Sharia law in the UK? A debate on the recent comments of Dr Williams.
#93
Posted 19 February 2008 - 11:15 PM
#94
Posted 20 February 2008 - 11:22 AM
http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/7253933.stm
That is one badass baby.
#95
Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:21 PM
If I were to compare Islam with Christianity I’d conclude they’re both extremely cruel to the dead (theory of hell); both have hijacked Judaism whilst shitting directly on ethnic Jews; both are sexist; and depending on whom you ask the other one is wrong.
Is Christianity violent? It once was; nobody can deny the abundance of historical evidence that supports this notion. It is still violent? Not really, Christianity has long since abandoned sword conversions and gently moved into the realm of 'education' and politics. (Now, don't get me wrong, telling kids in Africa that Condoms are worse than AIDS and preaching creationism as science are all worth addressing, however, I can save that for another thread.) Every professing Christian I know carries a small pale of knowledge in theology, which is a good thing ( if you read the bible then you'd understand why). Popular evangelicals are divided amongst the hardcore and softcore. But to date I’ve never heard the hardcore appeal for violence, but rather justify current violence (9/11=gods punishment).
Then we have Islam, a religion that appeals for violence and justifies current violence. When you examine the evidence, I don’t think any one here can disagree with the fact that Islam is the most destructive to civilization. Islam shares many of the same principles of Judaism and Christianity (it ripped off both of them), which I mentioned above, but Islam goes further into the realm of what we label ‘extremism’ by blending a personal belief with a system of government where orthodox practice must be followed in private and public. Christianity was reintroduced to this concept via Jerry Falwell, the man responsible for moving America back in time by injecting religion into politics. However, there is no precedent in the bible to back up Falwell. I don’t recall Jesus going political on his apostles by challenging Roman rule; in fact he ignored it all together. However, there is precedent in the Quran. Islam is reactionary when it demands it’s disciples to neither question nor waver from its teachings. Shira law is validated by scripture, the infallible word of god. There is no reason that they shouldn’t endorse it and credible grounds that they should.
Now, what about the Hadith? This book is canonically in line with the Quran. It sanctions many things we’d call uncivilized, namely warfare in the name of Allah. The highest level of heaven can only be achieved as a mujahid. I’ve read weak interpretations which suggest it’s all metaphorical. Words have meaning and we shouldn’t need to hide behind interpretation arguments. This form of apologetics is second only in frailty to the invincible ‘it’s my faith’ trump card which suggests the person has moral high ground. Sure, religion is a bunch of nonsense, but faith! Faith in the idea that you’ll burn for eternity in hell; faith in knowing we’re all pre-programmed manifestations that lack any hand in our own destiny; and faith in a book written long ago which endorses genital mutilation, slavery, war, sadism, elitism, and the ever looming fear of celestial wrath.
Islamic violence is a result of a few things. Poor foreign policy is only one issue, but this issue shouldn’t become the central factor. It’s both historically and theologically incorrect to assume that Islam strikes in response to threat. To say that it does will not explain the scenario of Hamas and Fatah, where one party was formed from the populace to kill and replace the much too ‘moderate’ standing party. Nor does it explain the killing of Buddhists in Thailand, along with the destruction of historical landmarks. What about the Islamic subjugation of women and non-believers in Africa? It doesn’t explain the rallying cry of Bin Ladenists who hope to return Caliphate rule to the Islamic world. Put a microscope on the globe and you’ll see radical Islamic practice is not a minority movement in short supply, on the contrary, it’s large and growing in numbers. In Egypt, Radical Islamists persecute the Copts; in Sudan, the Radical Islamist regime massacres and enslaves the Dinkas, both Christian and traditionalist; in Lebanon, Radical Islamists terrorize the Christians; in Nigeria, they butchered Biafran Ibos and oppress the Christians. In Iraq and Syria, alleged secular radical regimes that are governed by Arab nationalist ideologies are penetrated by Jihadic principles taht suppress native Christian and minority Muslim cultures; in Iran, they persecute Christians and Bahais; in Kashmir, they wage a terrorist war against the Hindu minority; in the southern Philippines, they terrorize Catholics and kidnap foreigners; in East Timor, they have endorsed the regime's attempts at ethnic cleansing against Christians; in Indonesia, they routinely assault the native Christians, particularly in the Moluccas; in China, they call for the creation of an Islamic state in Xinjiang under Shira Law; in Russia, they call for the violent secession of Chechnya, and Dagestan and the list goes on to include Israel and so forth. Clearly, Islamic law does endorse violence and is practicing it, regardless of US and European assault.
Recent UK pools suggest this radical movement to be present within the UK. http://www.telegraph...9/nsharia19.xml What really opened my eyes to this topic was the Danish Cartoonist depiction of Allah. Any religion that sanctions the economic destruction of a small socialist country, because a pictorial off piece broke their religious law, is by definition radical. It’s not acceptable to me when Islamic law is used to judge those who are outside the confines of the faith. It illuminated the fact that liberalism has not penetrated Islam to the point that it can coexist with our way of life.
So, when criticizing Islam, one shouldn’t feel the burden of passing the blame on all religions, a skeptic should feel comfortable enough to attack in the light of strong evidence without culpability.
#96
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:24 PM
#97
Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:54 AM
I can. Islamic civilization is civilization as well if you hadnt noticed. The idea that the religion of a poorer, victimized and less industrialized population is against civilization just smacks of ethnocentric imperialist tendencies.
He should have. Thats one of the reasons I defend Islam. People should have the right to recourse against occupation and invasion. Having a religion that openly states that is a plus as it prepares the population better for resistance.
All religions say that and threaten those who do with hell, lower reincarnation, whatever.
Everyone considers dying for your cause or religion to be a noble act. It doesnt take a religious text to tell us that.
Bull. Fatah became corrupt and Hamas was not meant to destroy Fatah. The split was largely because of different battle strategies and situations on the ground. Fatah did some good work but soon became too worried about lining their pockets to A: Submit wholehartedly to peace with Israel (cuz once Palestinians didnt have zionist massacres to worry about they'd notice their pockets being picked) or B: Devote themselves to obliterating the zionist scourge (because they might die and lose all they've worked to gain) I'm quite glad Hamas came to power in Gaza, and wish them all luck in repulsing the Israeli invasion being planned.
Sure it does. Muslims want to be ruled by Muslims again and not by foreign interests or outright puppet states.
(On Muslim struggles: forgive me for only commenting on those which I've studied a good bit. I'll fact check hte others eventually)
Bull. There is no radical Islam allowed in egypt. If you're a brotherhood member the government just makes you disappear to please their masters in Washington and keep themselves in power. Islamic nationalists have no time to bother the copts, and people who fast for more than half the year are persecuting themselves to start with.
Thats a struggle over sovereignty, not religion.
Henry Kissinger orchestrated the begining of hostilities in Timor, and so the US government bears responsibility fo the fall out from it. This is true of all areas you mention and the imperialist powers that systematicly raped them. Palestine and Kashmir were partitioned wrong by Britain, Chechnya was occupied by Russia, middle east was carved up by the US, France Britain and oil companies thereof.
The west pissed all over the whole ant hill and then wants to blame the ants for fighting over the dry land thats left. Imperialism is the threat to civilization, not Islam.
"in China, they call for the creation of an Islamic state in Xinjiang under Shira Law; in Russia, they call for the violent secession of Chechnya, and Dagestan"
In Russia they insititutionalize people who criticize the government and hold them without trial. In China they execute people for petty theft and make Sharia law look light. You have no place criticizing Muslims for wanting to escape Russian or Chinese rule when any people would have the same desires.
"It illuminated the fact that liberalism has not penetrated Islam to the point that it can coexist with our way of life."
The imperialist way of life is the one that can't coexist with Islam. Because, as you pointed out, the religion tells its followers to slay those who would oppress them. Of course they're not going to liberalize while their people are under attack. Muslims are under siege in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, and the list goes on. War and terror are not liberalziing forces in societies.
Quote
#98
Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:50 PM
Read a Quran, look at history of the rise of Islam, look at current leaders of Islam and then reanalyze your statement. The Quran is AS violent as the Old Testament (despite being 600+ years after..). Mohammed himself spread the religion through the sword. Current leaders are all fanatical and have all either run the country into the ground and/or supressed their people.
(On Muslim struggles: forgive me for only commenting on those which I've studied a good bit. I'll fact check hte others eventually)
Really? The problem with you is you look at the history of the Middle East essentially 20th century and on. Islam had the unique ability of the religions to IMMEDIATELY post prophet to fight AMONGST itself over the next in line. Aside from that, Arabs under the guise of islam waged wars against all their neighbors. All this stuff that OMGOGMGOMGOMG Western influence has ruined the middle east is a joke. The middle east became a joke between 1600ish-1900 when they essentially had governments that were either too religious or too corrupt. On the other hand, the West was became more civilized, more secular, and more advanced.
I just love when people defend muslims with this naive notion that they are only bad because of us. It is true, resentment towards the US is rooted in Western influence their, but that is irrelevent. They use religion as a propaganda utility to get people to join their cause, because religion, just as it has in the past, can easily motivate the uneducated or desperate to doing things they wouldn't normally do. The real problem however is that Islam INHERENTLY is a religion that is intolerant and violent and if those same muslims ruled the world, you wouldn't even be able to speak on this forum.
This post has been edited by Renegade: 29 February 2008 - 04:53 PM
#99
Posted 29 February 2008 - 05:00 PM
No.. im basing it on their text and their history when they were in power...
Now, a muslim country COULD be liberal/democratic but it would have to be a country with a secular govt (ie. Turkey)
#100
Posted 29 February 2008 - 05:59 PM
Before I address your post, Hofmarn, where exactly do you stand on the religion? The body of my argument was Islam is guilty of immorality, which are all found in it's teachings. You've turned a blind eye to all of this and simply went off on an anti-western rant. You didn't address Islam at all. You made no effort to acknowledge the Quran or Hadith. You made no attempt to explain the intolerance and barbaric mindsets that exists with in these societies.
I think I made a pretty good argument which left numerous examples for your viewing pleasure; you ignored almost all of them.
If you want to blame Islamic violence in Indonesia on Henry Kissinger, then be my guest, but I won't reply back. You've defended nothing by softening Islamic brutality with respect to another evil. Islamic intolerance in most areas has nothing to do with US interests. Islamic violence and subjugation existed long before the US was a country.
So far, your entire argument rests on intrusive US intervention, or more succinctly; Islam is evil because the US made it that way. You didn’t refute the idea that it is evil, you merely pardoned it.
#101
Posted 29 February 2008 - 07:48 PM
Amen to that I like a good debate as much as the next guy but I think the way people go about it in these forums is ridiculous, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who can't be bothered wading through these two foot long "usenet" posts. Personally I don’t think boring someone out the debate is anyway to win an argument.
That is one badass baby.
#102
Posted 02 March 2008 - 05:01 AM
#103
Posted 02 March 2008 - 05:39 PM
reply reply reply
reply reply reply
reply reply reply
reply reply reply
reply reply reply
#104
Posted 09 March 2008 - 02:04 AM
I'm generally in favor of Islam because it aids in the defeat of capitalism.
It's silly to imply that I should reply to your entire post at once, and I rather enjoy the debate club format.
The Quran ws written while the Islamic tribes were under siege, and that state of affairs is quite similiar to the current one, so I'm going to say it's quite timely.
Islam has not always been intolerant and barbaric. They were some of the finest scholars in the world for quite some time and preserved a lot of roman knowledge that they recovered from Byzantium. Also the Jizya they made non believers pay was less than the alms that Muslims paid.
And I didnt say it was solely the US, I believe I generally blamed imperialism.
As for whether Islam is evil or not, I dont like any organized religion but I don't believe that any religion could really be evil, unless crazy suicide cults count. Any religious group that becomes a majority is going to push others around, thats just human nature. At the momet its largely the Christian west doing the pushing and accusing Islam of barbarism for fighting back.
Quote