Humbling courage

[Hax]

Sometimes I think we need to change the name of the entire middle-east to Facepalmia.

Right now, I would incline to agree. But let's look at Tunisia, for example. In general, we should also wonderjust exactly what made the Middle-East look this way. Because it sure as hell not is "Islam".

As such, it's very important we distinguish between the Islamic religion and cultures present in the Islamic world as a whole as of right now. With the recent death of writer Rafiq Tagi it is somewhat inappropriate to draw a comparison with Azerbaijan, but I suppose that in general, if women would openly put nude pictures on a blog in Azerbaijan, there is no chance there would've a backlash of the same proportions.

Concerning the Judiciary of Egypt, it's preposterous to suggest that an Egyptian court would sentence her to death; the death penalty is reserved for (high) treason, abduction, rape and premeditated murder. I have no pretensions of being an expert on the Judiciary in Egypt, but the idea that any Egyptian court would sentence her to death is, simply put, silly.

[Hax]

Nobody blames Islam for anything

Then I've been misinterpreting Fragony for a couple of years now.

We do, however, blame really bad people who are using Islam as a reason to cause trouble

Yeah, as we should.

We do, however, blame really bad people who are using Islam as a reason to cause trouble

Thing is that I'm under the impression that Fragony is proclaiming the idea that the Egyptian state would allow or even support this.

[Fragony]

Then I've been misinterpreting Fragony for a couple of years now.

Must be it, I thought we had consensus here, I don't dispise the whole of islam just the hardcore version. I do absolutely dispise the multicultural left who absolutely adore anything islam though, too stupid to take a dump. We are on the same team Hax you just don't realise it.

Not blaming islam when muslims call for islamic law, I don't know how that works out for those doing so but I have always been bad at leftist logic. Not a few bad people hijacking islam, it IS islam. The kind that is as welcome as the inquisition to most people including most muslims.

I'm no hater

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right now, I would incline to agree. But let's look at Tunisia, for example. In general, we should also wonderjust exactly what made the Middle-East look this way. Because it sure as hell not is "Islam".

As such, it's very important we distinguish between the Islamic religion and cultures present in the Islamic world as a whole as of right now. With the recent death of writer Rafiq Tagi it is somewhat inappropriate to draw a comparison with Azerbaijan, but I suppose that in general, if women would openly put nude pictures on a blog in Azerbaijan, there is no chance there would've a backlash of the same proportions.

Concerning the Judiciary of Egypt, it's preposterous to suggest that an Egyptian court would sentence her to death; the death penalty is reserved for (high) treason, abduction, rape and premeditated murder. I have no pretensions of being an expert on the Judiciary in Egypt, but the idea that any Egyptian court would sentence her to death is, simply put, silly.

I think that "Islam" is a big part of the problem, not because it is "bad" but because it is completely innapropriate as a cultural and political context for the Modern Middle East. The fact is, the Middle East is a big mess, it's a mixture of petty Kingdoms and "countries" that are mostly wilderness punctuated by city-states and narrow tracts of productive arable land along major rivers, this is as trues for Saudi Arabia as it is for Libya and Afganistan. Against this reality is set the narrative of the "House of Islam", the Caliphate, which is ruled over my the Caliph, God's representative on Earth. Except there's no Caliph and no Caliphate, but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can, so the religion acts out and instead of trying to rule the world generally Islamic politics is focused on ruling the "islamic" peoples and anyone withion the same national borders absolutely.

I don't think it's a coincidence that as the power of the Islamic word has waned of the last half milenium we have seen increasingly harsh applications of religious law,

Then, on top of this, we have decidedly un-Islamic practices which become institutionalised and theologically justified in areas where the Caliphs never tried to establish proper Islamic law, hence the Saudi princes with ten wives and forty children, which confused Saudi successions and retards the passing of the throne to the next generation.

[Fragony]

'Against this reality is set the narrative of the "House of Islam", the Caliphate, which is ruled over my the Caliph, God's representative on Earth. Except there's no Caliph and no Caliphate, but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can, so the religion acts out and instead of trying to rule the world generally Islamic politics is focused on ruling the "islamic" peoples and anyone withion the same national borders absolutely.'

It's called the political islam for a reason, what you say is true but also a very recent concept, but it's the way the brotherhood and other islamists see it. They are really dangerous

[Hax]

No, I think we're on the same team when it comes to the ideals of the Enlightenment and the essence of humanism. I just have a totally different approach to analysing the Islamic world, I think.

I think that "Islam" is a big part of the problem, not because it is "bad" but because it is completely innapropriate as a cultural and political context for the Modern Middle East.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here.

I don't think it's a coincidence that as the power of the Islamic word has waned of the last half milenium we have seen increasingly harsh applications of religious law,

Not necessarily, and even though the idea of the waning power of the Islamic world for about 500 years has been pretty popular (even within academic circles), it doesn't necessarily correspond with historical events. For example, the Safavids (and subsequently the Qajarites and Pahlavis) were relatively powerful in their immediate areas. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which has often been described as being continuously in decline, has also been overstated; there were several periods in the Late Ottoman Empire that were actually periodes of greater power.

What happened to the Islamic world is generally described as a continuous current; around 1250, with the fall of Baghdad, the once mighty and scientifically advanced world of Islam entered a period of decline which coincided with the decline of scientific inquiries throughout the Islamic world and a period that was dominated by religious orthodoxy and piety. As I said, this image is at best only half true. There were many later periods of greatness, especially under the Safavids.

but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can

Surely, this is true as in that Islam (as a political concept) has a very strict set of rules that apply to all people living under Islamic rule, including non-Muslims (the oft-quoted "dhimmis"). However, the exact way of dealing with non-believers isn't a matter that has seen general consensus, even since the founding of Islam. The particularly notorious Kharijite sect outright forbade any form of dealing with non-believers. To what extent this is "Islamic" depends on Muslim scholars to decide, really.

However, there are terms in Islamic jurisprudence that deal explicitely with secular law, in particular "qanun", which is a corruption of Greek "kanon". This is particularly used for Ottoman law though (as they introduced the whole millet-system).

what you say is true but also a very recent concept

Fragony is absolutely correct. Fundamentalism as we know it is no older than the 1850's, generally. It was around the same time that several Islamist politicians and philosophers rediscovered the Crusaders; before that, it was regarded as simply another event in Muslim history, and not particularly an example of Muslims versus Christians (or East versus West). In particular, the image of the Crusades was used by Sultan Abdulhamid II.


In short, my view of the subject is that we should look at "Islamism" very critically. Even though anti-Islamic as well as Islamist activists will pretend that it is an ancient movement which finds its roots in the very first days of Islam, this is very much removed from the truth. It's about as Islamic in origin as the celebration of Muhammad's birthday (which, incidentally, is not).

[Fragony]

'we should look at "Islamism" very critically'

We do? I don't really see why we let it exist at all

[Furunculus]

Hey, she's pretty cute. And she likes freedom. Sounds like a winner!

+1001

Aliaa FTW!

[Noncommunist]

Ridiculous. Eighty lashes and possibly death just for showing herself nude? In no rational mind can that be considered okay.

I'm sure in some places, eighty lashes and possibly death for only intercourse involving a young teenager and an older man would be considered irrational. While in our culture, that's not okay at all, there are places where that's a normal occurrence, and they'd wonder why people are so irrationally opposed to it.

You'll get no argument here. The Narrow-Minded Conversion-Centric approach of mainstream Islam (and Christianity in most of its forms, for that matter) will always mean that there are radical fringe elements. When the whole world finally acknowledges that religion is nothing more than a personal(and incredibly subjective, and thus inherantly unfit for scientific thought!) life-style choice, we will be infinitely better off.

Unfortunately, Big Religion seems to be making a comeback all over the world.

Why would the whole world acknowledge that religion is nothing more than a personal lifestyle choice if it's obviously untrue and affects the world in a far greater way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You'll get no argument here. The Narrow-Minded Conversion-Centric approach of mainstream Islam (and Christianity in most of its forms, for that matter) will always mean that there are radical fringe elements. When the whole world finally acknowledges that religion is nothing more than a personal(and incredibly subjective, and thus inherantly unfit for scientific thought!) life-style choice, we will be infinitely better off.

Unfortunately, Big Religion seems to be making a comeback all over the world.

No, no, no, no!

Think for a moment about the difference between missionary and non-missionary religions, and between societies where religion is public and where it is private.

A man who doesn't want you to convert to his religion wants his life to be better than yours, his religion is exclusive, and it is not interested in admitting new members accept to the advantage of the existing ones.

The reason Christianity took off was because the religions of the time were invariably, racist, sexist, or classict - and Christianity was one of these. Neither are (most) forms of Islam or Buddism, and many other major world religions today. That's why they have prospered, because they are inclusive, as opposed to the racist religions like the Athenian Cult of Demeter.

Religion is also much more than a "personnal" matter, because people bring their religion with them wherever they go, making them hide it or disregard it is either to force them to be dishonest in public or to exclude them from public and political life on grounds of concience.

Neither of which is condusive to a healthy society.

People should be encouraged to proclaim their religion publically, that way you have some idea what sort of people you are dealing with.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here.

Not necessarily, and even though the idea of the waning power of the Islamic world for about 500 years has been pretty popular (even within academic circles), it doesn't necessarily correspond with historical events. For example, the Safavids (and subsequently the Qajarites and Pahlavis) were relatively powerful in their immediate areas. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which has often been described as being continuously in decline, has also been overstated; there were several periods in the Late Ottoman Empire that were actually periodes of greater power.

What happened to the Islamic world is generally described as a continuous current; around 1250, with the fall of Baghdad, the once mighty and scientifically advanced world of Islam entered a period of decline which coincided with the decline of scientific inquiries throughout the Islamic world and a period that was dominated by religious orthodoxy and piety. As I said, this image is at best only half true. There were many later periods of greatness, especially under the Safavids.

History is the art of constructing a narrative, the popular narrative is one of gradual decline, the current experience is of a weak and highly fractured Islamic world, as opposed to the West where we have mostly got on for the last 70 odd years.

The historical facts, sadly, are much less important.

Surely, this is true as in that Islam (as a political concept) has a very strict set of rules that apply to all people living under Islamic rule, including non-Muslims (the oft-quoted "dhimmis"). However, the exact way of dealing with non-believers isn't a matter that has seen general consensus, even since the founding of Islam. The particularly notorious Kharijite sect outright forbade any form of dealing with non-believers. To what extent this is "Islamic" depends on Muslim scholars to decide, really.

However, there are terms in Islamic jurisprudence that deal explicitely with secular law, in particular "qanun", which is a corruption of Greek "kanon". This is particularly used for Ottoman law though (as they introduced the whole millet-system).

How does a Muslim live in a foriegn country though? Particularly one which he sees as hostile, at least as an environment, to his religion? A Christin just has to look to the Martyars, it's actually easier to be a Christian when oppressed, a Jew just looks to Isaiah and Babylon, as well as Job. Where does the Muslim look, how does he interpret being a minority, through what lense?

I would offer that most Muslims don't have an effective narrative for their experience of living in the West, or in countries significantly disadvantaged vs Western ones. For example, Saudi cavalry use American tanks, and while Arab Universties are undeniably the oldest in the world none of them feature in the top 200 list of the THE survey.

Fragony is absolutely correct. Fundamentalism as we know it is no older than the 1850's, generally. It was around the same time that several Islamist politicians and philosophers rediscovered the Crusaders; before that, it was regarded as simply another event in Muslim history, and not particularly an example of Muslims versus Christians (or East versus West). In particular, the image of the Crusades was used by Sultan Abdulhamid II.

Oh, no doubt true, but we are living in 2011, not 1120, the Templars are now bogeymen, not the Order preventing Christian mobs from lynching strays Jews and Muslims.

[Beskar]

Just as a note, I might split the topic if it diverges too much, feel free to continue though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Religion has caused nothing but harship and trouble for the world. From aztecs sacrificing tens of thousands of people to their gods, to the crusades, to Darfur, to the twin towers. All the "good" doesn't even come close to making up for the countless millions dead throughout the ages, all thanks to some ridiculous notions. Fundamentalism in its most reactionary forms is nothing less than a plea for a return to times when it was easier to tell people what to do, and kill them for not doing it.

In no way is this true. Prior to modern welfare states religious orders were the only people who provided charitable support to the vulnerable, from food for the poor to care for the elderly and infirm. Going back further, Christian monks were the ONLY people to preserve Roman knowledge, after 600 AD you'll strugle to find literate laypeople even in Rome, without the Church we might still be in the Dark Ages and we certainly wouldn't be where we are today. Again, until about 150 years ago education, in the liberal sense, was only offered by the Church, all the great modern universities, including those in the US, were religious foundations of one denomination or another, the absolute earliest being Islamic foundations.

As to "religion causes wars" No it doesn't, nevber has, it's actually Atheism that causes so-called religious wars, but even so your examples have a lot more to do with politics than religion.

I'm not going to deny that there are huge differences between all religions, even ones that seem superficially similar (like the Abrahamic ones). I'm also not going to deny that there is nothing wrong with being spiritual. I believe in God. I also don't have anything wrong with someone trying to convert me, as long as they're tactful. Muslims are the best at this! I've never had a conversation with a devout muslim that didn't eventually get to "So, you coming to the Mosque this weekned?" And it's always really sneaky--like I never saw it coming. Much more tactful than the door-to-door Jehova's witnesses! Although to be fair, if ou say to one of them "I'll listen to you for an hour if you listen to me for an hour." usually they'll take you up on it, and listen politely.

Religion's place in the modern world has become mostly as a promoter of goodwill, and charity. And that's fine. I would never tell anyone how to think. In return, I expect not to be told how to think. The reactionary religious elements of the world, of which there are still PLENTY, seek to undermine everything that makes this world modern. You are a religious reactionary, in my opinion, if you believe that other people must believe what you believe. Broad stroke? You bet.

Very little of the world is "modern" and "religion's" place in it is a greatly vexed issue, certainly if modern bankers even pretended to Christianity, or Islam or Judaism for that matter, we would not be in the current economic mess.

A "religion" is a set of values which are systematised and formalised into a coherent whole which can be understood by even a Layman. As such, a genuine religious conviction is about how you see the structure of the world around you and your place in it, no small thing.

As to missionary work, think about it like this: If a man were walking towards a cliff, would you want to stop him?

[Noncommunist]

Hmm. So.. what your saying is that both of these things are bad ways to handle their respective infractions? I'll agree with that. Consentual sex between.. say.. a 16 year old and 20 year old is distasteful, but not hurting anyone. Here in Amerikuh we have handled that by letting the individual states determine where the age limit is drawn. Personally I'd find any woman under 21 to be too young for me, and even then.. And while I might find it distasteful that in some states a 20 year old and a 16 year old could lay together consentually (and even get married) I'm not about to say we should flog anyone for it!

Perhaps my example was too general. How would you feel about a man, perhaps 40 or 50 years of age having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl? Are you still okay with that?

As for the walking off a cliff comment, I agree. Which is why I don't have a problem when its done tactfully. If I see someone about to walk off a cliff, I'm going to try and stop him--but if he seems dead-set on walking off that cliff, who am I to say no?

Well, if he's your friend, respecting his decision may not be best for him. Especially if he's not quite alright in the head. Perhaps some chemical imbalance or Satan trying to lead him astray.

[Major Robert Dump]

At age 18 she lost her viginity to a 58 year old and enjoyed it.

I'm sure she was 18, and I am sure money was not involved

I'm all for old guys and barely legal girls, it gives me hope, but she may want to consider how her personal history and reflection of it bears down on her larger cause. Or maybe I am just being agist, maybe he was a smokin hot old man, like Bob Barker.....who 18 year old girl didn't want to do bob Barker?