Warning to America

[Kalam]

But, you're fooling yourself that stoning is for rapists. Or just willful denial.

I highly doubt that you're able to make that judgment. The conditions under which capital punishment is permissible are specified in the Qur'an:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. - 5:32​

The killing must be intentional (4:92, 5:95) and the perpetrator can be pardoned by the victim's family (2:178.) The second crime is more open to interpretation, but it can be concluded that rape is a capital offense that falls under this category if one believes in the veracity of Abu Dawud's Sunan (see Hudud, no. 4366.) Stoning is a controversial method of punishment and is only mentioned in the Qur'an as something used against Muslims and prophets by disbelievers. Still, rapists are filth and deserve painful deaths in my opinion, so I would not shed a tear if a rapist was stoned.

You support those laws when the majority wants them, and that majority would a mob of Muslims.

I made no mention of a "majority."

 

[Si modo]

But, you're fooling yourself that stoning is for rapists. Or just willful denial.

I highly doubt that you're able to make that judgment. The conditions under which capital punishment is permissible are specified in the Qur'an:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. - 5:32​

The killing must be intentional (4:92, 5:95) and the perpetrator can be pardoned by the victim's family (2:178.) The second crime is more open to interpretation, but it can be concluded that rape is a capital offense that falls under this category if one believes in the veracity of Abu Dawud's Sunan (see Hudud, no. 4366.) Stoning is a controversial method of punishment and is only mentioned in the Qur'an as something used against Muslims and prophets by disbelievers. Still, rapists are filth and deserve painful deaths in my opinion, so I would not shed a tear if a rapist was stoned.

You support those laws when the majority wants them, and that majority would a mob of Muslims.

I made no mention of a "majority."

The standards I have for barbarism do not allow for stoning (under any circumstances - rapists or just some woman who dared challenge the insecurities of some pussy Muslim men), hanging of gays, lashing of journalists, etc.

And, you support those laws - majority mob of Muslims or not.

That's understandable. Rest assured, I don't support the establishment of an Islamic state in a country such as ours where Muslims make up 2% of the population at most. Islamic governance should only exist among populations that desire it and that have already embraced Islam by their own volition.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

I always write my congressman and senators warning them about the dangers of letting muslims into the US. They don't seem to be listening. The DC clowns always have to learn the hard way. I hope they enjoy the ME contributions to their coffers.....

I don't have a problem of letting muslims into the states, but you have to look at WHERE they're coming from and why... I wouldn't allow them in unless they were war refugees or for asylum/protection

and there should be absolutely no attempt to appease any religious group, period. Western culture is founed on free religion, but it's becoming obvious that banning burqas, etc. is a necessity, since we want them to assimilate into western culture

 

[The_Halfmoon]

Originally posted by Kalam
I'm sort of confused as to where I'd be sent if they began deporting Muslims.

Kalam,

Anyone who have read your posts on Israel, science, etc, etc... knows you are an asset to America or any other western country you choose to live in.

However statements like this cause me concern:

There should be no punishment for her free expression, or for the man's questionable sexual morality unless he committed adultery.

I know you were just clarifying aspects of islamic law, but on another occasion, you said it is OK to punish citizens for adultery something that bears the unmistakable mark of theocratic governments.

I gotta tell you, it's really frightening to see such an intelligent, articulate muslim like you showing a certain, let's say, "tolerance" to this prehistoric political system that belongs in the dustbin of human History.

I agree, and I'm amazed at how patient of a person he is for putting up with my brand of anti-Islam (admittedly offensive to even very moderate muslims)

but I can tell you that one of the men I've always admired as a great intellect, and as a genuinely good man who had the best of intentions at heart was Khomeini. And not just me, but the whole world considered him a 2nd Gandhi until he started putting into place Islamic law (and his view of Islam is very different from Sunni, I concede) - (EDIT: don't want to make the impression I knew of him before he was supreme leader, because I was born in 81. I'm going by pre 79 articles and videos)

but my point is that it's not the man, but the system that is corrupt with Islam. It is a fallacy of composition, where one assumes Islam is good because it is good for the individual.

I would NEVER say that Islam can't help an individual succeed in every aspect of life because it keeps him modest, hard working, and family oriented. But when an entire society starts adhering to the same principals, bad things happen at the systems level, while good things may be happening at the individual level.

Saving and paying your debts is great for one person, but if everyone in the country were debt-free, the economy would collapse (half assed example but I dont' want to even mention the paradox of thrift because it's too keynsian for me)

 

[Kalam]

The standards I have for barbarism do not allow for stoning... just some woman who dared challenge the insecurities

Where have I advocated this,

hanging of gays,

this,

lashing of journalists, etc.

or this?

 

[The_Halfmoon]

you don't argue it Kalam, but a whole hell of a lot of Muslims do

and they tend to be Muslims at the top of the food chain mainly

 

[Si modo]

The standards I have for barbarism do not allow for stoning... just some woman who dared challenge the insecurities

Where have I advocated this,

hanging of gays,

this,

lashing of journalists, etc.

or this?

Where have I said that you, personally, have? You simply advocate the system that allows for it.

 

[Kalam]

Where have I said that you, personally, have? You simply advocate the system that allows for it.

I can say with confidence that I've never called for the killing of women who dress immodestly, homosexuals, or journalists, and that I've never called for the establishment of any system that would permit this.

 

[Kalam]

you don't argue it Kalam, but a whole hell of a lot of Muslims do

and they tend to be Muslims at the top of the food chain mainly

Oh, I know. I'm just trying to erase any doubt that may exist about what I believe.

 

[Si modo]

Where have I said that you, personally, have? You simply advocate the system that allows for it.

I can say with confidence that I've never called for the killing of women who dress immodestly, homosexuals, or journalists, and that I've never called for the establishment of any system that would permit this.

Good to know then, that you do not support the Iranian government, for example.

 

[Kalam]

Where have I said that you, personally, have? You simply advocate the system that allows for it.

I can say with confidence that I've never called for the killing of women who dress immodestly, homosexuals, or journalists, and that I've never called for the establishment of any system that would permit this.

Good to know then, that you do not support the Iranian government, for example.

No, I decidedly do not.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

The standards I have for barbarism do not allow for stoning... just some woman who dared challenge the insecurities

Where have I advocated this,


this,

lashing of journalists, etc.

or this?

Where have I said that you, personally, have? You simply advocate the system that allows for it.

exactly... I know the vast majority of Muslims are good, moderate people (VAST as in practually all muslims who are not otherwise criminals)

but the interplay between the religion and politics totally corrupts any good that the religion is trying to do.

Everyone's out there arguing about terrorists this and terrorists that, when in reality that is the very tiniest bit of a problem with this religion.

It created set of rules and regulations for society, which aim for nothing but good things. But then it also left huge ambiguities, loopholes, etc. in its legal system.

Now everyone is interpreting it its own way, and of course everyone in power politically will take the harshest possible interpretation as its own. It helps entrench their authority, it constantly reminds people that the leader is acting on behalf of god. Even an unjust execution will serve political forces in this way, because one can just say "no no, I interpret the holy book like so!"

My argument against islam is for the wellbeing of the Muslims themselves. There is the Quran, RIGHT THERE. You can read it, even if you dont' speak Arabic. You can follow it word by word if you wish. Why is a social policy necessary? If you're a good muslim you don't need the law to tell you what to do. And a bad muslim is punished by god, so why does man have to punish him?

It's just too inconsistent to be used as a social tool... as a personal faith, of course, go for it. I could tomorrow wake up and be a muslim and little of my life would change based on the fact that I follow its cousin relgion. But then I was lucky to be born straight and a man.

 

[Coyote]

I find Geert Wilder's popularity and ideas very frightening and I do see it as worrisomely similar to the emotions swirling around Hitlers populism - and no, I'm not trying to make a cheap and light comparison to the Nazi's. Populism (and I think Wilder is a populist) has the potential to be very good and very bad. It can rouse mob mentality in times of economic and social stress - a mentality that looks for scapegoats. The concentration camps and WW2 is almost 70 years behind us, and it's survivors are dwindling. Look at the rise of holocaust deniers and the fact that some countries feel a need to legislate against that shows how worrisome the mentality of "revision" and denial is. Once it's forgotten (or Hitler is revised and cleaned up) how easy it is to repeat it. Maybe that is human nature.

I see Geert Wilder and his supporters as the potential harbinger of a new post-Hitler era of intolerance and scapegoating easily bought into because we do live in frightening and unsettled times.

In Wilder's speech to Holland's parliment, March 2008, he says:

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course.

Of course? But he goes on to say:

Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad. Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification!

A statement that totally cancels out his prior one.

Does he have some good points? I think he does to the extent that immigration must mean integration and that in Europe, countries that do not have a history of assimilative immigration - that is a problem, but that is not what he is about. He wants zero Islam - not even moderate because as he believes, there is no such thing as moderate Islam - he can not even grant that Islam can, and is, having it's own reformation. His message plays over and over on simple, easily grasped fears of "them" vs. "us" - fears that are more understandable with an identifiable target than the more ambiguous fears surrounding cultural changes, immigration, economy, jobs, etc. that people feel beset by.

When you run on the inflammatory rhetoric of fear, you will inflame people. Muslim extremists have shown how easily that can be done with their West-as-Evil rhetoric. I don't think Wilder, and what he represents is a good thing at all.

 

[Douger]

Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.