An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values
- Thread starter Uthman
- Start date
- Replies 33
- Views 4K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
beespreeteam
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 8
Ridiculous? Thinking it is OK to kill people because of where they live is not ridiculous.
It is blind hate.
lol... that's exactly what it is.
and it comes from being screwed over. like your whole country being under a state of war for 5+ and then not even finding any 'wmd's', but the oil flows freely...
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
If you actually researched the subject of oil you will find the U.S. isn't getting a drop of it. The Iraqi government is in control of oil revenues, which is why you don't hear much about U.S. economic aid packages for the Iraqi government, they don't have alot of need for it. In fact, one of the political benchmarks for the Iraqi government is sharing the oil wealth with the people of Iraq.
wilberhum
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,348
- Reaction score
- 339
When was Great Britten screwed over and under war for 5+.
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
When was Great Britten screwed over and under war for 5+.
I think that was 1945...the Blitzkrieg.
wilberhum
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,348
- Reaction score
- 339
beespreeteam
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 8
Possible. I guess a lot of people are misguided about the war then. Must be to really liberate the people. Once they get some power and water, that is.
Oh, and I know Bush's uncle has, so far, got 6 million (or is it billion) dollars from military sales ;D Genius!
beespreeteam
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 8
When was Great Britten screwed over and under war for 5+.
That was a world war... They didn't feel like the entire rest of the world, or the 'east' or the 'west' was ganging up on them.
And ahh yeah, if you look at Kamakaze Pilots etc...
For once I largely agree with Karen Armstrong! Of course it is a national security risk to upset Muslims. However, censorship is not a realistic option in this matter, so we'll have to think of something else.
This problem is obviously related to the rise of modern communication. All of a sudden the masses are made aware of the fact that people outside of their societies have completely different beliefs. Of course we knew this already before the advent of TV and the Internet, but only at an intellectual level. We were not confronted with it. So this guy in Pakistan, who was raised in a society where blasphemy is one of the greatest sins, comes into contact with cartoons in a Danish newspaper. This going upset him. Just like the position of women in some traditional societies in the Muslim world will upset some Westerners.
Expecting that others, who have different beliefs, will keep their mouth shut or change their customs to please your beliefs is bound to lead to disappointment. It just isn't realistic, and quite frankly, it is largely unworkable. Firstly, it would require some kind of censorship, which is a dangerous practice. Secondly, it will mean people will have to stop saying what they think, which will only add to the confusion. Thirdly, someone is likely to be upset about a certain opinion anyhow. How far should this go? Should Muslims quit saying there is only one God because this offends polytheists? Is saying Jesus is God blasphemous? Where to draw the line? And more importantly, who will draw that line? The hard-liners? Those who are easily upset? Are we going to reward people who get all upset about what others say or do? Thats like giving in to terrorism people! Should a Jew stop saying Jesus was a fraud because some Christian finds the thought offensive? Most certainly not!
Such an approach won't work. Armstrong talks about tolerance, but IMHO she seems to misinterpret the concept. Tolerance isn't about changing your own behavior to not upset others, its about allowing others to behave as they do without getting upset and demanding they stop. Tolerance requires passivity, it means not acting and leaving others do as they do even if you disagree with it. So rather than changing our behavior to stop upsetting others, other should stop being upset. We in the West should stop being upset that some women in the East are wearing burqas and set up Islamic states that run contrary to our own democratic values. Tolerance means leaving it up to Muslims to decide what laws they want to live by. Similarly, those in the Muslim world should stop being upset about Western writers or cartoonist that are being blasphemous. These are not Muslims and they aren't living in Muslim societies. Tolerance means that Muslims should stop demanding we silence them.
The problem remains though. How do we get people to be tolerant in such a way? Well, I'm optimistic that this will happen automatically. Maybe these tensions are just growing pains of modernity. Societies have been inward looking for so long, since the technological means simply didn't exist to truly be in contact with other societies. However, that has changed. Now we are continuously exposed to the opinions of 'the others', thanks to the through traditional media but especially the internet. This is bound to have consequences. IMHO it has the same effect as 'exposure therapy', in that human emotions of fear, shock and outrage are numbed if they exposed to a certain phenomenon often enough. Imagine you are afraid of spiders. When you are put in a room with dozens of big hairy spiders you will be scared to death. You'll start in a state of panic trying to squash a couple of them. Maybe you manage to kill a few of them but eventually you'll get exhausted and go sit in a corner crying. You will be anxious and upset for a little while longer, but eventually you'll start to ignore them and try to function normally. IMHO this works for pretty much any shocking and scaring opinion as well. Say something extremely blasphemous to a traditional Muslim in the tribal areas of say, Pakistan, and he might want to hang you from the nearest lamppost the first time. After having heard the kafir blaspheme for the hundred time he might just shrug and continue whatever he was doing. We'll have effectively reached a point where one guy is tolerating the other. Eventually, the reflex of 'shrugging' when 'the others' say something shocking will be internalized and become part of a societies culture. Of course he won't have respect for the blasphemer, but that won't matter. Respect isn't a requirement for peaceful coexistence anyway. Maybe after a few centuries of upsetting each other we'll be less likely to be at each others throats. To use the spider comparison again, we've only just been put in the room with the spiders, aka starting living in an interconnected world. Sure it is upsetting, but we'll get over it!
Right, so thats my theory. What you should have learned from it is that insulting others is a good thing :exhausted
.
This problem is obviously related to the rise of modern communication. All of a sudden the masses are made aware of the fact that people outside of their societies have completely different beliefs. Of course we knew this already before the advent of TV and the Internet, but only at an intellectual level. We were not confronted with it. So this guy in Pakistan, who was raised in a society where blasphemy is one of the greatest sins, comes into contact with cartoons in a Danish newspaper. This going upset him. Just like the position of women in some traditional societies in the Muslim world will upset some Westerners.
Expecting that others, who have different beliefs, will keep their mouth shut or change their customs to please your beliefs is bound to lead to disappointment. It just isn't realistic, and quite frankly, it is largely unworkable. Firstly, it would require some kind of censorship, which is a dangerous practice. Secondly, it will mean people will have to stop saying what they think, which will only add to the confusion. Thirdly, someone is likely to be upset about a certain opinion anyhow. How far should this go? Should Muslims quit saying there is only one God because this offends polytheists? Is saying Jesus is God blasphemous? Where to draw the line? And more importantly, who will draw that line? The hard-liners? Those who are easily upset? Are we going to reward people who get all upset about what others say or do? Thats like giving in to terrorism people! Should a Jew stop saying Jesus was a fraud because some Christian finds the thought offensive? Most certainly not!
Such an approach won't work. Armstrong talks about tolerance, but IMHO she seems to misinterpret the concept. Tolerance isn't about changing your own behavior to not upset others, its about allowing others to behave as they do without getting upset and demanding they stop. Tolerance requires passivity, it means not acting and leaving others do as they do even if you disagree with it. So rather than changing our behavior to stop upsetting others, other should stop being upset. We in the West should stop being upset that some women in the East are wearing burqas and set up Islamic states that run contrary to our own democratic values. Tolerance means leaving it up to Muslims to decide what laws they want to live by. Similarly, those in the Muslim world should stop being upset about Western writers or cartoonist that are being blasphemous. These are not Muslims and they aren't living in Muslim societies. Tolerance means that Muslims should stop demanding we silence them.
The problem remains though. How do we get people to be tolerant in such a way? Well, I'm optimistic that this will happen automatically. Maybe these tensions are just growing pains of modernity. Societies have been inward looking for so long, since the technological means simply didn't exist to truly be in contact with other societies. However, that has changed. Now we are continuously exposed to the opinions of 'the others', thanks to the through traditional media but especially the internet. This is bound to have consequences. IMHO it has the same effect as 'exposure therapy', in that human emotions of fear, shock and outrage are numbed if they exposed to a certain phenomenon often enough. Imagine you are afraid of spiders. When you are put in a room with dozens of big hairy spiders you will be scared to death. You'll start in a state of panic trying to squash a couple of them. Maybe you manage to kill a few of them but eventually you'll get exhausted and go sit in a corner crying. You will be anxious and upset for a little while longer, but eventually you'll start to ignore them and try to function normally. IMHO this works for pretty much any shocking and scaring opinion as well. Say something extremely blasphemous to a traditional Muslim in the tribal areas of say, Pakistan, and he might want to hang you from the nearest lamppost the first time. After having heard the kafir blaspheme for the hundred time he might just shrug and continue whatever he was doing. We'll have effectively reached a point where one guy is tolerating the other. Eventually, the reflex of 'shrugging' when 'the others' say something shocking will be internalized and become part of a societies culture. Of course he won't have respect for the blasphemer, but that won't matter. Respect isn't a requirement for peaceful coexistence anyway. Maybe after a few centuries of upsetting each other we'll be less likely to be at each others throats. To use the spider comparison again, we've only just been put in the room with the spiders, aka starting living in an interconnected world. Sure it is upsetting, but we'll get over it!
Right, so thats my theory. What you should have learned from it is that insulting others is a good thing :exhausted
.
Last edited:
