2.5 Million Muslims Threaten to Quit Facebook on July 21

[lxskllr]

Regarding Sharia law, I'd compare that to literal v. figurative reading of the Bible. Just like there are some who maintain the Bible to be absolutely 100% factual, despite evidence to the contrary, there are some who maintain Sharia law is the absolute law that must be imposed on everyone. But just like there are some Christians who read the Bible and interpret a good chunk metaphorically, I know plenty of Muslims who don't feel the Qu'ran is 100% right in the modern world. If we go for a literal reading of the Bible,you should take your disobedient children outside your village and stone them to death, but nobody really does that these days. If you tried to use the bad passages from the Bible to discredit the whole book, most people would probably laugh at you. The Qu'ran should be treated the same.

Is it the infallible word of God, or just a bunch of fairy tales? If it's the word of God, then a literal translation's the only one possible. If it isn't the word of God, why read it in the first place?

[Simplysnus]

It's worked before, that's why the whining...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-page-removed/

[sgreger1]

Well, dog, I must have read from bad sources, but I could have sworn that was the primary way a good deal was lost, and that it was more than just Aristotle's works. Still, since I couldn't be arsed to google long enough, I'm deferring to you on this one. I would still argue that we owe a great deal to Muslim scholars, with some great advances like algebra and a number of medical treatises coming out of the Middle East around the time of the Crusades, when Europe was slowing down on the whole science thing. Europeans didn't come to a full stop during the Middle Ages, but the Arab world began to vastly outpace us in a number of fields for a while.

Regarding Sharia law, I'd compare that to literal v. figurative reading of the Bible. Just like there are some who maintain the Bible to be absolutely 100% factual, despite evidence to the contrary, there are some who maintain Sharia law is the absolute law that must be imposed on everyone. But just like there are some Christians who read the Bible and interpret a good chunk metaphorically, I know plenty of Muslims who don't feel the Qu'ran is 100% right in the modern world. If we go for a literal reading of the Bible,you should take your disobedient children outside your village and stone them to death, but nobody really does that these days. If you tried to use the bad passages from the Bible to discredit the whole book, most people would probably laugh at you. The Qu'ran should be treated the same.

All correct, but the difference is that we are referring to contemporary times and not a thousand years ago.
If you can stay in the present with me for a moment, let’s take a look at just a few of the countries that currently practice sharia law as the official law of the land:

Iran
Pakistan
Saudi Arabi
Nigeria
Sudan
Iraq (prior to 2003)
Egypt


Now lets take the number of countries that currently practice Christian biblical law as the law of the land:



Notice the difference between the two lists. The thing is that all over the world, (both in countries who practice sharia law as well as those who utilize a duel system of sharia law and some other law) Muslims are STILL doing the things you listed above. Marrying 10 year olds, then stoning them to death for adultery, allowing the beating of ones wife, forced honor killings, executions of homosexuals etc. These people are no different in any way from those who utilize forced genital mutilation of women in African nations.

The difference Shikitohno, between what you are talking about and what we are talking about, is that the backwards shit you say everyone would laugh at in Christianity today are ACTUALLY happening in other countries.


Once Muslims begin to treat all humans equal, stop murdering people solely based on gender or sexual orientation,
start recognizing even the most basic of human rights, stop human slavery etc, maybe than perhaps we can start thinking more about the moderates. Right now only the extremists are guilty of terrorism, but the moderates and most Muslims (at least in Muslim countries that will allow it) have no love of freedom, human life, or the simple concepts of not killing someone based on their being a woman or personal life choices.

We talk about a police state in America, but muslim countries inhibit freedom on a level which no American can fathom. Imagine being a woman and being valued as less than a cow (and treated even more poorly), imagine being murdered for being gay, imagine someone coming to your house and brutally murdering your entire family infront of you for shaving your beard, imagine a country where religious myths of a thousand years ago dictate the actual law the courts will uphold.


Please, Roo and Shikitohno, explain to me why you have such disdain for Christians, who for the most part gave up these silly barbarian ways of life long ago, and instead praise the Muslims for the things I’ve listed above. I just thank God that places like America and Europe exist where humans can at least attempt to get along despite their differences, because in many countries in the middle east, no such reality exists.

[Snusdog]

I would still argue that we owe a great deal to Muslim scholars, with some great advances like algebra and a number of medical treatises coming out of the Middle East around the time of the Crusades, when Europe was slowing down on the whole science thing. Europeans didn't come to a full stop during the Middle Ages, but the Arab world began to vastly outpace us in a number of fields for a while.

Yes 100%

Also a good deal of the Muslim contribution entered Europe via Moorish Spain

Our beloved bergamot being just one example the guitar (lute) being another

[bsd777]

Islam and freedom do not mix. They need their own restricted sharia "facebook", and leave freedom minded civilized peoples alone.

exactly. and this is precisely why all free western countries are well advised to give careful thought to immigration policies. It is folly, to permit unrestricted immigration of people whose beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with the civilization they seek to join.

[bsd777]

I would still argue that we owe a great deal to Muslim scholars, with some great advances like algebra and a number of medical treatises coming out of the Middle East around the time of the Crusades, when Europe was slowing down on the whole science thing. Europeans didn't come to a full stop during the Middle Ages, but the Arab world began to vastly outpace us in a number of fields for a while.

Actually it was the Hindus that brought the world those mathematical advances. I've witnessed some of what the Muslims brought us in India, first hand. Just as they did in Afghanistan, they tried to destroy everything associated with Hinduism. I'll ask again. Must we tolerate the intolerant?

[EricHill78]

+1 lmao ninjas!

[Owens187]

So? ......

[Bigblue1]

I don't get why this is relevant to anything, much less the fact that it's considered newsworthy.


Edit: Hey look at me I got my snusology degree. Finally now I can go to bed.....

[danielan]

Edit: Hey look at me I got my snusology degree. Finally now I can go to bed.....

Congrats!

[StuKlu]

Way to go BigBlue!

[lxskllr]

Happy 1K Blue!!

[shikitohno]

Actually it was the Hindus that brought the world those mathematical advances. I've witnessed some of what the Muslims brought us in India, first hand. Just as they did in Afghanistan, they tried to destroy everything associated with Hinduism. I'll ask again. Must we tolerate the intolerant?

The Indians came up with the concept of zero as a number, which while crucial to algebra does not count as inventing it. It was a Persian from Baghdad who expanded on these ideas and gave the world what is known as algebra, which also had some of its roots in Babylonian mathematics. If you like the fact the severe injuries aren't just cauterized, you have the Muslims to thank for that, since they advanced medicine while Europe was busy with their crusades and continental wars for a few centuries. Like having the option of motor vehicles for transport? Again, physics would not be what it is today without the Muslims, because it relies rather heavily on algebra.

@sgreger: Excepting Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt, those countries are all dictatorships of one form or another. Egypt is in my opinion the least corrupt of the three democracies listed. If all Muslims hated freedom so much, why would they bother moving to the US? They can make a living in their own countries, and the gains they would make here are due to those freedoms that they allegedly hate. In those countries, Sharia law isn't used as an honest system of law, it's used as a weapon to terrify the citizens into obeying. The religious police in Saudi Arabia or Tehran serve the same purpose as the KGB, but they're more palatable to people in those countries since they were taught from birth that this is part of their religion, and to go against it is damnation. With all the protests that were going on last year, even Stevie Wonder can see that your average Iranian is not satisfied with the limited freedoms they have. But organizations like the Revolutionary Guard use Sharia law as an excuse to crack down on dissent. Saying Muslims hate freedom because their governments run totalitarian states using Sharia law to prop it up is like saying Eastern Orthodox Christians hate freedom because they lived in the Soviet Union for so long.

[Roo]

Right now only the extremists are guilty of terrorism, but the moderates and most Muslims (at least in Muslim countries that will allow it) have no love of freedom, human life, or the simple concepts of not killing someone based on their being a woman or personal life choices...........Please, Roo and Shikitohno, explain to me why you have such disdain for Christians, who for the most part gave up these silly barbarian ways of life long ago, and instead praise the Muslims for the things I’ve listed above

Sgreger, you've missed my point. I have no disdain whatsoever for Christians. Where did that come from? Christians run the gamut from my Grandmother to Adolf Hitler (despite his later disdain for the Catholic Church and even later for organized religion in general, he was a man of Christ). That is in part the point I am trying to make. Religious ideology serves a range of functionality from setting a moral standard and precedent for salvation for the individual, to justification for mass murder, genocide, terrorism, political control, and so much more. To compare one Muslim to another or one Christian to another based on common faith is your mistake, with all due respect. Theocratic rule is a very effective means of maintaining political control, because the oppressive regime can equate political dissent with sacrilege and thus create the illusion that to support political mandate is to carry out God's will. But as shikitohno pointed out, there are often major conflicts between theory and practice with regard to the reality of theocratic rule as it exists today. In the same way that this forum is chock-full of political dissent, the politics of many nations, including that of all of those countries you listed, does not reflect the politics of the majority (see Obama's approval rating). The reason I even bring US politics and your hatred of it into this discussion is to point out the fallacy of your saying that "the moderates and most Muslims (at least in Muslim countries that will allow it) have no love of freedom, human life, or the simple concepts of not killing someone based on their being a woman or personal life choice". In the same way that some extremist Imams are teaching their constituents that (all or most) Americans and Westerners are the enemy, our own sources of persuasion and misconception teach us that (all or most) Muslims have no love of freedom or value of human life. So what I'm saying is that your view of most Muslims, as you like to say, and their values has no basis in fact or experience, but rather in speculation and hearsay.

Regarding Sharia Law: it is a code of conduct extracted from passages of the Qu'ran by Muslim scholars many centuries ago that dictates laws and guidelines pertaining to matters ranging from the ritual -- instruction for prayer and pilgrimage, dietary restrictions (not unfamiliar to kosher Jews), to the societal -- marriage and divorce, mercantile transactions, obligation of charity (zakat - religious taxation not unfamiliar to Catholics as well), and crime and punishment (the only facet of Sharia that receives Western attention). The degree to which Islamic societies adhere to any or all of the tenants of Sharia varies greatly between nations, sects (4 major distinctions within Sunni and 2 within Shia), regions, and tribes or ethnic groups within a region. In many countries you listed in the post I'm quoting, such as Egypt, Nigeria, and even Pakistan (although they are headed downhill fast), Sharia Law is influential, but nowhere near final; the judicial systems and civil and criminal court rulings are based on the countries' constitutions, just like in the USA, and not on any strict interpretations of religious text. But just like in the USA, interpretations of religious text do influence constitutional law (not unfamiliar to most people who think abortion should be illegal). Again, the reason I compare the US to Islamic states is to try to attempt to illustrate that it is more constructive to identify similarities as a way to foster a mutual understanding than to focus on vast differences that are the source of so much hatred and misunderstanding. I do not believe that any ancient religious text should form the basis of constutional law or political power, so I am not writing any of this in defense of Sharia Law; my goal is simply to understand.

Many Muslim nations do not take Sharia Law into account at all in constitutional matters and are identified as completely secular: Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Mali, Algeria, the list goes on. A few countries don't have constitutional law at all and use only the strictest interpretation of Sharia: most notably the Saudis and a country that should exist but unfortunately does not -- Pashtunistan, which would comprise the ethnic group to which the Taliban belong and a geographic area that includes part but not all of SE Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. I say unfortunately because if it did exist, we could get the hell out of there and let them treat each other however they want and stop giving a shit.

Anyway, I have gone on way too long here, I just wanted to try one more time to object to your statements about "most Muslims", because negative statements that start with that phrase are an unfortunate source of misunderstanding and hostility in the same way that kids in some madrassahs are taught to believe in the inhumanity of you and me.

[bsd777]

Many Muslim nations do not take Sharia Law into account at all in constitutional matters and are identified as completely secular: Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Mali, Algeria, the list goes on.

Turkey had been ruled by the military for years, but their influence is waning and the influence of Islamic fundamentalists is increasing. In 1991 Islamic fundamentalists won election in Algeria, but the military would have none of it. For years, govt forces fought fundamentalists and appear to have killed most of them. The others you site are former soviet republics and fairly new as independent counties. There's still plenty of time.

The bottom line, in my mind, is no Muslim or Arab country is free and there are many. All countries with Islamic majorities are repressive and none of them have been hospitable toward non-Muslim minorities. One country existed with a nearly equal Muslim and Christian population and we know how that turned out. Counties with sizable Muslim minorities have all experienced Islamic fundamentalist sponsored terrorism, violence and political pressure to adopt Muslim ways and traditions.

I know these are not popular statements, but the truth is not always what we want to hear.

Also, your attempt to draw parallels between sharia law and American pro-life politics is unfounded and slightly offensive. Western civilization in general and America specifically was founded on Judeo-Christian and natural law principles. These are generally universal concepts of individual rights. Sharia is not. While many on the left, see pro-life positions rooted in Judeo-Christian principle, they can also be found in natural law principles, so you needn't assume someone who believes in the sanctity of life is a fundamentalist Christian. They could just as easily be a Jew or an atheist who happens to believe murder is wrong.