Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

as an infidel I'm quite terrified by this, apparently killing of infidels is part of their holy books and open to interpretation and all this combined with non-existent organization makes it unpredictable ... don't get me wrong though, I like the version @ECGadget presents and I'm pleased that killing of those who oppose muslims can happen only in very specific circumstances (whatever that means).

You do know that all three of the Abrahamic texts say exactly the same thing?

What you may not be aware is that 'people of the book' (Christians, Jews and others) are actually specifically protected in the Koran and by agreements written and signed by Mohamed himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

btw. @ECGadget don't you think that part of sharia is redundant when you live in a country that already have legal system?

No more so that Jewish or Christian religious courts.

I think they will be laughed at or ignored ... oh wait, that's what actually happen https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ill-ban-provocative-clothing-tabled/23288815/

Uganda
Majority (85%) Christian, and conservatively so.

Mini-skirts are illegal, wearing them will get you jailed, attacked in public, etc.

That one's not quite so funny............

Speaking of Uganda, how about the hilarious American Christian groups that funded an attempt to make homosexuality not just illegal, but punishable by death in Uganda.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-kapya-kaoma/the-us-christian-right-an_b_387642.html

Stop attempting to paint these issues as unique to a single religion, they are not and its quite easy to demonstrate that.

 

[TexRex]

(yes, the environment is a key part of being a Muslim, odd as that sounds)

It makes perfect sense to me. Anything seen as a detriment to the environment is seen as such to its inhabitants--indirectly causing harm, but causing harm nonetheless.

 

[novcze]

Stop attempting to paint these issues as unique to a single religion, they are not and its quite easy to demonstrate that.

where am I saying that it is unique to a single religion, yet again you are refuting things I didn't say. I'm interested in islam (for obvious reasons) so I'm in this thread, that doesn't imply anything about my views on judaism and christianity.

Actually I really like the insights that @ECGadget can provide here, that's why I asked about his opinion on sharia law being redundant to some extent if there is already legal system that deals with non-religious matters.
Now when you mentioned the dhimmi concept that would be also interesting to hear from the actual muslim if that also include atheists or if that concept is still relevant in this age.

 

[tipoma]

I asked about his opinion on sharia law being redundant to some extent if there is already legal system that deals with non-religious matters.

Is the answer different than what a Christian would say? Following the rule of man is a given in that religion and probably Judaism as well. Above the law but following it all the same.

 

[TexRex]

sharia law being redundant to some extent if there is already legal system that deals with non-religious matters.

What I have gleaned from posts that @ECGadget has made is that the courts exist to satisfy parties' desire to have their religious beliefs represented in matters. If all involved share the same basic belief system, and that system puts an emphasis on conduct of a certain sort, a court that operates accordingly is probably desirable.

About nine years into marriage, my wife and I went through a rough patch during which we sought mediation for matters involving our daughter. Because of the love we both have for her, we wanted unbiased guidance when it came to the issue of guardianship and continued care. Now in this instance the subject of religion was replaced by a child's well-being, but I can perceive similarities...assuming I'm correctly understanding the role Sharia law courts play.

 

[tipoma]

assuming I'm understanding the role Sharia law courts play.

That would be on a voluntary basis right, and only as long as it did not differ from the actual law of the land?

 

[TexRex]

That would be on a voluntary basis right, and only as long as it did not differ from the actual law of the land?

That is my understanding for parts of the world where Sharia (or sharia, if capitalization isn't necessary when speaking of it respectfully--I can't tell) isn't significant in "ordinary" legal proceedings, except where the law is imposed on non-Muslim inhabitants.

As one who questions religion in general, I don't believe it should be imposed on those who don't follow it, but I respect the desire followers have to allow it in aspects of their life.

 

[tipoma]

Unless you live in Saudi Arabia I guess. A minimal secular law should govern a nation imo but as long as people agree with their government there is no harm or foul, it's very hard to ignore the elephant in the room however when it comes to Sharia law, after all, who in their right mind would chose to live in the middle east?

That might be a bit harsh or closed minded but seriously, Syria anyone?

 

[Dotini]

Unless you live in Saudi Arabia I guess. A minimal secular law should govern a nation imo but as long as people agree with their government there is no harm or foul, it's very hard to ignore the elephant in the room however when it comes to Sharia law, after all, who in their right mind would chose to live in the middle east?

That might be a bit harsh or closed minded but seriously, Syria anyone?

There is said to be skiing available in Lebanon. Probably some fishing, too.


Lake Van, far to the east in Turkey, is Edenic. It is maintained by some to be the original Garden of Eden.

 

[ECGadget]

I am glad that you find my insights helpful, @novcze. With regards to your question, Shariah courts/rules are not for criminal activities or anything in the UK, more so civil situations. But they work in tandem with laws of the land, not against them. Example, a nikah ceremony is an Islamic binding of two people in marriage. But on top of that you have the normal marriage papers in the UK to show that you are married, signing and all. And it basically just continues to work in that fashion. So as @TexRex has said, it contributes to it, not fighting against it. I mean to be completely honest, a fair amount of Shariah law is pretty much just common law.

With regards to the 'dhimmi' concept there is debate on how applicable it is for the modern time in terms of taxes. But outside of that the idea of protection for everybody, Muslim or not, applies at all times. A Muslim defends, not attacks. Christian? No problem. Jew? That's fine. Zorastrean? Lovely. Athiest? Totally okay.

 

[TexRex]

Example, a nikah ceremony is an Islamic binding of two people in marriage. But on top of that you have the normal marriage papers in the UK to show that you are married, signing and all.

Thereby satisfying the individual's (or couple's, as the case may be) desire to have their faith better represented in the ceremony. Presumably those of Muslim faith aren't required to have joined through the nikah ceremony to be recognized as wed under common law.

 

[ECGadget]

Thereby satisfying the individual's (or couple's, as the case may be) desire to have their faith better represented in the ceremony. Presumably those of Muslim faith aren't required to have joined through the nikah ceremony to be recognized as wed under common law.

Correct, but then according to Islam they are not married. Not that a Nikah is hard to be honest. It's pretty much just like a wedding at a church with an ordained person.
"Do you accept this person to be your husband/wife, with all the duties required therein"
"You are now married. Sign, make a prayer, go enjoy a honeymoon."

 

[TexRex]

Correct, but then according to Islam they are not married.

I'd imagine not, but what may be seen as redundant by an outsider because it isn't necessary to meet common law requirements is not redundant for those who take their faith seriously.

 

[Mr Tree]

As one who questions religion in general, I don't believe it should be imposed on those who don't follow it, but I respect the desire followers have to allow it in aspects of their life.

True not really the correct thread as this applies to all religions but,...
Where does that respect stop? I assume it does stop somewhere.
For me that's really fast, the second they teach religion to children have 'coming of age' ceremonies and the fact that these ceremonies come way before the child is an adult.
Even worse when these rituals involve bodymutilation.

 

[Dotini]

...they teach religion to children have 'coming of age' ceremonies and the fact that these ceremonies come way before the child is an adult.
Even worse when these rituals involve bodymutilation.

Fully agreed. However, the serious question is how do you go about bringing their ceremonies to a halt, if at all?

 

[tipoma]

Fully agreed. However, the serious question is how do you go about bringing their ceremonies to a halt, if at all?

I don't think a forceful eradication is in order or any attempt to be helpful, the tools will become relics when they are no longer needed by the children. It is astonishing to see the persistence of it all though, choices are given and choices are made even under strict indoctrination.

Sometimes the hippies of the 60's got it right and their messages carry on so maybe that is something.

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good-bye.
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picks, the one you'll know by.
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you will cry,
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you.
And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.
Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picks, the one you'll know by.
Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you will cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

 

[Mr Tree]

Fully agreed. However, the serious question is how do you go about bringing their ceremonies to a halt, if at all?

I don't think a forceful eradication is in order or any attempt to be helpful, the tools will become relics when they are no longer needed by the children. It is astonishing to see the persistence of it all though, choices are given and choices are made even under strict indoctrination.

Sometimes the hippies of the 60's got it right and their messages carry on so maybe that is something.

Why not 'forcefull'?
As a 'former catholic' I was baptised and had both communians (or how is called in english) before I was 13. But I wasn't allowed to drink, carry a firearm, gamble, watch certain movies,....

It's exactly because we allow children to be indoctrinated that it persists...
I really think we need to clear up whats meant with religious freedom as it does infringe on other freedoms and rights we hold dear in the way we look at it now.


Disclaimer:
This is my opinion and I realise I have a very low tolerance for these practises.

 

[Imari]

Unless you live in Saudi Arabia I guess. A minimal secular law should govern a nation imo but as long as people agree with their government there is no harm or foul, it's very hard to ignore the elephant in the room however when it comes to Sharia law, after all, who in their right mind would chose to live in the middle east?

That might be a bit harsh or closed minded but seriously, Syria anyone?

It seems pretty ignorant to dismiss an entire region of the world, much of which is lovely with charming people, just because some of them happen to be involved in wars.

That aside, I imagine that people born in countries in the Middle East often feel the same sort of attachment and patriotism towards their countries as the rest of us. No matter how bad their country might be, it's their home and sometimes it's hard to let that go.

 

[UKMikey]

Why not 'forcefull'?
As a 'former catholic' I was baptised and had both communians (or how is called in english) before I was 13. But I wasn't allowed to drink, carry a firearm, gamble, watch certain movies,....

It's exactly because we allow children to be indoctrinated that it persists...
I really think we need to clear up whats meant with religious freedom as it does infringe on other freedoms and rights we hold dear in the way we look at it now.


Disclaimer:
This is my opinion and I realise I have a very low tolerance for these practises.

I get the feeling that dictating to people that they can't practise their religion and disseminate it to their offspring will only entrench their mindset. If I'm wrong then good luck getting the UDHR rewritten.

 

[ECGadget]

I get the feeling that dictating to people that they can't practise their religion and disseminate it to their offspring will only entrench their mindset. If I'm wrong then good luck getting the UDHR rewritten.

I think (and I may be incorrect here, so correct me if I am) that the point @Mr Tree is trying to make is not the idea of dictation per say but maybe the idea of things happening but no explanation being given as to why. It is like telling a student 'You must learn maths', but when asked as to why they must learn maths an explanation is not given at all. Personally, I believe it is extremely important to explain everything. In light of the death of Professor Hawking, we must ask ourselves how much knowledge he had because all he wanted to do is have everything explained, from the tiniest atom to the big bang. Perhaps this is something every person of faith should also endeavour to have; at the very least a basic understanding of why a faith is as it is, and what a faith truly means. This is what I have spent years (slowly) doing with Islam, just as I have with astrophysics, rocket science, quantum mechanics and any and all fields that I have either an interest in or relate to me.

 

[Mr Tree]

I get the feeling that dictating to people that they can't practise their religion and disseminate it to their offspring will only entrench their mindset. If I'm wrong then good luck getting the UDHR rewritten.

I never told people can't practice their religion. This is just plain false. They might not be allowed to indoctrinate their children. But if they are old enough to decide they do whatever they want.

Why is it when I call for an age restriction on religion people seem to think they are not allowed to practice religion. Do we say people are not allowed to drink because there is an age restriction in place?

How does it infringe on human rights?

In fact in my opinion the right to a fair education is compromised when we let minors be indoctrinated.

The fact is we allow special rules for the big religions in many cases and I fundamentally disagree with that.

The biggest victory for religions has not been that they have followers who believe it's something special. The real victory is that they've made it so.that we as a society look at religious beliefs as something special even if we aren't part of it.

 

[Dotini]

I never told people can't practice their religion. This is just plain false. They might not be allowed to indoctrinate their children.

Dear Mr Tree, ceremonially indoctrinating children is part of religion. Will you please revise your statement so that you don't contradict yourself? By denying their right to conduct ceremonies with their children, you are ipso facto denying their right to practice their religion.

 

[Mr Tree]

Dear Mr Tree, ceremonially indoctrinating children is part of religion. You will please revise your statement.

Yeah I understand it's part of the religions, yet it does kinda disagree with the right to a.fair education for said child. It's free choice is also compromised. In my opinion those are more important then the sensebilities of a certain religion and no they are still allowed to follow the religion on a personal basis. I'm not stopping the individual from practising religion.

Hence I do NOT retract NOR revise my statement.

 

[Scaff]

Dear Mr Tree, ceremonially indoctrinating children is part of religion. You will please revise your statement.

Don't tell other members how or what to post.

 

[Exorcet]

It's exactly because we allow children to be indoctrinated that it persists...

It certainly helps religion to entrench its core tenets by exposing people to it early, but I don't think it's the only reason. Look at conspiracy theories. Chemtrails and its associated beliefs are almost a religion and completely ridiculous yet the idea still has a following.

I think fighting indoctrination is a good thing, but I'm not sure that it's a complete solution on its own.

I really think we need to clear up whats meant with religious freedom as it does infringe on other freedoms and rights we hold dear in the way we look at it now.

How does it infringe on human rights?

In fact in my opinion the right to a fair education is compromised when we let minors be indoctrinated.

From the way I see it, it ties into freedom of speech. People should be allowed to spread any and all ideas and then those ideas should ideally be tested with the bad ones thrown out. Ideas, even bad ones, shouldn't be censored and I have concerns over laws limiting free speech even if they're made with good intentions. Of course the complication here is that we're talking about young people where testing of ideas doesn't necessarily apply.

Perhaps part of the answer is as you said, not treating religion as something special. It shouldn't be an untouchable subject, especially in schools.

 

[UKMikey]

I never told people can't practice their religion. This is just plain false. They might not be allowed to indoctrinate their children. But if they are old enough to decide they do whatever they want.

Why is it when I call for an age restriction on religion people seem to think they are not allowed to practice religion. Do we say people are not allowed to drink because there is an age restriction in place?

How does it infringe on human rights?

In fact in my opinion the right to a fair education is compromised when we let minors be indoctrinated.

The fact is we allow special rules for the big religions in many cases and I fundamentally disagree with that.

The biggest victory for religions has not been that they have followers who believe it's something special. The real victory is that they've made it so.that we as a society look at religious beliefs as something special even if we aren't part of it.

It may be child abuse to indoctrinate children but if the indoctrinators think their religion leads them to do so then it's protected by the UDHR no matter how much you protest. Your opinion simply is not important to them (or to me).

 

[novcze]

With regards to the 'dhimmi' concept there is debate on how applicable it is for the modern time in terms of taxes. But outside of that the idea of protection for everybody, Muslim or not, applies at all times.

ok, I would expect that modern approach wil be that jizya tax is not really compatible with contemporary secular conceptions of citizen's civil rights and equality before the law. So I guess that would be prevailing opinion in the debate?

 

[Spurgy 777]

It may be child abuse to indoctrinate children but if the indoctrinators think their religion leads them to do so then it's protected by the UDHR no matter how much you protest. Your opinion simply is not important to them (or to me).

Abuse is not protected by the UDHR just because it's part of someones religion, that's just nonsense, the right to exercise your religion ends when it involves violating someone elses rights. The reason indoctrination is not illegal is that it's not seen as child abuse and the reason it's not seen as child abuse is because if it were you would be treading on some very dangerous ground.

After all they are technically teaching kids what they view as being the truth about the world so to make that illegal you would have to define what is or isn't fact and what can or can't be taught to children. Now that in itself is impossible to probably do or at least enforce, but even if it was doable, you would have to have someone somewhere define and enforce the "truth" which is incredibly dangerous thing to be doing.

@Mr Tree Why limit it to religion? Why not beliefs in conspiracy theories like the world leaders are lizards and we didn't go to the moon, or flat earthers? Religions aren't the only irrational beliefs that children are taught or indoctrinated into believing, there's a whole list of things you could ban if you want to go down that road, but as I said above the "truth" would ultimately have to be defined by someone somewhere and that is and incredibly dangerous amount of power to give them.

The best we can realistically do is put into law a minimum for what has to be taught to children and hope that that gives them the tools to still think for themselves and fight indoctrination.

 

[UKMikey]

Abuse is not protected by the UDHR just because it's part of someones religion, that's just nonsense, the right to exercise your religion ends when it involves violating someone elses rights. The reason indoctrination is not illegal is that it's not seen as child abuse and the reason it's not seen as child abuse is because if it were you would be treading on some very dangerous ground.

After all they are technically teaching kids what they view as being the truth about the world so to make that illegal you would have to define what is or isn't fact and what can or can't be taught to children. Now that in itself is impossible to probably do or at least enforce, but even if it was doable, you would have to have someone somewhere define and enforce the "truth" which is incredibly dangerous thing to be doing.

I'm just using the Richard Dawkins definition of child abuse. Of course it isn't seen as abuse under the law for the very reason of its extreme controversy. The whole idea is to point out the futility of trying to impose one's own worldview on others.

 

[Mr Tree]

It may be child abuse to indoctrinate children but if the indoctrinators think their religion leads them to do so then it's protected by the UDHR no matter how much you protest. Your opinion simply is not important to them (or to me).

Ok I'm going to start a religion and we only eat cat and dogmeat.... You can't stop.me it's my religion and it's my human right to have freedom of religion....

Or should I hop straigth to murder? Don't stop me from exorcising my religious freedom!

What a completely backwards way of thinking is that. I'm sorry but I can't see how you can defend that. I surely like to see you try.

I'm just using the Richard Dawkins definition of child abuse. Of course it isn't seen as abuse under the law for the very reason of its extreme controversy. The whole idea is to point out the futility of trying to impose one's own worldview on others.

I'm not impossing any worldview. I say we.teach science in school restrict religions from breaking the law because it's their religion. And stop allowong coming of age rituals before they're legally adults.

Abuse is not protected by the UDHR just because it's part of someones religion, that's just nonsense, the right to exercise your religion ends when it involves violating someone elses rights. The reason indoctrination is not illegal is that it's not seen as child abuse and the reason it's not seen as child abuse is because if it were you would be treading on some very dangerous ground.

After all they are technically teaching kids what they view as being the truth about the world so to make that illegal you would have to define what is or isn't fact and what can or can't be taught to children. Now that in itself is impossible to probably do or at least enforce, but even if it was doable, you would have to have someone somewhere define and enforce the "truth" which is incredibly dangerous thing to be doing.

@Mr Tree Why limit it to religion? Why not beliefs in conspiracy theories like the world leaders are lizards and we didn't go to the moon, or flat earthers? Religions aren't the only irrational beliefs that children are taught or indoctrinated into believing, there's a whole list of things you could ban if you want to go down that road, but as I said above the "truth" would ultimately have to be defined by someone somewhere and that is and incredibly dangerous amount of power to give them.

The best we can realistically do is put into law a minimum for what has to be taught to children and hope that that gives them the tools to still think for themselves and fight indoctrination.

Why would we limit this to religions? I'm not saying we people can't talk about their religion. I'm saying it shouldt be in.schools and things like coming of age rituals shouldn't be allowed. I would have no issue if a coming of age ritual in the conspiracy group wouldn't be allow for minors... I don't.know of any of those rituals but if there are I have no.issue with putting them under the same rules as religions....

We can't and shouldn't ban people from their believes but wr can pyt agerestrictions on those rituals I don't see the slippery slope.there I might be blind...