Islam - What's your view on it?

[prisonermonkeys]

You are aware that they can be both?

Why don't we just say that terrorists are terrorists? It doesn't matter how they try and justify it, in the end, they're all the same - they're criminals.

 

[mustafur]

Why don't we just say that terrorists are terrorists? It doesn't matter how they try and justify it, in the end, they're all the same - they're criminals.

They are criminals, but the point being they may still be religious, and or aspired from it.

 

[Dotini]

Why don't we just say that terrorists are terrorists? It doesn't matter how they try and justify it, in the end, they're all the same - they're criminals.

But if the terrorists win to power, they then cease being terrorists and become victorious and glorious "freedom fighters", or whatever. I suppose Israel was founded in part by terrorists, likewise the USA.

 

[Scaff]

Trump is campaigning on the basis of less intervention in the middle east, fewer regime changes. Or is it too late now for that, and the need is for more?

And proposing to ban an entire religion from entering into a country and suggesting that all people of that religion be made to wear a symbol to publicly identify them are not in any way a form of collective blame that will punish the innocent majority for the actions of a very, very, very, very small minority?

Oh and you forgot that Trump also said he could sort out IS by killing their families.

So yes I do think that based on what he has said he will do, that a Trump victory would be a great 'recruitment' win for IS.

I'm not trying to imply anything coming from you I was just grading severity of cases and using a wild example, death penalty is an issue but even on the issue of executions we can see there is a difference on how they are done and given out that we can comment on.

Being from a Country that doesn't practise it and my support for the non practice of it I'm critical of both just for reference, but at least in my opinion Saudis method of this is significantly worse.

You might want to read up on death by electric chair, as given the choice (if I had to) I would go for the sword over that.

I know this but I wanted to see Prisonermonkeys view on this which to be honest makes no sense to me that they are not both.

Fair enough.

I
No they don't I know this, our main terrorist problem within Islam is at the face of it from that sect of Islam I was mentioning, I was just asking questions, I mean if there was a mass migration of this exact sect then alarm bells would be ringing, but this is not the case.

Of course there is the possibility many are in fact coming but religion being an idea means it's hard to identify until either the attack has happened or counter terrorists have identified them before they do such an attack.

Quite right, but the exact same can be said of any terrorist organisation, the very nature of which means they will try and hid among the innocent. However by treating the whole as if they were all the minority will not work, never has and never will (quite the opposite).

My own country had to learn this the hard way in Northern Ireland, with the collective punishments used actually increasing a drive in terrorist numbers rather than a decrease.

Why don't we just say that terrorists are terrorists? It doesn't matter how they try and justify it, in the end, they're all the same - they're criminals.

I disagree.

I does matter how they justify it, as knowing that is a major step along the road to being able to address and target it in a sane way, rather than via collective action against the whole.

 

[Dotini]

And proposing to ban an entire religion from entering into a country and suggesting that all people of that religion be made to wear a symbol to publicly identify them are not in any way a form of collective blame that will punish the innocent majority for the actions of a very, very, very, very small minority?

Oh and you forgot that Trump also said he could sort out IS by killing their families.

Trump's original proposal was never to entirely ban an entire religion from entering the country, only mostly and until the folks entering could be properly vetted. But you should understand that Trump's ideas and proposals are constantly shifting. He plays by his own rules which allow him the fancy footwork not available to conventional politicians.

I don't believe for a second that he has the slightest intention of killing their families up close and personal with boots on the ground. Maybe by bombing or that technical gift, the drone.

 

[mustafur]

You might want to read up on death by electric chair, as given the choice (if I had to) I would go for the sword over that.

Well ill be the first to say it was Ignorance on my behalf to think Lethal injection is not only form of execution today.

I would say though this ranks very high on cruelty of death though.(Video at the bottom is graphic if played).

I don't believe for a second that he has the slightest intention of killing their families up close and personal with boots on the ground. Maybe by bombing or that technical gift, the drone.

Given that it happens already with drones, I don't see it being unbelievable.

 

[Scaff]

Trump's original proposal was never to entirely ban an entire religion from entering the country, only mostly and until the folks entering could be properly vetted. But you should understand that Trump's ideas and proposals are constantly shifting. He plays by his own rules which allow him the fancy footwork not available to conventional politicians.

Of course those using his words for propaganda will be sure to make such a distinction (not that such a distinction improves it at all).

I don't believe for a second that he has the slightest intention of killing their families up close and personal with boots on the ground. Maybe by bombing or that technical gift, the drone.

I'm sure once again the technical differences will be pointed out by those using it for recruitment.

A presidential candidate even proposing ignoring the countries own constitution and break international law (to the degree of a war crime) to met out collective punishment is going to be a major driver for people to join IS, and quite frankly to no see that is odd.

Well ill be the first to say it was Ignorance on my behalf to think Lethal injection is not only form of execution today.

I would say though this ranks very high on cruelty of death though.(Video at the bottom is graphic if played).

Oh I certainly does, but when the country that is often portrayed as 'the leader of the free world' is still cooking people to death with electricity it seriously undermines your case for reform in other countries.

Which is exactly why I say that we can't demand Human Rights in other countries without addressing our own.

 

[FoRiZon]

ISIS best recruitment modals are convincing moslems that western (privileged) people are inherently evil and going to banish them all.

I credit Trump for that. This is why Ministry of defense said it'll be dangerous if Trump actually elected and run that Muslim ban.

 

[mustafur]

ISIS best recruitment modals are convincing moslems that western (privileged) people are inherently evil and going to banish them all.

Whilst they do get people via this way, the vast majority are recruited from the middle east, and in fact many of the Rebels funded by Saudi Arabia and the US are the same sect of Wahhabi as ISIS(See Al Nusra) and many fighters end up joining ISIS given they want the same end.

And then you have ISIL which is basically ISIS outside Syria which have people from literally everywhere, and a big number of Former Iraqi Solders who where under Hussein before the Iraq war(Wonder who you can thank for that).

I credit Trump for that. This is why Ministry of defense said it'll be dangerous if Trump actually elected and run that Muslim ban.

it's hard to credit Trump for something that was happening before he was even a politician, but if he gets involved I have no doubt things will get worse going by the history on how it was formed in the first place.


The formation of ISIS could also be attributed to the proxy wars of Saudi Arabia and Iran that have been going on in the middle east well before the Iraq War, and whether knowingly or not Saudi Arabian funds have helped create ISIS/ISIL.

It's hard to know without having classified information but with the Failure of US in Iran which had the counter effect of the Islamic revolution in 1979, on the face of it seems to be Us getting back at them by backing Saudi Arabia's wars since(this could at the very least be applied when it comes to Yemen).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except that you're obviously referring to people here, whereas I wasn't, as evidenced by a specific example - unless Tony Abbott is a member here, of which I am unaware (and even if he puts his hand up now, I was unaware when I made that post).


Yeah, in the 1950s, we were all afraid of the carnage Jews would wreak as revenge for being silent collaborators in the Holocaust. It didn't happen. In the 1960s, we were all afraid of the carnage hippies and communists would wreak. Again, it didn't happen. In the 1970s it was communists and Asians, and while the 1980s were relatively free of fear, the Asians copped it again in the 1990s, and in the 2000s, it was the fear of the environmental lobby. Now in the 2010s, it's the fear of Muslims migrants (and you will note that I said "Muslim migrants" - just as you said "mass Muslim migration" - and not "terrorists"). Given the historical precedent, where absolutely none of the groups that we have feared would bring devastation actually brought it about, I see no reason to believe that Muslim migrants (again, "Muslim migrants", not "terrorists") will damage our culture.

Furthermore, your obvious misrepresentation of my comments - I have never ignored or disregarded the impact of terrorism - makes it pretty obvious that a) you're angling for a gotcha! moment, b) that you're in no position to judge what threatens a culture, and that c) you're unfit to make any decisions regarding it.

But, hey, what do I know? You keep that fear alive and well. Before long, you won't have to worry about mass Muslim migration destroying western culture, because you will have already ruined it yourself.

 

[novcze]

Australia Bans Criticism of Islam

... is this real? btw. worth watching first half, it nicely adds to this thread

 

[TenEightyOne]

Australia Bans Criticism of Islam

Haha, very funny

The headline actually says (as linked by you) "Australia makes vilification of religion illegal". Now who's more sensible, the headline writer or your vidiot?

 

[mustafur]

Australia Bans Criticism of Islam

... is this real? btw. worth watching first half, it nicely adds to this thread

That Applies to ACT only which is essentially just our Capital Canberra.

I'm pretty disgusted by this, and so should anyone who supports free speech, All religions should be open to criticism.

So long as you don't unfairly try to destroy someones livelihood for having a certain religion.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Haha, very funny

The headline actually says (as linked by you) "Australia makes vilification of religion illegal". Now who's more sensible, the headline writer or your vidiot?

I think from the looks of it it's largely because of "intolerance" of Muslims:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/act...igious-vilification-laws-20160804-gqlagu.html

I also like the quote at the end:

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the change was not designed to limit freedom of speech but to "ensure the political discourse does not descend into hatred"

Which, of course it will limit if it's anything like our laws (UK)

 

[Scaff]

I think from the looks of it it's largely because of "intolerance" of Muslims:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/act...igious-vilification-laws-20160804-gqlagu.html

I also like the quote at the end:

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the change was not designed to limit freedom of speech but to "ensure the political discourse does not descend into hatred"

Which, of course it will limit if it's anything like our laws (UK)

I'm not sure how you get that idea about UK law, as while we do have an act that makes Religious or Racial hatred illegal, it also has a specific exemption to ensure that freedom of expression (as provided via negative right in English common law) is retained.

Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or
urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
The act in question: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/pdfs/ukpga_20060001_en.pdf

So in UK law you can say what you like about a religion (or lack of one), ridicule and abuse it in any way you like, as long as it doesn't result in the incitement of hatred or violence.

Now you can argue that it unless you are able to also incite violence or hatred against others then its not freedom of speech/expression, but that freedom has always had exceptions (in the UK) and given that until 2008 we had a blasphemy law in place specifically written to protect the Christian church we have actually seen an increase in the right of expression and free speech not a further limiting of it.

 

[Carbonox]

Regarding the topic of criticism of Islam, at least this scum got served justice right now:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-27-years-for-shopkeeper-murder-a7180301.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

Regarding the topic of criticism of Islam, at least this scum got served justice right now

Absolutely, the guy's the very model of intolerance to an actual normal person that the clickbait sites don't seem to think exists.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The headline actually says (as linked by you) "Australia makes vilification of religion illegal".

Pretty much any vilification is illegal. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act classifies any kind of vilification as hate speech. It's not designed to ban criticism, but to stop people with an agenda from misrepresenting groups of people. Only one person has really been prosecuted under Section 18C, and that's conservative commentator Andrew Bolt after he misrepresented indigenous communities in his articles. Even then, he was prosecuted for libel first, with offences under Section 18C included to add weight to the charges.

We have had huge problems with right-wing groups like Reclaim Australia, particularly in Bendigo where a mosque has proposed. It's a problem because key figures in these groups are known members or associates of outlaw bikie gangs, and while groups like Reclaim Australia try to position the issue in Bendigo as a local community rejecting the increasing influence of Islam in Australia, in reality it's right-wing groups coming from all over the country. Tensions have largely cooled, but for a while there it looked like it was heading towards violence not seen since the Cronulla riots.

Section 18C is unusual by western standards, but Australia has a long and unpleasant relationship with instituionalised discrimination. For decades we had the White Australia Policy, a government policy determined to keep the population 100% Anglo-Saxon, and this was long before apartheid took over in South Africa. There are concerns that relaxing Section 18C could revive such sentiments - even now, there is a group of right-wing senators trying to get it repealed and force a Royal Commission into "whether Islam is a religion or an ideology". As the saying goes, you don't hold a Royal Commission unless you know what the answer will be going in, and it's pretty obvious that these senators want Islam classified as an ideology so that they can ban its practice and deport Muslims.

 

[novcze]

Haha, very funny

The headline actually says (as linked by you) "Australia makes vilification of religion illegal". Now who's more sensible, the headline writer or your vidiot?

Headlines aside, I thought that main point of the video is lack of definition of terms used. Did you watch the video? ... for example how/who will decide what is vilification and what is criticism. I would be very worried if that is the same people who put everything what is not to their liking into far-right box.

 

[mister dog]

I guess the girl provoked it

Refreshing to see this being a Belgian too.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guess the girl provoked it

Refreshing to see this being a Belgian too.

Of course... Shariah Law means we'll immediately see the gays thrown from rooftops, right? In practice Shariah Law defers to the parent laws of the country - that's how it explicitly works. If you're in a country whose laws will allow the worst parts of Shariah (and the people actually want those parts) then we see them enacted, that's sad but true.

In actual fact communities that excercise Shariah Law mostly use it to allow their own marriage services (which still, in Shariah, have to be licensed by the resident country) and to facilitate their own banks. Where's the problem with that, really?

Might I respectfully suggest that you get a grip?

 

[mister dog]

You're incredible really. You wouldn't mind if Sharia law was implemented in the UK then? Because i hope you realize there's no mitigating circumstances you can single out and you can drop the rest of it; it's take it or leave it with everything that comes with it.

 

[sumbrownkid]

If that's the case then why is Sharia law not followed as one single block all over the muslim world? Each nation for the most part implement it as to how they wish to and how they want to. It sounds awfully a lot like many of the Constitutions or other codified laws that are subject to review, implementation, and interpretation.

But hey since it's Islam, therefore it's wrong right? It doesn't allow for discourse or reason, even though the Qur'an asks it's reader why won't you think?

https://www.thenation.com/article/true-story-sharia-american-courts/

Honestly a lot of the issues with Sharia law are with the idiots who implement it. Then again you can say that about any government.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If that's the case then why is Sharia law not followed as one single block all over the muslim world? Each nation for the most part implement it as to how they wish to and how they want to. It sounds awfully a lot like many of the Constitutions or other codified laws that are subject to review, implementation, and interpretation.

But hey since it's Islam, therefore it's wrong right? It doesn't allow for discourse or reason, even though the Qur'an asks it's reader why won't you think?

https://www.thenation.com/article/true-story-sharia-american-courts/

Honestly a lot of the issues with Sharia law are with the idiots who implement it. Then again you can say that about any government.

Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to how they do business, how they marry and how their estate is distributed after death.

We have laws that govern all of these things. Any person is free to make a contract with another person so long as it doesn't violate our existing laws. Why would you need Shariah to sort out how estates are distributed after death? Make a will..do whatever you want with your estate...done. If you want to give your female children less than the male children have at it, no one will stop you. If you only want to eat Halal meat...shop at a Halal butcher. If you want to do business a certain way, make a contract like everyone else.

 

[sumbrownkid]

We have laws that govern all of these things. Any person is free to make a contract with another person so long as it doesn't violate our existing laws. Why would you need Shariah to sort out how estates are distributed after death? Make a will..do whatever you want with your estate...done. If you want to give your female children less than the male children have at it, no one will stop you. If you only want to eat Halal meat...shop at a Halal butcher. If you want to do business a certain way, make a contract like everyone else.

Because the usual people who want Sharia law probably feel that they are being marginalized and discriminated against by a secular government they feel is out to get them, and thus want something that they feel will allow some semblance of being respected. Even though it is a counter intuitive method because they can use the current laws to fight against any injustice, both real and perceived. A lot of the laws in the West honestly, don't really go against Sharia for the most part.

I'm sure most Muslims in the West are fine with laws they accept to abide by and don't clamor for sharia. Honestly at this point, the word Sharia is just a scare tactic to mindlessly portray us as barbarians by politicians wanting an easy vote. If this wanting of sharia was so much of an issue, then why aren't Muslims en masse bringing it up? At least here in the United States I have even yet to hear of a collective muslim thought for the introduction of sharia law. Then again, Muslims here have it a lot better than in Europe.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're incredible really. You wouldn't mind if Sharia law was implemented in the UK then? Because i hope you realize there's no mitigating circumstances you can single out and you can drop the rest of it; it's take it or leave it with everything that comes with it.

You're very very wrong. It already exists here (and in Belgium, incidentally). What makes you think that normal observants of Sharia don't follow it properly thereby agreeing to heed the laws of the land? I'd suggest that you don't really know what Sharia law is.

We have laws that govern all of these things. Any person is free to make a contract with another person so long as it doesn't violate our existing laws.

I agree absolutely, that's how Sharia law works.

Why would you need Shariah to sort out how estates are distributed after death? Make a will..do whatever you want with your estate...done.

Yup, no problem with that either. If you're from a certain culture you might want a particular type of contract (as you suggest) and you might want to divide things according to certain traditions. That might mean a contract under Sharia Law, of course, no problem with that. The details are still judgable in the country's own courts, of course, because that's how Sharia works.

If you only want to eat Halal meat...shop at a Halal butcher.

Yup, if I need halal then that's exactly what I do. We still agree on that aspect of Sharia law.

If you want to do business a certain way, make a contract like everyone else.

Nobody makes contracts "like everyone else", every contract has the scope for difference and specificity. If you want a particular type of contract then go for it. We still agree on the use of Sharia law in that case

If this wanting of sharia was so much of an issue, then why aren't Muslims en masse bringing it up? At least here in the United States I have even yet to hear of a collective muslim thought for the introduction of sharia law.

They live by it every day, it's just how it is... think of Christian Law as the 10 Commandments. The media's idea of "bringing in Sharia Law OMGZ!!" really is suggesting that some kind of lawless Anony-stan government is going to take over, and that's just bollocks.

the word Sharia is just a scare tactic to mindlessly portray us as barbarians by politicians wanting an easy vote

Exactly. Sadly a lot of people are sucking it up along with the idea that all Muslims treat the Quran as a literal document. Not @Johnnypenso though, so far he seems in favour

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're very very wrong. It already exists here (and in Belgium, incidentally). What makes you think that normal observants of Sharia don't follow it properly thereby agreeing to heed the laws of the land? I'd suggest that you don't really know what Sharia law is.



I agree absolutely, that's how Sharia law works.



Yup, no problem with that either. If you're from a certain culture you might want a particular type of contract (as you suggest) and you might want to divide things according to certain traditions. That might mean a contract under Sharia Law, of course, no problem with that. The details are still judgable in the country's own courts, of course, because that's how Sharia works.



Yup, if I need halal then that's exactly what I do. We still agree on that aspect of Sharia law.



Nobody makes contracts "like everyone else", every contract has the scope for difference and specificity. If you want a particular type of contract then go for it. We still agree on the use of Sharia law in that case



They live by it every day, it's just how it is... think of Christian Law as the 10 Commandments. The media's idea of "bringing in Sharia Law OMGZ!!" really is suggesting that some kind of lawless Anony-stan government is going to take over, and that's just bollocks.

What you are describing is custom, not law. Buying and consuming Halal meat for example is personal choice and custom, but it can't be enforcable as a law. I don't think anyone has an issue with customs or individual contracts among consenting people. What many people would likely object to is a separate system of courts and laws with different rules and regulations for Muslims that would be applicable in the absence of a contract.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

You're very very wrong. It already exists here (and in Belgium, incidentally). What makes you think that normal observants of Sharia don't follow it properly thereby agreeing to heed the laws of the land? I'd suggest that you don't really know what Sharia law is.

Yeah, and it's being investigated by the Home Office. It's pretty discriminatory against women you know....

 

[Scaff]

What you are describing is custom, not law. Buying and consuming Halal meat for example is personal choice and custom, but it can't be enforcable as a law. I don't think anyone has an issue with customs or individual contracts among consenting people. What many people would likely object to is a separate system of courts and laws with different rules and regulations for Muslims that would be applicable in the absence of a contract.

Are you aware that the exact same thing happens with Christian and Jewish religious courts, with Jewish courts having an appalling track record against women.

Now should you wish to call for a ban on religious courts then please do so for all.

As far as religious law taking over a countries legal system, the biggest risk in the West isn't from Islamic law.

 

[mustafur]

Skip to 3:18 if you have seen this argument before, and you will pretty much get my view point on this.



You have Liberals/Progressives etc, being too soft on Islam, Vs Athiests or New atheists that will single out Islam more and give the impression of ignoring other key reasons, even if deep down there are similar in view point overall(I really shouldn't say Liberals vs Athiests as many on both sides are in fact Atheist).

I see both as right and wrong on key points, Liberals defending Islam on censorship which is highly contradictory to their own values, Mainly because they see them as a persecuted minority and seem to brush off everything in that agenda, and New Atheists being broad with the brush and ignoring some of the problems they face integrating in society alot of which they don't have full control of(try feeling confident in your country when your always profiled), and ignoring the messed up crap other religions do get involved in Western Countries(Which at least in Americas case is a very real problem in America).

So in Short from my view, All religions are messed up, Liberals need to stop defending Muslim censorship arguments so they don't feel offended, you wouldn't do this if it was any other religion.

Free speech and expression should be above all religious argument in a secular society, and understand that there is a doctrine, but there is also a people, and both are not made from the same material.