With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Start of discussion:

Do you consider Muslims that believe in the implementation of Sharia Law to be radical?

Not sure what you mean by "believe in the implantation of Sharia Law," nor what you mean by "radical."

By radical do you mean Salafist or what?

Implementation where? In what sense? Which version?

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a loaded question.  Lots of Muslims answer that they want to follow Sharia law but they are not willing to violate the law of the land in order to do so.

It is like asking if every Christian who opposed same sex marriage is a "radical".

So, "No", I do not believe that every Muslims who claims he wants to follow Sharia Law is a radical.  But obviously any Muslim who is willing to violently overthrow the government to instill Sharia Law is a radical.

Do you think every Christian that opposed same sex marriage was a radical?  How about anyone who is opposed to legal abortion?

Hopefully you paused to reflect on what you typed when you had to compare views on SSM and abortion with Sharia Law. Pretty sure many Christians are against SSM; as are Muslims; however, their view of "punishment" for both are quite different.

The Christian views it as a sin; however, like all sins it can be forgiven. The Muslim thinks they should be put to death.

"Opposed" is a pretty broad brush and trying to group it in with "kill" really does nothing to solidify any point you are trying to make. So "no" the Christian that views SSM and Abortion as a sin "read opposed" are not radical. Any Christian that thinks you should be put to death for SSM is Radical; however, Muslim that thinks you should be put to death for homosexuality is mainstream.

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "believe in the implantation of Sharia Law," nor what you mean by "radical."

By radical do you mean Salafist or what?

Implementation where? In what sense? Which version?

Perhaps you should ask Fred what he meant by Radical; as he was the one that used the term, to which you are quoting my reply.

If you don't know what desiring to implement Sharia Law means; I have no other was to explain it other than they think it should be the law of the land.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is total BS.  This discussion has been had all across the country.  It has been all over the news.  How can you claim this discussion has "not even seen the lioght of day".

And here is what it boils down to.  A certain group wants to treat Muslims differently than other religious groups.  They want them subject to registration and public surveillance that would not be allowed on other religions.  You want to violate their right to wroship freely despite the fact that they are breaking absolutely no laws of our country.

Not one person here has advocated for any of what you just claimed.  More BS false claims from the master of flat out lying about the statements of others.

Quote:Every religious person places his religious beliefs above the "law of man", and every religious person who breaks the "law of the land" should be punished.  But we have millions of Muslims living peacefully in this country.  They should not have their rights violated because of their religious beliefs.

I think you'd best brush up on other religions because Christianity specifically instructs its members to follow the law of man.  Render unto Cesar ring a bell? 

Quote:Should every Christian who objected to gay marriage based on religious beliefs be subject to registration and heightened surveillance?

Hyperbole from the crown prince of hyperbole.

Quote:Acting like any discussion has been silenced is disingenuous.  The discussion has been had and not one person from the left supported the objectionable aspects of radical Islam.

 
Not one person, except they frequently deny the scope of the problem or the reason the problem exists.  Saying it's not ok to murder homosexuals or stone a raped woman is not sufficient, nor courageous, when you turn a blind eye to why such practices occur on a daily basis in the muslim world.

Quote:The only thing the left objected to was violating the rights of millions of law abiding Muslims living peacefully in this country.  You are free to discuss all of the nest elements of Islam that you want.  No one will object to that.

No one but Ben Affleck.  

Quote:But you will get plenty of protest when you try to violate the rights of innocent people who do not live or abide by those principles.

More hyperbole.  Find a post in this thread, or any other, in which this was advocated.

(04-27-2017, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So lets have a disussion on the bad elements of radical Islam.

Who here thinks gentile mtuilation is a good thing?

How about honor killings?

C'mon, lets have that debate that the mainstream media has refused to do.

So who wants to take the side of Pro-genitile mutilation and Pro-honor killing?

How about you start out with by answering a question posed several posts ago?  Why did no major media outlet publish the Danish cartoons?  Why did South Park censor an image of Muhammad when they have a character that directly satirizes Jesus on their show?

(04-27-2017, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Are there, somewhere in the world, Muslims who won't try to kill you if you say bad things about them or draw a picture of their prophet?   If so, then "tolerating" Muslims who do not kill people for cartoons, as do leftists, should not be conflated with tolerating people who do.

Not acknowledging why the people that will try and kill you exist is not going to ever address the problem.

Quote:My point was not that I don't like the rights' criticism of Islam because they are rightists. My point is that the criticism is contradictory. On the one it upholds "liberal" values of tolerance which conservatives have not themselves practiced in order to scapegoat an entire religion.   You can't preen yourself for the civil tolerance won over hundreds of years by others while at the same time practicing intolerance in a new direction.

Pointing out bad ideas is not intolerance.  Being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.  You can point out that an idea is bad without castigating the person who believes in it.  That would require a little intellectual capacity and moral courage though.

Quote:This does not become suddenly ok when Maher and Harris do it. My primary objection to those two is that they actually know very little about Islam or other cultures in general.

Hahaha, maybe in the case of Maher.  Making that statement about Harris exposes an insane level of ignorance on your part.

Quote:They don't know the origin/development of current conflicts and the beliefs which drive them.

Sure they do.  They're called the Quran and the Hadith

Quote:They read news accounts and polls, and then extrapolate "what must be" from them. They draw support for others similarly ill-informed. The less you know, the more sense they make.

You're literally making this up as you type it because not a word of this statement can be substantiated.  It does please me to see just how desperate the three headed sock puppet hydra is getting though.

(04-27-2017, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "believe in the implantation of Sharia Law," nor what you mean by "radical."

By radical do you mean Salafist or what?

Implementation where? In what sense? Which version?

If you don't know the answer to these questions then you literally have no business being involved in this discussion.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 05:13 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: The rest of your post about violating rights of Muslims in this country is completely irrelevant to my post once you understand the context of what the above paragraph states.  Nowhere in my posts was the violation or restriction of religious freedom of U.S. citizens discussed so I'm just not going to reply to that part of the post.  

Just so you understand my position:  it's not persecution of Muslims to ask if certain aspects of their belief system (and I mean individual cultures and nations, not the religion as a whole), are compatible with the foundation of the west and to take a nuanced approach to whether we should allow those beliefs into the country or not?  This is not the same as subjecting any group to registration and surveillance.

Ah, I see.  You are not talking about violating anyone's rights.

You just want to decide if we can bar the free practice of the religion of Islam in the United States.

No violation of any rights of religious freedom there at all.

BTW I love the way you use the word "nuanced" to mean "bar an entire religion from the United States because of the actions of extremists in other countries".  Lots of subtle nuance in that policy.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Muslim that thinks you should be put to death for homosexuality is mainstream.

Not in this country, and I would argue not in the world as a whole.

I can posts dozens of photos of Christians protesting in the United States with signs that say "death to ****".  How many pictures can you find of Muslims in the US doing the same thing?

The percentage of Muslims in America that want homosexuals to die is very slim.  I'd say the percentage of Christians is also very low, but I have seen plenty of proof that they exist.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not one person here has advocated for any of what you just claimed.  More BS false claims from the master of flat out lying about the statements of others.

Learn to read.  Dill was not talking about the discussion on these boards and neither was I. 

Please refrain from jumping in when you have no idea what is being discussed.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Saying it's not ok to murder homosexuals or stone a raped woman is not sufficient, nor courageous, when you turn a blind eye to why such practices occur on a daily basis in the muslim world.

Then the right is just as guilty as the left in "turning a blind eye".

Both sides say it is wrong.  Neither side has done anything about it.

So why do you criticize the left fro "embracing Islam" when they have done exactly the same thing as the rigth?

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-27-2017, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Ah, I see.  You are not talking about violating anyone's rights.

You just want to decide if we can bar the free practice of the religion of Islam in the United States.

No violation of any rights of religious freedom there at all.

BTW I love the way you use the word "nuanced" to mean "bar an entire religion from the United States because of the actions of extremists in other countries".  Lots of subtle nuance in that policy.

Ok, I made a reply giving you the benefit of doubt, but it's becoming blatantly obvious you're misinterpreting things to suit your narrative.  Even though I didn't say what you claimed, I will address one thing from what you mentioned:  Hypothetically (I don't actually mean this is true, but assuming hypothetically), that Islam required everyone to be forced to follow Islam, and I ask that we take a look at this belief, am I "bar"ring the free practice of a religion in the United States wrongly?

I used to think SSF was being a bit harsh when he labeled you a master of misrepresentation, but I now see that I was mistaken.  You seem to enjoy having a debate with concepts that you create out of thin air more than what was actually posted.  I would actually address your points if I thought it was a genuine discussion, however, I don't want to waste time replying to things that you will surely misrepresent, so I'll just leave it as is.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then the right is just as guilty as the left in "turning a blind eye".

Both sides say it is wrong.  Neither side has done anything about it.

So why do you criticize the left fro "embracing Islam" when they have done exactly the same thing as the rigth?

Uh oh Fred.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/health/fgm-indictment-michigan/index.html

Looks like the doctors engaged in barbaric mutilation of young girls in the US agree with you.

Quote:"I do believe that the government does not fully understand the religious practices of Dr. Attar and Dr. Attar's religion, and I think that's why we are in this courthouse today, and what we'll be fighting over for the next few months," Chartier said.

and

Quote:"They have a religious belief to practice their religion. And they are Muslims and they're being under attack because of it. I believe that they are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs and I do not make that allegation lightly," Chartier said.

You're right though, no muslims in this country subscribe to the barbarism committed in muslim majority countries on a daily basis.  But it's ok, it's religious freedom!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 06:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Learn to read.  Dill was not talking about the discussion on these boards and neither was I. 

Please refrain from jumping in when you have no idea what is being discussed.

Then maybe you should use accurate language instead of using the term "you" when describing who advocates this behavior.  You'd think as an "attorney" you'd be aware of the need for precise language.  Then again you claim to be a DPD but don't know basic elements of criminal law.

(04-27-2017, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then the right is just as guilty as the left in "turning a blind eye".

Both sides say it is wrong.  Neither side has done anything about it.

So why do you criticize the left fro "embracing Islam" when they have done exactly the same thing as the rigth?

Wait, you've been harping about how the far right demonizes muslims and paints them all with the same brush by claiming the barbarism of a "minority" of Islamic adherents.  Now you're claiming they're turning a "blind eye" to the daily excesses of islam?  You can't even keep your own BS straight.

[*bfine32*]

(04-27-2017, 06:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not in this country, and I would argue not in the world as a whole.

I can posts dozens of photos of Christians protesting in the United States with signs that say "death to ****".  How many pictures can you find of Muslims in the US doing the same thing?

The percentage of Muslims in America that want homosexuals to die is very slim.  I'd say the percentage of Christians is also very low, but I have seen plenty of proof that they exist.

So you're saying we have the good Muslims; probably best we keep that way or are you OK with bringing in those from outside?

I probably liken the Muslim more to the Jew than the Christian; as the true Christian believes in forgiveness; where as the true Muslim believes an adulterous woman should be stoned. 

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 06:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, maybe in the case of Maher.  Making that statement about Harris exposes an insane level of ignorance on your part.

You're literally making this up as you type it because not a word of this statement can be substantiated.  It does please me to see just how desperate the three headed sock puppet hydra is getting though.

If you don't know the answer to these questions then you literally have no business being involved in this discussion.

Reasoned introspection?

[Belsnickel]

(04-27-2017, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I probably liken the Muslim more to the Jew than the Christian; as the true Christian believes in forgiveness; where as the true Muslim believes an adulterous woman should be stoned. 

This generated a serious question I have in all of this. This is something from the Hadith, not the Koran (correct me if I am wrong, anyone, I am not an expert on these things). The Hadith are interpretations and commentary on Mohammed and the Koran by people at the apex of the religion at various times. So, it would be like the writings of Popes.

If you are not a true Muslim unless you follow the Hadith, then would that not also mean that you are not a true Christian unless you follow the writings of the Popes?

I understand there are denominations that have broken off, especially being a Lutheran, but the Catholic Church is the OG. Just like in Islam there are many members that follow some of the original interpretations but there are also many that do not. So why would it make a Muslims not a true Muslim if they did not follow the Hadith, but a Christian is still a true Christian even though they don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 05:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps you should ask Fred what he meant by Radical; as he was the one that used the term, to which you are quoting my reply.

If you don't know what desiring to implement Sharia Law means; I have no other was to explain it other than they think it should be the law of the land.

You understand that there are four different legal traditions in Sunni Islam, right, and that some are stricter than others, and that Sharia would be different for each?

And you understand that since in the 19th century, especially in Muslim countries under British or French rule, legal systems have developed which partially or wholly incorporate Sharia, often by breaking precedent and mixing and matching among the traditions, syncretising British, French and Sharia law? 

"Implementation of Sharia" would therefore mean many different things to many different Muslims, everything from lip service to the Koran to Saudi style regulation of dress and daily life, along with criminal, commercial and family law.  In Great Britain, for example, there are two very different "Sharia" court systems set up for Muslims there.

The mixture among Muslim countries is rather astounding. For some Sharia means ignoring things like lashing, stoning, and removing hands of thieves. For others it means putting laws on the books, but never carrying them out. For still others (a few) it means actually carrying them out. But even in these countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Nigeria) they are contested by other Muslims.

If a Muslim would "like" to implement Sharia that could mean anything from "I would like to live under a system I feel is just" to "I would like to live under the system I am comfortable in the country from which I came (Indonesia, Jordan, etc.)" to a Hanabli/Wahabist "I would like this society to be remade into society at the time of the prophet."

So Sharia is not one thing.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This generated a serious question I have in all of this. This is something from the Hadith, not the Koran (correct me if I am wrong, anyone, I am not an expert on these things). The Hadith are interpretations and commentary on Mohammed and the Koran by people at the apex of the religion at various times. So, it would be like the writings of Popes.

If you are not a true Muslim unless you follow the Hadith, then would that not also mean that you are not a true Christian unless you follow the writings of the Popes?

I understand there are denominations that have broken off, especially being a Lutheran, but the Catholic Church is the OG. Just like in Islam there are many members that follow some of the original interpretations but there are also many that do not. So why would it make a Muslims not a true Muslim if they did not follow the Hadith, but a Christian is still a true Christian even though they don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure TBH.

I mean it's been 2000+ years of Popes writing and changing things.

I *do* know that when the Pope is infallible that becomes cannon.  Now after 12+ years of Catholic school teaching I can say I don't remember being told that you had to follow everything the Pope said or you were not a "true Catholic" but that the Pope was our leader and we should respect what he says.

Now that I've been out of school for 26 years I look more to how the Pope says we should live to more more Christ like than following his words to the letter.

I have many problems with what the physical church on earth has become.  And allowing other humans to interpret and tell us what is the only way to be a "true" whatever is one of them.

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This generated a serious question I have in all of this. This is something from the Hadith, not the Koran (correct me if I am wrong, anyone, I am not an expert on these things). The Hadith are interpretations and commentary on Mohammed and the Koran by people at the apex of the religion at various times. So, it would be like the writings of Popes.

If you are not a true Muslim unless you follow the Hadith, then would that not also mean that you are not a true Christian unless you follow the writings of the Popes?

I understand there are denominations that have broken off, especially being a Lutheran, but the Catholic Church is the OG. Just like in Islam there are many members that follow some of the original interpretations but there are also many that do not. So why would it make a Muslims not a true Muslim if they did not follow the Hadith, but a Christian is still a true Christian even though they don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Two quick points. The Qu'ran has no mention of stoning, but Musnad Achmed bin Hanbal, one of the followers of Muhammed, claims that there was such a verse but a goat ate it shortly after the death of Muhammed. 

Statements like that of Hanbal circulated for a generation after the Prophet's death, and were then collected and written down at various times with varying levels of care.  The result is a collection of sayings, each with its own supposed geneology. The four differing law traditions of Islam rate these sayings on a scale from "true" to "improbable" or "weak."  The ones that all four schools agree are true have the most force.

Which brings me to my second point. The Hadith are more comparable to the Gospels, written a generation or more after Jesus death. Remember that it was not until late in the 4th century that both the Greek and Roman churches agreed on the 27 books now canonized in the New Testament. The really interesting ones (Thomas, Barnabas) didn't make the cut.

Within Islam, "leftist" feminist Muslims hotly dispute the stoning claim. The Turkey based organization Violence Is Not Our Culture says: "We fully reject the notion that violence in any form is part of our culture, religion, or traditions." And they link to number of contemporary religious authorities who say stoning is anti-Islamic. There is even a fatwa against stoning in Persian. http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/node/13.

So you have Muslims who to live under Sharia, but separate Islam from stoning and other forms of misogynistic violence--a debate which criscrosses the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco to Europe.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 08:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This generated a serious question I have in all of this. This is something from the Hadith, not the Koran (correct me if I am wrong, anyone, I am not an expert on these things). The Hadith are interpretations and commentary on Mohammed and the Koran by people at the apex of the religion at various times. So, it would be like the writings of Popes.

Matt, you know this is not remotely the case.  Good luck finding a muslim who will renounce the Hadith.  They may apply more importance to certain sections or less to others but it is viewed as far more important than the writings of the popes.

Quote:If you are not a true Muslim unless you follow the Hadith, then would that not also mean that you are not a true Christian unless you follow the writings of the Popes?

Sure, assuming the faiths are identical templates, but they aren't.  

Quote:I understand there are denominations that have broken off, especially being a Lutheran, but the Catholic Church is the OG. Just like in Islam there are many members that follow some of the original interpretations but there are also many that do not. So why would it make a Muslims not a true Muslim if they did not follow the Hadith, but a Christian is still a true Christian even though they don't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You'd have to ask muslims this.  I think it's likely due to the fact that christianity has moved past its barbaric theocratic period, largely because western society demanded it, while islam has actually regressed.  As I said above, finding a muslim who will renounce the words of the Hadith is like finding hen's teeth.

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 01:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, don't use celebrities as the standard.  Kindly point out the non-celebrity outrage over islam's daily outrages to complete your point.

"Outrage over outrages" is best left to the celebrity culture which apparently grounds your understanding of Islam.

In virtually every Muslim country there is a battle going on within/among Muslims over women’s rights. They are supported by leftist (no scare quotes) and liberal organizations in the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, and France. Change, not expressing outrage, is the goal.

Back in 1999, liberal philosopher Susan Moller Orkin wrote an essay arguing that multiculturalism could be bad for women. Laws originally intended to protect native American customs, when applied to some Muslim groups in the US, would allow child marriage, polygamy, and female genital mutilation on religious grounds. The essay fronts a collection of responses from other liberals and leftists (no scare quotes, real leftists) some of whom agree and some who disagree with her framing of the problem. One can find the book on Amazon.https://www.amazon.com/Multiculturalism-Women-Susan-Moller-Okin/dp/0691004323/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493251601&sr=1-3&keywords=susan+moller+okin

I mention that particular book, with many respondents, to indicate how even before 9/11 this was an issue for legal scholars and philosophers and feminists in the US.

One of the respondents is Aziza Y. al-Hibri, a Muslim and a legal scholar of Muslim jurisprudence, president of an organization called KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, which advocates for women’s rights in Muslim countries. Here is a link to their website, http://karamah.org/.

From there you can find a link to Al-Jazeerah, currently running a story on how a women’s rights group in Jordan is on the verge of abolishing a law protecting rapists who marry their victims. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/jordan-abolish-law-protects-rapists-170426114305294.html.   There is also this great article on Jordanian women learning martial arts.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/02/women-jordan-fight-rights-160205105852464.html. 

I just put a link to the Turkish Muslim group Violence Is not Our Culture in the post to Belsnickel above.

A host of international organizations are also focused womens and human rights issues in Muslim countries--Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women takes up these issues as well, getting flack from both Christian and Muslim countries.

I can go on with lists of books and conferences and forums in which these matters are debated, largely under the radar of the celebrity/youtube crowd.  This link is to Looking for that Other Face, by Frank van Lierde, a book in PDF form which tells the story of 6 Indonesian Muslim women who have organized to challenge Islamism in their region. It was financed by Dutch leftists and liberals in an organization called Human Security Collective.
https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/04/Cordaid_Other_Face_-LRtotaal_gecorrigeerd.pdf 

Egypt has a number of Arab language sites challenging patriarchal orthodoxy there, but here is one in English http://nazra.org/en. And feminist challenges are news reported frequently on sites like Middle East Eye, http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/egypts-embattled-feminism-2085551274. This British based news organization helps to publicize progressive Muslim activism and helps link efforts in Middle Easter countries to supporters in the US.

There may be "silence" about Muslim "outrages" in some Western internet forums and talk shows, where we are told "the left" supposedly "turns a blind eye to daily outrages." But the din has been very loud in leftist (no scare quotes) organizations and websites. And not just recently.
https://www.thenation.com/article/rise-islamic-feminists/.  http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/news/unstereotyped-muslim-feminists/.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/mohammed-was-feminist

Muslims for Progressive Values has articles and arguments and disucssions of Sharia for gay Muslims.http://www.mpvusa.org/lgbtqi-resources/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwrYbIBRCgnY-OluOk89EBEiQAZER58mDbLPVUK2UilawK49257zomeNCzaoJdkRIhL9Xhwz4aAvmy8P8HAQ

I close with an interesting mainstream source about Muslim women who must combat BOTH Muslim misogyny AND Islamophobia--http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/18/news/unstereotyped-muslim-feminists/

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 11:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'd have to ask muslims this.  I think it's likely due to the fact that christianity has moved past its barbaric theocratic period, largely because western society demanded it, while islam has actually regressed.  As I said above, finding a muslim who will renounce the words of the Hadith is like finding hen's teeth.

Whereas Christians who will renounce the Gospels are a dime of dozen.

I am wondering how many Muslims you've discussed the Hadith with?