Jump to content

This week in Islam


kimmy

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Being nice?  Where, and to whom?

You seemed to agree with Michael that people who point out how awful Islam is are merely trying to make them look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad they actually are.

As it is then, can one assume you would kill them all too, as you would with other right wingers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

They are the same.  Islam just happens to be featured on media more, at the moment, in Western countries.  Do you suppose that is Islamic countries, they don't use our most garish news stories to demonstrate how evil Western secularism is?  

Panto now, then.  I just have to say I disagree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Egyptian presiden'ts call to Muslims to greet Christians was presented here as "proof" that Egypt loooooooves Christians?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/48486/cureton-coptic-christians-are-brutally-persecuted-alexander-cureton?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro


 

Quote

 

These attacks challenge the legitimacy of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s promises to provide increased protection for Copts and other religious minorities. At recent Laylat al-Qadr celebrations in Cairo, the president encouraged Muslims to safeguard Egypt’s legacy of religious pluralism, positing that “strong religion could be weakened by its believers’ behaviors.” He emphasized that well-wishes toward “Christian brothers” do not equate to support for Christianity, and implied that civility toward the minority can favorably represent — even strengthen — Islam.

Unfortunately, Sisi’s rhetoric has failed to translate into change on the ground, and these most recent attacks continue a long pattern of violence against Egypt’s religious minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood and other religiously motivated groups specifically target Christians, whom they blame for political changes that have jeopardized their power in recent years. This violence is particularly pronounced in more remote regions of the country, away from the eyes of the Western media.

 

Here is the list of attacks:

https://eshhad.org/database

It won't be the largest Christian community left in the Middle East for much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That's ok, but if you can't come up with better arguments then "I just disagree" maybe you shouldn't even bother.

I have.  Many times.You insist Islam is just the same as any other religion when evidence it is much worse is apparent everywhere.  I was giving you the opportunity to not bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I have.  Many times.You insist Islam is just the same as any other religion when evidence it is much worse is apparent everywhere.  I was giving you the opportunity to not bother.

Stoning comes from the Bible, but not, oddly, from the Quran.  Still, Muslims picked it up as a good idea.  

Honor killings happen among Muslims, Hindus and Christians from the middle East and Africa.

FGM comes from animalistic religions predating both Christianity and Islam and is still practiced by both Christians and Muslims (and other local religions) in the ME and Africa.  There is even a sect of Jews who practiced it until, IIRC, the 1970s.

Child marriages and plural marriages are practiced by both Muslims and Christians.  I recently watched a doc where the Christian Pastor admitted he couldn't do much about it, these people believed men had the right to multiple wives but he hoped over time to bring them more in line with Western Christian standards.

Most of the 'backward, barbaric, ignorant' attitudes held by Muslims in the ME and Africa will also be held by Christians, homophobia and misogyny included.

Killing of infidels is uniquely ISIS inspired as far as I know.  The Quran doesn't support it, except in the case of war.

Killing of Westerners is also uniquely ISIS inspired.

The Inquisition and related torture was uniquely Catholic inspired, I believe.

Given all of this, I fail to see how Islam rates worse than other religions, other than their current popularity on media and unrelenting propoganda by certain groups.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 2:34 AM, bcsapper said:

Islam needs no help to look bad.  That's part of the problem with the left's view (except me).  They have blinkers (as with Argus's most recent cartoon) and therefore have to describe legitimate criticism of Islam as Islamophobia because to not do so is to acknowledge it, and they cannot do that.  For some reason they are afraid.

It's called a phobia because it isn't legitimate. It's exaggerated and ignorant. When a person becomes a fanatic without even knowing what for they are as though suffering from a phobia.

22 hours ago, bcsapper said:

That's only because you think legitimate criticism of Islam , a despicable religion that advocates the death sentence for apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality, is ignorant.  Calling a spade a spade is honesty, not ignorance.

Islam doesn't have a death sentence for any of those things. They come from other sources and mostly aren't applied even if the state does have such a ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I have.  Many times.You insist Islam is just the same as any other religion when evidence it is much worse is apparent everywhere.  I was giving you the opportunity to not bother.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Christians do not practice their religion. This doesn't make Christianity so and so - it makes the Christians non-practicing Christians. In other words, you cannot compare religions in such a way and get accurate results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Stoning comes from the Bible, but not, oddly, from the Quran.  Still, Muslims picked it up as a good idea.  

Honor killings happen among Muslims, Hindus and Christians from the middle East and Africa.

FGM comes from animalistic religions predating both Christianity and Islam and is still practiced by both Christians and Muslims (and other local religions) in the ME and Africa.  There is even a sect of Jews who practiced it until, IIRC, the 1970s.

Child marriages and plural marriages are practiced by both Muslims and Christians.  I recently watched a doc where the Christian Pastor admitted he couldn't do much about it, these people believed men had the right to multiple wives but he hoped over time to bring them more in line with Western Christian standards.

Most of the 'backward, barbaric, ignorant' attitudes held by Muslims in the ME and Africa will also be held by Christians, homophobia and misogyny included.

Killing of infidels is uniquely ISIS inspired as far as I know.  The Quran doesn't support it, except in the case of war.

Killing of Westerners is also uniquely ISIS inspired.

The Inquisition and related torture was uniquely Catholic inspired, I believe.

Given all of this, I fail to see how Islam rates worse than other religions, other than their current popularity on media and unrelenting propoganda by certain groups.  

We should clarify.  I thought I had already done so. I'm not talking about historical outrages.  Burning witches was bad, but we stopped. 

I'm talking about religion in modern times.  There are countries where religious law is paramount, and failure to adhere to the law can lead to the death penalty.  I haven't counted them recently, but I think most of them are Islamic.  That's not to excuse others.  They would all be ridiculous, superstitious backwaters.  I just think most of them would be Islamic. 

I think that the treatment of women under Islam is worse than the treatment of women under any other religious group.  (or secular group, for that matter)  That doesn't mean I think that women are not treated unfairly by other groups.  It just means I think that Islam is the worst.

And like it or not, ISIS is Islamic.  As are Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc.  They are just the worst of the worst.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marocc said:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Christians do not practice their religion. This doesn't make Christianity so and so - it makes the Christians non-practicing Christians. In other words, you cannot compare religions in such a way and get accurate results.

No I'm not.  I actually brought up the fact I'm a lapsed Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It's called a phobia because it isn't legitimate. It's exaggerated and ignorant. When a person becomes a fanatic without even knowing what for they are as though suffering from a phobia.

Islam doesn't have a death sentence for any of those things. They come from other sources and mostly aren't applied even if the state does have such a ruling.

It's called a phobia by those who don't want to admit the criticism is legitimate.

I think they do.  The recent case of Asia Bibi comes to mind.  She was acquitted of blasphemy (not found guilty but not killed) and still the crowds wanted her blood. 

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few countries with the death penalty for homosexuality, too.  A cursory Google search comes up with this.

 

As of 2019, the following jurisdictions, all of which have sharia-based criminal laws, prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality:

  • 23px-Flag_of_Afghanistan.svg.png Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Penal Code does not refer to homosexuality explicitly, but provides for prosecuting it under the sharia category of zina (illicit sexual intercourse), which according to some traditional Islamic legal schools may entail the hadd (sharia-prescribed) punishment of stoning, when strict evidential requirements are met. The Hanafi school, prevalent in Afghanistan, does not regard homosexual acts as a hadd crime, although Afghan judges may potentially apply the death penalty for a number of reasons. No known death sentences for homosexuality have been passed since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.[1][2]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei's Sharia Penal Code, implemented in stages since 2014, prescribes death by stoning as punishment for sex between men.[3] This applies to Muslims, and non-Muslims including those on Brunei ships and aircraft and those in transit.[citation needed]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png Iran.[4] Homosexual intercourse is declared a capital offense in Iran's Islamic Penal Code, enacted in 1991. Though the grounds for execution in Iran are difficult to track, there is evidence that several people were hanged for homosexual behavior in 2005-2006 and in 2016, in some cases on dubious charges of rape.[5][6]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Mauritania.svg.png Mauritania.[4] According to a 1984 law, Muslim men can be stoned for engaging in homosexual sex, though no executions have occurred so far.[7]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png Nigeria, where several northern states have adopted sharia-based criminal laws.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan, where the death penalty for homosexual acts is technically permitted by the law, but not applied in practice.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar, applicable only to Muslims, for extramarital sex regardless of the gender of the participants. There is no evidence that the death penalty has been applied for consensual same-sex relations taking place between adults and in private.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg.png Saudi Arabia, which does not have codified criminal laws.[4] According to the country's interpretation of sharia, a married man who commits sodomy, or a non-Muslim who engages in sodomy with a Muslim, can be stoned to death.[7] There were unconfirmed reports that two cross-dressing Pakistani nationals were killed by Saudi authorities in 2017, which Saudi officials have denied.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Somalia.svg.png Somalia (23px-Flag_of_Jubaland_%28Somalia%29.svg. Jubaland), where Islamic courts have imposed sharia-based death penalties in some southern regions.[4][7]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Sudan.svg.png Sudan, for a third conviction[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Yemen.svg.png Yemen.[4] According to a 1994 law, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for engaging in homosexual intercourse.[7]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's called a phobia by those who don't want to admit the criticism is legitimate.

I think they do.  The recent case of Asia Bibi comes to mind.  She was acquitted of blasphemy (not found guilty but not killed) and still the crowds wanted her blood. 

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few countries with the death penalty for homosexuality, too.  A cursory Google search comes up with this.

 

As of 2019, the following jurisdictions, all of which have sharia-based criminal laws, prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality:

  • 23px-Flag_of_Afghanistan.svg.png Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Penal Code does not refer to homosexuality explicitly, but provides for prosecuting it under the sharia category of zina (illicit sexual intercourse), which according to some traditional Islamic legal schools may entail the hadd (sharia-prescribed) punishment of stoning, when strict evidential requirements are met. The Hanafi school, prevalent in Afghanistan, does not regard homosexual acts as a hadd crime, although Afghan judges may potentially apply the death penalty for a number of reasons. No known death sentences for homosexuality have been passed since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.[1][2]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei's Sharia Penal Code, implemented in stages since 2014, prescribes death by stoning as punishment for sex between men.[3] This applies to Muslims, and non-Muslims including those on Brunei ships and aircraft and those in transit.[citation needed]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png Iran.[4] Homosexual intercourse is declared a capital offense in Iran's Islamic Penal Code, enacted in 1991. Though the grounds for execution in Iran are difficult to track, there is evidence that several people were hanged for homosexual behavior in 2005-2006 and in 2016, in some cases on dubious charges of rape.[5][6]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Mauritania.svg.png Mauritania.[4] According to a 1984 law, Muslim men can be stoned for engaging in homosexual sex, though no executions have occurred so far.[7]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png Nigeria, where several northern states have adopted sharia-based criminal laws.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png Pakistan, where the death penalty for homosexual acts is technically permitted by the law, but not applied in practice.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar, applicable only to Muslims, for extramarital sex regardless of the gender of the participants. There is no evidence that the death penalty has been applied for consensual same-sex relations taking place between adults and in private.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg.png Saudi Arabia, which does not have codified criminal laws.[4] According to the country's interpretation of sharia, a married man who commits sodomy, or a non-Muslim who engages in sodomy with a Muslim, can be stoned to death.[7] There were unconfirmed reports that two cross-dressing Pakistani nationals were killed by Saudi authorities in 2017, which Saudi officials have denied.[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Somalia.svg.png Somalia (23px-Flag_of_Jubaland_%28Somalia%29.svg. Jubaland), where Islamic courts have imposed sharia-based death penalties in some southern regions.[4][7]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Sudan.svg.png Sudan, for a third conviction[4]
  • 23px-Flag_of_Yemen.svg.png Yemen.[4] According to a 1994 law, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for engaging in homosexual intercourse.[7]

The death penalty for homosexuality is not inherently Islamic. It's been made up later because the people didn't know what to do about homosexuals seeing as there is a punishment for sex outside of marriage. Sex between men could not be left outside of this.

The requirements for the punishment to be fulfilled - if the judges even want it to be fulfilled - are that four reliable Muslim men see the act of penetration and witness against the perpetrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

The death penalty for homosexuality is not inherently Islamic. It's been made up later because the people didn't know what to do about homosexuals seeing as there is a punishment for sex outside of marriage. Sex between men could not be left outside of this.

The requirements for the punishment to be fulfilled - if the judges even want it to be fulfilled - are that four reliable Muslim men see the act of penetration and witness against the perpetrators.

There is a punishment for sex outside of marriage too?  It gets worse.  What is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) I have to call BS on that, just a bit. If the Repubs in Alabama decided that 99 years for performing an abortion was a fit sentence you would probably agree with me about how absolutely disgusting they were.  There wouldn't be any complaints about scapegoating southern US religious types.  They would just be ignorant bastards.  And rightly so.  Because they truly would be.  Same with Muslims. (The ones doing the deciding.  Not those who thought it was a bad idea  --  Edited to include any who thought an acquittal was a bad idea and took to the streets insisting the sentence be carried out anyway)

2) I was just wondering where we differ.  Why I might be Islamophobic, and you not.  On which aspect of the religion of peace do we differ?  As a committed leftist, I absolutely abhor all right wing conservative religious nutjobs who would have others act in a way they prescribe. I just wonder where the argument is.  Don't all we leftists feel the same way?

1) Sure, but I wouldn't say all Conservatives, all Alabamans, all Christians are accountable.  Nor would I look for some rationale proving that Alabamans are deficient.  So it's not "the same with Muslims".  This thread is about starting with individual incidents and tying it back to people related only by religion - implying that religion is the cause of crime.  You could do it with any religion and some people do.

2) I don't know that you are Islamophobic.  I don't identify as a 'leftist' so you're on your own there.  Religions are all ridiculous, but banning them or vilifying them doesn't achieve anything positive.  I have known religious people of pretty much all religions and was raised religious myself so I'm an advocate for religious rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Sure, but I wouldn't say all Conservatives, all Alabamans, all Christians are accountable.  Nor would I look for some rationale proving that Alabamans are deficient.  So it's not "the same with Muslims".  This thread is about starting with individual incidents and tying it back to people related only by religion - implying that religion is the cause of crime.  You could do it with any religion and some people do.

2) I don't know that you are Islamophobic.  I don't identify as a 'leftist' so you're on your own there.  Religions are all ridiculous, but banning them or vilifying them doesn't achieve anything positive.  I have known religious people of pretty much all religions and was raised religious myself so I'm an advocate for religious rights.

1) It is the same with Muslims.  Some would support it, some wouldn't.  What's the difference?  Religion is the cause of the crimes caused by religion. (I don't see a problem with that statement)  Also, If someone sentences you to death for blasphemy, it's not a secular judgement.

2)I'm not Islamophobic so that's good.  I don't like Islam though.  I would never ban any religion.  But I would not afford them any rights other than the right to believe whatever they want, and I'd afford that to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You seemed to agree with Michael that people who point out how awful Islam is are merely trying to make them look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad they actually are.

Look at how you've worded this, you've made no attempt whatsoever to differentiate between Islam and Muslims.  I think its pretty safe to conclude that your thinking is every bit as sloppy and degenerate as as your writing.  I think it's probably just about the most telling Freudian slip I've ever seen.  

Quote

 

As it is then, can one assume you would kill them all too, as you would with other right wingers?

 

You shouldn't assume anything because you probably really suck at doing that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) It is the same with Muslims.  Some would support it, some wouldn't.  What's the difference?  Religion is the cause of the crimes caused by religion. (I don't see a problem with that statement)  Also, If someone sentences you to death for blasphemy, it's not a secular judgement.

2)I'm not Islamophobic so that's good.  I don't like Islam though.  I would never ban any religion.  But I would not afford them any rights other than the right to believe whatever they want, and I'd afford that to anyone.

1) Does the religion cause harm ?  Yes.  The difference is that nobody is starting a thread called "This Week in Alabama".  Or "Black Folks This Week".  The latter example could easily be supported but for some reason people recoil from blaming race for bad behaviour vs religion.

2) People who support scapegoating would be more likely to ban Islam.  They are now banning religious 'garb' in a ham-fisted attempt to appease bigots IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Does the religion cause harm ?  Yes.  The difference is that nobody is starting a thread called "This Week in Alabama".  Or "Black Folks This Week".  The latter example could easily be supported but for some reason people recoil from blaming race for bad behaviour vs religion.

2) People who support scapegoating would be more likely to ban Islam.  They are now banning religious 'garb' in a ham-fisted attempt to appease bigots IMO.

1)What about White Supremacists?  No-one has a problem with blaming race there, but I don't care, because I know they don't mean me.  It's the same with Islam.  Bastards are bastards, no matter what race or religion.  Religion is easier though to blame for stuff though, because with race you have no choice.

2)Yeah, I'm pro choice, so people can wear whatever they say they want to wear.  It doesn't change what the garb is, or what it signifies. 

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Look at how you've worded this, you've made no attempt whatsoever to differentiate between Islam and Muslims.  I think its pretty safe to conclude that your thinking is every bit as sloppy and degenerate as as your writing.  I think it's probably just about the most telling Freudian slip I've ever seen.  

You shouldn't assume anything because you probably really suck at doing that too.

I always thought Muslims were Islamic.  How do you differentiate them?  I just go with good and bad.

It's just that you said something about killing all right wingers in another thread.  I guess there are right wingers, and there are right wingers.  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1)What about White Supremacists?  No-one has a problem with blaming race there,

Saying that Black Panthers were a terrorist organization doesn't accuse all Black people of being terrorists.  Calling out White Supremacists as assholes or racists does not accuse all White people of being assholes or racists.  

I can't believe you needed this explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Saying that Black Panthers were a terrorist organization doesn't accuse all Black people of being terrorists.  Calling out White Supremacists as assholes or racists does not accuse all White people of being assholes or racists.  

I can't believe you needed this explained.

I don't.  Why didn't you read the rest?  Were you so excited at having a point to make you just couldn't finish the sentence?

 

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The latter example could easily be supported but for some reason people recoil from blaming race for bad behaviour vs religion.

It's fine to talk about what people believe in and say they have misinterpreted the religious texts according to their own ends and means. They can be dismissed as apostates.

What I find harder to dismiss is what religious leaders of Islam themselves are saying. These are the shepherds who teach common folk what the obscure words in the holy books actually mean, and how it should be interpreted in a modern context. What are the Ayatollahs and the majority of Imams saying? What is their message to the people? Harsh intolerance pervades Islamic belief, both in the book (as it does in other old books) and in the streets. And it comes from the top level of religious leadership, with good agreement among a majority of theologians. All males, of course. To me it's the misogyny and over-arching patriarchy that is the most problematic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I always thought Muslims were Islamic.  How do you differentiate them?  I just go with good and bad.

It's just that you said something about killing all right wingers in another thread.  I guess there are right wingers, and there are right wingers.  Right?

You said "people who are pointing out how awful Islam is are merely trying to make them look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad they actually are."

Islam is a thing, referred to as it.  Muslims are people, referred to as 'them' or 'they'.  

In effect, you said "people who are pointing out how bad Islam is are merely trying to make Muslims look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad Muslims are."

Which is exactly the issue.  Criticizing Islam should not include 'showing how bad Muslims are'.  Any genuine critic of Islam will condemn acts of violence or depravity carried out under the Islamic banner, but they will not lump all Muslims under that same banner as a matter of course, even as they criticize Islamic teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

You said "people who are pointing out how awful Islam is are merely trying to make them look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad they actually are."

Islam is a thing, referred to as it.  Muslims are people, referred to as 'them' or 'they'.  

In effect, you said "people who are pointing out how bad Islam is are merely trying to make Muslims look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad Muslims are."

Which is exactly the issue.  Criticizing Islam should not include 'showing how bad Muslims are'.  Any genuine critic of Islam will condemn acts of violence or depravity carried out under the Islamic banner, but they will not lump all Muslims under that same banner as a matter of course, even as they criticize Islamic teachings.

It should include showing how bad some Muslims are.  Who the hell is doing all the bad stuff in the name of Islam?  Southern Pentecostals?

Again with the "all".  Is there no other argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...