This week in Islam

[cybercoma]

Does that make Florida Legislators Muslims?

[Michael Hardner]

Does that make Florida Legislators Muslims?

Of course not. It sure is extreme to demand the death sentence for certain types of murder, while exonerating people for other types.

[Argus]

But it's not alright to talk about 'brotherly love in Alabama is it. Demonize all Muslims by labelling them all wife and children beaters and that's politically correct?

If you have some kind of information about rules or regulations in Alabama which permit 'brotherly love' it might make for a reasonable comparison to this, but of course, you don't, so the comparison is, well, stupid.

[Argus]

Let's not pretend this doesn't happen in the West. And the only reason I'm saying that is because you're arguing as if beating your wife is unique to Islam.

Of course it happens in the West! But even you should recognize the enormous strides made towards reigning in spousal violence in the West over the past fifty years. There have been no such strides in communities where they believe their holy books grant them the right to beat their wives and children with impunity. You read the original article, where the lawyer for the Pakistani man is saying wife beating is nearly universal in Pakistan. I believe surveyes have previously been posted which indicated women in Egypt and other Muslim countries believed they would certainly be beaten for a variety of reasons ranging from going out without permission, making a medical appointment without permission, to screwing up dinner. You will find no specialized police units nor laws to reign in spousal violence in the Muslim world, nor police paying any attention to it.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Yes, people who want extreme punishment are extremists.

Then I refer you back to post 16 in this thread. On second thought, I will repost the cite:

As you can see, support for sharia is high throughout the Muslim world, well over 50% in virtually every Muslm country.

Now how does that go with the believe that the vast majority of Muslims are 'moderates' and that 'extremists' constitute only a very, very tiny slice of Muslims?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

[Argus]

Of course not. It sure is extreme to demand the death sentence for certain types of murder, while exonerating people for other types.

How extreme is it to demand the death penalty for murder as compared to the death penalty for blaspheme, apostasy or adultery?

[Michael Hardner]

As you can see, support for sharia is high throughout the Muslim world, well over 50% in virtually every Muslm country.

Now how does that go with the believe that the vast majority of Muslims are 'moderates' and that 'extremists' constitute only a very, very tiny slice of Muslims?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Sure, but the article you posted addresses the point that attitudes are not uniform, even within those that support adopting this law. In any case, will this plodding line of questions cease at some point ? If we agree that there are many in that group that support extremism - what are we to do with that information exactly ?

[Michael Hardner]

How extreme is it to demand the death penalty for murder as compared to the death penalty for blaspheme, apostasy or adultery?

Answer: More extreme.

Are we finished now ?

[cybercoma]

Of course it happens in the West! But even you should recognize the enormous strides made towards reigning in spousal violence in the West over the past fifty years.

Absolutely.

There have been no such strides in communities where they believe their holy books grant them the right to beat their wives and children with impunity.

Except where there is.

Canada's Muslim clerics have banded together to denounce domestic violence, telling their congregations during Friday prayer sessions that there is no honour in killing and that violence against women has no place in Islam . . .

Ariel Salzmann, associate professor of Islamic and world history at Queen's University, described the Qu'ran as an "incredibly progressive document" for its time. While it maintains strongly patriarchal elements common to most religious texts, Salzmann said the Qu'ran enshrines female rights and economic freedoms not seen in Christianity or Judaism.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muslim-leaders-decry-domestic-violence-1.1021377

What rights is he talking about?

Islam came with a message that was revolutionary at the time (610 AD). It uplifted the status of the poor and underprivileged in society. For women, this meant an end to female infanticide - a common practice in Mecca in those days - and claimed equality of the sexes in stature and worship. - See more at: http://muslima.imow.org/content/how-islam-confirms-women%E2%80%99s-rights#sthash.OfVzTYMq.dpuf

You read the original article, where the lawyer for the Pakistani man is saying wife beating is nearly universal in Pakistan. I believe surveyes have previously been posted which indicated women in Egypt and other Muslim countries believed they would certainly be beaten for a variety of reasons ranging from going out without permission, making a medical appointment without permission, to screwing up dinner. You will find no specialized police units nor laws to reign in spousal violence in the Muslim world, nor police paying any attention to it.

And I'm not saying there is no problem with family violence or violence against women in the Muslim world. I'm arguing that it's not about Islam, but about the laws created by Islamic men who control politics and society there. It would be like the Christian Fundamentalists in the United States taking control of the government and passing all of their creationist and misogynistic laws. It wouldn't be their Christianity that's the problem, it would be their interpretation of Christianity and how they use it to oppress others that's the problem. At the same time, there will be many Christians who rightfully think these fundamentalists are insane. Which is the same with Islam. There are many Muslims who are fighting and dying for better governments and politics in their nations. So, I'm saying the problem is the politics in those countries. They have militias entrenched with their political parties. Islam is simply the tool they're using for political aims.

[Argus]

Sure, but the article you posted addresses the point that attitudes are not uniform, even within those that support adopting this law. In any case, will this plodding line of questions cease at some point ? If we agree that there are many in that group that support extremism - what are we to do with that information exactly ?

You make it sound like this 'line of questions' is irrelevent to the topic at hand. Isn't the topic at hand the social and cultural backwardness of the Muslim world? And wasn't the response "oh no, only a tiny fraction of them are extremists."?

So now you appear to be conceding that, actually, a vast number of them, maybe even half or more, are religious extremists by our standards.

It certainly appears that Islam, as practiced in most of the world today, is incompatible with the culture, values and beliefs of a secular western world.

[Argus]

And I'm not saying there is no problem with family violence or violence against women in the Muslim world. I'm arguing that it's not about Islam, but about the laws created by Islamic men who control politics and society there. It would be like the Christian Fundamentalists in the United States taking control of the government and passing all of their creationist and misogynistic laws. It wouldn't be their Christianity that's the problem, it would be their interpretation of Christianity and how they use it to oppress others that's the problem. At the same time, there will be many Christians who rightfully think these fundamentalists are insane. Which is the same with Islam. There are many Muslims who are fighting and dying for better governments and politics in their nations. So, I'm saying the problem is the politics in those countries. They have militias entrenched with their political parties. Islam is simply the tool they're using for political aims.

And yet according to the polls draconion religious based laws are heavily supported throughout the Muslim world. And that's because regardless of whether the 'interpretation' of a religious text is right or wrong, if it is interpreted the same way for some time, especially in a very religiously inclined population, it becomes a part of the culture. The religion thus supports the culture and vice versa. It doesn't matter if the standards were set by 'islamic men' or not. They have become the standards, and throughout the Muslim world women are considered nothing but chattel and a danger to morality. They have few, if any rights, can be beaten with impunity, and are bought and sold during neogitations as in medieval times. When 90% of women in Egypt undergo genital mutilation it isn't just at the insistence of 'islamic men' but of their mothers, who have come to believe this is necessary to restrain their sluttish natures.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

You make it sound like this 'line of questions' is irrelevent to the topic at hand. Isn't the topic at hand the social and cultural backwardness of the Muslim world? And wasn't the response "oh no, only a tiny fraction of them are extremists."?

You raised the question of "why". I guess you're regretting that now, because all you're trying to do is establish the degree of extremism. Perhaps a vast number are extremist - are we going to back to my analogy at some point, or would you like to spend several more days trying to pin down what percentage are extremist ?

It certainly appears that Islam, as practiced in most of the world today, is incompatible with the culture, values and beliefs of a secular western world.

Are you going to propose banning Muslims from Canada soon ?

[Argus]

You raised the question of "why". I guess you're regretting that now, because all you're trying to do is establish the degree of extremism.

No, the entire point I have been making, and which you have been resisting, is that contrary to the repeated mantra of the left, it isn't just a tiny fraction of Muslims who are extremists. It's actually, most of them.

Perhaps a vast number are extremist - are we going to back to my analogy at some point,

Your failed analogy which never had any relevance to the topic at hand? Why bother? You seem to have admitted that, in fact, many, many Muslims are extremists by our standards, not just a tiny fraction after all.

Are you going to propose banning Muslims from Canada soon ?

You can't ban Muslims given they live here. However, given the large number who are extremists I would suggest no more Muslims be permitted to immigrate without rather pointed questions about their religiously inspired cultural attitudes and beliefs. I would also suggest barring any more Saudi money from flowing into Canada to promote their wretchedly extreme version of Islam. No more money for mosquess, Islamic cultural centers, or to pay for Wahabi Imams to come here and preach.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

No, the entire point I have been making...

Your failed analogy...

What a terrible job of listening you have been doing. It's really too bad because you have lost an opportunity to share some understanding and learn something. I could continue to extend my analogy for you, but as far as I can tell you are just closed off and not willing to hear anything that might indicate Muslims should be treated like human beings.

[Argus]

What a terrible job of listening you have been doing. It's really too bad because you have lost an opportunity to share some understanding and learn something. I could continue to extendI my analogy for you, but as far as I can tell you are just closed off and not willing to hear anything that might indicate Muslims should be treated like human beings.

What a terrible job of listening you have been doing. Not that that's surprising. You have always been one of those people afraid to judge groups, regardless of evidence, information or logic. It is almost a religious article of faith to you that all people everywhere are exactly the same, exactly equal in importance, in cultural sophistication, and in their ability and desire to contribute to our society. Even your own hesitant, awkward inability to refute my point about the massive numbers of Muslims who embrace extremist cultural positions cannot shake you from believing we have no right to suspect bringing large numbers of them here might be counter to our society's interests.

Your analogy, which you desperately clung to, was dumb and inapplicable, as I said at the time, and utterly irrelevent.

At best, you hoped it could demonstrate there MIGHT be some other reason why Muslims are so extremist, but it of course, ignored the fact that as a group, the majority of them ARE socially and culturally extreme. My logical suggestion that it might not be in our best interests to bring over hundreds of thousands of people with such beliefs you dismiss as not treating them like humans, which is silly hyperbole, a knee-jerk response to anyone who dares question your belief in cultural relevancy.

[GostHacked]

Argus, at least you don't make over sweeping generalizations.

[Michael Hardner]

What a terrible job of listening you have been doing. Not that that's surprising. You have always been one of those people afraid to judge groups, regardless of evidence, information or logic.

There is no requirement for anybody anywhere to judge anywhere. If you were Christian, perhaps, then you'd understand my aversion to judging.

I have listened and accepted all of the precepts of your argument, but it doesn't at all apply to the jumping off point where you yourself asked "why" a certain religion was involved then refused to engage my analogy, or to try to understand why causative assumptions on groups are flawed.

It is almost a religious article of faith to you that all people everywhere are exactly the same, exactly equal in importance, in cultural sophistication, and in their ability and desire to contribute to our society.

Poor listening again. I didn't say that. Just because I refuse to judge it doesn't mean I deny facts.

Even your own hesitant, awkward inability to refute my point about the massive numbers of Muslims who embrace extremist cultural positions cannot shake you from believing we have no right to suspect bringing large numbers of them here might be counter to our society's interests.

I can accept your submission of a single poll, your assumptions and the numbers without being outraged. I'm sorry, that's my morality and your apparent disappointment with my reaction is your problem not mine.

Your analogy, which you desperately clung to, was dumb and inapplicable, as I said at the time, and utterly irrelevent.

Hmmm. "Dumb". Well, that's quite a retort. At one point you put forward a real retort, which I refuted, then you repeated again... and eventually gave up. I guess the idea that colonialism could have an impact on Africa but not on Muslim countries is just "dumb" then ?

Ok.

And.... you close it out by making another assumption of my belief in 'cultural relevance'...

Can we just call this discussion over ? I don't think there's much more to discuss - agreed ?

[Argus]

There is no requirement for anybody anywhere to judge anywhere. If you were Christian, perhaps, then you'd understand my aversion to judging.

I don't believe when Jesus chased the noneylenders from the temple he was withholding judgement. In fact, the bible is jam packed with judgements. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember Noah? God didn't seem to have an iseue with judging large groups of people.

I have listened and accepted all of the precepts of your argument, but it doesn't at all apply to the jumping off point where you yourself asked "why" a certain religion was involved then refused to engage my analogy, or to try to understand why causative assumptions on groups are flawed.

And what you've continually ignored is that causitive assumptions are more valid the more widely separated the groups are.

Poor listening again. I didn't say that. Just because I refuse to judge it doesn't mean I deny facts.

Some might call refusal to judge despite facts moral cowardice.

Hmmm. "Dumb". Well, that's quite a retort. At one point you put forward a real retort, which I refuted,

Poorly, and dumb was exacty what your analogy was given it utterly failed to take into consideration the vast difference between comparing a focus group in the same geographical area, subject to all the same conditions, to a focus group scattered across the face of the Earth and subject to a wide array of circumstances.

I guess the idea that colonialism could have an impact on Africa but not on Muslim countries is just "dumb" then ?

Again, your analogy ignores that extremism among Muslims is based upon a book written a long time before any Muslim nations were conquered or colonized. Blasphemers, homosexuals and adulterers were executed in the tenth century, in the fifteenth century, in the twentieth century, and today. And somehow that's due to colonialism?

[Argus]

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/

Edited May 27, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe when Jesus chased the noneylenders from the temple he was withholding judgement. In fact, the bible is jam packed with judgements. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember Noah? God didn't seem to have an iseue with judging large groups of people.

Right. Probably not clear to you but God is allowed to judge us. Part of the job, really.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37&version=NKJV;CEV;NIV

Here's Luke 6:27

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

And what you've continually ignored is that causitive assumptions are more valid the more widely separated the groups are.

First time I've heard that assertion so to say I've "continually ignored" it is fantastic.

failed to take into consideration the vast difference between comparing a focus group in the same geographical area

Already addressed.

[Argus]

Here's Luke 6:27

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

If you were a Christian you would probably understand what that means, as opposed to taking it as a literal statement that you should abandon all judgement.

Weren't you going to explain how evil western imperialist colonialism caused Muslims to execute adulterers, homosexuals and blasphemers in the tenth century?

I mean, your whole basis for trying to excuse the Muslim world from its social extremism is colonialism, but that would require showing how colonialism changed those societies. If they didn't change then you have no excuse.

[cybercoma]

You know an explanation is not an excuse, right?

[Michael Hardner]

. If they didn't change then you have no excuse.

You brought coloniism in as an impact on Africa - was Africa changed too or was it held back ? What are the other effects ? I'm interested in these questions as you are ?

[kimmy]

You know an explanation is not an excuse, right?

Leaving aside the question of whether it's an excuse... did we ever get that explanation?

-k

[Argus]

You know an explanation is not an excuse, right?

You know that it doesn't matter, right? If a very sizeable number of Muslims favour an extremist view of culture and values, ie, Islamic laws, and they do, then what does it matter how they got that way? They're extremists. Their religion calls on them to be extremists. Why must we ignore this? Why is it anyone who dares point this out is treated to a variety of excuses and a litany of past 'violence' on the part of western society as if this somehow should cause us to ignore the extremism in Muslim society today?

Are you that comfortable with recruiting Canadian immigrants from a population where 70% feel gays should be executed and women should be wholly owned chattel?

Oh I know, I know, once here they are subject to OUR laws. But in a democracy, individuals and their beliefs have an impact on those laws. The Muslim population in Canada is doubling every ten years. That means their influence on politics and law is going to double every ten years, too.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Argus