Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

ANDREW GREEN said:
Actually 'Muhammed' certainly is mythical and not historical.
Click to expand...

I've heard the theory that there were multiple Mohammeds. It sounded plausible but I haven't looked into it. We most certainly do know a lot more about his life and that he really existed than that of Jesus (who probably existed but is basically known through a few short gospels). But let me take a different tack then, as it's more to the point I was making: You can say you should emulate Jesus but other than being forgiving and occasionally losing it at people who lend money in temples, there's really nothing hard laid down that this means. Whether or not you dispute the accuracy of the Hadiths and Koran, the point is that there is a lot of explicit detail about his life that as a Muslim you're required to believe. And a lot of that material (slave trading, murder, wife-beating, child molesting) hasn't exactly aged well. Even if you don't believe he actually existed, the point is that the religion instructs those who do believe to hold him up as a representative of God on Earth to strive to be like. And that's markedly different to the very vaguely documented life of Jesus, true or false.

ANDREW GREEN said:
As for Muslims following Islam, it's not really different from Christians following the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

It is different and I already explained why. I can repeat. The Bible isn't regarded as the word of God. That the Koran is, is a central tenet of Islam. The New Testament explicitly resigns the Old Testament to being deprecated, in so far as the Old Testament is other than a historical document anyway. A Christian can dismiss parts of the Bible as old Hebrew myth. Islam requires belief that the Koran was dictated by God. It's one of the most central beliefs of Islam there is. If you don't know this, then you don't know much about Islam.

ANDREW GREEN said:
That aside I don't believe the recomendation from this document states criticism of Islam is prejudiced.
Click to expand...

This document, and I have read it, explicitly defines criticism of Islam as racism. So yes, it does. You should be against it if you don't like people conflating Islam with Muslim, as I don't.[/quote]
 
Thecaferacer said:
I think thats quite a famous misqoute from Marx. He meant that religion was a way of helping the oppressed masses cope rather than it being used against them
Click to expand...

Marx seemed to generally believe the masses should rise up and didn't like passive populations that accepted their place. I read "opiate of the masses" as a criticism by him - he meant it as something that keeps the population dull and placated, imo. He was a public atheist so I wouldn't imagine him to speak favourably of religion. But I suppose it could be either.
 
Thecaferacer said:
Everythings open to interpretation but he wrote religion is the "heart in a heartless world, the soul in souless conditions, it is the opium of the people" sounds positive to me, like a natural high.
Click to expand...

Oh, well if that's the full quote then I stand corrected. It does lean more towards your interpretation. I guess he lived in a time when doctors still prescribed heroin to make people feel better so it's perhaps shifted in how the phrase is viewed with time.

Nasher said:
OFC they did eventually rise up and we got communist Russia. Great result :p
Click to expand...

The trouble with revolutions is they seem to just go the full 360°. I guess that's why they call them revolutions.
 
Caracus2k said:
Government rejects Islamophobia definition ahead of debate

It seems as though the current Tory government have decided that its not a good idea to accept that an idea as nebulous as expressions of 'muslimness' or perceived 'muslimness' can form the basis for declaring something or someone to be racist
Click to expand...

Not just the Conservatives, per se. According to the Times, they got a lot of campaigning to the Home Secretary by ex-Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, feminists (the real kind), academics and others as well as the head of UK's counter-terrorism policing.

Just possibly, this might also open the door to getting rid of the similarly defined anti-Semitism guidance where criticism of Israel is explicitly racism.
 
LOAM said:
A genuine (not leading) question as I don't really have much interest in the topic but how does the proposed definition differ from the definition of anti-Semitism?
Click to expand...

It differs slightly in specifics, but the principle is equally flawed. In anti-Semitism guidance the UK adopted, Zionism / Israel is equated with ethnicity with criticism of the former being interpreted as criticism of the latter. (And conveniently ignoring the quite large number of Jewish people around the world who are not Zionists and the substantial number of non-Jewish people who are).

Zionism isn't a religion per se, but both Islam and Zionism are ideologies and the guidance in both of these cases is to equate the ideology with race. So it's pretty much the same. A couple of people in this thread argued that this guidance should be approved because the "anti-Semitism" guidance is approved. This is stupid - the correct way to reconcile the double-standard is to now review and fix the anti-Semitism guidance.
 
StriderX said:
That’s a strange definition of ‘rejection’, just looks to me to be ‘not yet’.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Times article doesn't say they've rejected it yet, just that May's government is "expected to reject it". If they say "it needs further consideration" and "not broadly accepted" that's a strong indication of which way they're going to go. Fingers crossed nothing upsets that at the last moment and this gets through.
 
robgmun said:
It'll be accepted as soon as the next Labour government gets in and it'll be fast tracked with any defination that the Council of Islam wants.
Click to expand...

Also worth noting that this is only for England. It's already been approved by the Scottish parliament. So if you criticise Islam in Scotland and you or your comment are public enough to hit the awareness threshold, guidelines for any sentencing now say you're a racist and it's a hate crime.
 
StriderX said:
it’s usually used as vehicle to attack one particular group of people who do happen to be a race, Arabs/Persians/Turks primarily.
Click to expand...

Firstly, not in my experience. Most criticism of Islam I come across is... criticism of Islam. Secondly, that's three races which kind of illustrates the point we're all making.

Here's a simple test we can apply. Take someone you stereotype as racist. That can be me if you like Strider - I'm nationalist, I'm mildly right-wing, White and I'm highly critical of Islam. I even believe Tommy Robinson has a point (oh no!). I'm exactly the sort of person you would and have dismissed as racist. Now, having found or imagined such a person, ask them who is going to upset them most - an ordinary, British-sounding, Westernised person who shares your values but happens to be non-White. They're either an ex-muslim or so lapsed it doesn't matter. Or do they have more issue with a White convert who believes zealously in Islam, has changed their garb to some sort of "Islamic" fashion and goes on about Infidels all the time and how Islam is the future? I guarantee you every time that the "racist" will be more hostile to the latter. Every. Time.

I've had numerous friends from Islamic backgrounds. It was their fathers I had a problem with, who didn't want their daughters hanging around with us and picking up Western values. The difference isn't race because they share that. Now you make this oft-repeated claim that criticism of Islam is a fig-leaf for racism "usually". I don't think it is. And no matter how many times that assertion is repeated, it's not the usual case I see. Ditto with criticism of Israel usually being... criticism of Israel. Can you point at people who do use it as a fig-leaf? Sure - I've known a few of them as well. But to assert as you do that this is the majority of cases, and further to use that assertion as an argument to shut down criticism of Islam generally which is what this document tries to do - no, enough of that! You only exclude yourself from reasonable discussion further by holding to it.
 
StriderX said:
It may be three ethnic groups, but youd be hard pressed to tell them apart without living there for awhile.
Click to expand...

Not really. Especially Turkish. most of whom I've known are blonde for a start. You're talking crap and without a point. And your arguing against people who are criticising this document shows exactly why it would be harmful to have. With it, you'd have the basis to silence nearly everyone in this thread. It wouldn't even need prosecution - just enough risk for OCUK to feel they had to shut it down because it was critical of Islam.

StriderX said:
Which is not something racists care about as ‘there all the same’.
Click to expand...

"They're". And if your strawmen get any bigger we'll be able to burn Edward Woodward to death in one.

StriderX said:
The fact is if anti Zionist language is a ‘fig-leaf’ according to... Zionist’s, then this is surely literally the same.
Click to expand...

Yes. Which is what I wrote in the post you are replying to and which I've also criticised earlier in this thread a couple of times and elsewhere. It's amusing to see you agree with me, even if it's by accident.

Anyway, you don't really have a leg to stand on in this discussion. Logically and demonstrably criticism of Islam is not inherently racism which is what this guidance makes a case for. You can't support that in any meaningful way which is why you're figuratively running round grabbing any tangential subject you can to try and use as a counter-argument. Not defending the document but trying to discredit its critics. Seriously - what is the point of you, you sad, pitiful creature? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Mason- said:
He's just a depressed contrarian. If the majority view was pro Islam woop woop, he'd be fighting your side. He cares more about picking tiny holes in reason rather than arguing sentiment. It's really not worth the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I argue a case so far as I feel is useful for others reading. There's little point in attempting persuade those whose goal is only to argue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom