Moderate something

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

You are reading into her words what you seem to want to read into them. She is disavowing no one except those who do not follow the teaching of Allah as she sees it.

And you do not know how she sees it.

Pretty sure I understand what she means.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Pretty sure I understand what she means.

Pretty sure you don't.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Argus said:

Pretty sure you don't.

You are more than welcome to elucidate...

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You are more than welcome to elucidate...

You said she is disavowing the 'maniacs' of the company. That is not what she's doing. She is pointing out that if what you term 'maniacs' are just following the rules of the company then there is nothing wrong with what they're doing. The people she is disavowing are those who are ignoring the rules of the company.

Now remember what the rules of the company have to say about Jews, gays, women, blasphemers and apostates. You consider people who follow those rules as 'maniacs' but they are not. They are simply employees of the company. The people the West likes to call 'moderates' would be, to her, people not following the rules of the company, who thus should not be considered employees in good standing.

Remember that in a poll the vast majority of Saudis felt ISIS was following the rules of the company, including executing non believers who would not conform, and taking their women as slaves.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

52 minutes ago, Argus said:

You said she is disavowing the 'maniacs' of the company. That is not what she's doing. She is pointing out that if what you term 'maniacs' are just following the rules of the company then there is nothing wrong with what they're doing. The people she is disavowing are those who are ignoring the rules of the company.

Now remember what the rules of the company have to say about Jews, gays, women, blasphemers and apostates. You consider people who follow those rules as 'maniacs' but they are not. They are simply employees of the company. The people the West likes to call 'moderates' would be, to her, people not following the rules of the company, who thus should not be considered employees in good standing.

Remember that in a poll the vast majority of Saudis felt ISIS was following the rules of the company, including executing non believers who would not conform, and taking their women as slaves.

 

3

She doesn't think violence is part of Islam; she doesn't believe in forced conversion.   Thus, she is most certainly disavowing the 'maniacs' of her religion.    

Also, she's Turkish, not Saudi, so what Saudis think or believe has very little relevance to what she thinks.   Just like you keep claiming that my brother-in-law would kill Jews/gays/blasphemers and apostates and I keep telling you that while he 'disapproves' of those people, he has no desire to see them dead, much less kill them.  As far as he's concerned, Allah will judge them and decide their fate.   Not him.   

Not every Muslim thinks exactly alike, and your continuing claim that they do is simply wrong.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by dialamah

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

She doesn't think violence is part of Islam; she doesn't believe in forced conversion.   Thus, she is most certainly disavowing the 'maniacs' of her religion.   

I disagree. Her position has always been that there is only one Islam. There are not different degrees of Muslim, ie, moderates. You either follow the rules of Islam and are a Muslim or you do not follow the rules of Islam and are not a Muslim. A Muslim does not pick and choose which of the rules they obey any more than the proverbial employee does for the rules of the company. And the rules of Islam, and punishments for violating them, are crystal clear.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

You said she is disavowing the 'maniacs' of the company. That is not what she's doing. She is pointing out that if what you term 'maniacs' are just following the rules of the company then there is nothing wrong with what they're doing. The people she is disavowing are those who are ignoring the rules of the company.

Now remember what the rules of the company have to say about Jews, gays, women, blasphemers and apostates. You consider people who follow those rules as 'maniacs' but they are not. They are simply employees of the company. The people the West likes to call 'moderates' would be, to her, people not following the rules of the company, who thus should not be considered employees in good standing.

Remember that in a poll the vast majority of Saudis felt ISIS was following the rules of the company, including executing non believers who would not conform, and taking their women as slaves.

While I see the problem as clearly as you, I identify it as a cultural problem, not religion. The bible has the same kind of nasty things in it, but our culture has moved beyond literal interpretations of those verses. The ISIS/ Al Qaeda etc. is the backlash from their culture towards modernization.

[Altai]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

While I see the problem as clearly as you, I identify it as a cultural problem, not religion. The bible has the same kind of nasty things in it, but our culture has moved beyond literal interpretations of those verses. The ISIS/ Al Qaeda etc. is the backlash from their culture towards modernization.

Quran so Islam does not have nasty things and its rules are quite clear. So there would be various interpretations if it was not clear enough. Everyone would invent somethings based on their imagine World. 

[dialamah]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

I disagree. Her position has always been that there is only one Islam. There are not different degrees of Muslim, ie, moderates. You either follow the rules of Islam and are a Muslim or you do not follow the rules of Islam and are not a Muslim.

 

Yes, she believes *her* interpretation is the one Islam; those who practice a different interpretation aren't Muslims.   But her "one Islam" doesn't include terrorism - these people are not following the *company* rules and are not Muslim.   Her Islam doesn't practice 'forced' conversion; thus, anyone who does so is not a Muslim.   These are among the maniacs she is disavowing judging by previous comments she's made.   

Some people on here do the same thing as Altai is doing:  declare there is only one "Islam" which they interpret to mean that all Muslims must engage in jihad, kill gays/non-believers/apostates etc.   Muslims who fail to follow those 'rules' aren't true Muslims according to this interpretation.  

Quote

A Muslim does not pick and choose which of the rules they obey any more than the proverbial employee does for the rules of the company. And the rules of Islam, and punishments for violating them, are crystal clear.

 

Of course they do, regardless of what Altai or anyone else claims.   And each person or group is likely to believe they have the 'correct' interpretation and everyone else has the wrong one.    Neither the rules nor the punishments for violating them are crystal clear, else we'd have clone countries in the ME, where every country was exactly like Saudi Arabia or exactly like Tunisia, or exactly like Egypt.  

 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

While I see the problem as clearly as you, I identify it as a cultural problem, not religion. The bible has the same kind of nasty things in it, but our culture has moved beyond literal interpretations of those verses. The ISIS/ Al Qaeda etc. is the backlash from their culture towards modernization.

To a certain extent. However, the same rules and laws, both societal and legal, against gays and in favor of discrimination against women and 'infidels' existed before ISIS and Al Quaeda, in Muslim 'companies' around the world. ISIS and Al Quaeda, like Boko Harem, are all a result of the Wahabi school of Islam the Saudis have been pushing so strenuously for the last twenty or thirty years.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Of course they do, regardless of what Altai or anyone else claims.   And each person or group is likely to believe they have the 'correct' interpretation and everyone else has the wrong one.    Neither the rules nor the punishments for violating them are crystal clear, else we'd have clone countries in the ME, where every country was exactly like Saudi Arabia or exactly like Tunisia, or exactly like Egypt. 

Well, there are about 50 Muslim countries. Which of them do not interpret it to say they must openly and legally discriminate against women, gays and infidels?

[dialamah]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, there are about 50 Muslim countries. Which of them do not interpret it to say they must openly and legally discriminate against women, gays and infidels?

 

 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Iraq (except those parts controlled by the Islamic State), Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Tajikistan, Turkey, West Bank (State of Palestine), most of Indonesia, and in Northern Cyprus. In Albania, Lebanon, and Turkey, there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.^[18][19] Albania, Northern Cyprus and Kosovo also protect LGBT people with anti-discrimination laws.^[108]

1

From https://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/    

 

Quote

 

Pakistan

 

There is no specific statutory law that criminalizes apostasy in Pakistan.  In 2007, a bill to impose the death penalty for apostasy for males and life imprisonment for females was proposed in Parliament but failed to pass.[58]  Nevertheless, some scholars believe that the principle that “a lacuna in the statute law was to be filled with reference to Islamic law”[59] could potentially apply to the crime of apostasy.  

Tunisia

 

Tunisia not only eschews the death penalty for apostasy, but in article 6 of the Tunisian Constitution of 2014 also protects its citizens by preventing any attacks against them based on accusations of apostasy.[

 

1

 

 

 

  Tunisia's article six of their 2014 Constitution:

Quote

 The state is the guardian of religion. It guarantees freedom of conscience and belief, the free exercise of religious practices and the neutrality of mosques and places of worship from all partisan instrumentalisation. The state undertakes to disseminate the values of moderation and tolerance and the protection of the sacred, and the prohibition of all violations thereof. It undertakes equally to prohibit and fight against calls for Takfir (apostasy) and the incitement of violence and hatred.

1

 

Women's rights are more difficult to assess.   There are many Muslim-majority countries that have had female heads of government or state, something the United States and Canada has yet to achieve.  On that measure, Muslim-majority countries are more 'equal' than Western countries.  

But it's also true that in many ways, women are discriminated against in terms of the law or institutions.   There are differences in women's status in each country, but I don't have time to review them all for you. 

 

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Women's rights are more difficult to assess.   There are many Muslim-majority countries that have had female heads of government or state, something the United States and Canada has yet to achieve.  On that measure, Muslim-majority countries are more 'equal' than Western countries.  

Its a stupid measure then, since usually it's a fluke having to do with a party compromise or a male relative.

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

But it's also true that in many ways, women are discriminated against in terms of the law or institutions.   There are differences in women's status in each country, but I don't have time to review them all for you.

None of the countries you list fail to discriminate against gays, infidels and women.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

There are many Muslim-majority countries that have had female heads of government or state, something the United States and Canada has yet to achieve.

What do you mean? Canada has had a female Prime Minister, many members of Parliament, Premiers , Mayors, Governor General... etc.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

None of the countries you list fail to discriminate against gays, infidels and women.

True enough, but you specified "legally".  In the countries mentioned, homosexuality and apostasy is not illegal.  

But whatever.   Those countries still have a long way to go.   Eliminating Islam from government would certainly be a step in the right direction, imo.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What do you mean? Canada has had a female Prime Minister, many members of Parliament, Premiers , Mayors, Governor General... etc.

You are right, I misspoke.  Anyway compared to the way in which women are generally regarded in most of those countries, a few heads of State don't mean much.  

[OftenWrong]

 

7 hours ago, Argus said:

To a certain extent. However, the same rules and laws, both societal and legal, against gays and in favor of discrimination against women and 'infidels' existed before ISIS and Al Quaeda, in Muslim 'companies' around the world. ISIS and Al Quaeda, like Boko Harem, are all a result of the Wahabi school of Islam the Saudis have been pushing so strenuously for the last twenty or thirty years.

I agree. The same rules, attitudes, against gays and discrimination against women existed in Canada just a few decades ago.
Changes to the Criminal Code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences.  Link

This is not given to excuse the behaviour, but to show how we changed culturally, while retaining the same basic religious beliefs. Only the interpretation of certain bible passages was changed, not the passages themselves.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

I agree. The same rules, attitudes, against gays and discrimination against women existed in Canada just a few decades ago.
Changes to the Criminal Code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences.  Link

This is not given to excuse the behaviour, but to show how we changed culturally, while retaining the same basic religious beliefs. Only the interpretation of certain bible passages was changed, not the passages themselves.

The difference being we never had the death penalty for homosexuality, and, of course, it was not blasphemy, punishable by heavy prison sentence or even death, to consider reinterpreting biblical passages. If you try to change the interpretation of the Koran in Muslim countries you are in deep trouble.

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

The difference being we never had the death penalty for homosexuality, and, of course, it was not blasphemy, punishable by heavy prison sentence or even death, to consider reinterpreting biblical passages. If you try to change the interpretation of the Koran in Muslim countries you are in deep trouble.

The church also went through such reforms, a few centuries ago. The link provided is about LGBT history in Canada. The first section reads-
New France's first-ever criminal trial for the crime of homosexuality took place in September 1648, when a military drummer stationed at the French garrison in Ville-Marie, New France was sentenced to the gallows for sodomy by the local Sulpician priests.

This was done in accordance with the laws of the time. Based on the above I think it's fair to say we are a few centuries ahead of some of these places in the world. The implications cannot be overstated.

[OftenWrong]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You are right, I misspoke.  Anyway compared to the way in which women are generally regarded in most of those countries, a few heads of State don't mean much.  

No worries. You don't need to go very far back in time to find western state-sanctioned misogyny.