-
Posts
-
Ms, K, two excellent posts there, apart from the last phrase of your second post. I don’t see drac as the problem – she presents her views clearly and with as much rationality and willingness to engage in dialogue with her opponents as you could want. Some others here, whose arguments collapse into an emotional whoosh of accusation and personal insult when challenged, would do well to copy her approach. My only concern is her tendency to isolate sentences and argue with each – sometimes it works, but sometimes it becomes a quibble and often tends to lead to a feeling that your arguemnts are being taken out of context.
But otherwise, you are absolutely right. First, that most religious people of any persuasion are not relgious scholars and don’t take their ideas so seriously as to engage in a personal crusade. They get on with life. That’s not me, in that I take ideas and argument very seriously, but it is how many people of all faiths work. Muslims living in Britain adapt to British ways, and many are only too happy to break from the strict rules that their parents want to impose – think of the women who refuse to wear veils and reject arranged marriages. Their parents divide between those who want to keep the ghetto and those who want to adapt. Almost all just want to live their lives in peace.
Secondly, Ms K, you make the crucial point that language, any language, is ambivalent. There’s no one way of defining a word. To say that I’ll kill you isn’t the same as actually extinguishing someone’s life – it could just be an expression of anger without any consequence. The killing of an attitude or of an idea or of a way of approaching the world is common to religions. Christians want to kill the devil, to kill evil as a way of looking at the world. If you see Christ as the Way and the Resurrection, then you’re going to be pitted against Muslims who see the Koran as the Way and Muhammed as the Prophet.
When people take ‘kill’ literally – when they seek a violent religious war – as radical islamists (and Western fanatics like BB?) seek to do, – then there is no alternative for any society but to defend themselves. That’s what we do here, and that’s what Iraqis and Syrians do against ISIS. Someone who seeks to kill is asking to die. It’s scary and horrible, which is why people like ISIS (and their equivalents here, like BB perhaps if he wants a religious war?) alarm so many of us.
But conversion is crucial to Islam and Christianity – most do not interpret war (jihad) as literla physical war. Those who do are outside the pale, as I’ve made clear. I am perfectly happy for people to seek nto convert each other.
Sharia has to be subordinated to western law. Rowan Williams has speculated on how a truncated version of sharia can coexit with estern law, but where it can’t, then western law takes precedence.
Ms, K, two excellent posts there, apart from the last phrase of your second post.
Including the parts where she makes baseless accusations that I hang out with islamists?
Also the part where she claims to understand language better than me ‘because she’s foreign’ was a very odd card to pull, especially when it’s self-defeating as it also applies to me.
My only concern is her tendency to isolate sentences and argue with each – sometimes it works, but sometimes it becomes a quibble and often tends to lead to a feeling that your arguemnts are being taken out of
I usually do that to put emphasis on the specific way something is phrased, or to try and inject humour into an otherwise serious post.
Secondly, Ms K, you make the crucial point that language, any language, is ambivalent. There’s no one way of defining a word. To say that I’ll kill you isn’t the same as actually extinguishing someone’s life – it could just be an expression of anger without any consequence.
I will provide some quotes from the Quran, if you can find an alternative meaning then please tell me.
“The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females.”
“And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.”
And from the Sira:
“Muhammad said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.‘”
“Women comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.”
The problem with your argument that the same concept (that women are lower than men in this example) is repeated in many places with different phrasing.
Sharia has to be subordinated to western law.
It is worth mentioning for people that don’t know, Sharia law doesn’t actually come from the Quran. It comes from some of the Hadiths and it isn’t seen as a part of Islam by some sects of the religion because of this.
Rowan Williams has speculated on how a truncated version of sharia can coexit with estern law, but where it can’t, then western law takes precedence.
No, your own post explains why this wouldn’t work;
think of the women who refuse to wear veils and reject arranged marriages.
A legally operating Sharia court would place sanctions and punishments on such women, which would be followed by other muslims.
I’m addressing the relevant arguments in Ms K’s post, drac, and trying to make it less personal. As you know, I don’t hold any personal animus against you. I can’t speak for ms K in terms of personal reaction; she’s very good at making her feelings plain when it comes to that *hides.
But your arguments on the koran are very formal. There are liberals within islam who deny women’s inferiority (I defnine Islam as everyone else defines it, not as radical islam – it confuses me otherwise).
If you want to see some unacceptable practices, look at Moses in the Book of Numbers as well a the Koran. After a mass slaughter of Israel’s enemies, he shouts to an increasingly excited crowd of victors that they should kill all males and all ‘soiled’ women, and as for the virgin girls – do with them as you will
Christians also hold women to be inferior. Paul says that men are above women, that men are the head and women the body, just as Christ is the head of the Church and people are the body. Paul is actually more complicated than that, but the words are used to justify opposition to women priests, homosexual love etc etc. They are as bad as one another – most Christian and most Muslims. But the minorities fight (a jihad – a holy war??) – successfully in the case of some Christian churches.
The language is ambiguous because it can be adapted to meet new circumstances. What si true for the 7th century in the Arabian peninsual, or in the 1st century in Judaea, is still true for many, but it is adapated by many too, and ignored by most in practice. Catholics have to say every week that thhey adhere to the rejection of the Devil and all his works,. but you can see some of them eyeing each other up during mass.
I don’t see how my own post shows that sharia law can’t fit into western law, as long as it subordinates itself to that law as a penal code, and as long as it represses some parts of its law to Western laws.
I dont know how to copy & quote:
- “It is worth mentioning for people that don’t know, Sharia law doesn’t actually come from the Quran. It comes from some of the Hadiths and it isn’t seen as a part of Islam by some sects of the religion because of this.” – Incorrect – Sharia law does come from the Quran and from fatwas (which may be based on hadiths). Above all there is no such thing as a sharia court. It is subordinated to the law of the land (assume UK). It has no legal bearing on the decision. People go to the sharia councils for advice and elder ruling which is considered ‘halal’ – a form of mediation. If there is any disagreement then the party may go to the UK courts for another verdict which is legally binding. The council arbitrates on varieity of matters ranging from financial, commercial matters or (i believe the majority of cases) divorce. A talak given by a council is a sharia compliant document – but it has no legal bearing. If the husband (for example) wants to sponser a wife outside from the UK then they will have to go thru a UK divorce court but with the understanding that they have settled their financial/custodial matters and all that remains is usually a draft order which is sealed by the judge.
2. Jihad – partially correct but very heavily biased. The arab word al-aharb has over 40 different meanings depending on the context. It ranges from an internal struggle, to outside single struggle to the heavily biased war-mongering on non-believers.
3. Reading a book does not mean you understand it. I can read kanji (very limited!) but i cannot comprehend the meanings behind the images. It requires someone to teach/explore the meanings. The standard arabic of the Quran is written in a short-hand. It assumes that the reader has read the text in the context of the history. Picking out single sentenances from obvious alt-right/heavily biased sites will give a meaning – reading the sura (quote) from understanding the context and/or history behind it gives another interpretation.
4. Going back to the original posters statement – i am still confused where muslims have failed to intergrate and why muslims were pointed out rather than other religions from buddists, to hindus to zen etc….
Anyways must dash for my nails – they are looking awful (1 week + without any tlc!)
MM
1 member liked this post.
Incorrect – Sharia law does come from the Quran and from fatwas (which may be based on hadiths).
Yes, I misspoke there. There are some elements of Sharia that are taken from the Quran, but a lot of it doesn’t.
Above all there is no such thing as a sharia court. It is subordinated to the law of the land (assume UK). It has no legal bearing on the decision. People go to the sharia councils for advice and elder ruling which is considered ‘halal’ – a form of mediation. If there is any disagreement then the party may go to the UK courts for another verdict which is legally binding. The council arbitrates on varieity of matters ranging from financial, commercial matters or (i believe the majority of cases) divorce.
You can call it a council with elders if you want, but it still functions very much like a court with judges. The verdicts that are passed are not legally binding, but they are still enforced by some elements of the muslim population. Someone who has a ruling against them may not be invited to family events, or refused service in a muslim owned store. None of these things are illegal under British law, but they are still wrong.
Reading a book does not mean you understand it.
Do the muslims i’ve discussed the Quran with, also not understand it then?
Picking out single sentenances from obvious alt-right/heavily biased sites will give a meaning.
Ahh yes, muslim reformers who write resources explaining the problems with Islam to other muslims are part of a white nationalist movement, I should have known better.
Even if I did get the quotes from an alt-right source, that doesn’t mean they aren’t in the Quran anymore suddenly
Going back to the original posters statement – i am still confused where muslims have failed to intergrate and why muslims were pointed out rather than other religions from buddists, to hindus to zen
The UK is home to the 3rd largest Sikh and he 10th largest Hindu populations in the world. They don’t usually come into conflict with western culture and values as much as muslims. This is partially because heir religions don’t contain the same type of politcal ideology as Islam does. And partially because of the historical links between Britain and India, and the exchanges of ideas that resulted from this.
There of course still some conflicts. Gay people are stigmatised in India but that is changing, and I have never heard of British hindus trying to push those views here.
1 member liked this post.
I’m addressing the relevant arguments in Ms K’s post, drac, and trying to make it less personal. As you know, I don’t hold any personal animus against you.
My message was addressed to both of you, where your arguments are similar. Rather than writing the same reply to both of you.
There are liberals within islam who deny women’s inferiority
As we were talking about language earlier, the word Islam means ‘submission (to God)’. Do you think that submission and the disregard for individual liberties (western values), is possible for a liberal person? And is someone who denys fudemental aspects of their own holy book actually a member of that religion still?
If you want to see some unacceptable practices, look at Moses in the Book of Numbers as well a the Koran. After a mass slaughter of Israel’s enemies, he shouts to an increasingly excited crowd of victors that they should kill all males and all ‘soiled’ women, and as for the virgin girls – do with them as you will
The old testiment contains a lot of israelite supremacy, that is a large part of the Quran’s justifcation for why Jewish people are bad. Regarding Moses, he is killed by God in the Quran for not complying with God’s wishes.
I don’t see how my own post shows that sharia law can’t fit into western law, as long as it subordinates itself to that law as a penal code, and as long as it represses some parts of its law to Western laws.
Sharia law can’t exist with the protections offered by our legal system. I will reuse the example that I used in reply to MalboroMan, a muslims store owner may choose to refuse custom to another muslim because of a Sharia court ruling. This would be an illegal form of discrimination under British law.
“… I will reuse the example that I used in reply to MalboroMan, a muslims store owner may choose to refuse custom to another muslim because of a Sharia court ruling. This would be an illegal form of discrimination under British law…”
Where do you base this example ? Again picking up examples randomly without any merit or evidence is not thinking rationally or fairly.
Im sorry to be pedantic but a court implies that there is a jurisdication and enacts the law of the land. A Sharia Council does not impose that – hence a Council is a better word (and far more accurate!).
“..Even if I did get the quotes from an alt-right source, that doesn’t mean they aren’t in the Quran anymore suddenly..” – see now people can see context – you simply copy and paste from alt-right sites which only give you one side of the story full of half truths to serve their own agendas id imagine.
In regards to hindiusim and homosexuality – The dharma textbooks either ignore or stigmatize homosexual activity. There is however no key/central holy book (as the word given by God like the Torah/Bible/Quran). The Vedas is from many authors and not considered the word of God. Hindus predominately have family Gods/ancestor worship (for want of a better phrase!).
I notice you subtly left out the 40 meanings of jihad from your analysis but hey ho
I notice you subtly left out why the original question is not explained: where have muslims failed to intergrate in to the community and why just Muslims ?
MM
1 member liked this post.
Where do you base this example ? Again picking up examples randomly without any merit or evidence is not thinking rationally or fairly.
I can find a report of this kind of thing happening if you want to discuss a specific case.
see now people can see context – you simply copy and paste from alt-right sites which only give you one side of the story full of half truths to serve their own agendas id imagine.
… Except that I didn’t do that, I took the quotes from an Islamic source as I said.
I notice you subtly left out the 40 meanings of jihad from your analysis but hey ho
What did you want me to say about it? It’s still in conflict with western values, regardless if it’s a war fought with guns, money or words.
I notice you subtly left out why the original question is not explained: where have muslims failed to intergrate in to the community and why just Muslims ?
You are being dishonest, again. I did reply to that, you mentioned part of my reply about hindus in your post
.The UK is home to the 3rd largest Sikh and he 10th largest Hindu populations in the world. They don’t usually come into conflict with western culture and values as much as muslims. This is partially because heir religions don’t contain the same type of politcal ideology as Islam does. And partially because of the historical links between Britain and India, and the exchanges of ideas that resulted from this.
There of course still some conflicts. Gay people are stigmatised in India but that is changing, and I have never heard of British hindus trying to push those views here.
To expand on the point I was making, how many terrorist attacks have hindus, sikhs or buddists commited in western countries in the last decade? How about honour killings, or sex trafficing gangs?
A very large majority of these crimes in western countries are commited by muslims, not by other faiths. This is why they must integrate more.
shame such political correctness is failing to address they actual concept by setting aside tradition and culture that may cause offence . the ideas behind such actions can be from well meaning and worthy desires to allow all to live happily side by side in a ‘perfect world’ .sadly they do not allow all inclusiveness they they are trying to achieve as they sideline they very citizens they want to integrate with the incoming newcomers etc. I and many I know are offended by the full face covering with just eye slits but our feelings are considered racist and xenophobic etc as brushed aside. no comment or views allowed without penalty etc . its not majority of voters joining our country or community that are all not integrating but the natural state of play where all enclaves the attract more of same ilk are when at a strong local stage ( even national) getting organised to push own culture and agenda. this gets political backing past point of logic and reason by overriding such traditions and culture as exist. I can fully understand why some things are now considered to cause offence and outlawed etc ( Golliwogs for example) as they do cause offence and we can see both sides of viewpoints. however we see increasing case of british values being set aside to accommodate others whom hold little or no regard for the very country they are fortunate enough to reside in. Sharia law areas have been set up . Police have to refer offenders to these and not our local courts etc mandatory consolations with ‘community leaders’. a polite word for immigrant enclaves . there is not enough balance and open discussion with such groups so integration is and will fail. Islam for example is supposed to mean ‘peace; but it can be hard to get a single example of this but many many example of opposite . we respect females here but others treat them as objects. for example Uk allows others to have more than one wife as its religion and tradition ( even though not ours and we find that offensive) . we even PAY benefits to ALL the wives. yet they in many case despise our attitudes and religions. the world is going to change in next decade or so and it won’t be for benefit of residents whom were brought up to encompass all walks of life and all cultures when one group is not willing to do so and is getting premium treatment above residents wishes.aspirations etc . even this mailing will be subject review and removal if it causes ‘offence;.
Get off your high horse Drac ……singling out small sentences that aren’t attached to the longer explanation or meaning helping you twist your replies…..doesn’t wash with me
why don’t you tell us your ethnic background instead of skirting round the issue…..I write from experience and my feelings on topics are because of my background.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!