Islamic State

Moggy wrote:Nobody doubts that ISIS call themselves Muslims or that they follow a twisted version of it, but they do not represent Islam as a whole which is why people will say that they are not true Muslims or that they have nothing to do with the (vast!) majority of Muslims.

Yeah, you keep reiterating that in your opinion the 'vast majority' of muslims do not support Islamic State. It's perhaps true that the 'vast majority' do not support Islamic State, but a far more pertinent question would be 'how many muslims around the world support Sharia law and believe it should be enforced?'. This is where it gets rather more murky.

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God. Muslims also tend to believe sharia has only one, true understanding, but this opinion is far from universal; in some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations. Religious commitment is closely linked to views about sharia: Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to say sharia is the revealed word of God, to say that it has only one interpretation and to support the implementation of Islamic law in their country.

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.14 Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... ut-sharia/

I won't post all the graphs again: the point has already been made. Equating Sharia to Islamic State is a false equivalence only inasmuch as Islamic State practices a brutally literal interpretation whereas most Islamic countries do not go in for the same kind of out-and-out butchery as practiced by Islamic State. However, contrasting a strictly Sharia-compliant nation such as Saudi Arabia with Islamic State might give one pause for thought. Saudi Arabia - a theocratic dictatorship - is regularly criticised by human rights organisations for its public beheadings (among many other things), whilst Iran (another theocratic dictatorship) is known to publicly hang homosexuals. The mistreatment, rape and abuse (and even murder) of women in Sharia-compliant countries is a commonality shared between all.

Claiming that most muslims are 'moderate' is a meaningless gesture. In fact, 'moderate muslims', even if Islam allowed for their existence (which strictly speaking, it doesn't), are completely irrelevant. If just 10% of the world's 1 billion+ muslims believe in the strict enforcement of Sharia law around the world, that's 100,000,000 muslims who want to kill queers, Jews, adulterous women and non-believers (you and me). And we all know Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world today (aided greatly by the world's fastest birth-rate amongst muslims the world-over).

Looked at it this way, your claims of the 'vast majority' of muslims being totally harmless begins to look increasingly irrelevant. We don't know what percentage of the 'vast majority' of so-called 'moderate muslims' might secretly want to enforce a Sharia state wherever they live. Islam is quite clear on its stated aims: a Caliphate, Sharia law for all and death or brutal subjugation (if they are lucky) for the unbelievers.

Moggy wrote:Who is too scared to say that Islam is homophobic? I doubt you will find many Western people (outside of Islam) that do not think that the Islamic faith contains a lot of sexism and homophobia.

The reason you will hear more people debating it around Christianity is because Christianity is the dominant religion in the West. Indeed, in the UK it is so dominant that we still have religious figures in one house of our Government! While there are many Muslim homophobes, they have very little say in the laws of the land and as such get an easier ride when we look at things like gay rights.

It's less to do with fear of offending somebody and much more to do with the power of the religion in the country.

Hmmmm, I come from a Christian background and I can say there is another difference between Christianity and Islam where that's concerned.

The range of views that different churches within Christianity is broader than that within Islam. Hmmm, that sounds a bit clumsy.
What I'm trying to say is that within Christianity on one hand you have freaks like Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand there are churches with gay ministers and where gay couples can get married.

Purely by coincidence, I was in San Fransisco in early 2004, when the Mayor said same sex couples could get married there. It was one of the most special events of my life, the queue of gay and lesbian couples that wanted to get married... you had to see it to believe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Franc ... x_weddings

The day after my visit to city hall (not to get married, just to be there, get an impression), I went to a church called The Glide, where the reverend said he was very proud of his Mayor, there was a gay couple in the choir that was married the other day... Somehow, I don't really see these things happening in a mosque.

I think the percentage of orthodox Muslims (among all Muslims) is significantly larger than the number of orthodox Christians among all Christians. Therefore, I think, if you speak of homophobia within Christianity and Islam, the situation is significantly different.

And another thing:

Moggy wrote:As an example, compare it to the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't rise to power because everything was lovely and great. There were a number of factors that led to the conditions where having an evil banana split in charge seemed like a solution to the German people. Explaining those factors does not mean you are apologising for Hitler, it just means that you are explaining it and hopefully means that people learn from it and don't repeat the same mistakes.

When it came to power in 1933, the Nazi Party had over 2 million members. In 1939, the membership total rose to 5.3 million with 81% being male and 19% being female. It continued to attract many more and by 1945 the party reached its peak of 8 million with 63% being male and 37% being female (about 10% of the German population of 80 million).[2][96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Membership

So the 'vast majority' of Germans were not Nazi Party members, even at the very height of the Nazi regime. They were the 'moderate majority'. How did that work out for the world?

This is why the left-liberal concept of 'moderate muslims' is a dangerous and misleading irrelevance.

Cal wrote:Yeah, you keep reiterating that in your opinion the 'vast majority' of muslims do not support Islamic State. It's perhaps true that the 'vast majority' do not support Islamic State, but a far more pertinent question would be 'how many muslims around the world support Sharia law and believe it should be enforced?'. This is where it gets rather more murky.

This is the Islamic State thread not the Sharia law thread. Obviously when talking in here we are talking about the views and actions of ISIS.

I would imagine most Muslim would say that they would like Sharia law, in the same way that most Christians would want to follow biblical laws. That doesn't mean that it will ever happen and it doesn't mean that those people will even agree on what those laws are.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

Islamic shariah is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Islamic shariah.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law

So your argument against Muslims appears to be based on something that doesn't even exist in the most Islamic countries in the world. A pointless debate.

I won't post all the graphs again: the point has already been made. Equating Sharia to Islamic State is a false equivalence only inasmuch as Islamic State practices a brutally literal interpretation whereas most Islamic countries do not go in for the same kind of out-and-out butchery as practiced by Islamic State.

I am glad you now see the difference between ISIS and the rest of the Muslim world.

However, contrasting a strictly Sharia-compliant nation such as Saudi Arabia with Islamic State might give one pause for thought. Saudi Arabia - a theocratic dictatorship - is regularly criticised by human rights organisations for its public beheadings (among many other things), whilst Iran (another theocratic dictatorship) is known to publicly hang homosexuals. The mistreatment, rape and abuse (and even murder) of women in Sharia-compliant countries is a commonality shared between all.

As shown above, there are no countries in the world that have implemented Sharia law and there is no agreed form of Sharia law anyway. Saudi Arabia and Iran are horrible countries, do you think they would be nicer countries if they followed a twisted or extreme version of any other religion?

Claiming that most muslims are 'moderate' is a meaningless gesture. In fact, 'moderate muslims', even if Islam allowed for their existence (which strictly speaking, it doesn't), are completely irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to your extreme Islamophobia, I would imagine that they feel differently about it.

If just 10% of the world's 1 billion+ muslims believe in the strict enforcement of Sharia law around the world, that's 100,000,000 muslims who want to kill queers, Jews, adulterous women and non-believers (you and me). And we all know Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world today (aided greatly by the world's fastest birth-rate amongst muslims the world-over).

How many believe in a strict enforcement of Sharia law? Many Christians would argue that they follow strict bible law, but they don't actually believe in killing witches. Let's also remember again that there is no one "correct" interpretation of Sharia law.

The punishment for apostasy is thought to be death by several schools of Muslim thought, though the Qur'an has not advised such a punishment and in fact details that there is absolutely no penal punishment for apostasy.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shari ... r_apostasy

Sharia law states that if either an unmarried man or an unmarried woman has pre-marital sex, the punishment should be 100 lashes.[8][9] There are some requirements that need to be met before this punishment can happen. For example, the punishment cannot happen unless the person confesses, or unless four eyewitnesses each saw, at the same time, the man and the woman in the action of illicit sex. Those who accuse someone of illicit sex but fail to produce four eyewitnesses are guilty of false accusation and their punishment is 80 lashes.[10] Maliki school of sharia considers pregnancy in an unmarried woman as sufficient evidence that she committed the hudud crime of zina.[11][12] The Hadiths consider homosexuality as zina.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shari ... y_for_zina [

Vile and horrible stuff but both of those show that there is no one defined "Sharia law" and that the punishments are not clearly defined.

Looked at it this way, your claims of the 'vast majority' of muslims being totally harmless begins to look increasingly irrelevant. We don't know what percentage of the 'vast majority' of so-called 'moderate muslims' might secretly want to enforce a Sharia state wherever they live. Islam is quite clear on its stated aims: a Caliphate, Sharia law for all and death or brutal subjugation (if they are lucky) for the unbelievers.

And again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Moggy, here's what Wikipedia has to say about Saudi Arabia and Sharia:

The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The sources of Sharia also include Islamic scholarly consensus developed after Muhammad's death. Its interpretation by judges in Saudi Arabia is influenced by the medieval texts of the literalist Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. Uniquely in the Muslim world, Sharia has been adopted by Saudi Arabia in an uncodified form. This, and the lack of judicial precedent, has resulted in considerable uncertainty in the scope and content of the country's laws. The government therefore announced its intention to codify Sharia in 2010, but this is yet to be implemented. Sharia has also been supplemented by regulations issued by royal decree covering modern issues such as intellectual property and corporate law. Nevertheless, Sharia remains the primary source of law, especially in areas such as criminal, family, commercial and contract law, and the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are declared to be the country's constitution. In the areas of land and energy law the extensive proprietorial rights of the Saudi state (in effect, the Saudi royal family) constitute a significant feature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_sys ... udi_Arabia

Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania. In these countries, sharia-prescribed punishments such as beheading, flogging and stoning continue to be practiced judicially or extra-judicially.[10][page needed][11][page needed] There has been controversy over what some perceive as a movement by various Islamist groups to introduce and implement sharia throughout the world, including in Western countries,[citation needed] but attempts to impose sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[12] violence,[13] and even warfare.[14] Most countries do not recognize sharia; however, some countries in Asia (such as Israel[15]), Africa and Europe recognize parts of sharia and accept it as the law on divorce, inheritance and other personal affairs of their Islamic population.[16] In Britain, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal makes use of sharia family law to settle disputes, and this limited adoption of sharia is controversial.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

I'm just putting this here because you say that 'no countries in the world have implemented Sharia law'.

Cal wrote:

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.14 Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

I think this perfectly illustrates exactly what the vast majority of people always say about these kinds of studies when they come out.

Yea, I would probably guess that a majority of muslims would say they would support Sharia Law becoming the law in their country. Far fewer though would actually support stoning of homosexuals and killing of apostates and all the rest of it - mainly because I doubt the majority would even know (or consider it relevant) that that's what Sharia demands.

How many times do we hear about the UK or the US being 'Christian' countries or founded on 'Christian' values? How many Christians do you think would gladly support the Bible being used as the basis as law? Probably a similar proportion as muslims supporting Sharia. Do I honestly think that these Christians therefore support executing women who are not virgins on their wedding days? Or murdering those who eat shellfish? Of course not. The Bible does though, and thus surely any Christian who supports Biblical law must also support it yes?

Well logically yes, of course. But in practice the numbers would dwindle massively, especially amongst muslims living in the west. People want their holy book to be the basis of law because they think theirs is the correct basis of morality, even though the majority don't know what holding this view actually entails. It doesn't mean that you can automatically say that every person who supports their holy book becoming law has definitely read the small print and actually understands what it means.

Cal wrote:Moggy, here's what Wikipedia has to say about Saudi Arabia and Sharia:

The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The sources of Sharia also include Islamic scholarly consensus developed after Muhammad's death. Its interpretation by judges in Saudi Arabia is influenced by the medieval texts of the literalist Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. Uniquely in the Muslim world, Sharia has been adopted by Saudi Arabia in an uncodified form. This, and the lack of judicial precedent, has resulted in considerable uncertainty in the scope and content of the country's laws. The government therefore announced its intention to codify Sharia in 2010, but this is yet to be implemented. Sharia has also been supplemented by regulations issued by royal decree covering modern issues such as intellectual property and corporate law. Nevertheless, Sharia remains the primary source of law, especially in areas such as criminal, family, commercial and contract law, and the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are declared to be the country's constitution. In the areas of land and energy law the extensive proprietorial rights of the Saudi state (in effect, the Saudi royal family) constitute a significant feature.

I'm just putting this here because you say that 'no countries in the world have implemented Sharia law'.

Let's try that with different bolding shall we?

The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The sources of Sharia also include Islamic scholarly consensus developed after Muhammad's death. Its interpretation by judges in Saudi Arabia is influenced by the medieval texts of the literalist Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence. Uniquely in the Muslim world, Sharia has been adopted by Saudi Arabia in an uncodified form. This, and the lack of judicial precedent, has resulted in considerable uncertainty in the scope and content of the country's laws. The government therefore announced its intention to codify Sharia in 2010, but this is yet to be implemented. Sharia has also been supplemented by regulations issued by royal decree covering modern issues such as intellectual property and corporate law. Nevertheless, Sharia remains the primary source of law, especially in areas such as criminal, family, commercial and contract law, and the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are declared to be the country's constitution. In the areas of land and energy law the extensive proprietorial rights of the Saudi state (in effect, the Saudi royal family) constitute a significant feature.

So as I said, no country in the world has implemented full Sharia law and nobody can even agree on what Sharia law is because of all of the different interpretations of what it should be.

Skarjo wrote:Yea, I would probably guess that a majority of muslims would say they would support Sharia Law becoming the law in their country. Far fewer though would actually support stoning of homosexuals and killing of apostates and all the rest of it - mainly because I doubt the majority would even know (or consider it relevant) that that's what Sharia demands.

How many times do we hear about the UK or the US being 'Christian' countries or founded on 'Christian' values? How many Christians do you think would gladly support the Bible being used as the basis as law? Probably a similar proportion as muslims supporting Sharia. Do I honestly think that these Christians therefore support executing women who are not virgins on their wedding days? Or murdering those who eat shellfish? Of course not. The Bible does though, and thus surely any Christian who supports Biblical law must also support it yes?

Well logically yes, of course. But in practice the numbers would dwindle massively, especially amongst muslims living in the west. People want their holy book to be the basis of law because they think theirs is the correct basis of morality, even though the majority don't know what holding this view actually entails. It doesn't mean that you can automatically say that every person who supports their holy book becoming law has definitely read the small print and actually understands what it means.

I already said this almost word-to-word to him and, shockingly, it didn't make an impact. He just went straight back to ranting incoherently. Good luck.

Karl wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, I would probably guess that a majority of muslims would say they would support Sharia Law becoming the law in their country. Far fewer though would actually support stoning of homosexuals and killing of apostates and all the rest of it - mainly because I doubt the majority would even know (or consider it relevant) that that's what Sharia demands.

How many times do we hear about the UK or the US being 'Christian' countries or founded on 'Christian' values? How many Christians do you think would gladly support the Bible being used as the basis as law? Probably a similar proportion as muslims supporting Sharia. Do I honestly think that these Christians therefore support executing women who are not virgins on their wedding days? Or murdering those who eat shellfish? Of course not. The Bible does though, and thus surely any Christian who supports Biblical law must also support it yes?

Well logically yes, of course. But in practice the numbers would dwindle massively, especially amongst muslims living in the west. People want their holy book to be the basis of law because they think theirs is the correct basis of morality, even though the majority don't know what holding this view actually entails. It doesn't mean that you can automatically say that every person who supports their holy book becoming law has definitely read the small print and actually understands what it means.

I already said this almost word-to-word to him and, shockingly, it didn't make an impact. He just went straight back to ranting incoherently. Good luck.

Pretty sure I did too, so I had a little search and it turns out last time we had this chat, Cal ended up invoking YouTube video 'likes' as a supporting argument so I reckon we're in for a long haul.

Skarjo wrote:I had a little search and it turns out last time we had this chat, Cal ended up invoking YouTube video 'likes' as a supporting argument so I reckon we're in for a long haul.

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.14 Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

I think this perfectly illustrates exactly what the vast majority of people always say about these kinds of studies when they come out.

Yea, I would probably guess that a majority of muslims would say they would support Sharia Law becoming the law in their country. Far fewer though would actually support stoning of homosexuals and killing of apostates and all the rest of it - mainly because I doubt the majority would even know (or consider it relevant) that that's what Sharia demands.

How many times do we hear about the UK or the US being 'Christian' countries or founded on 'Christian' values? How many Christians do you think would gladly support the Bible being used as the basis as law? Probably a similar proportion as muslims supporting Sharia. Do I honestly think that these Christians therefore support executing women who are not virgins on their wedding days? Or murdering those who eat shellfish? Of course not. The Bible does though, and thus surely any Christian who supports Biblical law must also support it yes?

Well logically yes, of course. But in practice the numbers would dwindle massively, especially amongst muslims living in the west. People want their holy book to be the basis of law because they think theirs is the correct basis of morality, even though the majority don't know what holding this view actually entails. It doesn't mean that you can automatically say that every person who supports their holy book becoming law has definitely read the small print and actually understands what it means.

I imagine only a small minority of Western muslims would support some of the cruel treatments dished out to homosexuals, however (and as with Christianity, although I feel that's deflection) I'm almost certain a majority would have quite regressive views on the matter, but happy to be proved wrong here.

Their treatment of women is an absolute disgrace with UK sharia arbitration courts failing to treat women equally and the pressure (either internalised or directly) for women to be hidden away. These are the issues that need tackling and that sort of culture needs to be slowly fazed out from Western Islam. Over time (I'm talking decades) I feel this may help ease some of the extremism issues that young Muslims are facing.

captain red dog wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.14 Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

I think this perfectly illustrates exactly what the vast majority of people always say about these kinds of studies when they come out.

Yea, I would probably guess that a majority of muslims would say they would support Sharia Law becoming the law in their country. Far fewer though would actually support stoning of homosexuals and killing of apostates and all the rest of it - mainly because I doubt the majority would even know (or consider it relevant) that that's what Sharia demands.

How many times do we hear about the UK or the US being 'Christian' countries or founded on 'Christian' values? How many Christians do you think would gladly support the Bible being used as the basis as law? Probably a similar proportion as muslims supporting Sharia. Do I honestly think that these Christians therefore support executing women who are not virgins on their wedding days? Or murdering those who eat shellfish? Of course not. The Bible does though, and thus surely any Christian who supports Biblical law must also support it yes?

Well logically yes, of course. But in practice the numbers would dwindle massively, especially amongst muslims living in the west. People want their holy book to be the basis of law because they think theirs is the correct basis of morality, even though the majority don't know what holding this view actually entails. It doesn't mean that you can automatically say that every person who supports their holy book becoming law has definitely read the small print and actually understands what it means.

I imagine only a small minority of Western muslims would support some of the cruel treatments dished out to homosexuals, however (and as with Christianity, although I feel that's deflection) I'm almost certain a majority would have quite regressive views on the matter, but happy to be proved wrong here.

Their treatment of women is an absolute disgrace with UK sharia arbitration courts failing to treat women equally and the pressure (either internalised or directly) for women to be hidden away. These are the issues that need tackling and that sort of culture needs to be slowly fazed out from Western Islam. Over time (I'm talking decades) I feel this may help ease some of the extremism issues that young Muslims are facing.

Agree on all fronts, but as you say the solution is a decades long culture shift, and any attempts to force it through will slow the progress. So long as we don't allow those views to affect our progressive shift towards tolerance in law, there's nothing to fear from a few little nutters.

Except of course those ones that get radicalised and blow us up!

captain red dog wrote:Except of course those ones that get radicalised and blow us up!

Only if you're povvo enough to use public transport.

The Islamic state of this thread

Everyone is either a racist banana split or a bleeding heart liberal. No middle ground. I can't stand it.

There's also twats making mass generalisations

Blue Eyes wrote:The Islamic state of this thread

Everyone is either a racist banana split or a bleeding heart liberal. No middle ground. I can't stand it.

No such thing as a moderate [Discussion].

Blue Eyes wrote:The Islamic state of this thread

Everyone is either a racist banana split or a bleeding heart liberal. No middle ground. I can't stand it.

What exactly is the "middle ground" between being a "racist banana split" and, err, not being one (which, I remark, is all the otherwise-meaningless phrase "bleeding heart liberal" actually denotes)?