Addressing Muslim prejudice...

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by loki

Would that not suggest then that interpretation of Islam is wrong. Or possibly that those with a vested interest(extremists) distort it for their own gain ?

Branding something 'wrong' merely tells me that you disapprove of it, which I would is the case although it would unfortunately place you in a global minority. I prefer to be open and direct in my criticism rather than find convoluted ways to justify the existence of things that I do not like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm - I'm not alone in my belief that some have selective attention when it comes to Islam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/7899302.stm

[loki]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Branding something 'wrong' merely tells me that you disapprove of it, which I would is the case although it would unfortunately place you in a global minority. I prefer to be open and direct in my criticism rather than find convoluted ways to justify the existence of things that I do not like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm - I'm not alone in my belief that some have selective attention when it comes to Islam

This is the issue that I can never get my head around though. I don't think I would be alone in the minority in saying that some of us if not the majority have had some personal contact with somebody who is Muslim and when you get on a personal level it is a lot different than the group in which we try and understand it. I have a colleague at work who is Muslim and lives in part of Bolton that is predominantly Muslim. It would be easy to assume that he would have some fanatical tendencies yet when you speak to him and try to understand his faith, it boils down to him being different and nothing more and I respect him for his faith. We have fundamental differences on a variety of topics.

I am not a Muslim apologist as I can't understand the rationale of country before faith. Is there fanaticism and extremism well of course there is. By it's nature extremism is at the periphery of most groups is it not and not representative of that group as a whole

I think it's too easy to at times to use our own preconceived prejudices and stereotypes to maintain our own ignorance of a group. Let's not forget that this is not a new phenomenon. You only have to go back twenty years to see how Irish Immigrants living in the UK were treated in the same way. Treated as second class citizens, labeld as terrorists from all institutions in society. When you walk down the streets of inner city Britain you could easily replace some of todays graffiti "Muslim Scum" for "Irish Scum" of years gone by. Why ?? Because we choose to deal with groups rather than individuals. It is easier to maintain our own prejudices this way.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by loki

This is the issue that I can never get my head around though. I don't think I would be alone in the minority in saying that some of us if not the majority have had some personal contact with somebody who is Muslim and when you get on a personal level it is a lot different than the group in which we try and understand it. I have a colleague at work who is Muslim and lives in part of Bolton that is predominantly Muslim. It would be easy to assume that he would have some fanatical tendencies yet when you speak to him and try to understand his faith, it boils down to him being different and nothing more and I respect him for his faith. We have fundamental differences on a variety of topics.

Most of the religious people I know hold a specific kind of ignorance - for the most part this doesn't impact too far on their lives although it can make them quite intolerable. I cannot respect a person for ignorance but I can respect them for strong mindedness, that is no to say that strong-mindedness is good for themselves or others around them BUT its more fun to be around than a liberal.

I am not a Muslim apologist as I can't understand the rationale of country before faith. Is there fanaticism and extremism well of course there is. By it's nature extremism is at the periphery of most groups is it not and not representative of that group as a whole

The very fact that the debate is very often split down the question of minority/majority is a mechanism through which behaviours are dissociated from the ideology that causes them, the the collusion of the wider community is ignored or excused and that we fail to recognise the more complex way in which a wider community man influence an individual and vice versa. There is no 'threshold' for an extremist, there is no badge to identify a moderate and these people do not necessarily exist separately. They often consider each other to be on the same side and very often take an attitude that they are the enemy of the enemy.

I think it's too easy to at times to use our own preconceived prejudices and stereotypes to maintain our own ignorance of a group. Let's not forget that this is not a new phenomenon. You only have to go back twenty years to see how Irish Immigrants living in the UK were treated in the same way. Treated as second class citizens, labeld as terrorists from all institutions in society. When you walk down the streets of inner city Britain you could easily replace some of todays graffiti "Muslim Scum" for "Irish Scum" of years gone by. Why ?? Because we choose to deal with groups rather than individuals. It is easier to maintain our own prejudices this way.

Prejudice cuts both ways, and I think that our idea of prejudice is far too influenced by romantic notions of the civil rights movements in the 60s. We made a bargain with ourselves that as long as we treat those that we don't identify with in a kind of enforced politeness (i.e. political correctness, affirmative action) then we're not bad people. In other words, as long as all our prejudices are positive on the outside, we're still good people.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Does that mean anything? If you want to tolerate people who believe in violence against homosexuals and women for disobedient then you are a collusive coward at best, you are also perhaps morally worse as you have less excuse to indulge in ignorance.

You're generalising again, which is always a risk when using the term, "people"; especially when those people number around a billion souls. And I completely refute any suggestion that I would tolerate anyone who would commit violence against women and homosexuals based on a religious belief; but then you already know that. Why, knowing what you do, would you make such a suggestion?

Anyway, my response is somewhat late and made redundant by others' answers so I won't go into any detail about the obvious fact that a single beheading, no matter how tragic it obviously is, is hardly representative of over 20 percent of the world's population. You might as well say it's representative of men in general for all the rationality that argument has.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Perhaps your quote should be "Those who click the BBC website..."

There is a lot of wisdom in that quote if you care to consider it.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

We made a bargain with ourselves that as long as we treat those that we don't identify with in a kind of enforced politeness (i.e. political correctness, affirmative action) then we're not bad people. In other words, as long as all our prejudices are positive on the outside, we're still good people.

They say a man is judged by his actions and this is true when it comes to a civilised society. Of course we have prejudices but that's not to say we should be content for them to exist, not while there's even the slightest chance they may be based on ignorance rather than anything tangible. If there's one thing I do believe it's that hatred, mistrust, prejudice and ignorance are all associated with a basic fear of the unknown. I believe it's wrong to live in ignorance and it's ultimately self-destructive. Saying you can't identify with someone is saying that you're happy to live with any potential prejudice rather than try and understand and empathise with them. Is that the enlightened way and is this something you would aspire to or would you rather continue feeding and fuelling your own personal prejudices?

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by phykell

They say a man is judged by his actions and this is true when it comes to a civilised society. Of course we have prejudices but that's not to say we should be content for them to exist, not while there's even the slightest chance they may be based on ignorance rather than anything tangible. If there's one thing I do believe it's that hatred, mistrust, prejudice and ignorance are all associated with a basic fear of the unknown. I believe it's wrong to live in ignorance and it's ultimately self-destructive. Saying you can't identify with someone is saying that you're happy to live with any potential prejudice rather than try and understand and empathise with them. Is that the enlightened way and is this something you would aspire to or would you rather continue feeding and fuelling your own personal prejudices?

That meandering question is laced with a number of erroneous assumptions, so I only quoted it for amusement.

We live in a hostile world Phykell, a competitive world whereby the standard for ethic will be decided by the last man standing.

Fear of the unknown is much different than the concept of prejudice against people with turbans, particularly those who belong to an ideology that espouses violence.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

...so I only quoted it for amusement.

:/

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

We live in a hostile world Phykell, a competitive world whereby the standard for ethic will be decided by the last man standing.

You're getting that from Freud and his idea of ritualised combat I'm guessing?I don't think he meant that might was right though.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Fear of the unknown is much different than the concept of prejudice against people with turbans, particularly those who belong to an ideology that espouses violence.

Once again, you are happy to speak for almost 20% of the world's population. Where do you get the idea that you're in any way qualified or justified to do such a thing? And they alll wear turbans now?

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by phykell

Once again, you are happy to speak for almost 20% of the world's population. Where do you get the idea that you're in any way qualified or justified to do such a thing? And they alll wear turbans now?

Actually I'm happy to listen to that group, the information on Islam's attitude towards homosexuality isn't hard to find. It's funny how many believe it impossible to describe a group in any way when they don't like what they find, yet somehow still recognise the group.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Actually I'm happy to listen to that group, the information on Islam's attitude towards homosexuality isn't hard to find. It's funny how many believe it impossible to describe a group in any way when they don't like what they find, yet somehow still recognise the group.

You like your "groups" don't you? Do you not see any advantage of looking at people as individuals?

Returning to the theme of prejudice though, would you accept that other "groups" are as guilty regarding their attitudes towards homosexuality? How about the Church for example? It's a male-dominated religion, that's for sure. I've yet to hear you condemn Christians for their beliefs regarding women yet there are plenty of examples in the Bible which speak of women as less than equal and its attitude towards homosexuals is probably just as distasteful. Where is your outrage?

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by phykell

You like your "groups" don't you? Do you not see any advantage of looking at people as individuals?

LOOK AT THE WAY YOU USE LANGUAGE. Advantage? To whom? In what? An individual is a component of a group, and influence passes both ways.

Where is your outrage?

No-one is wringing their hands at the church.