Lifting the Veil on "Islamophobia"

by cofty 108 Replies latest social current

  • cofty

    That situation isn't going to occur in England or other Western countries.

    I don't think anybody has suggested it will.

  • talesin

    Sharia Law is a reality in many countries. Just because we don't suffer it here, should we then turn a blind eye to its practice? Especially in our "Allies"? ie, Saudi Arabia?

    The extremists tried to subvert the Canadian justice system ... this quote is from Wiki.

    Muslims in some parts of Canada have asked to have family dispute courts to oversee small family cases but were faced with rigorous opposition from traditional groups and liberal Muslim groups, labelling the request as a move towards imposing a Sharia Law. This proposal was opposed by the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and non-Muslim women's groups. [12] [13] In light of publicity, Muslims in Canada have elected to put the subject to rest.


    I bet *that* story wasn't on the evening news, unless it was a Canadian station, or perhaps, the BBC. Note the last sentence, and may I add "for now". Hmm? At the time, I was flabbergasted ... as IF.


  • Apognophos

    Then I guess I just don't get what people are up in arms about. Anyone who lives in a foreign country has to abide by the laws of that society. So a strict sharia law cannot be enforced in an immigrant community, not to the point of carrying out death penalties for apostates, thieves, etc. I realize that this doesn't prevent certain social values from still being held within the community, such as pressure to wear hijabs, but if the community is part of a larger, freer democracy, then at least ones can leave the community to enter the society at large if they do not like the oppression.

    The impression I get is that people are afraid of a takeover. A claim that Islam is having a "toxic effect" on society implies to me that somehow a Muslim community can affect the morals of the larger society it's in, and I can't see how that can happen. Minorities don't have that kind of influence over majorities. Is it a fear that they're going to extend terrorist networks into those countries?

    Edit: Interesting story, talesin. I'm not saying that this sort of "sharia enclave within a democracy" isn't something to be alert for, but it's still different from "Islam is toxic to our society". The fact that there are "liberal Muslims" is proof that people everywhere cannot be made to have a uniform set of beliefs. There will always be dissenters, and religious movements cannot "take over" when they keep splintering into conservative and liberal factions.

  • cofty

    Where are these liberal Muslims and why are they silent about the damaging effects of the quran and the hadith?

  • Apognophos
  • Oubliette

    Apognophos, First of all, Wikipedia is hardly unbiased or authoriarian when it comes to a definitive answer on anything, but more importantly: Did you READ this article?

    • Some liberal Muslims claim that they are returning to the principles of the early ... intent of their scripture, the Qur'an . ....
    • The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."

    You DO realize, that for Muslims, Allah is pretty much the same God as Jehovah!

    No thank you!

    I want NONE of that.

  • Apognophos

    I skimmed the article before posting the link. I saw those two sentences and I read them quite differently than you did. Here were my thoughts when reading them:

    Some liberal Muslims claim that they are returning to the principles of the early ... intent of their scripture, the Qur'an.

    "Ah, that reminds me of the point I've heard made that fundamentalist Christianity is actually a modern invention, and at one time, some Bible scriptures were taken more loosely. I suppose the same could be true of Islam, that perhaps fundamentalists arose over time. In that case, going back in time to early Islam could be a good idea!"

    The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."

    "Hmm, that sounds like the Unitarian approach of reducing different branches of Christianity to their common core of beliefs in order to avoid sectarian divisions."

  • talesin

    Interesting story, talesin.

    Apog, hmm, sounds a bit dismissive. So, here's more facts about this little 'story'.

    This was an attempt to make new Canadian law, to subvert the court system into allowing their own religious laws to circumvent Family Court.

    To Canadians, that was very toxic, indeed. In fact, the National Film Board chose to make a documentary about it, found here:


    Sharia in Canada is a 2-part documentary series that delves into the debate over Islamic tribunals in Ontario. In December 2004, the Boyd Report recommended that Ontario authorize Islamic tribunals based on the sharia, a system of justice directly inspired by the Koran. In September 2005, however, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty banned all religious arbitration, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

    Over those 10 months, a heated debate played out across the country and revealed the contradictions of multiculturalism. Sharia in Canada seeks to illustrate this debate by drawing upon a cross-section of opinions and, in particular, the views of Muslim women.

    <red colour is mine>

    They were almost successful in having their OWN Sharia tribunals in Ontario. This was a very big deal. Ask the women of Canada! ack

    Oubli, sometimes ...... *shrug* ........ I, too, am a dreamer.


  • talesin

    Oh, I see your latest comment. So, you 'skimmed' the article.

    Then, yes, you were being dismissive. Well, I guess you are a bit hasty with your rush to comment, huh?

    *makes dusting motion with hands*

    I'm done with this topic.

    Good day to you!

    *in best Fez voice*


  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis


    Muslims much more likely to claim extremists misinterpret their scriptures then say they're wrong

    Well color me confused. Are we supposed to kill apostates yes or no?

    If it is not wrong to kill apostates then what is misunderstood?

    Consider yourself colored Bohm, et al. ; )

    The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims think the Quranic text concerning infidels and apostates applied only to a specific time period in history, just like Xians claim that the Old Testament rules applied only before Christ (thereby absolving Jehovah of things like genocide).

    Interesting factoids from my Islamic law notes addressing why there beliefs vary so dramatically among Muslims:

    1. Of 6,200 verses in Q, only 350 relevant for law—Vikor, p. 33

      1. Of the 350, only 180 are qati (absolutely certain—not open for debate)

      2. Rest are zanni (probable/assumed, but disagreement on how they should be understood).

      3. Need to know Arabic to interpret; words change meaning, also implied v. allegories

    E.g. need to perform new ablution before prayer if “touch women.” Shafii=literally, Hanifi=merely an allegory for sexual intercourse.

    A secondary complicating belief is that of abgrogation in which a later verse given later to Muhammad abrogates a verse given earlier. The rules for abrogation are as follows:

    1. Abrogation

      1. Q can abrogate a later Q

      2. An H never abrogates a Q

      3. H can abrogate a H (hadith)

      4. Q never abrogates the S (sunna)

      5. But might be Hadith of uncertain origin (uncertain)

      6. Replacing the rule but not the text

        1. Theory: God revealed an intermediate rule first. Later replaced with a different verse; text of first verse still part of Q.

      7. Replacing both rule and text

        1. When verse says no longer do X, but do Y, the X behavior could not have been only what M told them because that would be sunna, and sunna can’t replace Q. so X must have been based on a verse no longer extant.

        2. Only Q can replace Q

Share this