posted
On the news, when talking about Abdul Rahman (the Christian convert sentenced to death in Afghanistan), the media talks about how Secular and Islamic law have to be reconciled as illustrated by this case.
My confusion stems from there being no argument over whether or not Islamic Law demands this man's death, and if it does, how we can expect a constitutionally Islamic country to ignore it. So I ask you:
Is the law in this case so cut and dried that there is no point in wasting time wrangling over the wording of said law? Is it as simple as "You convert from Islam you die"? And if it is that simple, do we really have a right to intervene in a matter as theological as it is secular? Help!?!
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just heard about it on the radio, and I got the impression that there's no discussion going on about it. Currently, though the courts have dismissed the case, there are Several Clerics in the country who are calling for his death anyway. Rahman is currently seeking assylum in another country.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I think this is another instance of where people pervert religion to their own needs. As far as I'm aware, there is no Islamic law which states you can't break away from Islam or convert to another religion and if you do so, then you have to die. This is not religious law, it's simple human tyranny. Just another instance of how stupid we, as a race, can get ....
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
from "Understanding Islam" by Thomas W. Lippman:
quote:As for apostasy, the Koran pledges punishment for it in the next world only, not on earth... abandonment of Islam, while sinful and reprehensible, does not require death for the apostate.
edit: Of course, it's important to remember that what the Koran dictates is not necessarily what the governments are going to do, never mind the extremists. Religion is used for politics there same as it is everywhere else.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any evidence that this man really is suffering from mental illness? There was something about him seeming very confused in one of the reports I read.
Or, is the determination of his defective mental status purely a sop to the court so that it can avoid ordering his death in this highly charged climate?
In a way, I'm reminded of the not-so-long-ago Chinese Communist party that was convinced anyone who didn't enjoy living in the blissful world they'd created surely must be insane.
Generally, by the time the people got done with their re-education, they really were nuts.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fahim: To be honest, I think this is another instance of where people pervert religion to their own needs. As far as I'm aware, there is no Islamic law which states you can't break away from Islam or convert to another religion and if you do so, then you have to die. This is not religious law, it's simple human tyranny. Just another instance of how stupid we, as a race, can get ....
Fahim, I know you know more about Islam than I, but just a few minutes of web searching turned up the judgement of execution for apostates in Sharia (Islamic law).
It seems to be based on the Hadiths (traditional collections relating to the sayings and doings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions)
quote: In the Hadiths --- Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”
This has of course been interpreted differently by different scholars and cultures. And the Hadiths do not carry as much weight as the Koran. But this Islamic Q & A site (a Wahabi site possibly??) uphelds the literal meaning, of execution for some categories of apostates: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=14231&dgn=4Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if a Christian wanted to become a Muslim but the Pope ordered his death, Muslims clerics around the world would be screaming bloody murder...
Did you guys also hear about the case in India, where a man said "divorce" (in his own language) three times in his sleep, so now the couple has to divorce. They've been married 11 years and have three kids, but now cannot remarry for 100 days, and until she has remarried and divorced another man, after having slept with him. And this is supposedly a form of Islamic law, though I don't know what crazy passage of the quran mentions this.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: [QB]Fahim, I know you know more about Islam than I, but just a few minutes of web searching turned up the judgement of execution for apostates in Sharia (Islamic law).
Given how many interpretations (or should I say misinterpretations? ) of the Qur'an and hadith are floating around on the Net, I wouldn't trust anything till I saw it in the actual Arabic. For instance, what exactly did the translate as an Apostate? There are many different words describing various states for a Muslim denying Islam to be in. Without knowing what was actually meant when they said "aposttate", I really wouldn't jump to any conclusions Of course, this probably the self-same argument that those guys in Afghanistan are posing - that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death ...
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Did you guys also hear about the case in India, where a man said "divorce" (in his own language) three times in his sleep, so now the couple has to divorce. They've been married 11 years and have three kids, but now cannot remarry for 100 days, and until she has remarried and divorced another man, after having slept with him. And this is supposedly a form of Islamic law, though I don't know what crazy passage of the quran mentions this.
I'd be interested to see some links about this story. Who actually is enforcing things in this particular case? Some of the laws mentioned sound correct but some don't. I'd be interested to see what the original account said ...
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe not in the US, where Christianity is the majority religion but in places where Buddhism is a major force, I expect this would be a big story.
What if the guy had declared he is an atheist?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
If that law exists at all (and I have a feeling it does), it does not discriminate. Conversion=death. Who in the world the particular cases offend would change, but the premise being identical, should concern everyone.
The reason I think this law does exist is that I assume the preeminent Islamic scholars live in Muslim countries. These clerics, wielding the power they do as they interpret Islamic law, could come out against this. But all we see is western "scholars" that have no following in the middle eastern Islamic countries explaining to us that this is not what the Quran says. No-one seems to be saying that this is not an Islamic tenet, they just say that the tenet could be misunderstood.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Did you guys also hear about the case in India, where a man said "divorce" (in his own language) three times in his sleep, so now the couple has to divorce. They've been married 11 years and have three kids, but now cannot remarry for 100 days, and until she has remarried and divorced another man, after having slept with him. And this is supposedly a form of Islamic law, though I don't know what crazy passage of the quran mentions this.
I'd be interested to see some links about this story. Who actually is enforcing things in this particular case? Some of the laws mentioned sound correct but some don't. I'd be interested to see what the original account said ...
So would I. Especially since one assumes the only person who heard him was the wife . . . and he was (conveniently?) asleep at the time!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, me too, for the reasons rivka mentions, and because Islamic law wouldn't hold sway in India. Frankly it sounds like a fairly ridiculous fiction to me.
[Edit--I'm not accusing Lyrhawn of making it up, I should add; I just suspect that the story he heard and related doesn't have a basis in fact]
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: That really isn't the issue.
If that law exists at all (and I have a feeling it does), it does not discriminate. Conversion=death. Who in the world the particular cases offend would change, but the premise being identical, should concern everyone.
The reason I think this law does exist is that I assume the preeminent Islamic scholars live in Muslim countries. These clerics, wielding the power they do as they interpret Islamic law, could come out against this. But all we see is western "scholars" that have no following in the middle eastern Islamic countries explaining to us that this is not what the Quran says. No-one seems to be saying that this is not an Islamic tenet, they just say that the tenet could be misunderstood.
I'm concerned.
First of all airmanfour, I don't see why you are concerned, I assume you're not thinking of converting to Islam and then converting back? If this is on general humanistic principles, then I should tell you lots of people convert to other religions from Islam. If the law exists and is as wide-spread as you seem to believe, they all would have been put to death by now. No, the accounts of conversion are not apocryphal, I know of at least two people personally. People can twist religion to their own needs all the time and quite often, others stay by and say nothing for one reason or another. Or, if they do say something, their viewpoint is sidelined because it's not sensationalist Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
And as the article itself states: "This is a totally unnecessary controversy and the local 'community leaders' or whosoever has said it are totally ignorant of Islamic law," said Zafarul-Islam Khan, an Islamic scholar and editor of The Milli Gazette, a popular Muslim newspaper.
"The law clearly says any action under compulsion or in a state of intoxication has no effect. The case of someone uttering something while asleep falls under this category and will have no impact whatsoever," Khan told Reuters.
Another case of people (mis)interpreting the law - just because they can This is why I believe that religion should be a personal thing. When you get "leaders" and "scholars" involved instead of relying on your own conscience and judgement of whatever scriptures you follow, you get led down the garden path by ignorant idiots. But then again, that's a discussion for another time since I know there will be a lot of people who will disagree with that point of view
[Edited to add an extra paragraph from the Yahoo article]
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, had to add another bit about that news article about the wife having to spend a night with another man before she can be re-married with her husband. This too doesn't quite sound right and sounds either as if the village "elders" have some axe of their own to grind here. Let me tell you another story here, something which happened here in Sri Lanka. There was another divorce issue and a couple went to an Islamic elder. The girl wanted divorce from the man she had been married to by force by her parents (which again is un-Islamic BTW - the girl has to consent to the marriage). The "elder" was not too keen on granting the divorce and he cited various reasons. The real reason? He was related to the man the girl was married to and the man wanted to remain married to the girl. So the "elder" was not being impartial. Of course, if this case were to be sensationalized and put on Yahoo, it would say that Islam gives no freedom to women and that they cannot even get a divorce if they wanted But that had nothing to do with the actual law. So don't confuse the actions of people with what is actually there in the law Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahim, I appreciate your input. That clears up some of my irrational concern. The smilies make a potent argument themselves Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahim, you make some good points. Religion does get twisted to fit agendas. It seems like hollow idealism, though. Many Afghani clerics, and thousands of protestors, disagree with your view.
quote: Abdul Rahman had been held by Afghan authorities for his conversion from Islam to Christianity, punishable by death in Afghanistan, which follows Islamic law. Many Muslim clerics in the country called for his death, and said even if he were freed his life would be in danger.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/christian.convert/ The ex-Muslim Christian Aghani Rahman immediately went into hiding after his release from jail. He's requested asylum outside of Afghanistan. And at least one fatwa calling for his murder has been issued, apparently by a Taleban cleric. He's got a target painted on him, for leaving Islam. That's a fact.
I don't mean to seem harsh. If that's not your view of Islam, say so, often. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Fahim, I appreciate your input. That clears up some of my irrational concern. The smilies make a potent argument themselves
Glad to have been of some assistance airmanfour Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Fahim, you make some good points. Religion does get twisted to fit agendas. It seems like hollow idealism, though. Many Afghani clerics, and thousands of protestors, disagree with your view.
I think what you miss here Morbo, is the fact that the actions of people calling themselves Muslims does not necessarily make their actions Islamic The people do not define a religion, it is supposed to be the the other way around. Sure, Afghanistan says that they have an Islamic government, does that mean that all the actions of the Afghanistani government or the decrees of their clerics are Islamic? I sure would hope that people don't fall into that trap Just because a terrorist calls himself and kills innocents doesn't mean that Islam condones that or says that he should have done it. In the end, all of us do what we want to do, whether it is what our religion decrees or not depends on what we actually want to do - if that makes any sense Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahim, although I am sympethetic to your emphasis on the difference between what a religion is supposed to be and what religious people actually do, it seems too easy an escape from responsibility. The statement "people do not define a religion, it is supposed to be the other way around" is at best idealist, and at worst a false statement from facts of history. A religion is defined by its people or it becomes a hollow shell. I actually WANT to believe Islam can be a religion of peace, but a lack of a credable counter-movement to the overwhelming nationalist and fundimentalist Islam makes me reject that possibility.
I think what too many moderate Muslims are ignoring is the question of what has Islam become? And, more importantly, do I want to be associated with that? They have gone far enough to at least imply they don't want to be associated with a particular brand of Islam. What they have not done, as Christians eventually did, is disassociate themselves from the most powerful body and proclaim new official directions. I recognize the long and difficult inter-Islam situation that will create. On the other hand, one must question the long and difficult direction Islam is currently taking in relation to the world outside itself.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I am saying in a round about way is that Moderate and Liberal Muslims have two choices. They must start an Islamic Reformation or accept that most of Islam has become unsalvagable.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Fahim, you make some good points. Religion does get twisted to fit agendas. It seems like hollow idealism, though. Many Afghani clerics, and thousands of protestors, disagree with your view.
I think what you miss here Morbo, is the fact that the actions of people calling themselves Muslims does not necessarily make their actions Islamic The people do not define a religion, it is supposed to be the the other way around. Sure, Afghanistan says that they have an Islamic government, does that mean that all the actions of the Afghanistani government or the decrees of their clerics are Islamic? I sure would hope that people don't fall into that trap Just because a terrorist calls himself and kills innocents doesn't mean that Islam condones that or says that he should have done it. In the end, all of us do what we want to do, whether it is what our religion decrees or not depends on what we actually want to do - if that makes any sense
I would like to point out that exactly the same things have happened and do still happen with Christianity. If you don't remember any Chrisitian leaders who called for assasinations recently, can I refresh your memory -- Pat Roberston.
There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world. We can't forget that these extremists are only a tiny minority, who are struggling to gain power and authority within the Muslim world by attacking Western liberalism. Press articles like this play right into the hands of Muslim extremists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is not a centralized authority in Islam calling the shots, either.
But the belief that converts could be killed is why the LDS church does not proselyte in Islamic countries. Not that the LDS church believes the laws justify it, but that vigilante actions could occur.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world. We can't forget that these extremists are only a tiny minority, who are struggling to gain power and authority within the Muslim world by attacking Western liberalism.
You know, I really don't believe that this is true. I'm not placing blame on the religion itself, but from my admitedly limited viewpoint, many of the countries that practice primarily Islam are pretty savage societies.
Looking historically, I don't expect them to be much different from the Christian oriented countries of Western history, who were pretty barbaric (Not killing people for being Christian, let alone apostasy, is a relatively new development - consider the Maryland Act of Toleration). For that matter, even in the more tame and circumscribed state that they exist in in contemporary western society, there are a lot of Christian groups that exhibit a strong undercurrent of savagery.
Also, many of these countries openly embrace Sharia, which, debate what it's supposed to be all you will, seems in common practice to be pretty barbaric.
I've no doubt that there are plenty of peaceful, liberal Muslims out there, but, I don't know, telling me that cases like this aren't representative of a large number of the Muslim-oriented societies doesn't ring true to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've no doubt that there are plenty of peaceful, liberal Muslims out there, but, I don't know, telling me that cases like this aren't representative of a large number of the Muslim-oriented societies doesn't ring true to me.
I am not an expert on Islam, however, over the years I have worked with many people who are Muslim or who grew up in areas with a large number of Muslims, including people from Jordan, Lebannon, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Arab Emerats, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and India. In addition, I've studied briefly in the middle east and have attended many seminars on Arab and Islamic issues. My statement is based on what I have learned from them. Although none of these countries could be described as open liberal societies, the problems they experience are not unique to Islamic countries. Christian, Buddhist and Hindu countries in latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia all have similar problems with violence and oppression.
As one of my students explained to me, there are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world -- if violence and terrorism were really as much a part of Muslim culture as the western press is claiming, do you think there could be any peaceful day in our lives.
I'm not claiming that there are no problems in Islamic societies, what I'm saying is that these problems need to be put in proper perspective.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I guess what I am saying in a round about way is that Moderate and Liberal Muslims have two choices. They must start an Islamic Reformation or accept that most of Islam has become unsalvagable.
Occasional, you seem to believe that the issues that everybody talks in relation to Islam these days are due to the religion itself, I don't - that's the difference I don't see the need to reform the religion, the practices that some people preach in the name of Islam aren't Islamic. So just because a few people decide to come up with these things because they are basically being "people", why should I want to give up my religion or to form a breakaway faction. In effect, these people aren't Muslims in the true sense, they could be called a breakaway faction. You seem to want me to say my religion is bad, I'm saying that my religion is good but people will always do bad things in the name of religion Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You know, I really don't believe that this is true. I'm not placing blame on the religion itself, but from my admitedly limited viewpoint, many of the countries that practice primarily Islam are pretty savage societies.
The Rabbit has already answered this one quite effectively I think - the only way to know a society is to live there or to live among the people from that society He talks from personal experience, so I will only add one question - what do you consider "savage"? What yardstick do you use to make this measurement?
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahim, I feel exactly the same way about Christianity and even the Mormon version of Christianity. There are alot of Christians out there who are doing and saying things that I think are very un-Christian. Most of them claim or at least imply that Christianity support there positions. It doesn't. I don't feel any need to reform my faith because of the nonsense spouted by a few ideologs who call themselves Christian. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the teachings of Pat Robertson or Orrin Hatch.
I think that most Americans don't really understand that Islam has no central leadership. There is no Pope, President or living Prophet that guides Islam. Their is no central organization that needs to be reformed. Suni's don't even have Imams. I keep hearing Americans spouting off about what the Islamic leaders should do without even recognizing that their are no Islamic leaders who are followed by more than a tiny fraction of the Muslim world.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]He talks from personal experience.[quote]
cough, um "she", cough
And actually, I don't have much personal experience living among Muslims. Nearly all of the Muslims I've known have been immigrants to the US or Western Europe. My experience is largely second hand not first hand. But still, I trust the opinion of the Muslims I know who do have first hand experience, far and above the images portrayed in the media.
I've dealt with the press enough to know that reporters are more interested in telling an exciting story than in accurately representing the world. Its not that they intensional mislead or distort the news, its just that stories of ordinary people doing ordinary things aren't "news". I've been told that there are many Muslim leaders writing in Arabic and other languages commonly spoken in the Muslim world who are very moderate, who are calling for an end to violence, who focus on social justice rather than criminal justice, who are doing all the things followers of a true religions should do. But that doesn't make good news. Stories about Christians being persecuted do.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's OK. I chose the moniker originally because I wanted gender neutrality. Its often amusing to see what people assume about my gender. I've been here so longthat most everyone here knows I'm a woman now so I'm often taken back when people assume I'm male.
At any rate, there is not need to apologize. I just wanted to clarify.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
How about beating and raping women for not wearing a burkha? Or blaming a woman for getting raped? Or it be perfectly acceptable to kill someone for converting to the wrong religion? Or blowing up buses full of children? Or the childish rioting in regards to the Dutch newspaper thing? Or issuing fatwahs of death against people you don't like? Or tribal violence? Or countries ruled by warlords?
I don't know, I think I can judge these things as savagery without living in the culture.
edit: My bad, Danish newspapers. And I remembered the bit from a few years back where the unofficial/official guardians of Islam in Iran (I think) shoved a buch of schoolgirls back into a buring building and watched them die because the girls weren't wearing their full burkhas. That's savagery. These are off the top of my head you understand. I'm sure I can do a quick google search on news stories with "Islam" and "atrocity or violence towards women" and have pages and pages and pages.
And, as I've said, I'm not blaming the religion as a religion. I'm sure it can be and is, in many instances, a wonderful, uplifting religion, but don't expect me to turn a blind eye to the horrific things many Islamic oriented societies have done and are doing, more or less as a matter of course.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And, as I've said, I'm not blaming the religion as a religion. I'm sure it can be and is, in many instances, a wonderful, uplifting religion, but don't expect me to turn a blind eye to the horrific things many Islamic oriented societies have done and are doing, more or less as a matter of course.
Oh but you do draw a connection between the religion and the violence when you say "many of the countries that practice primarily Islam are pretty savage societies." There was no need to bring Islam into that statement unless you wanted to draw some sort of a connection. Man is by nature savage. There are many other acts of savagery that I can point to in non-Islamic countries. Am I going to blame another religion and say that "such and such a religious country is a savage place"? Let's define where the savagery comes from and where the blame lies for the religion itslef - that's all I'm saying
[Edited to correct grammar and to add the following] Of course, your rejoinder might be that there are no other countries which are governed by religious law and that's a valid point. But the fact remains that atrocities aren't limited to Islamic countries - it just depends on what yardstick you use to measure atrocity. What you consider a bad (but still inescapable or not so major) fact of life might be an atrocity to me and vice versa. Which is why I asked about the yardstick Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahim, you are grasping at straws. There are secular savage countries. However, there are no moderate or nuetral Islamic countries. That should say at least SOMETHING about the state of Islam today. I respect your wanting to see Islam, your religion, as a good thing. What I will not do is divorce what I see happening in the world with what "true Islam" is without better examples. I used to have respect for Islam with its strong beliefs about God. It seemed the last stand against a secularized world. I don't believe I hold that hope or respect any longer.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The savagery I'm talking about does come from the religion. Not Islam as a whole or in potential, but from the specific forms of Islam these societies practice. The specific beliefs and structures that the religion takes in these countries conforms to and encourages the development of savagery. Man is not by nature savage. We do not, for example, have an unconquerable drive to push girls back into burning building and to approve of such as part of our makeup. Rather, savagery exists in potential, along with a whole mess of other potential things, which are strengthened or weaked based on the environment and structures humans find themselves in. The religion of Islam, as it is currently practiced in many places (and not so in others), and specifically those countries that are centered around it, seem to really bring out the savage, the hateful, and the power-centric.
---
So, Fahim, what do you think of my examples of savaegry? You told me that I can't judge a society without living in it. Do you think, then, that I'm out of line for calling these things atrocities or for naming those who commit or approve of them as acting savage?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, there are no moderate or nuetral Islamic countries.
I'm not sure what that means. If you're referring to countries in which the religion is overwhelmingly Islamic, I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange, Turkey is known as being moderate and neutral. The United Arab Emirates is known to be on the whole downright liberal, particularly states such as Abu Dhabi. Not to mention that the world's second largest Islamic population is quite liberal -- you may know it better as India.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Fahim, you are grasping at straws. There are secular savage countries. However, there are no moderate or nuetral Islamic countries. That should say at least SOMETHING about the state of Islam today.
I think Occasional, given the responses that you've already received on this comment, it just states that you've already made up your mind about what Islam is Incidentally, your comment about "Islam today" seems to indicate that you think that Islam has somehow changed today from what it was yesterday. And this where I repeat again, the religion has not changed - but people have
I might be grasping at straws, or I might be able to see the world without simply putting labels on countries as Islamic or non-Islamic. It just isn't that simple. Sure, it's easy to point fingers at others and for the others to behave savagely but blaming a religion, any religion, for the actions of people is (to me at least) a very shallow minded way of reacting to things. Each person however has to make up his own mind. I am not trying to change your mind for you Simply stating a different perspective.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The savagery I'm talking about does come from the religion. Not Islam as a whole or in potential, but from the specific forms of Islam these societies practice.
This is where you and Occasional seem to tread the same path MrSquicky You both seem to believe that a religion can somehow be transmuted for each region that it is practiced in. If somebody perverts a tenet of religion and makes a mockery of it that it somehow becomes part of the religion. Just because people commit atrocities in the name of any religion, it does not mean it was the fault of that religion. I don't like pointing fingers and so I am not going to do the whole "what about this? or what about that?" bit but most religions have had periods when people who said they upheld the religion did some terrible deeds in the name of their religion. Does that mean that the religion actually said that they should do this? Or did these people take it into their heads to do these things because they *thought* they were doing the right thing? Consider where you place the blame
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: We do not, for example, have an unconquerable drive to push girls back into burning building and to approve of such as part of our makeup. Rather, savagery exists in potential, along with a whole mess of other potential things, which are strengthened or weaked based on the environment and structures humans find themselves in.
We here in the East don't have as huge an issue with specific areas of child abuse and molestation as you do in the West. I'm choosing my words carefully here when I say specific areas (you will point to child labour - I will point to sexual molestation). We have issues with gender equality but we do not objectify women or use scantily clad women to sell products. To you some of this will be objectionable but something that you can't do much about the other stuff you will shrug off in the name of commercialism. The point is, savagery is everywhere - we just get used to it in our own backyard because it's familiar. Doesn't mean that it isn't savage any less, just that *we* don't think of it as savagery. There are things we approve of unconsciously which might not be so squeaky clean after all Again, I'm not trying to point fingers here. There are problems all around and blame on all of us. What I'm saying (again) is don't blame the religion for the actions of people.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, Fahim, what do you think of my examples of savaegry? You told me that I can't judge a society without living in it. Do you think, then, that I'm out of line for calling these things atrocities or for naming those who commit or approve of them as acting savage?
The acts you mentioned are indubitably savage - there is no denying it. But what I question is your conclusions drawn based on the action and your verdict on who the guilty party is Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have, though, is that you seem, for some reason, to be denying that religion has any effect on these people. From what I'm getting from you, they do really bad stuff, much of which their religion tells them to do, but it's got nothing to do with their religion, which they claim is the central focus of their lives.
To me, that doesn't wash. To me, their religious beliefs and structures have a profound effect on their behavior and we can, to a certain extent, judge these beliefs and structures on the fruits they bear. That other people practice another form of this religion, which shares some points and differs on others, doesn't, in my opinion, take away from this.
edit: Because it seems to bear repeating. I am not talking about Islam as a whole or in potential. I am talking about the specific forms of it as practiced in these countries. I see a very large difference between Muslims who, for example, think it's commendable to beat and rape women who aren't wearing a burkha in public and those who don't. Maybe you don't see this as a significant distinction, such that when I levy a criticism at one group, you think it applies to both, but I think it's very important.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't agree with this. A large part of the logic behind and practice of the burkha is about turning women into objects.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) of the Qur'an and hadith are floating around on the Net, I wouldn't trust anything till I saw it in the actual Arabic. For instance, what exactly did the translate as an Apostate? There are many different words describing various states for a Muslim denying Islam to be in. Without knowing what was actually meant when they said "aposttate", I really wouldn't jump to any conclusions 
