Muslim tolerance

The following typical threads that plague martial arts sites will get moved here if not just deleted: 1 - My style is better than Your style" - 2 - "Internal & External" - 3 - Personal attacks - 4 - Threads that start well, but degenerate into a spiral of nonsense.

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Faris on Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:41 am

Greetings,

Dmitri wrote:I have no idea whatsoever what "secular liberal humanists" are... Another nearly-meaningless label in a futile attempt to lump a group of people into some artificial "category"? :-/

But, that aside, -- if there is anyone outside of the "secular liberal humanists" group whose worldview is not affected in any way whatsoever by things they see and read throughout their lifetime, then IMHO they are extremely closed-minded at best, and/or fanatics at worst.


My apologies, for any apparent lack of clarity. I assumed my meaning would be crystal-clear to most users of the forum (or of a dictionary).

"Secular liberal humanist;" Secular = worldy/irreligious, liberal = those who believe people should be free to do whatever they wish, so long as they don't harm others, humanist = those who believe that man is the measure of all-things (These are very truncated definitions, for, no doubt there are significant and exstensive histories to the meanings and applications of these words.)

"(W)hose whole world-view": Note the word in bold.

peace
Umar.

"Bigger isn't better. Faster isn't better. Stronger isn't even better. ONLY better is better!" Scott Sonnon
Faris
Santi
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Dmitri on Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:08 am

Oh boy... I'll just be quiet I guess.
I can't fight this sort of iron-clad logic and crystal clarity.
:'(
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9517
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Faris on Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:12 am

Faris wrote:Greetings,

Dmitri wrote:I understand your point, but the value of messages like these is that they plant little seeds "peaceful coexistence" in people's brains. It's like marketing for peace... you may not buy it immediately when you see it, but if you see enough of it over long enough time, it may eventually make a difference when you have to make a choice.


Perhaps, just perhaps, this is how the whole world-view of secular liberal humanists is formed.

peace


So, would it be fair to say, that my original assumption was not an unreasonable one?

The education system the way it is added to the fact that I didn't complete high-school means I was never trained in grmmar, rhetoric and logic.

I didn't mean to make you cry!

peace
Umar.

"Bigger isn't better. Faster isn't better. Stronger isn't even better. ONLY better is better!" Scott Sonnon
Faris
Santi
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Dmitri on Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:12 pm

No, I don't think it's reasonable, because it is maximalist; it therefore simply cannot exist, in nature. The world is gray...
Your reference to "whole" there (which you stressed as a counter-argument) only stresses my point. This is impossible IMO; no human can form their "whole" worldview from one specific source/in one specific way. IMO formation of one's worldview is a highly complex process and trying to track it all is like trying to come up with a some single formula that completely describes how a thought is formed. There are just way too many factors at play here, and most of them are not "trackable" and/or not even quantifiable, at least not to any practically-useful degree.

This is JUST re. the 'formation of one's whole worldview' part...

Now for the other part:

Your definitions --
Faris wrote:"Secular liberal humanist;" Secular = worldy/irreligious, liberal = those who believe people should be free to do whatever they wish, so long as they don't harm others, humanist = those who believe that man is the measure of all-things (These are very truncated definitions, for, no doubt there are significant and exstensive histories to the meanings and applications of these words.)

don't help your case at all, IMO. There is no human being on this planet who can squarely fit into these definitions; humans are infinitely more complex. As I mentioned on another thread, one could (and some have) write a few books about each of these terms, -- they are as broad and vague as it gets. JUST to take the first ONE of them, -- "worldly/irreligious"? As in "without religion" or "not practicing any particular religion"? Is that really meaningful to anyone in any way? I mean, seriously, think about it. It could mean that the person is an atheist, or is agnostic, or was brought up a Christian but just doesn't go to church or engage in any religious practices anymore... (Not to mention endless number of other variants.) These three would all be considered "secular" and right there in that little example we ALREADY have VASTLY different worldviews.
Same goes for "liberal" and "humanist".
So you see now, how IMO to say "secular liberal humanist" is almost like to say nothing at all, as far as "worldviews" go?

Does this help at all to see my point, or did I just waste a bunch of time typing silly things? :)
Last edited by Dmitri on Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9517
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby dragonprawn on Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:08 pm

Since I am a secular liberal humanist I might as well argue the reverse - that if you label yourself anything else it would leave just as much room, if not more, for variation. So my worldview - that there is no God, we should have equal rights for all, and treat one another with respect - is an invalid one. It is saying nothing. Hmmm....

If you are religious I am offended. Why, because I have to tolerate religion 100 times a day and you can't tolerate hearing "secular liberal humanist" once.
If you are not, then what do you call yourself? Is it superior to the shorthand labels I use so people kinda sorta know where I'm at?
User avatar
dragonprawn
Great Old One
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:35 pm
Location: Queens, New York

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Dmitri on Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:58 pm

dragonprawn wrote:Since I am a secular liberal humanist I might as well argue the reverse - that if you label yourself anything else it would leave just as much room, if not more, for variation.

That was exactly my point -- IMO labeling people's worldviews is pointless.

So my worldview - that there is no God, we should have equal rights for all, and treat one another with respect - is an invalid one. It is saying nothing. Hmmm....

How you FEEL and view the world is not (cannot be) invalid, that's ludicrous. It doesn't "say nothing" -- it's just that IMO what it says is incomplete and imprecise because of the very nature of this subject, as I tried to explain in previous posts... E.g. "treat one another with respect" will mean VERY different things to different people. So different that some could probably get into fights over those definitions, much like the fights over, say, the definitions of "qi" which we've seen take place far too much over the years, on this very forum.

you can't tolerate hearing "secular liberal humanist" once

That's another strange conclusion... I can tolerate a LOT of things, and hearing these "definitions" or "labels" is really near the very bottom of my "annoyance scale". :) I was trying to point out that humans are too complex to be able to be squeezed into narrow and vague (again, IMO) labels, esp. when it comes to such complex and subjective topics like someone's worldview.

what do you call yourself?

Exactly. ;D

Is it superior to the shorthand labels I use so people kinda sorta know where I'm at?

It's far superior, because it's like Dao itself. I'm one with the Dao, how's that, is it helpful? :)

For "kinda sorta knowledge" these "labels" are fine, which is I suppose why we have them. I just don't like them for their vagueness; they leave too much "wiggle room", because one can always go endlessly-philosophical if you tell them, using your example, "there is no God" -- they could come back with, "define 'God'?", and then you're off to the philosophical neverland.

Maybe I'm just jealous because I can't find a label that defines my worldview -- I dunno... ::)
I can answer particular fairly specific questions to the best of my ability, as part of some discussion, but I'd take those one at a time and with caution -- not lump them into ultra-broad things like "liberal", "humanist", "religious", etc.

HTH
Last edited by Dmitri on Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9517
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby dragonprawn on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:05 pm

I recently offered my services to a European based nonprofit that works on getting out the word about Ethical Humanism. They have yet to take me up on it, but anyway they feel that it is necessary to educate people about options for living other than religious ones. I don't know if they could do so without a label. A similar group would be the "Brights" - have you heard of them? Some people think the label "Bright" sounds elitist, and I think I agree.
Last edited by dragonprawn on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dragonprawn
Great Old One
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:35 pm
Location: Queens, New York

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Faris on Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:19 am

Greetings,

Dmitri wrote:No, I don't think it's reasonable, because it is maximalist; it therefore simply cannot exist, in nature. The world is gray...
Your reference to "whole" there (which you stressed as a counter-argument) only stresses my point. This is impossible IMO; no human can form their "whole" worldview from one specific source/in one specific way. IMO formation of one's worldview is a highly complex process and trying to track it all is like trying to come up with a some single formula that completely describes how a thought is formed. There are just way too many factors at play here, and most of them are not "trackable" and/or not even quantifiable, at least not to any practically-useful degree.

This is JUST re. the 'formation of one's whole worldview' part...

Now for the other part:

Your definitions --

don't help your case at all, IMO. There is no human being on this planet who can squarely fit into these definitions; humans are infinitely more complex. As I mentioned on another thread, one could (and some have) write a few books about each of these terms, -- they are as broad and vague as it gets. JUST to take the first ONE of them, -- "worldly/irreligious"? As in "without religion" or "not practicing any particular religion"? Is that really meaningful to anyone in any way? I mean, seriously, think about it. It could mean that the person is an atheist, or is agnostic, or was brought up a Christian but just doesn't go to church or engage in any religious practices anymore... (Not to mention endless number of other variants.) These three would all be considered "secular" and right there in that little example we ALREADY have VASTLY different worldviews.
Same goes for "liberal" and "humanist".
So you see now, how IMO to say "secular liberal humanist" is almost like to say nothing at all, as far as "worldviews" go?

Does this help at all to see my point, or did I just waste a bunch of time typing silly things? :)


My apologies, for not responding sooner, Dmitri; I hope that my tardy response has not had you dwelling in an anxious state of being unappreciated and having wasted your time ;) In fact, your response is very much appreciated in that it, at once, clarifies your position and exposes the apparent weaknesses in my own. But... I have always been under the assumption that by convention and 'for arguements sake' generalisations are acceptable in certain forms of discourse.

Let me expand further: For approximately five-hundred years European civilisation has been engaged with the on-going social, political, economic, ideological, etc., undertaking that, in various guises, has been referred to as Humanism, Secularism, Liberalism, etc. Being that 'all' who are born and raised in the West (technologically developed nations) and all those who look to such, have been immersed in the inheritance of these last five-hundred years. Therefore, where does one get one's world-view but through the shattered prism of secular-humanism? Which returns us to the origin of our discussion, 'sloganeering as manipulation.'

None of the foregoing is to deny the various shades of experience but as a generalisation and 'for arguements sake.....

peace
Last edited by Faris on Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Umar.

"Bigger isn't better. Faster isn't better. Stronger isn't even better. ONLY better is better!" Scott Sonnon
Faris
Santi
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby Mello on Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:53 am

Couldn't be bothered to read more than the first 2 pages and now i'm going to say something only vaguely related. Where i live there's a road with a mosque and some islamic schools on one side, and 2 jewish schools and a synagogue on the other. no-one has any trouble, they all get along and it's really beautiful to see.
Mello
Huajing
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:27 am
Location: Bath

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby zenshiite on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:42 am

yusuf wrote:
jonathan.bluestein wrote:I am not claiming "all Muslim are liars". That is not true. However, too many people preaching Islam use the Taqiyya for the purposes of claiming that lying is OK for the Islamic (and anti-Israeli) cause.



not true at all... in my years of travelling / living all over the middle east, including Israel, I haven't heard more than two people discuss Taqqiya, and even they were slapped down. The very word has only entered the conversation with the need to create a muslim enemy. You are trying to create a justification for Israeli actions by equating 'Palestinian resistance to occupation' with Muslims, and then with Taqqiya. Its false and wrong.

I personally think that the Saudis are the worst thing the Arabs can ask for. They helped make the west Dependant on oil, and thus helped cause quite a few wars in which countless Arabs were killed. They promote the Sharia law, which is anti-Democratic all-over. They are a monarchic regime, and oppose basic human rights. They are the some of the main contributers to global warming... Pretty evil bunch, the people leading the Saudi nation.


agreed.... and the 20,000 or rich Gulf Arabs who are supporting the war against anyone who doesn't agree with them. There have thousands more people killed by these animals in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India than in Israel, Believe me when I say that ordinary Muslims will get to these people one day.



I want to point out that Taqiyya is also almost an exclusively Shi'a concept, and it was formulated specifically to deal with the persecution Shi'as face(d) at the hands of tyrannical Khalifs. The first, and prime, instance of Taqiyya is that of Ammar bin Yassir. He was being tortured by the Quraysh for his faith and to make them stop he disavowed Islam. The Prophet sanctioned this because Ammar did not disavow Islam with his heart. This was after his mother and father were tortured to death by the Quraysh for their religion.

And the very same arguments that non-Muslims are attempting to use about Taqiyya against all Muslims, Sunnis have used to tar Shi'as throughout history. With the prime aim of rooting us out and executing us as "heretics." Often those deaths were just as horrible as anything found in the Inquisition.
"The powers that be don't give a shit!" - Raybeez RIP
User avatar
zenshiite
Wuji
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:05 pm

Re: Muslim tolerance

Postby B_Diniz on Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:50 pm

Tolerance?
B_Diniz
Anjing
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 6:50 pm

Previous

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest