|
SedanChair posted:ISIS certainly has their religious justifications down pat, but they kill a ridiculous number of Muslims on the flimsiest of pretexts. For this reason, I think most Muslims find them about as Islamic as a Quaker would find Reagan Christian. More than 42 MILLION Muslims 'support ISIS' The Sunday Express posted:The study, based on four recent polls, reveals the shocking level of support for the caliphate around the world. Also that Pew poll again, in case anybody forgot Huge majorities of most Muslim nations have loathsome, pre-modern views and social practices. Obfuscating that fact because it somehow proves ISIS right is every bit as "unhelpful" as drawing Mohammad cartoons supposedly is. How the gently caress do you extend the benefit of the doubt to someone who supports ISIS? There's precious little room to misunderstand what it's about. I understand that it isn't practical to kill everyone who holds such beliefs, but the least that can be done is to stop them and those with similar goals (Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, etc.) from being able to hold power anywhere. Despite all of the historical debate and back-and-forth over the nature of religious authenticity, I think the real bone of contention in the debates this thread was created to contain is about systems of law and government. To the extent that 'the west' is waging war against a genericized Islamic civilization, it isn't actually about changing the specifics of their scripture or doctrine. It is about changing the enforceability of that scripture, whether de jure or by community action. But on that specific issue, a modern post-Enlightenment society absolutely cannot and should not compromise. No meaningful social advancement is possible in the 21st century so long as any religious body has censorial power over the public square. Period. This issue was actually quite hard fought in the early years of the United States, and if secularism had lost out to the congregationalists, we would all (Americans and non-Americans) be extremely sorry. Edit: Rigged Death Trap posted:I dont think any metric is satisfactory when playing the historical equivalency game. The most deleterious act the western powers did was breaking up the Ottoman empire. That was the worst thing they possibly could have done - like the hubris of Rumsfeld's U.S. occupation authority disbanding Iraq's army writ large. By the time the U.S. started directly interfering in middle eastern politics, much of the worst damage (I.E. the ethnic cleansing of the 1920s and 30s) had already been done. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jul 5, 2015 |
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:bwaahahahahahahaha you unironically cited the people who made this: Alright, fair enough - I wasn't aware they were the original source. But other polls and events should have made it pretty clear by now that the level of support for ISIS is not negligibile (such as the reports of ~14% of muslims in France, of all places, indicating sympathy for ISIS).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"Hooray, 3% of Muslims support us at least lukewarmly, truly we will drive out the unbelievers and the Shia and those who open the wrong end of a banana Considering it's the equivalent of Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army polling at 3% of support among the global christian population, it is quite impressive ISIS has managed to garner so much favorability despite being adherents of the Pol Pot school of human rights.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 06:05
|
|
"
|
computer parts posted:I could probably find greater numbers of people (both % and absolute) in the US who want to establish a Christian theocracy. Assuming this is true if you worded the poll question so starkly - there is quite a difference between some hypothetical, ideal theocracy that people are allowed to envision, and an actual theocratic terrorist state which was/is continually expanding and executing shitloads of people every day. As far as those in the Arab world and beyond who openly sympathize with ISIS, I am not willing to extend them much sympathy on account of them being "misinformed" somehow. ISIS reminds the entire world of their brutal ideology in every single video they release. Anyone who decides to extend them support even if exposed exclusively to propaganda released by ISIS itself is pretty much a monster. That being said - it is true that ISIS is rejected by such a vast majority of Muslim around the world and overt support for them is a small fringe. The problem is that most of this population is still Islamist, politically speaking - and it should be clear by now that Islamism inevitably leads to ISIS-style medieval carnage. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to gain a foothold anywhere and establishing a "free and open democracy" isn't worth it if that leads immediately to a takeover by extreme Islamists. I am quite sympathetic to the much-despised arab liberals who are willing to collaborate with fascists to keep Islamist politicians from creating any more Irans or Saudi Arabias. If that means abrogating the god-given democratic rights of a bunch of daughter-murdering illiterate hicks, it is genuinely a shame, but very much worth the cost. (of course, none of this calculus applies to Assad, given that he's a long-time ally of Iran and a tacit supporter of ISIS). The significance of ISIS is not so much what it has done as what it represents. Note that ISIS has been far more successful than Al Qaeda ever was in convincing so-called lone wolves to carry out spates of attacks on their behalf. Edit: Volkerball posted:That sort of holier than thou arrogance is present in everything ISIS does, particularly when it comes to, as Alyas Karmani calls them, children, casually invoking takfir and jihad, which are reserved for the most learned of Islamic scholars. There's definitely a case to be made that ISIS are a manifestation of the Khawarij. The "learned Islamic scholars" you speak of are collectively responsible for the rise of ISIS due to a failure to modernize their faith. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I guess all Western scholars up to 1933 were collectively responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany then? To a degree, but particularly the counter-enlightenment scholars and leaders. Burke, the vicomte de Chateaubriand, Adam Müller, Maistre, Schopenhauer, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Maybe you should distinguish regressive Islamic scholars' responsibility for the rise of ISIS depending on their ideology like you do with Western scholars too?? If this was the 1940s or the immediate aftermath of WWII, I'd probably be pretty breezy about leveling harsh accusations at the western intellectual tradition as a whole, and shaming would-be defenders of western civilization by association with the Nazis. I think a lot of good came for Europe as a result of having the historical example of the Nazis around to discourage people from flirting with the ideas of the extreme right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
From the middle east thread, the issue of a persecution complex comes up again. Since apparently actual discussion of Islam is supposed to be kept out of the middle east thread now(?), here are my thoughts on the matter:Volkerball posted:As far as the media attention, you don't fight a persecution complex through "slander." ISIS propaganda revolves around preaching that the Western world invades Muslim countries, drones it incessantly, and is therefore actively involved in a crusade against Islam. Every FOX News segment about how WE NEED TO KILL THEM is shared all over on extremist forums to validate that the enemy they are fighting is real, and creating more source material for that isn't going to deescalate the situation. They have a persecution complex because they are being persecuted. Traditionalist Islam and the conservative Arab cultures with which it is enmeshed are violently incompatible with modern constitutional government. And can you please give up the infantilizing conceit that radical Islam is a wholly western-manufactured import that wouldn't exist save for imperialism? It is true that greedy western politicians did support such factions - but they were factions which already existed, and had broad popular support. Radical Islamism is much more a reaction against the spread of modernist philosophies in the middle east than it is any kind of movement against economic imperialism. In fact, the record of Islamists in opposing western economic exploitation is non-existent, because they only care about opposing secularism and individualism. This idea that the genesis of modern Islamic terrorists is a result of bad old western-style nation states being established and disrupting the wonderful, harmonious balance of Islamic scholarship that never oppressed anybody is a bunch of communitarian horseshit. Citizens in whatever golden age of Islamic scholarship from the 1500s or 1800s or whatever that they hearken back to had no rights worth mentioning, particularly anyone who wasn't an adult male. That system was garbage and it needed to be swept away. If the introduction of constitutional nation-states thus sparked terrorism, the fault lies with the religion, not the institution of the nation state.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:hey remember when you demanded a muslim poster prove he didnt harbor ISIS sympathies and also that time you accused american muslims of hyping up crimes against them to derail the narrative that theyre secretly trying to destroy western political thought That particular poster was advocating a de-facto global law against a form of free expression, which is only slightly different from ISIS's putative goal of a de-jure law to the same effect. I don't feel particularly guilty for jokingly comparing him to ISIS in the aftermath of an anti-free speech terrorist attack which a vocal minority of Muslims applauded afterwards. And as for the second charge - I wasn't claiming any kind of conspiracy. I was using reaction to the Chapel Hill shootings as an example of how many muslims have a defensive attitude and are as quick to sling around the label of Islamophobia as they are slow to criticize anything about their own systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, yes, you don't need to remind us that you're an entitled white American who is incapable of empathy. Brutality, by itself, does not render a movement monstrous, or else most of the revolutionary movements and fights against (or for) oppression in history would be monstrous. People who sign up for ISIS don't do so because they're inhumane monsters who love brutality, they do it because they feel that the goal is important enough to be worth any brutality that might be needed to successfully carry it out - and considering how successful ISIS has been, it's not surprising that people who might agree with their ultimate goals are signing up despite the brutality. It's not a matter of assigning guilt or weighing morality. No one deserves all that much blame or credit for what ideology they end up in because of all the ways circumstance shapes worldview, even when the position one winds up in is an irredeemable one. But that doesn't change the fact of their existence or the danger they represent to everyone who shares a political culture with them. The fact that they are "monsters who love brutality" and that they feel the goal is important enough are synonymous, because their ideal is brutality by any modern definition of the word. It isn't about weighing the proverbial hearts of those who support ISIS, but rather about recognizing that they are beyond reaching. That doesn't mean they should all be killed or anything, but it does mean that trying to include them in a political process is futile. Main Paineframe posted:Aaaand there we go! Would you also say it was worth the cost for the Weimar government's "free and open democracy" to collaborate with fascists to abrogate the god-given democratic rights of idealistic idiot socialists? The moment you decide fascist brutality is justifiable to suppress the democratic rights of some group you don't like, democracy is dead and brutality is the order of the day...especially if you're doing it because you're a racist who thinks that a particular minority is too uncivilized and stupid to be allowed to have a say in government. As soon as the fascists of the Union chose to suppress the democratic rights of people from the southern states during Reconstruction after the civil war, democracy in the U.S. was dead forever and brutality was the order of the day. What a racist that Lincoln was. I mean, wasn't it their democratic right to vote for a local government that recognized their wishes and enforced their cultural laws? Main Paineframe posted:The reason that Islamist movements didn't significantly oppose Western economic exploitation in the first half of the 20th century was because they were weak and insignificant then, both in terms of membership and in armament. Nobody* was selling arms to anti-government groups back then, and many of the iconic insurgent arms today didn't even exist back then. Also, much more importantly, most of those countries were heavily secularizing at the time, and Islamist groups were political nobodies until various Western-supported dictators started brutally oppressing any opposition to Western Those religiously centered groups are not "the opposition" to western exploitation or policies in any meaningful sense. The Israel/Palestine issue is the only matter of social justice that Islamist groups are even remotely involved in, and in that issue their collective efforts have been so incredibly counterproductive that they don't (or shouldn't) get any credit on that account. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Your statement makes no sense whatsoever, being both factually untrue in several respects, and also irrelevant. Counterpoint: You're Effectronica Edit: And also - "irrelevant"? The other points are debatable but how the gently caress do you figure that? And when I said that Islamist movements had no involvement in issues of social justice aside from I/P, maybe I should have specified "Except to take a stand against them and prevent any progress from being made" for the sake of accuracy. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's what we call an "ad hominem" argument, which rather weakens your positions. That's because we're arguing with different criteria. Being notionally opposed to western imperialism does a movement or ideology no credit whatsoever on its own. Mao and Pol Pot were opposed to western imperialism - does that mean you think they and their ideology were good for Asia or had any particular redeeming qualities?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Most likely because these religion-focused groups grow from a nonpolitical core that can be organized around, can be recruited from, and is difficult to completely ban because of its strong nonpolitical role in society. If all opposition political parties are banned, political speech and gatherings are banned, and prominent political opposition figures and groups are brutally persecuted and jailed or murdered, most political groups will wither and die as their leadership is shattered or driven into hiding and their recruiting abilities are heavily curtailed, and the populace can usually be convinced to tolerate that. The fact that Islamic movements have such a lovely, ineffectual track record of opposing elites of any kind on behalf of the working class might have something to do with that little bit of calculation on the part of the dictators. Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, what a fascist jerk Lincoln was, preventing white supremacist militias from depriving blacks of the right to vote. Truly, democracy was not restored in the South until White League armies were free to invade government buildings by force, throw out the democratically-elected governments, effectively block minorities' right to vote, and rig as many elections as they could get their hands on. Alright enough with the sarcastic bullcrap: the point I was trying to make is that the democratic rights of white southerners were temporarily (and briefly, unfortunately) compromised during military reconstruction. The Confederacy was organized around the right to hold slaves. Nazi Germany was organized around ethnic cleansing. Groups like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood are organized around causes which are (or should be) equally unacceptable to the global community in the 21st century. Modern democracies are not obliged to offer power or legitimacy to organizations whose entire purpose of existence is violating the individual human rights of others. Weren't you fuckers the first to jump on the "don't tolerate intolerance" bandwagon after the Charleston shooting? The same principle applies here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Wez posted:So back on page 1 I linked articles relevant to a discussion on Muslims, Islam and Daesh. Does anyone want to actually engage with that material? Was it really your intention to have people discuss the specifics? I figured when you posted those articles you were doing so to set the boundaries of the debate and give readers example arguments from the two contrasting positions, like when newspapers put two opposing opinion pieces side by side. But since you asked: I found Wright's response piece to be mealy-mouthed and weak: [quote="The Clash of Civilizations that Isn't"]As freakouts go, this one is certainly understandable. ISIS wants to terrify us, and in the service of that mission has carried tactical atrocity to new heights of grotesqueness. And both ISIS and Al Qaeda have inspired atrocities far from their home bases. It’s natural, when you’re freaking out, to accept simple and dramatic, even melodramatic, explanations. It’s a clash of civilizations! Deep within this alien thing known as Islam is an apocalyptic belligerence that is only now emerging in full form! Nobody at The Atlantic or the New York Times has put it this way. (Wood, in fact, notes that a large majority of Muslims reject ISIS, and neither Cohen nor Wood entirely dismisses political and socioeconomic contributors to religious extremism.) But when élite and generally liberal publications start broadcasting dubious catch phrases that dovetail nicely with such explanations, I start to worry. And the process feeds on itself. The more scared we get, the more likely our government is to react with the kind of undiscerning ferocity that created ISIS as we know it—and the more likely Western extremists are to deface mosques, or worse. All of which will help ISIS recruit more Muslims, thus leading to more atrocities in the West, as well as in the Middle East, and making the whole thing seem even more like a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. And so on. Wood’s Atlantic article has some interesting details about ISIS. For example: the group’s leader believes that he is the eighth legitimate caliph, and that the apocalypse will happen during the reign of the twelfth. Wood considers a clear understanding of this apocalypticism very valuable—a primary reason that it’s worth dwelling on the group’s religious character. But you could also argue that, if something like an apocalypse is possible, putting undue emphasis on the group’s religious character could hasten it.[/url] So the conclusion of this piece rests upon the ghastly corpse of the Bush administration's argument that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists, resurrected and turned around in the opposite direction. The suggestion is that the United States should base its policy around the feelings and reactions of a terrorist group. And though the Iraq war was certainly an indispensable factor in the rise of ISIS, the idea that this current of violent zealotry was created out of whole cloth in the year 2003 is quite ridiculous on its face. Nessus posted:Okay, so what's the solution? Do you try to encourage incremental reforms which primarily originate from within the society, Nessus posted:helping where you can and perhaps acknowledging that their system may not perfectly resemble American/European liberal democracy even in a good situation? No. It's orientalizing nonsense to say that people from this one part of the world cannot handle basic human rights that have improved the lives of people everywhere else as much or more than the technological change that accompanied those rights' gradual march towards recognition. Nessus posted:Or do you bomb and embargo every state that has an ideology we consider unacceptable? Yes, sometimes, depending on the situation. There was that one time it was pretty necessary. Nessus posted:If the latter, where does all the necessary money and manpower come from? It's not too expensive if it's most done with drones and airpower, as it is now that we have a sane president in command. Nessus posted:Also, what would you do if your efforts to destroy the Bad Thing ends up helping the Bad Thing, because of all the casualties caused by your efforts and/or because you are really obviously trying to put a government you, a not-from-here group, want in power? Try again in 10 or 20 years with a better strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So basically we keep murdering them with airstrikes until they produce a form of government similar to our own? How close must the mimicry be before the air assault stops? What measures will be taken to keep the Forever War going if some treacherous, weak-livered future generation considers peace, if only to avoid the expenditure on drone strikes? All the meandering, hypothetical, dystopian bullshit in the world isn't going to convince me that bombing Daesh isn't justified and necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:And that's what we (by which I meant everyone in this thread who isn't just raging about how bad religion is always forever) are arguing is wrong. "It's in the Qur'an so the most literal extreme interpretations of those specific passages are correct" is bad theology. You're just ignoring centuries of Islamic scholarship, which closely parallels Christian and Judaic scholarship in its increasingly humanist views, and taking the most violent extant sects and saying they're truly representative because they're the most violently repressive. You seem to be hesitating to argue against his actual point. Why don't you go into a little more detail about those years of gradual scholarship and what political direction they moved society in? Original early-medieval Islam was really, really awful in so many ways and unsuitable for running even a pre-modern empire, and all of that scholarship consisted of chipping away at literalism and (more to the point) narrow-minded, backwards looking cultural traditionalism that had piggybacked on the religion. The scripture of original Islamic texts is not the only 'problem' here - there are also the facts of the society which practiced it to consider. ISIS is not wrong when they claim that they are significantly closer in practice to 9th century or whatever Islam in the years immediately following Muhammad's life and reign. The primary two directions in which a religion moves as far as politics are concerned is intellectual/contemplative/introverted versus the practical, extroverted, activist brand. It isn't necessary to convince "Muslim allies" that all potential or historical forms of Islam are bad - but nobody who emphasizes the legalistic and political aspects of Islam and seeks the implementation of systems from 1000 years ago is ever going to be an ally. They are violent, politically speaking, and "evil" in the practical sense of seeking compromise with them being hopeless. Abner Cadaver II posted:My point is that political Christianity is far from neutered in this world, even if its influence is not equivalent to political Islam, and that the violence in the Middle East has much more to do with material than religious conditions. And yes I'm mostly blaming Western (and Soviet and even Ottoman) imperialism for it. If that is the case - if Islam and the cultural values with which it is inextricably associated in that part of the world did not meaningfully contribute to the current state of affairs - why are all of the other countries that have been exploited or warred upon by western (or non-western!) imperialists within the past couple of centuries not completely full of theocracies and violent religious death cults? These violent groups, I might add, have in the past few years shifted more to making attacks against targets with no real material/political significance (Charlie Hebdo and other cartoonists come to mind) for purely religious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:That would be a difference in degree rather than in kind though? Since you mention it, the spread of fundamentalist Catholic and evangelical Christianity in Africa is probably the second most problematic and undesirable religious movement in the world after fundamentalist Islam. Like Islam, this particular current of Christianity is causing the spread of laws about executing people and other sweeping theocratic impositions. I think it is very likely that violent Christian terrorist groups, armies and movements in that region will emerge sporadically, and ultimately end up getting droned just like ISIS and AQ have. But there's still quite a ways to go before we get to that point - at the moment, your example of the LRA pales in comparison to Boko Haram on the same continent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Equal rights for women is a good thing, but Replace all posts by religious apologists in this thread with this for accuracy. Maybe add an asterisk to make it women*, to clarify that women are being used as a synecdoche for everyone who isn't a straight male 30+ year old patriarch of a single religion. Main Paineframe posted:rapid forced modernization efforts that fail to respect the targets' culture tend to go well beyond just giving everyone equal rights and typically end up stomping all over the target's culture for the sheer sake of it. On top of that, these efforts typically tend to introduce the "civilizer's" cultural biases that may indeed go against human rights themselves. For example, although the British administrations in India and the Middle East typically banned violently misogynistic practices, they also imposed harsh bans on homosexuality with severe punishments, many of which have survived unchanged to the modern day. Indeed, pre-imperial-era middle eastern cultures were known for their fluid attitudes towards sexuality and their tolerance of homosexuality. But please, elaborate more about how individual human rights (which, throughout human history, basically translates to "The right to live your life how you want without your ignorant zealot neighbors lynching you or legislating against you", a right that citizens of very few muslim countries enjoy today) constitute an awful cultural bias. To the extent that their "culture" depends on enforcing medieval values on everyone around them, it really doesn't deserve to be respected.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Yes. You have a point with an outside force being resisted simply because they are outsiders, that's a natural human thing to do. But you cannot have the revolution without the terror, the declaration of the rights of man without the committee of public safety. This was the mistake of the Egyptian people in the Arab Spring, they did not organize paramilitary forces to purge the 'deep state' of the military and, as a result, the deep state is still in power. Indeed, if only the Islamic fundamentalists had organized a militia more quickly, they could have exterminated all of the secularists, christians, and businesspeople who supported that awful, fascistic military counter-revolution (against a president who had just declared himself to be a despot and utterly dissolved the democracy within months of winning election).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Scholarly text and debate on the nature of interpretation do not a central tenet of worship make.  For the Islamic apologetics in this thread; can you give a hypothetical example of a quote or doctrine that would mark Islam as an inherently violent doctrine to your satisfaction (yet isn't obviously counteproductive to spreading the religion like "kill every non-muslim you meet, then yourself")? I understand your unwillingness to dismiss a faith practiced by so many as utterly rotten from the roots on up. But can you at least admit that the more literally you follow the Qur'an and the more certain you are it is the unchallengeable word of god, the worse a person you are going to be to live around?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Napoleon Bonaparte was a pretty baller-rear end dictator actually, the modernization of Europe would have been set back at least a century if it weren't for him and the modern world would be a 10 times better place if he'd won in Russia. Ataturk, although perhaps not strictly a dictator (but hardly purely democratic), had great success forcefully modernizing Turkey - notice that even with Erdogan it is leagues less barbaric than the rest of the Muslim world. Ho Chi Minh forcefully unified and modernized Vietnamese culture in order to put up a united front against western imperialism. The Bourbon Reforms in Spain were not at all democratic or egalitarian yet they succeeded in modernizing a badly-lagging Spanish government and culture. Democracy is the preferable option for reform of harmful laws or practices, all other things being equal, but it is not the only method that has EVER EVER produced positive results.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I'll throw in Lee Kuan Yew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew At first I thought you were trolling me with this, until I looked at your rap sheet. Ugh, really? The guy who made it his life's mission to create the most stratified, plutocratic system of government possible? Medieval torture and punishments is why I'm against Islamic legal systems. Fizzil posted:"There is no compulsion in religion" is a really popular aya in the Qur'an, besides people have publicly told Muhammed "no i can't convert because [reasons]" and he let them go, even the passages that deals with killing apostates is in the context of violent apostates who fight or intend to kill muslims, its in self defense. Sorry, but Muhammad/the Qur'an/etc. really gets no credit for tossing in that little phrase. It's just an acknowledgement of the fact that someone violently forced to convert to your religion is likely to not sincerely believe in it and revert to his or her old religion in private. It perhaps makes them one step more progressive than the spanish inquisition torturing Jews if they were suspected of retaining some of their old practices; it's setting the bar pretty loving low. The fact of the matter is that non-Muslims are explicitly denied equal rights within the religious text. The New Testament stops well short of that, as do every single other major religious scripture that I'm aware of. Again, let's flip this question around. Can anyone give me an example of a religious text (aside from maybe the Old Testament) which is less charitable to people of other faiths, talks more about waging war against them, levys more legal restrictions on them, or is more aggressive in its urges to proselytize? Let's look at history honestly here. Islam didn't spread by convincing people on an intellectual level. It was spread through a mix of military conquest and economic pressure, always very coercively, in sharp contrast to the organic growth of various pagan faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:In the middle of the 19th century, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant organizations formed a political party in the USA, the Know-nothings or American Party. At the time, the Pope had declared Catholicism incompatible with liberal republicanism, and the majority of American bishops agreed with him and argued that the American republic should be overthrown. Given that, was persecution of Catholics in the USA acceptable? This is actually not such a bad analogy, since there were a few reasonably prominent Catholic extremist movements running around overthrowing governments at the time; the Carlists come to mind. But A) the Know-nothings persecution of catholics never amounted to anything legally, and was limited to disorganized thuggery, and B) these people had some legitimate concerns, albeit entangled with racism, considering that the Pope you are alluding to was one of the shittiest assholes ever crapped out by the Vatican and more responsible than any other single religious leader for the putrid politics of the current-day Catholic church. This was a world before Hitler or Stalin - in fact, I think that Pius IX might have been one of the greatest villains known to civilization, at the time. In that context, an overreaction against Catholicism was more understandable, if not justified. The American Party obviously had some racist and anti-democratic elements but dismissing them as one-dimensional villains or bedfellows of the KKK is an oversimplification. They were about as close to a mass progressive movement as mid-19th century America got.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Yeah, I know, abolitionism. But correct me if I'm wrong, but even by the time the civil war rolled around, wasn't actual full-scale abolitionism well below majority support in the North, nevermind the mid-west? Likewise women's suffrage didn't start making much noteworthy progress until the final decades of the 19th. Plucky little third party movements like Free Soil were nice, but not terribly consequential in the grand scheme of things. Edit: I don't think I'm so much praising the Know Nothings here as I am damning America of that era with faint praise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
fspades posted:It also conveniently lets you ignore the very real gains made by Muslim women in modern history. Can you show any statistic or recent historical context demonstrating anything other than a strong negative relation between intensity of (islamic) religious belief and advancement of women's legal rights? (Not even getting into LGBTQ rights) fspades posted:But then the same people who do the above turns around and claim Islamic terrorism, a phenomenon that is undoubtedly modern and new, represents something timeless and at the core of Islam and we have to pretend Daesh are the exemplar of True IslamTM now and every other Muslim are fakers. This has nothing to do with a rejection of "relativism," it's simply the boneheaded rejection of history. I don't buy this argument at all. To reiterate; terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Willingness to use political violence to establish a religious state is the ideology. There is virtually no moral component to terrorism setting it apart from other forms of organized violence. Terror and violence against civilian populations is the essential core of all warfare. I think the average Daesh member would very much like it if he could turn back the technological clock a thousand years and fight for his faith with scimitar in hand instead of having to turn himself into a dehumanized living torpedo or (at best) spending most of his time huddled in a trench hoping an airstrike or mortar shell doesn't fall on his head. The scriptures are considerably more aggressive and prescriptive about calling for war against the unfaithful compared to the Bible (even OT). I do not draw any meaningful distinction between the religious wars which spread Islamic faith in the early years and the actions of Daesh today; they are the same phenomenon, with the same goal of establishing strict religious law. Historically speaking, the prohibitions against harming any noncombatants rang hollow then as well as now. So to reiterate my earlier point: social progress in the muslim world requires a proportionate amount of willingness to ignore the Qur'an and the words of religious scholars. Saying that things would be so much better if we only had more religious scholars and more authority in their hands strikes me as rather ludicrous. And trying to somehow rhetorically 'help' modernized muslims by claiming that they are more faithful and islamic than the radicals and terrorists is a fig leaf which isn't fooling anybody. The radicals and terrorists are willing to die, kill and terrorize for their (intepretation of the) religion is a powerful argument for the sincerity of their devotion to it. Moderate muslims can't match that level of devotion, and they need to admit to themselves that they shouldn't. Much like racism in America, until that part of the world has the conversation and a majority admits that there is such a thing as giving too much to Islam (HOWEVER you define it), any progress will be dreadfully slow. fspades posted:This kind of discussion benefits no one. Silencing tactic. Can we please stop deploying this one over and over in religion threads? These kinds of utilitarian arguments ring incredibly loving hollow in an obscure internet forum thread. Edit: Wez posted:The madhabib weren't a singular authority in any sense. At the time of colonisation there were four guilds operating at a variety of social levels across the Muslim majority world. The fact they were capable of disseminating and enforcing normative rulings in conjunction with the state is why the sort garbage radical groups are into couldn't gain traction. The reason you think that Fadel's point is a minor technical quibble is because you've assumed that liberal secularism would actually change the Muslim attachment to religion and therefore delegitimise religious movements from co-opting religious symbology. Contrary to your claim the history of Sunnism isn't recurring dysfunction that only liberal secularism can solve,. As Fadel points out Sunnism evolved out of a quagmire of sectarian and political violence and central to it designated parameters was a desire to limit the possibility of religion being invoke in the name of radicalism and sectarianism. Bolded for breathtaking orientalism. 'Don't you guys see, theocratic ideology is literally in their DNA, who are we to say it isn't *~right for them~*?' And I don't know about historically, but here in the 21st century where we're all actually alive and get to decide how history proceeds, Sunnism is doing a really lovely job of "limit[ing] the possibility of religion being invoke in the name of radicalism and sectarianism." Worse than any other religion on the planet, actually. At this point I'm pretty sure that 'more Sunnisim' is not the answer. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Russia was a strong state before its revolution and was a strong state afterwards, there was never any power vacuum lol Smudgie Buggler posted:The Nazis were not a decentralised, amorphous terrorist movement. Decentralization would have been disadvantageous to the Nazis then - it is often advantageous to Islamists now. And to re-iterate, ISIS is neither decentralized nor amorphous. They are geographically defined, with borders, a standing military, and secure territories.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Sethex posted:This line of reasoning is bad. We shouldn't talk about anything unless we know we can affect a positive outcome? Can we get the bolded part in the OP? CommieGIR posted:
I hate being pushed into the position of defending Christianity but even IF we are going to stretch the bounds of relevancy by comparing modern events to poo poo from a century ago, modern political Islam isn't comparable to political Christianity. "Moderate" Islamists like the Turkish AKP and Egyptian MB have ideas on the integration of church (mosque) and state that make Franco look like goddamn Jimmy Carter in comparison. In the modern world, I think it's pretty telling that in Nigeria, the poster child (alongside Uganda) for international Christian fundies whipping up harsh laws, the harshest penalties against homosexuality (or any other sexual offense) are to be found in the regions under Sharia law. Even if you insist on comparing it to racism, current Muslim nations where political Islam has been successful in its aims have legal systems which treat women, children, non-muslims and others worse than blacks were treated at the height of Jim Crow. Don't compare the Republican party, noxious plutocrats and reactionaries though they are, to Islamists. The western right pushes policies with implicit religious justification which chip away at the economic rights of marginalized groups and facilitate excluding them from institutions. Comparing it to theocratic political parties and militias shredding two or three constitutions every year, continually assassinating perceived enemies across the world, passing explicitly religious laws and publicly executing people in accordance with said laws is just insulting. I don't care if you think you're being fair-minded, or pragmatic. Putting the western religious right and political Islam next to one another and claiming that they are the same in any meaningful way is just bullshit. There are a few western religious movements which can be compared to mainstream conservative Islam in terms of malignancy and hostility to secular democracy. The Church of Latter Day Saints is probably the best example of an "Islamist-like" sect of Christianity whose aims go beyond sneaking in the odd religiously motivated law and into the realm of establishing a totalitarian religious community. In fact, the early Mormons were pretty much the ISIS of their day. But the non-Mormon Christian community and secular government took energetic action to stop them getting anywhere near the theocracy they wanted. Note that unlike ISIS, however, they didn't get a stream of cash and volunteers pouring in from across the globe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 21:10
|
|
That's not the US, and hardcore Conservative Christians would LOVE to be able to do this. See Jeb Bush and his pushing laws that would ostracize unwed mothers.
|
Tezzor posted:Ahh yes, my ridiculous conspiracy theory of racists brigading minority subreddits and some internet atheists invading religious discussions with belligerent slander. Jet fuel can't melt steel and I am cuckoo for cocoa puffs. I disagree with your implied point. As we've seen before in this thread, you have a very essentialist view of cultures - a view that most of the modern left does not share. This excerpt from one of the best Je Suis backlash responses makes the point diplomatically: Slate.com posted:The leaders of religious communities don’t necessarily speak for all their members, either. William Donohue, of the Catholic League, claims that Charlie Hebdo’s satires have wronged Catholics, but as someone raised in that particular authoritarian faith, I can attest that when I was young, rude parodies of the religious figures I had been taught to respect (specifically in Mad magazine) gave me the nerve to challenge their right to tell me how to live my life. It might suit Western leftists’ sensibilities if the only people allowed to mock or criticize Islam in our countries were other Muslims, but it simply isn’t true that rebels and innovators only learn to challenge orthodoxies from people just like themselves. Or from people just like us. Although in this case it is "sweeping generalizations" on the internet you are attempting to squelch rather than crass caricatures, the principle is the same. You talk about how such and such a type of discourse "isn't part of the mechanism" for some community's cultural change, and all we see is some high-handed rear end in a top hat trying to set the boundaries of the debate like he's the god drat Pope and lumping everyone in every civilization into some racialized category which you then hold up as their sole defining attribute. Have you ever considered that there might be a lot of people in the Middle East (many of whom call themselves Muslims because they'd be ostracized if not immediately murdered by their "friends" and family if they were revealed as an unbeliever) who actually wish there was more criticism of Islam? Even if the criticism is crude and/or comes from the mouths of the damnable imperialistic white race?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So if we accept the premise that Islam is fundamentally the Worst Evil Bad Religion on the planet then what exactly is your solution? Saturation nuclear bombardment? Mass brainwashing? Culture is downstream from politics. If Islam can be prevented from gaining and keeping a foothold in political systems (or through de-facto enforcement by terrorists or angry mobs), it cannot win the culture war against western liberalism. And can I take this post as a tacit acknowledgement by you that even if Islam isn't THE worst extant major religion, it is at least tied for the position? As I've said before, Mormonism is about as bad as Islam in terms of being fundamentally anti-secular. Mormon Star Wars posted:This post is really wrong and I'm not quite sure why you think you are able to pontificate on what "Real Islam" is when you don't even know the role of the Caliph. The Caliph is not the determiner of religious positions, and Caliphs trying to seize spiritual authority from the Ulema has generally gone wrong. The Abbasid caliphate trying to seize religious authority with the Mihna is why the madhab they supported doesn't even exist anymore, and the 'heretics' they tried to wipe out - the Hanbali - are now the majority madhab in Saudi Arabia. First of all, I think you're going through some incredible rhetorical gymnastics to try and claim the Calph was a purely secular leader with no religious role. Wasn't a large part of the point of the position to have a military leader in charge of the collected armies of Islam, as a whole? The position lacking interpretive religious authority (which itself was a very close call, as you yourself point out) doesn't make it much less scary. That's kind of beside the point, though, because I think that the lack of a more centralized interpretative authority in Islam may have made the religion worse (I.E. more conservative and traditionalist). Essentially, every single individual Muslim is deputized to enforce the dictates of the Qur'an and Hadith, if not directly then indirectly through courts which are explicitly and fundamentally religious in purpose. The sad fact is that historically, liberalization of a polity's views usually occurs from the top down. It's happening right now in Catholicism, albeit haltingly. If the views of the majority of Catholics from Africa, Southeast Asia and Central America were better represented by the current Pope, the religion itself and the world at large would be far worse off for it. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Yet you're arguing (forgive me if I'm confusing you with Liberal_L33t with this characterization) that Islam itself is so fundamentally anti-liberal that it's preferable to have a secular dictator than a democratic state controlled by its Muslim population. Iran was no less Muslim in the 1950s, and even if attitudes were generally more secular by your view of Islam wouldn't you expect it to gradually transform into a theocratic state through the votes of the Muslim majority? With all of your talk about 'forever-war' and the strawman that democratic Iran would inevitably have become a theocratic state, you are ignoring the evidence that de-Islamization of populations is an attainable goal in the medium and long term. This organic process is proceeding successfully in most western nations, despite the occasional violent tensions with the more conservative recently-arrived immigrants in some places. Traditionalist Islam cannot survive many generations as a cultural force without the support of authoritarian institutions, governmental or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So does destabilizing the region by toppling any government that's too "Traditionalist Islam" further that organic process? Does setting up authoritarian institutions to oppose "Traditionalist Islam" help? An unqualified 'Yes' to the first question, and a 'Maybe' to the second. The reason I think this is because Islam, of whatever variety, has historically (and especially in the 20th century) leaned very heavily on authoritarian institutions to support and justify itself. Compared to Christianity, it seems to have an incredibly underdeveloped intellectual tradition of apologetics or reconciliation with modern values. On a philosophical level, Islam (specifically, the Qur'an) has virtually no arguments to deploy except for the argument from authority, on which it bases absolutely loving everything. Every time I've talked with Muslims online or in person, the only explanation I have ever gotten as to why I should adopt their faith is "Because the Koran says so, which means God said so, because I say so." If you reject that axiom, they write you off pretty much immediately. Conversely, even the most over-emotional Christians trying to convert me back in high school could muster better arguments than that. Without the argument from authority to resort to, Islam is bankrupt. Without the club of the religious courts and the clenched fist of the abusive father beating acceptance into children, Islam won't even last one generation unless it backs way the gently caress off in terms of its political and lifestyle prescriptions. Abner Cadaver II posted:
Just because the religion is inherently anti-modern doesn't mean that it will always succeed at preventing outside intellectual forces from liberalizing a society. Islamic majorities in a democracy won't naturally create a less liberal and less tolerant society so long as the citizens of that democracy have higher priorities than ensuring every possible tenet of Islam is enforced. If enforcement of Islamic law is the primary stated purpose of a government, even one that claims to be democratic, it will always become an oppressive monstrosity. Abner Cadaver II posted:Why do you think "Traditionalist Islam" can't survive without authoritarian institutions propping it up if Islam is inherently anti-modern/anti-liberal? Firstly, the government is not the only authoritarian institution of concern. Tribal communities and mob justice are just as great an obstacle to the secularization of the Arab world as de jure Sharia. Much like the KKK and racist-owned businesses in the U.S. during the late 20th century, authoritarian institutions of law-enforcement must be deployed against non-governmental institutions and individuals if any progress is to be made in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Continuing with what Abner Cadaver was posting about; I think there is actually an argument to be made that creating more violent fundamentalists has a silver lining. Jihadists are not doing the long-term prospects of conservative Islam as an ideology any favors with their violent antics. They're so repulsive that even fundamentalists of other religions have their reputation blackened by association with the likes of the Taliban. Much like the rise of the KKK in the American South, although Jihadists can be considered 'bad' in isolation, they are also a sign that social progress is being made, because social progress almost always inspires a violent reaction against it. The solution isn't to halt social progress so that the Jihadists calm down. On the contrary; the more that Islamic literalism gets associated with violent terrorist acts, the better.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I sincerely hope they aren't advocating it. I'm asking the question because this view of Islam as a monolithic foe to modernity is one also held by the people who do think the only or best option is some good old fashioned colonial imperialism. If, by your definition, supporting secular, constitutional systems (even ones with problematic human rights records) and doing everything practical to hinder the progress of Islamist movements is "old fashioned colonial imperialism", then yes, I suppose I am guilty of supporting it. Congratulations; you have just debased the definition of colonialism to the point it has no meaning to anyone except the most die-hard cultural relativists. This exact process has been the primary source of the hard-right nationalists rise to prominence in Europe; nice job with that one, multiculturalists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The only emotion you are projecting is fear. Your weakness is jumping off the screen. You wouldn't be so concerned with controlling Islam if you didn't secretly think it was stronger than your own Western liberal traditions. Please accept my apologies that your parents didn't condition you like a Spartan, instead purchasing gifts for you and answering your every need. You've pretty much become a 'Do It to Julia' style right-wing crank at this point. Even the most stringently multicultural element of the European left would be horrified to be associated with your viewpoint. Are there any premises of the Islamic fundamentalist criticism of western society that you DON'T accept?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think you're sort of missing my point. These are people who seem to actually want to stay alive and not get involved in said extremist shitfights. That they're taking no sides in the conflict and not actively participating in the fighting suggests to me that they don't belong to the belligerent extremist groups doing the fighting or they would likely be staying put. Don't dishonestly pretend ignorance of the numerous incidents of religious extremism among migrants (the attempting lynching of a man who tore a Koran, the sudden mass-drowning of most of a boat's non-Muslim passengers by the Muslims, etc). No, it doesn't represent the majority, nor is it a good enough justification to refuse asylum to certain nationalities. But denying that it even exists just causes the average European to be pushed towards the far-right when one of these incidents does happen (and they will continue to, frequently, for years to come). TomViolence posted:Surely the point of secular, liberal society is that people may hold political and religious views you disagree with, right? Supporting sharia law (a civil framework of islamic jurisprudence that is admittedly reactionary but does not necessarily incorporate criminal law) is an entirely legitimate political position, however much we disagree with it. In a vacuum I might agree with you. In the context of a subset of the population that seeks the legalization of child and domestic abuse and the coercive disenfranchisement of women in family law, by a community that uses extra-legal means to try and force all members to remain within it and follow its laws in preference to secular laws, different story. Civilized society is not required to countenance laws that are crafted to nurture theocratic intermediary institutions. You're basically arguing that it was wrong for the courts to nullify racially-restrictive housing covenants because "not wanting black people to live in your neighborhood is an entirely legitimate political position, however much we disagree with it." 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" Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I wish that God would strike down everyone who argues for hatred with reference to justice. Well, at least you've moved on to wishing people dead by impersonal cosmic forces as opposed to wishing for the opportunity to personally kill them. That's a step forward.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That is not an accurate representation of my views, and I feel that people who come out with "Don't think Muslims are basically evil and atavistic? You must be in favor of legalizing murder!!" should have things which I have been told I am not allowed to discuss in this forum happen to them. The crux of the issue is that a sizable minority of Muslims in several European countries are, in fact, in favor of murdering people for religious reasons when polled on the topic. You don't think that's relevant to the topic of whether or not Sharia law should be allowed to gain precedent and enforceability in western nations?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
I wasn't seriously suggesting those were the views those three posters hold, but using it as a mirror image to the hyperbole that gets directed at anybody who doesn't toe the line of cultural relativism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Good. I didn't expect so. Now, Liberal_L33t, what else is it that is missing here? Persecution of Muslims by other Muslims is against most laws already. It seems like none of the three other posters you singled out believe what you ascribe to them, so they would not be allies to changing laws to affect this. What are the actual policies you would like to see that aren't there, or policies that are there that you would rather be gone? That persecution often takes place through para-legal avenues or escapes prosecution due to widespread tacit approval among these populations. I would like to see aggressive prosecution and hefty prison sentences, preferably through some sort of anti-terrorism or hate crime legislation, of anyone who acts to enforce religious laws through fear. The lynch mob who went after the man who tore a religious book is a good example of the type who need to be made an example of. As the history of the KKK and the segregationist system in the U.S. shows, regressive conspiratorial groups who pursue their agenda with a mixture of legal political action and extralegal intimidation need to be aggressively infiltrated and dismantled by law enforcement. My problem is encapsulated by the fact that someone posted, apparently in all seriousness, that it would be discriminatory not to allow Saudi-backed groups to set up hundreds of new mosques aimed at the latest wave of migrants. Are we really debating this? Absurd Alhazred posted:Are gang-rapes exclusive to North African culture? Why do you think that there needs to be a policy targeting only these gang-rapes? There is a self-evident causal relationship between the attitudes of certain cultures towards human sexuality and the incidence of sexual violence against women.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
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
|
|