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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Pregnant doctor to be hanged for being a Christian in Sudan
Comments
-
The largest Church in the middle was is in Israel. There are churches in Turkey, Egypt, Syria/b].. However in a Country that has 2 million Catholics like Saudi Arabia you won't find many or any. Infact its officially barred from being practiced.
While I don't support the stance of restricting freedoms against muslims.. that would be an emotion argument, its hard to see how there can be any real dialogue with Islam, its their way or no way.
I'd add Jordan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to that list, along with a number of West African Muslim majority countries.
So it isn't a uniform picture, nor would you expect it to be with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, on every continent and representing every culture. I strongly disagree that dialogue is pointless, and what is the alternative to dialogue in any case?0 -
Benny_Cake wrote: »I'd add Jordan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to that list, along with a number of West African Muslim majority countries.
So it isn't a uniform picture, nor would you expect it to be with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, on every continent and representing every culture. I strongly disagree that dialogue is pointless, and what is the alternative to dialogue in any case?
Yes we have to have dialogue, but I sometimes feel the dialogue goes one way. Its hard to dialogue with Islam fundamentalists.
Malaysia is not a muslim country per se, while 60% are muslim its pretty inclusive,. However interesting that for example in the local language the word for God is Allah and when the bible was translated into malay islam took exception with using the word Allah in the Bible.
However I think on the point of the Women condemned to death that if Muslim countries want us to respect their freedom of Religion then they should speak out and condemn the sentence, Has Saudi Arabia? No. Why? because they don't respect freedom of Religion. Has Iran spoken out? Or Yemen?.. Sometimes saying nothing and doing nothing is as bad as siding with Sudan.0 -
Sudan is certainly one of the worst dictatorship around today. A bigotted voodoo regime with a smiling despot called Omar Al-Bashir who kills people if they don't follow his makey uppy voodoo cult (masqueraded as 'Islam'). Moderate Islam or Christian, it would not make a difference in such societies: Taliban Voodooism is the only one tolerated and if people don't choose it, they die. al-Bashir goes around smiling and he looks affable but this dictator has killed those who contradict his tribal voodooism, has ethnically cleansed those who disobey his tribe's dominance (as so-called 'Arabs': self styled Arabs more like it - Bashir is actually black) and his religion. Darfur, South Sudan suffered greatly. Of course, there is all the usual 'thou shalt not drink, thou shalt cover up' rubbish that these fascists thrive on. Fascists don't want people to enjoy themselves or look well afterall (unless of course they are al-Bashir and his family and cronies that is). And if that wasn't enough, al-Bashir has had colourful relations with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (who he sheltered in the 1990s). Of course, all these fascists love each other and have to support each other.
In a continent marred by many dictators and where Robert Mugabe is one of the better ones, al Bashir is definitely the worst dictator currently in Africa and on the top 3 consistently of worst world dictators every year. He is far worse than Assad, Khamenei, the Kuwaiti regime and even the al-Sauds. He is even worse than Eritrea's regime. Kim Jong Un may equal him but at least Kim is honest (he admits he is the religion pure and simple whereas al-Bashir needs to use an existing religion (a mix of Voodooism/animist/trad African beliefs with Islam) and turn it fascist).0 -
I would like to know the Muslim point of view about the Sudan Ruling. We are asked to respect the freedom of religion allowing Muslims to worship or people to convert to Islam, yet oftentimes we don't receive the same respect from Islam.
Many countries have called for the sentence to be reversed. However there is not more much press from Muslim countries.
I don't want to poke a finger with this discussion. However I would like to get an informed view. What is the muslim stance about the situation. If muslims are going to turn a blind eye to the situation then why should we respect muslims who defend this stance.
When muslims ask for us to respect their rights, it should work both ways. The same way we would respect a Christian who freely becomes a muslim.
The main problem here is with the cowboys who currently are for the most part in charge of Islamic countries. Most Islamic countries are fascist dictatorships and that's the problem. We often perceive it as being Islam's fault whereas the problem lies with fascism and Islamic Fascism is the same as any other form: brutal, intolerant, racist and superior in attitude.
Unfortunately, when communism became the new post-WW2 enemy, the West supported many what were essentially fascist regimes ranging from Pinochet's Chile to al Qaeda/Taliban Afghanistan. Unfortunately, other voices in Islam were silenced and we have only the fascist form in power. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc. have all been lead by fascist regimes with few of these improving gradually (Iran) and most of the others disimproving. Even the secular Islamic states like Saddam's Iraq, Syria, etc. are fascist in nature.0 -
Please keep it civil. Calling somebody stupid is not civil. You have been warned before, you won't be warned again.
I apologise. You are quite correct. Even if I did not actually call him stupid it was, as you point out, uncivil.
I am very busy for the next few days but I will reply to the points made by confused and Frank, hopefully at the weekend.
However, Frank, please accept my sincere apologies. It was, as Tom pointed out, rude and incivility is no substitute for argument.0 -
I am afraid this is rather long and I have split it into two parts....
Events have somewhat superceded my reply. Sudan are now going to release the woman concerned. I would ask you to consider why. Was it because there was an upwelling of protest from the Islamic nations because it was against Islamic law or was it because the western nations said 'There goes your millions in aid'.? Call me an old cynic but I am betting on the latter.
Bassam Zawadi, whom I quoted, is a 'scholar' who frequently publishes on Islamic matters and would not, within the Islamic world be considered an extremist and clearly takes a contrary view to confused.
Perhaps a slightly different look at the issue might help. Ignore the argument as to whether confused is right or wrong. In fact let us take it as a given that confused is right. How does that help?
Consider the following list. It contains nearly all the countries where Islam predominates. (Taken from Pew Research). I raised the point about apostasy to which I would also add gay rights. In which of the countries listed would you expect to be treated with 'dignity' if you were openly gay or renounced Islam (please note that for Nigeria I am assuming that you live in one of the Islamic controlled states).
Country 2,010
Indonesia 204,847,000
Pakistan 178,097,000
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Egypt 80,024,000
Nigeria 75,728,000
Iran 74,819,000
Turkey 74660000
Algeria 34780000
Morocco 32381000
Iraq 31108000
Sudan 30855000
Afghanistan 29047000
Ethiopia 28721000
Uzbekistan 26833000
Saudi Arabia 25493000
Yemen 24023000
Syria 20895000
Malaysia 17139000
Niger 15627000
Senegal 12333000
Mali 12316000
Tunisia 10349000
Burkina Faso 9600000
Somalia 9231000
Kazakhstan 8887000
Azerbaijan 8795000
Guinea 8693000
Tajikistan 7006000
Jordan 6397000
Libya 6325000
Kyrgyzstan 4927000
Turkmenistan 4830000
Palestinian territories 4298000
Sierra Leone 4171000
United Arab Emirates 3577000
Mauritania 3338000
Kuwait 2636000
Albania 2601000
Oman 2547000
Lebanon 2542000
Kosovo 2104000
Eritrea 1909000
Gambia 1669000
Qatar 1168000
Djibouti 853000
Western Sahara 528000
Maldives 309000
Brunei 211000
Mayotte 197000
Chad 6,404,000
On the surface one might go for Indonesia but you would be in for a serious shock. It has a death sentence on its statute books for apostasy and being gay is OK so long as no one knows. They are inclined to use their indecency laws against homosexuals and there is a group called the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which, according to Wikileaks, is secretly funded by the state police, who 'enforce' Islamic standards of morality. Please note that applies to the whole of Indonesia, some 13% of the Worlds muslim population and not just Aceh which suffers the full might of Sharia law.
You have to go a long way down the list to find a country where women and gays would have equal and protected rights. I suspect you would actually fall off the bottom...
My point is simple. Quixotically, it doesn't matter whether confused is right or wrong about his interpretation of the Quran (I personally think he is wrong but this article would support him) or, for that matter how he gets along with gays or treats women, the 80% rest of the Islamic world acts as though he is wrong.0 -
PART 2
Which brings me to the second list which is where the other <20% of the muslim population live.
India 177,286,000
China 23,308,000
Russia 16,379,000
Tanzania 13,450,000
Ivory Coast 7,960,000
Philippines 4,737,000
France 4,704,000
Uganda 4,060,000
Thailand 3,952,000
Ghana 3,906,000
Cameroon 3,598,000
Germany 4,119,000
United Kingdom 2,869,000
Kenya 2,868,000
Italy 1,583,000
United States 2,595,000
Spain 1,021,000
Bulgaria 1,002,000
Argentina 1,000,000
Congo 969,000
Canada 940,000
Netherlands 914,000
Mozambique 5,340,000
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1,564,000
Israel 1,287,000
Nepal 1,253,000
Ireland 43,000
I suppose one might say that as a minority population they have to toe the line. At least you might think so. However even in the UK there is now an issue with sharia courts. Whilst they have no legal standing it would be worth reading this article PARTICULARLY the commentary at the bottom and it is quite clear to some that the Law Society has gone well beyond its remit.
Why should a Muslim man get married in the UK? The BBC documentary shows why he should not. He is much better of just having a nikah contract.
Muslim women are having their protections in UK law eroded. The first list is not a good place for women but you would have thought that here muslim women would be safer.
Moving on, I noted the comment
If this is true one would have to ask why the apparent correlation between 'fascism' and Islam. Do authoritarian religions encourage authoritarian rulers? One might say that the history of christianity suggests that might be true...The main problem here is with the cowboys who currently are for the most part in charge of Islamic countries. Most Islamic countries are fascist dictatorships and that's the problem. We often perceive it as being Islam's fault whereas the problem lies with fascism and Islamic Fascism is the same as any other form: brutal, intolerant, racist and superior in attitude.
This brings me to a bit of history. The Roman Empire grew by a repeated cycle. Fight and conquer your neighbours, make treaties with the new ones, regroup and rearm... repeat as necessary. It is a great plan and has worked for most empire builders from historical times through to more recent ones. It is how the white settlers became the USA, how the British got there empire and most kings in the middle ages did exactly the same. Make peace until the time for betrayal arises. You don't build an empire if you sit at home. In that respect, Mohamed was no different. It is like using a mangle... wring, rinse, repeat (the three Rs!). That way you grind up your enemies. Any attempt (Quran or otherwise) to pretend that he was an eternal victim of the attacks of others is simply an airbrushing of history. http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm is quite an admiring portrait of a skilled self taught military leader but he started out as a bandit raiding caravans.
So what happened to his neighbours? They were one by one conquered by a very able general. They became dar-Islam and once that happens they can never be anything else. Were you to try then every muslim is obliged to rise up and attack you. Every bit they nibble is dar-Islam. No going back. You could, of course, make a treaty - have a dialogue - with Islam and Islamic neighbours but then remember Mohamed and his neighbours. the Meccans. WRING, RINSE, REPEAT...0 -
Appendix
One point that I have not made clear is that I am not using the 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy to justify that 'my' interpretation of the Quran is the correct one. Were I to say that for every Imam you have I have two then that would be an appeal to numbers. My quoting numbers is simply to illustrate that this is what the situation is in the world not whether it is right or wrong according to the Quran.0 -
Bassam Zawadi, whom I quoted, is a 'scholar' who frequently publishes on Islamic matters and would not, within the Islamic world be considered an extremist and clearly takes a contrary view to confused.
To which I'll repeat - Mainstream Islamic thinking today could well be wrong in their interpretations of Islamic texts, and a substantial proportion of modern scholars certainly think so.Perhaps a slightly different look at the issue might help. Ignore the argument as to whether confused is right or wrong. In fact let us take it as a given that confused is right. How does that help?
It helps to gradually turn the tide if more and more people adopt that opinion.Consider the following list. It contains nearly all the countries where Islam predominates. (Taken from Pew Research). I raised the point about apostasy to which I would also add gay rights. In which of the countries listed would you expect to be treated with 'dignity' if you were openly gay or renounced Islam (please note that for Nigeria I am assuming that you live in one of the Islamic controlled states).
"Expect to be treated with dignity" is not an easy thing to measure or obtain information on. Regarding apostasy, the following countries from your list don't have any laws against apostasy at government level, also from Pews Research.
Country 2,010
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Turkey 74660000
Algeria 34780000
Morocco 32381000
Ethiopia 28721000
Uzbekistan 26833000
Niger 15627000
Senegal 12333000
Mali 12316000
Tunisia 10349000
Burkina Faso 9600000
Kazakhstan 8887000
Azerbaijan 8795000
Guinea 8693000
Tajikistan 7006000
Libya 6325000
Kyrgyzstan 4927000
Turkmenistan 4830000
Palestinian territories 4298000
Sierra Leone 4171000
Albania 2601000
Lebanon 2542000
Kosovo 2104000
Eritrea 1909000
Gambia 1669000
Djibouti 853000
Western Sahara 528000
Brunei 211000
Mayotte 197000
Chad 6,404,000My point is simple. Quixotically, it doesn't matter whether confused is right or wrong about his interpretation of the Quran (I personally think he is wrong but this article would support him) or, for that matter how he gets along with gays or treats women, the 80% rest of the Islamic world acts as though he is wrong.
Of course it matters if an interpretation of the Quran is right or wrong. If a country punishes an apostate based on a wrong interpretation of the Quran, then it's not Islam that's at fault for it - the fault is with the followers and not the religion itself.
The interpretations I mentioned are specifically regarding the issue of apostasy, which has been the main topic of this thread. You initially brought up women's rights and gay rights as real issues for Muslims specifically living in the west. I'm still not sure how I'm supposed to be conflicted regarding these in my everyday life?0 -
Advertisement
-
"at government level"
You have to admit that is a bit of a weasel out of it statement..
You might also consider this article which suggests that there is some way to go for tolerance in Bangladesh.
But then again in Algeria
"The judge wrote in his May 2011 decision, “He denied the allegations, but his apostasy is a presumption of guilt.”"
Again I don't want to go through the countries one by one but your reply is built on sand.... You even managed to include Brunei in your list and the Sultan thereof has declared that in 3 years it is Sharia Law in all its glory and that will be that but it phases in from now...
As I said, it is quixotic but you can be as right as you like and still be wrong. Because the rest of the world is out of step with you.It helps to gradually turn the tide if more and more people adopt that opinion.
I could not agree more but again, I am not the rest of the muslim world. They are going one way and the small cadre of unlike minded muslims for whom 'ISLAM - the religion of peace' is not a joke are going the other.
In urban slang I might say "Wake up and smell the coffee"
I am old enough to remember that there was a postcard with a cartoon of an army marching in synchronised step except for one soldier. The caption has his mother saying to her husband 'Look, the whole army is marching out of step except our poor Willie...!" I am sure you get the point.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »I adequately addressed it, but I'll elaborate some more. Given that the verse in question relates to a period in the Prophet's (peace be upon him) life when fighting was imminent, the verse clarifies that the blind, lame and sick are exempt from fighting. The word "Jihad" itself does not appear in that passage at all, so I'm not sure why you are using that verse to define it. "Tuqatilunahum" appears in the verse before it (48:16), and that translates as "you will fight them". Even if "Jihad" did appear in that passage, it would still not preclude other meanings for the same word to be used in different contexts, because again, the context of this verse is specifically during a time of fighting. Being exempt from a fighting variety of Jihad does not mean people are exempt from the spiritual variety of Jihad. We don't reserve usage of the english equivalent "struggle" for only when it relates to fighting, and the same goes for Jihad.
What Islam "really teaches" comes from the Quran. There is no verse in the Quran that specifically teaches that the punishment for apostasy is death. Mainstream Islamic thinking today could well be wrong in their interpretations of Islamic texts, and a substantial proportion of modern scholars certainly think so. The relevant Hadiths that are used to support capital punishment go back to the early days of Islam, when early Muslims were in battle with neighbouring tribes. Back in those times, apostasy was often associated with treason - people changing their allegiances and turning on their community, and capital punishment was applicable in those cases. The problem lies in differentiating simple apostasy from apostasy associated with treason.
The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. This distinction was not made by early scholars, and once it became the status quo, there has been resistance to even consider an alternative - with some modern day scholars dismissing such suggestions as "The West telling us what to do", but that's no excuse to not even look at the issue. Hopefully the tide will turn in time.
I'm not in any conflict regarding women's or human rights, and living in harmony with your neighbour is a concept which is strongly encouraged in Islam. Gay rights also isn't an issue which leaves me in "any conflict". The Islamic stance (in keeping with the Christian and Jewish positions) is clear that homosexual relationships are forbidden. But that relationship is only one part of who a person is, and in the same way I don't have any problems getting along with people who do other things Islam forbids, e.g. people who eat bacon, or drink alcohol or have pre-marital relationships, I'm not in any conflict when I interact with people who are gay, and nor are many Irish Christians living in western society.
Talk about going to town on all the stereotypes. Terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians has no place in Islam - I've said it time and time again on this forum that Muslims who commit these atrocities do so as part of various ongoing political conflicts. I can't believe you're bringing up the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford as an example of what Islam teaches - There are 1 billion+ Muslims in the world, who, like any other religion/population/race on the planet (as I keep repeating) have a lot of very good people, a lot of very bad people and many many in between. There is no crime in the world that a Muslim person has not committed - but it doesn't for a second reflect on Islam if what they are doing goes against what Islam itself teaches. Same goes for Malala - she herself spends her time talking about what the Quran actually teaches, as opposed to what the likes of Boko Haram are doing.
So what about these out of date hadiths that call for execution of an apostate, when are they going to be updated and revised ?0 -
You have to admit that is a bit of a weasel out of it statement..
Not really, laws and policies at government level are a pretty good place to start when you're looking at a country's attitudes to any given issue. I already stated that "Expect to be treated with dignity" is not an easy thing to measure or obtain information on - random internet articles won't always give you the full picture.As I said, it is quixotic but you can be as right as you like and still be wrong. Because the rest of the world is out of step with you.
I could not agree more but again, I am not the rest of the muslim world. They are going one way and the small cadre of unlike minded muslims for whom 'ISLAM - the religion of peace' is not a joke are going the other.
In urban slang I might say "Wake up and smell the coffee"
I am old enough to remember that there was a postcard with a cartoon of an army marching in synchronised step except for one soldier. The caption has his mother saying to her husband 'Look, the whole army is marching out of step except our poor Willie...!" I am sure you get the point.
I haven't denied what the mainstream opinion is (even if the majority of Muslim countries on your list don't have actual laws against apostasy), but I do disagree with the view that it doesn't matter whether the mainstream opinion is right or wrong. As I said, if a country punishes an apostate based on a wrong interpretation of the Quran, then it's not Islam that's at fault for it - the fault is with the followers and not the religion itself.0 -
So what about these out of date hadiths that call for execution of an apostate, when are they going to be updated and revised ?
Hadiths were alleged sayings/actions of The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which were passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until they were actually written down approximately 200 years after the prophet passed away.
At the time they were being written down, tens of thousands of Hadiths were discarded as being inaccurate/false, and the rest were kept - all at the discretion of the compilers. Things they factored in when deciding which to keep and which to discard were the "chain of narration", whether the people who passed the stories down would have been reliable individuals, how good their memories were, and whether the stories sounded plausible, and the Hadiths were then further sub-divided as strong or weak.
Now we've all played chinese whispers and know what can happen over the space of a few minutes. Expand that to 200 years and a few generations - and no matter how well-intentioned people were, or how good a memory they had, or how good they were at articulating or listening, there's bound to be some changes from the original story.
They're not "updated or revised" as such, scholars look at them for various issues and decide whether a particular hadith is strong or weak and decide how that influences a particular issue they're looking at, so it's very much a matter of individual interpretation, and that's why there are a lot of differing opinions on issues which aren't explicitly mentioned in the Quran.
I do still feel Hadiths are useful for explaining the context of certain verses in the Qur'an, but I would take them with a pinch of salt - and would certainly be very hesitant to go writing them into law, especially for issues which have no direct reference in the Qur'an itself.0 -
Sudan is one of many extremist regimes in the world today. Unfortunately Africa and the Middle East are at present full of them. Tolerance of them by the West (either because they kept a perceived greater enemy at bay (usually communism) or for fear of a failed state emerging once the fascist extremists were gone) combined with their rich natural resources has meant that most of them have survived intact.
Unfortunately, there is little now can be done about these. They have survived far too long and taking them out now will lead to even worse situations. The last thing the world needs is another Iraq style war even if it is against Sudan, one of the world's worst current dictators. BUT things could have been done at the start to stem the tide of fascism.
The IMF rule the world's money and the West could have used them to peacefully take out emerging fascists. For example:
-Render 1979 Iran's money useless until the regime separated religion and law and abided by the desires of the many voices in that country.
-Do the same to Saudi Arabia years earlier and the rest would never have copied their intolerant tribal voodooist interpretation of the Koran.
-Render the Taliban's money useless until it recognised separation of church and state and adhered to human and women rights.
-Told Gaddafi to stop sponsoring terrorism or face his money being rendered useless.
-Tell North Korea their money is rendered useless unless they implement reform and open up.
-Tell Sudan their money is worthless until they separate church and state and reverse one tribe's religious law compulsory obligence for others.
It would be tempting to say not to buy oil off any fascists until they change. But that won't work now because we are too dependent on it and the fascists know it. When oil emerged first or when a revolution emerged first, it is then it should be done. Now hurting Sudan, Saudi Arabia and so on is unfortunately shooting oneself in the foot and they know it and have the equivalent of a tax clearance cert for fascist legitimacy.0 -
Can we keep the politics out of this, please?0
-
Advertisement
-
Can we keep the politics out of this, please?
With all due respect, I don't see how the politics (or legal issues or whatever) can be kept out of this. The fact is that a arm of the Sudanese government (poss. with the full support of the entire government) has sentenced an innocent woman to death for something that is not even a crime, not even a tort for that matter.0 -
However that would be rather superficial. I would also point out that whereas I think of myself as Scots with a part of English, a large proportion of Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first rather then nationality or ethnicity. It is what people DO and not what they say that counts in the end.confusedquark wrote: »Not really, laws and policies at government level are a pretty good place to start when you're looking at a country's attitudes to any given issue.
I picked dignity because it has a fairly non-perjorative meaning. I could have picked 'under the threat of (pick any one or more of the following) death, mutilation, punishment by mob, etc... and the suggestion of 'random' is simply silly. How many articles do you need?confusedquark wrote: »I already stated that "Expect to be treated with dignity" is not an easy thing to measure or obtain information on - random internet articles won't always give you the full picture.confusedquark wrote: »I haven't denied what the mainstream opinion is (even if the majority of Muslim countries on your list don't have actual laws against apostasy)
That is just repeating your previous attempt to weasel out of the situation whilst ignoring the actualities. I picked out two of the largest and pointed out that you overlooked the situation in Brunei. You might like to read this article which suggests that all is not always that well in Turkey either however, the most worrying thing in that article was this extracta significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.confusedquark wrote: »but I do disagree with the view that it doesn't matter whether the mainstream opinion is right or wrong. As I said, if a country punishes an apostate based on a wrong interpretation of the Quran, then it's not Islam that's at fault for it - the fault is with the followers and not the religion itself.
I have highlighted the salient words here. I see this a lot in christian and other religion apologists. You and they apparently believe in Gods who, though omnipotent and all the rest, cannot explain something clearly. When I teach my two and one half year old grandson that something is wrong or silly, I have to do so around his language restrictions. He is a clever little boy but doesn't have the necessary concepts all at hand. Nonetheless with patience, persistence and persuasion I get there in the end. Apparently omnipotent gods cannot do the same...0 -
a large proportion of Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first rather then nationality or ethnicity. It is what people DO and not what they say that counts in the end.
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
As somebody living in a Muslim country, I would dispute that assertion.0 -
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?
As somebody living in a Muslim country, I would dispute that assertion.
I could ask the same question in reverse...
However this suggests that it is a reasonable hypothesis. Look at page 3.0 -
However that would be rather superficial. I would also point out that whereas I think of myself as Scots with a part of English, a large proportion of Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first rather then nationality or ethnicity. It is what people DO and not what they say that counts in the end.
I picked dignity because it has a fairly non-perjorative meaning. I could have picked 'under the threat of (pick any one or more of the following) death, mutilation, punishment by mob, etc... and the suggestion of 'random' is simply silly. How many articles do you need?
There are two problems with quoting articles:
1) The story itself may be reported with bias and inaccurate facts, so it can't always be taken as a given what you have is 100% fact - e.g. do you really believe everything you read in tabloids?
2) An article about an issue will often only show you an extreme, and not necessarily be a fair representation of the overall population, e.g. I can quote articles about hate letters sent to Muslims in Ireland, or racially-motivated attacks on Muslims in the UK - does that prove that Muslims here are not treated with dignity?
"Dignity" is a fine marker to use in theory, but I'll say it again, it's not an easy thing to objectively measure and you'll find extremes in every society, so quoting random articles doesn't necessarily prove your point.That is just repeating your previous attempt to weasel out of the situation whilst ignoring the actualities. I picked out two of the largest and pointed out that you overlooked the situation in Brunei. You might like to read this article which suggests that all is not always that well in Turkey either however, the most worrying thing in that article was this extract
I'm not ignoring any actualities. I couldn't have been any clearer in my acceptance of what the mainstream opinion is, and why I (and many others) disagree with it. I simply questioned your methods of quantifying "dignity" based on nothing more than quoting the populations of Muslim predominant countries followed by some information about Indonesia (one country from your big list). My list is nothing more than your original list minus countries that were listed by Pews Research as having laws/policies against apostasy at government level. If a country doesn't have laws/policies against apostasy, then Muslims in those countries have no right to enforce anything against apostates. Muslims who decide to take the law into their own hands to enforce a punishment are completely wrong - including from an Islamic point of view, any such punishment can only come from a court of law after due proceedings (and then of course any such court decisions themselves are open to scrutiny).I have highlighted the salient words here. I see this a lot in christian and other religion apologists. You and they apparently believe in Gods who, though omnipotent and all the rest, cannot explain something clearly. When I teach my two and one half year old grandson that something is wrong or silly, I have to do so around his language restrictions. He is a clever little boy but doesn't have the necessary concepts all at hand. Nonetheless with patience, persistence and persuasion I get there in the end. Apparently omnipotent gods cannot do the same...
The omnipotent god chooses to do exactly what He wants and how He wants. It's all part of His plan, and He tests us in many different ways. The vast majority of things in Islam are clear - there are just a select few controversial issues, and they're the ones that come up again and again.0 -
Advertisement
-
I could ask the same question in reverse...
However this suggests that it is a reasonable hypothesis. Look at page 3.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? It's quite natural (to me, at least) that people of the same religion have an affinity and a bond which transcends borders. Nationalism has probably been responsible for at least as much suffering in the modern era as religious difference (more, actually). I think it's perfectly possible to be a good citizen of a country while not regarding that citizenship / nationality as your defining characteristic.
That Pew report gives some grounds for optimism:European Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam. With the exception of Spanish Muslims, they tend to see a struggle being waged between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists. Among those who see an ongoing conflict, substantial majorities in all four countries say they generally side with the moderates.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »There are two problems with quoting articles
The main one being that they do not agree with your position and hole your argument below the water line./ How many articles do you need?confusedquark wrote: »"Dignity" is a fine marker to use in theory, but I'll say it again, it's not an easy thing to objectively measure and you'll find extremes in every society, so quoting random articles doesn't necessarily prove your point.
I explained the use of dignity - I was being polite but by all means use 'harassment, intimidation, murder..." take your pick... Simply dismissing 'random (again how many do you want?) articles certainly does not improve your position. It smack s of burying ones head in the sand. Is every article extremist? That seems to be the argument being made.confusedquark wrote: »My list is nothing more than your original list minus countries that were listed by Pews Research as having laws/policies against apostasy at government level. If a country doesn't have laws/policies against apostasy, then Muslims in those countries have no right to enforce anything against apostates. Muslims who decide to take the law into their own hands to enforce a punishment are completely wrong - including from an Islamic point of view, any such punishment can only come from a court of law after due proceedings (and then of course any such court decisions themselves are open to scrutiny).
The history of civil disobedience is almost as old as the rule of law. If a law is wrong then it gets disobeyed. If you are, as the Pew research indicates, a muslim first and a national second then which laws do you consider take precedence. .. Quran or national. I have already pointed out information that shows where your list falls down (Indonesia, Algeria, Turkey..) where being openly gay for example will lead to persecution, similarly with apostasy. Would you like me to add a few more countries from your list... Egypt for a start.confusedquark wrote: »The omnipotent god chooses to do exactly what He wants and how He wants. It's all part of His plan, and He tests us in many different ways. The vast majority of things in Islam are clear - there are just a select few controversial issues, and they're the ones that come up again and again.
I will have to take your word for that as I do not believe in invisible beings. But if his plan was muslims slaughtering one another, homophobia on a grand scale and the oppression of women, I would have to acknowledge that it is so far an absolute triumph.0 -
Benny_Cake wrote: »Is that necessarily a bad thing? It's quite natural (to me, at least) that people of the same religion have an affinity and a bond which transcends borders. Nationalism has probably been responsible for at least as much suffering in the modern era as religious difference (more, actually). I think it's perfectly possible to be a good citizen of a country while not regarding that citizenship / nationality as your defining characteristic.
I was talking about nationality rather than nationalism but I take your point. It is a bad thing when the vast majority of muslims hold beliefs that are homophobic, mysoginistic and intolerant. Given those and the potential conflict between the quran and, say, the english legal system, which are they going to support.Benny_Cake wrote: »I think it's perfectly possible to be a good citizen of a country while not regarding that citizenship / nationality as your defining characteristic.
So do I...Benny_Cake wrote: »That Pew report gives some grounds for optimism:...
"Among those who see an ongoing conflict, substantial majorities in all four countries say they generally side with the moderates. "
...which is good news BUT this has to be matched against the research from the think tank Policy Exchange which stated "a survey ...revealed that 36 per cent of young (British) Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed. "
If it were 1 or 2 per cent then it could be disregard as an extremist minority. 36% is simply too large to ignore.0 -
The main one being that they do not agree with your position and hole your argument below the water line./ How many articles do you need?
How many articles do you need to be convinced that Muslims in UK and Ireland are not treated with dignity?I explained the use of dignity - I was being polite but by all means use 'harassment, intimidation, murder..." take your pick... Simply dismissing 'random (again how many do you want?) articles certainly does not improve your position. It smack s of burying ones head in the sand. Is every article extremist? That seems to be the argument being made.
Your working definition of "people don't get dignity in a country" seems to be one instance of aggression (physical or otherwise) against the person/group in question - and irrespective of whether that aggression comes from the state (in which case the claim would be justified) or whether it comes from a person/group within the state - in which case it's you have to demonstrate whether such actions are the regular norm or whether they are isolated incidents, and one off articles won't always give you the full picture (which takes me back to quoting one off articles about hate letters sent to Muslims in Ireland, or racially-motivated attacks on Muslims in the UK).The history of civil disobedience is almost as old as the rule of law. If a law is wrong then it gets disobeyed. If you are, as the Pew research indicates, a muslim first and a national second then which laws do you consider take precedence. .. Quran or national. I have already pointed out information that shows where your list falls down (Indonesia, Algeria, Turkey..) where being openly gay for example will lead to persecution, similarly with apostasy. Would you like me to add a few more countries from your list... Egypt for a start.
Indonesia and Egypt weren't even on my list... The only "proof" you've given about Turkey is this one line in an article - "As it is, ordinary Pakistanis take the law into their own hands and kill Muslim apostates. The same thing happens in Turkey where, earlier this year, two people were killed for "having turned away from Islam"."
That's your irrefutable proof that apostates in Turkey (with a population of 70 million+) don't get dignity? Because two people were killed by other people taking the law into their own hands? I'd also question the bias of the journalist writing the article who doesn't see two murders from a population of 70 million as isolated incidents, but rather as "the same thing happens".
Compare that to 500 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the UK last year alone - how many articles of those do you need?
Being a Muslim first and a nationality second does not for a second mean a Muslim is going to go ahead and break country laws. For starters, there's relatively little that actually conflicts with being a Muslim and a good western citizen. For seconds, as I've already said, a Muslim has no right to enforce any Islamic punishments on anyone without the decision coming from a court of law after due proceedings have taken place. If a Muslim person takes the laws in his/her own hands, then his or her civil disobedience is not acting within the laws of Islam. Lastly, a Muslim person or group won't get away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws, because they'll be arrested and tried for doing so.
The verses that conflict with the Quran and any western legal system do not force Muslims into choosing between the two, and that's a very important point to get across. A Muslim can very easily pray, fast, not drink alcohol, not gamble, etc. irrespective of what a country's legal system is. Verses that conflict between the Quran and a western legal system are a separate issue - because that's not everyday Islam that individuals Muslims live by, but rather Islam as a legal system - in which the Muslims in charge enforce Islamic rules (just like our governments enforce the law on us), so that's something that could only happen at government-equivalent level and if such a thing doesn't exist (as it won't in western countries), then that's that - Muslims living in western countries accept they're not living under Islamic law and all Quranic verses that would apply as a legal system are simply not enforceable, and Muslim individually has no right to try and enforce it himself. There is scope for issues such as marriage, banking etc. that we can hope to work with the existing western legal framework to try and facilitate some issues, and that dialogue should be the way forward. There doesn't have to be conflict.I will have to take your word for that as I do not believe in invisible beings. But if his plan was muslims slaughtering one another, homophobia on a grand scale and the oppression of women, I would have to acknowledge that it is so far an absolute triumph.
This world wasn't created to be a perfect utopia without any suffering. Life is a big test and we all have our individual challenges.It is a bad thing when the vast majority of muslims hold beliefs that are homophobic, mysoginistic and intolerant.
You won't stop with the stereotypes, will you? Do you actually personally know many Muslims? (and I don't mean saying a "hello" to your neighbours once in a while) Because from all that you've said, the impression I'm getting is that you probably get most of your information from mass stereotyping media and websites, and fail to appreciate that 1 billion+ people (or even the "vast majority" of them) are not one homogenous blood-thirsty woman-beating group, and that the "vast majority" of us are actually normal people just like everyone else.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »How many articles do you need to be convinced that Muslims in UK and Ireland are not treated with dignity?
So from a world view you are going to focus on a narrow view to avoid the issue all together. I note that you are clinging to 'dignity' again to avoid the wider issue I would guess.confusedquark wrote: »Compare that to 500 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the UK last year alone - how many articles of those do you need?
None because, unlike yourself, I am not in total denial that there is a serious problem. In passing this is a small fraction compared to the number of 'honour' crimes' committed against women in this country - I hesitate to mention what the "vast majority" profile of the men concerned is. See if you can guess.confusedquark wrote: »Being a Muslim first and a nationality second does not for a second mean a Muslim is going to go ahead and break country laws. For starters, there's relatively little that actually conflicts with being a Muslim and a good western citizen.
Again avoiding the wider issue and head firmly in the sand. The 'western citizens' account for a very small proportion of the world muslim population and are totally unrepresentative of what is going on out there in the wider world.
Really? In Pakistan they pay blood money. In Indonesia you get a visit from the FPI which appears to be state funded through the police... etc..confusedquark wrote: »...a Muslim person or group won't get away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws, because they'll be arrested and tried for doing so...
Need I say more?confusedquark wrote: »...Muslims living in western countries ...
I have already dealt with the abuse of the legal system by coercing women into sharia marriages to avoid the protection that the UK state provides.confusedquark wrote: »issues such as marriage...confusedquark wrote: »...can hope to work with the existing western legal framework to try and facilitate some issues, and that dialogue should be the way forward. There doesn't have to be conflict.
We can all hope but the disappointment won't be a surprise either.confusedquark wrote: »This world wasn't created to be a perfect utopia without any suffering. Life is a big test and we all have our individual challenges.
Another disappointing performance then from someone who is supposed to be omnipotent.confusedquark wrote: »You won't stop with the stereotypes, will you? ... "vast majority" ... normal people just like everyone else.
We all make grandiose claims and yours are based on a small minority who have come to realise that life in the west is preferable to life in muslim dominated countries whilst burying their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the reality in the rest of the world.
As for stereotyping then you need to look outside your small and select community.
Mysogyny - commented above. We can go through the Quran if you like. Do you need another list of countries where women are oppressed and some data to see the correlation?
Homophobia - dealt with this at some length. I don't want to keep repeating myself. Ditto about countries & data.
Apostasy - etc... etc...
The greatest evil that one can commit is to pretend that an evil does not exist. As the nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg saidReligion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
*******************************
ENVOI
Anyway, the woman is being released, not IMHO because of Islam but because of economics. When I look back at the discussion the underlying premise from a muslim perspective appears to be 'no true scotsman' fallacy. As much as you may wish to say "This is not Islam" the discussion has basically shown that the reality is that this is Islam out there in the real world. Muslims comfy and cosy in the west may want to claim something different but, as they say, the proof of the pudding...0 -
confusedquark wrote: »Hadiths were alleged sayings/actions of The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which were passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until they were actually written down approximately 200 years after the prophet passed away.
I do still feel Hadiths are useful for explaining the context of certain verses in the Qur'an, but I would take them with a pinch of salt - and would certainly be very hesitant to go writing them into law, especially for issues which have no direct reference in the Qur'an itself.
So why are these alleged sayings being used as an excuse by Islamists to justify the execution of this woman and others ?0 -
So from a world view you are going to focus on a narrow view to avoid the issue all together. I note that you are clinging to 'dignity' again to avoid the wider issue I would guess.
I'm doing the complete opposite of avoiding the issue and "clinging" to 'dignity'. I am simply using the parameter that you chose ("dignity") and showing why the means that you used to measure it (e.g. quoting one article stating two people were murdered to "prove" a specific group don't get dignity in the entire country of Turkey) are insufficient for that purpose. My point was (and you seemed to have missed it, so I'll spell it out) - even though 500 anti-Muslim hate crimes occur in the UK annually, I still do believe that Muslims on the whole are treated with dignity in the UK and Ireland - because a one off article (and even many articles) will not always give you the whole picture of what goes on in a country. Bad news always travels a lot faster.None because, unlike yourself, I am not in total denial that there is a serious problem. In passing this is a small fraction compared to the number of 'honour' crimes' committed against women in this country - I hesitate to mention what the "vast majority" profile of the men concerned is. See if you can guess.
Again, I am not in any denial. Again, I couldn't have been any clearer in my acceptance of what the mainstream opinion is, and why I (and many others) disagree with it. I simply questioned your methods of quantifying "dignity".
Honour crimes is a whole different topic. They are an abominable disgrace which have no place in Islam (nor any other religion). They are a cultural/traditional issue with crimes being committed in the name of "family reputation" - and unfortunately do occur in a minority of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities in the UK. It's an issue which needs to be tackled and eradicated and I can't condemn it enough.Given those and the potential conflict between the quran and, say, the english legal system, which are they going to support.Again avoiding the wider issue and head firmly in the sand. The 'western citizens' account for a very small proportion of the world muslim population and are totally unrepresentative of what is going on out there in the wider world.Really? In Pakistan they pay blood money. In Indonesia you get a visit from the FPI which appears to be state funded through the police... etc..Need I say more?
Pardon me for addressing some of the specific concerns you had about western Muslims citizens.
Moving on, regarding Pakistan, my understanding of blood money is that the heirs of a murdered victim have a right to settle for money instead of the execution of the murderer - this is in Pakistani law, so I don't see how it is relevant as an example of a Muslim person getting away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws (the point you were attempting to counter). Regarding Indonesia, if the FPI are indeed state-funded and are imposing punishments that go against that country's laws, then that sounds like a Gestapo-type situation with corruption at large, which is definitely wrong. I'm happy to take back my point and rephrase it to the following:
"A Muslim person or group won't get away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws, because (unless the country already has a secret agenda to impose those rules, and will therefore turn a blind eye) they'll be arrested and tried for doing so".I have already dealt with the abuse of the legal system by coercing women into sharia marriages to avoid the protection that the UK state provides.
Does one example of a system being abused mean that it is pointless trying to rectify the abuses? Many Imams/mosques in the UK are registered to perform both Islamic and civil marriages, which is a good step and should be the way forward, if not made compulsory. There was a New Sharia law marriage contract drafted specifically for the UK to give women more rights a few years back. All this happens with dialogue.We can all hope but the disappointment won't be a surprise either.
We can see as well - Islamic banking in the UK has already taken off and changes to English law have already been made to address issues such as double stamp duty. Mosques are built only after necessary planning permission is approved. Schools and universities are often happy to provide prayer rooms to facilitate students praying. I'm sure there are countless other examples of how Muslims get along just fine with and within the system - it's simply a question of constructive dialogue.We all make grandiose claims and yours are based on a small minority who have come to realise that life in the west is preferable to life in muslim dominated countries whilst burying their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the reality in the rest of the world.
As for stereotyping then you need to look outside your small and select community.
My claim that Muslims are no different from any other population/race/religion with plenty of good people, plenty of bad people, and mostly normal people in between, is a grandiose claim based on a small minority?
How do you know what the reality in the rest of the world actually is, and what the millions and millions of ordinary everyday Muslims living all across the world are actually like? You read the odd news article (again, bad news always travels a lot faster) and you think you can dump 1 billion+ people into the same pile.Mysogyny - commented above. We can go through the Quran if you like. Do you need another list of countries where women are oppressed and some data to see the correlation?
Before you copy and paste more Quranic verses out of context from random websites - have a read of these sites first:
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/women/rights.asp
http://www.womaninthequran.com/04.html
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/women_in_quran_and_sunnah.phpThe greatest evil that one can commit is to pretend that an evil does not exist.
It's up there all right.As the nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg said:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
My initial reaction is "For evil people to do good things, that takes religion." But I don't really believe in a black and white categorisation of people as "good" or "evil". There's good and evil in all of us - we will all do good in our lives, and we will all do evil. I don't know how much you actually know about religions beyond the stereotypes and the select issues you have with them, but they actually encourage us to do more of the former.ENVOI
Anyway, the woman is being released, not IMHO because of Islam but because of economics. When I look back at the discussion the underlying premise from a muslim perspective appears to be 'no true scotsman' fallacy. As much as you may wish to say "This is not Islam" the discussion has basically shown that the reality is that this is Islam out there in the real world. Muslims comfy and cosy in the west may want to claim something different but, as they say, the proof of the pudding...
Not the first time you've said that, and I've already given my reply and reasons more than once.0 -
-
confusedquark wrote: »Because they consider the sayings/stories to be reliable accounts.
Exactly...!! Which makes my point pretty well.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »...
Of course I can use your approach to dismiss the referenced links that you posted as 'random'... minority etc because clearly they are of little merit and don't fit in with the view being proposed. See it works both ways.A Muslim person or group won't get away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws, because (unless the country already has a secret agenda to impose those rules, and will therefore turn a blind eye) they'll be arrested and tried for doing so.
Why secret? What is the purpose of Islam if not to spread Islam throughout the whole world? Whose version of Islam will it be? Yours or 'Conservative' Islam (You might like to listen to a recording of the BBC Radio 4 program 'Sunday' this morning - the bit at about 7:50am)How do you know what the reality in the rest of the world actually is, and what the millions and millions of ordinary everyday Muslims living all across the world are actually like? You read the odd news article (again, bad news always travels a lot faster) and you think you can dump 1 billion+ people into the same pile.
As I have said before, the proof of the pudding....
By the way, your rather patronising attempts to dismiss by making comments such as "random" and "read the odd news article" only weaken your case. Were your arguments strong you would not need to resort to such. As I stated before, I can provide reams of articles to illustrate the points I am making but it is only necessary, for those who are prepared to look for themselves, to provide one or two.
We do not agree. I have no problem with that. I am concerned by your head in the sand attitude because that is how governance issues like the schools in Birmingham arise. People pretend these things aren't going on (no true Scotsman again) and turn a blind eye.
As far as I can tell your critique of my post is based on
1. These things aren't happening its just bad press
2. They are one offs
3. It isn't Islam
4. I don't understand (Islam, Quran) anything
5. 'They' (muslims who don't share your view of Islam) don't understand Islam
My final comment because this discussion is really going nowhere is that it would be nice to believe you were right about all things but the evidence suggests otherwise.
I leave you with a couple of quotesEvery Muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of Islam violates the core tenets of the Prophet Mohammed, and they must do so repeatedly. Period. - Mike PompeoYou will not enter paradise until you have faith. And you will not complete your faith until you love one another.Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind.
With that last one, said by a brilliant warrior and politician, in mind I think I will leave it there. As that brilliant Irish comedian, Dave Allan said "... and may your god go with you"0 -
Advertisement
-
So why are these alleged sayings being used as an excuse by Islamists to justify the execution of this woman and others ?
Today's so-called 'Islamists' are nothing but fascist fanatics whose combination of lust for power and insular tribal values have created a deadly cocktail. However, without their powerful patrons they wouldn't have survived.
The sad fact is the West in its desire to stop communism created so-called 'Islamism'. The very regimes who speak out the loudest 'against the West' are the very regimes who are the West's closest allies and who have been installed by the West (we cannot have them praising the West in public of course for obvious reasons: if Iran for example was publically admitted as one of the West's recaptured colonies in 1979, the Iranian people would have staged a real revolution to get rid of the Western takeover. Instead, the West took it and got the regime to pretend they were anti-West). The Afghan Taliban had its very roots in the anti-communist forces of the Mujahedin and it also is no coincidence that Sudan was tolerated as it bordered another loss to communism in Ethiopia. You see that most if not all fascist Muslim states border a communist country in the 20th century: Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan. Others were former communist states: Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea.
The design of Islamic fascism is 3 fold. First, it keeps Islam as the religion for the poor, the depressed, the downtrodden. Moderate Islam could emerge as a powerful force to rival Christianity and Atheism. Furthermore, moderate Islam was largely left to its own devices in the Muslim parts of the USSR. That was not allowed happen and the West feared good relations that were developing between the USSR and then moderate Islamic states like Iran and Afghanistan. Secondly, Islamic fascism put the fear of god into communists. And thirdly it stopped oil rich countries from being independent and potential rival superpowers to the West. It is a new and secret colonialism and is all about oil.
When we hear about this poor woman being sentenced to death for something that is not a crime, we must remember our own Western establishment's hand in creating, nurturing and turning a blind eye to fascist regimes like Sudan's Omar al-Bashir lead Junta. And like all fascists, the contradictions are everywhere. Bashir is a black African who self-styles himself as an 'Arab' who leads an 'Arab Islamic' regime but yet he kills and labels many of his own people as 'black African' and despite his 'Islam' being at least 60% comprised of tribal practices, looks down on the non-'Islamic' tribal religions and considers them 'primitive' and 'backward' despite practicing the same thing dressed up as 'Islam'.0 -
Someone earlier said very interestingly that countries who allow things like this to happen on their soil are either blatantly doing it or are turning a blind eye/have a secret agenda. Two main examples come to mind. Sudan obviously is the former: the regime's tenets are the culprits. But in Pakistan, we see all these horrid 'honour' killings and beatings. A blind eye is turned.
Likewise, parts of generally moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia have parts of it under fascist law so as to compromise to terrorists who would otherwise wreak havoc in Jakarta or Bali and have done. Unfortunately, terrorist tactics work and governments have to compromise. Nigeria, a 50/50 Christian/Islamic country, had likewise to do a deal with fanatic fascists in its northern states which also impose voodoo 'Islam' on its poor people.
All the current completely 'Islamofascist' states did not get like that of a sudden. They did so because other voices were silenced, blind eyes turned, and from weakness from other political leaders.
Another person said doing nothing to stem the tide of evil is the most evil act of all. Islamic leaders, the West and other world powers are either too locked into these dictators and the deals they have with them or are too afraid of them. But this is not good enough. Islam deserves to be lead by proper people who are kind, goodnatured and helpful. The Middle East and Africa like all parts of the world deserve to be lead by democratic governments and their people to have fundamental human rights like safety, food, freedom and work.0 -
Firstly, apologies about the late reply, have had a busy few days.Of course I can use your approach to dismiss the referenced links that you posted as 'random'... minority etc because clearly they are of little merit and don't fit in with the view being proposed. See it works both ways.
It does work both ways, but I'm not the one claiming apostates don't get dignity in the likes of Turkey based SOLELY on one article that said two people were murdered there. There may or may not be issues for apostates as a whole there (I haven't lived there, nor do I know many Turks, nor do I follow Turkish news regularly, so I wouldn't really know, and ditto for a lot of the other countries on those lists) - I'm simply stating that you quoting one article is not enough proof to make the claim that that is the norm for that country as a whole, especially when there is no official law concerning such matters (in the same way that I would be wrong to claim Muslims don't get dignity in the UK or Ireland based on a relatively small proportion of incidents).Why secret? What is the purpose of Islam if not to spread Islam throughout the whole world? Whose version of Islam will it be? Yours or 'Conservative' Islam (You might like to listen to a recording of the BBC Radio 4 program 'Sunday' this morning - the bit at about 7:50am)
You're going off on a tangent. We were discussing why a Muslim person/group would not get away with trying to enforce an Islamic law which was against a country's laws. You brought up Indonesia and the (allegedly) secretly state-funded group - so I said fair enough, a Muslim person/group would not get away with it unless the country had a secret policy to turn a blind eye to such matters (and effectively try to illegally enforce Islamic laws when those laws are not in their constitution). I don't think a government turning a blind eye to an issue is something which is ever declared publicly... hence my use of the word "secret". But I've no problem retracting that bit either (as it doesn't actually make any practical difference to my point), so I'll rephrase again for you.
"A Muslim person or group won't get away with trying to impose punishments which go against a country's laws, because (unless the country already has an agenda to impose those rules, and will therefore turn a blind eye) they'll be arrested and tried for doing so."As I have said before, the proof of the pudding....
My final comment because this discussion is really going nowhere is that it would be nice to believe you were right about all things but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Again, "The proof of the pudding" is what the mainstream opinion is at present. I haven't denied what the mainstream opinion is. I can only articulate why I (and many others) disagree with it - on this one particular Islamic issue.By the way, your rather patronising attempts to dismiss by making comments such as "random" and "read the odd news article" only weaken your case. Were your arguments strong you would not need to resort to such. As I stated before, I can provide reams of articles to illustrate the points I am making but it is only necessary, for those who are prepared to look for themselves, to provide one or two.
We do not agree. I have no problem with that. I am concerned by your head in the sand attitude because that is how governance issues like the schools in Birmingham arise. People pretend these things aren't going on (no true Scotsman again) and turn a blind eye.
Given that you've avoided to address my counter argument as to why one would be wrong to assume Muslims in the UK don't get treated with dignity on the basis of one article, you don't have much of strong case yourself. So far your responses have been "there's a hole below the waterline in your argument", "you're focusing on a narrow view", "Of course I can use your approach to dismiss the referenced links that you posted as 'random'", "it's only necessary to provide one or two", and none of them actually address the point I'm making.
You keep repeating "head in the sand", but not once have I denied what the majority opinion is. I've already posted a link which states the Muslim-predominant countries in the world that have laws against apostasy. There can be no question that apostates don't get treated with dignity in those countries (and again, I've articulated why I and many others disagree with that). However, the majority of Muslim-predominant countries that you listed out do not have laws against apostasy and it's not so straight forward to figure out whether apostates get dignity as a whole in those countries or not, and certainly quoting an article or two will not give you the full picture of what goes on in an entire country.As far as I can tell your critique of my post is based on
1. These things aren't happening its just bad press
2. They are one offs
3. It isn't Islam
4. I don't understand (Islam, Quran) anything
5. 'They' (muslims who don't share your view of Islam) don't understand Islam
1-2. I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Sudan ruling (state issues) or individual/group aggression towards apostates in countries that do not have official laws. If it's the former, then I can't deny these things are happening - and can again only express my disagreement. If it's the latter, then the question is whether these acts are one-offs and bad press, or whether they genuinely are the social norms in those countries. It might be in some, it might not be in others - but you'll need more than one or two articles to get the full picture of what goes on in each country.
3-5. The ruling on apostasy is just one aspect of Islam. The majority of Islam is straight forward and there's little disagreement over most things, but there always will be disagreement over matters, such as apostasy, that are not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. With such matters, the majority opinion will win out, but the majority opinion can change over time, and it's probably a good thing that there is a lot of spotlight on the issue of apostasy, because it will force people to look at the issue and Islamic texts again.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »
The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. This distinction was not made by early scholars, and once it became the status quo, there has been resistance to even consider an alternative - with some modern day scholars dismissing such suggestions as "The West telling us what to do", but that's no excuse to not even look at the issue. Hopefully the tide will turn in time.
Genuine question, but who gets to decide what the correct position is? Is there a central body in islam that decides what the correct interpretation is?0 -
Genuine question, but who gets to decide what the correct position is? Is there a central body in islam that decides what the correct interpretation is?
The simple answer is no one. Islam is often used by fascist dictators and absolute monarchs of different countries to make them more powerful and unaccountable. There's no one person like the Pope or institution like the Vatican that has the 'official all following' view. It is on a country by country basis basically.0 -
Genuine question, but who gets to decide what the correct position is? Is there a central body in islam that decides what the correct interpretation is?
No. And personally, I think that is one area where Islam differs greatly from Christianity. Whether Christians like it or not, having one central authority ultimately worked to their favour, rather than the fractious, disjointed and subjective nature of decision making in Islam.0 -
The caliph in Islam is the pope equivalent leader who would have the final say on such matters. The caliphate was in operational existence until the early 20th century, and ended with the collapse of the Ottoman empire after world war 1. With the subsequent creation of modern-day middle east and the divisions that have existed in the Arab world since, there hasn't been a wider agreement between Muslims regarding it's re-establishment. For now, it's country by country decisions, based on whatever the predominant views of those in charge are.
I see ISIS have declared a caliphate in the territories they control, but just as the pope needs wider Catholic support for his position to have any meaning, so would a caliph need wider Muslim support to have any legitimacy - and I don't really see that happening in their case.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »The caliph in Islam is the pope equivalent leader who would have the final say on such matters. The caliphate was in operational existence until the early 20th century, and ended with the collapse of the Ottoman empire after world war 1. With the subsequent creation of modern-day middle east and the divisions that have existed in the Arab world since, there hasn't been a wider agreement between Muslims regarding it's re-establishment. For now, it's country by country decisions, based on whatever the predominant views of those in charge are.
I see ISIS have declared a caliphate in the territories they control, but just as the pope needs wider Catholic support for his position to have any meaning, so would a caliph need wider Muslim support to have any legitimacy - and I don't really see that happening in their case.
The self-styled 'caliph' in ISIS has no legitimacy and any decent Muslim would have nothing got to do with this or another similar terrorist/drug dealer entity. al-Baghdadi is a false prophet, more Osama bin Laden than caliph. That these people have such ambitions is scary though.
I would however support an Islamic reformation where a new system is set up with a caliph that is moderate and can dissociate Islam from fascist thugs and drug dealer terrorists and uneducated bigots. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be the only voices heard due to their control over certain countries.0
Advertisement