Islam - What's your view on it?

[ECGadget]

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?

Every Muslim across the world who is eligible to pay Zakat does though (a compulsory 2.5% charity that goes to the most needy of people in the world). But as for the Jizyah tax, I am led to believe there is a very specific set of circumstances in how a country is run and the ruling body and so on that would bring this tax in - a set of circumstances that do not exist currently and are overruled by other taxes. I am not well versed in the financial side of all this though. As for the tax itself, I believe Muslims and non Muslims pay the same amount. One was just called Zakat, the other Jizyah, but I do believe both were 2.5%

 

[Whitestar]

Has this been posted here before? I searched but couldn't find it. Sorry if it's already been posted and debated to death.
It's a debate (from 2010 apparently) where the motion/contention is "Islam is a Religion of Peace".

For the motion:
Zeba Khan
Maajid Nawaz

Against the motion:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Doulas Murray

 

[Spurgy 777]

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...

You weren't talking about coming of age rituals in the post that Mikey quoted, you were saying that it should be illegal to indoctrinate children, so that is what I was addressing. You can't make it illegal to indoctrinate children without giving someone the dangerous amount of power of legally defining what is the "truth" and to police what parents teach their kids.

 

[Mr Tree]

You weren't talking about coming of age rituals in the post that Mikey quoted, you were saying that it should be illegal to indoctrinate children, so that is what I was addressing. You can't make it illegal to indoctrinate children without giving someone the dangerous amount of power of legally defining what is the "truth" and to police what parents teach their kids.

Ok I should have been more clear but I used to coming of age rituals before and was discussing it further. And yes it's very hard to see what's truth.

The thing is that's not the situation we're not telling parents they can't indoctrinate their children in 'truths', we say they can't indoctrinate them in falsehoods.
And we can prove certain things wrong... An omnipotent being for instance but again I realise we can't stop that and I wouldn't want to freedom of speach is important. What we can stop is straightforward actions as those coming of age rituals that go hand in hand with a lot of indoctrination. Religious teachings in classes, religious schools defenitly if its religiously segregated. At least we'd stop part of it without infringing on the rights of indivoduals to speak their mind and practice their religion.

And what parents teach their kids should be of concern for the community and the children themselfs. We should stop acting like kids are their parents property.

 

[Carbonox]

Every Muslim across the world who is eligible to pay Zakat does though (a compulsory 2.5% charity that goes to the most needy of people in the world).

If it's compulsory, it's not charity.

 

[ECGadget]

If it's compulsory, it's not charity.

Not the best choice of words. Zakat literally means a donation of wealth to a charitable cause. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is not to be confused with Sadakah (charity as we know it). My fault of a poor choice of words, and I apologise.

 

[Imari]

The thing is that's not the situation we're not telling parents they can't indoctrinate their children in 'truths', we say they can't indoctrinate them in falsehoods.

That's the most unenforceable thing I ever heard of.

And we can prove certain things wrong... An omnipotent being for instance

Is that right? Prove away then. I'm eager to see how you prove the non-existence of something.

And what parents teach their kids should be of concern for the community and the children themselfs. We should stop acting like kids are their parents property.

So you'll control what the parents can and can't teach their children, and you'll control what they can and can't learn at school as well. And you say you're against indoctrination? How interesting. I guess it's only indoctrination when it's something you disagree with, hey?

 

[UKMikey]

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.

That's an easy one. Murder is against the law. Cat and dog food are bad for people and their consumption by humans is covered by food standards legislation.

Unfortunately there's no law against indoctrinating people with what you see as backward thinking but by all means, keep on coming with the random insults and straw men and I'll try and deal with them as best I can while continuing to comply with the AUP.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not the best choice of words. Zakat literally means a donation of wealth to a charitable cause. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is not to be confused with Sadakah (charity as we know it). My fault of a poor choice of words, and I apologise.

If it's compulsory it's not a donation either. It's a tax.

 

[novcze]

If it's compulsory it's not a donation either. It's a tax.

but giving a donations feels better than paying taxes ... at least jizya isn't compulsory

 

[Mr Tree]

That's the most unenforceable thing I ever heard of.



Is that right? Prove away then. I'm eager to see how you prove the non-existence of something.



So you'll control what the parents can and can't teach their children, and you'll control what they can and can't learn at school as well. And you say you're against indoctrination? How interesting. I guess it's only indoctrination when it's something you disagree with, hey?

I must not have been clear of coarse we can't controll those things we can't control what parents teach at home and I have said that in this discussion. I have said I don't want to do that as free speach is important.
Also what I did call for was making coming of age rituals illegal and refuse to segregate schools on religion or have religion in schools as religion. Nothing fancy nothing to strange I believe.

AGAIN I know we can't stop indoctrination as that would be subjective but we can keep religion out of schools. That's all I called for. Yet this would infringe on human rights? No I really seem to be missing something. I haven't said they are not allowed to go to church or mosque.

It's not the nonexistance of something I'm disproving. I meant certain properties are a paradox so it can't be true.
Omnipotence? Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Either answer would dismiss said beings omnipotence.

Why would it only be indoctrination if I disagree with it?

That's an easy one. Murder is against the law. Cat and dog food are bad for people and their consumption by humans is covered by food standards legislation.

Unfortunately there's no law in indoctrinating people with what you see as backward thinking but by all means, keep on coming with the random insults and straw men and I'll try and deal with them as best I can while continuing to comply with the AUP.

Yes but this is my point! I believe coming of age rituals and religion in schools should be illegal as that's not the place for those things.
And children should not be allowed to go trough tjose coming of age rituals before they're adults.

I know it's not illegal right now but why isn't it? I think those very specific things should be illegal.

But hey say you want to make some part of religion (again coming of age rituals before they are adults) illegal means I want religion to be illegal? Those are 2 vastly diffent opinions. But seemingly if I hold one I have to hold the other? What was the strawman there? I did not say you agree with the murder even if it was religiously inspired that's exactly why I chose that example. Because I was under the impression no one would think I meant you're ok with it.
If there is a strzwman could you please explain to me as I must be missing something and don't mean to strawman your position.


And what insult? I want it qouted if it was thz vackwards way of thinking part I'm sorry. I din't mean that insulting. I have in.this very thread been pointed to some of my backwards ways of thinking. So please qoute my insult.

 

[UKMikey]

Yes but this is my point! I believe coming of age rituals and religion in schools should be illegal as that's not the place for those things.
And children should not be allowed to go trough tjose coming of age rituals before they're adults.

I know it's not illegal right now but why isn't it? I think those very specific things should be illegal.

Because it's a matter of opinion and difficult if not impossible to enforce or legislate against it.

But hey say you want to make some part of religion (again coming of age rituals before they are adults) illegal means I want religion to be illegal? Those are 2 vastly diffent opinions. But seemingly if I hold one I have to hold the other? What was the strawman there? I did not say you agree with the murder even if it was religiously inspired that's exactly why I chose that example. Because I was under the impression no one would think I meant you're ok with it.
If there is a strzwman could you please explain to me as I must be missing something and don't mean to strawman your position.

The strawman is where you're equating child indoctrination with murder. It's a total non sequitur. I'm not okay with it but don't believe it's something that can be outlawed, unlike murder, because it depends on your opinion of what is truth and what isn't.

And what insult? I want it qouted if it was thz vackwards way of thinking part I'm sorry. I din't mean that insulting. I have in.this very thread been pointed to some of my backwards ways of thinking. So please qoute my insult.

It was saying I had a backward way of thinking. Maybe it's the apparent language barrier but you seem to be aggressively flying off the handle at people questioning your opinion and pointing out why what you propose wouldn't work.

My entire point is that governments have tried to stamp out and outlaw religion in the past and it hasn't worked because people are hardwired to hang onto to a belief in the unexplainable. That's not because of their indoctrination as children, simply human nature to have faith in the unprovable. If you enforced secularity in schools religious people would set up their own schools unless you tried to outlaw that too. It's not an idea that would gain much traction though, because of the EDHR.

 

[TexRex]

It's awful difficult to draw a line between indoctrination and the passing along of knowledge. As misguided as you or I may think they are, they truly belive what they're passing along is as important as the need to consume food and water.

 

[Imari]

Why would it only be indoctrination if I disagree with it?

Because you're quite happy to enforce school systems set up to provide the information you want, and that's apparently just sensible. But when the school system provides information you disagree with, that's indoctrination. That's some double standard you've got going on there.

Put it this way, some religious parents would probably take your plan as an effort to indoctrinate their children. I imagine that you think that they're wrong. How do you explain that to them in a rational and logical manner? How do you explain to them that their children should be learning what you think is best and not what they want their children to learn?

No hand waving or vagaries please, if those are all you've got then you're at the same level as religion.

 

[Mr Tree]

Because it's a matter of opinion and difficult if impossible to enforce or legislate against it.


The strawman is where you're equating child indoctrination with murder. It's a total non sequitur. I'm not okay with it but don't believe it's something that can be outlawed, unlike murder because it depends on your opinion of what is truth and what isn't.


It was saying I had a backward way of thinking. Maybe it's the apparent language barrier but you seem to be flying off the handle at people questioning your opinion and pointing out why what you propose wouldn't work.

So it's.not a strawman but a false equivalent. I can accept that.
Defenitly if you look at it purely as indoctrination. On the theaching religion in schools I have to agree when thinking about it more clearly it's hard to legislate and depending on opinion. I'd stand by the fact that religiously segregated schools should be illegal though. Any form of segregation within institutions should be illegal imo. (I'd also call for that iligality if the segregation would be politcal in nature).
The reasoning behind the coming of age rituals are as hard to legislate if I start looking for a compelling objective reason.
Those where actually based in an equivocation fallacy thanks for pointing that out!

And I fpind ypu argument less then compelling. The fact that it's very hard to legismtae wothout it becoming a slippery slope does become clear when trying to formulate why this should be did become apparent when trying to explain it in more detail to you.

On the going of, well.it's partly language and partly people taking things the wrong way. I'm very direct when I think something is ignorant or not properly reasoned (like my thoughts on this very subject apparently). And when I say tjis alloud people seem to think I mean they are 100% ignorant. This is not what I mean it's on that very specific thing. I read your post as religious freedom trumps other rights that's what I found backwards reasoning. Coming to think of it that was a strawman of mine as I just assumed your position but I misunderstood it and thus didn't represent it correctly.

So sorry for the insult it honest to god wazn't meant as one!

Because you're quite happy to enforce school systems set up to provide the information you want, and that's apparently just sensible. But when the school system provides information you disagree with, that's indoctrination. That's some double standard you've got going on there.

Put it this way, some religious parents would probably take your plan as an effort to indoctrinate their children. I imagine that you think that they're wrong. How do you explain that to them in a rational and logical manner? How do you explain to them that their children should be learning what you think is best and not what they want their children to learn?

No hand waving or vagaries please, if those are all you've got then you're at the same level as religion.

It's not so that it's only what I dislike or don't agree with but as written above.
It was based in opinion and thus a backwards way of thinking (@UKMikey )

 

[UKMikey]

I read your post as religious freedom trumps other rights that's what I found backwards reasoning.

What other rights do you feel it trumps?

 

[Mr Tree]

What other rights do you feel it trumps?

None I realise after this lengthy discussion like I said think more clearly shows I was making a lot of fallacious arguments.

 

[TexRex]

I'd stand by the fact that religiously segregated schools should be illegal though.

Except when parents decide whether or not their children go to them, right?

 

[Imari]

I'd stand by the fact that religiously segregated schools should be illegal though. Any form of segregation within institutions should be illegal imo.

Is this you totally forgetting to add "government funded" before institutions, or do you really think that no form of segregation within even private institutions should be legal? No churches, no private schools, no universities because they only take people of a certain age and education, no MENSA, no gay or lesbian clubs, no straight clubs, no institutions dedicated to a single interest or hobby or fetish at all.

Sounds like a horribly boring world. I'm sure we'll all be happy when everyone is the same, doing the exact same things and thinking the exact same way in a bleak sea of pale grey.

I'm as active as anyone at trying to talk other people out of their stupid opinions, but I don't think that legislating against stupidity solves anything. In fact, I'd say that attempting to legislate against stupidity (assuming that's your actual goal and you're not just straight up anti-religion) is in itself colossally stupid. People don't become not stupid just by waving a piece of paper in their face.

 

[Mr Tree]

Except when parents decide whether or not their children go to them, right?

I'm sorry I don't seem to understand the point you want to get across. Would you calrify it please?

Is this you totally forgetting to add "government funded" before institutions, or do you really think that no form of segregation within even private institutions should be legal? No churches, no private schools, no universities because they only take people of a certain age and education, no MENSA, no gay or lesbian clubs, no straight clubs, no institutions dedicated to a single interest or hobby or fetish at all.

Sounds like a horribly boring world. I'm sure we'll all be happy when everyone is the same, doing the exact same things and thinking the exact same way in a bleak sea of pale grey.

I'm as active as anyone at trying to talk other people out of their stupid opinions, but I don't think that legislating against stupidity solves anything. In fact, I'd say that attempting to legislate against stupidity (assuming that's your actual goal and you're not just straight up anti-religion) is in itself colossally stupid. People don't become not stupid just by waving a piece of paper in their face.

Didn't even think it through on that point...
So no that would be what I want, it would be a boring world indeed.
What I meant is you shouldn't have a christian only school, a hetero only school, a gay only school, a blacks or whites only school,... I don't think seperating diffrent ideas helps with the education, at least when you allow every point of view people can make up their own mind. When we segregate on the basis of certain ideologies they dot get exposure from the other idea's and are robber of their oppertunity to make up their own mind.
Or am I still wrong somehow? It could very well be I seemed to not have thought these thing through enough.

No I'm not just anti-religion. It indeed is the non-critical thinkin part I disagree with. I hear you think but you made a fair amount of wrong assumptions here. I'll grant you that, but that's why I'm here. To be pointed to my mistakes in reasoning, to try and better myself.

Edit: ooow now I get it yes government funded institutions shouldn't segregate that might be the best way of putting it. Thanks!

 

[Rallywagon]

I think they should discriminate in terms of education. Only in so far that there should be no religious based classes or schools on the governement dime. I have no issues with religion being taught in a history or social studies class. However, tax dollars from what should be a secular nation should not be spent on ministering religion in public schools, especially when relgious institutions do not contribute to the taxes paying for any such program.
I have absolutely no issues with private religious schools. I do have issue with public schools acting as churches.

 

[TexRex]

I'm sorry I don't seem to understand the point you want to get across. Would you calrify it please?

Absolutely!

A parochial school is a private primary or secondary school affiliated with a religious organization, and whose curriculum includes general religious education in addition to secular subjects, such as science, mathematics and language arts.

Being privately operated, parents choose to have their child(ren) attend...and typically pay for that choice. Now, I'm not keyed-in on the manner in which these establishments (I deign to even call them schools) operate, but even if they don't specifically segregate (though I have the nagging suspicion they do...but hey, I'm a cynic), they effectively do so in instructing according to one specific religion.

However, the Wikipedia entry cites religious "education" where I believe it ought to be religious "instruction."

Religious education: "So that's it, kids. Those are all the major religions around the world. We covered Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Hunduism...

...

...Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam...

...

...Bahá'í, Taoism and Zoroastrianism. There will be a test, and sorry about passing out there...it happens to me every year."

Religious instruction: "And God spoke unto Noah, 'Hey, bro, I just chugged a huge soda and I feel like I'm gonna go for 40 days and 40 nights. You'd better build a boat."

Did I mention I'm a cynic?

 

[Mr Tree]

Absolutely!


Being privately operated, parents choose to have their child(ren) attend...and typically pay for that choice. Now, I'm not keyed-in on the manner in which these establishments (I deign to even call them schools) operate, but even if they don't specifically segregate (though I have the nagging suspicion they do...but hey, I'm a cynic), they effectively do so in instructing according to one specific religion.

However, the Wikipedia entry cites religious "education" where I believe it ought to be religious "instruction."

Religious education: "So that's it, kids. Those are all the major religions around the world. We covered Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Hunduism...

...

...Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam...

...

...Bahá'í, Taoism and Zoroastrianism. There will be a test, and sorry about passing out there...it happens to me every year."

Religious instruction: "And God spoke unto Noah, 'Hey, bro, I just chugged a huge soda and I feel like I'm gonna go for 40 days and 40 nights. You'd better build a boat."

Did I mention I'm a cynic?

Ow yeah well I do not agree they ought to be allowed to be segregated. If we look at schools as institutions that need to teach or kids (and us) to learn to think about things, make educated descisions (even ones I disagree with, i.e. being religious), then it's nessecary multiple idea's to be present.

In belgium we.have religious based schools but the catholic ones aren't segregated.

I think some of the muslim ones are and some othodox jewish ones are for sure as they have been caught breaking certain rules regarding our national curriculum. I have an issue with these more so then with our.catholic schoolnet (allthough I'm not really prepared to fully defend this schoolnet either).


So no I still oppose these schools even if parents decide to sent their kids there. Allowing these is just a slippery slope towards creationism and other psuedoscience being thought in these schools.

 

[_ApexPredator]

AGAIN I know we can't stop indoctrination as that would be subjective but we can keep religion out of schools. That's all I called for. Yet this would infringe on human rights? No I really seem to be missing something. I haven't said they are not allowed to go to church or mosque.

religion in schools should be illegal as that's not the place for those things.

I don't think seperating diffrent ideas helps with the education, at least when you allow every point of view people can make up their own mind.

I agree. So maybe school is exactly the right place to be teaching religion? You can't rely on parents to provide the full picture - I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that after what I've read here.

Maybe the problem isn't religion itself but the fact that it isn't being taught properly?
Stories don't survive millennia if there isn't some value to them; perhaps if we were attempting to teach the lessons and wisdom contained within these religious ideologies and how they have proved to be useful tools in aiding the progression of humanity, rather than just teaching the literal stories: Noah built an ark, animals in pairs, heaven & hell, etc - I agree that that is not of much use without being taught the significance of the archetypes and the lessons within.

Radical Islam is separate from a general discussion of religion; just in case that's not clear.

I'll suffix this by saying that I wouldn't consider myself religious, but that's not to say I don't see value in understanding it better.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ow yeah well I do not agree they ought to be allowed to be segregated. If we look at schools as institutions that need to teach or kids (and us) to learn to think about things, make educated descisions (even ones I disagree with, i.e. being religious), then it's nessecary multiple idea's to be present.

In belgium we.have religious based schools but the catholic ones aren't segregated.

I think some of the muslim ones are and some othodox jewish ones are for sure as they have been caught breaking certain rules regarding our national curriculum. I have an issue with these more so then with our.catholic schoolnet (allthough I'm not really prepared to fully defend this schoolnet either).


So no I still oppose these schools even if parents decide to sent their kids there. Allowing these is just a slippery slope towards creationism and other psuedoscience being thought in these schools.

Don't private schools have to teach all the sciences, maths and other required subjects that form that basis of the official curriculum in order to obtain accreditation in the first place? Don't parents pay for the education of their children in private schools?

 

[photonrider]

Don't private schools have to teach all the sciences, maths and other required subjects that form that basis of the official curriculum in order to obtain accreditation in the first place?

The private school I attended did.

Don't parents pay for the education of their children in private schools?

My parents did and I'm glad they sent me there; it inspired me to study all the other religions that have popped into existence.

Wait . . . those were probably rhetorical questions, Johnny . . .

 

[Johnnypenso]

The private school I attended did.

My parents did and I'm glad they sent me there; it inspired me to study all the other religions that have popped into existence.

Wait . . . those were probably rhetorical questions, Johnny . . .

As you know, the Catholic school system (or Separate Schools as we used to call them) was a huge thing in Ontario when I was growing up in the dark ages, and it was nearly as big as the public school system. Many of my friends at that time attended Catholic high schools and some of my current friends also came up through the same system. There are a few faith based schools and learning academies here in Windsor and I've worked in most of them at one time or another. My questions weren't rhetorical. I am not a fan of religion, I don't subscribe to one and I've only ever been to a church service to indulge my girlfriend although I've been to weddings and funerals of many faiths over the years. I also don't have anything against religion or those who practice it in a peaceful way. I am however, a fan of freedom of choice and if someone wants to privately fund sending their kids to a religious school and they meet all the basic requirements of reading, math, science etc. then I think that's kosher, pun intended.

 

[Imari]

What I meant is you shouldn't have a christian only school, a hetero only school, a gay only school, a blacks or whites only school,... I don't think seperating diffrent ideas helps with the education, at least when you allow every point of view people can make up their own mind. When we segregate on the basis of certain ideologies they dot get exposure from the other idea's and are robber of their oppertunity to make up their own mind.
Or am I still wrong somehow? It could very well be I seemed to not have thought these thing through enough.

Are you proposing this for education only? I could support that, although possible not for exactly the same reasons as you. Education should be about presenting students with the best education possible in an unbiased manner. Some segregations would (and do) exist so that they can control the curriculum specifically to bias education.

Again, I think this only applies to institutions receiving government funding. Private entities can do what they like, even if they happen to be schools.

No I'm not just anti-religion. It indeed is the non-critical thinkin part I disagree with. I hear you think but you made a fair amount of wrong assumptions here. I'll grant you that, but that's why I'm here. To be pointed to my mistakes in reasoning, to try and better myself.

Assumptions about you? Possibly, I only have limited information about you so I'm forced to assume. Feel free to correct me if you wish.

So no I still oppose these schools even if parents decide to sent their kids there. Allowing these is just a slippery slope towards creationism and other psuedoscience being thought in these schools.

Here's where we get into indoctrination again. It's perfectly fine for any private citizen to express any idea like creationism to any other private citizen. It's fine for a parent to teach that to their children. It's also fine for a parent to pay for someone to do that teaching for them.

Yes, government money should only be used for teaching things that are reasonably demonstrated to be accurate and useful, but you're trying to control what private citizens do and think. That's not cool. People are allowed to have stupid ideas, and they're allowed to spend their own time and money to share them. It's unfortunate when children pick up those ideas, but that's their right as parents to teach the children. Hopefully the children will later be exposed to other people and methods of critical thinking and will be able to reassess the beliefs for themselves.

I think @Johnnypenso put it very well.

 

[Mr Tree]

Don't private schools have to teach all the sciences, maths and other required subjects that form that basis of the official curriculum in order to obtain accreditation in the first place? Don't parents pay for the education of their children in private schools?

I went to the catholic schoolsystem and yes we did get the knowledge we needed. But apparently when they start checking the religiously segregated schools, they often are very creative with this. Get their accreditation and don't get looked at again for decades some times. Within these decades they thaught children creationism.

So yeah I'm not saying all of them are bad

@Imari you haven't made any assumptions as far as I knew of. I was talking more to everyone and stating I have made wrong assumptions in this thread. Yet I don't see it as not being willing to think critically as long as you're ok with being corrected. Something you guys did with me this discussion. You corrected a lot of fallacious ideas of mine! Ty

 

[Spurgy 777]

accriditatuon decennia

What and what?