Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sharia Law
-
26-09-2009 2:36pm#1Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!
People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.
If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.
Its quite a pity that most muslims themselves have no clue about what the Sharia actually is and how the Islamic state was run during the early Islamic age which was centuries ahead of any other civilization in the world.
The media and people with no clue and knowledge about the Islamic system of governance and Jurisprudence keep constantly defaming it while most muslims can't even retaliate because of their own lack of knowledge.
I think its about time muslims stand up for themselves and what they believe in and respond back to the constant attacks against their religion. Its time muslims put up a voice of their own in the world and stop everyone else speak for them.0
Comments
-
af_thefragile wrote: »Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.
Could you please elaborate on this? If anything I would have thought that the Jewish and Christian traditions had a role in the shaping of these rights, but I would be interested to hear your point of view in more detail.0 -
I'm with Jakkass here. I don't want to dispute that common views of Sharia are often simplistic (even using the term "Sharia" in a monolithic sense does not bring out the diversity of interpretation, not only at the level of the different schools of jurisprudence within Islam but also the role of the individual scholar in interpreting Sharia). Too much emphasis is placed on the "hudud" (or required) punishments stipulated for a small number of offences in the Qur'an (many of which can also be found in the Old Testament), and Sharia covers a much wider spectrum of activities.
But you have to remember that there was very little knowledge of Islam in the Western world until the 19th century, and even then it was filtered through the writings of "orientalists". So it is unlikely that ideas on human rights, ethics, freedom of speech and so on that developed in the West in the modern era had much at all to do with the ideals of Islam as embodied in Sharia. Indeed, Muslim modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries often regarded Sharia as backward and as a barrier to enhancing the rights of the individual.
A major issue for Muslims is how far the Qur'an and the Sunnah set out a way of living that should be applied in exactly the same way now as it was when the Prophet was governing Medina (or even when the four "rightly guided Caliphs" were governing over the rapidly expanding Muslim sphere of control in the 30 or so years after the Prophet's death). This problem is illustrated by reference to womens' rights. The general view among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars appears to be that the revelations of Islam significantly improved the rights and status of women in comparison with the pre-Islamic "age of ignorance" in Arabia, and indeed with what we know of women's rights in other parts of the world at that time. However, does Islam as a religion now restrict women's rights excessively in comparison with the rights available in Western secular societies? Or are the restrictions on women's rights simply cultural phenomena of predominantly Muslim societies that represent corruptions of a true Sharia based on the original sources? Or, a third possibility, that the Qur'an and the Prophet "got it right" - that the rights of women under an interpretation of Sharia that is true to the fundamental sources of Islam are in some sense "optimal" for the best society, and that the modern West has got it wrong?
This is a huge issue, and like Jakkass I'd be interested in Muslim views on the strengths and limitations of Sharia in the modern world.0 -
Could you please elaborate on this? If anything I would have thought that the Jewish and Christian traditions had a role in the shaping of these rights, but I would be interested to hear your point of view in more detail.
The Rashidun Caliphate was the first Islamic Caliphate set up by the companions of Muhammad according to the teachings in the Quran and of the prophet Muhammad and is/was considered as a template for the later Islamic Caliphates to come.
It has little influence from Jewish and Christian traditions as the people who lived there were all of Arab nomadic tribes.
There's a lot your could read about it as a lot of reforms took place from the start of the Islamic Caliphate (around 600AD) till the end of it in late 19th/early 20th century. Each Caliphate with a slightly different system of governance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_Law
Sorry all wiki links. But there's a lot that could be said.
The Islamic Caliphate was completely different from the Islamic states you see today. It was centuries ahead of what was going on in most other civilizations.
While concepts like human rights, womens rights, freedom of speech etc are relatively modern "age of enlightment" 19th-20th century concepts, they were practiced in the Islamic caliphate since the early Rashidun period.
Sorry again from wiki:
"In Islamic ethics freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century.[9] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[10] According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[11]"
"The "concept of what one might call a welfare state" appeared during the Abbasid Caliphate in the 8th century. The concepts of welfare and pension were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the five Pillars of Islam, since the time of Caliph al-Mansur. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058-1111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[7]"
In the earliest centuries of Islam (the Rashidun time) women had a very good position in society. They could work, earn income and make their living. It was only later over the centuries that women's rights were degraded and women were forced to sit at home and stuff due to reasons that had nothing to do with Islam. Many Arab Bedouin (nomadic/tribal people) were too dedicated to their pre-Islamic customs and traditions and resisted change to what the new religion (islam) bought to them.
Most Islamic states nowdays are more influenced by culture and the lack of education than the Sharia.
Hence why I said most muslims themselves have no clue about what sharia is.0 -
Sharia law is not frowned upon by most people that are not muslim, we just don't give a ****e about it .
Sharia law is being practiced in European countries such as England and Holland but I think it is just used there to sort out minor disputes within the muslim population eg divorce ,family disputes ,none of the amputations or stoning to death of young girls or the hangings of homosexuals and drug dealers that we hear about in the East ,'yet'.
Sharia law has no place in Europe,these people are mostly immigrants in our European countries,muslims have to understand that we in Europe have our 'Own' laws and these are the laws that they need to adhere to.0 -
I'm with Jakkass here. I don't want to dispute that common views of Sharia are often simplistic (even using the term "Sharia" in a monolithic sense does not bring out the diversity of interpretation, not only at the level of the different schools of jurisprudence within Islam but also the role of the individual scholar in interpreting Sharia). Too much emphasis is placed on the "hudud" (or required) punishments stipulated for a small number of offences in the Qur'an (many of which can also be found in the Old Testament), and Sharia covers a much wider spectrum of activities.
But you have to remember that there was very little knowledge of Islam in the Western world until the 19th century, and even then it was filtered through the writings of "orientalists". So it is unlikely that ideas on human rights, ethics, freedom of speech and so on that developed in the West in the modern era had much at all to do with the ideals of Islam as embodied in Sharia. Indeed, Muslim modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries often regarded Sharia as backward and as a barrier to enhancing the rights of the individual.
I wouldn't say Western world had very little knowledge of Islam till the 19th century.
Europe learnt a lot from the Islamic world much earlier during the medieval world due to the influence of the Caliphate of Cordoba/Al-Andalus and due to the Crusade campaigns.A major issue for Muslims is how far the Qur'an and the Sunnah set out a way of living that should be applied in exactly the same way now as it was when the Prophet was governing Medina (or even when the four "rightly guided Caliphs" were governing over the rapidly expanding Muslim sphere of control in the 30 or so years after the Prophet's death). This problem is illustrated by reference to womens' rights. The general view among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars appears to be that the revelations of Islam significantly improved the rights and status of women in comparison with the pre-Islamic "age of ignorance" in Arabia, and indeed with what we know of women's rights in other parts of the world at that time. However, does Islam as a religion now restrict women's rights excessively in comparison with the rights available in Western secular societies? Or are the restrictions on women's rights simply cultural phenomena of predominantly Muslim societies that represent corruptions of a true Sharia based on the original sources? Or, a third possibility, that the Qur'an and the Prophet "got it right" - that the rights of women under an interpretation of Sharia that is true to the fundamental sources of Islam are in some sense "optimal" for the best society, and that the modern West has got it wrong?
This is a huge issue, and like Jakkass I'd be interested in Muslim views on the strengths and limitations of Sharia in the modern world.
With reference to womens rights, it might not be as liberal and free as the modern 21st society but its definitely not oppressive like what you see in Taliban and other Islamic states either.
Women have full right to work, start a business, take part in politics, make a living and all according to the teachings of Quran and Muhammad.
So you can't say the Sharia is oppressive to women cuz in the Rashidun Caliphate women had a very active role in the society.
Can't say the modern west has got many secular and liberal issues wrong.
If it works in the society fine and everyone's happy about it, there's nothing wrong with it.
During the Rashidun period everyone in general (women included) were happy with the state of the society. That was right.
Right now in the Islamic world, people aren't happy with how culture has overtaken Sharia and that is wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sharia law is not frowned upon by most people that are not muslim, we just don't give a ****e about it .
Sharia law is being practiced in European countries such as England and Holland but I think it is just used there to sort out minor disputes within the muslim population eg divorce ,family disputes ,none of the amputations or stoning to death of young girls or the hangings of homosexuals and drug dealers that we hear about in the East ,'yet'.
Sharia law has no place in Europe,these people are mostly immigrants in our European countries,muslims have to understand that we in Europe have our 'Own' laws and these are the laws that they need to adhere to.
Thats exactly the problem.
All people think about sharia law is "amputations, stoning to death of young girls and hanging of homosexuals".
My point is not about weather sharia law should be implemented in Europe or not.
Its about how Sharia Law has been defamed due to the media and people talking about it with little knowledge about it and no one taking the time (especially muslims) to actually find out and understand what it actually is.
I posted this topic in the "Islam" Forum for a reason cuz this topic is for muslim people to ponder over.
Didn't post this is the Politics forum or somewhere else to debate weather Sharia Law should be imposed upon Europe.
No one is asking to change European laws to Sharia law.
Infact the Sharia also states that people must follow the laws of the country they're living in regardless its Islamic or not.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »I wouldn't say Western world had very little knowledge of Islam till the 19th century.
Europe learnt a lot from the Islamic world much earlier during the medieval world due to the influence of the Caliphate of Cordoba/Al-Andalus and due to the Crusade campaigns.
It might seem that modern human rights are based on Islam due to similarities between Abrahamic principles in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Most of the development on the human rights front seemed to be a progression of the skepticism in society provided by the Reformation. The publication of the Bible was a big factor in awareness of social responsibilities. The Biblical text had been in Latin, only accessible by elites prior to this. Again, that is my thought process, feel free to challenge me with alternative reasoning.af_thefragile wrote: »With reference to womens rights, it might not be as liberal and free as the modern 21st society but its definitely not oppressive like what you see in Taliban and other Islamic states either.
Ah, that's your interpretation of the Qur'an. Surely the Taliban and the Saudi religious leaders base their viewpoint on Islamic texts just as much as you do. To be effective in discrediting them you would have to look at the Islamic texts they use and state in a reasoned fashion why their interpretation is mistaken.af_thefragile wrote: »Women have full right to work, start a business, take part in politics, make a living and all according to the teachings of Quran and Muhammad.
So you can't say the Sharia is oppressive to women cuz in the Rashidun Caliphate women had a very active role in the society.
Again, one implementation of Islam amongst many.af_thefragile wrote: »Can't say the modern west has got many secular and liberal issues wrong.
If it works in the society fine and everyone's happy about it, there's nothing wrong with it.
Can't you? I think on quite a few grounds we have got it wrong. Every cultural system has got some issues wrong. The West is far from a perfect society. Then again a perfect society is only down to peoples interpretation.af_thefragile wrote: »During the Rashidun period everyone in general (women included) were happy with the state of the society. That was right.
Right now in the Islamic world, people aren't happy with how culture has overtaken Sharia and that is wrong.
I think for this reasoning to be accurate you would have to show that the people who advocate the views many Westerners find unreasonable are not based on Sharia law, you would have to look at what verses they cite from Islamic texts and find a more accurate interpretation that can be agreed on about it. Otherwise this discussion is fruitless.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
That's why. I read this morning of 13 year old who was stoned to death because she was raped. I did not 'frown' when I read this, I cried...0 -
You did read the post about what is most likely to get you banned from this forum? Story from 2005 from an anti-Islam site?0 -
Source watch has some good info on the "American Thinker":American Thinker
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication. According to it website, American Thinker presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans." [1]
There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber.
A good example of this can be found in a December 5th, 2007 piece on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the state of Iran's Nuclear weapon's program.[1]
Writer Ed Lasky first refers to an Editorial in the New York Sun inferring that the intelligence community is against President Bush.[2] Lasky concludes that "the National Intelligence Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform US policy towards Iran." To substantiate his argument he goes on to quote an editorial from the Wall Street Journal[3] which avers the authors of the NIE study are: "former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have 'reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials'." This statement "Hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials", restated as fact in the AT article, is quoted and requoted by rightwing blogs and news sources throughout the media.[4][5][6]
Ultimately this type of statement winds up being echoed by mainstream pundits such as Rush Limbaugh.[7]
Um hardly what I would call impartial and they seem to be a pack of war mongers too boot, so any claims of moral superiority is rather laughable. They also supported the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, which killed thousands, and supported the IDF murderous assault on Gaza earlier this year. I would take them more seriously, if they didn't happily support the US and her allies engaging in mass murder in the Middle East.
I take it people have tears for children who died after having White phosphorus dropped on there heads?0 -
Advertisement
-
In case those who have only recently begun to follow this forum are not aware of the fact, there have already been two long threads on Sharia law:
Would any of you support Sharia Law in Ireland?, which ran from 7 September to 1 October 2008 (with 73 posts), and Stoning to death and Sharia Law, which ran from 23 June to 22 July 2007 (with 170 posts).0 -
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
That's why. I read this morning of 13 year old who was stoned to death because she was raped. I did not 'frown' when I read this, I cried...
I dont see it as anti islam but merely the truth SHARIA = BRUTALITY simple as you dont have to be an expert to see it is all about power and barbarity and the fact this forum for Islam should be shut down as it is a voice for a miniority that tries to impose its will on everyone who does not comply...
A bit racist aswell from reading through...Also no Jewish Forum mmmmmm supsect, maybe the Police need a good read through of this and have a look for anything out of the ordinary !!0 -
A bit racist aswell from reading through...Also no Jewish Forum mmmmmm supsect, maybe the Police need a good read through of this and have a look for anything out of the ordinary !!
*sigh*
Others please keep on topic. Thanks.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!
People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.
If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.
Its quite a pity that most muslims themselves have no clue about what the Sharia actually is and how the Islamic state was run during the early Islamic age which was centuries ahead of any other civilization in the world.
The media and people with no clue and knowledge about the Islamic system of governance and Jurisprudence keep constantly defaming it while most muslims can't even retaliate because of their own lack of knowledge.
I think its about time muslims stand up for themselves and what they believe in and respond back to the constant attacks against their religion. Its time muslims put up a voice of their own in the world and stop everyone else speak for them.
What do you think the advantages would be in having Sharia Law over Irish/European law?
What would be the main differences?0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »What do you think the advantages would be in having Sharia Law over Irish/European law?
What would be the main differences?
I think the main difference would be that once it is in, you can't change any aspect of it! Since apparently god wrote it herself.
Which is fine if everyone in the country believes in that sort of thing. But that's never going to be the case, human society is not the same as an ant hive. With that kind of rigid system there will always be those who feel oppressed and have no peaceful means to seek change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/hamas-gaza-islamist-dress-code"It was absolutely illegal," said Dina Abu Dagga, a lawyer who has covered her hair since she was at university in Cairo.
It was not the chief justice's right to change the dress code, she said. Under Palestinian law, that power rested with the lawyers' union.
"We're not against the hijab. I wear it myself," she said. "We're against imposing it and restricting our freedoms. Today you impose the hijab, but tomorrow it will be something else."
I think the above Palestinian lawyer says it all for me. If individuals want to voluntarily use sharia as a basis for resolving disputes or whatever, then I think that's fine. But implementing it on the whole country would be a step too far. Might make some Muslims happy, but it would oppress anyone who didn't believe in Islam. Then what happens when demographics change and some other religion is dominant? Sharia gets replaced by some other religious law system that makes Muslims feel oppressed!
It's better to keep the law system secular so that we can all enjoy as much freedom as possible.0 -
I think you answered your own question there.Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!
People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.
No matter how good or sensible a system of laws is, it doesn't matter, because it is a system. Laws should be fluid, and reflecting what is right and wrong, and changeable if found to be unjust, and should never be implemented simply because it says so "In Sharia Law".If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.
In other words, even if Sharia Law is the most sensible and just system in the world, and 99% of it is good, then the other 1% must be gotten rid of, not simply kept because we have adopted Sharia Law.
So notions of human rights may have been derived from Sharia Law, but that doesn't mean we should stick with it, rather than simply use them as suggestions, and changing them for what is democratically decided to be correct. No system of laws should be stuck to rigidly, that includes Brehon Laws, English Common Law, Sharia Law, etc.0 -
The problems people have with Sharia comes from what we see happening in Afghanistann Saudi Arabia, UAE, Northern Nigeria and now Sudan. To us, it just looks brutal and primitive. I know there is more to sharia than stonings and limb-chopping but a family dispute just won't get on the news.0
-
if a punishment is grave, the crime wont occur, if you start giving out capital punishment to pedos, we wont have any pedo bears roaming around, same with robbries, etc etc, if we had capital punishment for nearly every major crime, i GURANTEE you there will be significantly less criminal activities
just my €.020 -
I haven't read the bible, the Koran or the Communist manifesto, but I don't need to to reject them. I don't need a masters in Greek mythology to know Zeus doesn't exist either. I'm so sorry that I don't know everything about Sharia, but I still reject it as barbaric.
When I see Sharia, I see brutal torture in totalitarian theocracies like Arabia and Somalia- I see 13 year old rape victims being stoned to death for the crime of being raped. Whenever I do pick up a holy book and read a few more pages of it, I like it even less than before, and Sharia is no different; the more I learn, the more I reject. Sure, it has some good parts- so did a lot of bad things throughout history, but if those parts are so good, they can be incorporated into normal law, and the bad parts left out.
I like my laws to be formulated by educated, elected leaders, not illiterate desert warlords from the dark ages.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »When I see Sharia, I see brutal torture in totalitarian theocracies like Arabia and Somalia- I see 13 year old rape victims being stoned to death for the crime of being raped.
What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.
And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here is a story of a paedophile who has been sentanced to death by beheading for sex attacks on 5 children including a 3 year old boy. Many of the readers comments are backing the punishment and would like to see something similar in Britian for paedophiles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1225006/Saudi-Arabian-paedophile-beheaded-crucified-string-sex-attacks-including-left-toddler-die-desert.html0 -
irishconvert wrote: »What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.
And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam.
When the anti-islam danish politician Geert Wilders came to London a few weeks ago, some of the Muslims protesting where interviewed and they really did not counter his claims that Islam is violent, asthey where giving barely veiled death threats the whole time.
While I sympatise that the media is essentially against you in this regard (either out of religious bias, or just an innate desire to only have the most extreme points if view and therefore the highest selling stories), I dont think your case is helped the lack (or percieved lack) of islamic response coming out against these type of situations and decrying them as unislamic. If the muslims against this extreme behaviour where as vocal as the extremist themselves, then I would think people would be on your side a lot more.0 -
How many "Muslims" were there protesting? There are 2 million Muslims in the UK and the majority couldn't care less about the publicity seeking Geert Wilders. I actually live in London and I am too busy with my own life to bother showing up to protest against him.Mark Hamill wrote: »When the anti-islam danish politician Geert Wilders came to London a few weeks ago, some of the Muslims protesting where interviewed and they really did not counter his claims that Islam is violent, asthey where giving barely veiled death threats the whole time.
The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence. I listen to the Imams in various mosques week after week speaking out against violence but it never gets reported. Doesn't sell enough newspapers as you said. For example after the 9/11 attacks there were so many statements issued by Muslim organisations condeming the attacks but what gets shown on TV, some staged scene with Muslims burning an American flag.Mark Hamill wrote: »While I sympatise that the media is essentially against you in this regard (either out of religious bias, or just an innate desire to only have the most extreme points if view and therefore the highest selling stories), I dont think your case is helped the lack (or percieved lack) of islamic response coming out against these type of situations and decrying them as unislamic. If the muslims against this extreme behaviour where as vocal as the extremist themselves, then I would think people would be on your side a lot more.
The media are not interested in talking to the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful and live everyday ordinary lives.0 -
irishconvert wrote: »How many "Muslims" were there protesting?
40, apparently, all from the "Islam for UK" group.irishconvert wrote: »There are 2 million Muslims in the UK and the majority couldn't care less about the publicity seeking Geert Wilders. I actually live in London and I am too busy with my own life to bother showing up to protest against him.
The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence. I listen to the Imams in various mosques week after week speaking out against violence but it never gets reported.
It doesn't help that the muslims who show up at these protests are the extreme ones, while the ones condeming it are staying in their mosques, condeming violence to other muslims who aren't violent anyway. They really need to be showing up at protests like the one above and standing apart from the extremists and protesting against the extremists. It shouldn't be hard to severely outnumber the 40 extremists who did show up, if the whole of the 2 million remaining muslims are completely against them.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »40, apparently, all from the "Islam for UK" group.
It doesn't help that the muslims who show up at these protests are the extreme ones, while the ones condeming it are staying in their mosques, condeming violence to other muslims who aren't violent anyway. They really need to be showing up at protests like the one above and standing apart from the extremists and protesting against the extremists. It shouldn't be hard to severely outnumber the 40 extremists who did show up, if the whole of the 2 million remaining muslims are completely against them.
Come on Mark, that is a bit unrealistic. Speaking for myself I didn't even know the protest was on. Are you seriously sugesting that I should take a day off work to come out and counterprotest against any small crackpot group decides to have a protest?0 -
irishconvert wrote: »Come on Mark, that is a bit unrealistic. Speaking for myself I didn't even know the protest was on. Are you seriously sugesting that I should take a day off work to come out and counterprotest against any small crackpot group decides to have a protest?
2 million muslims in the uk and 100 couldn't have come out and counter protested? I would say that most non extremist muslims dont like Wilder as his views on Islam are extreme, but none seemed to show up to try prove him wrong. Its not like no-one knew Wilders wasn't going to be there and that there would be some kind of protest on. You cant complain that the only people the media interviews are the extremists when the only people who go to such protests are the extremists. If those extremists stayed at home, like all the non extremist muslims, then they wouldn't be interviewed.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »2 million muslims in the uk and 100 couldn't have come out and counter protested?
How do you know nobody came out and counter protested?0 -
irishconvert wrote: »How do you know nobody came out and counter protested?
I admit that I dont. But if they did they weren't very vocal about it.0 -
irishconvert wrote: »What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. .
The media is reporting fact, not "carefully selected", isolated incidences which aim to defame Sharia.I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.
And I would never dream of suggesting that Sharia represents all Muslims. The burning you describe above was an act of brutality, just like the Sharia acts I described.And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam
She was convicted of adultry, which is punishable under Sharia by death.The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence
Yes they do. Every time a Muslim commits an act of violence, the papers report the local Muslim representative's groups' condemnation.0 -
Advertisement
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »The media is reporting fact, not "carefully selected", isolated incidences which aim to defame Sharia
yeah lets start watching bill o riley
harsh crimes need harsh punishment as i said if we had capital punishment for every crime, we wouldnt have the high crime rates we have now.ChocolateSauce wrote: »And I would never dream of suggesting that Sharia represents all Muslims. The burning you describe above was an act of brutality, just like the Sharia acts I describedChocolateSauce wrote: »She was convicted of adultry, which is punishable under Sharia by death
it isnt. research before posting your getting annoying now.
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning4.htm read it
and adultrey is a crime in alot of US states as well punishable with alot of jail time
and in islam you can only be convicted of adultrey is if there are 3 MALE witnesses, or if you confess
you have to be pretty dumb if you confess, or let 3 men watch you having sex.
no they dont. they only report nick griffin getting his ass kicked or man handled by a bunch of anti-nazisChocolateSauce wrote: »Yes they do. Every time a Muslim commits an act of violence, the papers report the local Muslim representative's groups' condemnation.0
Advertisement