4 ms·

Don't forget -we are in America- that islam seeks to re-introduce slavery. Another one of those non radical positions (America forced most islamic states to giv

• saleemshafi 13y ago
  since you cited sources, i went and checked. Your first article is an expose on the wealthy class in Dubai, not a religious position. Granted, they speak Arabic, but almost no one believes what the ruling class in Dubai (or Saudi for that matter) does has anything to do with Islam. Your second reference is to a story from the 7th century that historians believe is a fabrication. And, even if it was true, she was condemned to death for inciting violence, not for singing. i understand that there is a lot of hostility toward what some Muslims do, and justifiably so, but that doesn't necessarily represent Islam any more than Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps represent Christianity. And, there's no doubt that some won't agree with Islam's sense of morality, but at least disagree with the actual tenets of the faith, not corrupt foreign rulers and centuries-old gossip.
  • duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Briefly - as I'm formulating an in depth reply - let's not trot out the "corrupt implementation" defense. Similar and equally invalid defenses have been made of communism over the years. Eventually one has to accept that the supposedly corrupt implementations of a philosophy are representative. If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation, especially in the context of evaluating immigration from those countries.
    • xtrumanx 13y ago
      > ...let's not trot out the "corrupt implementation" defense... If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation... That's the reason I've stopped getting into arguments with people over the internet regarding Islam; I don't agree with you there. Governments of Islamic countries and their laws influenced by politics and foreign military powers don't make for an accurate source of Islamic law in my opinion.
      • duncan_bayne 13y ago
        Let's take a concrete example, capital punishment for apostasy. "... in all the major schools of law in Islam (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki and the Shiite Jafari school) there is unanimity that the penalty for apostasy is death. The difference is only whether an apostate is given the opportunity to repent or not, or whether he is given a certain number of days to repent. But it is a fact that Islamic Law demands everywhere that the apostate is put to death." [1] Here is Dr. Mohammad Mukadam, (then) Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, stating in debate with Richard Dawkins that the penalty for apostasy is death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To Now, let's look at the treatment in law [2]: * Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions) * Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment) * Iran – illegal (death penalty) * Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy * Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging) * Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days) * Oman – legal in criminal code, but according to the family code, a father can lose custody of his child * Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007) * Qatar – illegal (death penalty) * Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions) * Somalia – illegal (death penalty) * Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution) * United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging) * Yemen – illegal (death penalty) So. There is complete agreement amongst all major sources of Islamic law that apostasy should be punishable by death; in many Islamic countries it is, and in others it is otherwise punishable. Would you care to provide an "accurate source of Islamic law" that doesn't manifest this particular evil? [1] http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_apostasy.htm http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_a... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries
• duncan_bayne 13y ago
  I'm sorry, you can't argue that enlightenment values are by nature Christian. Various Churches fought for centuries in opposition to them. They burned people to death for owning Bibles in English, that is, Bibles they could actually read. Homosexuals were executed during the 19th Century and persecuted during the 20th. Slavery was A-OK for quite a while, too. Female priests? Not until recently, and far from universally even now. Contraception? Right now in Africa a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding due in no small part to the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.
  • waps 13y ago
    No ? The law that the government that is generally identified with the enlightenment movement was my object of study for almost a year. Half of it matches canon law article-by-article, word-for-word. Right down to the freaking wording, and let me tell you, word-by-word latin-to-french translation does not exactly make for clear reading. If you don't realize the reason for no female priests, knowing that priests are supposed to be missionaries, including deep in "enemy" territory. If that doesn't clarify matters, I don't think you will ever realize why that won't happen any time soon. The enlightenment law (well, it's direct offshoot, napoleonistic law, to be pedantic) is by far the most-used law system worldwide. Hell, it's the law in Mecca (outside of "family" disputes, and even then), Paris, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, and pretty much everything in between. The "other" law system, English Common Law, is merely a slightly earlier offshoot of the same biblical law (and frankly, common law is much more medieval, local "rulers" have much more power under common law than they have under napoleonistic law), which applies in Delhi, West Africa and Washington. Which of these would you call the enlightenment values ? Because either version is definitely based directly on the Bible. In other words, the enlightenment values (the actual ones, used in courts today) 30-40% of them, are sentence-by-sentence copies of a Vatican bible interpretation manual (ie. "canon law"). The rest are copies "in spirit". It is not the case that enlightenment itself is still in force. You wouldn't want that either, there are plenty of enlightenment values (meaning values of the enlightenment government) that are no longer practiced. This is a very good thing, Google "Robespierre" and start reading. I guarantee that your respect for the enlightenment will drop 50% before you get through half the wikipedia page and you'll be forever thankful that the enlightenment itself ended as quickly as it did.