This week in Islam

[Guest]

This week in Islam a Pakistani women is stoned to death in front of the high court -- by her family -- because she chose her own husband.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/27/pakistani-woman-stoned-to-death-by-her-family-because-they-disapproved-of-her-marriage-police/

Apparently the husband of the murdered woman had himself murdered his previous wife so he could marry the current unfortunate. He didn't serve any time because his son forgave him.

Which raises the question, if other family members forgive the guilty family members in this case, is it all hunky dory?

The father, who was arrested, played no part in the assault. If he now forgives the murderers, one would assume they are free. Maybe that was why he played no part, instead, merely witnessing the crime.

[Peter F]

I'm wondering why Argus doesn't display the courage of his convictions. Our culture is far superior to Islamic culture. Our superior culture will have no problem absorbing inferior cultures over time. This has happened over and over again in history.

Of course, it is perhaps Islam that is the superior culture and our inferior culture will be absorbed.

But then, is it not true that the inferior culture should make way for the superior? Its inevitable is it not?

[Guest]

I daresay Argus is having trouble understanding what the Hell you're on about...

[Argus]

I'm wondering why Argus doesn't display the courage of his convictions. Our culture is far superior to Islamic culture. Our superior culture will have no problem absorbing inferior cultures over time. This has happened over and over again in history.

Of course, it is perhaps Islam that is the superior culture and our inferior culture will be absorbed.

But then, is it not true that the inferior culture should make way for the superior? Its inevitable is it not?

Superior, certainly. But what does that mean? It means our culture is more advanced and sophisticated, certainly, but that's essentially maeaningless in terms of the merging of cultural values. What matters is how stubbornly one side clings to their values. Since the values of Muslims are supported by their religious beliefs, while our values are not really supported by anything it becomes more a matter of numbers. Since Muslims are few, our values prevail, but the higher the number of Muslims, the more pressure they will put on this (as we have seen in other countries like the UK) by demanding special recognition and accomodation. In addition, of course, they will vote for those politicians willing to grant them that recognition and accomodation, and to alter laws more to their taste.

[GostHacked]

Superior, certainly. But what does that mean? It means our culture is more advanced and sophisticated, certainly, but that's essentially maeaningless in terms of the merging of cultural values. What matters is how stubbornly one side clings to their values.

What values did our own societies have 50 years ago compared to now? When looking at the overall time scale of humanity and religions, this recent era of rights is a new one that not even our countries are fully living yet. In the US, blacks have been able to vote for about 70 years. Women not that much less. We are still in the infancy of our own societies as advanced and sophisticated we are.

And posting your every day on Facebook, selfies, food pics and cat memes are not indications of advancement, or sophistication.

[WestCoastRunner]

It means our culture is more advanced and sophisticated, certainly, but that's essentially maeaningless in terms of the merging of cultural values. Since Muslims are few, our values prevail, but the higher the number of Muslims, the more pressure they will put on this (as we have seen in other countries like the UK) by demanding special recognition and accomodation. In addition, of course, they will vote for those politicians willing to grant them that recognition and accomodation, and to alter laws more to their taste.

It is no wonder that western societies are targeted because of these beliefs quoted above.

[On Guard for Thee]

Superior, certainly. But what does that mean? It means our culture is more advanced and sophisticated, certainly, but that's essentially maeaningless in terms of the merging of cultural values. What matters is how stubbornly one side clings to their values. Since the values of Muslims are supported by their religious beliefs, while our values are not really supported by anything it becomes more a matter of numbers. Since Muslims are few, our values prevail, but the higher the number of Muslims, the more pressure they will put on this (as we have seen in other countries like the UK) by demanding special recognition and accomodation. In addition, of course, they will vote for those politicians willing to grant them that recognition and accomodation, and to alter laws more to their taste.

Speak for yourself. My values are supported by something. I call it conscience. It's just not religion.

[WestCoastRunner]

Superior, certainly. But what does that mean? It means our culture is more advanced and sophisticated, certainly, but that's essentially maeaningless in terms of the merging of cultural values. What matters is how stubbornly one side clings to their values. Since the values of Muslims are supported by their religious beliefs, while our values are not really supported by anything it becomes more a matter of numbers. Since Muslims are few, our values prevail, but the higher the number of Muslims, the more pressure they will put on this (as we have seen in other countries like the UK) by demanding special recognition and accomodation. In addition, of course, they will vote for those politicians willing to grant them that recognition and accomodation, and to alter laws more to their taste.

Argus

I am very curious in what sort of community you live in. Who are your neighbours?, Who lives near you? who do you associate with? Do you engage with other cultural societies?

[WestCoastRunner]

My point of course is that you don't seem to have a worldly view of what is happening around you. Do you understand that citizens of Canada work with muslims, east indians, folks from syria, europe, etc every day. We bond with these people and we find no fault with these people. But you seem to taint these people with your broad brush paint stroke prejudices and that is offending to me and my colleagues.

[Michael Hardner]

And posting your every day on Facebook, selfies, food pics and cat memes are not indications of advancement, or sophistication.

Very interesting angle. Freedom sounds so virtuous until you realize that the freest societies indulge themselves in the most demeaning ways.

[Rue]

I am with Michael H on this. I am not sure reconstructing our society's values or laws as "superior" or comparing legal systems in such a manner is productive because its necessarily subjective.

As it is we have another thread where people deemed Canadian sex laws superior to Florida ones in the case of an adult woman who had sex with a 16 year old in Florida contrary to that state's criminal law, but not contrary to our criminal laws, which then allowed this woman to apply for and be granted refugee status in Canada after fleeing Florida.

I am not sure words like superior or inferior are of help.

Yes most certainly Sharia law compared to our standards in certain areas appears barbaric, cruel, and pretty much where Judeo-Christian based law was at 500 years ago.

I think most of us would agree Sharia law is being interpreted in many Islamic nations in ways such as the one in this thread that clearly indicates what we would consider an inhumane way to deal with people.

I would never condone such laws. However and this is why I defend Argus a little bit with his reluctance, when he used the word superior, he was clearly stating it in response to someone asking him his personal view. Stretching that to mean anything else is not the point.

Does it make any of us anti-Muslim because we question Muslim fundamentalism? Are you automatically anti-semitic or anti Christian if you question those who use those religions to interperet their religions in a fundamentalist manner?

No. Look at the context of the criticism. I openly challenge certain Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox approaches to my religion as do Christians or Muslims with their religions. It does not make any of us self-haters. It means we seek progressive reforms and changes.

In such discussions if someone is making a valid point that a law is blatantly unfair, trying to twist that to suggest they are anti Muslim and hate all Muslims is not fair in my opinion. It would also not be fair to assume all Muslims are savages and inferior.

However if I live in a country no I do not want to live with people who believe in fundamentalist Muslim values any more then I am comfortable with extremists of any kind. I believe they incite and preach intolerance and hatred. I believe they are responsible for creating oppressive states which do nto separate their oppressive beliefs from their legal systems

What I also can't stand are trendy leftists quick to pounce on anyone who criticizes fundamentalist Islam as being "inferior" etc., but are the first to demand we take in refugees people fleeing unfair laws of other nations.

Here we are where the same people think we are superior to the way the US treats its sex criminals according to the same people who then chastise us for criticizing fundamentalist applications of Sharia law.

To me that makes no sense.

There are good and bad things in all cultures. I think if Islam were applied in an enlightened and progressive manner, it would be applied no differently than Judeo-Christian laws in most Western nations today. I don't think its the religion itself, but the humans using it and interpreting it in a fundamentalist manner.

I think the politically correct exercise of beating around the bush about what to call the criticism is not relevant lets look at the context of the criticism.

[Bob Macadoo]

In such discussions if someone is making a valid point that a law is blatantly unfair, trying to twist that to suggest they are anti Muslim and hate all Muslims is not fair in my opinion. It would also not be fair to assume all Muslims are savages and inferior.

????

Is Rod Serling about to start a narrative?

There has been an "anti-" term you use quite regularly regardless of the point being made. I do applaud you though to recognize the distinction between criticisms of a religion and criticisms of people saying they act in the name of religion. I think most should bookmark this quote for further discussions.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Argus]

And posting your every day on Facebook, selfies, food pics and cat memes are not indications of advancement, or sophistication.

So you think a society which executes homosexuals and women who have sex outside of marriage, which chops off the hands of thieves and forces little girls to marry middle aged men is as equally sophisticated as ours?

[Argus]

Very interesting angle. Freedom sounds so virtuous until you realize that the freest societies indulge themselves in the most demeaning ways.

What's more demeaning than being beaten to death on the street by your own family because you didn't marry who they wanted, or being hung from a crane in front of an audience because you had sex outside of marriage? What's more demeaning than being beaten in the street by religious police because a bit of your hair escaped your all-encompassing shroud, and then beind dragged off to prison? What's more demeaning than being told you aren't alowed outside the house without a man accompanying you, or allowed to drive, or to make an appointment with the doctor? What's more demeaning than being raped, and the judge telling you that since you don't have three male witnesses you can't do a thing against your rapist? What's more demeaning than cursed at and beaten at a public dinner because the food wasn't up to your husband's taste? What's more demeaning than having your legs spread so your clitoris can be removed so that your natural whorish tendencies don't cause you to disturb the public peace?

Right, publishing a selfy on Facebook is soooo demeaning.

Freedom sounds so virtuous until you think of things like that, eh?

Edited May 31, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

What's more demeaning than being beaten to death on the street by your own family because you didn't marry who they wanted, or being hung from a crane in front of an audience because you had sex outside of marriage?

The continuing single-note shreik of moral outrage is tiresome, and given your demonstrated disinterest in listening there's not much point in responding.

Freedom sounds so virtuous until you think of things like that, eh?

I'd like to have a conversation with people who can consider ideas from a more objective viewpoint, commenting without having to accept or reject them.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

[Argus]

The continuing single-note shreik of moral outrage is tiresome, and given your demonstrated disinterest in listening there's not much point in responding.

And yet, you do, regardless.

My 'moral outrage' might exist, but it's interesting how yours seems entirely absent. You don't care what is done in the name of Islam by however many people and governments do it, nothing will ever convince you to agree the religion is in any way responsible.

I'd like to have a conversation with people who can consider ideas from a more objective viewpoint, commenting without having to accept or reject them.

Moral equivilancy, you mean. That's not my schtick.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

I don't think he would give you much credit for simply refusing to ever render a judgement on that thought.

[Michael Hardner]

My 'moral outrage' might exist, but it's interesting how yours seems entirely absent.

You don't have the ability to look into my heart. To my experience moral outrage is more of an emotional response, and as I have demonstrated here it doesn't follow principles (ie. logic) that makes any kind of sense to me whatsoever.

You don't care what is done in the name of Islam by however many people and governments do it, nothing will ever convince you to agree the religion is in any way responsible.

Incorrect. This is another example of a blunt argument, in the form of an ad hominem against me specifically. I think arguments should be made in the mind, not emotionally and not personally.

I don't think he would give you much credit for simply refusing to ever render a judgement on that thought.

As per his quote, the good man judges well in matters of the good and the noble.

[cybercoma]

Pakistan clerics issue stoning death decree

Ulema Council says so-called 'honour killings' are un-Islamic and sign of ignorance, ahead of June 5 meeting.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2014/06/pakistan-clerics-issue-honour-killing-fatwa-201461960536332.html

A coalition of Pakistani religious leaders has issued a religious edict declaring 'honour killings' to be a "highly condemnable" and "un-Islamic" action.

[Guest]

Good news. Especially this bit:

"And the feeling of being dishonoured by your daughter is forbidden in Islam."

I hope it catches on.

[WWWTT]

You are actually talking about an extremist and intolerant view among RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims, not Islam on the whole.

No I think Argus is right in his comment. Or at least the part you highlighted.

Countries that are dominated by Islam do have very severe laws in particular their punishments! Very unforgiving and intolerant!

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live an Muslim country where people who steal say a mountain bike will have several fingers cut off as a punishment! That's just to freekin way out there and intense!

I remember some guy(westerner) was caught committing vandalism in Singapore a couple decades ago (big news story at the time) and he was given the cane as punishment and many people here were divided. Some calling it barbaric, others saying why don't we use the freekin cane here???

Maybe using a stick or cane to inflict non permanent pain can be argued for, but cutting off fingers??? That's way too much.

WWWTT

[monty16]

Is it better to accept Muslim immigrants who just think women should be wholly owned chattel than accept Americans who have knowingly acted out their hate toward Muslims by supporting the killing of them in illegal and immoral wars for oil?

No American can take the high road. Question any who even try!

[Guest]

Was it for oil or was it because they hated Muslims? It would be a bit of a happy coincidence for someone if they hated Muslims and they wanted the oil.

[Argus]

Peaceful Muslims slaughter Christians in Kenya, not that that has anything to do with Islam, of course.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/gunmen-pulled-all-non-muslim-men-from-kenyan-hotel-ordered-women-to-watch-as-they-killed-them/

Freedom loving Muslims massacre prisoners in Iraq. Not that this has anything to do with Islam, of course.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/terrorists-sweep-through-key-iraqi-town-after-releasing-horrific-photos-of-massacre/

[cybercoma]

Since Muslims are killing other Muslims in Iraq, you want to think a little harder about that one maybe?

[Argus]

Since Muslims are killing other Muslims in Iraq, you want to think a little harder about that one maybe?

Sunnis are killing Shias, but that has nothing to do with Islam!