Explaining Sharia Law

[On Guard for Thee]

Has anyone here ever worked in a Muslim country I wonder. And I mean a serious one like Afg. or Iraq.

[Mighty AC]

And I still don't intend to read his book!

Then your mischaracterizations of his message are of little value.

Regarding his solving of the is/ought problem....or more accurately that science will discover enough facts to arrive at answers to moral questions, it was probably this TED lecture that I watched, and...well...I don't agree with his scientism

Really? I find the message that there are right or wrong answers to how humans can flourish to be bang on.

[Argus]

The Dark Ages, are, by definition, the period of history immediately following the fall of Rome. But Islam didn't come into existence until ~150 years after the fall of Rome.

And destroyed Byzantium Rome.

[Bonam]

And destroyed Byzantium Rome.

True, Byzantium was overrun by the Ottomans, some 1000 years later in the 15th century. But that was well after the end of what we call the dark ages, in the beginning of the Renaissance. Throughout much of the intervening period (from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance), the Islamic world was actually more advanced culturally and scientifically than Europe, and was responsible for preserving much of the knowledge of antiquity that played a significant part in the Renaissance revival. Concurrent with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, Islamic civilization declined in what we call the Fragmentation, amid a resurgence of fundamentalism even as Europe was casting off the shackles of fundamentalist religion. This decline is attributed in part to the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Look, I agree with you regarding the problems with Islam today. But that doesn't mean we have to throw away correct historical perspective, or try to paint Islamic civilization through history with a worse brush than it deserves. It is no different than the revisionists who want to demonize every aspect of the history of European powers so that it can all conform to their religion of white guilt.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Bonam

[Big Guy]

Why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

[eyeball]

Look, I agree with you regarding the problems with Islam today. But that doesn't mean we have to throw away correct historical perspective, or try to paint Islamic civilization through history with a worse brush than it deserves. It is no different than the revisionists who want to demonize every aspect of the history of European powers so that it can all conform to their religion of white guilt.

Not every aspect and certainly not just European powers. More than enough has happened just within living memory to paint everyone with a deep layer of shit and corruption. The only reason the distant past gets dragged into this debate, if you can even call it that, is because your side steadfastly insists on editing out and completely ignoring much of the history that's been created within living memory. You even provided an example of what I'm talking about by leaving out any mention of non-European powers in the above statement. It's such a bad habit it's like a second nature.

Sure you drill for the nerve long enough and you might get some grudging admission of a few mistakes immediately followed by a big great "but but but we had no choice" and a bunch of other utterly unprincipled mealy mouth justifications. Try running those by a Truth and Reconciliation process and the representatives of entire populations of people's that were victimized and see where they get you. You'll have your chance to compare and account for all the suffering and victimization our side has endured too.

Religion of white guilt...that has got to be the single-most stupidest rebuttal your side comes up with. And you're a rocket scientist? No way.

Edited February 2, 2015 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....Religion of white guilt...that has got to be the single-most stupidest rebuttal your side comes up with. And you're a rocket scientist? No way.

Actually...it was spot on. If "living memory" is your only relevant domain, when do First Nations get the land and resources back ?

[Bonam]

More than enough has happened just within living memory to paint everyone with a deep layer of shit and corruption.

Correct.

The only reason the distant past gets dragged into this debate, if you can even call it that, is because your side steadfastly insists on editing out and completely ignoring much of the history that's been created within living memory. You even provided an example of what I'm talking about by leaving out any mention of non-European powers in the above statement. It's such a bad habit it's like a second nature.

What would you have liked to have seen said regarding non-European powers in the above statement? Also, what side am I supposedly on? The only side I see myself as on is the side of reason. Which is the side everyone should be on, but sadly aren't.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Bonam

[eyeball]

If "living memory" is your only relevant domain, when do First Nations get the land and resources back ?

When? They already did where I live, following a Truth, Reconciliation and Treaty process.

[bush_cheney2004]

When? They already did where I live, following a Truth, Reconciliation and Treaty process.

Sure they did...just like the occupation, exploitation, raping, and pillaging never even happened. No wonder you feel so good about where you live and judge the rest of the world with such moral authority.

[eyeball]

What would you have liked to have seen said regarding non-European powers in the above statement?

North American, Australian, Russian and Asian powers are completely absent from it. I suppose next you'll be characterizing me as having a Yellow man guilt complex - do you think that might stem from my having an Asian grand-daughter?

Also, what side am I supposedly on? The only side I see myself as on is the side of reason.

The Coalition's fanatics, I'm quite certain Islam's fanatics see themselves as being rational too.

Which is the side everyone should be on, but sadly aren't.

The Earth's.

[eyeball]

Sure they did...just like the occupation, exploitation, raping, and pillaging never even happened.

It definitely happened, as was documented in the Reconciliation and reflected in the Treaty.

No wonder you feel so good about where you live and judge the rest of the world with such moral authority.

You're right it does feel good, really good.

[bush_cheney2004]

It definitely happened, as was documented in the Reconciliation and reflected in the Treaty.

Then why are you still there ? Does this mean Americans can stay in the Middle East with your approval ?

As for any BC treaties, getting a measly 8% of your land back is a frickin' joke....errr.....I mean "white liberal guilt".

Edited February 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

North American, Australian, Russian and Asian powers are completely absent from it.

I apologize that my one paragraph post in reply to a specific comment by another poster did not include a complete analysis of the historical roles and actions of all world powers over the last several centuries.

[eyeball]

Then why are you still there ?

I've made peace with my neighbours and have their blessing.

Does this mean Americans can stay in the Middle East with your approval ?

No, with the ME's

[bush_cheney2004]

I've made peace with my neighbours and have their blessing.

And some blessing it is....but they don't have much choice.

As for any BC treaties, getting a measly 8% of your land back is a frickin' joke....errr.....I mean "white liberal guilt".

[bush_cheney2004]

I apologize that my one paragraph post in reply to a specific comment by another poster did not include a complete analysis of the historical roles and actions of all world powers over the last several centuries.

Shame on you for also not including all Federation planets !

[eyeball]

I apologize that my one paragraph post in reply to a specific comment by another poster did not include a complete analysis of the historical roles and actions of all world powers over the last several centuries.

See there it is again, I point out the far far more relevant historical roles and actions of the world powers in living memory and you perform your usual time-jump back to ancient history. You guys move around like hummingbirds on crack.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm pretty sure that Sharia Law goes back further than "living memory". Be careful or you will lose rants about the 1953 coup in Iran because it is fading out of "living memory".

[WIP]

For the purpose of discussion, we can consider I mean the period over the last thousand or so years. The Europeans were no more barbarous than the nation states or empires throughout the world, all of whom would have done the same conquering had they the opportunity and means to do so. The Muslims certainly did it to the Europeans when they had the chance. India and China were filled with wars. Slavery was commonplace everywhere, from Asia to to Africa to America well before the rise of European power.

I suppose historians and ethicists from a variety of backgrounds will argue the point for as long as there are people living on Earth; but for me, what sets the European empires apart from earlier Muslim and Chinese empires that had expanded their reach, was a clear, thought out argument that they were racially superior to the natives of all lands they explored and conquered, even if the natives converted to Catholicism.

At first, when Spain began expanding on the gains acquired by Columbus Expeditions, they even argued whether or not the natives they found were even human and had "souls," let alone be worthy of conversion! Even if they converted, they were still relegated to lives of slavery that were worse than slavery practiced in the Arab World and elsewhere, because...regardless of what stories you can find about the brutalization of slaves in Africa and the ME compared to the Americas, NOBODY practiced eugenics prior to the American experiment - which began informally with large plantation owners selectively breeding slaves they owned for a variety of desired characteristics...just as they did with their pigs, sheep, cattle, chickens etc.!

Racism in the Muslim World certainly was not institutionalized as it was in the Americas, otherwise we wouldn't see so many Arabians with obvious levels of African traits. Slavery was an institution closer to indentured servitude/not generational breeding of a population with no human rights and closer in status to domestic animals than people!

Another prior empire that had every capability that Europe had - to go global, was the Chinese Empire of the middle ages. It's worthy to note that until around the year 1500, when an Emperor banned the construction of large, ocean-going junks....declaring them to be in violation of Confucian principles, Chinese explorers had sailed throughout the Indian Ocean, and it's still being argued today, how far west into the Pacific they traveled. Nevertheless, they established trade routes, embassies, but NOT colonies, as they expanded abroad.

So, something set the Euros apart from previous empire-builders. Let's not forget that by the early 1700's, Thomas Malthus was noting (mostly from the English example) that populations expand exponentially and eventually outstrip food supply. After the dieoff caused by the second Bubonic Plague, European populations were expanding rapidly...in England, they were running out of trees within miles of cities and towns prior to the advent of coal furnaces. So, there may have been an incentive caused by overcrowding and food shortages to drive foreign conquests.

But, I believe the big reason goes right back to the common Euro notion of superiority...even during the times when they had nothing to brag about. Being non-christian meant being unsaved, but being dark carried the added indictment of being likely a descendent of Ham....Noah's cursed third son. David Duke was still mentioning it back in the 70's when he could get on mainstream radio and TV; and that dogma began as a legitimization for permanently enslaving darker races, and was a continued touchstone all the way through the years of segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, and voting rights restrictions.

Up until recent decades, there was virtually no such a phenomena as liberal critics of Euro and later - American Exceptionalism. And, once there were liberal criticisms of these toxic attitudes, it didn't take long for a conservative reactionary blowback to try to push things back in the other direction!

So, in the final analysis - YES, I do think there was something different about the European Conquest. It combined an increasing decline in food and resources at home, with a religious tradition that viewed nature as something separate from God and placed the Creation beneath man....supposedly the pinnacle of God's Creation! Along with an attitude that darker peoples are also there to be exploited and likely not even fully human, and the age of Colonization and "enlightenment" was a disaster for most of the rest of the world, and may seal all our fates eventually also! Because the concept of progress we have today, with our equal and almost completely unchallenged faiths in capitalism and technological progress are using up the Planet's capacity to recycle wastes and maintain necessary balance to support all aerobic living organisms, all at a faster and faster rate of destruction. Now that the rest of the world has adopted (by coercion) our version of capitalist progress, fears about Muslim invasions and sharia law look laughably insignificant!

[WIP]

Then your mischaracterizations of his message are of little value.

Really? I find the message that there are right or wrong answers to how humans can flourish to be bang on.

From the way you worded that response, I'm not sure whether it means you agree with me or believe that facts alone provide the answers to all moral quandaries.

[Mighty AC]

From the way you worded that response, I'm not sure whether it means you agree with me or believe that facts alone provide the answers to all moral quandaries.

Harris mentioned there will be many peaks and valleys on the moral landscape, so it's not like he's saying there is one right answer to every ethical question. Similarly, I believe that facts can help guide us towards universal morals based on human well-being. Thus science should not be removed from ought questions, instead it can provide the facts that help answer them.

[WIP]

Harris mentioned there will be many peaks and valleys on the moral landscape, so it's not like he's saying there is one right answer to every ethical question. Similarly, I believe that facts can help guide us towards universal morals based on human well-being. Thus science should not be removed from ought questions, instead it can provide the facts that help answer them.

I agree that facts are an essential guide regarding moral questions, and regarding Harris's lecture, I got the impression that he saw future progress leading towards a narrowing of those possible right answers.

[Mighty AC]

I agree that facts are an essential guide regarding moral questions, and regarding Harris's lecture, I got the impression that he saw future progress leading towards a narrowing of those possible right answers.

He refers to the many peaks several times and even had a fancy graphic showing them. My take is that he sees future progress leading from the valleys towards the many peaks with facts gradually replacing mysticism as a guide.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mighty AC

[-1=e^ipi]

I suppose historians and ethicists from a variety of backgrounds will argue the point for as long as there are people living on Earth; but for me, what sets the European empires apart from earlier Muslim and Chinese empires that had expanded their reach, was a clear, thought out argument that they were racially superior to the natives

Really? So Han Supremacism and Sinocentrism do not exist? Perhaps you should ask historians in Korea, Vietnam or Tibet.

As for 'muslim empires' it was more about muslim supremacism rather than racial supremacism. That is why non-muslims had to pay the jizya, could not build places of worship taller than nearby mosques, could only upgrade places of worship with permission of the Caliphate, muslim men could marry non-muslim women (and the children would become defined as muslim by the state) but non-muslim men could not marry muslim women, non-muslims could be slaves but muslims could not, and people were killed for converting away from islam but not killed for converting to islam.

Racism in the Muslim World certainly was not institutionalized as it was in the Americas, otherwise we wouldn't see so many Arabians with obvious levels of African traits.

What does this even mean? Which group of people are you referring to as 'Arabs' and which 'African traits' do they have? Are you referring to Egyptians, who are both Arabs and Africans?

Nevertheless, they established trade routes, embassies, but NOT colonies, as they expanded abroad.

No colonies? Ever heard of Korea, Manchuria, Vietnam, Tibet, Southern China (which wasn't originally han), Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia, or Taiwan?

Let's not forget that by the early 1700's, Thomas Malthus was noting (mostly from the English example) that populations expand exponentially and eventually outstrip food supply.

Malthus' predictions have been falsified.

So, there may have been an incentive caused by overcrowding and food shortages to drive foreign conquests.

Or maybe population increases were the result of increases in technology allowing more people to live in the same area and the desire for conquest was always there as it had been for thousands of years across many cultures.

Up until recent decades, there was virtually no such a phenomena as liberal critics of Euro and later - American Exceptionalism.

Yes. And now 'progressivism' is the dominant ideology that has completely infected the politics, education system, media and everything in Western Countries (with very few exceptions such as the US south).

It combined an increasing decline in food and resources at home

This statement goes completely against empirical evidence. Economic resources per capita was higher for Europeans at times of colonialism than times prior to that and also compared to other countries.