sword.

You honestly think the ancestor of every Muslim today was forced into it by the sword? . More people were converted into Catholics by the direct consequences of military action than Islam, by quite a long way imo.