Does Islam need a Country?

[theloniusfleabag]

A few, I think, pertinent questions.

Does Islam have the right to declare borders, and within those borders, laws, based on religious text?

Apart from some involvement in the '9/11' terrorist attcks, did the West have justification of the invasion of Afghanistan because Islam (and shari'a law) was repressive and oppressive? If so, is that akin do declaring war on the values and laws of Islam?

Is the West saying that "There will never be another country that is run by 'your' religion?"

Would the unopposed 'self-determination' of Islam (the 'un-Western infuenced' overthrow of the Saud regime, for example, or the allowance of Afghanistan to be governed by Islamic law rather than democracy) help end the abrasion between the West, Israel and Islam?

Or is there a need to declare war outright on Islam?

[caesar]

Who is the "West" This is not an east west issue. We don't stand with the Americans on their invasions when unprovoked and without cause as in Iraq.

[Argus]

A few, I think, pertinent questions.

Does Islam have the right to declare borders, and within those borders, laws, based on religious text?

Apart from some involvement in the '9/11' terrorist attcks, did the West have justification of the invasion of Afghanistan because Islam (and shari'a law) was repressive and oppressive? If so, is that akin do declaring war on the values and laws of Islam?

Is the West saying that "There will never be another country that is run by 'your' religion?"

Would the unopposed 'self-determination' of Islam (the 'un-Western infuenced' overthrow of the Saud regime, for example, or the allowance of Afghanistan to be governed by Islamic law rather than democracy) help end the abrasion between the West, Israel and Islam?

Or is there a need to declare war outright on Islam?

The fundamentals of Islam as interpreted by Islamists (sharia law, etc.) are so thoroughly repugnant to the western ideals of tolerance, fairness and human rights that I cannot see how we could ever simply ignore the brutality and viciousness of those practicing them.

We could say, for example, that it's Iran's business to torture and execute little girls for "immorality", but as humans can we really put our emotions aside to that extent? At the very least we would have to express our disgust and contempt for such a regime, and, if that regime enjoyed widespread public support, at the culture which spawned it. Nor could we not express our sympathies for its victims and to those who oppose that system.

They, being religious wackos, would regard us as enemies for that, and Muslim wackos tend to express themselves violently towards those they regard as enemies (everyone, basically).

That, of course, leaves aside the oil factor. I think it is perfectly legitimate of the West to say that our interest in oil is so important we have the right to take action to defend them. If a "Muslim" regime tried to use oil to extort us into cooperation or silence that could well bring a military response. And I don't think it would be wrong to say such a response would be entirely correct.

[caesar]

The fundamentals of Islam as interpreted by Islamists (sharia law, etc.) are so thoroughly repugnant to the western ideals of tolerance, fairness and human rights that I cannot see how we could ever simply ignore the brutality and viciousness of those practicing them.

Really, our western ideals are not all they are cracked up to be and only lip service paid. Remember the Blacks in the USA only got the vote around 40 years ago. Plus segregated schools and not allowed to enter most "white establishments" GWB has removed a lot of democratics rights and personal privacy. Let's not get on a soapbox and preach about other countries until we can stand proudly and be assured that we are doing right ourselves.

The Americans torturing prisoners in Iraq and Cuba sure shows that the USA has a long way to go before it can preach to others.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Great questions theloniusfleabag. I see two aspects to an answer.

Institutionally, the states of the 'Islamic World', are bound by international law. As long as in pressing our cultural values 'the west' utilizes int'l law and obeys it, it may assure itself it is doing 'the right thing'. (This is why Bushco's trashing of international norms and institutions is so counterproductive and dangerous.)

Philosophically, the question is (how) can we accomodate western missionary-liberalism with different claims to legitimacy or sovereignty. I'm not sure we can. I'm not sure we should. But I suppose the method would be to appeal to common values and act with integrity.

[Argus]

The fundamentals of Islam as interpreted by Islamists (sharia law, etc.) are so thoroughly repugnant to the western ideals of tolerance, fairness and human rights that I cannot see how we could ever simply ignore the brutality and viciousness of those practicing them.

Really, our western ideals are not all they are cracked up to be and only lip service paid. Remember the Blacks in the USA only got the vote around 40 years ago. Plus segregated schools and not allowed to enter most "white establishments"

I'm sorry, but history lessons don't interest me at this point. What the Americans were doing a generation ago is not relevent in comparison to what the likes of North Korea and Iran are doing TODAY.

  GWB has removed a lot of democratics rights and personal privacy.  Let's not get on a soapbox and preach about other countries until we can stand proudly and be assured that we are doing right ourselves.

I have no doubt whatsoever we have every right to that soap box in comparison to filth like the Iranian and North Korean governments. How could anyone sane think otherwise?

The Americans torturing prisoners in Iraq and Cuba sure shows that the USA has a long way to go before it can preach to others.

There is torture and then there is TORTURE. US torture seems to make people uncomfortable and embarrass them. The torture practiced by many Muslim, Asian and African countries rips peoples eyes out and shoves red hot pokers up their anuses. So do tell me why the only torture that concerns you is the type the Americans occasionally conduct.

[Argus]

Great questions theloniusfleabag. I see two aspects to an answer.

Institutionally, the states of the 'Islamic World', are bound by international law. As long as in pressing our cultural values 'the west' utilizes int'l law and obeys it, it may assure itself it is doing 'the right thing'.

Well there is nothing in "international law" which says we have to recognize the government of Iran - or North Korea, nor recognize their documents, nor trade with them.

[ceemes]

Why would Islam need a country? Islam is a religion and not a "people". Muslim's like Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Doaist, Hindu's or whatever come in all shapes, sizes and colours. Personnally I know a few white Muslim's and Hindu's and recently I met an Arabic Christian.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the fastest growing. If the growth trend of Islam continues, and there seems to be no reason it shouldn't, then Islam is expected to become THE MOST POPULAR religion in the world by the middle of this century.

Here is an interesting site with tables of religions, their numbers and growth rates. It also explains what each religion is about, their core beliefs, rites and whatever.......suggest those who rail against all Muslim's and Islam pay it a visit and educate yourselfs.......

Link to God, whoever or whatever he or she maybe.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ceemes,

Why would Islam need a country? Islam is a religion and not a "people". Muslim's like Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Doaist, Hindu's or whatever come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

Then why does Israel need a country? This is why I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-jew. I dislike the notion of borders based on religion.

However, the Ottoman Empire, Islam's 'greatest achievement, was dismantled by force by the British. There are those in Islam who seek to have a nation ruled by the laws and culture of Islam alone, most notably Osama Bin Laden and the 'Arabic Peninsula'. The only trouble with that, it seems, is the vast amount of oil there.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well there is nothing in "international law" which says we have to recognize the government of Iran - or North Korea, ...

Actually, both Iran and North Korea are recognized sovereign states in international law.

[Argus]

Well there is nothing in "international law" which says we have to recognize the government of Iran - or North Korea, ...

Actually, both Iran and North Korea are recognized sovereign states in international law.

So we renounce our recognition and withdraw because of their foul human rights abuses and their illegitimacy. Announce we want nothing further to do with them and won't even recognize passports issued by those governments. I doubt the NK will care, but it would sting the self righeous mullahs of Iran and might have some comforting affect to the opposition there.

[Argus]

Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the fastest growing. If the growth trend of Islam continues, and there seems to be no reason it shouldn't, then Islam is expected to become THE MOST POPULAR religion in the world by the middle of this century.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I find it distressing. The problem with Islam as opposed to Christianity is that Christ was not a ruler, merely a preacher. He gives lessons on how to rule ones life. Mohamed was a ruler, and so the Koran gives lessons on how to rule nations. There is no room for the concept of a secular state in Islam and few Muslims today would want one.

So the difference between them and us is fundamental. We will never understand people who choose to have their entire existence guided by an ancient book, especially a book which has not been officially reinterpreted for half an eon. I mean, at least the RC Church makes changes to their doctrine from time to time. Otherwise all their sermons would still be delivered in Latin and they'd still be executing people for heresy.

The Muslims _still_ imprison and execute people for heresy and immorality!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Announce we want nothing further to do with them and won't even recognize passports issued by those governments. I doubt the NK will care, but it would sting the self righeous mullahs of Iran and might have some comforting affect to the opposition there.

There are indeed a range of ways Canada could take a 'harder line' against any state or regime. Engagement or disengagement is a careful game, not free of self-interested motivations. If there's money to be made in Libya, why shouldn't it be us who make it?

[Argus]

There are indeed a range of ways Canada could take a 'harder line' against any state or regime. Engagement or disengagement is a careful game, not free of self-interested motivations. If there's money to be made in Libya, why shouldn't it be us who make it?

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved?

[August1991]

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved?

Buy them then hire them to pay back the cost of their freedom. It would probably work out cheaper.

But seriously, Argus, the issue would be how to stop "slavery" - people forced to do something against their will when there is a better, forbidden alternative.

In the case of Islamofascists, in addition we face a threat.

I'm not certain that stopping trade with the slaves will free them or hurt the slaveowner.

Two recent examples of "slavery" are South Africa and the Soviet Union. Your guess is as good as mine if the West helped overturn these regimes.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved?

'We' are involved. A manager for a factory making goods for JC Penny was recently fined $10,000 for his involvement in slavery. Then there is China, the US' (and Canada's) most favoured trading partner. A few big name shoe manufacturers have been known to use 'sweatshops and slavery' to increase profits. There are no labour or environmental laws in China, so tremendous savings can be had.

[PocketRocket]

I'm sorry, but history lessons don't interest me at this point. What the Americans were doing a generation ago is not relevent in comparison to what the likes of North Korea and Iran are doing TODAY. 

Ever hear the saying "Those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it"???

What Americans were doing a generation ago is supremely important.

Scratch off the fresh paint, and you still find the same old wood beneath.

I have no doubt whatsoever we have every right to that soap box in comparison to filth like the Iranian and North Korean governments. How could anyone sane think otherwise?

Good question....

There is torture and then there is TORTURE. US torture seems to make people uncomfortable and embarrass them. The torture practiced by many Muslim, Asian and African countries rips peoples eyes out and shoves red hot pokers up their anuses. So do tell me why the only torture that concerns you is the type the Americans occasionally conduct.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to torture, because the other side uses techniques of torture that are far worse than what the Americans have done???

That's like saying "Beating someone up isn't so bad, because there are guys out there who actually murder people".

And therein lies the answer to your previous question; we have no right to stand on the soapbox because by your very post you have just stated that the difference between us and them is only a matter of degrees of severity.

[August1991]

A manager for a factory making goods for JC Penny was recently fined $10,000 for his involvement in slavery.

Isn't this getting getting close to a "friend of my brother-in-law's uncle said that he heard about a guy who..."?

Do you have a link? Evidence? What's the story?

That's like saying "Beating someone up isn't so bad, because there are guys out there who actually murder people".

Do you think it's OK to beat someone up if that person is threatening to murder you?

[caesar]

There is torture and then there is TORTURE. US torture seems to make people uncomfortable and embarrass them. The torture practiced by many Muslim, Asian and African countries rips peoples eyes out and shoves red hot pokers up their anuses. So do tell me why the only torture that concerns you is the type the Americans occasionally conduct.

American torture is NOT occasion and many have died from this torture. I do expect more from our formerly law abiding civillized southern neighbour. No make that used to expect better. The Americans were also holding children a Guatanama against international law.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE 

A manager for a factory making goods for JC Penny was recently fined $10,000 for his involvement in slavery. 

Isn't this getting getting close to a "friend of my brother-in-law's uncle said that he heard about a guy who..."?

Do you have a link? Evidence? What's the story?

I hope the link works for you, but it is not the original source I read. Originally, I had read that some workers were offered jobs in factories, and when they boarded the ship, they were basically locked up and sold to the factory.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf...07/samoa.labor/

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved?

'We' are involved. A manager for a factory making goods for JC Penny was recently fined $10,000 for his involvement in slavery. Then there is China, the US' (and Canada's) most favoured trading partner. A few big name shoe manufacturers have been known to use 'sweatshops and slavery' to increase profits. There are no labour or environmental laws in China, so tremendous savings can be had.

Then we should stop importing Chinese goods. I've tried to avoid buying goods produced in China, but it's becoming almost impossible. It seems like something around ninety five percent of our clothes and shoes, just to begin with, come from China. Maybe if we'd refuse to buy from them they'd stop using slave labour.

[Argus]

I'm sorry, but history lessons don't interest me at this point. What the Americans were doing a generation ago is not relevent in comparison to what the likes of North Korea and Iran are doing TODAY. 

Ever hear the saying "Those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it"???

Yes, it's a very trite expression and not in the least applicable here.

What Americans were doing a generation ago is supremely important. Scratch off the fresh paint, and you still find the same old wood beneath.

It seems supremely illogical to compare how America was a generation ago to how China is today. If you want to be fair, why not compare how America was a generation ago to how China was a generation ago, when Mao's cultural revolution was in full swing and people were being executed for being too "intellectual"?

There is torture and then there is TORTURE. US torture seems to make people uncomfortable and embarrass them. The torture practiced by many Muslim, Asian and African countries rips peoples eyes out and shoves red hot pokers up their anuses. So do tell me why the only torture that concerns you is the type the Americans occasionally conduct.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to torture, because the other side uses techniques of torture that are far worse than what the Americans have done???

I'm saying American torure, from what I have seen, is a fairly minimal thing in comparison to what the rest of the world is doing. Therefore the hysteria and accusations against Americans seem fairly strange to me if they are based on a concern for human rights. I suspect, however, they are based more on a dislike of the American government than any care or concern for human rights. Else the same people criticising the Americans would be spending far, far more time criticising the Chinese and North Koreans and others.

And therein lies the answer to your previous question; we have no right to stand on the soapbox because by your very post you have just stated that the difference between us and them is only a matter of degrees of severity.

Don't be silly. Everything in life is a matter of degrees. Would your girlfriend mind if you kissed another woman goodbye? How about if you had sex with her instead? Hey, it's only a matter of degrees!

We put people in jail for embezzlement. The Chinese execute them. Hey, it's only a matter of degrees! I give money to the poor, so I'm about the same as Mother Theresa, right? It's ony a matter of degrees!

I'm reminded of an old joke. A man asked a woman if she'd have sex with him for a million dollars. She agreed. Then he asked her if she'd do it for ten dollars. What kind of a woman do you think I am, she demanded. We've already established that, he said. Now we're just dickering over the price.

[Guest eureka]

That was Shaw and he offered pounds not dollars to a woman at a dinner party. there is a difference in dollars and pounds - the first currency has more blood on it of late but it is only a matter of degrees, of course.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Then we should stop importing Chinese goods. I've tried to avoid buying goods produced in China, but it's becoming almost impossible. It seems like something around ninety five percent of our clothes and shoes, just to begin with, come from China. Maybe if we'd refuse to buy from them they'd stop using slave labour.

Indeed, I would like to agree with you. Some argue that the poor labourers in China would suffer worse if we didn't buy their goods. For others, it is what makes the world go round. If companies such as Nike, or JC Penny didn't use every effort to maximize profit, people might stop investing. Tiger Woods depends on that money.

Besides, the cost of a pair of shoes would skyrocket, when Nike marks them up some 5,000% or more above manufacturing costs, to give Tiger Woods his fair share. It is why jogging shoes are not made in the USA anymore.

[August1991]

Dear Thelonious,

Your CNN article/link above has this quote:

The department's report, dated December 13, has only just come to light and found that Korean contractor Daewoosa had made virtual slaves of its workers, most of whom were imported from Vietnam.

Does this mean the workers were kidnapped in Vietnam and forcibly transported to US Samoa?

She said she had personally handled the transfer of funds that would pay for the workers' salaries, and that they were being paid $2.60 an hour as dictated by Samoan labor law.

What's the minimum wage in Vietnam?

----

Thelonious, I don't mean to quibble about specific cases but the world has many idiotic regimes that impoverish ordinary people. When those ordinary people try to escape impoverishment, people in rich countries point to exploitation, or some such.

I'm still curious to know why Argus tries to avoid buying Chinese made goods. Is it because Argus wants to keep trade in "the Western family"? Does Argus want to punish Chinese dictators? (Does it hurt Bush if we don't buy Microsoft products?) Or does Argus simply dislike people in China?

Argus is only one shopper among millions. And I have noticed that most shoppers at Walmart don't look at tags of origin. Market relations have the advantage of anonymity. They are like a secret ballot, where voters indicate not an X, but a number on a scale, everyday.

If people buy Chinese products, they're voting in the best democratic way possible.