Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
kimmy

This week in Islam

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Actually, your 2 minutes of research - which was basically you googling to find an opinion that agreed with you on the case - was inadequate. 

You claimed that Muslims want to impose Sharia law and are successfully doing so in Europe.  As proof, you provided the story of a Muslim woman who was left property in her husband's will.  In order to get her inheritance, this woman had to take it to court so that civil laws would apply.  My link showed that:

1.  In Greece, Muslims have been legally subject to Sharia law since 1918.

2.  This case challenged that, and the courts ruled in her favor.

3.  The court also removed the Sharia law for Muslims requirement that had been in place since 1918.

4.  Muslims supported this move by the courts (though no doubt there were some dissenters, there always are).  

So, this example you provided as proof that Muslims are attempting to enforce Sharia law through the courts was actually an example of a Muslim woman enforcing civil law through the courts, challenging a law that had been in place for 100+/- years and ultimately having that law overthrown.  Seems like the exact opposite of your claim, but feel free to provide additional cites that demonstrate exactly how I'm wrong about this example of yours, instead of repeating endlessly that I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 7:35 PM, dialamah said:

The court distinguished between child marriage and pedophilia, noting that the defendant had failed to provide "evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young."

While I understand this type of reasoning, I'm wondering how many children a man can take to bed before it's called pedophilia?  I always thought it was one.  It should be one.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I just don't get it.

No, you won't ever get it - because you believe Muslim rights come before certain other rights, which western society has already determined should come before any religious rights.  It's okay that you disagree, but you're wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not COULD - it is. 

Fair enough.  Have you already provided credible cites proving that journalists have backed off saying stuff due to this case against Ezra Levant?  If yes and I missed them, I'll look through the last few pages to find them.  If not, then please post them.  I'm certainly open to the idea that people could be hesitant about saying even "true" stuff that could land them in court - it's one tool we have that helps us keep a civil and law-abiding society.  

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

now we are actually debating AGAIN whether disabled people can have guide dogs in taxis

Did I miss a cite about a court case regarding this?  Not gonna look, but if there is, I hope the complainant loses and realizes that in Western countries, religious accommodation does not trump the rights of minority groups, whether a gay couple getting married or a blind person with a guide dog.

Nonetheless, people can and do take these kinds of things to court.  It's part of "Freedom" even if it's the Christian Right taking aim at women.  What matters more is their success; in the three examples currently under discussion, only one case was "successful" in considering "Muslim sensibilities".  If that holds true for all such court cases, then I don't think there's much to worry about.  

BTW, did you look at the reasons for the decision in the Austrian case?  The goal of the government with their "disparagement of religion law" seems to be to allow criticism of religion that relies on facts and evidence, vs. opinion and supposition.   Perhaps a desire to avoid falling into the same kind of propaganda that marked Hitler's marginalization of Jews is what motivates this kind of legislation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

While I understand this type of reasoning, I'm wondering how many children a man can take to bed before it's called pedophilia?  I always thought it was one.  It should be one.

That's a personal opinion, though, and is not the legal or medical definition of pedophilia.  Add to that the fact that M married adult women, including one older than him, then the legal/medical definition does not hold, regardless of one's personal opinion. 

Also, child marriage has been common throughout history, with consummation happening when the girl started menses.  Menses at 9 is not terribly uncommon, so the most likely explanation is that M was simply following the traditions of his time, not that he was a pedophile.

To me, it's much more disgusting that Iran allows marriage of girls as young as 9, relying on the history of Islam for justification.  In my opinion, that law panders to actual pedophiles, since child marriage is widely condemned and most MENA countries do have an age requirement of 18 for marriage.  That people will break those laws doesn't mean "Muslims" secretly believe in child marriage, any more than my 12-year-old girlfriend getting married to a 19-year-old, with parents blessing, or the 15 and 16 year-old friends who married in 1972 and 1974 meant "Canadians" believed in child marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goddess said:

No, you won't ever get it - because you believe Muslim rights come before certain other rights, which western society has already determined should come before any religious rights. 

What "other rights" do I think come after "Muslim rights"?  Be specific, and use my own quotes to prove this.  What exactly are "Muslim rights"?  Same rights as everyone else, maybe?  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

It's okay that you disagree, but you're wrong.

Maybe I am wrong, but you'll never convince me of that by telling.me.what I think, accusing me of saying ridiculous things, but not quoting my exact words, or using poor sources.

A couple of people who could convince me I'm wrong are Ghosthacked and MH because they show sense and are not all one-sided all the time.  Both of them have caused me to re-examine my views because of what they've posted.  Even Argus has, re: immigration, simply because he uses sources that are difficult to de-bunk.  

Another source I've used to challenge my views is the exmuslim reddit; they've done more to validate your opinion to me than you have.   Nonetheless, I agree with the poster who said "Most Muslims are better than their religion."

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Have you already provided credible cites proving that journalists have backed off saying stuff due to this case against Ezra Levant?  

See?  You are not following anything here.  Or you are deliberately moving the goalposts.  I didn't say journalists are backing off "due to the case against Ezra Levant".

I said journalists are backing off because they are getting sued, getting hauled into tribunals, and getting killed for saying anything remotely disparaging against Islam and political leaders are not sticking up for freedom of speech and freedom of the Press because everyone is afraid of Muslim reprisals.  This is happening in ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD.

I have put forth - 

  • The Charlie Hebdo massacre
  • The killing of Theo Van Gogh
  • the rioting and killing by Muslims in many countries after the Mohammed cartoon fiasco
  • The death fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Hirsi Ali and other members of the press/writers
  • many individual cases of journalists having to defend freedom of speech in the face of Muslim terrorizing
  • politicians in many countries suppressing the Press by restricting what they can say, even down to which words are phrases are no longer acceptable, because they fear Muslim reprisals
18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

only one case was "successful" in considering "Muslim sensibilities".

You keep judging whether Islam is attacking freedom of speech  or not by whether there is success in the courtroom.  You're an intelligent person - I don't understand why you can't see that whether a case is won or lost in court, freedom of speech and freedom of the Press  is under attack by Islam.

I don't understand why you refuse to understand that journalists, writers, media etc - in light of all the things in the above list - feel in danger and that Islam is attacking the value of freedom of speech and why they are sounding the alarm.

Despite the evidence already provided and the invitation to read an in-depth book about it all, you remain purposely unconvinced that Islamic violence is affecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press in any way.  Or maybe you just don't believe that death threats from Muslims are anything to worry about, I don't know what your reasoning is, so I really dont' know if there is anything that will make you see that lawsuits, death threats and actual killings by Islam are affecting Western freedoms.

I think it's really sad when people like you let a religion cloud your thinking so much that even death threats and killings mean nothing to you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell here is exactly what I'm saying:

Sharia law states that Islam is never to criticized and their prophet is never to be insulted and that the penalty for such is death.  

This is in conflict with Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of the Press.

Muslims all over the world are trying to get this particular Sharia law in place and they are being aided by cowardly politicians and apologists who feel that caving in to Muslim demands for this Sharia law is the best way to prevent future killings.  

This is affecting the Western freedoms of speech and freedom of the Press.

I have provided many examples of both the threats and the actual killings taking place all over the world.

I have provided examples of writers and media having to defend themselves in court and against death fatwas for writing disparagingly about Islam or their prophet

You refuse to acknowledge any of this.

Which is fine.

But you are wrong.

Edited by Goddess
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

In a nutshell here is exactly what I'm saying:

Sharia law states that Islam is never to criticized and their prophet is never to be insulted and that the penalty for such is death.  

Muslims all over the world are trying to get this particular Sharia law in place and they are being aided by cowardly politicians and apologists who feel that caving in to Muslim demands for this Sharia law is the best way to prevent future killings.  

This is affecting the Western freedoms of speech and freedom of the Press.

I have provided many examples of both the threats and the actual killings taking place all over the world.

You refuse to acknowledge any of this.

Which is fine.

But you are wrong.

This is a fine statement, no accusations which I appreciate, clearly summarized and it does actually inspire me to dig deeper.  I shall endeavor to prove to myself the following:

1.  Majority of Muslims want to impose Sharia type laws against criticizing Islam/Mohammed in Western countries (I have no doubt some do, but have doubts about how prevalent that desire is).

2.  Courts are actually imposing limitations on expressing such criticism (for me, this probably requires looking at a few example cases to see the reasons behind those decisions).

3.  I agree that the actions of extremists in punishing critics of Islam are of concern.  I'm not as convinced as you that they are actually working, but will see what I can find to support this.

Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1.  Majority of Muslims want to impose Sharia type laws against criticizing Islam/Mohammed in Western countries (I have no doubt some do, but have doubts about how prevalent that desire is).

I'm not sure why you feel it has to be a "majority" of Muslims who want this for it to be a problem, but it is indeed a majority in Britain.  I would think results would be similar in other Western countries and far higher in Muslim majority countries. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

Quote

 

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Also concerning freedom of speech, as the NOP Research survey reports, "hardcore Islamists" constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined.

 

 

Would you call this "moderate"?

I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 9/3/2019 at 3:20 PM, Goddess said:

In Austria, the government is imposing Sharia law even on its non-Muslim citizens, including Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff,

Quote

 

The Rest of the Story.

Austria has a blasphemy law, predating the fear of creeping Sharia.  This law has resulted in a conviction against a cartoonist for his portrayal of Jesus (though overturned on appeal) and he was sued again on same grounds by Catholics offended by cartoons.  

The European Human Rights Court didn't support Sharia, it simply said that States with blasphemy laws can keep them.

So again, this is not Sharia taking over, but rather laws already in place and completely separate from Sharia.

 

In case you are interested, here is Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff's reply to the whole affair:  (Unfortunately it's from Jihad Watch which I know you reject as a source)

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-responds-to-eu-courts-ruling-that-speech-insulting-muhammad-is-prohibited

 

 

 

Quote

 

Elisabeth is a powerful advocate for freedom. The ECHR ruling on her case bears grave implications for everyone worldwide who supports freedom and genuine human rights. Elisabeth sent me her statement on the ECHR ruling this morning. We owe her much gratitude and support for her fight for the freedom of speech, the hallmark of democracy:

On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six year old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

 

Note that the aim is to "keep the religious peace" - to appease Muslim sensitivities.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Good news!  Wonder if the same is true of all Western countries.

That is good news.  I agree with your sentiment about atheism and I hope it spreads like a virus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dialamah said:

1. Good news!  Wonder if the same is true of all Western countries.

2. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-42090104

List of ex-Muslim organizations around the world, who knew? 

 

1. Good news for liberalism, if true... but...

2. The links don't support the assertion on the billboard.  It's a fundamentalist religion so it would be hard to understand why adherents drop off at that rate.

Googling, though, I found a PEW Research https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/  it seems to be accurate.  

Quote

About a quarter of adults who were raised Muslim (23%) no longer identify as members of the faith, roughly on par with the share of Americans who were raised Christian and no longer identify with Christianity (22%), 

So I guess the question is why isn't this better known ?  I'm pretty surprised we haven't heard about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dialamah said:

List of ex-Muslim organizations around the world, who knew? 

I knew. :)

12-15 years ago when I was working with the ex-JW community, we used to occasionally get a Muslim who wanted to leave Islam and there wasn't anywhere for them to go.  Now there are ex-Muslim facebook groups and reddits.

I'm glad they are finally setting up support networks for each other.  Most of the Muslims who showed up on the ex-JW boards we had to direct them elsewhere, ex-JW's dont' generally fear for their lives, ex-Muslims do.  They were welcome to stay and discuss on the boards, but we always told these ones they needed to go to the police if they feared for their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I guess the question is why isn't this better known ?  I'm pretty surprised we haven't heard about this.

What I also find interesting is that Christianity loses roughly the same as Islam, but Islam gains more converts than Christianity, so Islam overall continues to grow while Christianity does not.  A surprising number of Christians convert to Islam.  My guess would be that these Christians actually want a stricter and more fundamental type of religion, and Christianity no longer fits the bill, as it's become more progressive. 

OTOH, maybe these Christian to Muslim converts will be part of the pressure to eliminate/modernize the worst aspects of Islam.

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Most of the Muslims who showed up on the ex-JW boards we had to direct them elsewhere, ex-JW's dont' generally fear for their lives, ex-Muslims do. 

Where these Muslims primarily from Islamic countries?  Did females express a greater fear than males?  I ask because that's the sense I get from the ex-Muslim subreddit.

It's sad how similar the emotional experience is between JWs/Muslims/Hindus who leave their respective faiths after being raised in it, and lose family and friends.  Makes me just generally hate religion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Islam gains more converts than Christianity, so Islam overall continues to grow while Christianity does not. 

Islam also produces more children who are then "born into" the religion.  That accounts for some of the growth, too.  It's not necessarily people "converting" to Islam.

 

Quote

My guess would be that these Christians actually want a stricter and more fundamental type of religion, and Christianity no longer fits the bill, as it's become more progressive. 

Don't forget that while Muslim women cannot marry outside the faith, Muslim men are free to marry non-Muslim women and convert them.  In fact, they must convert.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It's sad how similar the emotional experience is between JWs/Muslims/Hindus who leave their respective faiths after being raised in it, and lose family and friends.  Makes me just generally hate religion.  

It really is sad.  I include Scientology in that list, too.

The details of the religious abuse vary according to the religion, but the effects on people are basically the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Where these Muslims primarily from Islamic countries?  Did females express a greater fear than males?  I ask because that's the sense I get from the ex-Muslim subreddit.

Primarily Canada, the US, Australia and the UK.  Yes, mainly females feared for their lives.  The extra freedoms accorded to men in Islam allows them to still  "blend in" a bit better, even when they are no longer true believers.  A woman who refuses to wear the hijab is taken as a sign of loss of faith - there's not an outward sign like that for men who lose faith.  Not going to mosque as often is the worst and that seems more forgivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted an article about a woman in Iran getting 24 YEARS for removing her hijab.

Sounds like justice.

 

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I just posted an article about a woman in Iran getting 24 YEARS for removing her hijab.

Sounds like justice.

 

Does not compute.  Cog dis in high gear.  Brain goes goes back to the comforting "It's a choice!  It empowers women!  It's a symbol of freedom!"

Aaaaaaaannnnnd......crickets.

Handmaids, all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Does not compute.  Cog dis in high gear.  Brain goes goes back to the comforting "It's a choice!  It empowers women!  It's a symbol of freedom!"

Aaaaaaaannnnnd......crickets.

Handmaids, all.

 

Either you're FOR Islam or against it...it's THAT black & white.

I'm obviously against such a cult of fanatics calling the shots in my life. But, others seem to WANT to be controlled by Islam and can't wait to see that Islamic version of Canada become reality...a place unsafe for Jews...women...gays...other faiths besides Islam...etc, etc. To them...that's a paradise. Thus, they can not be reasoned with. You don't want Islam lording over you??? Why you MUST be an evil person full of hate. Unlike...you know...Islam...which is perfection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...