What do you consider treachery in war?
I don’t normally use the word treachery, myself, but I think other people usually mean something like betrayal of trust by the term. If their use was unclear to me, I would ask them what they mean by it, as I think I asked you. If I didn’t, what do you mean by the term “treachery”? Knowing that, I could tell you more about my own thoughts regarding your meaning, but it would probably be a subject better suited to a different thread, since my thoughts on war don’t have much to do with either Robert Spencer or Islam.
I consider war treachery and have “zero” use for violence.
OK. In what way is war treachery? Do you mean, for example, that war by its very existence suggests that a trust which should exist has broken down? I think this is an interesting subject, though not very close to the original topic.
So perhaps I could learn the value of violence from you
I doubt that very much. I may not be an absolute pacifist, but I come much closer to pacifism than many other Catholics.
But not in Sharia Law areas.
Well, yes, they do. In some places, women are muftiyyahs (sharia jurists) serving on shura councils and issuing fatwas (rulings). The
Global Women’s Shura Council is in the midst of creating an education program through which muftiyyahs can earn both a professional doctorate in Islamic Law and the traditional certification called Ijaaza al-Ilmiyyah.
One thing I have learned is that there is a lot of diversity among Muslims regarding sharia. Sharia is not an immutable body of particular laws, but something that changes from place to place and from one time to another. In one context it will yield one result, in a different context a quite different result, and some jurists will disagree with one another about what the particular result should be even in the same context. A good explanation and example of the mutability of sharia is found in one of the articles I linked above:
"Najam Haider:
So what is the Sharia? The concept has been explained (by Muslim scholars for over a millennium) as the human attempt to understand God’s will in a given place and at a given time. Let’s pause and consider that definition for a moment. It implies that the Sharia is a human process prone to error but one in which Muslims constantly strive to discover proper laws given the socio-political circumstances of their lives. This allows scholars of different countries in a single era to construct fundamentally differing legal codes, all of which are technically considered Sharia…
{Fiqh} is governed by a series of set procedures that must be followed in a specific order. The jurist {weighs} all the relevant data (i.e., the political situation, the societal context, the legal problem) and {fiqh} yields an answer which is known as the Sharia. This answer is shaped first and foremost by the needs and circumstances of the Muslim community in question. Thus we find that in Iran (during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s), scholars ruled that the donation of organs was acceptable… At the same time, scholars in Pakistan (a country not in an explicit state of war) concluded that the donation of organs violated the sanctity of the human body. Here we have two countries, facing the same question, using the same legal methodology, and coming to fundamentally different conclusions!
Differences in sharia may be found in many areas. In Afghanistan and Maldives, as I understand it, there are no anti-discrimination laws protecting transsexuals. In Iran, transsexuals are legally protected from discrimination only if they get a sex change operation. In Pakistan, however, “third gender” is a legally protected class, which appears to be even more federal legal protection than allowed in the United States. Sharia is not one monolithic thing.
Where are they speaking up clearly in those Sharia Law areas?
It seems that, for Muslims, all areas are “sharia areas,” areas in which they strive to understand, apply, and obey God’s will (as they understand it) in their lives.
How are {women} doing {in the middle east}? Treated like domesticated animals? Yes or No?
There’s huge variation from one place to another-- even from one family or circumstance to another. Palestine has at least one woman appointed as a judge to a sharia court, while Saudia Arabia doesn’t even allow women to drive cars. Those are, it appears to me, very different ways of treating women.
You speak so clearly on Islam and do not understand Sharia Law?
It’s a vast subject. There are many things I would like to understand better than I do, and this is but one.
You seem very keen on that topic. Why don’t you start a different thread about it?
So the earliest book about Mohammed are not reliable according to you?
According to many Muslim hadith scholars, past and present. You are welcome to believe Ishaq if you want. I’m just cautioning against assuming that Muslims believe it and look to it for personal guidance.
It’s sad that too many Catholics seem to know more and defend Islam than their own faith
I’ve never met Catholics who know more about Islam than Catholicism. Can you give me some examples, or are these only people you’ve encountered IRL?
this is about a Catholic man that is brave enough to expose and follow truth not lies.
Except when he errs.
Is that illegal?