Islam - What's your view on it?

[Blitz24]

Thank you for this informative contribution to the discussion 👍

I'm still sadly waiting for something constructively contributive from that individual. Won't happen.

 

[zzz_pt]

This is so wrong. They want to put an end to freedom.

 

[doblocruiser]

Don't worry, it's just a few


edit

from 2011
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2487/french-suburbs-islamic-societies

The authors of the report show that France, which has between five and six million Muslims (France has the largest Muslim population in European Union), is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also shows how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim leaders who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2...03-l-islam-de-france-bien-integre-sondage.php

Concernant la loi musulmane (charia), 38% répondent qu'elle n'a pas à s'appliquer dans un pays non-musulman, 37% qu'elle doit être appliquée en partie et adaptée aux règles du pays où on vit. Au contraire, 17% jugent que la charia doit être appliquée intégralement quel que soit le pays où on vit.

38% of the Muslim population don't wan't the sharia law applied in a non-Muslim country

37% of the Muslim population is in favor of Sharia law (adapted) in the country where they live

17% of the Muslim population is in favor of Sharia law fully applied in the country they live.

 

[Scaff]

This is so wrong. They want to put an end to freedom.

You do know that the UK ones in those are basically utter nonsense?

The 'Sharia' law one was pretty much three idiots who were promptly arrested, tried and banged up. Sharia courts do not 'conquer' the UK at all, however given the sources I'm not really surprised in the way its been presented.

 

[zzz_pt]

You do know that the UK ones in those are basically utter nonsense?

The 'Sharia' law one was pretty much three idiots who were promptly arrested, tried and banged up. Sharia courts do not 'conquer' the UK at all, however given the sources I'm not really surprised in the way its been presented.

These videos were mere samples of what's happening in some major cities across Europe. I didn't say this is global or it's an imminent threat. But something isn't right.

 

[Scaff]

These videos were mere samples of what's happening in some major cities across Europe. I didn't say this is global or it's an imminent threat. But something isn't right.

I've watched them, I know people who live in those areas (UK) and I know the end results of the action that has been taken against those featured.

The UK ones are not a 'mere sample' they are a stunningly massive exaggeration designed to a specific political agenda.

 

[GBO Possum]

Is there a precedent in the UK for immigrants forming organized mobs in support of imposition of a new legal system based on their home system, or is this a first?

 

[Scaff]

Is there a precedent in the UK for immigrants forming organized mobs in support of imposition of a new legal system based on their home system, or is this a first?

How far back do you want to go?

The UK has a precedence for all sorts of mobs to form based around the concept of changing the legal system, however the current ones we have from both radical Islam and the far right would struggle to form anything that could be classed as a mob.

No desire to impose sharia law exists in the UK outside of the mind of a small minority of radical Muslims and the fears pushed by the far right and elements of the 'media' (not that the Daily Mail can really be called that).

 

[Joel]

I know what you guys mean. Toronto is a city where over 50% of the population are immigrants. Toronto has the highest percentage of Muslims in North America, and our government doesn't require them to assimilate. You get these foreigners from all over the world who think they should be allowed to practice their culture in our country.

That's why Toronto is a horribly violent city full of racially and religiously motivated crimes.

I guess what bothers me about this stuff is that there's the assumption that Muslims are inherently bad and violent compared to white people. I just don't see it, and I don't believe for a second that the Muslims in Europe are somehow "worse" than the ones in Canada.

 

[GBO Possum]

How far back do you want to go?

The UK has a precedence for all sorts of mobs to form based around the concept of changing the legal system, however the current ones we have from both radical Islam and the far right would struggle to form anything that could be classed as a mob.

No desire to impose sharia law exists in the UK outside of the mind of a small minority of radical Muslims and the fears pushed by the far right and elements of the 'media' (not that the Daily Mail can really be called that).

I should have qualified my statement to say "religious, belief-based legal system".

 

[Scaff]

I should have qualified my statement to say "religious, belief-based legal system".

One could argue that our current system is just that in its origins, so yes it has happened once before.

However lets be clear no 'organised mobs' are doing it right now either.

 

[kennylmao]

edit

from 2011
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2487/french-suburbs-islamic-societies

The authors of the report show that France, which has between five and six million Muslims (France has the largest Muslim population in European Union), is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also shows how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim leaders who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

What I make of this is that Islam is clearly a barrier for the immigrants to integrate into French society. The beliefs of Islam itself is conflicting with Western culture (Alcohol consumption, public dress code for women, etc.). I don't know how you guys are gonna solve this, man. Of all immigrants, you have to pick Muslims. No offense, Muslims are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but this is Europe we're talking about here, not the Middle East. When in Rome, do as the Romans do (Which obviously Islam cannot since it's such a strict and restrictive religion).

 

[Furinkazen]

Alcohol consumption isn't really a good / bad thing however. Also a number of Arabic countries do not have this dress code for women.

 

[PeterJB]

It seems to vary depending on which country you're in. Turkey is on the divide between Western and Eastern culture. Islam is the main religion but it is not the State Religion, other religions are tolerated, and they have freedom of religion. Syria is officially a secular state with a Muslim majority, but has a relatively large Christian and Jewish population, at least compared to other Islamic countries. Contrast this with Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to publicly proselytise any religion other than Islam, and women aren't allowed in public without a male guardian. The most extreme case obviously would be Pakistan under the Taliban regime, where women weren't allowed to work (except in Hospitals), speak in public, or be seen by anyone other than their spouse or a male relative.

 

[Furinkazen]

The most extreme case obviously would be Pakistan under the Taliban regime, where women weren't allowed to work (except in Hospitals), speak in public, or be seen by anyone other than their spouse or a male relative.

Iraq was similar under Saddam, but as another example was open unlike Saudi are about clothing (allowed to wear headscarf, more casual clothes, etc)

 

[GBO Possum]

It seems to vary depending on which country you're in. Turkey is on the divide between Western and Eastern culture. Islam is the main religion but it is not the State Religion, other religions are tolerated, and they have freedom of religion. Syria is officially a secular state with a Muslim majority, but has a relatively large Christian and Jewish population, at least compared to other Islamic countries. Contrast this with Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to publicly proselytise any religion other than Islam, and women aren't allowed in public without a male guardian. The most extreme case obviously would be Pakistan under the Taliban regime, where women weren't allowed to work (except in Hospitals), speak in public, or be seen by anyone other than their spouse or a male relative.

Syria’s Penal Code provides in article 462 that individuals who publicly defame religious proceedings are punishable with a term of two years’ imprisonment.[76]

 

[kennylmao]

Alcohol consumption isn't really a good / bad thing however. Also a number of Arabic countries do not have this dress code for women.

Alcohol is part of the Western culture, in this case French culture, which Islam strongly prohibits.

Dress code is ehh, you're right. It's manageable.

Edit: And then there's the deal with pork. (Do you know there are no pork burgers here where I live? It blew my mind when I found out they served pork burgers at McDonalds in Thailand.) France is a Western country, I don't want to visit one day and find pork meat off the menu.

My deal with this whole thing is that Islam imposes restrictions which I feel has no place in Western countries. It's all about teh freedom. And when you guys adopt these restrictions for the sake of multiculturalism, you lose the identity of a Western country and turn in to an Islamic one instead.

 

[SalmanBH]

Syria’s Penal Code provides in article 462 that individuals who publicly defame religious proceedings are punishable with a term of two years’ imprisonment.[76]

So what are you trying to say? PeterJB said that there were sizeable Christian and Jewish populations in that country, not that blasphemy and any form of speech against religion was punishable by two years in prison.

 

[Scaff]

So what are you trying to say? PeterJB said that there were sizeable Christian and Jewish populations in that country, not that blasphemy and any form of speech against religion was punishable by two years in prison.

I personally think that any country with any form of blasphemy laws can't really describe itself as secular and laws of this nature are certainly not healthy.

 

[SalmanBH]

I personally think that any country with any form of blasphemy laws can't really describe itself as secular and laws of this nature are certainly not healthy.

I agree with you on that one and I think that PeterJB does too, since he said that Syria is OFFICIALLY a secular country. Syria can't call itself secular with a law like that.

 

[Scaff]

I agree with you on that one and I think that PeterJB does too, since he said that Syria is OFFICIALLY a secular country. Syria can't call itself secular with a law like that.

Well technically it can call itself that, but I would certainly not agree with them.

 

[GBO Possum]

I agree with you on that one and I think that PeterJB does too, since he said that Syria is OFFICIALLY a secular country. Syria can't call itself secular with a law like that.

Exactly my point.

 

[Dotini]

Syria’s Penal Code provides in article 462 that individuals who publicly defame religious proceedings are punishable with a term of two years’ imprisonment.[76]

I personally think that any country with any form of blasphemy laws can't really describe itself as secular and laws of this nature are certainly not healthy.

In Syria you could shave, drink alcohol, wear western clothes and make-up, practice virtually any form of religion AND BE PROTECTED BY LAW AND STATE. So Scaff throws out the baby with the bathwater. It figures.

 

[Scaff]

In Syria you could shave, drink alcohol, wear western clothes and make-up, practice virtually any form of religion AND BE PROTECTED BY LAW AND STATE. So Scaff throws out the baby with the bathwater. It figures.

No I didn't, so please don't exaggerate.

 

[Dotini]

Syria’s Penal Code provides in article 462 that individuals who publicly defame religious proceedings are punishable with a term of two years’ imprisonment.[76]

I personally think that any country with any form of blasphemy laws can't really describe itself as secular and laws of this nature are certainly not healthy.

Is it no exaggeration that you have identified a law which protects religious proceedings from public defamation as a blasphemy law? Maybe there are no such protections of religious proceedings laws in the west? I doubt it; try defaming Jews in front of your local Synagogue. Would it really be unhealthy to protect minority religions from public defamation? But in Syria, a polyglot of religions in a highly volatile and polarized region, it borders on a miracle that they were as secular as they were. Now in ashes.

Edit: As a courtesy, please do not multi-quote me. I'm elderly and it hurts my head. Thank you.

 

[Scaff]

Is it no exaggeration that you have identified a law which protects religious proceedings from public defamation as a blasphemy law? Maybe there are no such protections of religious proceedings laws in the west? I doubt it; try defaming Jews in front of your local Synagogue. Would it really be unhealthy to protect minority religions from public defamation? But in Syria, a polyglot of religions in a highly volatile and polarized region, it borders on a miracle that they were as secular as they were. Now in ashes.

Edit: As a courtesy, please do not multi-quote me. I'm elderly and it hurts my head. Thank you.

No. its an exaggeration to say that I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater!

I stated that I would not consider a country with blasphemy laws to be secular, nothing more and nothing less. I was of the same opinion when the UK had blasphemy laws.

They don't protect minorities effectively, but they do suppress free speech and the open discussion of all opinions. As an example large chunks of this very thread would be considered offenses against many blasphemy laws.

However still no baby and no bathwater.

 

[GBO Possum]

Appalling, my state still has a blasphemy law on the books. Not just a generic blasphemy law, but an overtly Christian one.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section36

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

I'll let you know if Massachusetts jails allow Internet access for prisoners.

 

[Dotini]

Appalling, my state still has a blasphemy law on the books. Not just a generic blasphemy law, but an overtly Christian one.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section36

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

I'll let you know if Massachusetts jails allow Internet access for prisoners.

Wiki says such laws are dead letter. In place of blasphemy laws, are laws which forbid hate speech, the vilification of religion, or "religious insult".

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

 

[GBO Possum]

On the subject of "religious insult", my mind goes back to the events of the Danish Cartoons, which resulted in the deaths of many, and disgraceful behavior of many people worldwide on all sides of the divide.

What was noticeable, was that the public figure who you might think would be most offended by the cartoons took absolutely no action, and didn't utter a peep. Absolute silence. I'm talking about Allah.

One might expect Allah to flood the globe with water, or at least smite some cartoonists and newspaper publishers. Or, if he was in a less destructive mood, at least have a few words of admonishment for the perpetrators of the insult. Or issue a press release. Surely, something. At least if it's important. Don't you think?

My conclusion is that the issue of the cartoons was a non-issue for Allah. This is a case where the followers of Allah may have been better served actually following Allah's example, resulting in a lack of murder and mayhem.

In the past, the God of the Abrahamic religions has not been shy about expressing an opinion. With the incredible growth in world population, divine intervention should surely be more frequent than less.

 

[kennylmao]

To any Muslims here, would this http://submission.org/ or this http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page be a correct source for the Quran? If not, could you maybe point me to a place that has credible information?

I can't be bothered to read and study the Quran all by myself, haha, I need a tl;dr.