What one author says about the Muslim "religion"

[Hadi]

I think I’ve seen the movie, starring Sally Fields. It’s base on true events. Honor and tradition is more important for them.

You said it , it’s more cultural than religious…there were some cases among Middle Eastern Christians involving honor killing

 

[ferdie]

You said it , it’s more cultural than religious…there were some cases among Middle Eastern Christians involving honor killing

But the culture and tradition is based on the interpretation of the religion. It is hard to separate the culture from the religion in Islam.

 

[Hadi]

But the culture and tradition is based on the interpretation of the religion. It is hard to separate the culture from the religion in Islam.

how do you explain honor killings among Hindus and Middle eastern Christians.

 

[rpp]

how do you explain honor killings among Hindus and Middle eastern Christians.

I had never heard of either of these groups engaging in that. Can you cite some sources to support your assertions?

 

[ferdie]

how do you explain honor killings among Hindus and Middle eastern Christians.

Religions that see women as inferior (like in Islam) are most often the ones guilty of this crime. I don’t know about Mid East Christians, can you give some samples please.

 

[Hadi]

I had never heard of either of these groups engaging in that. Can you cite some sources to support your assertions?

Sikh
guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/20/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Hindu
hindu.com/2005/08/20/stories/2005082013430100.htm

Arab Christian
guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/23/israel

those all lived in honor-based culutres

Add: here is more
Sicilian Christian
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article696820.ece

Egyptian Christian
reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL7162147

 

[ferdie]

Thanks for the links Hadi. According to Human Rights Watch, most honor killings happens in Islamic Countries. Not all Islamic countries are Arabs, but honor killings still happens in non- Arab Islamic countries. The culture stems from its religion.

 

[Contarini]

I might agree with some of what you said if the leaders and thinkers of Islam would condemn the acts of terrorists.

They do. The fact that you choose to ignore their condemnations (or that your preferred media sources choose to keep you in ignorance) is not the fault of Muslims.

A quick Internet search reveals a chorus of Islamic condemnations of 9/11, for instance, from major centers of Islamic scholarship such as the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo. Yet right-wing anti-Muslims choose to ignore or explain these away because they don’t fit their ideology.

What do we get instead? “Islam says: ‘Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!’” – That great Islamic holy man, Ayatollah Khomeini

Again, I’m sure you know that Khomeini is a Shi’ite (a minority group within Islam), and that not even all Shi’ites follow his ideas–for that matter, many ayatollahs in Iran criticized his tyrannical seizure of power after the Revolution.

But none of this matters to you, does it? Nuances don’t matter, facts don’t matter. Out-of-context quotations that suit your prejudices are the only things that matter to you.

Edwin

 

[jakasaki]

i’m** trying to find the movie**…

but the book is better than most movies i’ve ever seen…

which… uh… .might not be saying a lot…

Not Without My Daughter [DVD] - BizRate.com

Not Without My Daughter (DVD) | Overstock.com

Not Without My Daughter [DVD] - Shopzilla.com

Not Without My Daughter DVD At DeepDiscount.com

Not Without My Daughter at Buy.com

Not Without My Daughter - DVD, VHS at Yahoo! Shopping

Amazon.com: Not Without My Daughter: Sally Field, Alfred Molina, Sheila …

 

[Contarini]

The members of the Mafia believe they are engaging in a business. Are we to respect that belief and consider their activities a “business”?

Business is not protected by the Constitution in the way that religion and free speech are. (That may be a shock to some of the radical pro-capitalists on the forum.) So your analogy fails. Dishonest business has no claim to legal protection. The government has the right to regulate business and decide what are its legitimate parameters (an obvious example would be banning prostitution). The government has no such right with regard to religion, according to the Constitution.

IMHO, any so-called “religion” is not a religion if it has no concept of the Golden Rule.

Then I suggest that you work to repeal or amend the First Amendment, which makes no such stipulation. (Assuming that you are an American citizen. If we are not talking about the American context then obviously we need to reframe the terms of the debate.)

I am not conceding that Islam “has no concept of the Golden Rule.” I will let the Muslims take you on on that one.

Edwin

 

[sedonaman]

…
Again, I’m sure you know that Khomeini is a Shi’ite (a minority group within Islam), and that not even all Shi’ites follow his ideas–for that matter, many ayatollahs in Iran criticized his tyrannical seizure of power after the Revolution.
…

And who is likely to prevail in the Muslim community, Khomeini or the meek who sit by quietly by and through their silence lend tacit approval?

 

[sedonaman]

…The government has the right [sic] to regulate business and decide what are its legitimate parameters (an obvious example would be banning prostitution). The government has no such right [sic] with regard to religion, according to the Constitution.

The constitution has authority on only about 1/6 of the earth’s land surface. If the government has no such authority, the Nazis made a grave mistake at the Nuremberg trials: they should have claimed they were practicing their religion. Are you familiar with the Church of Scientology’s battle with the IRS which claimed it was not a religion? In the end, the IRS conceded but only on the condition that “no part of their net earnings inures to the benefit of any private individual”. Twenty percent of war booty went to Mohammed. *
Although the issue with Islam is somewhat different, the point is that government can establish what constitutes a religion, in this case for tax purposes. I submit that it can be done for other reasons as well. And it has. There was a pot smoking club that claimed religious status and pot as its sacrament. That didn’t fly either.

…Dishonest business has no claim to legal protection.

I rest my case.*

 

[Contarini]

And who is likely to prevail in the Muslim community, Khomeini or the meek who sit by quietly by and through their silence lend tacit approval?

They don’t do this, except in your fantasy world.

And if you seriously think that Shi’ite Islam is going to win over Sunnis, you are, again, living in a fantasy world.

It’s certainly true that Khomeini’s brand of militant Islam (itself influenced by Sunni radicalism) has influenced the broader Islamic world. There are indeed reasons to be worried about the spread of radicalism within Islam (in part because of Saudi Arabia’s oil money). But that’s no reason to help the radicals along by mocking and disparaging the moderates. The more people like you express unconditional hostility to Islam, the more likely it is that Muslims living in Western countries will respond to that hostility by embracing radicalism.

In the end there isn’t that much we can do either way. But for heaven’s sake let’s not *help *the radicals in their attempt to impose their vision of Islam on the religion as a whole.

Actually, there are some things that Western governments could do. We could achieve energy independence so that we aren’t funding the spread of Wahhabi Islam by the Saudi government. We could stop supporting the Saudis financially and militarily. We could also stop invading Muslim countries, which again strengthens the hands of the radicals. . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The constitution has authority on only about 1/6 of the earth’s land surface.

Indeed. And as a British citizen and an Anglican (though not a member of the Church of England–I left Britain in 1981 and only became an Anglican in 1998), I do not have a problem with the concept of a state church, as I said above. I do have a problem with a covert establishment of religion where the Constitution of the country in question explicitly forbids such an establishment.

If the government has no such authority, the Nazis made a grave mistake at the Nuremberg trials: they should have claimed they were practicing their religion.

First of all, the Nazis weren’t Americans and weren’t being tried by a government, but by an international tribunal. And in the second place, I explicitly said that religion cannot be used to cause harm to others. Obviously people who murder or otherwise harm people in the name of their religion should still be prosecuted for murder. Other forms of illegal behavior (such as drug use or polygamy) are trickier. I myself would say that at least in the American context the government should err on the side of protecting free exercise in those cases.

Are you familiar with the Church of Scientology’s battle with the IRS which claimed it was not a religion? In the end, the IRS conceded but only on the condition that “no part of their net earnings inures to the benefit of any private individual”.
Twenty percent of war booty went to Mohammed. **

But he isn’t, so it’s a silly argument. You can’t take the practices of 7th-century Arabia and apply them directly to questions of 21st-century American law.

Although the issue with Islam is somewhat different,

How is it different? You just tried to make the argument that it isn’t different. Do you stand by that silly argument, or not? If you stand by it, why then say that the issue is different? If you’re not willing to defend it, why embarrass yourself by making it in the first place?

the point is that government can establish what constitutes a religion, in this case for tax purposes.

That is indeed the camel’s nose under the tent undermining free exercise. However, as I understand it religious organizations are tax exempt because they are not for profit. A “religion” in this specialized sense is a subset of the broader category of not-for-profit organizations. The government has absolutely no legitimate interest in defining religion *itself *(since religion scholars can’t do this, the government certainly shouldn’t be expected to!), but rather in defining non-profit organizations, whether religious or not.

I submit that it can be done for other reasons as well.

Your submission is rejected. Tax exemptions are based on non-profit status, and the government can rightly determine that. That’s not the same thing as deciding whether something “is a religion.” If tax exemptions really allow the government to do that, then all religious people in the United States should march on Washington and demand the end of tax exemptions immediately.

And it has. There was a pot smoking club that claimed religious status and pot as its sacrament. That didn’t fly either.

It should have flown. The government has shown a disturbing willingness to abridge free exercise. That is a grave threat to everyone’s liberty.

Indeed, the example you cite is one good argument against the criminalization of marijuana in the first place.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

Thanks for the links Hadi. According to Human Rights Watch, most honor killings happens in Islamic Countries. Not all Islamic countries are Arabs, but honor killings still happens in non- Arab Islamic countries. The culture stems from its religion.

The fact that most happen in Islamic countries doesn’t establish that it’s the fault of Islam, necessarily. Hadi pointed out examples from other traditional places where people are obsessed with family and tribal honor (such as Sicily). I think that many Muslims would vehemently disagree with you that this repulsive practice is a legitimate part of their religion. Doesn’t that give you pause?

 

[sedonaman]

…
First of all, the Nazis weren’t Americans and weren’t being tried by a government, but by an international tribunal. And in the second place, I explicitly said that religion cannot be used to cause harm to others…

There are plenty of people who claim all religion harms people and that we’d all be better off without any religions at all.

But he isn’t, so it’s a silly argument. You can’t take the practices of 7th-century Arabia and apply them directly to questions of 21st-century American law.

It’s not silly because it’s true; otherwise he would have changed his “revelations” and undercut his own credibility. And you are too focused on the American situation while Islam is world-wide.

How is it different?

It’s different in the sense that the question is not a tax issue. Can’t you read?

Your submission is rejected.

I still stand by my original statement that any belief system that doesn’t have the Golden Rule is not a religion, and I did state that it was my opinion.

 

[Contarini]

There are plenty of people who claim all religion harms people

And how are they any different from you? Like you, they want to set up their own ideology as a standard for what is good and what isn’t. Obviously I am speaking of “harm” that can clearly be identified by people coming from different ideological and religious perspectives.

It’s not silly because it’s true; otherwise he would have changed his “revelations” and undercut his own credibility. And you are too focused on the American situation while Islam is world-wide.

The response to Islam of a country where some form of Christianity is established should be very different from the response of a country where disestablishment is written into the Constitution. And a country where Islam or some other religion is either officially established or historically dominant is in a different situation again.

The point I’m defending is that there is no “neutral” perspective from which to determine whether something is a religion or not. Either you start with one particular religious tradition as the norm and judge others by its standard, or you promote absolute freedom of religion, as the United States does. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion.

We disagree on what should be done in the American context given the American commitment to disestablishment and unabridged free exercise. So I’m focusing on that.

If you want to talk about the British context, we could discuss ++Rowan Williams’ controversial speech which was misconstrued as advocating “the establishment of Shari’a law.” I’d be happy to debate that speech (with which I largely agree) with you.

It’s different in the sense that the question is not a tax issue.

Then why mention Muhammad’s share of the spoils at all?

And the fact that this isn’t a tax issue dooms your whole argument, for the reasons I gave.

I still stand by my original statement that any belief system that doesn’t have the Golden Rule is not a religion, and I did state that it was my opinion.

Yes, but you haven’t supported either your statement or your judgment that Islam “doesn’t have the Golden Rule” (it would be very unusual among religions if it didn’t).

Please don’t play the silly postmodern game of using the phrase “it’s my opinion” as if it disarms criticism. Don’t you want to have well-founded opinions? Don’t you come to a board like this to have your opinions tested and challenged? I certainly do.

Edwin

 

[cthulhubryan]

do you ask everyone to pray for you or am i special?

or both?

We are all special, and I’ll ask anyone to pray for me and I’ll pray for them. I figure that’s one of the things I know God wants us to do.

anyhow… I’m wondering: What made you want to read those authors? You must not have been too anti-Catholic - to be open to reading Card. Ratzinger… ?

Well, one of the reasons is that they were in the store when I went to look The other reason is that Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a bit of a nerd or a geek. I mean that in the most loving way. When I read Ratzinger, I really feel like he is sitting next to me teaching me. How nice is it to have your own private tutor who is now also God’s German Shepherd?

i guess this shows something about me, that i would say such a thing… I have to remind myself that not all non-Catholics are anti-Catholic… or if so, they’re not all rabidly anti=-catholic…

those ones i have known have been… whoppers!!! so to say… i coul tell you stories you may not even believe…

I’ve always been Catholic but when i became a catechized, enthused, out-spoken Catholic…an evangelizin Catholic, I lost many friends…

i just figure they weren’t friends in the first place…

I mean… If a friend of mine became, say, a Mormon, i would still be friends… wouldn’t even think of NOT being friends anymore… but there’s something about beig devoutly Catholic… scares people or something…:

weird, 'cause about the only thing i would consider basis for dissolving friendship would be if a person became a satanist…

I’ve never been “anti-catholic” I’m rarely anti-anything that relates to people. Now I am anti-NY Yankees and anti-Atlanta Braves but that is about it.

In my mind the worst thing about most Christians, Catholic or Protestant, is the lack of proper catechizing. (Is that a word?)

When I was growing up I always wished there was an instruction book for life that made life easier. The other book I got in Utah was the Catechism and BOOM there it was. All the answers at the back of the book with references to do the research myself if I wanted (and I did) What is there not to love about the Catholic Church?

 

[sedonaman]

And how are they any different from you? Like you, they want to set up their own ideology as a standard for what is good and what isn’t…

And I’m supposed to take a hit for this? Every law ever passed is the codification of what someone thought was good.
…

The point I’m defending is that there is no “neutral” perspective from which to determine whether something is a religion or not.
…

I think there can be. The courts have gone to every conceivable length to define other words in the Constitution. In any event, there needs to be one to deter the excuse of religion to harm others. That’s the reason I brought up the IRS example; it obviously felt the Church of Scientology was a ruse for avoiding taxes. You mentioned “a standard for what is good and what isn’t.” People naturally want to do good [there is always the exception of those who are just bad to the bone], so evil must present itself as a good in order to gain followers.

We disagree on what should be done in the American context given the American commitment to disestablishment and unabridged free exercise. So I’m focusing on that.
If you want to talk about the British context, we could discuss ++Rowan Williams’ controversial speech which was misconstrued as advocating “the establishment of Shari’a law.” I’d be happy to debate that speech (with which I largely agree) with you.

I read it, but I don’t see what it has to do with a definition of religion. Not to start another debate, but my reactions to it are 1) it seems British leadership will never learn that appeasement is not an option; and 2) all the bishop’s kumbayah will be out the window once Islam takes over. Of course, like Chamberlain who never suffered for his failure, the good bishop won’t for his.

Then why mention Muhammad’s share of the spoils at all?

Because it’s in the Qur’an, and according to Muslims, you cannot change the word of Allah – not one word.

And the fact that this isn’t a tax issue dooms your whole argument, for the reasons I gave.

No. See above.

Yes, but you haven’t supported either your statement or your judgment that Islam “doesn’t have the Golden Rule” (it would be very unusual among religions if it didn’t).

What other religions [using the term loosely] tell its followers “you are the best of peoples”?

Please don’t play the silly postmodern game of using the phrase “it’s my opinion” as if it disarms criticism. Don’t you want to have well-founded opinions?

I presume well-founded opinions are based on facts. Obviously, facts that are important to you are less important to me, and vice-versa. Having a background in engineering, I had a job where gathering facts was essential. Facts are not always clear and need some analysis. Eventually, you have to weigh them, which involves judgment and opinion.

Don’t you come to a board like this to have your opinions tested and challenged? I certainly do.

It wouldn’t make much sense to have a forum if everyone agreed on everything.

Turn about fair play:

“It’s This Bad”
“Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered”
both by Theodore Dalrymple

 

[dzheremi]

As far as I can tell, honor killing is not specifically Islamic, it’s tribal. To the extent that it happens, it happens a lot in Islamic societies because those societies are also tribal, and some people think it is Islamically permitted or even mandated. As with every other controversial thing related to Islam and Islamic societies, the truth of what is or is not allowed in Islam is according to who you ask, but I hope we can all agree that establishing Islam’s guilt is not nearly as important as preventing the crimes themselves.

For all the Muslims who also suffer under it, there are also many who are vocally against it. See for instance, Arabs and Muslims against “Honour” Crimes, a webpage dedicated to exposing and eliminating this barbaric practice. Why not send messages of support to them instead of bickering on these forums?