ADOPTION OF ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN IS 'UNAVOIDABLE', SAYS ARCHBISHOP

[Robert Toy]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unav oidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do

[William Haskins]

"We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy." - Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, London, June, 2000





.

[davids]

BRTAIN SINKS BELOW A TIDAL WAVE OF IDIOTS!

[Sheryl Nantus]

makes me glad to be Catholic.

and Canadian.

:D

[blacbird]

It takes a village idjut . . .

caw

[Plot Device]

I see no basis for a soveriegn nation that is hundreds of years old to have to make radical changes to its long-established laws merely to accomodate the cultural needs (not the legal needs, the cultural needs) of a recent (past 50 years) immigrant group.

http://static.flickr.com/63/190916781_fc9e5962bb.jpg

[Robert Toy]

I love the quote from MP Pter Luff:

"This is a very dangerous route which we should not go down. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have a little bit of sharia law.”

[William Haskins]

I see no basis for a soveriegn nation that is hundreds of years old to have to make radical changes to its long-established laws merely to accomodate the cultural needs (not the legal needs, the cultural needs) of a recent (past 50 years) immigrant group.


after world war 2, nationalism (rightly so) became somewhat suspect. but instead of continuing pursuit of national identity in benign and healthy ways and shunning the more unsavory aspects of it, people (as people will) went into kneejerk mode and embraced the jettisoning of individual national cultural sovereignty... and this is what it results in.

[blacbird]

after world war 2, nationalism (rightly so) became somewhat suspect. but instead of continuing pursuit of national identity in benign and healthy ways and shunning the more unsavory aspects of it, people (as people will) went into kneejerk mode and embraced the jettisoning of individual national cultural sovereignty... and this is what it results in.

It hasn't "resulted in" anything, so far, other than a cloistered dimwit blathering an opinion that I'd bet will be thoroughly scorched by all major Brit politicos and the general public as well.

caw

[xhouseboy]

Yeah, why not?

Just so long as I can then emigrate to a muslim country and campaign for these same rights without finding myself buried up to my neck with rocks bouncing off my face.

[Finni]

This is ironic on so many levels that I can't even express myself.

Two words: I'm Irish

[Robert Toy]

after world war 2, nationalism (rightly so) became somewhat suspect. but instead of continuing pursuit of national identity in benign and healthy ways and shunning the more unsavory aspects of it, people (as people will) went into kneejerk mode and embraced the jettisoning of individual national cultural sovereignty... and this is what it results in.
The Empire Strikes Back!

[xhouseboy]

BRTAIN SINKS BELOW A TIDAL WAVE OF IDIOTS!

We've not collectively lost the plot - that's still a bit down the road.

It's just the Archbishop and his ilk who are totally ga-ga.

He's since been slaughtered from just about every quarter.

[billythrilly7th]

I wouldn't give Britain's problems to a monkey on a rock.

[William Haskins]

It hasn't "resulted in" anything, so far, other than a cloistered dimwit blathering an opinion that I'd bet will be thoroughly scorched by all major Brit politicos and the general public as well.

caw

if you look at the culture of honor killings (more than 12 a year in the UK) one can definitely make the case that muslims are (sometimes murderously) resistant to assimilation.

furthermore, a news story in response to the archbishop's statement came out a few hours ago with the hopeful title:

British Labour government rejects sharia call

it began reasonably enough:

London - The British government Thursday rejected calls by the leader of the Anglican Church that Islamic (sharia) law should be introduced in the country to promote social cohesion.


'The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values,' said a spokesman for Gordon Brown.


The comment was seen as a sharp rebuke for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the worldwide Anglican Church, who said earlier Thursday that he believed that the introduction of sharia in Britain was 'unavoidable.'
but at the end of the article, we find this little nugget:

However, the government was prepared to look at the application of sharia law on a case-by-case basis, for instance in relation to the taxation of property purchases, to avoid Muslim citizens having to pay such duty on sharia-compliant mortgages.


'In general terms, if there are specific instances that can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, that is something we can look at.'
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/news/article_1390341.php/British_Labour_government_rejects_sharia_call

[blacbird]

if you look at the culture of honor killings (more than 12 a year in the UK) one can definitely make the case that muslims are (sometimes murderously) resistant to assimilation.

Some Muslims are, no question. And no sane person is going to justify a culture of "honor" killings. And such are by no means restricted to radical Islam, either. I watched a program just the other night on an honor killing of a girl from a strict Sikh family in Vancouver, BC. The Hindu caste system in India might be responsible for the most persistent and common tradition of honor killings anywhere in the world. For that matter, the most common reason for street gang killings in the U.S. is a twisted matter of "honor".

caw

[xhouseboy]

That dottery old flapper's probably got himself to the top of M15's list of undesireables.

A muslim MP's currently kicking up a stink because he's just discovered he's being bugged. Regardless of the fact that he was talking to a suspected terrorist.

M15 - the last cornerstone of The Empire.

[Takvah]

Here is London, giddy of London
Is it home of the free -
Or what ?

-Morrissey

I guess the man has gotten his answer. Of course Morrissey has been outspoken about Britains' immigration policies... and for the trouble he got colored a racist. Nevermind that he was talking about a loss of culture. Now people might be figuring out he was right about it all.

[rugcat]

How did this man get to be the Archbishop of Canterbury? But I'm so used to right wing religious crazies that it's sort of refreshing to find a left wing one.

[xhouseboy]

Here is London, giddy of London
Is it home of the free -
Or what ?

-Morrissey

I guess the man has gotten his answer. Of course Morrissey has been outspoken about Britains' immigration policies... and for the trouble he got colored a racist. Nevermind that he was talking about a loss of culture. Now people might be figuring out he was right about it all.

During the past ten years in this country anyone who criticised Labour's open door immigration policy was branded a racist - no ifs no buts. It was their way of stifling sensible debate on the subject.

And it's even just recently been decided that if an immigrant residing here is unemployed and has four wives as his religion permits (doesn't apply to your bog standard tax paying UK citizen, of course; we'd be flung in jail for that - bigamy being illegal) he will be paid social security benefits for all four of his wives... even if these wives are still living abroad.

You really can't get a more attractive beacon than that.

[robeiae]

And it's even just recently been decided that if an immigrant residing here is unemployed and has four wives as his religion permits (doesn't apply to your bog standard tax paying UK citizen, of course; we'd be flung in jail for that - bigamy being illegal) he will be paid social security benefits for all four of his wives... even if these wives are still living abroad.

You really can't get a more attractive beacon than that.
No. Really? Mein Gott, that's insane.

[ColoradoGuy]

No. Really? Mein Gott, that's insane.
It really makes a mockery of equality before the law.

[xhouseboy]

No. Really? Mein Gott, that's insane.

The ruling was passed in December, but kept quiet for fear of the stink it would cause. It just came to light this week.

Although I was just going over the the last part again... I may have been wrong about that, have to read the ruling again. I think he has to bring them into the country first, but they can then leave and he can still claim the money for them - the extra wives, that is.

It's much like the immigrants who can come here but leave their children in their country of origin. UK taxpayers will then pay child benefit allowance for these children even when they're not residing in this country.

ETA: a link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml

[Plot Device]

Forgive my ignorance on who the Archbishop of Canterbury is but .... why is a Christian minister (an admittedly high-ranking one) making a commentary on legal matters? Is he part of the actual government of England? (In the same odd way that the King is supposed to simultaneously be the head of the Church of England?) And of all the legal matters he could be speaking out on ... why on legal matters pertaining to Muslims?

[Takvah]

There goes my retirement in the highlands! Bloody hell!

[veinglory]

It would be alarming, if it was in any way true.

[Zelenka]

Considering a lot of people here wouldn't even be able to name the Archbishop of Canterbury and even less would know what his position is within the political organisation of the country, I doubt if his opinion is going to topple the UK's infrastructure somehow. If the Prime Minister had said the same thing, now...

Thing is, in the UK you don't just have the one group there, there's not even a single group of 'British' before you take into account the various waves of immigration that've gone on over the centuries. The Scots, and as Finni pointed out, the Irish, would have a bit of something to say about the idea, I should imagine. For starters, there would be an interesting legal prospect in Scotland since the Church of Scotland (different from the Anglican Church) is supposedly enshrined in several pieces of legislation, including the Act of Union of 1707, though it's debatable how strong that still is as a legal document. The English legal system has been in more or less the same state since the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century and I don't see it disappearing in favour of a completely different, foreign system of law any time soon.

Quite apart from that, how does Sharia law fit in with the ECHR, or the Human Rights Act 1998 that gives it authority here?

Why am I even thinking about this nonsense seriously?

[Zelenka]

Forgive my ignorance on who the Archbishop of Canterbury is but .... why is a Christian minister (an admittedly high-ranking one) making a commentary on legal matters? Is he part of the actual government of England? (In the same odd way that the King is supposed to simultaneously be the head of the Church of England?) And of all the legal matters he could be speaking out on ... why on legal matters pertaining to Muslims?

He's the senior bishop the Church of England (not of the Church of Scotland, so he shouldn't be speaking for us, or the Catholics either) and is supposed to have a mind to the spiritual matters but only within his own church.

I have an awful feeling he was 'a bit merry' as we say up here when he made his statement.

[Don Allen]

It is my humble if not somewhat isolated opinion, that, Islam one day, will be classified in many democratic nations around the world as a hate group in much the same way Nazi's, Neo Nazi's, and KKK members have been classified. If not they will use the principles of democracy to their advantage and creat an Islamic world. That is their goal. ..and they seem to be damn stubborn about achieving it..

[William Haskins]

Forgive my ignorance on who the Archbishop of Canterbury is but .... why is a Christian minister (an admittedly high-ranking one) making a commentary on legal matters? Is he part of the actual government of England? (In the same odd way that the King is supposed to simultaneously be the head of the Church of England?) And of all the legal matters he could be speaking out on ... why on legal matters pertaining to Muslims?

for the same reason that martin luther king spoke about issues related to the law?

[Judg]

for the same reason that martin luther king spoke about issues related to the law?
:Clap:

[Judg]

Not that Rowan Williams comes up to MLK's ankle bone...

[Plot Device]

He's the senior bishop the Church of England (not of the Church of Scotland, so he shouldn't be speaking for us, or the Catholics either) and is supposed to have a mind to the spiritual matters but only within his own church.

That's what I thought. (See my response below to William.)

I have an awful feeling he was 'a bit merry' as we say up here when he made his statement.

What a fine quality for a sitting Archbishop!

for the same reason that martin luther king spoke about issues related to the law?

But IIRC, Rev. MLK did not have a church he was responsible for--an actual flock that he was shepherding. Therefore by turning his attentions toward the American civil rights movement he wasn't shirking his PRIMARY duties.

Does not this Archbishop guy have some sort of official duties to the CoE? Why is he giving specialized attentions to Muslims?

[robeiae]

But IIRC, Rev. MLK did not have a church he was responsible for--an actual flock that he was shepherding. Therefore by turning his attentions toward the American civil rights movement he wasn't shirking his PRIMARY duties.Well, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Avenue_Baptist_Church). But even if it were true, so what? Ministers and Priests and Bishops can still participate in the world outside their church. How about MLK's namesake?

[InfinityGoddess]

It is my humble if not somewhat isolated opinion, that, Islam one day, will be classified in many democratic nations around the world as a hate group in much the same way Nazi's, Neo Nazi's, and KKK members have been classified. If not they will use the principles of democracy to their advantage and creat an Islamic world. That is their goal. ..and they seem to be damn stubborn about achieving it..


I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous that statement is.

Islam is a religion. Not some political band of hate-mongers. Most Muslims don't believe violence will solve their problems and they're certainly not out to kill everyone. You're just lumping the whole group as rotten apples just because of the actions of a few crazies.

[Bravo]

"We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy." - Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, London, June, 2000





.

because having an official church (and religion) of england is a symbol of democracy.

[xhouseboy]

Forgive my ignorance on who the Archbishop of Canterbury is but .... why is a Christian minister (an admittedly high-ranking one) making a commentary on legal matters? Is he part of the actual government of England? (In the same odd way that the King is supposed to simultaneously be the head of the Church of England?) And of all the legal matters he could be speaking out on ... why on legal matters pertaining to Muslims?

Maybe he was having tea with the Bishop of Rochester. And it turned him into a nervous wreck.

And all the way home he's thinking - how the f**k can I distance myself from this guy. He's gonna become a target, and there's no way he's taking me down with him. Ah, I've got it - the Neville Chamberlain route.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3292032.ece


The Bishop of Rochester - calls it like it is.

[SpookyWriter]

Islam is a religion. Not some political ...I'm just curious to know if Islamic law is a religion or a political apparatus? Or both. Is there a difference?

Please explain.

[Judg]

Islam is a religion. But unlike Christianity, which is primarily a question of an individual's relationship with God, Islam was conceived from the very beginning as a state religion. Individual conscience is pretty much irrelevant. Outward conformity to law is what counts.

[SpookyWriter]

Islam is a religion. But unlike Christianity, which is primarily a question of an individual's relationship with God, Islam was conceived from the very beginning as a state religion. Individual conscience is pretty much irrelevant. Outward conformity to law is what counts.Which law? If it is the Koran then wouldn't the Islamic religion be considered a political apparatus? Just asking.

[Judg]

That's more or less my point. If you make Islam a personal religion, you violate its nature. You have, in essence, Christianized it. It's a PC retrofit. It is by its very nature political (not in the sense of partisan politics). The laws of Islam are state laws, to be enforced by the collective and by the state. The laws of Christianity are a question of an individual directly before God. The only sanctions ever mentioned in the New Testament are being put out of the church, and then only until the person in question repents. Otherwise, the only judgment seat is the one God is sitting on.

There is no distinction between state and ecclesiastic law in Islam. They are indissociable. The Koran sets up laws to be administered by the state.

[William Haskins]

wonderfully stated.

[Magdalen]

I've read some of the Koran. Not a lot, I should (shall?) read more. I did manage to read all of the Bible (didn't "study" it, but I read with interest and a desire to understand. I've always wondered when and how "False Prophets" would be recognized. Now, I think I know.

[IdiotsRUs]

Forgive my ignorance on who the Archbishop of Canterbury is but .... why is a Christian minister (an admittedly high-ranking one) making a commentary on legal matters?

Because no one listens to him otherwise.

[seun]

I have an awful feeling he was 'a bit merry' as we say up here when he made his statement.

A bit merry? Sounds like he was shit faced.

[Don Allen]

Yes Infinity you are as always correct, my apologies. Oh and by the way part of Islamic law defines woman as property that should be rarely seen an never heard, maybe you should practice some of that fine religious law.

[TheGaffer]

It hasn't "resulted in" anything, so far, other than a cloistered dimwit blathering an opinion that I'd bet will be thoroughly scorched by all major Brit politicos and the general public as well.

caw


Here's a key point:

Dr Williams pointed out that Jewish Beth Din courts already operate in Britain. But these, like sharia arrangements currently existing in Muslim areas, are voluntary understandings conducted with the agreement of participants.


Any alternative -- some sort of more enforceable law -- is anathema to the idea of a sovereign state that has made its own laws and should not expect to have alternate means of law coinciding with the laws of the state.


What is our arrangement with the Native American reservations, however? Just a question.

[TheGaffer]

That's more or less my point. If you make Islam a personal religion, you violate its nature. You have, in essence, Christianized it. It's a PC retrofit. It is by its very nature political (not in the sense of partisan politics). The laws of Islam are state laws, to be enforced by the collective and by the state. The laws of Christianity are a question of an individual directly before God. The only sanctions ever mentioned in the New Testament are being put out of the church, and then only until the person in question repents. Otherwise, the only judgment seat is the one God is sitting on.

There is no distinction between state and ecclesiastic law in Islam. They are indissociable. The Koran sets up laws to be administered by the state.


Interesting.

But the world has (and should) evolve, no? And so what you've described may well fly in states where Islam dominates, but not where it does not, and should not be imposed.

[TheGaffer]

Yes Infinity you are as always correct, my apologies. Oh and by the way part of Islamic law defines woman as property that should be rarely seen an never heard, maybe you should practice some of that fine religious law.



There's a certain amount of decorum that's supposed to be practiced here, and you've stepped over it. Funny how those who would flame Islam as equivalent to Nazis would then expose themselves as in line with some of the same reactionary thinking.

More to the point: What in the hell is wrong with you?

[Bird of Prey]

There is no distinction between state and ecclesiastic law in Islam. They are indissociable. The Koran sets up laws to be administered by the state.

Regardless, for all intents and purposes, Turkey has managed to separate the Koran from the state. Religions evolve along with the people who practice them.

[Roger J Carlson]

Isn't this the blind monk character played by Gene Hackman in Young Frankenstein?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/RowanWilliamsPA2603_228x300.jpg

[Plot Device]

Well, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Avenue_Baptist_Church). But even if it were true, so what? Ministers and Priests and Bishops can still participate in the world outside their church. How about MLK's namesake?

I checked your link.

Vernon Johns, an early leader of the American Civil Rights Movement, served as pastor from 1947 to 1952. He was succeeded by Martin Luther King, Jr., pastor from 1954 to 1960, who organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott from the church. The church was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1974.[1],[3],[4]

MLK was no longer pastor of that church after 1960. MLK began to travel around the country in the 1960's, and I don't believe MLK was an actual pastor of an actual flock any longer during the 1960's because he was committed to the Civil Rights Movement full time at that point.

I'm bothering with all this because I do not believe the comparison to MLK is even remotely valid because:

1) MLK was a Christian man of African decent who started out with his political endeavors by speaking up on behalf of other Christians of African decent in his community.

2) MLK became a man of great noteriety after he stepped down from his pastoral role and went full time into the movement, travelling around the country. And he was STIL predominatntly speaking up for African Americans.

It would have been grossly remiss of MLK to have remained a senior pastor (not an assistant pastor or a co-pastor, but a senior pastor) while traveling around the counrty. So he stepped down as senior pastor and allowed someone else to be the main sheperd of that particualr flock back in Alabama, and the other flock (the Ebenzer church) back in Atlanta.

And I again want to stress that MLK went around campaigning of behalf of civil rights with his primary focus on Africa Americans.


Now ...

As for comparing MLK to the Archbishop of Canterbury, doesn't the Archbishop have obligations to his Christian flock there in England? Why is he speaking up on behalf of Muslims? I'm not in any way saying that he (or other Christians) CAN'T speak on behalf of Muslims. Instead I'd like to suggest that it might have been better if he made such a statement while seated beside a local Imam or two so that at least it wouldn't look like he was being a butt-in-ski, poking his nose into affairs outside of his scope of things. And are ALL members of his flock all just so fine and dandy, and being so thoroughly serviced in their own civil liberties and legal needs there in England that NONE of them need someoe of power and noteriety to speak on their behalf?

And as for this suggestion demand that England overhaul the law, when one looks at MLK, Reverend King simply wanted the US Constituion AS ALREADY WRITTEN to apply to everyone equally, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or religion. But the Archbishop is asking for the laws of England to be changed --and radically so-- to accomodate a special segment of the population. I don't see a comparison at all.



And my original question was: who is he anyhow??? Doesn't he already have a scope of ministry and a scope of concern within his parish?

[Roger J Carlson]

I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous that statement is.

Islam is a religion. Not some political band of hate-mongers. Most Muslims don't believe violence will solve their problems and they're certainly not out to kill everyone. You're just lumping the whole group as rotten apples just because of the actions of a few crazies.Well, before you wax too eloquent in the defense of Islam, you might want to read this article (http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html)by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.

[Plot Device]

That's more or less my point. If you make Islam a personal religion, you violate its nature. You have, in essence, Christianized it. It's a PC retrofit. It is by its very nature political (not in the sense of partisan politics). The laws of Islam are state laws, to be enforced by the collective and by the state. The laws of Christianity are a question of an individual directly before God. The only sanctions ever mentioned in the New Testament are being put out of the church, and then only until the person in question repents. Otherwise, the only judgment seat is the one God is sitting on.

There is no distinction between state and ecclesiastic law in Islam. They are indissociable. The Koran sets up laws to be administered by the state.

Sounds like they need to stay in their own soveriegn nation then. Unless, of course, their goal is to expand their nation outward into all the world.

[William Haskins]

I'm bothering with all this because I do not believe the comparison to MLK is even remotely valid...

few analogies are watertight, but you're straining to separate them in this case. MLK's message was ultimately one of unity.

As for comparing MLK to the Archbishop of Canterbury, doesn't the Archbishop have obligations to his Christian flock there in England? Why is he speaking up on behalf of Muslims?

see above.

[Plot Device]

few analogies are watertight, but you're straining to separate them in this case. MLK's message was ultimately one of unity.

And the Archbishop (unless I'm reading the article incorrectly) is asking for a separation --for special courts just for Muslims. Just like there are separate courts for the military, and separate courts for taxes, he wants separate courts for Muslims. THAT isn't unity.


see above.

See what? (I'm serious, see what? This thread has grown many tentacles and I can't keep track of them all.)

[Roger J Carlson]

Isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican equivalent of the Pope? The Pope makes political statements from time to time, too. And Archbishop Desmond Tutu was both Archbishop and political activist.

Not that I'm defending what he said. I think it's deplorable.

[William Haskins]

And the Archbishop (unless I'm reading the article incorrectly) is asking for a separation --for special courts just for Muslims. Just like there are separate courst for the military, and separate coursts for taxes, he wants separate courst for Muslims. THAT isn't unity.


you have a forest/trees thing going on here. i definitely believe the man is misguided, but he is seeking social unity through legal separatism, social unity being his primary concern.

[Plot Device]

Isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican equivalent of the Pope? The Pope makes political statements from time to time, too. And Archbishop Desmond Tutu was both Archbishop and political activist.

Not that I'm defending what he said. I think it's deplorable.

Well then I guess SOMEBODY on this thread finally ansered my question of: "Who is he anyhow??"

And if this suppositon (Archbishop of Canterbury = Pope of England) is in fact true, then I guess England should take his words as seriously as any present-day soveriegn nation takes the commentary of a seated Pope: "Thank you for your suggestions. Run along now, we have a country to run."

[Plot Device]

you have a forest/trees thing going on here.

Can you please not be so snotty? I asked a REAL question and you're not answering it.

Do you want me to spell out my question to you yet again?? I will, but I fear you will dodge the answer yet again.

I think I'm being very polite and very straightforward while you're being very aloof and elitist.


i definitely believe the man is misguided, but he is seeking social unity through legal separatism, social unity being his primary concern.


And so if we agree on at least a few issues, why does that make my comments worthy of your dismissiveness?

[William Haskins]

Can you please not be so snotty? I asked a REAL question and you're not answering it.

i wasn't being snotty. forest and trees is not an insult, it's simply an acknowledgement of a difference in perspective. our interaction on this thread can be boiled down thusly:

you asked why a religious figure would be speaking on a social cause with legal ramifications.

i responded that it is not uncommon and that MLK did much the same thing.

you went overboard in an attempt to discredit the analogy.

i brought the focus back to where the analogy holds up and conceded where it breaks down.

you got hysterical.


And so if we agree on at least a few issues, why does that make my comments worthy of your dismissiveness?

i didn't dismiss you. i engaged you and responded to you. if i missed a question for which you're seeking an answer, feel free to refresh my memory as to what it is.

i have not been aloof or elitist.

[Bird of Prey]

Turkey closer to ending headscarf ban

2008-02-08 07:26:00.0
ANKARA, Turkey, Feb 7, 2008 (UPI via COMTEX) -- A constitutional amendment that would lift the ban on religious headscarves at Turkish universities passed a first vote in Parliament this week by a 4-1 margin.


A second vote is scheduled for Saturday, Voice of America reported.

Thousands of people joined street demonstrations across the country to support the headscarf ban. On Saturday, 100,000 protested the amendment in Ankara and demonstrators also gathered at the tomb of Kemal Ataturk, the father of the secular Turkish state.

Critics of the ban say that the amendment gives religious Muslim women an equal chance for education and jobs.

But others, like Nur Serter, a parliamentary representative for the People's Party, believe that allowing religious headscarves is a step towards becoming a religious state like Iran.

"Headscarf has always been used as the main symbol of the political Islamic movement," she said. "For example, headscarf has been the symbol of the Iranian Islamic revolution, so Turkey is very sensitive."


URL: www.upi.com

Just thought I'd post this. It's a constant struggle.

[robeiae]

I checked your link.



MLK was no longer pastor of that church after 1960. MLK began to travel around the country in the 1960's, and I don't believe MLK was an actual pastor of an actual flock any longer during the 1960's because he was committed to the Civil Rights Movement full time at that point. When did "full time" become a requirement, here? You suggested that MLK has no pastoral responsibilities when he become involved with the Civil Rights Movement. You were wrong. He was traveling around long before he left his role at that Church. He was already on the executive council of the NAACP, prior to assuming pastoral duties. He became president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. Both positions meant he was actively speaking on issues and traveling around the country to do so.

You're trying to force your point here. It doesn't fit.

[robeiae]

Religions evolve along with the people who practice them.
Right. Always have. Always will. There is no reason to assume Islam must lead to a specific end point, with regard to political mechanisms. There are many different branches already in play, as well as potential ones not yet seen. Christianity has taken many, many roads throughout history.

Still, the world of today is not the world of 1400. The concept of a "nation" is very different now than it was, then. So, I think this is something that we will just have to see play out. So it goes...

[InfinityGoddess]

Well, before you wax too eloquent in the defense of Islam, you might want to read this article (http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html)by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.

Some Christians argue the same things, though. It's not the religion itself that's hateful so much as it's the individuals.

[Roger J Carlson]

Some Christians argue the same things, though. It's not the religion itself that's hateful so much as it's the individuals.True enough, but you might want to look at which group wants to chop off people's heads.

[William Haskins]

Some Christians argue the same things, though. It's not the religion itself that's hateful so much as it's the individuals.

it's the confluence of the religion and state power. when iran hangs a gay or stones an adultress, or saudi arabia beheads someone, that's not some twisted individual act; that's an act by a state poisoned by religious dogma.

[rugcat]

Isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican equivalent of the Pope? The Pope makes political statements from time to time, too. And Archbishop Desmond Tutu was both Archbishop and political activist.

Not that I'm defending what he said. I think it's deplorable.The Archbishop of Canterbury was once a far more powerful office than it is today. Doesn't anyone remember Beckett, with Richard Burton and Peter O' Toole, from the Jean Anouilh play? The battle of Church vs. State, Henry II vs Thomas Beckett, among other things.

It's still a position that carries great moral authority.

[InfinityGoddess]

True enough, but you might want to look at which group wants to chop off people's heads.

If James Dobson or Pat Robertson (God forbid) would ever have their way, I'm a dead woman if I actively engage in lesbian relations. They won't chop off my head, but I'd still be on Death Row somewhere, waiting for them to kill me with a needle. Not as barbaric, but barbaric enough, imo.

it's the confluence of the religion and state power. when iran hangs a gay or stones an adultress, or saudi arabia beheads someone, that's not some twisted individual act; that's an act by a state poisoned by religious dogma.

That's exactly what it is. It's not the religion alone that's so much the problem, it's how individual world leaders and citizens alike use them that can pose the problem.

[Roger J Carlson]

If James Dobson or Pat Robertson (God forbid) would ever have their way, I'm a dead woman if I actively engage in lesbian relations. They won't chop off my head, but I'd still be on Death Row somewhere, waiting for them to kill me with a needle. Not as barbaric, but barbaric enough, imo.Hogwash! You can't find a single instance where either of these men advocated the death penalty for homosexuality.

[William Haskins]

That's exactly what it is. It's not the religion alone that's so much the problem, it's how individual world leaders and citizens alike use them that can pose the problem.

not when states are "islamic republics".

the "few bad eggs" argument just doesn't really wash. sorry.

[InfinityGoddess]

Hogwash! You can't find a single instance where either of these men advocated the death penalty for homosexuality.

They won't say it aloud, but it is in their favorite Leviticus citations, regarding what to do with homosexuals who engage in the acts; which is putting them to death. They have, however, openly opposed extending federal hate crime laws that protect people on basis of sexual orientation, which means their sheep can go out and do violence on people on the basis of being gay and in some states, being somewhat protected from serving serious time for such acts.

You were arguing that Islam is a homophobic-based religion. I was trying to argue that there are even Christians who feel the same way. Yet there are those in both religions who live and let live. It's not the religion itself that's hateful; it's the individuals.

not when states are "islamic republics".

the "few bad eggs" argument just doesn't really wash. sorry.

Yet the laws and the Koran are being interpreted by individuals and then taken literally by said individuals. It still doesn't make Islam, as a religion, a hateful one any more than it does Christianity.

[Bartholomew]

it's the confluence of the religion and state power. when iran hangs a gay or stones an adultress, or saudi arabia beheads someone, that's not some twisted individual act; that's an act by a state poisoned by religious dogma.

And that, right there, sums up why no religion should ever be married to the state.

[donroc]

Henry VIII knew how to deal best with the prelates.

[Roger J Carlson]

They won't say it aloud, but it is in their favorite Leviticus citations, regarding what to do with homosexuals who engage in the acts; which is putting them to death. They have, however, openly opposed extending federal hate crime laws that protect people on basis of sexual orientation, which means their sheep can go out and do violence on people on the basis of being gay and in some states, being somewhat protected from serving serious time for such acts. In your own words (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2040349#post2040349): "I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous that statement is."

You were arguing that Islam is a homophobic-based religion. I was trying to argue that there are even Christians who feel the same way. Yet there are those in both religions who live and let live. It's not the religion itself that's hateful; it's the individuals.Actually, all I did was point to an article by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html). It is THEY who contend that it is not just an extremist view, but a mainstream view.


“Homosexuality, Bestiality, Lesbianism, Adultery And Fornication: The Deadly Diseases”. This is the title of a leaflet produced by Al-Muhajiroun, a controversial British Muslim group, condemning what it calls these “crimes against humanity”. It is easy to dismiss such hysteria as the ravings of a lunatic fringe, and Al-Muhajiroun are regarded even by many Muslims as extreme.
Unfortunately for sexual minorities, whatever Al-Muhajiroun’s views may be on other Islamic matters, when it comes to their attitudes towards homosexuals they are definitely mainstream.

[HeronW]

You live in the country not of your birth, you adapt to their customs. You live in the 21st century, drop the 'woman are chattel less worth than a good racing camel' dreck!

[xhouseboy]

They have, however, openly opposed extending federal hate crime laws that protect people on basis of sexual orientation, which means their sheep can go out and do violence on people on the basis of being gay and in some states, being somewhat protected from serving serious time for such acts.



So has a gay journalist in the UK (among others) - openly spoken out about extending current UK laws to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, laws that would extend to see perps of such crimes serving more time than they would have done if their victim had been heterosexual.

You reckon he'd like to see you on death row?

[InfinityGoddess]

Actually, all I did was point to an article by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html). It is THEY who contend that it is not just an extremist view, but a mainstream view.

And I still pretty much stand by what I said. It's not the religion, it's the people.

So has a gay journalist in the UK (among others) - openly spoken out about extending current UK laws to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, laws that would extend to see perps of such crimes serving more time than they would have done if their victim had been heterosexual.

You reckon he'd like to see you on death row?

I was referring to the likes of Dobson and co. He would very much like to see people like me rounded up and killed. He can't openly say it because it would cause a lot of heat to come down on him. But that doesn't deter him from promoting laws that ban same-sex marriage and otherwise encourage discrimination.

[endless rewrite]

You were arguing that Islam is a homophobic-based religion.

There is no argument. Islam is not just a religion it is a way of life and one which is aggressively homophobic and which utterly rejects homosexuality.

Funnily enough just been listening to a BBC radio show about how modern, education Muslim homosexuals are advertising online (in their hundreds) for other homosexuals to marry so they don't get attacked/rejected by their communities and families. In countries where Islam is the state they would have to worry about being imprisoned or executed.

[rugcat]

it's the confluence of the religion and state power. when iran hangs a gay or stones an adultress, or saudi arabia beheads someone, that's not some twisted individual act; that's an act by a state poisoned by religious dogma.Which is exactly why our long tradition of separation of church and state is so very important and necessary. That's why it seriously disturbs some of us when presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that when the constitution is in conflict with God's law,(by which he means, his own interpretation of what God's law is) the constitution should be amended to bring it into compliance.

Many Christians, appalled by the notion of Sharia law, see nothing at all wrong with basing our own law and government on Christian principles derived from the Bible. In effect, a Christian version of Sharia. Their reasoning seems to be that whereas Islam is an evil and false religion, Christianity is the revealed word of God that should inform all our lives. Which, ironically is exactly the Muslim view and justification for Sharia, only in reverse.

But let's not forget, Islam is not a monolith, any more than is Christianity. It's a wide, deep religion with room for many different points of view, although the radical Islamacists deny the validity of any view except their own -- again, not so different in that attitude than are certain segments of the Christian faith.

A Muslim acquaintance of mine, who considers himself a devout man, once told me he believes that all people worship the same God -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike -- they simply have taken different paths to reach Him. This certainly does not conform with standard Muslim doctrine (if there is such a thing -- Islam is not hierarchical) any more than it fits standard Christian Doctrine. But if you suggest to him he is not a "real" Muslim he'll laugh in your face.

[InfinityGoddess]

There is no argument. Islam is not just a religion it is a way of life and one which is aggressively homophobic and which utterly rejects homosexuality.


Again, you might as well argue the same with Christianity, for in the Bible, it too has sections that condemn homosexuality.

There are, however, individuals in both religions who are tolerant of others.

Again, it's not the religion; it's the people.

[donroc]

Yes, the people direct the course of religion and ideology. Tribalism/ethnicity trumps all religion and -isms.

[endless rewrite]

It is the individuals I am worried about.

[Robert Toy]

Update: A wee bit of backlash

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Church+backlash+as+Archbishop+of+Canterbury+calls+ for+Sharia+law+in+Britain/article.do

[Judg]

Regardless, for all intents and purposes, Turkey has managed to separate the Koran from the state. Religions evolve along with the people who practice them.
This is true, of course, although one could argue for quite some time how successfully Turkey achieved the disconnect. Persecution of non-Muslims occurred a great deal in Turkey, for example, and I'm talking about at the hands of the police.

Be that as it may, Turkey is having an extremely difficult time remaining a secular state. Any religion at all based on sacred texts is going to have periodic back-to-the-roots movements, and the roots haven't changed.

For the very little it's worth, I do tend to agree with Islamists that Islam has been westernized in recent decades. I tend to disagree that this is in all ways a bad thing and I really disagree that the version of Islam they are proposing is a restoration of Islam's golden age. Islam at its peak, while authoritarian and intolerant by today's standards, was a beacon of tolerance and free-thinking and intellectual curiosity by medieval standards. It bears little resemblance to anything al-Qaeda or the Taliban is proposing.

[Plot Device]

you got hysterical.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm perfectly bored, not a trace of hysteria in sight.

i didn't dismiss you.

The phrase "See above" is as dismissive as it gets. And I said "See what?" to that insulting snub of an answer. And then I self-depricatingly qualified my "See what?" question by pointing out that the thread had many tangents to it already, and so I didn't know which tangent I was supposed to see up above.

i engaged you and responded to you.

You didn't answer my "See what" question and instead you said "forest/trees." How patronizing of you.

if i missed a question for which you're seeking an answer, feel free to refresh my memory as to what it is.

See above.

No wait! See the "See what?" part and that should refresh your memory.

i have not been aloof or elitist.

Dismsisiveness is always both aloof and elitist.

[Judg]

Which is exactly why our long tradition of separation of church and state is so very important and necessary. That's why it seriously disturbs some of us when presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that when the constitution is in conflict with God's law,(by which he means, his own interpretation of what God's law is) the constitution should be amended to bring it into compliance.

Many Christians, appalled by the notion of Sharia law, see nothing at all wrong with basing our own law and government on Christian principles derived from the Bible. In effect, a Christian version of Sharia. Their reasoning seems to be that whereas Islam is an evil and false religion, Christianity is the revealed word of God that should inform all our lives. Which, ironically is exactly the Muslim view and justification for Sharia, only in reverse.

But let's not forget, Islam is not a monolith, any more than is Christianity. It's a wide, deep religion with room for many different points of view, although the radical Islamacists deny the validity of any view except their own -- again, not so different in that attitude than are certain segments of the Christian faith.

A Muslim acquaintance of mine, who considers himself a devout man, once told me he believes that all people worship the same God -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike -- they simply have taken different paths to reach Him. This certainly does not conform with standard Muslim doctrine (if there is such a thing -- Islam is not hierarchical) any more than it fits standard Christian Doctrine. But if you suggest to him he is not a "real" Muslim he'll laugh in your face.
Rugcat, I think you are missing a central point in here. The New Testament does not lay out any civil law. The laws are all ethical and personal and while understood to be universal, still, the individual answers to God, not the state. After all, Christianity is about transcending law in many ways. It was quite a conundrum for church and civic leaders when Christianity became the state religion under Constantine. There was no blueprint to follow for the translation of ethical principles into civil law. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that Christianity flourishes best when it is NOT the state religion. A quote I used on my blog recently was "When you mix politics and religion, you get religion." When it has temporal power, Christianity gets twisted away from its original shape.

That quote doesn't work for Islam. It has the opposite problem. It is so geared to the community that it finds itself in a conundrum whenever it is not the state religion. If it doesn't have temporal power, it gets twisted out of its original shape.

And no matter how much these two religions adapt to circumstances and culture, the original template remains and there will always be a significant minority striving to apply it.

For what it's worth, I'm very much in favour of the separation of church and state, despite the tremendous distortions this principle has been subjected to in the hands of those who take it to mean that religion should not be allowed to influence or have any voice in state affairs whatsoever. The separation of church and state was always intended to be a separation at the institutional level: in other words, you should not be required to tick the correct box on the religion question to be allowed to run for public office or fulfill any civil function, that there be no systemic links between administrations. It was never intended to mean that religious conviction should not inform public policy or public debate.

[Plot Device]

When did "full time" become a requirement, here? You suggested that MLK has no pastoral responsibilities when he become involved with the Civil Rights Movement. You were wrong. He was traveling around long before he left his role at that Church. He was already on the executive council of the NAACP, prior to assuming pastoral duties. He became president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. Both positions meant he was actively speaking on issues and traveling around the country to do so.

You're trying to force your point here. It doesn't fit.

I'd say it's a huge requirement. Yes, he was an NAACP council member, and it seems to me he felt the need to step down from his duties as pastor by the time 1959 rolled around. And THAT was a very responsible decision by him.

Meanwhile, I'm taking issue with a guy (the Archbishop of Canterbury) speaking up about Muslims when

a) he should REALLY be speaking up PRIMARILLY about Christians (he IS a full time Bishop, right?)

and

b) he's doing so without the support of an Imam at his side.

As for my "a" complaint, I did ask the people in this thread what his job/role is there in England. Roger Carlson gave me an answer. But no one else did.

As for my "b" complaint, social activism by any religious leader is all cool and groovey, but he's treading into other people's religious territory. (Meanwhile, the complaints raised by the Irish in this thread are quite valid--why won't this guy stick up for THEM?) If he had an Imam at his side during such a politically-loaded statement, his decision to get involved in matters outside of his flock would be more acceptable to me. But I see this as his ignoring his current duties --and even his obligations, both pastoral and even political-- to tend to matters that I sense are well-outside the scope of his current office.

[William Haskins]

No wait! See the "See what?" part and that should refresh your memory.

the "see above" was simply a referral to my previous comment in the same post. i'm sorry that eluded you.

please enjoy the rest of the thread.

[Plot Device]

the "see above" was simply a referral to my previous comment in the same post. i'm sorry that eluded you.

please enjoy the rest of the thread.


I just checked back on your previous posts and NOW I see your position.

I would need a lot more info on the Archbishop AND on the situation with Muslims in England before I can comment any further.

[William Haskins]

i see.

[IdiotsRUs]

a) he should REALLY be speaking up PRIMARILLY about Christians (he IS a full time Bishop, right?)

and

b) he's doing so without the support of an Imam at his side.

As for my "a" complaint, I did ask the people in this thread what his job/role is there in England. Roger Carlson gave me an answer. But no one else did.





a) The Archbishop of Canterbury often talks about politics where it touches on the spiritual faith of the UK ( except Scotland) Not nescessarily just christians. As a nation we aren't that devout.

b) yes. But then again, very few people actually pay much attention to him normally, outside of the church. Bless.

[rugcat]

Rugcat, I think you are missing a central point in here. Well, my central point is that governmental policy and law which is based on particular religious tenets is never a good idea, esp for those who do not share the beliefs of the particular religion. A secular society should be just that.

However, you make some excellent and valid points concerning the difference between Islam, in which the blueprint for governance, law, and societal customs is inextricable with the religion, and Christianity, which really does not operate that way. (At least, not these days)

[Bravo]

Rugcat, I think you are missing a central point in here. The New Testament does not lay out any civil law. The laws are all ethical and personal and while understood to be universal, still, the individual answers to God, not the state.

this isn't really true, considering jesus did not bring a new law, or change a single iota of the previous law, he said that he was here to fulfill judaic law.

it's that judaic law that was used for centuries to oppress and harass non-christians and christians alike.

and it was the bible, both the new and old testament that inspired thousands of missionaries aided and supported by christian theocratic nations of the west to forcibly convert millions of africans and asians and latin americans.

in fact, christian inspired colonialism really didn't end up until the 19th century.


That quote doesn't work for Islam. It has the opposite problem. It is so geared to the community that it finds itself in a conundrum whenever it is not the state religion. If it doesn't have temporal power, it gets twisted out of its original shape.

this is a bit of a stretch as well.

islam through the koran does not advocate or condemn one form of government or the other. there's quotes supporting democracies, monarchies, benign dictatorships, it's really dependent on the time, the place, and the people. one thing that is clear, however, is that islam never advocates being the law for non-muslims. in fact, muhammad allowed the jews and the non-muslims to have their own courts, their own system of governance.

i do agree that it is difficult for some muslims to separate their beliefs from the rule of law, but i think a lot of that has to do with being uninformed about shariah and uninformed about the nature of secularism. many seem to believe that secularism is pluarlism, where the state controls religion and limits it's role in the public sphere (like turkey and france).

the archbishop's intentions might be good, and he is absolutely correct to point out the accomadations made to hasidic jews (who are much more rigid and inflexible with the law than most muslims) but he would be better served if he tried to educate both sides. he could explain that under a secular form of government, everyone, even minorities are treated equally before the law and he could point to islamic scriptures that argue for absolute justice for everyone regardless of religion, race, or stature.

that would be a better statement.

but he misspoke, and said things i'm sure most people in britain would take him to task for.

but because this has to do with islam, and this has to do with islam in the west, here you have your perfect little tempest in a teacup and here you have idiots like don allen who jump up and down and scream that muslims will one day be outlawed unless they shape up.

when um, nothing's going to come of this.

[Judg]

Colonialism was inspired primarily by mercantile issues. In some cases they used religious window dressing if they thought it was to their advantage. In other case, missionaries took advantage of the situation to essentially come along for the ride. But it is a highly debatable interpretation of history to claim that Christianity itself was the prime mover behind colonialism. And FWIW, the missionaries were frequently taking their own governments to task for their treatment of the colonized people. There is at least one statue in the Caribbean of a Roman Catholic priest who fought the Spanish government on the Indians' behalf.

I'd be interested in the historical details of those forcible conversions. The only one that springs to my mind is that of Russia and if my memory serves me correctly, it was the Russian king himself who was behind it. He had decided to become a Christian and that meant the whole country had to. But millions of forcible conversions in Africa??? South America??? Please elaborate.

Please note that there have been many things carried out over the centuries by proponents of many religions that are not necessarily in the spirit of their own religions. And religious repression is in no way restricted to Western countries or those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Just try being a Christian in Nepal...

[SC Harrison]

Well, my central point is that governmental policy and law which is based on particular religious tenets is never a good idea, esp for those who do not share the beliefs of the particular religion. A secular society should be just that.



I agree. In theory, I have no problem if a Muslim married couple both choose to have their marriage dissolved using a Muslim cleric as an arbiter, or other non-criminal legal issues (that don't impact a person who prefers secular mediation) being settled this way. But even criminal cases are now being handled out of the secular courts, and I have a big problem with that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

If you'll notice, this article is almost two years old.

Okay, so here's my problem—these kids stabbed another kid, who happened to be another Muslim. While the punishment meted out may have been an "effective" deterrant for future crimes, based on the social dynamic of Muslim communities, there is no secular record of conviction, and no attempt by secular authorities to administer correction or observation (parole).

What happens if these kids attack a non-Muslim next time, maybe succeeding in killing him/her? Who is responsible for not taking the proper action to keep this from happening? The State, the Islamic court, or the original victim's family that refused to press secular charges? In my opinion, all of the above. But it's a good bet that none of those entities will be held responsible for said repeat offense.

Which is only one reason why we can't go down this road.

[Bird of Prey]

Sharia law has no place in Britain.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do . . . couldn't be more apt. Britain has evolved to be a congenial society with a dedicated citizenry at her base, even toward the Crown - despite all its travails -which I am astounded by, but oh well.

Britain has no reason to tolerate laws above or beside her own. To do so is to relinquish herself. All societies require both tolerance but likewise assimilation. As Sharia law is counter to much of what Britain represents currently, it is not only natural but expected that she reject what she has a long history of overcoming: prejudice. And it makes no difference whether it's solely perceived through British/western eyes. Britain is a western country with a western doctrine, a western faith and western roots. She has no obligation to be anything but Britain: tolerant but nationalistic. Sharia Law is brutal and oppressive. It has no place in co-rule with a nation that rejects oppression and brutality.

[Gary]

Sharia law has no place in Britain.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do . . . couldn't be more apt. Britain has evolved to be a congenial society with a dedicated citizenry at her base, even toward the Crown - despite all its travails -which I am astounded by, but oh well.

Britain has no reason to tolerate laws above or beside her own. To do so is to relinquish herself. All societies require both tolerance but likewise assimilation. As Sharia law is counter to much of what Britain represents currently, it is not only natural but expected that she reject what she has a long history of overcoming: prejudice. And it makes no difference whether it's solely perceived through British/western eyes. Britain is a western country with a western doctrine, a western faith and western roots. She has no obligation to be anything but Britain: tolerant but nationalistic. Sharia Law is brutal and oppressive. It has no place in co-rule with a nation that rejects oppression and brutality.

This really has to stop. We're agreeing on far too many things. You must be mellowing.

[Bird of Prey]

This really has to stop. We're agreeing on far too many things. You must be mellowing.


Lol!! Maybe. Or maybe we were never that far apart to begin with.

[Bravo]

it is a highly debatable interpretation of history to claim that Christianity itself was the prime mover behind colonialism

i never said it was the prime mover behind colonialism. i said it inspired and provided cover for it.

Colonialism was inspired primarily by mercantile issues... .

now, now, let's not confuse these sorts of issues with big words like mercantilism. let's use the same logic others have used here in the thread:

britain, denmark, france, belgium, holland, and spain were all avowedly christian with christianity as the state religion. so what they did, they did in the name of christianity and christianity itself should be challenged and scrutinized for their crimes.

realistically, we might say that the church and the colonialists had a symbiotic relationship, whereby the church might not have officially condoned or condemned colonialism and slavery but it certainly didn't mind it's benefits (i.e. more souls to be saved).


And FWIW, the missionaries were frequently taking their own governments to task for their treatment of the colonized people. There is at least one statue in the Caribbean of a Roman Catholic priest who fought the Spanish government on the Indians' behalf.

yeah, and you have millions of other indigenous people who were simply massacred because they were lesser humans, with a lesser religion, lesser gods.

i mean just take a cursory look at what missionaries and state sponsored colonists professing to be guided by christ did when they arrived in the americas.


I'd be interested in the historical details of those forcible conversions. The only one that springs to my mind is that of Russia and if my memory serves me correctly, it was the Russian king himself who was behind it. He had decided to become a Christian and that meant the whole country had to. But millions of forcible conversions in Africa??? South America??? Please elaborate.

for certain areas, it was kill as many savages we can and convert the ones we need as slaves - and use biblical passages to justify slavery and to prevent rebellion and discord among slaves.

the majority of african slaves were muslim, others belong to various other local religions, but within a generation or two, they all magically became christian.

even very recently in australia, the state literally kidnapped aborigines and tried to "civilize" them by changing and christianizing their names and "raising" them as christian.

and then there's the christian run schools in africa, whereby children who want to learn how to read must first change their name and convert to christianity.

while you can argue that this isn't forced, it's certainly unethical.


Please note that there have been many things carried out over the centuries by proponents of many religions that are not necessarily in the spirit of their own religions. And religious repression is in no way restricted to Western countries or those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Just try being a Christian in Nepal...

yes, i'm well aware of that, but you seem to have forgot this lesson in your analysis of islam.

when the state uses religion to exert it's power it can be incredibly dangerous - but that's for every religion (and even philosophy) out there. you made it seem as if islam is unique for this, when history and in fact modern day states like uganda, show that christians can use the state for terror and bloodshed just as much as anyone else. and they can find a religious basis for it.

it's easy, and in fact, natural to ignore your own flaws but it's also intellectually dishonest.

[Robert Toy]

i never said it was the prime mover behind colonialism. i said it inspired and provided cover for it.



now, now, let's not confuse these sorts of issues with big words like mercantilism. let's use the same logic others have used here in the thread:

britain, denmark, france, belgium, holland, and spain were all avowedly christian with christianity as the state religion. so what they did, they did in the name of christianity and christianity itself should be challenged and scrutinized for their crimes.

realistically, we might say that the church and the colonialists had a symbiotic relationship, whereby the church might have officially condoned or condemned colonialism and slavery but it certainly didn't mind it's benefits (i.e. more souls to be saved).



yeah, and you have millions of other indigenous people who were simply massacred because they were lesser humans, with a lesser religion, lesser gods.

i mean just take a cursory look at what missionaries and state sponsored colonists professing to be guided by christ did when they arrived in the americas.



for certain areas, it was kill as many savages we can and convert the ones we need as slaves - and use biblical passages to justify slavery and to prevent rebellion and discord among slaves.

the majority of african slaves were muslim, others belong to various other local religions, but within a generation or two, they all magically became christian.

even very recently in australia, the state literally kidnapped aborigines and tried to "civilize" them by changing christianizing their names and "raising" them as christian.

and then there's the christian run schools in africa, whereby children who want to learn how to read must first change their name and convert to christianity.

while you can argue that this isn't forced, it's certainly unethical.



yes, i'm well aware of that, but you seem to have forgot this lesson in your analysis of islam.

when the state uses religion to exert it's power it can be incredibly dangerous - but that's for every religion (and even philosophy) out there. you made it seem as if islam is unique for this, when history and in fact modern day states like uganda, show that christians can use the state for terror and bloodshed just as much as anyone else. and they can find a religious basis for it.

it's easy, and in fact, natural to ignore your own flaws but it's also intellectually dishonest.

Very well stated piece of history on religious oppression, but what does it have to do with allowing two separate sets of laws in the UK?

Make a case for that.

[Joe270]

All of this is bullshit of the first order. I already addressed this in the stupid 'assimilate' thread, fuck a bunch of immigrants coming into any country and trying to dictate how the people in that county live, how they govern, and the scope of their laws.

Any argument on this is just the most ignorant, stupid, insipid crap.

If they don't like the status quo of the country they seek to enter, the immigrants can go elsewhere.

Lock thread.

[dmytryp]

it's that judaic law that was used for centuries to oppress and harass non-christians and christians alike.



Please, provide any factual basis for this pretty outrageous statement. Jewdaic law never extended on people other than Jews. Jewdaism doesn't have missionaries and was one of the most presecuted religions over the course of history. So, what are you basing this on?

[SC Harrison]

i never said it was the prime mover behind colonialism. i said it inspired and provided cover for it.

now, now, let's not confuse these sorts of issues with big words like mercantilism. let's use the same logic others have used here in the thread:

britain, denmark, france, belgium, holland, and spain were all avowedly christian with christianity as the state religion. so what they did, they did in the name of christianity and christianity itself should be challenged and scrutinized for their crimes.



I won't argue that Christianity wasn't forced upon millions of people in Africa and the New World at the edge of a sword, but the primary driver of colonialism was (and is) the increasing of wealth.

The concept of Social Darwinism is in direct conflict with biblical teachings. It was "White Man's Burden" not because of God's plan, but because the lesser species had not evolved as much as white people and needed our "help". Even though theologians were outraged with his Theory of Evolution, European leaders used some of Darwin's ideas to justify slicing Africa up like a pie and increasing their "holdings". While Christian missionaries were soon pouring into the new colonies, they interrupted the gathering of wealth at their own peril, and were sent home or "disappeared" if they didn't fall in line.

Greedy men will always have handy tools to use in their quest for more wealth. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's science, and sometimes it's the dangling carrot of freedom and social equality. The common denominator though is greed.

[Don Allen]

There's a certain amount of decorum that's supposed to be practiced here, and you've stepped over it. Funny how those who would flame Islam as equivalent to Nazis would then expose themselves as in line with some of the same reactionary thinking.

More to the point: What in the hell is wrong with you?

Again I believe opinions are allowed, I form mine from reading, listening to others who know more about a subject than I do, and looking at others actions. What is wrong with me is that history too often repeats itself when despots and dictators are allowed to wheel hatred in reckless abandon and destroy those who dare challenge. In the last 100 years we've seen it in Japan, Germany, Korea, Darfur, Indoneisa, and now South America. Islam is just the latest tool for tyrants to ply their wares, but it is a tool that the world hasn't seen since quite frankly the middleages when Christianity was the call to arms. A dutch cartoonist was killed for a depiction of Muhammed asking directions to Mecca. Dennis Miller recently said that he will not use any comedy routine involving Muslims because he's afraid someone will kill him for a joke. Now what you need to do is really think about how our lives across the world have been changed by the force of this religion and how afraid everyone from comedians to politicians are from the acts of the followers before asking "What the hell is wrong with me" for having an opinion

[Bravo]

Very well stated piece of history on religious oppression, but what does it have to do with allowing two separate sets of laws in the UK?

Make a case for that.

i already said that i'm opposed to it.

[InfinityGoddess]

Islam is just the latest tool for tyrants to ply their wares, but it is a tool that the world hasn't seen since quite frankly the middleages when Christianity was the call to arms. A dutch cartoonist was killed for a depiction of Muhammed asking directions to Mecca. Dennis Miller recently said that he will not use any comedy routine involving Muslims because he's afraid someone will kill him for a joke. Now what you need to do is really think about how our lives across the world have been changed by the force of this religion and how afraid everyone from comedians to politicians are from the acts of the followers before asking "What the hell is wrong with me" for having an opinion

First off: Depicting Mohammed's face in any form is a violation of Islam. It's considered highly offensive, as much as using the "n-word" is very offensive to black people.

Second off: It's not the religion itself; it's how people interpret that religion. For example, there are people in the Middle East who do not *gasp* agree with Al Qaeda's tactics of targeting civilians as well as military. There are those who know that violence, on any basis, doesn't solve anything. There are those who wish that their countries were more democratic. And so on.

Islam is nowhere in the same category as the Nazis. Nowhere.

[Bravo]

Please, provide any factual basis for this pretty outrageous statement. Jewdaic law never extended on people other than Jews. Jewdaism doesn't have missionaries and was one of the most presecuted religions over the course of history. So, what are you basing this on?

you misread what i said.

judg had said that christianity does not have a set of laws, and i said that christians do, and that is the jewish law. christians rejected the ceremonial parts of the jewish law and continued to use moral laws. certain christian nations enforced capital crimes against sodomy, and used the jewish testament to justify things like slavery.

[LaceWing]

Following the money --

Having not previously looked into sharia (Islamic law), I was surprised to learn of the proscription of usury. I found this elementary explanation of how to buy a house according to sharia law: you find an investor, not a lender.

See http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg/20000714.asp

I'm now trying to figure out how it would affect an economy in principle. If your bank is sharing in the profit or loss, then, for instance, they will not want to "invest" in someone's credit card debt, but will only support profitable ventures.

I'm also curious about the effect of gulf states' inflation and the trillions of dollars going into construction in Dubai and Abu Dhabi: what effect does their inflation have on western deflation and recession? Lots of money to be made there; are investors and major developers just moving shop?

But these musings seem not to be on the thread's current religious track, so I'll just leave this and go on my way. Ponder at will.

[Susan Gable]

First off: Depicting Mohammed's face in any form is a violation of Islam. It's considered highly offensive, as much as using the "n-word" is very offensive to black people.

.

Actually, I believe that's not always been the case, and it's not every Muslim who believes that. There are very old images that depict Mohammad.

Consider it like the Amish, who also believe that "thou shalt make no graven images" means they shouldn't have their picture taken. Obviously that doesn't mean that ALL Christians believe that.

Also, let me point out that it doesn't matter how offended you are, it doesn't give you the right to murder someone in return. Tough. Suck it up and deal with it, especially in countries that have some semblance of freedom of speach and freedom of the press.

The Amish might be offended if you take their picture, but I have yet to see them chop someone's head off for doing it. Or enmasse call for the photographer's death, along with the death and destruction of the newspapers/editors who printed the pictures.

Different outlook? Yeah, I think so.

Susan G.

[Dragon-lady]

you have a forest/trees thing going on here. i definitely believe the man is misguided, but he is seeking social unity through legal separatism, social unity being his primary concern.
And the rights of people who would be trampled on being of no concern whatsoever--which makes him a good Christian?

[William Haskins]

you obviously haven't read my posts throughout the thread, ma'am.

i am an atheist who believes sharia has no place in western democracies.

[Bartholomew]

you obviously haven't read my posts throughout the thread, ma'am.

i am an atheist who believes sharia has no place in western democracies.

Barbarism has no rightful place.

[dmytryp]

you misread what i said.

judg had said that christianity does not have a set of laws, and i said that christians do, and that is the jewish law. christians rejected the ceremonial parts of the jewish law and continued to use moral laws. certain christian nations enforced capital crimes against sodomy, and used the jewish testament to justify things like slavery.

I quoted exactly what you said. That judaic law was used to harass christians and non-christians alike.

Judaic law in fact did no such thing. Although parts of the Old Testimon (not all of it. not even the whole ten commandments, not to mention other laws like rules of testimony, kosher food etc) were used as a base for Christian laws which in turn were interpreted by the rulers of the time. As I already said, Judaic law doesn't apply to non-jews. Take the shabbat for example. It is one of the ten commandements for a jew not to work on shabbat, but non-jew is free to what he wants. There is even a concept goy shel shabbat, which means a gentile that may be used to perform some task during shabbat, while a jew can't do it.

[InfinityGoddess]

Actually, I believe that's not always been the case, and it's not every Muslim who believes that. There are very old images that depict Mohammad.



Most of the old images of Mohammed have had their faces removed. They all pretty much consider it blasphemy to show his face.

[William Haskins]

some people also believe that stepping on a sidewalk crack will "break their mother's back".

i hardly see that as a reason for mass efforts to remove cracks from sidewalks.

[xhouseboy]

Most of the old images of Mohammed have had their faces removed. They all pretty much consider it blasphemy to show his face.

Who changed the rules?

[William Haskins]

Who changed the rules?

islamic rage boy?

http://www.threesources.com/pix/rageboy.jpg

[Bravo]

I quoted exactly what you said. That judaic law was used to harass christians and non-christians alike.

Judaic law in fact did no such thing. Although parts of the Old Testimon (not all of it. not even the whole ten commandments, not to mention other laws like rules of testimony, kosher food etc) were used as a base for Christian laws which in turn were interpreted by the rulers of the time. As I already said, Judaic law doesn't apply to non-jews. Take the shabbat for example. It is one of the ten commandements for a jew not to work on shabbat, but non-jew is free to what he wants. There is even a concept goy shel shabbat, which means a gentile that may be used to perform some task during shabbat, while a jew can't do it.

i didnt say that christians were right to pick and choose what they wanted from the hebrew scriptures to justify their rules, i just said that they did it.

it's open knowledge that christians used the hebrew bible to justify slavery and to justify the master-slave relationship.

[InfinityGoddess]

Who changed the rules?

Who knows? All I know is that I have a photograph of a very old Muslim manuscript where baby Mohammed and his mother were depicted without faces. So it goes way back.

[William Haskins]

here, you silly people...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024307,00.html

[Bravo]

persians do a lot of their own things, but IG was right to say that mainstream islam forbids depicting muhammad.

[William Haskins]

they can forbid it all they want. they have no control of anyone who doesn't submit to their superstitions.

[Bravo]

i never disagreed with that.

[William Haskins]

i know...

[InfinityGoddess]

they can forbid it all they want. they have no control of anyone who doesn't submit to their superstitions.

That doesn't mean that people can't practice sensitivity, regardless of what they believe.

[veinglory]

Personally I don't have trouble respecting things like not drawing someone elses God's face, wearing shoes on their grass mat, not burning their flag etc. Seems like basic courtesy to me. Like not throwing around the word 'immigrant' like it is an insult.

None of these things involve forcing an unreasonable, unfair or unpleasant act on anyone. Sharia law in a westernised country is of course different. And also not going to happen in one of the oldest continuously law-governed countries we have.

[Robert Toy]

they can forbid it all they want. they have no control of anyone who doesn't submit to their superstitions.
But they seem to justify murdering an infidel for blasphemy (e.g. Theo Van Gogh)

[William Haskins]

That doesn't mean that people can't practice sensitivity, regardless of what they believe.

sensitivity is a matter of individual choice. hypersensitivity is the issue here.

i can guarantee you that, just on basic cable, the phrase "god damn" will be uttered dozens of times before midnight tonight, and that's the 7th goddamn commandment, spoken by the big man himself through a burning bush, ya know?

and some of those who say it will be beloved tv and film stars who good liberals would scramble to protect against even the slightest suggestion that their products should be boycotted or censored, much less calls for their deaths.

[InfinityGoddess]

sensitivity is a matter of individual choice. hypersensitivity is the issue here.

i can guarantee you that, just on basic cable, the phrase "god damn" will be uttered dozens of times before midnight tonight, and that's the 7th goddamn commandment, spoken by the big man himself through a burning bush, ya know?

and some of those who say it will be beloved tv and film stars who good liberals would scramble to protect against even the slightest suggestion that their products should be boycotted or censored, much less calls for their deaths.

Yeah, except that there are even some "good Christians" who also say "goddamned". It's really hard when people don't practice what they preach to say it's not okay to do this or that, but turn around being the very same things they preach against to take them seriously.

At least Muslims have shown a bit of consistency here. I haven't heard of a Muslim artist who depicts Mohammed and members of his family with faces intact, have you?

[William Haskins]

At least Muslims have shown a bit of consistency here. I haven't heard of a Muslim artist who depicts Mohammed and members of his family with faces intact, have you?

typically, if they want to keep their own faces intact, it's best not to.

it's that really the measure of faith? or just fear...

[InfinityGoddess]

it's that really the measure of faith? or just fear...

Could be a bit of both. You never know.

[veinglory]

Indeed. I don't see people saying God damn who aren't current or lapsed Chrsitians or from that culture. Utterly different like wearing crosses as a decoration in the 80s. Those are people disrespecting their own culture--not deliberately insulting the culture of another.

And really are you now arguing Muslims have a duty to insult their own culture by doing something insulting to it? I don't follow that saying Giod damn is bad but somehow Muslims really ought to be drawing Mos face and if they don't thats because they are being threatened? Double standard?

[puzzled]

[dmytryp]

i didnt say that christians were right to pick and choose what they wanted from the hebrew scriptures to justify their rules, i just said that they did it.

it's open knowledge that christians used the hebrew bible to justify slavery and to justify the master-slave relationship.

So, by the same token it would be valid to say that Darwinism was used to kill millions of people?

No. Old Testimon is a part of Christian Bible. Once Christianity sprung from Jewdaism it started creating its own laws and interpreting them. Christian law. Just as Nazi ideology was used to kill those people. And the fact it twisted and warped Darwinism to do it doesn't matter.

[Robert Toy]

At least Muslims have shown a bit of consistency here. I haven't heard of a Muslim artist who depicts Mohammed and members of his family with faces intact, have you?

http://archief.retecool.com/mirrordir/Mohammed%20Image%20Archive.htm

[William Haskins]

And really are you now arguing Muslims have a duty to insult their own culture by doing something insulting to it? I don't follow that saying Giod damn is bad but somehow Muslims really ought to be drawing Mos face and if they don't thats because they are being threatened? Double standard?

[puzzled]

obviously quite puzzled.

i'm saying nothing of the sort.

ultimately, what i am saying is that if muslims choose to not depict mohammed, that is their right. but they have no right to threaten non-muslims for anything.

your right to hold superstitious beliefs is in no way a right to impede on my right to not believe them, to believe them differently, to incorporate them into art or even to openly mock them.

[InfinityGoddess]

your right to hold superstitious beliefs is in no way a right to impede on my right to not believe them, to believe them differently, to incorporate them into art or even to openly mock them.

As an artist, I wouldn't dream of insulting the Christian religion, any more than I would insult Islam or any others. And I'm not a religious person myself.

I really don't think that it's too much to ask not to insult other cultures. If we're ever going to all get along in this world, respect would be a good place to start.

[Robert Toy]

I really don't think that it's too much to ask not to insult other cultures. If we're ever going to all get along in this world, respect would be a good place to start.

IG you have to understand that as an infidel you will never be respected, it is a one-way street. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life and it requires total submission. Converting from Islam to Christianity is a death sentence.

[veinglory]

Islam is no more a way of life that Christianity. I have lived around members of both faiths all my life. I think saying otherwise is a great insult to Muslim members of *this* community who are being to polite (even submissive) to even say anything here about what they are being accused of. Islam is part of many nations and cultures just like Christianity--with mixed results, just as with Christianity.

I think more people should read what the Archbishop actually said:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

[William Haskins]

As an artist, I wouldn't dream of insulting the Christian religion, any more than I would insult Islam or any others. And I'm not a religious person myself.

precisely. but you have the right to choose.

certainly, you're not implying that theo van gogh deserved to die or that salman rushdie deserves to live under a death sentence because they saw a different role for their art than you.

[robeiae]

Yeah, except that there are even some "good Christians" who also say "goddamned". It's really hard when people don't practice what they preach to say it's not okay to do this or that, but turn around being the very same things they preach against to take them seriously.If you're gonna be intentionally insulting and obnoxious, have the common decency to name specific people, instead of just generalizing--wrongly and unfairly.

And your comparison of the "n" word to depictions of Mohammad was really nonsensical. You're completely tossing intent out the window in all of your analysis--except when it involves someone or some group you have it in for. It shows.

[Robert Toy]

Islam is no more a way of life that Christianity. I have lived around members of both faiths all my life. I think saying otherwise is a great insult to Muslim members of *this* community who are being to polite (even submissive) to even say anything here about what they are being accused of. Islam is part of many nations and cultures just like Christianity--with mixed results, just as with Christianity.


I beg to differ with you.

I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for 6 ½ years for Saudia (Saudi Arabian Airlines). In addition, traveled throughout the ME region for over 9 years for Airbus Industries.

The brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is by far the most stringent. Mere possession of a Bible is forbidden; no Christian services; non-Muslims are forbidden to eat, drink or smoke in public during Ramadan (fine and a few days in jail); you cannot leave the country without first obtaining an exit-visa (they retain your passport); you cannot wear a cross or any other Christian symbols; women have no rights; public executions were held in an emptied parking lot, usually after Friday prayers; no alcohol (that will get you jailed, lashes and then deported); no pork; censorship of magazines (blacked out portions); the most extreme example of censorship that I saw was in a Toys R Us store where a picture puzzle of a Swiss Village/mountain, the censors blacked out a cross on a church in the village!

In summary, the Saudi’s have zero tolerance for anything non-Islamic.

I once asked the question why they do not allow Christians to practice their religion, yet they can and do build Mosques in the West. The answer, it’s allowed in your country.

We in the West have a clear separation of church and state, Islam and Sharia Law is based solely on religion and controls all aspects of life.

[Bravo]

robert,

it's pretty ridiculous of you to continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam.

the saudis don't speak for anyone but themselves.

[SpookyWriter]

robert,

it's pretty ridiculous of you to continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam.

the saudis don't speak for anyone but themselves.:roll: That has got to be the most funniest thing I've heard in months.

The Saudis speak and the world listens. They do what they want because they can just as long as oil dependent countries are reliant on their products.

[donroc]

And for the schools they finance here.

[blacbird]

Islam and Sharia Law is based solely on religion and controls all aspects of life.

The sad part of this is that it wasn't always this way. Only with the rise of Wa'habism (sp.?) two or three centuries ago did this level of intolerance become so pervasive. Prior to that, many Islamic rulers were noted for being a good deal more tolerant of non-Muslims than were, say, the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages and even later.

caw

[Robert Toy]

robert,

it's pretty ridiculous of you to continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam.

the saudis don't speak for anyone but themselves.

Have you ever lived in an Islamic country?

Mecca, Medina, Hajj, etc. Guess where?

Millions of people rioting and calling for the death of (fill in the blank) in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. etc., because someone drew a cartoon, wrote a book or made a movie.

[InfinityGoddess]

IG you have to understand that as an infidel you will never be respected, it is a one-way street. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life and it requires total submission. Converting from Islam to Christianity is a death sentence.

You might want to explain that to the Muslims who come to my school. Apparently, they aren't aware that I and other Westerners are "infidels".

Each individual is different. The Muslims in the Middle East do not speak for the ones living here, and vice versa. By and large, the ones who call Westerners "infidels", don't speak for all Islam, much in the way that Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians.

[InfinityGoddess]

If you're gonna be intentionally insulting and obnoxious, have the common decency to name specific people, instead of just generalizing--wrongly and unfairly.

I didn't generalize, and if it came across that way, then let me clarify that I meant the religious zealots, obviously.

And your comparison of the "n" word to depictions of Mohammad was really nonsensical. You're completely tossing intent out the window in all of your analysis--except when it involves someone or some group you have it in for. It shows.

I said that because both can be just as insulting to the people they are aimed at.

[Robert Toy]

The sad part of this is that it wasn't always this way. Only with the rise of Wa'habism (sp.?) two or three centuries ago did this level of intolerance become so pervasive. Prior to that, many Islamic rulers were noted for being a good deal more tolerant of non-Muslims than were, say, the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages and even later.

caw
I live in today’s world, and the sad part is Islam is non-tolerant of infidels.

[Robert Toy]

You might want to explain that to the Muslims who come to my school. Apparently, they aren't aware that I and other Westerners are "infidels".

Each individual is different. The Muslims in the Middle East do not speak for the ones living here, and vice versa. By and large, the ones who call Westerners "infidels", don't speak for all Islam, much in the way that Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians.

In Islam, the Arabic word kafir (Infidel) refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

[blacbird]

In Islam, the Arabic word kafir (Infidel) refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Why, those dirty heretics . . . Obviously we need another crusade.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

In Islam, the Arabic word kafir (Infidel) refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Your point? Sorry, but your assertions still reek of generalization of a group of people just because of a few rotten apples.

Most Muslims respect that other people and cultures exist. A few corrupted Islamic governments don't change that fact.

[rugcat]

In Islam, the Arabic word kafir (Infidel) refers to a person who inwardly or outwardly denies Allah and/or the Islamic prophet Muhammad.The word " kaffir" is a derogatory South African term equivalent to the American word nigger. I wonder if the derivation is from the Arabic "kafir" or if it's just coincidence.

[Robert Toy]

Your point? Sorry, but your assertions still reek of generalization of a group of people just because of a few rotten apples.

Most Muslims respect that other people and cultures exist. A few corrupted Islamic governments don't change that fact.

I was not speaking of rotten apples.

My statement is that Islam is much more than a religion; The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.

[Robert Toy]

The word " kaffir" is a derogatory South African term equivalent to the American word nigger. I wonder if the derivation is from the Arabic "kafir" or if it's just coincidence.
Probably just a coincidence.

[Bravo]

Have you ever lived in an Islamic country?

Mecca, Medina, Hajj, etc. Guess where?



you're right.

i don't know any muslims, have never studied anything about islam, so i shall from this point on reduce islam to what goes on in saudia arabia.

things are less confusing for me that way.

[Robert Toy]

[quote=Robert Toy;2045300]Have you ever lived in an Islamic country?

Mecca, Medina, Hajj, etc. Guess where?

[\quote]

you're right.

i don't know any muslims, have never studied anything about islam, so i shall from this point on reduce islam to what goes on in saudia arabia.

things are less confusing for me that way.
You have a habit of trying to be snarky, but you need a whole lot more practice.

1 - I noticed that you edited my post and left out the last and most important sentence (please notice Saudi Arabia is not mentioned).

“Millions of people rioting and calling for the death of (fill in the blank) in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. etc., because someone drew a cartoon, wrote a book or made a movie.”

2 – I intentionally did not respond to your…”it's pretty ridiculous of you to continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam.”, comment in your earlier post as I have not “…continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam”

3 – From my post 155:
“My statement is that Islam is much more than a religion; The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.”

Remember, practice, practice.

[blacbird]

Robert, you're drifting close to the shoal of "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim". Strive to tack offshore a little bit.

caw

[Robert Toy]

Robert, you're drifting close to the shoal of "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim". Strive to tack offshore a little bit.

caw
Wow! Where did you ever get that impression? I NEVER said anything about killing Muslims, what I did say and will repeat again is that Islam is not tolerant to non-Muslims. That is a fact!

[Dragon-lady]

What amuses me is the insistance that during the middle ages Christians were Islam haters and Islamics were tolerant--which of course explains the Islamic invasion of Europe during which much of Italy was in danger of falling.

Amusing. That doesn't excuse the Christians. I just get amused at the one-sided view of history.

The comparison of gang violence to Islamic honor killings is absurd by the way. The "honor killings" are SANCTIONED by many Islamic leaders and the perpetrators are not punished. They BRAG about it--including posting videos of their own violence on the internet.

It's sad. I dislike feeling as I do about so many who are this religion. However, I went to college with too many Islamic men who were convinced that all women were placed on earth to be their slaves to have had any illusions survive. I knew a few--a very small number who were nice people. I remember well going to a study group at one of their houses where the wife served us, veiled, before retreating to the back of the house. And he had a real problem with me being there. The saddest was the women who defended the way women are treated. I had a neighbor in those days who had married rather than be killed by her family. And defended her family. It was tragic.

I dislike the way I feel about a large portion of humanity who practice this religion. But I dislike equally their desire to import their intolerance and oppression to the part of the world where I live. We have enough intolerance all our own. We don't need theirs.

[LaceWing]

It occurred to me today that to merely incarcerate an offender who had no social freedom anyway would hardly seem like punishment. Hence the need to execute or at least mutilate.

[Bravo]

You have a habit of trying to be snarky, but you need a whole lot more practice



since we're being snarky...



actually, i have a habit of calling out your uneducated, breezy, reductionist interpretations of the muslim world whenever i see it.







2 – I intentionally did not respond to your…”it's pretty ridiculous of you to continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam.”, comment in your earlier post as I have not “…continuously interchange saudia arabia's brand of islam with islam”





you shouldve responded to it, because that's exactly what you have been doing. you're understanding of shariah is based on your experience in saudia arabia, you have time and time again used the saudis' interpretation of shariah as the interpretation for all muslims.



it'll be far more nuanced, and far more fair for you to examine the saudi system of government as being one within saudi arabia, which has it's own history and own culture and own understanding of islam rather than try to claim that this is the way islam is for all muslims or in fact, the majority of muslims.



statements like this:



IG you have to understand that as an infidel you will never be respected, it is a one-way street. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life and it requires total submission. Converting from Islam to Christianity is a death sentence.





I once asked the question why they do not allow Christians to practice their religion, yet they can and do build Mosques in the West. The answer, it’s allowed in your country.

We in the West have a clear separation of church and state, Islam and Sharia Law is based solely on religion and controls all aspects of life.



show your ignorance of islam and the muslim world. you said "converting to christianity is a death sentence", but that's a saudi interpretation of shariah, it's not in the koran.



the saudi's stringent interpretation of shariah is relatively recent, there was a long tradition in islamic empires of freedom of religion - according to the the koran "there is no compulsion in religion".



saying that "as an infidel" you'll never be respected, is once again, a shoddy representation of muslims and muslim beliefs.



with your fearmongering tactics, you utterly fail to acknowledge any nuance, and you utterly fail to acknoweldge modern day muslim nations like malaysia where shariah has been implemented without too many problems. it's a modern wealthy nation, with large minority populations that coexist fairly peacefully.



with your focus on saudia arabia, a nation with a population of only 25 mil, you completely ignore the most populous muslim nation indonesia, where there is a healthy separation of mosque and state.



what's especially interesting is to see you, the valiant defender of teddyg and the outspoken critic of "prejudice and hatred" fall into stereotypes, misinformation, and incitement when it comes to muslims.



and this has happened time and time again.





[1 - I noticed that you edited my post and left out the last and most important sentence (please notice Saudi Arabia is not mentioned).



“Millions of people rioting and calling for the death of (fill in the blank) in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. etc., because someone drew a cartoon, wrote a book or made a movie.”





i left it out, because it was yet another breezy comment about a complex situation. if you can't see the difference in the world today, and the world 7 years ago, when south park ran their muhammad cartoon, then there's just not much to say to you about the subject.



over the years, for whatever reason, you've developed your biases and your stereotypes.



i cant change those, but i can call you out on them.

[InfinityGoddess]

I was not speaking of rotten apples.

My statement is that Islam is much more than a religion; The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.

Only in an Islamic theocracy is that true. Beyond that, it's a religion like any other.

[William Haskins]

Only in an Islamic theocracy is that true. Beyond that, it's a religion like any other.

finally, we circle back to the topic at hand. if what you say is true, why are muslims in western democracies (obviously not theocratic states) agitating for sharia?

[InfinityGoddess]

finally, we circle back to the topic at hand. if what you say is true, why are muslims in western democracies (obviously not theocratic states) agitating for sharia?

Do you have proof of that? Because the original topic was about an Archbishop of Canterbury who wanted to have a sharia-law based system for the Muslims living in England to coincide with a secular society. And last time I checked, he was a Christian.

[William Haskins]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,1362591,00.html

A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

[InfinityGoddess]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,1362591,00.html

A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".


It mentions in terms of civil laws, like divorce, custody, and inheritance. I don't entirely see that as a bad thing.

[William Haskins]

that's not the point, and you know it. i had no doubt that you would try your typical goalpost-moving bullshit... you said:

"Only in an Islamic theocracy is that true. Beyond that, it's a religion like any other." (in response to robert's comment that the koran and sharia law dictate all aspects of a muslim’s life.)

the fact is that, if 61% of british muslims want any form of sharia, they are seeking non-islamic theocracies to mold themselves, even incrementally, to their religious law.

this makes your statement wrong. period.

[InfinityGoddess]

that's not the point, and you know it. i had no doubt that you would try your typical goalpost-moving bullshit... you said:

"Only in an Islamic theocracy is that true. Beyond that, it's a religion like any other." (in response to robert's comment that the koran and sharia law dictate all aspects of a muslim’s life.)

the fact is that, if 61% of british muslims want any form of sharia, they are seeking non-islamic theocracies to mold themselves, even incrementally, to their religious law.

this makes your statement wrong. period.

That's British Muslims, though. They don't speak for the rest of the world.

[William Haskins]

lol!

that's (again) not the point, dear.

you stated that religion extended into public life only within theocratic states. i have proven to you that muslims in western democracies are agitating for amending secular law to allow for sharia.

cut your losses on this one, kid. you ain't talking your way out of this shit.

[InfinityGoddess]

lol!

that's (again) not the point, dear.

you stated that religion extended into public life only within theocratic states. i have proven to you that muslims in western democracies are agitating for amending secular law to allow for sharia.

cut your losses on this one, kid. you ain't talking your way out of this shit.

And you have yet to show me numbers from other Western countries that supports your claim. Furthermore, the British Muslims you cited are only wanting sharia in the event of civil law, and not so much in terms of a theocratic aspiration.

[William Haskins]

your semantic games are useless.

any alteration of british law to incorporate sharia is by definition an accommodation of religious elements.

[InfinityGoddess]

your semantic games are useless.

any alteration of british law to incorporate sharia is by definition an accommodation of religious elements.

I don't disagree necessarily, but again, I don't see how that translates to them jamming it down everyone else's throats; they just want it for themselves to ascertain civil matters. Whether that's right or wrong is up to everyone who lives in Britain.

[William Haskins]

And you have yet to show me numbers from other Western countries that supports your claim.

canada:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

[InfinityGoddess]

canada:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

Sounds to me like there are two sides of the same issue. That's all that article tells me.

[William Haskins]

i see a significant number of muslims in non-theocratic states wanting secular law to conform to their religious beliefs. that, in and of itself, shoots your premise to hell.

defend if you like, IG. just know how much of a hypocrite it makes you appear given your frequent and vocal opposition to any vestiges of christianity influencing american law.

[Robert Toy]

since we're being snarky...



actually, i have a habit of calling out your uneducated, breezy, reductionist interpretations of the muslim world whenever i see it.









you shouldve responded to it, because that's exactly what you have been doing. you're understanding of shariah is based on your experience in saudia arabia, you have time and time again used the saudis' interpretation of shariah as the interpretation for all muslims.



it'll be far more nuanced, and far more fair for you to examine the saudi system of government as being one within saudi arabia, which has it's own history and own culture and own understanding of islam rather than try to claim that this is the way islam is for all muslims or in fact, the majority of muslims.



statements like this:












show your ignorance of islam and the muslim world. you said "converting to christianity is a death sentence", but that's a saudi interpretation of shariah, it's not in the koran.



the saudi's stringent interpretation of shariah is relatively recent, there was a long tradition in islamic empires of freedom of religion - according to the the koran "there is no compulsion in religion".



saying that "as an infidel" you'll never be respected, is once again, a shoddy representation of muslims and muslim beliefs.



with your fearmongering tactics, you utterly fail to acknowledge any nuance, and you utterly fail to acknoweldge modern day muslim nations like malaysia where shariah has been implemented without too many problems. it's a modern wealthy nation, with large minority populations that coexist fairly peacefully.



with your focus on saudia arabia, a nation with a population of only 25 mil, you completely ignore the most populous muslim nation indonesia, where there is a healthy separation of mosque and state.



what's especially interesting is to see you, the valiant defender of teddyg and the outspoken critic of "prejudice and hatred" fall into stereotypes, misinformation, and incitement when it comes to muslims.



and this has happened time and time again.








i left it out, because it was yet another breezy comment about a complex situation. if you can't see the difference in the world today, and the world 7 years ago, when south park ran their muhammad cartoon, then there's just not much to say to you about the subject.



over the years, for whatever reason, you've developed your biases and your stereotypes.



i cant change those, but i can call you out on them.

Okay, so you go from snarky to name calling – not a big surprise.

A few links that you may find interesting:

Apostasy Act 2006 - Pakistan
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9218&size=A
http://www.thepost.com.pk/Arc_IsbNews.aspx?dtlid=96329&catid=17&date=05/09/2007&fcatid=14

Malaysia rejects Muslim convert's bid to be recognized as Christian
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/30/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Religious-Rights.php
Indonesia's Muslim militants

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2333085.stm

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-8-2005_pg1_2

Your “knowledge” comes from books, and mine comes from real life experience and not just in Saudi Arabia.

Lastly your comment “…what's especially interesting is to see you, the valiant defender of teddyg and the outspoken critic of "prejudice and hatred" fall into stereotypes, misinformation, and incitement when it comes to Muslims.”

TeddyG, WTF does he have to do with anything? Trust me he doesn’t need my defense.

I still stand by my statement that Islam is much more than a religion; "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.” 

[InfinityGoddess]

i see a significant number of muslims in non-theocratic states wanting secular law to conform to their religious beliefs. that, in and of itself, shoots your premise to hell.

defend if you like, IG. just know how much of a hypocrite it makes you appear given your frequent and vocal opposition to any vestiges of christianity influencing american law.

I don't defend any kind of theocratic encroachment on secular countries. Despite what you may think, there isn't that much of a consensus among Muslims to turn Western countries into Islamic theocracies, and even if there were, Islam is still a minority religion in the Western world. Sorry, I just don't see it.

[SpookyWriter]

Robert,

Remember your audience. Don't try to explain real life experiences when the other participant is restrained to living life through the internet.

Good luck,

[Magdalen]

Well, I do believe the whole bit about infidels is directly in the Koran. And while the Jews may call us goyum and we call other nations by pet names, MOST of the world seems to agree it's NOT ok to kill/ disrespect / or Impose a financial Tax on somebody because they don't believe in what you believe. I say that as a general statement about how I perceive "Most of the World". But as William pointed on about prohibitions/proscriptions for behavior in Judeo/Christian beliefs being so ever-casually violated, (out of respect for that one I prefer to use "Fuck" as my swear-word of choice, ) shouldn't we assume that the average Muslim is blowing off a bunch of rules too? Well, human nature would seem to indicate that, but when there is Governmental/Authoritatarian enforcement of all behaviors (wherever that may being occuring) then the data is suspect, because you really can't tell if people are following the "religion" that is part of their heart and soul and done willing, or if they are following the "law" which, as we all know, is done, (or not, as part of a social contract) to varying degrees, because it affects our bodies, our minds and our wallets and our stomachs. And as far as that goes, I think there should be a wide divide, clear and jagged between the two. (Mag's world, Part I)

[Bravo]

Okay, so you go from snarky to name calling – not a big surprise.

either specifically point out where i called you names or quit playing the victim card.

because in fact, i did not attack you as a person, i attacked your positions and statements.


A few links that you may find interesting:

Apostasy Act 2006 - Pakistan
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9218&size=A
http://www.thepost.com.pk/Arc_IsbNews.aspx?dtlid=96329&catid=17&date=05/09/2007&fcatid=14



it's not really that interesting. this time you are not even using a nation's interpretation of islam and shariah, you are using a militant muslim group that failed to get a bill past, to prove...what exactly?

that there are extremists who believe the punishment for apostacy is death? that because these people believe this is islam, then it automatically must be true?

Malaysia rejects Muslim convert's bid to be recognized as Christian
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/30/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Religious-Rights.php
Indonesia's Muslim militants

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2333085.stm

first of all robert, this case does not bolster your position that converting outside of islam means death. did you read the article?

secondly, it's unfortunate, but it's also something that can and i'm sure will change because even though malaysia is a work in progress it still has the rule of law.

you can find examples of the law messing up people anywhere in the western world. what separates us from the rest is how the law changes and adapts for the future.

so let's wait and see.


Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-8-2005_pg1_2

and are you kidding with this?

how is this at all relevant to what you said?

but now that you bring it up, i would love absolutely love to see you attack the special laws and exceptions western nations give hasidic jews. little things like this (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/11/16/qc-policeandhasidim.html).

i'd love to see it.



Your “knowledge” comes from books, and mine comes from real life experience and not just in Saudi Arabia.

that's really quite presumptuous of you. you know next to nothing about me or my background or my experiences, and i have absolutely no problem backing up my statements with the help of books, articles, firsthand accounts, whatever is available.



TeddyG, WTF does he have to do with anything? Trust me he doesn’t need my defense.

that just went over your head.

you really went all out defending teddyg's position on bart and you have continued to be hypervigilant regarding jewish issues (even sending me a PM about one of my posts), but here you are, spreading fear, gross generalizations, and yes, hate against muslims.

it's an interesting development to say the least.



I still stand by my statement that Islam is much more than a religion; "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.” 

and i will stand by my statement that you do not know much about the koran or sharia law.

you have gleaned your information from your experiences and you pull from it whenever you can, but your bias clouds your analysis and arguments. you would be much better served and i would be saving a lot more of my time, if you refrained from the blanket condemnations and blanket stereotypes that you exhibited and presented in this thread.

[Bravo]

Robert,

Remember your audience. Don't try to explain real life experiences when the other participant is restrained to living life through the internet.

Good luck,

spooky,

if you have something to say directly to me then say it.

[SpookyWriter]

because in fact, i did not attack you as a person, i attacked your positions and statements.

actually, i have a habit of calling out your uneducated, breezy, reductionist interpretations of the muslim world whenever i see it.


I think this qualifies as a personal attack. Your selective memory is something I find offensive.

that's really quite presumptuous of you. you know next to nothing about me or my background or my experiences, and i have absolutely no problem backing up my statements with the help of books, articles, firsthand accounts, whatever is available.

Google isn't really a life experience. I trust Robert's knowledge far more than your online experiences.

you have gleaned your information from your experiences and you pull from it whenever you can, but your bias clouds your analysis and arguments. you would be much better served and i would be saving a lot more of my time, if you refrained from the blanket condemnations and blanket stereotypes that you exhibited and presented in this thread.

How ironic that you would say this since life experiences are worth more than just gleaning stuff off the internet or reading an article in some news print.



Ditto what Robert said.

[Bravo]

it must gnaw at you, spooky, to constantly be around conversations that are above you. it kills you inside knowing that whatever the topic, you are utterly incapable of coming up with anything relevant or thought provoking, or new and insightful. so to mask your self pity, you've tried to be the class clown, but you started to realize that you suck at that too, because quite frankly your tired sophomoric jokes suck and your poor comedic timing simply makes you come across as a fool. so there's really nothing left for you to do but troll around here.

that's what you do.

that's what you are.

i'm supposed to have you ignore, i should have you ignore, but i also can't stand having someone say things about me and not being able to respond to it.


actually, i have a habit of calling out your uneducated, breezy, reductionist interpretations of the muslim world whenever i see it.

I think this qualifies as a personal attack. Your selective memory is something I find offensive.


first of all, you're not a mod.

second of all, you're not robert.

third of all, you as usual, cannot differentiate between personal attacks and attacks on positions.

because you're an idiot.

now that's a personal attack.

Google isn't really a life experience. I trust Robert's knowledge far more than your online experiences.


i dont give a flying fuck what you trust.


How ironic that you would say this since life experiences are worth more than just gleaning stuff off the internet or reading an article in some news print.

did i say that?

read it again.

and again.

and again.

and did i say i dont have any life experience?

check again.

keep checking.

and keep on trollin'

[SpookyWriter]

Well Bravo, since I and Robert both are more educated and successful in our lives I find your personal rebuttal just a tad above the level of a Mc'D servant.

Good luck with your future writing ventures. You're a prince upon which the toil of pissers desire.

[SpookyWriter]

it must gnaw at you, spooky, to constantly be around conversations that are above you. it kills you inside knowing that whatever the topic, you are utterly incapable of coming up with anything relevant or thought provoking, or new and insightful. so to mask your self pity, you've tried to be the class clown, but you started to realize that you suck at that too, because quite frankly your tired sophomoric jokes suck and your poor comedic timing simply makes you come across as a fool. so there's really nothing left for you to do but troll around here.

that's what you do.

that's what you are.Yep, you are a professional when it comes to personal attacks on other writers character. Good luck with that in the future.

[Bravo]

Well Bravo, since I and Robert both are more educated and successful in our lives I find your personal rebuttal just a tad above the level of a Mc'D servant.

Good luck with your future writing ventures. You're a prince upon which the toil of pissers desire.

Yep, you are a professional when it comes to personal attacks on other writers character. Good luck with that in the future.


thank you.

:)

[SpookyWriter]

thank you.

:)Hey, just lay off the personal stuff and make the argument that is being discussed. I can't understand why you or anyone else turns a discussion about a topic into something personal. Everyone here has the same rights to an opinion. But degrading a person to make a point is stupid.

[rugcat]

You know, I thought you both had some interesting and valid points. It was quite thought provoking until it degenerated into whatever the hell it is now.

[ColoradoGuy]

Dawno and Mac are not here, so I'm asking both of you--Bravo, Spooky--to back off the personal stuff. You've both been doing it, and you both know it never leads anywhere useful. Thanks.

[SpookyWriter]

Dawno and Mac are not here, so I'm asking both of you--Bravo, Spooky--to back off the personal stuff. You've both been doing it, and you both know it never leads anywhere useful. Thanks.
I was sticking up for Robert. The personal attacks began long before I entered this thread. Robert has a right to his opinion without being called uneducated. I believe everyone has a right to discuss topics without another member coming over the top and insulting their intelligence.

Right?

[ColoradoGuy]

It's never appropriate to respond to a personal attack with another personal attack. Besides, do you watch football? It's always the second guy who gets the 15 yard penalty.

[Bravo]

Dawno and Mac are not here, so I'm asking both of you--Bravo, Spooky--to back off the personal stuff. You've both been doing it, and you both know it never leads anywhere useful. Thanks.

okay.

[SpookyWriter]

It's never appropriate to respond to a personal attack with another personal attack. Besides, do you watch football? It's always the second guy who gets the 15 yard penalty.LOL! I got my first penalty from Mac for sticking up for Jean Marie when Penny attacked her.

Okay, I'm done here. Back to my critiques of writers who make trouble with grammar.

Cheers

[ColoradoGuy]

I think I'll lock this one. Mac or Dawno can open it tomorrow if they like.

[MacAllister]

I'm going to re-open this thread, but I'm going to make a couple of notes for participants to take to heart.

There are a NUMBER of practicing Muslims on this board. These people are writers, friends, and members of this community.

I'm not inclined to allow sweeping, generalized garbage statements about the entire religion, any more than I would allow it about Christianity, queers, or people of color.

Consider yourselves on a short leash indeed.

[MacAllister]

This discussion is now re-opened. Let's be careful and be respectful, everyone, eh?

[Robert Toy]

[quote]
Originally Posted by Robert Toy
Okay, so you go from snarky to name calling – not a big surprise.


either specifically point out where i called you names or quit playing the victim card.

because in fact, i did not attack you as a person, i attacked your positions and statements.
Your Post # 163
“actually, i have a habit of calling out your uneducated, breezy, reductionist interpretations of the muslim world whenever i see it.” This is personally offensive.


A few links that you may find interesting:

Apostasy Act 2006 - Pakistan
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9218&size=A (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9218&size=A)
http://www.thepost.com.pk/Arc_IsbNew...2007&fcatid=14 (http://www.thepost.com.pk/Arc_IsbNew...2007&fcatid=14)


it's not really that interesting. this time you are not even using a nation's interpretation of islam and shariah, you are using a militant muslim group that failed to get a bill past, to prove...what exactly?

that there are extremists who believe the punishment for apostacy is death? that because these people believe this is islam, then it automatically must be true?
The purpose was to demonstrate that Saudi Arabia is not the sole bastion of radical thinking.


Malaysia rejects Muslim convert's bid to be recognized as Christian
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...ous-Rights.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/30/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Religious-Rights.php)
Indonesia's Muslim militants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2333085.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2333085.stm)
first of all robert, this case does not bolster your position that converting outside of islam means death. did you read the article?
“If Joy insists on practicing Christianity now, she could be charged with apostasy — the abandonment of a faith or belief. In Malaysia, the offense is punishable by fines and jail sentences. Offenders are often sent to prison-like rehabilitation centers.”

secondly, it's unfortunate, but it's also something that can and i'm sure will change because even though malaysia is a work in progress it still has the rule of law.
Which Law?
The Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens. But it also says Islam is the official religion.

This has tacitly given the Shariah courts — which govern the personal and family rights of Malaysian Muslims — the upper hand in disputes involving Islam.

Generally, the Shariah courts have not allowed Muslims, who comprise nearly 60 percent of the country's 26 million people, to legally leave their religion.

Civil courts, which govern the personal and family rights of non-Muslims, have opted to remain subordinate to the Shariah courts even though the constitution is vague on who has the higher authority

you can find examples of the law messing up people anywhere in the western world. what separates us from the rest is how the law changes and adapts for the future.

so let's wait and see.

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...5-8-2005_pg1_2 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...5-8-2005_pg1_2)


and are you kidding with this?

how is this at all relevant to what you said?
It relates directly to the OP

but now that you bring it up, i would love absolutely love to see you attack the special laws and exceptions western nations give hasidic jews. little things like this (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/11/16/qc-policeandhasidim.html).

i'd love to see it.
I was wondering how long you could hold out before you brought in the Jews.

Sorry, but you jumped at the Headline and forgot to read the article:

"The feature, published in French, is headlined "Sometimes ... ignoring is respecting" and describes a fictional situation in which a female officer responds to a robbery call at a Hasidic bakery. The bakery owner pays no attention to the female officer but directs his answers to her male partner.”

”Montreal's Jewish Orthodox Community Council said Wednesday it was surprised by the article, because no one in the community has ever had a problem with male or female officers.”

Nice try.


Your “knowledge” comes from books, and mine comes from real life experience and not just in Saudi Arabia.
that's really quite presumptuous of you. you know next to nothing about me or my background or my experiences, and i have absolutely no problem backing up my statements with the help of books, articles, firsthand accounts, whatever is available.
You are absolutely correct. I don’t know YOU, I exchange posts with someone who calls himself Bravo (if you are a he), with an Avatar of James Dean. How many times over the last 18 months or so have I asked about you, you won’t even divulge how old you are!

This one is for you: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/narcissism.php


Here’s your opportunity to open up and tell us who you are:

But, I know you will most likely not, so I have only one question – Are you a Muslim?



TeddyG, WTF does he have to do with anything? Trust me he doesn’t need my defense.


that just went over your head.

you really went all out defending teddyg's position on bart and you have continued to be hypervigilant regarding jewish issues (even sending me a PM about one of my posts), but here you are, spreading fear, gross generalizations, and yes, hate against muslims.

it's an interesting development to say the least.
Now this is the one that gets up my nose big time. Your accusation that any of my posts are spreading hate towards Muslims is bull-shit and an outright lie. I have lots and lots of posts, past and present, find one that says I hate Muslims.

I still stand by my statement that Islam is much more than a religion; "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.”


and i will stand by my statement that you do not know much about the koran or sharia law.

you have gleaned your information from your experiences and you pull from it whenever you can, but your bias clouds your analysis and arguments. you would be much better served and i would be saving a lot more of my time, if you refrained from the blanket condemnations and blanket stereotypes that you exhibited and presented in this thread.

My “blanket” statement is "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.” If you disagree with that statement then please explain why it is wrong.

[SC Harrison]

Before this thread gets locked (again), I wanted to say something about true life experiences vs information found on the Internet. Guess what, folks? Either of these can be helpful or pointless, depending on the nature of what is learned and observed.

I have spent time with Muslims. Not rich ones, but lowly conscripts who survived on the equivalent of about thirty dollars a month. I instructed them, was instructed by them, ate with them, slept with them, argued with them, laughed with them, etc. They are people, just like you or me. Most of them are not Koranic robots, but they are subject to their environment. Take from that what you will.

I've also learned quite a bit from the Internet, most of which I would have had to spend millions of dollars in plane fares and hotels and years of acclimation to find out, and even then I would have had to ignore a lot of local people who were trying to rip me off with bullshit information or intentionally mislead me.

If we're going to debate, then let's debate the issues, not the qualifications of the participants, whether it's age, life experience, education levels, etc. Haven't we all been exposed to people who would not listen to us because they decided we didn't meet some standard of theirs?

[blacbird]

Haven't we all been exposed to people who would not listen to us because they decided we didn't meet some standard of theirs?

Yeah. My mom.

caw

[SC Harrison]

Yeah. My mom.

caw

I know, right? Family can be tough. ;)

In my case it was my three older sisters (bless 'em) piping at me in stereo and pushing the buttons they had spent years developing. I don't think they really listened to me until I started going gray. It's almost like they figured, "Hell, he's on his way out anyway, might as well humor him."

Gee thanks...

[blacbird]

"I want to fly," I said.
"You're too young," she said.
"Nuh-uh," I said.
"Look at those wing feathers," she said, "look how puny."
"I can fly," I said.
"You'll crash," she said. "You'll wind up with a broken wing on the ground, and there are cats . . ."
"I'm gonna do it," I said.
"You ungrateful wretch," she said, "after all we've done for you, keeping the next all safe and warm, and bringing the roadkill. You don't know how hard me and your father worked, keeping out of the way of cars. Why that possum last week . . ."
"Caw!" I said. And I meant every word of it.

caw

[Norman D Gutter]

I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous that statement is.

Islam is a religion. Not some political band of hate-mongers. Most Muslims don't believe violence will solve their problems and they're certainly not out to kill everyone. You're just lumping the whole group as rotten apples just because of the actions of a few crazies.

IG:

Go live among them (the Arab Moslems) for five years, as I did in the 80s, before the world's present conflicts, and say that. Islam has many, many tenents that the rest of the world finds anathema. Such as the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion. In Kuwait, we used to give an Egyptian woman rides to church. She was born a Muslim, but left Islam for Christianity. She did not tell her family in Egypt, for they would find a way to Kuwait and kill her. She was praying to find a way to Canada or the US, and thence to never communicate with her family again. This may be anecdotal, but you will find thousands of these Islamic killings around the world. They are proud of them, and don't hide them.

Or go live in Saudi Arabia and try to openly celebrate Christmas. You can't do it, for it is against the law. Yet we bend over backwards to them, and put foot-washing stations on campus and in airports. Something wrong with carrying baby wipes? Or try to attend Christian services there. If you don't live on a gate, American or British compound, forget it. You have to find a house church.

All of this shows that, as other posters have said, Islam and government are inseparable whereever Islam is a majority religion. It is the nature of that religion to take over government and force its laws on all who live there. It was not among Moslems that the idea of separation of church and state originated.

NDG

[davids]

Well Norman and myself may have a different way of looking at poetry but Norm-you are on the ball here-could not agree more-been my experience-well said and as far as this old fart is concerned absolute truth!

[Bravo]

The purpose was to demonstrate that Saudi Arabia is not the sole bastion of radical thinking.

no it's not.

it's used it's oil wealth to spread its wahabbi version of islam all over the world.



Which Law?
The Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens. But it also says Islam is the official religion.

This has tacitly given the Shariah courts — which govern the personal and family rights of Malaysian Muslims — the upper hand in disputes involving Islam.

Generally, the Shariah courts have not allowed Muslims, who comprise nearly 60 percent of the country's 26 million people, to legally leave their religion.


yeah robert, i got that, but you said:

"if you leave islam, you get killed under sharia".

which clearly isnt the case in malaysia.

this is exactly what i'm talking about, you paint the muslim world and sharia as this one monolithic entity, when it clearly isn't.

if you had said: the way some nations have been using sharia, people have been punished for leaving islam, then that would be a fair indictment of these nations. it is unfair to simply say that under sharia you automatically get the death penalty for for leaving islam.

in fact, it's really problematic for these nations to do this, not just because it's against human rights, but because it's not an islamic practice (as in, it's not in the koran).



It relates directly to the OP

yes it shows that australians are willing to kick out muslims who believe in sharia but they are not willing to do the same thing to evangelicals, sikhs, and hasidic jews who want special exemptions and laws.

since you foolishly think i only attack jews (i brought up the hasidic jews because you've been a frequent defender of jews here), here's something about the special exemptions some sikhs want in canada:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=90dcbdb3-5d1e-4879-8a96-4153e9675eeb&k=97557

and here, some sikhs want to be allowed to carry their ceremonial dagger:

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/irs_0306.htm

should they be kicked out of the country for this?


You are absolutely correct. I don’t know YOU, I exchange posts with someone who calls himself Bravo (if you are a he), with an Avatar of James Dean. How many times over the last 18 months or so have I asked about you, you won’t even divulge how old you are!

i don't reveal information about myself on the web because i find that it's irrelevant, unnecessary, and unsafe. i don't need people to know who i am, what i look like, or what i believe or don't believe.

all i want from the majority of people to see is what i post here. there are a few people here i'm comfortable enough with where they know some more information about me, but for the most part, i enjoy my anonymity. you can accept that or not, it's just the way it is.

that being said, i do have to say more about the issue of experience.

you frequently refer to your experience in the muslim world as something that makes you especially knowledgeable about islam and the politics/people of the region.

when in fact, experience like that is almost totally irrelevant to an understanding of history, religion, law. you can use your experience to describe what life in saudi arabia was like for an outsider, or what you observed the people do, or what people said, but to assume that this gives you some special insight on the philosophy of sharia or islam is unreasonable.

that being said, i've travelled to many places all over the world, including muslim nations, and there are a few things i know about the region and the religion. i think i know a fair amount of all three monotheistic religions, and about colonialism as it relates to latin america and the ME.

i don't know much about e. asian nations, either with their history or religions, so i tend to stay out of discussions on those topics.

Now this is the one that gets up my nose big time. Your accusation that any of my posts are spreading hate towards Muslims is bull-shit and an outright lie. I have lots and lots of posts, past and present, find one that says I hate Muslims.

when you make sweeping statements like 'you will be killed if you leave islam' and that 'muslims do not respect infidels', you breed hate and resentment.

it's propaganda.

My “blanket” statement is "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.” If you disagree with that statement then please explain why it is wrong.

i'll have to save that for another day, probably weds. because i just dont have any more time right now.

[Bravo]

p.s.:



This one is for you: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/narcissism.php


you've given that link to me many times before, so let's just assume that i'm just too narcissistic to ever read it.

[brokenfingers]

no it's not.

it's used it's oil wealth to spread its wahabbi version of islam all over the world.

yeah robert, i got that, but you said:

"if you leave islam, you get killed under sharia".

which clearly isnt the case in malaysia.

this is exactly what i'm talking about, you paint the muslim world and sharia as this one monolith entity, when it clearly isn't.

if you had said: the way some nations have been using sharia, people have been punished for leaving islam, then that would be a fair indictment of these nations. it is unfair to simply say that under sharia you automatically get the death penalty for for leaving islam.

in fact, it's really problematic for these nations to do this, not just because it's against human rights, but because it's not an islamic practice (as in, it's not in the koran).


yes it shows that australians are willing to kick out muslims who believe in sharia but they are not only willing to do the same thing to evangelicals, sikhs, and hasidic jews who want special exemptions and laws.

since you foolishly think i only attack jews (i brought up the hasidic jews because you've been a frequent defender of jews here), here's something about the special exemptions some sikhs want in canada:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=90dcbdb3-5d1e-4879-8a96-4153e9675eeb&k=97557

and here, some sikhs want to be allowed to carry their ceremonial dagger:

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/irs_0306.htm

should they be kicked out of the country for this?



i don't reveal information about myself on the web because i find that it's irrelevant, unnecessary, and unsafe. i don't need people to know who i am, what i look like, or what i believe or don't believe.

all i want from the majority of people to see is what i post here. there's a few people here i'm comfortable enough with where they know some more information about me, but for the most part, i enjoy my anonymity. you can accept that or not, it's just the way it is.

that being said, i do have to say more about the issue of experience.

you frequently refer to your experience in the muslim world as something that makes you especially knowledgeable about the islam and the politics/people of the region.

when in fact, experience like that is almost totally irrelevant to an understanding of history, religion, law. you can use your experience to describe what life in saudi arabia was like for an outsider, or what you observed the people do, or what people said, but to assume that this gives you some special insight on the philosophy of sharia or islam is unreasonable.

that being said, i've travelled to many places all over the world, including muslim nations, and there are a few things i know about the region and the religion. i think i know a fair amount of all three monotheistic religions, and about colonialism as it relates to latin america and the ME.

i don't know much about e. asian nations either with the history or the religions, so i tend to stay out of discussions on those topics.


when you make sweeping statements like you will be killed if you leave islam and that muslims do not respect infidels, you breed hate and resentment.

it's propaganda.


i'll have to save that for another day, probably weds. because i just dont have any more time right now.Bravo,

I've just now read this thread and I've read Robert's posts and yours.

He has given statements about Islam based upon his experience (and as you say, it's been a Saudi Arabian one.)

But all I've heard from you is a bunch of "Nuh-uh."

Please be so kind as to elucidate on your position and explain to those of us who do not know the finer points of Islam (the version that wants to kill artists, impose its laws on other societies and destroy all those who disagree with it seems to be getting all the media time), the difference between Robert's version and yours, along with the relevant information to support your claims.

Is this possible? (And I'm not saying that sarcastically but with a genuine interest to see this different, kinder, gentler version of Islam of which you speak.)

In case you're up to it, some questions:

Upon what do basis do you claim that he is wrong and his version of Islam is not valid? Which version of Islam are you speaking of when you claim you are right and he is wrong? Where is it practiced? What are the differences?

Thank you, in advance, for your time on this matter. I really think it is relevant and important for many to understand.

[InfinityGoddess]

IG:

Go live among them (the Arab Moslems) for five years, as I did in the 80s, before the world's present conflicts, and say that. Islam has many, many tenents that the rest of the world finds anathema. Such as the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion. In Kuwait, we used to give an Egyptian woman rides to church. She was born a Muslim, but left Islam for Christianity. She did not tell her family in Egypt, for they would find a way to Kuwait and kill her. She was praying to find a way to Canada or the US, and thence to never communicate with her family again. This may be anecdotal, but you will find thousands of these Islamic killings around the world. They are proud of them, and don't hide them.

Or go live in Saudi Arabia and try to openly celebrate Christmas. You can't do it, for it is against the law. Yet we bend over backwards to them, and put foot-washing stations on campus and in airports. Something wrong with carrying baby wipes? Or try to attend Christian services there. If you don't live on a gate, American or British compound, forget it. You have to find a house church.

All of this shows that, as other posters have said, Islam and government are inseparable whereever Islam is a majority religion. It is the nature of that religion to take over government and force its laws on all who live there. It was not among Moslems that the idea of separation of church and state originated.

NDG


That's not always true. There are some countries where the majority religion is Islam, but the government is secular. Turkey is one such country, and I believe there's also Jordan and Lebanon. I could be wrong on Lebanon, though. Palestinian government is also secular, though they aren't really a "country" for the moment. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was most certainly secular.

Judging a religion for the acts of Saudi Arabia and others against non-Muslims is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia.

And it wasn't always that way, either. In the past, Muslims often tolerated (and protected) the non-Muslims among them, even if they were restricted somewhat.

[Norman D Gutter]

As an artist, I wouldn't dream of insulting the Christian religion, any more than I would insult Islam or any others. And I'm not a religious person myself.

I really don't think that it's too much to ask not to insult other cultures. If we're ever going to all get along in this world, respect would be a good place to start.

But you don't mind insulting their leaders by reading their minds and saying they would like to kill homosexuals.

Christianity moved on from the culterally based part of the Old Testament a long, long time ago.

[Norman D Gutter]

That's not always true. There are some countries where the majority religion is Islam, but the government is secular. Turkey is one such country, and I believe there's also Jordan and Lebanon. I could be wrong on Lebanon, though. Palestinian government is also secular, though they aren't really a "country" for the moment. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was most certainly secular.

Judging a religion for the acts of Saudi Arabia and others against non-Muslims is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia.

And it wasn't always that way, either. In the past, Muslims often tolerated (and protected) the non-Muslims among them, even if they were restricted somewhat.

The particular woman's situation I mentioned happened in Kuwait; her family was in Egypt, which has a secular government. She was scared for her life, because she knew what her father and brothers would do to her if they found out she dis-embraced Islam. I have often said, when talking with Americans about Islam, that Americans tend to view the entire Islamic world through a filter of what they think Saudi Arabia is like. In fact, the different Muslim countries have significant differences. I know that better than most from my residency and travels in those countries. But most of them would prefer to have an Islamic government and Sharia law. From Morrocco to Indonesia, every single Islamic dominated country (possibly excepting Iraq and Kuwait) is moving away from secular governments and and closer to theocracy, with Sharia law ruling. The pace of movement varies from nation to nation.

In any country where the majority religion is Islam, an honor killing or conversion killing will either be ignored or treated essentially like a misdemeanor. The killers will be praised by their neighbors as defending Islam. Lebanon has a sizable Christian population, which may serve to mitigate the radical Islamic tendencies, Hezbollah excepted, of course.

Mohammed actually said some things about tolerating other religions. He said the Christian and Jew should be welcomed in the mosque to pray if their houses of worship were not close. And he said the Moslem should enter the church or synagogue to pray if a mosque was not at hand. I don't think that is in the Koran, but rather in the collected sayings of Mohammed, gathered by his associates. I admit to lack of knowledge of the Koran. I just know how the religion was practiced from from time there.

NDG

[brokenfingers]

An article from today:
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) - Danish police said Tuesday they have arrested several people suspected of plotting to kill one of the 12 cartoonists behind the Prophet Muhammad drawings that sparked a deadly uproar in the Muslim world two years ago.

The arrests were made in pre-dawn raids in Aarhus, western Denmark, "to prevent a terror-related murder," the police intelligence agency said. It did not say how many people were arrested nor did it mention which cartoonist was targeted.

However, according to Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the drawings on Sept. 30, 2005, the suspects were planning to kill its cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. It said those arrested included both Danish and foreign citizens.

"There were very concrete murder plans against Kurt Westergaard," said Carsten Juste, the paper's editor-in-chief.

The cartoons were later reprinted by a range of Western publications, and they sparked deadly protests in parts of the Muslim world.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Westergaard, 73, and his wife Gitte, 66, had been living under police protection because of the murder plans, Jyllands-Posten reported.

"Of course I fear for my life when the police intelligence service say that some people have concrete plans to kill me. But I have turned fear into anger and resentment," Westergaard said in a statement published on Jyllands-Posten's Web site.

PET, the police intelligence service, called the action "preventive," saying it decided to strike "at an early phase to stop the planning and the carrying out of the murder."

In the uproar that followed the publishing of the cartoons, Danes watched in disbelief as angry mobs burned the Danish flag and attacked the country's embassies in Muslim countries including Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

Bring on the Sharia, people.

[robeiae]

In any country where the majority religion is Islam, an honor killing or conversion killing will either be ignored or treated essentially like a misdemeanor. The killers will be praised by their neighbors as defending Islam.
This points to an important--and generally ignored/misunderstood--aspect of much of the world. We're preconditioned--those of us in "the west"--to expect that things we would call crimes and/or questionable actions against others will be reported and will end up in the public discourse. This is simply not the case in the entire world. It's a tough thing to come to grips with, as it makes all manner of comparative analysis, re crime and the like, next to useless across nations.

[InfinityGoddess]

But you don't mind insulting their leaders by reading their minds and saying they would like to kill homosexuals.

Christianity moved on from the culterally based part of the Old Testament a long, long time ago.

Oh, how I would hate to point out to you that it's not the case.

There are still Christians out there who deem homosexuality as a sin to be punished. These same people who said that we were to blame for 9/11, Katrina, AIDs, said that Matthew Shepard somehow "deserved" to die, picketing soldier's funerals because homosexuality has become accepted in our culture, and making post-mortem tactless jokes about Heath Ledger just because he played a gay character in a movie. So don't kid yourself here; there are fanatics in every religion. That includes Islam and it includes Christianity as well.

The particular woman's situation I mentioned happened in Kuwait; her family was in Egypt, which has a secular government. She was scared for her life, because she knew what her father and brothers would do to her if they found out she dis-embraced Islam. I have often said, when talking with Americans about Islam, that Americans tend to view the entire Islamic world through a filter of what they think Saudi Arabia is like. In fact, the different Muslim countries have significant differences. I know that better than most from my residency and travels in those countries. But most of them would prefer to have an Islamic government and Sharia law. From Morrocco to Indonesia, every single Islamic dominated country (possibly excepting Iraq and Kuwait) is moving away from secular governments and and closer to theocracy, with Sharia law ruling. The pace of movement varies from nation to nation.

Iraq is very much moving in the direction of Sharia law; women have been found tortured to death for not wearing head scarves.

Furthermore, part of the reason they might be turning away from democracy, is because we decided we would try to force it on Iraq under the barrel of a gun. Democracy is not something to be forced; one has to set a good example in a peaceful manner, so much so that other countries accept it willingly (as they've done in Europe).

When you set a bad example, you end up with countries who look at it and say "no thank you".

In any country where the majority religion is Islam, an honor killing or conversion killing will either be ignored or treated essentially like a misdemeanor. The killers will be praised by their neighbors as defending Islam. Lebanon has a sizable Christian population, which may serve to mitigate the radical Islamic tendencies, Hezbollah excepted, of course.

Lebanon is a secular country, number one, and number two, Hezbollah has no intentions to turn it into a radical Islamic state; they just want to be rid of Israel.

And as I've said before, there are countries that have Muslim majorities, yet still remain secular. Palestine, Jordan, and Turkey being the other examples.

Mohammed actually said some things about tolerating other religions. He said the Christian and Jew should be welcomed in the mosque to pray if their houses of worship were not close. And he said the Moslem should enter the church or synagogue to pray if a mosque was not at hand. I don't think that is in the Koran, but rather in the collected sayings of Mohammed, gathered by his associates. I admit to lack of knowledge of the Koran. I just know how the religion was practiced from from time there.


Well, now, isn't that fascinating to know? You admit to lack of knowledge about the Koran. Well, here's a chance to read up (http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html).

[SC Harrison]

In any country where the majority religion is Islam, an honor killing or conversion killing will either be ignored or treated essentially like a misdemeanor. The killers will be praised by their neighbors as defending Islam.


I'm sorry, but this is just not true, Norman. Not in the way it's worded. There are some Muslim countries where the authorities refuse to treat honor killings as a crime, but most of them will prosecute it as a wrongful death. Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Egypt just to name a few. Heck, even in Kurdish Northern Iraq they're prosecuting four people for an honor killing.

The thing is, there is a problem with the persecution of girls and women in this world, and it's not exclusive to those who follow Islam. Wives are still being burned in the street in India because their families' dowry dried up, and female babies often don't last more than a few minutes. Is that a facet of Hinduism? No, it's a cultural thing.

Lebanon has a sizable Christian population, which may serve to mitigate the radical Islamic tendencies, Hezbollah excepted, of course.

They have every right to exist there, but the Lebanese Christians have done their share of brutality and terrorism. By even the most broad comparison, they would be considered "radical" by Western standards.

[Roger J Carlson]

Oh, how I would hate to point out to you that it's not the case.

There are still Christians out there who deem homosexuality as a sin to be punished. These same people who said that we were to blame for 9/11, Katrina, AIDs, said that Matthew Shepard somehow "deserved" to die, picketing soldier's funerals because homosexuality has become accepted in our culture, and making post-mortem tactless jokes about Heath Ledger just because he played a gay character in a movie. So don't kid yourself here; there are fanatics in every religion. That includes Islam and it includes Christianity as well.Oh come now! It's a huge stretch to compare Fred Phelps little family/congregation (who have no power other that the First Amendment right to be annoying) to fundamentalist Muslim groups (who in many cases have control of the government). For the vast majority, Christianity HAS moved of from the idea of killing homosexuals. To intimate otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

[InfinityGoddess]

Oh come now! It's a huge stretch to compare Fred Phelps little family/congregation (who have no power other that the First Amendment right to be annoying) to fundamentalist Muslim groups (who in many cases have control of the government). For the vast majority, Christianity HAS moved of from the idea of killing homosexuals. To intimate otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have both blamed 9/11 on homosexuals. Pat Robertson has blamed homosexuals for Katrina. So it's not just the Phelps cult doing and saying these things.

And while it is true that most Christians wouldn't kill homosexuals, that doesn't mean that there aren't those who would like to see us executed if they ever succeed in getting a theocracy of their own.

[Roger J Carlson]

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have both blamed 9/11 on homosexuals. Pat Robertson has blamed homosexuals for Katrina. So it's not just the Phelps cult doing and saying these things.

And while it is true that most Christians wouldn't kill homosexuals, that doesn't mean that there aren't those who would like to see us executed if they ever succeed in getting a theocracy of their own.Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps do not make up the majority of Christianity -- not even Evangelical Christianity -- not even close.

I find it ironic that you lambast Christian groups, saying they WOULD execute homosexuals if they had the power, and yet you defend Muslim groups who actually HAVE executed homosexuals because they DO have the power.

There is none so blind...

[InfinityGoddess]

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps do not make up the majority of Christianity -- not even Evangelical Christianity -- not even close.

I find it ironic that you lambast Christian groups, saying they WOULD execute homosexuals if they had the power, and yet you defend Muslim groups who actually HAVE executed homosexuals because they DO have the power.

There is none so blind...

I don't defend what anyone does to which group all in the name of religion. I'm just saying that the radical elements in both religions aren't really that much different in beliefs when it comes to homosexuals and following their interpretation of their respective holy books.

The only reason why I'm "defending" Muslims here is basically on a "big whoop, there are extremist elements in Christianity that do and believe the same things".

Likewise, while the radical elements in Christianity are few, so are the radical elements in Islam. It just doesn't seem that way because the more moderate Muslim voices have been silenced because of our actions in the Middle East.

[TheGaffer]

Likewise, while the radical elements in Christianity are few, so are the radical elements in Islam. It just doesn't seem that way because the more moderate Muslim voices have been silenced because of our actions in the Middle East.

Egads, IG.

For as much influence as we have in certain aspects of life in the Middle East, it's quite a stretch to say the moderate Muslim voices - those that would, say, speak out against stoning of gays and what-not - have been silenced as a result of our actions.

Furthermore, the actions of Muslim nations against such minority groups (and against women) make any of the reactionary nutjobs we claim here as our religious intolerant (and they are intolerant, reactionary people who wield considerable influence) pale, pale, pale pale by comparison.

That's not to say every nation where Islam dominates is guilty of such outmoded thinking and ways of justice -- Turkey as you've mentioned, and a few others, while others are ridiculously terrible (Saudi Arabia). But still - such prosecution (in violent ways) it's a mainstream practice there, not in the U.S.

We're not perfect. Far from it. But to create simple moral equivalency between the U.S. and someone on the level of the Saudis is just foolish.

[InfinityGoddess]

Egads, IG.

For as much influence as we have in certain aspects of life in the Middle East, it's quite a stretch to say the moderate Muslim voices - those that would, say, speak out against stoning of gays and what-not - have been silenced as a result of our actions.



I never meant in terms of how they feel about gay people, just radicalism in general.

[TheGaffer]

But there are plenty of other exogenous factors playing into that, and not just our actions. Other nations have influence in those areas too and the internal politics remain very complicated. It's not as if things would turn if we merely went away. Iran may have moved to a radical government in 1979 as a reaction to us, but nearly 30 years later, they've still got those hard-line clerics, and it's hardly a result of our influence.

[Roger J Carlson]

I don't defend what anyone does to which group all in the name of religion. I'm just saying that the radical elements in both religions aren't really that much different in beliefs when it comes to homosexuals and following their interpretation of their respective holy books.

The only reason why I'm "defending" Muslims here is basically on a "big whoop, there are extremist elements in Christianity that do and believe the same things".

Likewise, while the radical elements in Christianity are few, so are the radical elements in Islam. It just doesn't seem that way because the more moderate Muslim voices have been silenced because of our actions in the Middle East.No, what you're doing is comparing a tiny and relatively powerless minority of Christianity to a large, powerful, and dangerous minority of Islam. The comparison is not apt at all and all the retrofitting and backfilling won't make it so.

The moderate Muslim elements have been silenced by OUR actions in the Middle East? Oh please! Maybe, just maybe it's got something to do with the fact that people are willing to do this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4740010.stm)to their own countrymen.

[endless rewrite]

The Church of England has female priests and openly gay clergy both men and women who are heads of their local churches. I long for the day that a mosque in England does the same, to me that will show real progress.

Honour killings are on the rise here among the Muslim community, no other community. Modern day England and we are having women killed by being butchered and force fed bleach, a recent case where one was gang raped by her uncles before being executed and her body chopped up and dumped, her mother was also involved. This is not happening in Saudi Arabia it is happening here and now in a Western democracy. God help us all if Sharia law gets more of a foothold than it already has. One bad apple is too much for me to stomach but these are not isolated cases and here at least are perpetuated almost entirely by those who use Islam as an excuse for this barbarity. It may be an uncomfortable reality but it is a reality.

You can dig up the odd nut job from anywhere but look at the numbers. I know that the majority of Muslims are horrified by such actions, yet these actions happen within those same communities and it happens because women are not treated as equals and that is something that is entrenched in the Islamic faith from the most moderate of interpretations to the most extreme. Muslim women who are fighting to reclaim and retain their rights deserve our full support, it is through them that I believe the overdue Islamic reformation will happen.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, 5,000 women a year die in honour killings. There were twelve such murders recorded in the UK last year but actual figures are meant to be much higher.

Interesting reading below. I am amazed at the bravery of some of these women and campaigners.

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/

[Sheryl Nantus]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

interesting reading.

[InfinityGoddess]

No, what you're doing is comparing a tiny and relatively powerless minority of Christianity to a large, powerful, and dangerous minority of Islam. The comparison is not apt at all and all the retrofitting and backfilling won't make it so.

They are hardly "not powerful" when you consider how much power the Religious Right has enjoyed in the Republican Party. They are only recently beginning to lose clout with John McCain poised to be the Republican presidential nominee, but even then, he'll end up throwing a bone at them every once in a while.

I think it's very easy to say that they don't really have all that much power because they haven't succeeded in turning this country into a Christian-based theocracy, and because I think that the Republican Party is just simply has been playing them for fools. Sure, they'll pass laws that discriminate against homosexuals here, pass laws that restrict women's reproductive choice there, but all of it is just akin to sticking a carrot in front of a donkey's nose.

So when Huckabee starts running for President, the alliance between the GOP and the Christian Right are coming to roost.

The moderate Muslim elements have been silenced by OUR actions in the Middle East? Oh please! Maybe, just maybe it's got something to do with the fact that people are willing to do this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4740010.stm)to their own countrymen.

It's a variety of factors. Our presence in Iraq certainly has not helped in the least in this regard.

But there are plenty of other exogenous factors playing into that, and not just our actions. Other nations have influence in those areas too and the internal politics remain very complicated. It's not as if things would turn if we merely went away. Iran may have moved to a radical government in 1979 as a reaction to us, but nearly 30 years later, they've still got those hard-line clerics, and it's hardly a result of our influence.

I agree with you there, but Iran did have a pro-democracy movement in their country that was easily quashed with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The people involved might be still alive, but they're not very popular at the moment.

[Joe270]

They are hardly "not powerful" when you consider how much power the Religious Right has enjoyed in the Republican Party. They are only recently beginning to lose clout with John McCain poised to be the Republican presidential nominee, but even then, he'll end up throwing a bone at them every once in a while.

Here we go full circle in the circular argument once again. The 'religious right' has as much right to a voice in our government as the 'rainbow coalition' or any other group.

They do not, however, write and enforce the law of the land.

In most muslim countries, the law is the law of the religion. That's the fact.

But please continue your support of their governmental oppression of women, gays, cartoonists, writers, etc.

[Bravo]

In most muslim countries, the law is the law of the religion. That's the fact.
.

actually it's not, joe.

of the 57 muslim nations in the world, the total number of theocracies is...

drumroll please....

six.

saudi arabia, sudan, pakistan (not a theocracy, but an "islamic republic"), iran, and mauritania (another "islamic republic", not theocracy) and yemen.

that's what you're getting so riled up about.

six muslim nations, two of which aren't even theocratic.

get a grip.

[Bravo]

Bravo,

I've just now read this thread and I've read Robert's posts and yours.

He has given statements about Islam based upon his experience (and as you say, it's been a Saudi Arabian one.)

But all I've heard from you is a bunch of "Nuh-uh."

Please be so kind as to elucidate on your position and explain to those of us who do not know the finer points of Islam (the version that wants to kill artists, impose its laws on other societies and destroy all those who disagree with it seems to be getting all the media time), the difference between Robert's version and yours, along with the relevant information to support your claims.

Is this possible? (And I'm not saying that sarcastically but with a genuine interest to see this different, kinder, gentler version of Islam of which you speak.)

In case you're up to it, some questions:

Upon what do basis do you claim that he is wrong and his version of Islam is not valid? Which version of Islam are you speaking of when you claim you are right and he is wrong? Where is it practiced? What are the differences?

Thank you, in advance, for your time on this matter. I really think it is relevant and important for many to understand.

you know, i probably will one of these days, but right now i just have no time. for the most part i try to avoid religious discussions because they just take forever to go through.

if you have some time, you can peruse through this:

http://www.theghouseteam.com/mg/WMC_Files/Shariah_value_Dr.Farooq.pdf

it's not bad.

[donroc]

And in how many can one be a Christian, Jew, Bahai, or Bhuddist without civil/theocratic penalties?

[William Haskins]

LONDON — The British government has cleared the way for husbands with multiple wives to claim welfare benefits for all their partners, fueling growing controversy over the role of Islamic Shariah law in the nation's cultural and legal framework.

Bigamy is outlawed in Britain, but authorities have never prosecuted Muslim men who had legally married more than one woman abroad and continued to live with them after immigrating. Shariah permits men to have up to four wives at one time.

Now, after a review that began in November 2006, a panel of four government departments has decided that all the wives of a Muslim man may collect state benefits, provided that the marriages took place in a country where multiple spouses are legal.


http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080212/FOREIGN/288341825

[InfinityGoddess]

Here we go full circle in the circular argument once again. The 'religious right' has as much right to a voice in our government as the 'rainbow coalition' or any other group.

They do not, however, write and enforce the law of the land.

No, they do not. But they have enough influence in the GOP (or rather they think they do) that they are unwilling to vote for a guy like McCain and they work tirelessly on their agenda to restrict the rights of women and LGBT people by electing politicians that agree with them. Some time ago, they made this alliance with the GOP and now it's coming to roost, as I said, because of Huckabee's presidential aspirations.

In most muslim countries, the law is the law of the religion. That's the fact.

As I've said before, there are Muslim countries that aren't theocracies. I've already named some of them.

But please continue your support of their governmental oppression of women, gays, cartoonists, writers, etc.

You're mistaken; I don't support those things. But I also think that it's wrong to judge an entire religion because of a few crazy people.

[Robert Toy]

no it's not.

it's used it's oil wealth to spread its wahabbi version of islam all over the world.



yeah robert, i got that, but you said:

"if you leave islam, you get killed under sharia".

which clearly isnt the case in malaysia.

this is exactly what i'm talking about, you paint the muslim world and sharia as this one monolithic entity, when it clearly isn't.

if you had said: the way some nations have been using sharia, people have been punished for leaving islam, then that would be a fair indictment of these nations. it is unfair to simply say that under sharia you automatically get the death penalty for for leaving islam.

in fact, it's really problematic for these nations to do this, not just because it's against human rights, but because it's not an islamic practice (as in, it's not in the koran).




yes it shows that australians are willing to kick out muslims who believe in sharia but they are not willing to do the same thing to evangelicals, sikhs, and hasidic jews who want special exemptions and laws.

since you foolishly think i only attack jews (i brought up the hasidic jews because you've been a frequent defender of jews here), here's something about the special exemptions some sikhs want in canada:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=90dcbdb3-5d1e-4879-8a96-4153e9675eeb&k=97557

and here, some sikhs want to be allowed to carry their ceremonial dagger:

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/irs_0306.htm

should they be kicked out of the country for this?



i don't reveal information about myself on the web because i find that it's irrelevant, unnecessary, and unsafe. i don't need people to know who i am, what i look like, or what i believe or don't believe.

all i want from the majority of people to see is what i post here. there are a few people here i'm comfortable enough with where they know some more information about me, but for the most part, i enjoy my anonymity. you can accept that or not, it's just the way it is.

that being said, i do have to say more about the issue of experience.

you frequently refer to your experience in the muslim world as something that makes you especially knowledgeable about islam and the politics/people of the region.

when in fact, experience like that is almost totally irrelevant to an understanding of history, religion, law. you can use your experience to describe what life in saudi arabia was like for an outsider, or what you observed the people do, or what people said, but to assume that this gives you some special insight on the philosophy of sharia or islam is unreasonable.

that being said, i've travelled to many places all over the world, including muslim nations, and there are a few things i know about the region and the religion. i think i know a fair amount of all three monotheistic religions, and about colonialism as it relates to latin america and the ME.

i don't know much about e. asian nations, either with their history or religions, so i tend to stay out of discussions on those topics.


when you make sweeping statements like 'you will be killed if you leave islam' and that 'muslims do not respect infidels', you breed hate and resentment.

it's propaganda.


i'll have to save that for another day, probably weds. because i just dont have any more time right now.

You have a real problem with inventing things that I have allegedly said.

“that being said, i do have to say more about the issue of experience.

you frequently refer to your experience in the muslim world as something that makes you especially knowledgeable about islam and the politics/people of the region.”


When and where did I say that?

“when in fact, experience like that is almost totally irrelevant to an understanding of history, religion, law.” Keep this quote of your in mind.

“you can use your experience to describe what life in saudi arabia was like for an outsider, or what you observed the people do, or what people said, but to assume that this gives you some special insight on the philosophy of sharia or islam is unreasonable.”


When and where did I say that?


“that being said, i've travelled to many places all over the world, including muslim nations, and there are a few things i know about the region and the religion. i think i know a fair amount of all three monotheistic religions, and about colonialism as it relates to latin america and the ME.”

Isn’t odd that you never mentioned traveling “all over the world…” before? Remember your quote above – why do your experiences provided a better insight, than my experiences?

Where have you been and how long did you stay in the Muslim countries? Or is this just another one of your fantasies?

Assuming you did leave home…you know there is just a slight bit of difference between visiting a country and living in one for 6 ½ years, don’t you?


My “blanket” statement is "The Koran and Sharia Law dictate all aspects of a Muslim’s life.” If you disagree with that statement then please explain why it is wrong.

i'll have to save that for another day, probably weds. because i just dont have any more time right now.

Such a busy boy, the easiest question to answer and you don’t have time.

Oh yes, the little statistical game on the number of Muslim countries (your post 228) and trying to limit them to “theocracies”, as if the remaining are open and free societies is a joke.

[Bravo]

Isn’t odd that you never mentioned traveling “all over the world…” before? Remember your quote above

Where have you been and how long did you stay in the Muslim countries? Or is this just another one of your fantasies?

yes indeed it is very odd, and you're quite the detective for picking up on that.

no doubt the only place i've been to overseas was in canada and that's about it.

there were some muslims over there.



– why do your experiences provided a better insight, than my experiences?

did i say that it does?

really?

take a look again.

Such a busy boy, the easiest question to answer and you don’t have time.

lol.

thanks for trying to tell me what i have time for and what i don't have time for.

and thanks for thinking that i owe you any sort of explanation or any sort of discussion.

you need to go take a look at that narcissism link of yours.


Oh yes, the little statistical game on the number of Muslim countries (your post 228) and trying to limit them to “theocracies”, as if the remaining are open and free societies is a joke.

um, take a look at what my little "statistical game" was retorting to and try again.

joe didnt say they werent free and fair societies, so really you can take your sanctimonious patronizing tone and shove it somewhere else.

[Robert Toy]

yes indeed it is very odd, and you're quite the detective for picking up on that.

no doubt the only place i've been to overseas was in canada and that's about it.

there were some muslims over there.

that's where i learned about them.



did i say that it does?

really?

take a look again.



lol.

thanks for trying to tell me what i have time for and what i don't have time for.

and thanks for thinking that i owe you any sort of explanation or any sort of discussion.

you need to go take a look at that narcissism link of yours.




um, take a look at what my little "statistical game" was retorting and try again.

joe didnt say they werent free and fair societies, so really you can take your sanctiminious patronizing, outright irrational histrionics and shove them somewhere else.
Nothing more to add, you have just confirmed all I needed to know...;)

End of discussion.

[Bravo]

good to know.

now go choke on a snow cone.

[Joe270]

Quote:
Oh yes, the little statistical game on the number of Muslim countries (your post 228) and trying to limit them to “theocracies”, as if the remaining are open and free societies is a joke.

um, take a look at what my little "statistical game" was retorting to and try again.

joe didnt say they werent free and fair societies, so really you can take your sanctimonious patronizing tone and shove it somewhere else.

Frankly, I didn't respond to this because of the dimissive, rude tone, not that you correctly identified the legal systems of the muslim nations worldwide.

I stated that the law was that of the religion, and, for the most part, it is based on Islamic law in Islamic countries. Yes, many secular governments exist which temper many of the more extreme elements of those laws, but the basis exists, none the less.

I was not refering to theocracies, which always seem to come up in these threads by a couple posters here as the ultimate 'end all argument' line.

[Bravo]

In most muslim countries, the law is the law of the religion. That's the fact.

what does "the law is the law of the religion" mean?

I stated that the law was that of the religion, and, for the most part, it is based on Islamic law in Islamic countries. Yes, many secular governments exist which temper many of the more extreme elements of those laws, but the basis exists, none the less.

what do you mean the "basis" exists? and why do you assume that that means the same thing as the "law is the law of the religion"?

please show me the majority of muslim nations with this basis, because i still don't understand what you mean.

[SpookyWriter]

good to know.

now go choke on a snow cone.Nope, this is unacceptible behavior in my opinion. Argue the issues Bravo. This post will be sent to Mac or Dawno.

I said, I will not participate in a forum where individual attacks are the norm.

[Magdalen]

Let's jump into our DeLoren and travel back in time -- to 1985 or 1885 or 1279 or 600 or, or? Combining the needs of the heart and soul and the stomach and wallet is a conglomeration of supply/demand that is innately twisted, and ne'er the twain shall meet.