5 ms·

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 Arab

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
    - saleemshafi 13y ago
      Wikipedia is far from an "accurate source of Islamic Law", but you seem to be a fan, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to_execution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to... Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.
waps 13y ago
Thank God for the corruptness of islam's implementation. After all, the real islam was by the prophet. Who, amongst other things, is a genocidal massacrer, paedophile, a thief and a slaver. Feel free to pick any of those adjectives and write the traditional muslim defense "yes, he massacred, but only because God asked him to kill those Jews", which of course makes everyting ok. Yes there is no relation whatsoever between the wealthy class in Dubai and islam. No relation whatsoever. Doesn't exist. Nothing. Nada. Zilcho. Rien. There is absolutely no relation between the facts that islam pushes slavery, slavery was only outlawed in that region under pressure from Christian states and the fact that they are having a movement to undo that external influence and go back to their roots. I cannot see any connection at all here. Why do people keep making defenses like this ? Do you honestly believe what you're writing ? I note that you never actually refuted any of the claims I made. Let's take a few, so you might actually feel inspired to respond : 1) islam is a law system that includes inequality 2) islam defends slavery 3) islam demands homosexuals be put to death (actually worse: islam demands that victims of homosexual rape be summarily executed ) And you're right, these things are in theory. They do not even necessarily relate to real muslims (who of course they do base their behaviour to some extent on that system). Why is a system like the above (and this is just scratching the surface of islam's depravity) not summarily outlawed ? Civilized beings have no use for this despicable religion. It should be attacked until it is gone from the planet, then serve the rest of eternity, without followers, showcased as an example of just how bad a religion can be. and yes, I've read plenty of Roman and Greek texts, enough to know that homosexual rape was actually reasonably common in the Roman empire. And if you lower the definition of rape like we have done these days, ie. you count sex without use of actual violence but without consent as rape, then that was very common indeed.
- vixin 13y ago
  In the UK, try to defend any of the points you make here bar in some publication nobody reads and you're likely in for a bucketful of trouble and a visit from the police. Best keep quiet.
  - waps 13y ago
    This is because of the violence inherent in islam. The threats. Everybody knows this, but they choose to ignore this because they can isolate themselves from muslims. This will stop, for obvious reasons, and then we'll see what happens. But only one thing can happen. I find it funny that people think that this is the first time this happens. In reality mass muslim immigration has happened many times in Western European history, and it has always started and ended the same way. It starts with some abuse of muslims. Why ? Simple, because unscrupulous people bring in the first muslims, with the exact purpose of exploiting them as cheap labor (or worse, they're brought in as slaves. Given that muslim societies have slavery [1], this will often be an improvement of their situation). They don't care if they're muslims, just that they're weak and can be used. This goes on for a few decades. Does this have anything to do with racism ? No, it causes racism. If you look at it from the perspective of a normal worker in society, who sees his job being taken by masses of extremely low-paid and ill-treated muslims who do a shoddy job, but so much cheaper it's still worth it for the bosses, this will start to make sense. This conflict with the poor, or lower class intensifies when the muslims' numbers grow. Because you can't compete with people who live like muslims do. So we get "tolerance". The reason for this tolerance is not some enlightened moral value, but because it is necessary to demand the same working conditions the non-exploited laborers get, to prevent society from degrading. To prevent a worker revolution (in the extreme case, which has never happened). So we get "tolerance". This is not a moral value, it is self-preservation of the poor, even if it can easily be mistaken for a moral value. Attacking tolerance as a social value is misguided. Fact is, as long as these minorities remain in society in significant numbers, racism must stop, or the lower classes must accept a huge pay cut. Then the numbers start growing, and the threats and attacks start. Mostly you see the threats and attacks inside the muslim society itself, and sometimes at contact points (like intermarriages). Initially they are isolated groups, maybe individuals, attacking whatever they can attack because society rejects them. They are criminals at this point. The problem is that from a religious perspective they're right. They make the case in mosques that muslims should attack anything and everything around them, and their followers start to increase. They often get support from muslim institutions abroad. The attacks are necessary to attract attention, and to disable opposition and scare integrated muslims who do not share these ideas about their faith. Like always, the moderates will lose, they can't win through argument, and certainly they can't win the physical violence, when they're getting beaten up or killed (like islamic law demands they be). This is the point we're at. What's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large (probably) European city, after a while the local army moves in, because it gets no choice, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" almost every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act. (Ever wonder why there were zero female and/or children victims of the genocide at Srebrenica ?). You have to understand the situation at this point. The population is not just mad at this point, it's furious. Both muslims and others. They are at eachother's throats. The government, however, is not weakened by these acts. The army is very nearly intact, and has zero hope of containing the situation. Also the army and the government are the only ones with an overview of the situation, so they at this point fully understand the situation : if they don't immediately act the slaughter will repeat in every city. So they do the only thing they possibly can ... Attack. They often don't take that decision immediately, they wait until it's made for them, resulting in a much bigger disaster. Then the situation devolves into civil war. Here's the good news : muslims have almost never won such a civil war. Needless to say, after this process minority rights are heavily curtailed. This has happened dozens of times in European history, in various places, including places where you wouldn't expect it, like France, even Holland. It is simply happening again. Contrary to public opinion, history didn't die when the Berlin wall fell, it simply took a breather, because of oil, and frankly because America had both the chance, the military power and the will to make it happen for the last 3 decades or so [2], and history's resuming. Muslims use scorched earth tactics. Their strategy is not to conquer, at least not directly. Their strategy is to destroy, and be the only ones left. In a primitive society where individual members are completely exposed to the most violent members of society, they will win. So they destroy everything until such a primitive society exists. [1] in fact muslim societies are famous for how bad they treat slaves. Being a slave in the Roman Empire wasn't so bad (in fact everybody on hacker news who isn't a ceo, politician, soldier or -sometimes- consultant would have been a slave in the Roman Empire. Willingly. Read history to understand this). Islam is what gave slavery it's bad name (not that they were the only ones to treat slaves badly, but they were by far the worst) [2] America, with the end of oil, is losing that power. Thanks to colonialism America managed to wield the power that oil gave middle eastern dictatorships (because their empire was militarily defeated and proceeded to collapse, to be taken over by Western powers in what is now known as "Colonialism". They have not rebuilt, and today there still is no viable candidate to resume where the Ottoman empire left off, plenty of contenders who want to, though). These days having America as an enemy is realistic for large states, and it will become positively easy when oil production really starts to drop (it started dropping in 2005, but so far only dropped something like 0.6% or so. This will accelerate a lot in the coming years even if shale oil has given America - but so far nobody else - a reprieve. It's nowhere near enough to bring America's power back to where it was 2 decades ago though. It is merely enough to keep America independant for a few years. This gives America the power to choose or refuse it's allies, a luxury almost no other large state has. For example China cannot choose it's allies or enemies)

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
  - saleemshafi 13y ago
    Wikipedia is far from an "accurate source of Islamic Law", but you seem to be a fan, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to_execution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to... Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.

waps 13y ago

Thank God for the corruptness of islam's implementation. After all, the real islam was by the prophet. Who, amongst other things, is a genocidal massacrer, paedophile, a thief and a slaver. Feel free to pick any of those adjectives and write the traditional muslim defense "yes, he massacred, but only because God asked him to kill those Jews", which of course makes everyting ok. Yes there is no relation whatsoever between the wealthy class in Dubai and islam. No relation whatsoever. Doesn't exist. Nothing. Nada. Zilcho. Rien. There is absolutely no relation between the facts that islam pushes slavery, slavery was only outlawed in that region under pressure from Christian states and the fact that they are having a movement to undo that external influence and go back to their roots. I cannot see any connection at all here. Why do people keep making defenses like this ? Do you honestly believe what you're writing ? I note that you never actually refuted any of the claims I made. Let's take a few, so you might actually feel inspired to respond : 1) islam is a law system that includes inequality 2) islam defends slavery 3) islam demands homosexuals be put to death (actually worse: islam demands that victims of homosexual rape be summarily executed ) And you're right, these things are in theory. They do not even necessarily relate to real muslims (who of course they do base their behaviour to some extent on that system). Why is a system like the above (and this is just scratching the surface of islam's depravity) not summarily outlawed ? Civilized beings have no use for this despicable religion. It should be attacked until it is gone from the planet, then serve the rest of eternity, without followers, showcased as an example of just how bad a religion can be. and yes, I've read plenty of Roman and Greek texts, enough to know that homosexual rape was actually reasonably common in the Roman empire. And if you lower the definition of rape like we have done these days, ie. you count sex without use of actual violence but without consent as rape, then that was very common indeed.

vixin 13y ago
In the UK, try to defend any of the points you make here bar in some publication nobody reads and you're likely in for a bucketful of trouble and a visit from the police. Best keep quiet.
- waps 13y ago
  This is because of the violence inherent in islam. The threats. Everybody knows this, but they choose to ignore this because they can isolate themselves from muslims. This will stop, for obvious reasons, and then we'll see what happens. But only one thing can happen. I find it funny that people think that this is the first time this happens. In reality mass muslim immigration has happened many times in Western European history, and it has always started and ended the same way. It starts with some abuse of muslims. Why ? Simple, because unscrupulous people bring in the first muslims, with the exact purpose of exploiting them as cheap labor (or worse, they're brought in as slaves. Given that muslim societies have slavery [1], this will often be an improvement of their situation). They don't care if they're muslims, just that they're weak and can be used. This goes on for a few decades. Does this have anything to do with racism ? No, it causes racism. If you look at it from the perspective of a normal worker in society, who sees his job being taken by masses of extremely low-paid and ill-treated muslims who do a shoddy job, but so much cheaper it's still worth it for the bosses, this will start to make sense. This conflict with the poor, or lower class intensifies when the muslims' numbers grow. Because you can't compete with people who live like muslims do. So we get "tolerance". The reason for this tolerance is not some enlightened moral value, but because it is necessary to demand the same working conditions the non-exploited laborers get, to prevent society from degrading. To prevent a worker revolution (in the extreme case, which has never happened). So we get "tolerance". This is not a moral value, it is self-preservation of the poor, even if it can easily be mistaken for a moral value. Attacking tolerance as a social value is misguided. Fact is, as long as these minorities remain in society in significant numbers, racism must stop, or the lower classes must accept a huge pay cut. Then the numbers start growing, and the threats and attacks start. Mostly you see the threats and attacks inside the muslim society itself, and sometimes at contact points (like intermarriages). Initially they are isolated groups, maybe individuals, attacking whatever they can attack because society rejects them. They are criminals at this point. The problem is that from a religious perspective they're right. They make the case in mosques that muslims should attack anything and everything around them, and their followers start to increase. They often get support from muslim institutions abroad. The attacks are necessary to attract attention, and to disable opposition and scare integrated muslims who do not share these ideas about their faith. Like always, the moderates will lose, they can't win through argument, and certainly they can't win the physical violence, when they're getting beaten up or killed (like islamic law demands they be). This is the point we're at. What's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large (probably) European city, after a while the local army moves in, because it gets no choice, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" almost every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act. (Ever wonder why there were zero female and/or children victims of the genocide at Srebrenica ?). You have to understand the situation at this point. The population is not just mad at this point, it's furious. Both muslims and others. They are at eachother's throats. The government, however, is not weakened by these acts. The army is very nearly intact, and has zero hope of containing the situation. Also the army and the government are the only ones with an overview of the situation, so they at this point fully understand the situation : if they don't immediately act the slaughter will repeat in every city. So they do the only thing they possibly can ... Attack. They often don't take that decision immediately, they wait until it's made for them, resulting in a much bigger disaster. Then the situation devolves into civil war. Here's the good news : muslims have almost never won such a civil war. Needless to say, after this process minority rights are heavily curtailed. This has happened dozens of times in European history, in various places, including places where you wouldn't expect it, like France, even Holland. It is simply happening again. Contrary to public opinion, history didn't die when the Berlin wall fell, it simply took a breather, because of oil, and frankly because America had both the chance, the military power and the will to make it happen for the last 3 decades or so [2], and history's resuming. Muslims use scorched earth tactics. Their strategy is not to conquer, at least not directly. Their strategy is to destroy, and be the only ones left. In a primitive society where individual members are completely exposed to the most violent members of society, they will win. So they destroy everything until such a primitive society exists. [1] in fact muslim societies are famous for how bad they treat slaves. Being a slave in the Roman Empire wasn't so bad (in fact everybody on hacker news who isn't a ceo, politician, soldier or -sometimes- consultant would have been a slave in the Roman Empire. Willingly. Read history to understand this). Islam is what gave slavery it's bad name (not that they were the only ones to treat slaves badly, but they were by far the worst) [2] America, with the end of oil, is losing that power. Thanks to colonialism America managed to wield the power that oil gave middle eastern dictatorships (because their empire was militarily defeated and proceeded to collapse, to be taken over by Western powers in what is now known as "Colonialism". They have not rebuilt, and today there still is no viable candidate to resume where the Ottoman empire left off, plenty of contenders who want to, though). These days having America as an enemy is realistic for large states, and it will become positively easy when oil production really starts to drop (it started dropping in 2005, but so far only dropped something like 0.6% or so. This will accelerate a lot in the coming years even if shale oil has given America - but so far nobody else - a reprieve. It's nowhere near enough to bring America's power back to where it was 2 decades ago though. It is merely enough to keep America independant for a few years. This gives America the power to choose or refuse it's allies, a luxury almost no other large state has. For example China cannot choose it's allies or enemies)