Sharia law in action

[andygardener]

Religions adapt, even literalist traditions realise that the scriptures have to be seen in the context of the period, the Caliphate etc.

 

Absolutely, in general religions do move towards a secular humanist worldview over a lot of time. However in the case of islam the percentage of adherents that actually think the quran isn't the literral word of god and we need to take it with a huge pinch of salt is pretty small.

 

Over time like christianity islam will "get it" but we are far from that point now in my view.

[Glamrocker]

For you and others who appear to have an obsession with my posting style you may have missed my earlier condemnation of Gambia's President Jammah who happens to be a Muslim.

Ive no interest in defnding Islam, Im more interested in not making generalizations about how people are going to behave because of a religion they might subscribe to.

 

I dont believe its the religion thats the problem whether it be Islam or Christianity. Its how people choose to interpret it, the reason I mention the Ugandans was to demonstrate that since few Christians believe what they do it shows they can all exercise free will, whatever religion they are.

For someone who claims to have no interest in Islam, you always seem to be first in line to defend it

[plekhanov]

Many Christians around the world use rape as a weapon in war as well. Maybe you have seen some of the videos of Congolese militias talking?

 

The fact of the matter is women are treated badly all over the world by people of all religions. Something that demonstrates religion is not the cause.

Piffle. People of pretty much every political persuasion have at some point killed Jews that doesn't stop some violence against Jews such as the Nazi holocaust having a specific ideological motivation behind it.

 

Similarly there are all kinds of motivations for violence against women, some of them are ideological & religious such as the stoning of the rape victims ordered by Islamist courts.

 

You seem to have no problem identifying ideologically driven violence when the ideology in question is some variety of white nationalism, just as you have no problem condemning the ideology responsible for inspiring that violence. Yet strangely when the ideology behind violence is some variety of Islam your thought processes get all muddled. Why is that do you think?

 

The reason for their treatment is a nasty mixture of poverty, exclusion, male insecurity, sexual power relations and no doubt other issues. Trying to reduce it to religion, even more so a specific one is the sociology of the kindergarden.

Strawman. I have never claimed that religion alone never mind one specific religion is responsible for all violence against women and you know it.

[Wildcat]

Absolutely, in general religions do move towards a secular humanist worldview over a lot of time. However in the case of islam the percentage of adherents that actually think the quran isn't the literral word of god and we need to take it with a huge pinch of salt is pretty small.

 

Over time like christianity islam will "get it" but we are far from that point now in my view.

 

secular humanist is a little provocative

 

but I understand what you mean... as social liberalisation.

 

One thing religious people are good at is leaps of logic that defy convention It is perfectly possible for a literal interpretation of a text to change fundamentally over time, it is happening all the time. Literalists are more liberal now than they were even a few years ago. Historically social change in ideas is happening at a phenomenal rate globally. It is the reaction to that, that gets the news headlines... but it misrepresents the bigger picture.

 

Who would have thought 20 years ago you would have transgender bisexual TV stars in Turkey or Pakistan? Society changes and religion follows if it wants to maintain power.

[Wildcat]

Piffle. People of pretty much every political persuasion have at some point killed Jews that doesn't stop some violence against Jews such as the Nazi holocaust having a specific ideological motivation behind it.

 

Similarly there are all kinds of motivations for violence against women, some of them are ideological & religious such as the stoning of the rape victims ordered by Islamist courts.

 

You seem to have no problem identifying ideologically driven violence when the ideology in question is some variety of white nationalism, just as you have no problem condemning the ideology responsible for inspiring that violence. Yet strangely when the ideology behind violence is some variety of Islam your thought processes get all muddled. Why is that do you think?

 

White nationalism like any other form of nationalism is fairly non-complex, an almost explicit expression of ethnic identity and a desire to assert its superiority.

 

Religions are far more complex. Not only is a religion what was, what it is but also what it can be.

 

Strawman. I have never claimed that religion alone never mind one specific religion is responsible for all violence against women and you know it.

 

Strawman, I never said you did.

 

I was trying to explain the complexity of causal factors involved in misogynistic practices and how blaming religion is simplistic and misses out on the important complexities and causes.

[boyfriday]

For someone who claims to have no interest in Islam, you always seem to be first in line to defend it

 

For someone who claims they don't hate Muslims you always seem to be first in line to attack them.

[plekhanov]

You have missed the context from the quotes.

I clearly cited book, chapter and verse if anyone wants additional context they can provide it for themselves with ease.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the context of those verses suggests a reading other than an approval of slavery. Please explain to us what the anti-slavery reading is.

 

It is fair enough to say that had Paul been as forward thinking as you might have expected from having spent years in the presence of a divinity, he would have taken the opportunity to condemn slavery in his parables when given the opportunity rather than use them as metaphors, but that is a rather different criticism.

Right so what exactly is the following a "metaphor" for:

 

Ephesians 6:5-9 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

 

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

 

Because it reads like a straightforward advice about how people should behave, just as the preceding and following verses are.

 

Also what's all this about "parables" how are the passages I quoted part of parables?

 

And religious leaders in Somalia are community leaders, favoured by warlords, mixing up religion with their own cultural history, prejudices, and expressing this with the violent and brutal mindset common in civil war situations especially in poor excluded countries. The religion is not a causal factor, it is an expression of the chauvinist reactionary power expressed in countries in circumstances like Somalia. Causes for sociological and cultural expressions are many and varied. Marxists would put it all down to economics, they are wrong... but there is more truth in that than any other simplistic description. It is about power relationships in societies, how they balance how they change. We live in a post Foucault world, there really is no excuse for trying to pin problems on single causes with such a simple analysis.

Strawman I have at no point stated that anything has "a single cause" so please stop being so dishonest and pretending that I did. What I did do is respond to your absurd claim that

 

"Fortunately, such actions [the stoning of female rape victims for "adultery"] are universally condemned by religious leaders"

 

By pointing out that it was religious leaders who sentenced the poor girl in Somalia.

 

As for your pathetic attempt to pretend that Islamist clerics in Somalia aren't religious leaders but "community leaders". They've set up a theocracy, the defining property of a theocracy is that the religious leaders hold political power so there is no distinction between "community" and "religious leader".

 

Causes for pretty everything people do are of course many and varied this in no way justifies your attempts to completely deny that ideology - a category which includes religion - is amongst the causes of peoples actions.

[plekhanov]

White nationalism like any other form of nationalism is fairly non-complex, an almost explicit expression of ethnic identity and a desire to assert its superiority.

 

Religions are far more complex. Not only is a religion what was, what it is but also what it can be.

If you take a sufficiently reductionist approach everything is "fairly non-complex".

 

Regardless of it's supposed simplicity the relationship between Nazi ideology and the extent to which the holocaust (and much else of what the Nazis did) was a planned, logical result of Nazi ideology has inspired decades of debate amongst historians. Yet you have no problem blaming assorted far right ideologies for the unpleasant actions of those of the far right.

 

Strawman, I never said you did.

 

I was trying to explain the complexity of causal factors involved in misogynistic practices and how blaming religion is simplistic and misses out on the important complexities and causes.

Liar. You accused me of; "Trying to reduce it to religion, even more so a specific one is the sociology of the kindergarden."

 

When I never did anything of the kind. In response to CXC3000's claim that demanding rape victims provide witnesses to substantiate their claim has nothing to do with Islam. I simply cited an example of some Muslims who seem to think that has everything to with Islam.

 

CXC3000 then accused me of judging "the entire Faith by a minority's un-Islamic actions" I responded by pointing out that I did no such thing, that I know Islam is highly diverse and amongst other things includes within it "the notion that women who report rapes must be able to provide multiple witnesses to substantiate their claim or be stoned to death for adultery".

 

At no point did I claim that religion alone is to credit or blame for anything. All I did is point out ones of the strands of belief within one particular religion.

[johncocker]

For you and others who appear to have an obsession with my posting style you may have missed my earlier condemnation of Gambia's President Jammah who happens to be a Muslim.

Ive no interest in defnding Islam, Im more interested in not making generalizations about how people are going to behave because of a religion they might subscribe to.

 

I dont believe its the religion thats the problem whether it be Islam or Christianity. Its how people choose to interpret it, the reason I mention the Ugandans was to demonstrate that since few Christians believe what they do is right it shows they can all exercise free will, whatever religion they are.

 

 

 

it's not your "posting style "as you call it, people have a problem with,its your obsession with being resident muslim apoligist ..oh yes' and the psychic abilitie to be able to see racism in just about everything can get a bit boring:D

[boyfriday]

it's not your "posting style "as you call it, people have a problem with,its your obsession with being resident muslim apoligist ..oh yes' and the psychic abilitie to be able to see racism in just about everything can get a bit boring:D

 

This word "apologist" does seem to be bandied around like the word "racist" doesn't it?

 

Usually by people who hate everything, so on that basis alone I'd rather be described as an apologist than a hater. It's a total irrelevance and presumably intended to stifle the opinion of others you disagree with in a similar way.

 

I'd love you to toddle off and find all these posts of mine where I've complained about racism or described another user as a racist-so yes it appears you do have a problem with my 'posting style'.

 

Incidentally, if you're going to be critical at least spell the insult correctly. It's apologist, not 'apoligist'.