How tolerant should we be of intolerance?

This is about intolerance in both Muslims and Non Muslims.

The question can be phrased in many ways to speak about many specifics:

1. The EDL are intolerant of Muslims (or what they call "extremist Muslims" which seems to cover all Muslims). Should their views be discussed, argued against, their protests counter protested, or should they be ignored?

2. The same can be said of Muslims. When Muslims present views that seem to not fit with your understanding of Islam, when they show intolerance (often towards other Muslims too), should their views be challenged or should they simply be ignored?

The problem with ignoring is that it may embolden people to go further because their views are unchecked and have not been scrutinised by reality.

On the other hand discussing them, giving scrutiny can be seen as providing the views with a platform and legitimacy, thus strengthening them too.

So where do the lines in the sand lie? What should be challenged and what should be ignored?

Something to add here would be the BNP - they were making rapid gains in elections etc, but once given a platform to make their voice heard, they have fizzled out and the last elections were disastrous for them.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
Something to add here would be the BNP - they were making rapid gains in elections etc, but once given a platform to make their voice heard, they have fizzled out and the last elections were disastrous for them.

good point.

best argument against them came from their leader

Don't just do something! Stand there.

This is a good question (:

1. The EDL should be ignored.
2. Yep, since i started i've noticed that some people are really selective about the way they see Islam. Most people, probably because of the bad media, only go on about the goodstuff, so when you hear like a gritty hardcore true one you're like Beee
And those are the ones that work.

Also frustrating: either emphasise too strongly God's love or emphasise too strongly God's wrath, why not just be honest?

Now i find it kind of patronising when i'm spoken to like that but before i was like Aww! Everyone was wrong about Islam :']

But let's face it, prejudices always come from somewhere. It's just blown totally out of proportion.

Also the question of tolerance; that's kinda tricky.
For a start, tolerance isn't the same as accepting, but taken too far you can slip into accepting i think. While you tolerate you've still got to firmly stand your ground
And the other thing is the Paradox of tolerance: When you become antagonistic about intolerance, you're not being very tolerant. So while you're tolerating, you can't stand up to intolerance. If that makes sense. So how do you show that you're tolerating them?

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

when muslims or non muslims display intolerance or a complete lack of understanding of Islam for example they should be challenged with the best of speech (assuming the individual has knowledge of the subject at hand). Having done that if they persist to debate and argue then it is best to leave them be, you have given them the message, and Allah won't hold you accountable. I think it's futile to argue further, it can lead to fitna, and even corruption of your own faith, even if you have the best of intentions.

“O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment, and verily, the hereafter that is the home that will remain forever.” [Ghafir : 39]

The EDL should not be ignored, they are getting bigger and more vocal and bolder in their ways!

That said, I also think just standing opposite them in a rally screaming back at them is like fighting fire with petrol. Debating and arguing your case is a far better approach!

Muslims are the new Jews! Hatred towards them is being spread by many respected people such as Douglas Murray, head of the "Centre for Social Cohesion". Who talks about how in a few years Holland will be lost to the Islamification process already under way there. But there is a flip side to this coin, in that the people who are to blame for this are Muslims!

Would the EDL even exist if the UK was not home to as many Islamists as it is? I doubt it..

The Jews had "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to paint them as evil, trying to take over the world. Muslims have fellow Muslims telling anyone willing to listen that they will one day take over the world, and bring about a new world order. And the EDL is listening to this and spreading the word that they need to defend their culture!

And worse, they talk about all Muslims being a part of a death cult bent on world domination. They oppose the building of any new Mosques, regardless of how many Muslims live in the nearby areas.

Ignore that? I hope not..

But instead of getting in their faces and becoming a face to the "death cult" they so much fear. Join other groups with interests in democracy, religious freedom, free speech. Show the idiots out there that all Muslims aren't Burka/Beard wearing religious zealots.

Vocalist wrote:
Show the idiots out there that all Muslims aren't Burka/Beard wearing religious zealots.

Or zealouts full stop (the bit before was unnecessary IMO -A burkha or a beard does not make someone a zealot).

Another issue within the Muslim community IMO is that people who have been brought up in an Islamic educational environment from a younger age are less likely to have trouble that people who have been deprived of it but jump in later but with more vigour - they have the passion but can for some reason be less balanced.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

What group of people make the EDL?

 

Is religious zeal a bad thing?

personally, I wish i had a bit more of it.

Don't just do something! Stand there.

You wrote:
Vocalist wrote:
Show the idiots out there that all Muslims aren't Burka/Beard wearing religious zealots.

Or zealouts full stop (the bit before was unnecessary IMO -A burkha or a beard does not make someone a zealot).

Another issue within the Muslim community IMO is that people who have been brought up in an Islamic educational environment from a younger age are less likely to have trouble that people who have been deprived of it but jump in later but with more vigour - they have the passion but can for some reason be less balanced.

One could easily argue those who have been "educated with Islam" from a younger age have been "brainwashed" as they ask less questions and readily accept and are more likely to conform - at an older age, people are more mature and more likely to question and be correct...

Are you now arguing that teaching younger people about Islam/learning at a younger age is a bad thing?

Are you just being polemic for the sake of it? it almost feels like you feel you have been scorned are are just offering opposite view points not because they are your thoughts but because they are the opposite to mine.

Do you care about right and wrong or do you just want to take an opposite stance to the one I take?

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:

Do you care about right and wrong or do you just want to take an opposite stance to the one I take?

Haha don't flatter yourself Blum 3

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

Its an honest question. However, I may be flattered depending on the response.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Ya'qub wrote:
Is religious zeal a bad thing?
.

I would say so, yes!

A Muslim who is a religious zealot will find it acceptable to kill another for becoming an apostate. They would also find an atheist like myself to be one without grace and worthy of death.

A Christian religious zealot might think it a good idea to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque, in order to bring about a wave of events predicted to bring back their messiah. Igniting a war with Muslims would just be a good thing for such a zealot, as they wish for Armageddon.

A Jewish Religious zealot would try to retake land they felt was promised to them by God... Oh wait, I think they already did that;)

You see what I mean?

While I do not know enough about christianity to comment on that... are the zealots in the example for Islam and judaism not misapplying their religion?

I think that is an important distinction. Being steadfast in the religion I see as a good thing.

I think there is a different between zeal and zealotry.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
While I do not know enough about christianity to comment on that... are the zealots in the example for Islam and judaism not misapplying their religion?

I think that is an important distinction. Being steadfast in the religion I see as a good thing.

I think there is a different between zeal and zealotry.

The example I gave for Christianity is basically this: the Al Aqsa Mosque is believed to have been built on the same ground as the first and second Temple in Jerusalem. And it is in Christian scripture that the destruction of the Temple would see rise to a chain of events that would see in the Apocalypse, the return of the messiah and groovy stuff like that.

Another example is if you had a car accident with a young child in the car with you, you both go to hospital and receive medical care. Now what if you are both jehovah's witnesses and refuse blood transfusions. Does the child really understand what is happening? If she is in a coma but her parent is not, is it right to refuse her life saving medical help for the sake of religious beliefs.

It is also my experience that if you ask anyone of any religion a question about their faith, then pose the same question to another member of that religion. Two very different answers always come back.. Which can be a problem with zeal.

But if you simply mean zeal as following the very core basics (Halal meat, prayers) then I can agree, partly. But where does religious diligence stop and hardcore zealotry begin?

Vocalist wrote:
Ya'qub wrote:
Is religious zeal a bad thing?
.

I would say so, yes!

A Muslim who is a religious zealot will find it acceptable to kill another for becoming an apostate. They would also find an atheist like myself to be one without grace and worthy of death.

A Christian religious zealot might think it a good idea to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque, in order to bring about a wave of events predicted to bring back their messiah. Igniting a war with Muslims would just be a good thing for such a zealot, as they wish for Armageddon.

A Jewish Religious zealot would try to retake land they felt was promised to them by God... Oh wait, I think they already did that;)

You see what I mean?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeint that being a zealot is a bad thing.

But being a glutton is a bad thing too, and that doesn't mean that food isn't good, or in fact necessary for a healthy life.

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Vocalist wrote:

But if you simply mean zeal as following the very core basics (Halal meat, prayers) then I can agree, partly. But where does religious diligence stop and hardcore zealotry begin?

Well as far as I know finding the distinction is the Challenge of Life (along with trying to avoid being negligent/unmotivated in religious observence too).

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Ya'qub wrote:
Vocalist wrote:
Ya'qub wrote:
Is religious zeal a bad thing?
.

I would say so, yes!

A Muslim who is a religious zealot will find it acceptable to kill another for becoming an apostate. They would also find an atheist like myself to be one without grace and worthy of death.

A Christian religious zealot might think it a good idea to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque, in order to bring about a wave of events predicted to bring back their messiah. Igniting a war with Muslims would just be a good thing for such a zealot, as they wish for Armageddon.

A Jewish Religious zealot would try to retake land they felt was promised to them by God... Oh wait, I think they already did that;)

You see what I mean?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeint that being a zealot is a bad thing.

But being a glutton is a bad thing too, and that doesn't mean that food isn't good, or in fact necessary for a healthy life.

It's ok to be a secular zealot, shoving your secular democractic ideology down the throat of the world, whilst killing millions, but it's not alright to be a religious zealot? Hmmmmmm

Anonymous1 wrote:

It's ok to be a secular zealot, shoving your secular democractic ideology down the throat of the world, whilst killing millions, but it's not alright to be a religious zealot? Hmmmmmm

Erm, a secular zealot is something like a communist who likes to punish people for their faith. And nobody says that is alright either! But I fail to see who is pushing secular democracy down peoples throats when they don't want it.

After all, only through democracy do we know what people actually want! Otherwise it is just guesswork and nothing more.

A secular zealot is like the American administration or the British/French colonialists and their social experiments of shoving their ideologies down the throat of the rest of the world.

If you believe democracy shows what people want, you are mistaken! It should be called capitalism, as Marx once correctly remarked, as the capitalists control government and power and decide what happens (the latest banking crisis funded by mugs - ie joe public! - is illustrative of this). Elections are little more than a farce for bouncing power between existing elites... rather than believing their propaganda, you should read some critique about it to understand the reality behind the slogans.

Anonymous1 wrote:

It's ok to be a secular zealot, shoving your secular democractic ideology down the throat of the world, whilst killing millions, but it's not alright to be a religious zealot? Hmmmmmm

what?

have u got schizophrenia?

cos no1 said that so it seems you are hearing voices.

I'm getting seriously worried about ur mental health.

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Anonymous1 wrote:
A secular zealot is like the American administration or the British/French colonialists and their social experiments of shoving their ideologies down the throat of the rest of the world.

If you believe democracy shows what people want, you are mistaken! It should be called capitalism, as Marx once correctly remarked, as the capitalists control government and power and decide what happens (the latest banking crisis funded by mugs - ie joe public! - is illustrative of this). Elections are little more than a farce for bouncing power between existing elites... rather than believing their propaganda, you should read some critique about it to understand the reality behind the slogans.

Sorry, but now you've lost me. Was that a serious statement?

Vocalist wrote:
Anonymous1 wrote:
A secular zealot is like the American administration or the British/French colonialists and their social experiments of shoving their ideologies down the throat of the rest of the world.

If you believe democracy shows what people want, you are mistaken! It should be called capitalism, as Marx once correctly remarked, as the capitalists control government and power and decide what happens (the latest banking crisis funded by mugs - ie joe public! - is illustrative of this). Elections are little more than a farce for bouncing power between existing elites... rather than believing their propaganda, you should read some critique about it to understand the reality behind the slogans.

Sorry, but now you've lost me. Was that a serious statement?

I'm sure you're lost - secularist democrates enjoy playing politics with language, labelling their enemies with crude epithets (cummies - red threat, Muslims - green menace/etremists/terrorists etc) - but shocked when someone regards their ideologies and systems as extremist, evil and disgusting that need to be removed from the face of the earth and let humanity live in tranquility.

Anonymous1 wrote:

I'm sure you're lost -

rude

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Anonymous1 wrote:

I'm sure you're lost - secularist democrates enjoy playing politics with language, labelling their enemies with crude epithets (cummies - red threat, Muslims - green menace/etremists/terrorists etc) - but shocked when someone regards their ideologies and systems as extremist, evil and disgusting that need to be removed from the face of the earth and let humanity live in tranquility.

I'm lost in taking you serious, but if you really are. Then good luck! There are are said to be benefits with wearing foil hats (good for keeping the head warm) as well as keeping out those mind control rays from the Zionist overlords.

You wrote:
2. The same can be said of Muslims. When Muslims present views that seem to not fit with your understanding of Islam, when they show intolerance (often towards other Muslims too), should their views be challenged or should they simply be ignored?

Your question assumes intolerance is wrong - in Western political thought it no doubt is due to their religious political wars and peculiar history.

However is intolerance wrong in Islamic thought? Is Allah tolerant of kufr, nifaq and batil in Quran? He seems to throw a lot of haqq against the batil knocking its brains out in some ayats!

Are you happy to toleare people insulting the Prophet(saw)?

What did the companions do in such situations?

Where is the correct definition, as opposed to ideological definitions, of tolerance?

personally I dislike the word 'tolerance'.

It can be misleading. When people talk about a 'tolerant society' this generally has positive connotations.

But how is merely 'tolerating' other peoples/cultures/views/religions a good thing?

I might 'tolerate' a loud drilling noise outside my window when I want to stay in bed, or a wasp buzzing about the room.

For me, 'tolerance' means putting up with something that you don't like.

Regardless of whether Allah (swt) is Tolerant... that is a whole other alley where translations of words from Arabic to English and perhaps back again... that is something that discussing here would be neigh-on impossible.

But in terms of a real-world/dunya; I don't want to live in a 'tolerant' society (!) I would much prefer it to an intolerant one, sure, but if I had the choice I'd want to live in a society that embraced and celebrated diversity. one of mutual understanding and love.

Yes, love, even with non-Muslims. Not their ideas or their beliefs. Hate those with all our hearts; the people, however, can be seen as potential/dormant Muslims. (And not necessarily because we, personally, or someone else has gone out actively making da'wah.)

Allah is the One Who Guides.

If someone converts to Islam, all their previous good deeds (intentioned or not) become Blessed and are Rewarded.

Therefore we can love all the Muslims and Potential Muslims and Dormant Muslims out there. And even the non-Muslims too, just in case.

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Ya'qub wrote:
personally I dislike the word 'tolerance'.

It can be misleading. When people talk about a 'tolerant society' this generally has positive connotations.

But how is merely 'tolerating' other peoples/cultures/views/religions a good thing?

I might 'tolerate' a loud drilling noise outside my window when I want to stay in bed, or a wasp buzzing about the room.

For me, 'tolerance' means putting up with something that you don't like.

Regardless of whether Allah (swt) is Tolerant... that is a whole other alley where translations of words from Arabic to English and perhaps back again... that is something that discussing here would be neigh-on impossible.

But in terms of a real-world/dunya; I don't want to live in a 'tolerant' society (!) I would much prefer it to an intolerant one, sure, but if I had the choice I'd want to live in a society that embraced and celebrated diversity. one of mutual understanding and love.

Yes, love, even with non-Muslims. Not their ideas or their beliefs. Hate those with all our hearts; the people, however, can be seen as potential/dormant Muslims. (And not necessarily because we, personally, or someone else has gone out actively making da'wah.)

Allah is the One Who Guides.

If someone converts to Islam, all their previous good deeds (intentioned or not) become Blessed and are Rewarded.

Therefore we can love all the Muslims and Potential Muslims and Dormant Muslims out there. And even the non-Muslims too, just in case.

+1, i really like the way you write (Y)

just. i like your definition of "tolerance" as it's also the way i see it. But what would be your definition of "intolerance"? Because you said you'd like to live in an intolerant society. what did you mean by that?

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

I agree with your points about the meaning of Tolerance Yaqub.

I see all this talk of tolerance is a red herring - an ideology that causes intolerance of other's views, just look at the writings of leading secularists about religion, has to then try to sort the problem it created out.

Islam is the only system that sorts the problem out - a system of truth where the creator asks us to live peacefully with others who are misguided - Allah will take them to task, humans cannot - all they can do is discuss sensibly with them, it is Allah who changes hearts... beautiful solution! No need for rhetoric of "be tolerant"!

Anonymous1 wrote:
a system of truth where the creator asks us to live peacefully with others who are misguided... No need for rhetoric of "be tolerant"!

I don't understand your problem.

Pages