When will the Muslim world relax?

old hippy

Banbh wrote: »

But could you say to one of these Muslims you love and work with (ugh!) that you think their holy book is an affront to all that is decent?

Oddly enough, we don't talk about the Koran all day. You'll find that out if you ever are lucky enough to widen your social circles beyond knee jerk reactions.

Penn

old hippy wrote: »

Oddly enough, we don't talk about the Koran all day. You'll find that out if you ever are lucky enough to widen your social circles beyond knee jerk reactions.

Banbh didn't ask "Do you say...", they asked "Could you say..."

As in, if the topic ever came up in conversation, could you say to one of these Muslims you love and work with that you think their holy book is an affront to all that is decent?

old hippy

Penn wrote: »

Banbh didn't ask "Do you say...", they asked "Could you say..."

As in, if the topic ever came up in conversation, could you say to one of these Muslims you love and work with that you think their holy book is an affront to all that is decent?

Ah, so we're talking hypothetically? Like if one of my mates asked me if something specifically Irish that I have no control over is an affront to all that is decent?

Sure, why not? But I tend not to deliberately wind people up for the sake of it.

What do you say to your Muslim friends and colleagues?

Penn

Don't have any.

Banbh

I don't have any Muslim workmates either and my "Ugh!" was directed at your "love and work with".

However, back on topic; you and I both know that you cannot discuss the views of Muslims on religion, homosexuality, women's rights, their nasty 'holy' book and much else because the only response you would receive is something along the lines of 'shut up or I'll kill you.'

Now I know I'm putting words in the mouths of your imaginary workmates but this is the response that the Muslim religion has given to the world when its barbarity has been criticised.

Sycopat

Banbh wrote: »

But could you say to one of these Muslims you love and work with (ugh!) that you think their holy book is an affront to all that is decent?

Could you say this to most Catholics in this country?

Banbh

Yes.

Sycopat

Banbh wrote: »

Yes.

I disagree.

Sure it is physically possible, but the reaction is never a good one and often comes close to physical violence (threats are, frankly, small time).

And most of my experience, as anecdotal as your question was hypothetical, is from people who would consider me a friend, but who are religious, starting the argument, and I have to talk them out of a starting position where they (who consider themselves my friends) would be perfectly willing to do violence to me if I outright insult their beliefs, before I can even begin to make my case.

So I disagree.

Ellis Dee

Most of the Muslim world is pretty poverty stricken with poor education and high unemployment, little of it is democratic and values like freedom of expression are not widely respected. That leaves hundreds of millions of people with little hope other than what their religious leaders and despotic governments (often closely intertwined) promise them - pie in the sky when you die.:cool:

Add to that the powerful sense of injustice that they feel towards the West and I suppose it will be quite a while before the Muslim word finds peace with the rest of the world and, above all, with itself and calms down.

In the fullness of time, maybe, Muslim societies will evolve to the point where religion influences secular life no more than it does in advanced Western societies.

But don't hold your breath.:rolleyes:

Nodin

Banbh wrote: »

I don't have any Muslim workmates either and my "Ugh!" was directed at your "love and work with"..

O - that makes it all better then.

Banbh wrote: »

However, back on topic; you and I both know that you cannot discuss the views of Muslims on religion, homosexuality, women's rights, their nasty 'holy' book and much else because the only response you would receive is something along the lines of 'shut up or I'll kill you.'.

You're taking the piss, I hope.

old hippy

Penn wrote: »

Don't have any.

I see

old hippy

Banbh wrote: »

I don't have any Muslim workmates either and my "Ugh!" was directed at your "love and work with".

However, back on topic; you and I both know that you cannot discuss the views of Muslims on religion, homosexuality, women's rights, their nasty 'holy' book and much else because the only response you would receive is something along the lines of 'shut up or I'll kill you.'

Now I know I'm putting words in the mouths of your imaginary workmates but this is the response that the Muslim religion has given to the world when its barbarity has been criticised.

If you look at my post, it said " But I'm happy to live, love and work with people of all religions".

The only person in London who threatened to do me violence (because I didn't agree with their beliefs) was a fellow Irishman who was pro-IRA.

The last time I talked with a Muslim pal about her religion (over a few alcoholic drinks - gasp!) was mainly to do with how some people (usually small minded) tend to lump them into one seething, homogenous blob.

Ugh, indeed.

old hippy

Anybody else (without Muslim friends, colleagues, family, loved ones etc)want to spill the beans on how Muslims do or don't react in certain hypethetical situations?

:D:D

ShooterSF

old hippy wrote: »

Anybody else (without Muslim friends, colleagues, family, loved ones etc)want to spill the beans on how Muslims do or don't react in certain hypethetical situations?

:D:D

Well it's silly to say "all muslims" because there is no definition of what a muslim is other than self-declaration which can often be just cultural like many catholics in Ireland but I am curious to know if you think the poll posted about attitudes towards apostasy and such was flawed and if so why.

Gbear

I think Bill Maher raised a good point (not sure if it's been mentioned here).

Muslims living in theocracies cannot envision a state where you can just say things. In their country, if you badmouth Mohammad you'll often find yourself getting executed. They have very little idea of what freedom in the western sense means.

They can't extricate this film from the West in general because, from their own experiences, governments have enough power that anything that is said within their country that isn't punished effectively has the tacit approval of the government/religious authority.

The notion that you can do things that the government doesn't "like" is alien to them.
So whenever something happens to piss them off in the West they cannot help but feel the West is responsible as a whole as it would be if it were some monolithic dictatorship.

The Browser

I work in the UAE and have many Muslim and Hindu colleagues. The Muslims all come from Egypt and India. The Hindus all come from India. I and one other colleague come from Europe (Ireland and Poland respectively) and we're both atheists.

Religion gets discussed quite a bit, but at a very superficial level (festivals, diet, etc). We don't get into the controversial areas.

The Muslim guys are, without exception, a great pleasure to work with. The Egyptians are all cool. I mean that. They're not remotely medieval. One guy who I've become good friends with does broach controversial topics with me (he's the exception). We have talked about stoning, the burqa, etc. I asked him if he would ever cast a stone and he was shocked at the idea that he could do such a thing. I've admitted my atheism to him, as did the Pole. It was a big moment for me. We had a discussion, after which we asked him not to tell anyone else of our atheism. He joked that all we had done together was eat some delicious pasta over lunch (as in: "I didn't hear anyone talk about atheism. Did you hear anyone talk about atheism? *nudge nudge wink wink*"). He is a gent and a wonderful dining companion I think he wants to talk about it a lot because he has some doubts over his belief. He's totally secular in appearance and considers himself a bad Muslim because he's always missing his prayer.

The others don't talk about it so much. One of them looks archetypically devout: robes, long black beard, the works. But he's the most soft-spoken, gentle soul I've ever met.

One other guy, an Egyptian, has a less tolerant approach. He said one day that I am not ethical because I am not Muslim (he thinks I'm Christian). The subject was quickly changed and he is still very nice in every other interaction.

Would I tell them what I think about the Koran? Absolutely not. It's probably against the law here to do that and I honestly don't know how they would react. I don't know if they would become violent or threaten me. Based on my interaction with them so far, I have no reason to think that they would; but I'd rather not find out. I am more convinced than ever that if a man is good, his goodness comes from himself, not from the Koran.

Morbert

There seems to be a false narrative developing here.

The riots have nothing to do with the film.

old hippy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well it's silly to say "all muslims" because there is no definition of what a muslim is other than self-declaration which can often be just cultural like many catholics in Ireland but I am curious to know if you think the poll posted about attitudes towards apostasy and such was flawed and if so why.

This is going to sound flimsy but I usually go more on experience and people I know, rather than polls.

And I'm not naieve, of course there are extremists out there. But to tar everyone with the same brush, as some do, is ridiculous.

Gbear

old hippy wrote: »

This is going to sound flimsy but I usually go more on experience and people I know, rather than polls.

And I'm not naieve, of course there are extremists out there. But to tar everyone with the same brush, as some do, is ridiculous.

That's a great way not to involve people you know getting tarred with the "crazy muslim" brush but it's an awful way to appraise the entire muslim world.

Even if the polls don't cast anything in stone they're better than an individual's anecdotal evidence.

old hippy

Gbear wrote: »

That's a great way not to involve people you know getting tarred with the "crazy muslim" brush but it's an awful way to appraise the entire muslim world.

Even if the polls don't cast anything in stone they're better than an individual's anecdotal evidence.

Hey yeah, I agree. I live my life and refuse to pander to those who peddle hate, fear, ignorance and discord.

You can't appraise the entire "muslim world", anymore than you can appraise the entire Buddhist world or Catholic world and so on. It's too diverse to tuck into a box and label it.

In the meantime, I take people as I find them and I don't put up barriers or listen to the frightened and angry. If people put up barriers towards me, then I don't hang out with them.

Hate isn't inherent, it's taught and encouraged and can spread like a virus. With any peoples out there.

Just got to rise above it.

Banbh

But we can appraise Islam, and Judaism, Catholicism etc. These are associations with codes of practice, membership, rules and regulations.

They are also associations that seek state power to impose their codes on non-members and on society generally. It is this power that needs to be opposed by those who value freedom of speech, freedom of association and equal rights.

ShooterSF

old hippy wrote: »

This is going to sound flimsy but I usually go more on experience and people I know, rather than polls.

And I'm not naieve, of course there are extremists out there. But to tar everyone with the same brush, as some do, is ridiculous.

I like to think the best of humanity but I'm not going to put my hopes or personal experience above evidence to the contrary. For what it's worth I don't think Muslim people are any different to anyone else but rather that the evidence points to how bad an idea it is to give control of a nation (and it's education system) to people who genuinely believe in the religion they espouse as opposed to people who just use it to control the masses. I'm pretty sure you could swap out Islam for most religions perhaps adopting the apostasy part and you'd end up with similar results.

Nodin

Banbh wrote: »

But we can appraise Islam, and Judaism, Catholicism etc. These are associations with codes of practice, membership, rules and regulations.

They are also associations that seek state power to impose their codes on non-members and on society generally. It is this power that needs to be opposed by those who value freedom of speech, freedom of association and equal rights.

....as long as you don't take it out on ordinary Jews, muslims and catholics who don't give a crap what anyone else does/don't interfere with you. Live and let live.

Banbh

And what of ordinary members of the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan?

Without ordinary members these organisations would not exist. If one is a member of an organisation - paying subscriptions, following the code, participating in the furtherence of that organisation - then one shares responsibility for the abuses perpetrated by that organisation.

If I revere a book that advocates genocide or paedophilia, am I not partly to blame when others of my organisation carry out such acts?

Nodin

Banbh wrote: »

And what of ordinary members of the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan?

Without ordinary members these organisations would not exist. If one is a member of an organisation - paying subscriptions, following the code, participating in the furtherence of that organisation - then one shares responsibility for the abuses perpetrated by that organisation.

If I revere a book that advocates genocide or paedophilia, am I not partly to blame when others of my organisation carry out such acts?

A sad and rather bigoted generalisation which belies the reality. Most who identify as "catholic" wouldn't pass a standardised test on catholic dogma, yet here you are tarring them all with the same brush. There is no point in replacing the unthinking intolerance of religion with a secularised equivalant.

On a related note - do you stand in a queue in Lidl or Dunnes and shudder at being surrounded by such folk?

ShooterSF

Nodin wrote: »

A sad and rather bigoted generalisation which belies the reality. Most who identify as "catholic" wouldn't pass a standardised test on catholic dogma, yet here you are tarring them all with the same brush. There is no point in replacing the unthinking intolerance of religion with a secularised equivalant.

On a related note - do you stand in a queue in Lidl or Dunnes and shudder at being surrounded by such folk?

To be fair the Catholic church only has the weight it has or any church because people refuse to see that they aren't really members (philosophically). States all over are still discussing gay marriage with churches because they are seen as big lobby groups with many members because of the ordinary members. The KKK is a comparison I've made before. If 100 million people joined the KKK for the cake parties but didn't really agree with the racism the KKK would still rightly claim to be a powerful lobby group on all their issues and it rightly would infuriate non-members who see people, who don't even share the KKK's core views, supporting them.

Banbh

I'm accused of being a bigot for opposing bigotry? Well I am bigoted against intolerance, injustice and the rest of the stuff peddled by religion.

Of course there are many who kneel at shrines, burn candles and mumble meaningless mantras who are normal in other areas of life but they are the enablers of the badness.

Live and let live indeed! This is, I believe, my entitlement, won by generations of free-thinkers and free-speakers. Accepting less for anyone - women, gays, children - is accepting less for all. If this were a slogan of religion then there would be no problem.

And I haven't a clue what the Dunnes Stores remark is about. Is it not possible to discuss ideas and exchange views?

Nodin

Banbh wrote: »

I'm accused of being a bigot for opposing bigotry?

You take an attitude with ordinary people because they're nominally of some denomination, and assign to them the worst attitudes of the extremists of that denomination. Text book stuff.

Nodin

ShooterSF wrote: »

To be fair the Catholic church only has the weight it has or any church because people refuse to see that they aren't really members (philosophically). States all over are still discussing gay marriage with churches because they are seen as big lobby groups with many members because of the ordinary members. The KKK is a comparison I've made before. If 100 million people joined the KKK for the cake parties but didn't really agree with the racism the KKK would still rightly claim to be a powerful lobby group on all their issues and it rightly would infuriate non-members who see people, who don't even share the KKK's core views, supporting them.

While that's true, its still no reason to attack the proverbial non-racist KKK member as if they were out there lynching and brutalising people.

Banbh

I take an attitude with ordinary people? Who are these 'ordinary' people and where do I take an attitude with them?

I have a view on Islam and its adherents, on Judaism and its adherents and on Christianity and its adherents and all the others and their adherents and I've tried to engage in a debate on what I perceive as the evils of these - with Islam way out in front.

And Nodin "non-racist KKK members"?
What, they only lynch white homosexuals?

In any ways, I've done my best...