Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Mohammad313Ali

Jordan Peterson - Islamaphobia

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

After certain depictions of the holy Prophet were raised in portraying his eminence with the most spiteful rhetoric certain individuals have deemed this a matter of ''hate speech'' that carries certain ''Islamaphobic'' notations, wherein clauses were to be discussed within parliament and the suggestion of putting a restriction on what can be said in regards to Islam and the holy Prophet would be a possibility. 

Now of course we all feel very pained and filled with turmoil when we see the Prophet of kindness, generosity, forbearance, and whatever virtue may come to mind, for he indeed was the embodiment of good and the repeller of evil; however would it be a good idea to cast certain restrictions on the freedom of speech that individuals have been so rightfully given, for indeed if this were the case then in the future one may introduce a clause that would limit any form of rhetoric that may perhaps be against the LGBT community wherein if an individual seeks to shun any ideological or political advance they may undertake, we in turn will be subject to ''hate speech'' and our voices will be silenced.

For I see it as these individuals are no lovers of Islam or the Muslims, I may argue they play a great factor in the many issues they raise in regards to ''islamophobia'' or what may otherwise pertain to the spectrum, moreover these individuals have in my opinion chosen to mask themselves with the guise of equality, sensibility, and reform, but in reality they merely seek to attack the ability of an individual to comment, and relay their opinion no matter how daunting or offense it may be, so as to make ease for future endeavors that will silence the voice of justice when it is needed to emerge in the face of evil. 

I understand the concern Jordan Peterson here is raising as I stated earlier it will be the causation of many future implications in regards to freedom of speech, taking into consider Salman Rushide and the Satanic Verses in which he was deemed a blasphemer and enemy of Islam, what are your thoughts in the renunciation of certain conjectures and should there be limitations on speech if one may deem it carrying hateful or offensive remarks.

I believe that no matter how painstakingly the accusations or depictions may be there should be no censorship as we can use our freedom of speech in such grounds to shun and end any form of ill depiction of Islam and our holy Prophet as well as not give ease to these individuals who in the future may use this same tactic to silence our voices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with insulting other people's belief.

Yet every time freedom of speech is brought forward, insulting begins.

Why not use freedom of speech for something real and something that matters? because we can't.

The freedom of speech we have is not freedom of speech. It's an illusion given to us to make us think we have freedom of speech.

Don't believe me? Check in how many countries holocaust denial is a crime and the punishment for it. Either hefty fine or jail sentence. How many other examples are there?

freedom of speech = illusion of freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AkhiraisReal said:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with insulting other people's belief.

Yet every time freedom of speech is brought forward, insulting begins.

Why not use freedom of speech for something real and something that matters? because we can't.

The freedom of speech we have is not freedom of speech. It's an illusion given to us to make us think we have freedom of speech.

Don't believe me? Check in how many countries holocaust denial is a crime and the punishment for it. Either hefty fine or jail sentence. How many other examples are there?

freedom of speech = illusion of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything that isn’t a call to action.

insulting is a malevolent form of free speech, we can use our free speech for anything that we wish to voice our opinion on however if we begin to bombard certain areas, then we may in turn be part of a susceptible censorship form third party sources.

as for it being an illusion I am not really seeking to entertain such semantics, in the end we have the freedom to voice any idea or thought we have in regards to a certain group of people be it through the internet or certain academia. 

As for holocaust denial it brings forth a higher question to what indeed are such countries aiming to keep concealed.

if we were to put limitations on questioning or attacking belief systems then one would  raise the question towards the hand that is working to keep criticism away from such beliefs. 

And likewise if we can’t criticize belief systems then it’ll generate a greater problem in the future when this also applies to certain deviant ideologies and beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The line was crossed the moment he insulted Jesus and Moses but he doesn't realize that these two great Prophets hold a high status to us. Why slander and utter blank statements without any merit? No, we Muslims treat religion with sensitivity, something alien to people of other faiths. The moment we allow this and that, the moment religion becomes a joke, the moment slander and misuse of free speech manifests into thought, belief and action. If you have statements to make, no matter how horrible they are, come and we will discuss them, and assess the merit of your statement, otherwise, it is all in vain and a misuse of freedom of speech. I don't agree with the message Jordan is trying to convey because as we have seen, this riles up Muslims, rightly so, and for what? 

want to make a sensitive statement about my religion? Okay, to my face, so we can discuss it. Otherwise you can remain quiet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 8:07 AM, A_A said:

The line was crossed the moment he insulted Jesus and Moses but he doesn't realize that these two great Prophets hold a high status to us.

Brother I am not agreeing with the methodology that Jordan used to portray his opinion, nonetheless it is evident.

On 12/9/2019 at 8:07 AM, A_A said:

No, we Muslims treat religion with sensitivity, something alien to people of other faiths. The moment we allow this and that, the moment religion becomes a joke, the moment slander and misuse of free speech manifests into thought, belief and action.

Yes, but we also have individuals rising with many cultic beliefs and ideologies and they will soon use the argument of sensibility to negate any means of criticism or argument.

On 12/9/2019 at 8:07 AM, A_A said:

If you have statements to make, no matter how horrible they are, come and we will discuss them, and assess the merit of your statement, otherwise, it is all in vain and a misuse of freedom of speech.

 Brother such free speech policing is not realistic, who will set the bar in regards to when freedom of speech becomes vain or misused? in what way will we be able to establish a criteria that follows through with everyone's ideal notion of what free speech is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot police a populace with what they say. It is human nature to exercise something we are told not to do, as a show that we possess the power to do so. So in that regard, I can predict that anti-islamaphobia can backfire in its agenda. My words are directed towards sensible people, as to convey a clear and logical point. If you are a sensible non-Muslim, do not make statements which has the sole intention of offending Muslims or Islam. And if you do, do not be surprised if Muslims retaliate in the name of their faith. Where is your honor if a man approaches you, to simply slander your Prophet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 8:26 AM, AkhiraisReal said:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with insulting other people's belief.

Yet every time freedom of speech is brought forward, insulting begins.

Why not use freedom of speech for something real and something that matters? because we can't.

The freedom of speech we have is not freedom of speech. It's an illusion given to us to make us think we have freedom of speech.

Don't believe me? Check in how many countries holocaust denial is a crime and the punishment for it. Either hefty fine or jail sentence. How many other examples are there?

freedom of speech = illusion of freedom of speech.

Lol that's because the only country that has "absolute" freedom of speech is the US. That's why all holocaust deniers write their books there. You can even burn the American flag itself in the US and you are legally protected from any charges. 

Your example pertain mostly to Europe, which do not agree with the absolute nature of free speech, as opposed to Americans. Because while the US has the first amendment, while Europe in turn implement anti-discrimination laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

If you insult anyone it shows what kind of person you are. The insult usually uncovers truths about you, not about the person you’re insulting

Still people get hurt and much suffering can be avoided by using mindfulness in how we speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

I agree, but the world is different than how we think it should be.

Idealism without using it is day-dreaming, idealism with practicality is progress. Anyone can use mindfulness in their speech, it's understanding mindfulness that's the hard part. But if we use and practice it, we can make progress towards understanding mindfulness.

As for people like Jordan Peterson, they spew their hatred because they are afraid and suffer because of their fear. Hatred is an irrational and fear-driven emotion, it cannot be reasoned with it. The more fear, the stronger the hatred.

Therefore, it stands to reason two things: If I say whatever I want without considering their reactions, then I cannot pretend to say that I understand them or say that I am compassionate to them. I'm just being irresponsible and needlessly provoking them. 

Secondly, by not misusing my freedom of speech, I'm giving them a chance to rehabilitate into society and to show how wrong it is for them to hold such disturbing and toxic views about me as a Muslim. Only then people will leave Jordan Peterson in droves.

So, no, I will not say whatever I want. There's a time and place for everything, including my  opinions.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Idealism without using it is day-dreaming, idealism with practicality is progress. Anyone can use mindfulness in their speech, it's understanding mindfulness that's the hard part. But if we use and practice it, we can make progress towards understanding mindfulness.

As for people like Jordan Peterson, they spew their hatred because they are afraid and suffer because of their fear. Hatred is an irrational and fear-driven emotion, it cannot be reasoned with it. The more fear, the stronger the hatred.

Therefore, it stands to reason two things: If I say whatever I want without considering their reactions, then I cannot pretend to say that I understand them or say that I am compassionate to them. I'm just being irresponsible and needlessly provoking them. 

Secondly, by not misusing my freedom of speech, I'm giving them a chance to rehabilitate into society and to show how wrong it is for them to hold such disturbing and toxic views about me as a Muslim. Only then people will leave Jordan Peterson in droves.

So, no, I will not say whatever I want. There's a time and place for everything, including my  opinions.

1. Indeed through any form of dialogue we must be steadfast in implementing the mannerisms of the Prophet and his holy progeny, however there are many varying worldviews that each draw their own distinctive line in regards to ''mindfulness'' and what is acceptable in dialogue and what is not, there are individuals who enjoy banter, whereas others view it as repulsive; therefore it is unrealistic to draw such expectations and in creating limitations we only establish greater disillusion.

2. I don't necessarily see Jordan being spiteful here, but rather raising a concern in regards to the double standards or possible outcome of such mitigation and or censorship.

3. Again to each their own and us as followers of the Ahlul Bayt and lovers of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) with the ability to engage in demeaning rhetoric and choosing not to, will be adamant upon maintaining logic, honor, dignity, and respect through any means of discussion or negation of certain polemic issues; whereas like brother @Ibn Al-Shahid alluded to: The defying parties will be digging a hole for themselves through the use of hatred, which will highlight to third-party overseers the reality of the teachings of our Prophet, the importance of good dialogue, and the essence of where such ignorance may stem from in regards to such ignorant personalities.

4. This statement cannot be farther from the truth, for if we force individuals to respect a certain ideology or narrative and confine them within a limited box, in which they must be weary of their speech, then it will result in further hatred and malice; as well as our own inability to respond to individuals who wish to ''rehabilitate'' society through the acceptance of certain deviated notations, such as LGBT rhetoric, extreme feminism, and eventually issues such as incest, and other sexual and ideological deviances that are too ample to list, and will eventually be listed as a worldview which must be protected when it comes to criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammad313Ali

Apologies, I misunderstood the thread and re-read it again and then read what you wrote. I take back what I wrote  about Mr.. Peterson because I was confused. I thought he was a far right politician and an Islamophobe because of the title. The rest what I wrote, I stand by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Anyone should be able to say whatever they want. We have to be ready to debate and discuss, not call for protection

Yeah but not on a public sphere. The dangerous thing is when we give everyone a platform to express their opinions. Sometimes many innocent and naive people can be deceived when people speak from the pulpit or stage. A lot of these people have this form of arrogance when they're given such a platform. The more these people have a large following, they become full of themselves and continue to speak nonsense. Why give them the opportunity to start with? There definitely needs to be some censoring or professionalism. 

When you speak in public you need to have emotional intelligence. Islam doesn't tell us to say anything. It's better to keep silent if our words are destructive. We require wisdom and that doesn't come to many people unfortunately.

No one has the right to say hateful things regarding Prophets etc. If they want to express their opinions then go to a local pub and rant all you want. The last thing I want to see is such people getting publicity for their nonsense. Mockery and hatred are different things. You need to punish such people who use their words irresponsibly. Let the world know that there are consequences for not being civil and ethical. There's consequences for hurting the sentiments of people. If someone was to mock our parents, we have the right to get offended. It doesn't mean that we lack faith or can't defend our religion.

 

 

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gets to decide what words are hateful? You're just setting up a way for a dictator to come in and rule with an iron fist. Look at the Gulf countries; if you say anything against their Sheikhs you get jailed, even if it's not negative and simply critical. We have seen censorship play out on social media, it's ridiculous what you could get banned for. Censoring people because they are "white straight males" is the new norm. Telling someone "you can't speak because you're a male" is the gospel on twitter. This is what censorship does, it creates ridiculous rules for people who love playing the victim.  

Yes, but most people aren't Muslim so they don't know what Islam says nor do they follow Islam. "Emotional Intelligence" is a great thing to have, but you are not being realistic. Censorship is a dangerous game that will only lead to worse things.

People get offended all the time. Fat people get offended when they have to pay for an extra ticket because of their size. Should we ban this law? So what if you're offended? You're special? Everyone can be offended by anything. You're just setting yourself up to be censored by anyone who doesn't agree with you. Gay people will be offended and HORRIFIED by Islamic laws against them. Does that mean we need to censor our laws for them? 

I'm sorry, but anyone who agrees with censorship has skipped history class.

You can be offended or you can forgive. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has given us the perfect blueprint about hate speech: 

وهكذا كان الإمام (عليه السلام) يعفو ويصفح، وقد عفى (عليه السلام) عن ساب له، كما في نهج البلاغة، حيث سبه رجل من الخوارج في محضره لما تكلم الإمام (عليه السلام) بكلمة حكيمة، فقال الخارجي مشيراً إلى الإمام(عليه السلام): (قاتله الله من كافر ما أفقهه).

فهمّ أصحاب الإمام بالانتقام من ذلك الخارجي، فمنعهم الإمام وقال لهم: (انه سبّ بسب أو عفو عن ذنب)(9) يعني انه يحق لي أن أسبه في مقابل سبه، أو أعفو عن ذنبه، وأنا أولى بالعفو، فعفى عنه.

Imam Ali did not stop him nor prosecute him, which to me shows that freedom to say whatever you want existed in the time of his ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I watched the video above two years ago, and I don't want to spend my precious time to watch it again. Jordan Peterson is an intellectual who says controversial things to get attention. He is entertaining when his subject matter is not religion or politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 9:24 PM, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Yeah but not on a public sphere.

 

On 12/13/2019 at 9:24 PM, ali_fatheroforphans said:

If they want to express their opinions then go to a local pub and rant all you want. The last thing I want to see is such people getting publicity for their nonsense.

Ali, a pub is also a public sphere. It's in the name. As for people, I'm sorry to say but they already have become famous or noted for insulting Islam or Muhammad (sawas) on social media, news, etc.

 

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 12:43 PM, Sumerian said:

the only country that has "absolute" freedom of speech is the US.

You can even burn the American flag itself in the US and you are legally protected from any charges. 

 

Those freedoms also give them the freedom to shoot you for burning it lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 3:28 AM, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

I'm sorry, but anyone who agrees with censorship has skipped history class.

You can be offended or you can forgive. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has given us the perfect blueprint about hate speech: 

وهكذا كان الإمام (عليه السلام) يعفو ويصفح، وقد عفى (عليه السلام) عن ساب له، كما في نهج البلاغة، حيث سبه رجل من الخوارج في محضره لما تكلم الإمام (عليه السلام) بكلمة حكيمة، فقال الخارجي مشيراً إلى الإمام(عليه السلام): (قاتله الله من كافر ما أفقهه).

فهمّ أصحاب الإمام بالانتقام من ذلك الخارجي، فمنعهم الإمام وقال لهم: (انه سبّ بسب أو عفو عن ذنب)(9) يعني انه يحق لي أن أسبه في مقابل سبه، أو أعفو عن ذنبه، وأنا أولى بالعفو، فعفى عنه.

Imam Ali did not stop him nor prosecute him, which to me shows that freedom to say whatever you want existed in the time of his ruling.

Thank you for sharing the beautiful narration that's a true lesson in exemplary Akhlaq.

We have so much to learn from it. Do you have a translated source to share with the full Arabic one to spread the benefit? 

 

I believe this lesson from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) answers much of what's been discussed in this thread. 

Edited by Moalfas
Clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moalfas said:

Thank you for sharing the beautiful narration that's a true lesson in exemplary Akhlaq.

We have so much to learn from it. Do you have a translated source to share with the full Arabic one to spread the benefit? 

 

I believe this lesson from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) answers much of what's been discussed in this thread. 

السلام عليكم Brother,

Unfortunately, I could not find an English translation. But the Hadith can be found in Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 33, Hadith 643 (page 434)

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had already looked and couldn't find and had sourced it and started translating but this auto text save failed lol it's a blessed opportunity to translate a blessed narration by أمير المؤمنين

Why don't you give it a go? 

Edited by Moalfas
Further thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

السلام عليكم Brother,

Unfortunately, I could not find an English translation. But the Hadith can be found in Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 33, Hadith 643 (page 434)

Hadith n. 420

420. It is related that Amir al-mu’minin, peace be upon him, was sitting with his companions when a beautiful woman passed by them and they began to look at her whereupn Amir al-mu’minin, peace be upon him, said: The eyes of these men are covetous and this glancing is the cause of their becoming covetous. Whenever anyone of you sees a woman who attracts him, he should meet his wife because she is a woman like his wife.

420. وروي أنه عليه السلام كان جالساً في أصحابه، فمرّت بهم امرأة جميلة، فرمقها القوم بأبصارهم. فقال عليه السلام : إِنَّ أَبْصَار هذِهِ الْفُحُولِ طَوَامِحُ وَإِنَّ ذلِكَ سَبَبُ هَبَابِهَا فإِذَا نَظَرَ أَحَدُكُمْ إِلَى امْرَأَةٍ تُعْجِبُهُ فَلْيُلاَمِسْ أَهْلَهُ، فَإِنَّمَا هِيَ امْرَأَهٌ كَامْرَأَةٍ.

Then one of the Kharijites said: “May Allah kill this heretic! How logical he is!” People then leapt towards him to kill him, but Amir al-mu’minin, peace be upon him, said: “Wait a bit. There should either be abuse [for an abuse] or else pardoning from the offence.”

فقال رجل من الخوارج: قاتله الله كافراً ما أفقهه. فوثب القوم لِيقتلوه. فقال عليه السلام : رُوَيْداً إِنَّمَا هُوَ سَبٌّ بِسَبٍّ، أَوْ عَفْوٌ عَنْ ذَنْبٍ.

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/selections-sayings-and-preaching-amir-al-muminin-Ali#hadith-n-420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

Peterson is an idiot and a fraud. The fact that he is seen as a genius or even interesting is really a sign of intellectual decay. 

No need for such backhanded remarks. As for Peterson I am merely entertaining an inquiry raised by him in regards to the censorship of speech, perhaps a sign of intellectual decay is your inability to discern between your preconceived ideas of an individual and the content of the discussion at hand. As we are not referring to Jordan per se, but the issue of free speech and censorship when it comes to mocking religious ordeals and what otherwise may be considered sacred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

No need for such backhanded remarks. As for Peterson I am merely entertaining an inquiry raised by him in regards to the censorship of speech, perhaps a sign of intellectual decay is your inability to discern between your preconceived ideas of an individual and the content of the discussion at hand. As we are not referring to Jordan per se, but the issue of free speech and censorship when it comes to mocking religious ordeals and what otherwise may be considered sacred.

It was not a back handed remark aimed at you. The fact is though, and it is a worrying sign of the time, is that he has been taken seriously by a lot of people. 

As to the larger issue I think it is complicated. What do you do when you have a diverse society? For instance should Muslims in the West be forced to respect homosexual sins or demon worshippers? No obviously- but if the choice is between that and tolerating through gritted teeth people being allowed to insult the Prophets which would you choose if you could not have both? In a majority Muslim society obviously things would be different but Peterson does not live in such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

It was not a back handed remark aimed at you. The fact is though, and it is a worrying sign of the time, is that he has been taken seriously by a lot of people. 

As to the larger issue I think it is complicated. What do you do when you have a diverse society? For instance should Muslims in the West be forced to respect homosexual sins or demon worshippers? No obviously- but if the choice is between that and tolerating through gritted teeth people being allowed to insult the Prophets which would you choose if you could not have both? In a majority Muslim society obviously things would be different but Peterson does not live in such. 

Brother that's exactly the point I am making, Muslims should not be forced to accept satan worshippers and or sexual deviants, however if we were to accept the consideration of censoring the voices of those who are against our holy Prophet, eventually that same rhetoric will turn around and silence us when we wish to speak against individuals who practice and believe in such mundane acts.

let them say what they wish to say and the voice of justice and reason from the school of the Prophetand his immaculate progeny will silence them, as well as act as a means of propagating the divine nature of this blessed school of thought, where we are not afraid nor insecure of any individual who wishes to point a finger towards us.

We are Muslims and above all Shia of Ali and we fear no means of confrontation, we do not need to be defended by any western or external censorship laws, we will and have built a fortress of truth that is impeccable in defense and impetuous in attack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...