|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms? By getting rid of the idea that in order to be a good citizen you have to be non-praciticing. The idea that you have to be completely secular and forsake prayer, fasting, zakat, etc in order to be a good citizen is basically what gives them a fertile recruiting ground. "You see that all the Muslims around you don't take God seriously, so why not join us?" This is the biggest difference between Muslims in the U.S. and Britain. There are Muslims that argue for gay marriage, for instance, in both countries. In the U.S. a lot of influential community leaders were able to give pro- or neutral- speeches about gay marriage at our biggest conference. In the UK activists complain that making such arguments gets them into heat with the community. The difference is that U.S. Muslims accept traditional frameworks that allow disagreement and even the pro-gay marriage Muslims are mostly practicing and devout, while a lot of the "progressive" Muslims in the U.K. argue that practicing is itself a sign of extremism.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:23 |
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:while a lot of the "progressive" Muslims in the U.K. argue that practicing is itself a sign of extremism. This is a ridiculous statement.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's such a shame that while accusations against individuals are verboten, accusations against a large number of people are innocuous.  Because not all Muslims are secretly brimming with the desire to rape children, you racist rear end in a top hat. Conflating all Muslims with Al Qaeda or ISIS or extremists in general just makes you look bad, not them.Accusations against a large number of people with no supporting evidence is called generalization. And its wrong. Effectronica posted:I did not intend to imply the poster Smudgie Buggler was a pedophile or child molester, in my earlier post. "Now, watch my mental gymnastics as I accuse the entire Muslim world of being pedophiles."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms? What is wrong with curtailing religious freedoms if those freedoms are used to oppress women an alternative sexuality? Secondly, why not just remove the tax exempt status on churches/whatever that conduct hate speech? This is already somewhat in practice for scientology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....yyyyeaaaaahhhh... With the exception of the "being out bred by mooslims" guy most people seem primarily concerned with preventing extremist versions of a religion from proliferating without the use of violence. how does what your saying relate to what I said?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I did not intend to imply the poster Smudgie Buggler was a pedophile or child molester, in my earlier post. You said explicitly that I have an obsession with child molestation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Sethex posted:With the exception of the "being out bred by mooslims" guy most people seem primarily concerned with preventing extremist versions of a religion from proliferating without the use of violence. Considering most of the refugees coming over are moderates fleeing religious extremists, what is your point? To find extremism among the moderates and then label them wholesale? The people arriving in Germany, Greece, and others consist of mostly the middle class of Syria, educated and for the most part moderate fleeing in the face of those who DO want Sharia law and extremism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Sethex posted:What is wrong with curtailing religious freedoms if those freedoms are used to oppress women an alternative sexuality? I'm not saying it is. It was an open question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is a ridiculous statement. It's really not. Tarek Fateh in Canada argues that having a beard or wearing hijab is a sign of extremism and Islamism. Maajid Nawaz, who runs an organization in Britain that is typically cited as being for "progressive Muslims" argues that going to mixed-race Masjids is a sign of extremism (because it shows that you are dangerously sympathetic to other Muslims based on your shared religion) and also nitpicks such dangerous habits as calling yourself a "British Muslim."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:25
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You said explicitly that I have an obsession with child molestation. Yes. I meant to imply that you were a creep for jumping to that as your first example, not to imply that you actually molested children, because I am morally superior to that turd Cat Mattress.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
rudatron posted:Ah, clever, well played. But you're still wrong. All legal codes are expressions of social morality, that you may not believe them doesn't make them not a moral system. If they think that's right for them, and want to act in that way personally, then sure, but I draw the line at courts, even if they're religiously-motivated arbitration tribunals. I've laid out my reasons why, take them up or don't. Legitimizing shari'a civil arbitration would actually be better under your standards, however, because it would integrate it into existing courts rather than it existing as a truly parallel legal system. Or you could establish a police state just to ensure that anyone who uses semi-legal shari'a arbitration is caught and punished, or one just aimed at Muslims. Or you could let it continue to exist in a grey area and prosecute attempts to enforce judgments illegally.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Legitimizing shari'a civil arbitration would actually be better under your standards, however, because it would integrate it into existing courts rather than it existing as a truly parallel legal system. Or you could establish a police state just to ensure that anyone who uses semi-legal shari'a arbitration is caught and punished, or one just aimed at Muslims. Or you could let it continue to exist in a grey area and prosecute attempts to enforce judgments illegally. What grey area? Regardless of 'Sharia marriage' or not, it falls under the legal precedent of 'Marriage' which is already covered and controlled. Pretending that there is some legitimacy to a religious court with no connection to the state court is just conjecture. Basically, you are creating this weird scenario where you believe Muslims will create their own sub-government that does not answer to the state government, which really sounds like a tinfoil hat Right wing conspiracy we've all heard before.... If someone wants to get married, they have to get a license. Whether or not its a sharia marriage is really up to that person's religious leader and the individuals getting married, but their marriage is not legal without that license. Most countries and states have laws against extralegal courts. Especially if said extralegal courts are trying to usurp laws against child marriage and multiple wives. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yes. I meant to imply that you were a creep for jumping to that as your first example, not to imply that you actually molested children, because I am morally superior to that turd Cat Mattress. I argue that they don't need sharia courts because the existing legal system is perfectly satisfactory to them; you are the one who claim they need to have a parallel legal system so as to bypass existing laws. When you will be wiser and smarter, you will hopefully discover that the morally superior system is the one where the law is the same for everyone; not the one where there are different legal systems for people depending on their ethnicity, religion, or social standing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I argue that they don't need sharia courts because the existing legal system is perfectly satisfactory to them; you are the one who claim they need to have a parallel legal system so as to bypass existing laws. I'm referring to your snide insinuations that Muslims who support shari'a are all pedophiles, you worm. The fact that you have piled semiliteracy atop bigotry is sad but not surprising.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Most countries and states have laws against extralegal courts. Especially if said extralegal courts are trying to usurp laws against child marriage and multiple wives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Arbitration =/= Marriage courts and licensing. Its also not extra-judicial and is overseen by the courts. Any sort of resolution decided in arbitration still has to be submitted and approved via a court clerk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:'OMG THEY ARE BRINGING SHARIA LAW, drat DIRTY LYING ARABS!' But this actually happens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols Your portrayal of it with "HURR DURR IM SO CRAZY" doesn't make it any less a danger. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:By getting rid of the idea that in order to be a good citizen you have to be non-praciticing. The idea that you have to be completely secular and forsake prayer, fasting, zakat, etc in order to be a good citizen is basically what gives them a fertile recruiting ground. "You see that all the Muslims around you don't take God seriously, so why not join us?" "Practicing"? Elaborate, would you? Mormon Star Wars posted:It's really not. Tarek Fateh in Canada argues that having a beard or wearing hijab is a sign of extremism and Islamism. Maajid Nawaz, who runs an organization in Britain that is typically cited as being for "progressive Muslims" argues that going to mixed-race Masjids is a sign of extremism (because it shows that you are dangerously sympathetic to other Muslims based on your shared religion) and also nitpicks such dangerous habits as calling yourself a "British Muslim." Ahh, there we go. It looks like the "practices" which Tarek Fateh et al. take issue with are, unsurprisingly, ones that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual pillars. I'm going to guess you, in fact, have no evidence whatsoever of these nasty westernized Muslims actually arguing against praying, charitable donations or even pilgrimages. Just the material signifiers of oppressive social systems which predate Islam but still associated with the cultures that practice it. In some cases (beards, headscarves and other functionally neutral fashion choices) I would agree that there is nothing substantially wrong with such practices, although I would also argue that this is more the fault of the backwards, oppressive groups trying so hard to force such choices on so many people. To  again, I blame the KKK a lot more for making the capirote a socially unacceptable fashion choice for the Spanish Catholic church than I blame the civil rights movement.On the other hand, "garments" such as the niqab with a full veil, when worn in a public space, constitute a micro-aggression and act of intimidation against women and people of alternative sexualities. That isn't to say that they should be illegal, but such an act (whether compelling someone else to wear or choosing oneself to wear it) is certainly worthy of criticism. Effectronica posted:I'm referring to your snide insinuations that Muslims who support shari'a are all pedophiles, you worm. The fact that you have piled semiliteracy atop bigotry is sad but not surprising. "All?" Certainly not. But that doesn't change the fact that we can say, with absolute certainty, a consequence of full Shari'a being made superior to other laws would be the legalization of the rape of children. Muslims who support shari'a as the principal basis for law and society are not necessarily pedophiles, but they are almost by necessity willing to tolerate pedophilia. Quoth wikipedia: Wikipedia article on Sharia posted:Shari'a is the basis for personal status laws in most Islamic majority nations. These personal status laws determine rights of women in matters of marriage, divorce and child custody. A 2011 UNICEF report concludes that Shari'a law provisions are discriminatory against women from a human rights perspective. In legal proceedings under Shari'a law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s before a court.[154]
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Edit: But seriously though - Sedan Chair, Effectronica, Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR" How magical, we are somehow the ones conflating religion with ethnicity, in spite of our not being the bigots who strive to repress others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Narciss posted:But this actually happens... And they were arrested. Guess what that means? ITS loving ILLEGAL. Even better when Britain first showed up in armored cars and started handing out literature. Thanks for repeating a right wing tinfoil hat worry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Arbitration =/= Marriage courts and licensing. Its also not extra-judicial and is overseen by the courts. Any sort of resolution decided in arbitration still has to be submitted and approved via a court clerk. wait what? an arbitration court is literally the definition of extrajudicial. it's overseen by the real courts in that the real courts have signed off on it, just like a sharia family law court. if you're going to run around with the goalposts on the exact jurisdiction of the extrajudicial courts vs the real ones i don't see why anyone should bother arguing with you. the statement you made about extrajudicial courts not being a thing is patently false, sorry dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:wait what? an arbitration court is literally the definition of extrajudicial. it's overseen by the real courts in that the real courts have signed off on it, just like a sharia family law court. if you're going to run around with the goalposts on the exact jurisdiction of the extrajudicial courts vs the real ones i don't see why anyone should bother arguing with you. the statement you made about extrajudicial courts not being a thing is patently false, sorry dude Let me know when a real court in a Western country signs off on a Sharia court. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm referring to your snide insinuations that Muslims who support shari'a are all pedophiles, you worm. The fact that you have piled semiliteracy atop bigotry is sad but not surprising. Muslims who want sharia to override national laws do so because they want a way to commit acts that are illegal. There is no other possible reason. Muslims are perfectly free to live their life according to the principles of their faith as long as they do not go against the law while doing so. Celebrating a wedding with a religious ceremony is legal, buying and eating halal food is legal, etc. It's perfectly possible to be a law-abiding Muslim in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And they were arrested. Guess what that means? ITS loving ILLEGAL. The point is that it reflects very badly on the motives of those who push for the establishment of sharia as any form of "arbitration". There is very little evidence that pushes for a limited form of sharia that is subordinate to secular law are in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:you worm You are such a drat baby. Are you capable of debating like an adult? ----------------
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:"Practicing"? Elaborate, would you? Your attempt to draw a line between "Westernized Muslims" (thinks beards and mixed-raced Masjids are signs of terrorist sympathy) and "Non-Westernized Muslims" (everyone else) is really dumb. The Muslims in the US who argue for gay marriage are not "non-Westernized" because they have beards or go to mixed-race Masjids. They are very westernized. The difference is they don't try to stigmatize being a Muslim. Maajid Nawaz brags about how he isn't practicing - he doesn't pray, he doesn't do zakat, he goes to strip clubs, etc. Going to a mixed race Masjid is not, in fact, "a material signifier of an oppressive social system." The fact that you think it is is  . If anything, demanding that everyone only pray with others of their race lest they be branded an extremist is the sign of an oppressive social system, not the free mixing of people of different ethnicities.edit: Tarek Fatah is against prayer because al-Fatiha is recited during it. 
Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Going to a mixed race Masjid is not, in fact, "a material signifier of an oppressive social system." The fact that you think it is is Here's a hint: for Muslims, there's no way to win except to be rounded up and exterminated. This is what all this fancy talk is dancing around, and boy will these bigots deny it right up until they accomplish it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The point is that it reflects very badly on the motives of those who push for the establishment of sharia as any form of "arbitration". There is very little evidence that pushes for a limited form of sharia that is subordinate to secular law are in good faith. There's very little evidence that anybody is pushing for Sharia law. Its not going to happen, and as far as I know, no Western court is going to allow a Sharia court to arbitrate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Let me know when a real court in a Western country signs off on a Sharia court. Thanks in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Indonesia let's watch those goalposts fly
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia That's SouthEast Asia. That is also a country where Islam is the state religion. Thanks for playing! EDIT: Indonesia is also a Southeast Asian country. Wow. So western. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Narciss posted:You are such a drat baby. Are you capable of debating like an adult? You have to be debating with adults in order to debate like one CommieGIR posted:That's SouthEast Asia. That is also a country where Islam is the state religion. Thanks for playing! Oh poo poo the goalposts were already moved before you asked the question. How about you address your original comment that extrajudicial courts were not a thing in most countries? That was completely, 100% bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Oh poo poo the goalposts were already moved before you asked the question. How about you address your original comment that extrajudicial courts were not a thing in most countries? That was completely, 100% bullshit? You're right, my mistake. I mean't Western countries where most of the people posting are arguing will be overtaken by Sharia. Indonesia and Malaysia are not what most of the people in the thread were talking about, and neither are noted for being particular great at human rights....
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You're right, my mistake. But it's not true in the US? And it's not true in Europe? Like I'm sorry you're this mad about the existence of arbitration courts, but uh, they're a real thing and have been for a long time
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:But it's not true in the US? And it's not true in Europe? Like I'm sorry you're this mad about the existence of arbitration courts, but uh, they're a real thing and have been for a long time Please highlight where I denied the existence of arbitration courts.My claim was that no court system in the West is going to allow a Sharia Religious Court do the arbitration. Arbitration also does not allow you to violate established laws like marriage laws and age of consent laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I don't know, if there is demand among Muslims to have arbitration by Sharia Courts as an option, maybe they will. And Sharia elements in an arbitration system do not necessitate that full-scale Sharia Law be enforced. From the article about Malaysia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia quote:With regards to civil law, the Syariah courts has jurisdiction in personal law matters, for example marriage, inheritance, and apostasy. In some states there are sharia criminal laws, for example there is the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993. Their jurisdiction is however limited to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM 5000, and imprisonment to not more than 3 years. So why don't you confront this fact? Are the brutish savages immigrating to Europe somehow even more conservative than Muslims in Malaysia, a country with Islam as its state religion? How exactly do you think that you're inevitably going to see state-sanctioned stoning and hand-cutting in Birmingham if Sharia arbitration of any sort is allowed there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia Jesus christ you're disingenuous as gently caress. Please acknowledge you quoted the following: CommieGIR posted:Let me know when a real court in a Western country signs off on a Sharia court. Thanks in advance. That does say western country, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't know, if there is demand among Muslims to have arbitration by Sharia Courts as an option, maybe they will. And Sharia elements in an arbitration system do not necessitate that full-scale Sharia Law be enforced. From the article about Malaysia Malaysia is a Islamic country. Of course they have Sharia courts. Now how does this apply to, say, the US, UK, and EU where the above people posting in this thread are scaremongering about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There's very little evidence that anybody is pushing for Sharia law. Its not going to happen, and as far as I know, no Western court is going to allow a Sharia court to arbitrate. Do you mean little people in this thread? Or in the west? Here is a BBC doc on Sharia arbitration in Britain, spoiler alert, it sucks to be a women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TjzSSZUvg Lets see if the genocide screaming idiots even give a poo poo. Sethex fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Do you mean little people in this thread? Or in the west? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london What they are doing is illegal. They'll get arrested if they do it, just like those five above. And yet, it still doesn't matter, because it was still a minority of people who did it, and most of the Muslim community frowns upon it. The views of the minority does not essentially reflect the views of the majority. By your standard, should we then ban Christianity because a few Christians are members of the KKK or other Christian Extremist groups? I can go assault people all I want and claim to be part of the Atheist Militant movement, doesn't mean my views represent the majority of atheists nor that my actions should be used to represent them in their entirety. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The views of the minority does not essentially reflect the views of the majority. By your standard, should we then ban Christianity because a few Christians are members of the KKK or other Christian Extremist groups? How does that connect with anything that I have said? I have never stated that Islam should be banned; where did I advocate that? You, Sedan, an the new age spiritual evolution guy literally rely entirely on your imagination to post here, if you were more conscious it would be embarrassing. I would strongly support banning a separate Christian Legal system as I would any other minority religion variation, your comparison is hyperbolic and terrible. Sethex fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 20:30
|
|