Call for State schools to accommodate Islamic beliefs

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting for that figure.
"I asked about enacting those beliefs into law, and carrying out sentences"

Its almost an academic point whether they are enforced into law. Some are some aren't. The main point is that imposing such a sentence on someone, or the threat of such a sentence, is totally extreme and unacceptable. The level of tolerance in Islam for criticism, scepticism or debate is next to none.

We're lucky we can have this discussion in the west where western laws applied. If we lived in an Islamic country where Sharia law is applied, we wouldn't be having it, not in public at least.

alastair

K.Flyer wrote: »

I am sure that the the exact figures for the amount of people that have been executed for apostasy in Muslim countries would be difficult to find. However a quick search of Beheading for Apostasy or Death for Apostasy does bring up some disturbing reading.

It shouldn't be hard to find at all. Human rights NGO's are rigorous in recording every instance of executions.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

Its almost an academic point whether they are enforced into law.

Not really. If it's rolled out as a scare-mongering accusation against muslims, then you need to measure the rhetoric against the actual practise. No-one outside the religion is likely to support the belief, but what actually matters is the real-world consequences, rather than the theology.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

It shouldn't be hard to find at all. Human rights NGO's are rigorous in recording every instance of executions.

You are not getting what people are saying, that its wrong that the law even exists, regardless if its carried through. There should be no such law. Are you understanding the extreme nature of it yet? You keep trying to portray it as some liberal religion that tolerates everything. It doesn't. It's the complete opposite to all things liberal and western. You understand now?

People should at least try tell the truth, not dress things up in myths and fables.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

You keep trying to portray it as some liberal religion that tolerates everything.

I do?

Oh, wait.

I don't.

Carry on.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

I do?

Oh, wait.

I don't.

Carry on.

Ok so we are agreed that its an extreme religion with extreme laws. Some adherants take these laws seriously and take most things in the Koran litterally and act on them. Some adherants don't. All in all however, its an extreme religion that causes some adherants to do extreme things. Better education would help, particularly in schools, and an encouragement to people to not take everything in the Koran litterally. That would be a start.

sin_city

gallag wrote: »

How is it a dodge? do you normality deal with facts by putting on a tin foil hat?

Good response...by suggesting someone else's argument is a tin foil hat wearing argument you really give credit to your own argument.

realweirdo

All I can say is in an alternative world, where Islam ruled the world, we'd all be praying 5 times a day, there'd be no alcohol, no fornication, women going around in ful veils or worse, sharia law the norm, stoning for adultry and all that.

I'm really really really glad I don't live in that kind of world.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

Ok so we are agreed that its an extreme religion with extreme laws.

It's not alone in that regard. In fact, it's only moderately distinct from the other Abrahamic religions. 'Liberal' religions are rather exceptional, whereas liberal interpretation of religion is the real distinction.

realweirdo wrote: »

Some adherants take these laws seriously and take most things in the Koran litterally and act on them.

Indeed - as with other religions.

realweirdo wrote: »

Some adherants don't. All in all however, its an extreme religion that causes some adherants to do extreme things. Better education would help, particularly in schools, and an encouragement to people to not take everything in the Koran litterally. That would be a start.

It's kind of hard to take the Koran literally, given that it's as full of contradictions as the other holy books. Where there's no/little ambiguity about the teachings of the Koran (such as apostasy), there's been a general social contract within the muslim world, that death isn't the inevitable outcome - either through creative re-interpretations of the sentence, terms of the apostasy, or of some other manner of excuse. That may be far from liberal, but it's pretty important in applying a contemporary frame on the religion. For the remainder of the the Koran's teachings, there's a greater degree of room for manoeuvre in interpretation.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

All I can say is in an alternative world, where Islam ruled the world, we'd all be praying 5 times a day, there'd be no alcohol, no fornication, women going around in ful veils or worse, sharia law the norm, stoning for adultry and all that.

I'm really really really glad I don't live in that kind of world.

A lot of those things don't apply in the muslim world either.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

A lot of those things don't apply in the muslim world either.

That is true but largely because people in those countries have rejected much of Islam, and not because of anything benign about Islam itself. Some countries like Turkey and Pakistan have had the sense to allow secularism have a say in their laws.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

That is true but largely because people in those countries have rejected much of Islam, and not because of anything benign about Islam itself. Some countries like Turkey and Pakistan have had the sense to allow secularism have a say in their laws.

It's not necessarily a rejection of Islam. I doubt too many Turks or Pakistanis would contend that they've rejected their religion. It's about the interpretation of the religion's teachings, and determining which religious laws are a personal matter, rather than a social contract.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

It's not alone in that regard. In fact, it's only moderately distinct from the other Abrahamic religions. 'Liberal' religions are rather exceptional, whereas liberal interpretation of religion is the real distinction.


Indeed - as with other religions.


It's kind of hard to take the Koran literally, given that it's as full of contradictions as the other holy books. Where there's no/little ambiguity about the teachings of the Koran (such as apostasy), there's been a general social contract within the muslim world, that death isn't the inevitable outcome - either through creative re-interpretations of the sentence, terms of the apostasy, or of some other manner of excuse. That may be far from liberal, but it's pretty important in applying a contemporary frame on the religion. For the remainder of the the Koran's teachings, there's a greater degree of room for manoeuvre in interpretation.

Again, there's few religions as extreme as Islam. Perhaps its because its the newest of the main religion and therefore some see it as "cool" or something because of that. The other religions, perhaps because of their age, have gone through significant phases of questioning, enlightenment, rejection, and so on. People in the west now have serious doubts about most of the old and new testaments. They accept it for what it is, a series of parables and symbolic stories. They don't take it literally.

In Christianity, there are no laws I know of in Christian countries to do with stoning for adultry, death for apostasy, cutting off hands for theft, execution for rape, punishment for fornication, lashes for alcohol consumption, and demanding bribes from religious minorities in exchange for not ethnically cleansing them or allowing them continue to live in the neighbourhood. These are all tenets of Islam that continue to be enforced in much of the Islamic world. Only where secularism and where nations take a semi-western attitude are they not.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

These are all tenats of Islam that continue to be enforced in much of the Islamic world.

No they're not.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

No they're not.

So they are not tenets of Islam? You will have to do better than that.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

So they are not tenets of Islam? You will have to do better than that.

They're not tenats of Islam that continue to be enforced in much of the Islamic world. Even in states that have no real interest in 'western attitudes' - whatever they might be.

K.Flyer

alastair wrote: »

It shouldn't be hard to find at all. Human rights NGO's are rigorous in recording every instance of executions.

Yes you're right...

From Amnesty International website.

The Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia in 10 Shocking Facts
More than 2,000 people were executed in Saudi Arabia between 1985 and 2013. 
At least 22 people were put to death between 4 and 22 August 2014 alone – more than one every day. 
The death penalty in Saudi Arabia is used in violation of international human rights law and standards.
Trials in capital cases are often held in secret and defendants rarely have access to lawyers. 
People may be convicted solely on the basis of “confessions” obtained under torture, other ill-treatment or deception. 
Non-lethal crimes including “adultery”, armed robbery, “apostasy”, drug-related offences, rape, “witchcraft” and “sorcery” are punishable by death. 
Three people under 18 were executed in 2013, and so far in 2014 one has been sentenced to death, in blatant violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
In some cases, the relatives of those on death row are not notified of the executions in advance.
Foreign nationals represent a disproportionate number of those executed, largely because of inadequate legal representation and translation support.
Almost half of the 2,000 people executed between 1985 and 2013 were foreign nationals.
People with mental disabilities are not spared the death sentence.
Most executions are by beheading.
Many take place in public.
In some cases decapitated bodies are left lying on the ground in public squares as a “deterrent”. 

eyescreamcone

Consider me "deterred" from ever having any dealings with these nutters

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

They're not tenats of Islam that continue to be enforced in much of the Islamic world. Even in states that have no real interest in 'western attitudes' - whatever they might be.

1. They are tenets of Islam, no-one doubts that
2. They are enforced in some places, but not everywhere, again, this is not because of anything benign about Islam.

To give an example, after WW1, a third of the population of Baghdad were Jews. Today there are 7 remaining Jews in Baghdad and when they were named recently they were forced to go into hiding. This could only happen in an Islamic country in the modern world (I'm not going to compare Islam to Nazism, as its not as bad as that). The fate of religious minorities in Islamic countries is usually appalling and they suffer in a way they don't in the west, mostly because of their religious beliefs. With the fall of the largely secular strongmen in Iraq and in most of Syria, these minorities are on the run and in refugee camps. And guess what, ISIS have gained massive support from sunni communities in northern Iraq. They aren't just a minority of nuts, they have widespread support. As do the Shia deathsquads in the Shia communities who try to impose their own brand of Islam.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

1. They are tenets of Islam, no-one doubts that.

Some are, some are not.

realweirdo wrote: »

2. They are enforced in some places, but not everywhere, again, this is not because of anything benign about Islam.

Says who? Sounds like a judgement call you've made, not a conclusion formed on any evidence.

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

Some are, some are not.



Says who? Sounds like a judgement call you've made, not a conclusion formed on any evidence.

There is substantial documented evidence to support this. It is actually written into the laws of most of these countries if you'd bother to look.

ISIS in Iraq and Syria are following the Quran virtually to the letter of the law. Far from being extremists who don't represent Islam, they actually represent Islam better than anyone else and they would argue that people who don't do as they say aren't following Islam. Pure Islam which ISIS follow is extreme to say the least. Depending on people not to follow Islam to the letter of the law is just not going to cut it. Some will cherry pick for sure. Some won't and adapt everything and then we are all screwed. ISIS are gaining popularity and recruits by the day and support not just in the Middle East but the west too. They are moving from a fringe element to front and centre and it seems to me the moderate preachers and Imans are fighting a losing battle.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

There is substantial documented evidence to support this. It is actually written into the laws of most of these countries if you'd bother to look.

ISIS in Iraq and Syria are following the Quran virtually to the letter of the law. Far from being extremists who don't represent Islam, they actually represent Islam better than anyone else and they would argue that people who don't do as they say aren't following Islam. Pure Islam which ISIS follow is extreme to say the least. Depending on people not to follow Islam to the letter of the law is just not going to cut it. Some will cherry pick for sure. Some won't and adapt everything and then we are all screwed. ISIS are gaining popularity and recruits by the day and support not just in the Middle East but the west too. They are moving from a fringe element to front and centre and it seems to me the moderate preachers and Imans are fighting a losing battle.

You're buying into a pretty bizarre notion there, if you think that that the ISIS ideology is 'pure Islam'. In fact it sounds like you're buying into a massively distorted perspective on what 'pure Islam' is. Could you point me to what 'pure Christianity' is, since you've a unique insight on these matters?

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

You're buying into a pretty bizarre notion there, if you think that that the ISIS ideology is 'pure Islam'. In fact it sounds like you're buying into a massively distorted perspective on what 'pure Islam' is. Could you point me to what 'pure Christianity' is, since you've a unique insight on these matters?

ISIS are the closest incarnation or reincarnation of original Islam as practiced by Muhammad and his followers, that's what I mean. A thousand myths surround Islam, and it seems it will take me a long time to explode all of them, while you on the other hand just like to perpetuate them ad nausium, hoping no-one will pick you up on them.

Muhammad and his followers were brutal. I can post plenty of accounts to back this up. They ethnically cleansed whole regions. They killed men and enslaved women and children. They forced people to convert at the point of a sword and gave them no option. They forced people to adopt new severe laws.

Does this sound familiar to you? I will give you a clue...ISIS.

So you agree now that ISIS and Muhammad have an awful lot in common? That ISIS who are fanatical adherents of him are merely re-enacting much of what he did? That they are more closely aligned with his version of Islam than any amount of myths about Islam being a religion of peace, enlightenment, tolerance and so on.

The myth in other words we keep hearing from you and others that ISIS don't represent Islam.

gallag

alastair wrote: »

You're buying into a pretty bizarre notion there, if you think that that the ISIS ideology is 'pure Islam'. In fact it sounds like you're buying into a massively distorted perspective on what 'pure Islam' is. Could you point me to what 'pure Christianity' is, since you've a unique insight on these matters?

Alastair that is just whataboutery, we are talking about the Islamic problem here, yes Christians sure did some crappy stuff in history and the bible says some pretty ridiculous sh1t but if you are watching the news and see a report about some nutters flying a plane into a building or cutting some poor saps head of your first thought won't be "oh them Christians up to no good again" you are bending over backwards to justify and explain away the bad elements of islam, the sheer amount of evidence I posted showing support for killing apostates and states that sanction it and you just seem to put your fingers in your ears and go nanananananana.

I really don't have the time to debate you further, as always I just hope people reading this will research the points we both raise and educate themselves on the "religion of peace"

Richard Dawkins - Apostasy In Islam Carries The D…: http://youtu.be/r018ohLUuL4

realweirdo

I too wouldn't have the time to continue this discussion.

But here is a good source for further information also.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

And an interesting extract from it which has striking similarities to today.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

ISIS and Muhammad share an awful lot in common, sad to say.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

ISIS are the closest incarnation or reincarnation of original Islam as practiced by Muhammad and his followers,.

Sez you. But that's not very compelling, in the face of far more adherents, and theologians, who say otherwise. ISIS are very much at odds with lots of Islamic teachings, to the point of their being considered heretical within the religion.

realweirdo wrote: »

The myth in other words we keep hearing from you and others that ISIS don't represent Islam.

I'll take it from those who study, practice, and believe in the religion, as to what they believe represents their religion. And that wouldn't be ISIS.

alastair

realweirdo wrote: »

I too wouldn't have the time to continue this discussion.

But here is a good source for further information also.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm.

You do realise that that's an islamophobic propaganda site?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

alastair

gallag wrote: »

Alastair that is just whataboutery, we are talking about the Islamic problem here

I'm pointing out that the notion of 'pure Islam' is about as nonsensical as 'pure Christianity' - you'll search far and wide to find either, without success.

eyescreamcone

alastair wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the notion of 'pure Islam' is about as nonsensical as 'pure Christianity' - you'll search far and wide to find either, without success.

ALL religions are nonsensical, whether "pure" or not!!!

And ALL religions should be kept out of state schools

realweirdo

alastair wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the notion of 'pure Islam' is about as nonsensical as 'pure Christianity' - you'll search far and wide to find either, without success.

Pure any religion means going back to the original sources of the religion, ie their holy book. Does that clear it up? What happened in the 1400 years since it probably irrelevant in terms of interpretation or modernising if fanatics are going back to the original source which is what is happening.

I'd love to believe ISIS are in no way basing their actions on religion. But all the indications are, they are. They aren't attracting Christians to their cause, or Jews, or Hindus. Just Muslims who identify and sympathise with them. And many of these Muslims come from otherwise normal households in the west. Many haven't even been radicalised by what we believe the traditional method is. They go on their own steam.

I will concede that in the grand scheme of things ISIS are minority hardliners, but that's not to say they don't interpret religion fundamentally. All religions have fundamentalists, Christians have them, Judaism. Its just fundamentalist Muslims are frankly dangerous and more common than in any other religion.