Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule

[Quantum Quack]

I'm trying to figure just why people have to dehumanize Muslims this way. It's kind of weird, and makes discussions sound as if they're simply there for a bunch of supremacists to commiserate about the fact that people they don't like exist in the world.

like I said "Traditional Islam is incompatible with the UDHR."
Even liberal and contemporary Muslims are terribly vexed about this issue.
Explain how Apostasy as practiced by traditional Islam is compatible with article 18
or do you deny that apostasy is an issue?

"According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for females life imprisonment"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Islam

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here's a list of predominantly Islamic countries regarding Apostasy laws.

• Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, though the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions)[16][17]
• Algeria – While Algeria has no direct laws against apostasy, its laws indirectly cover it. Article 144(2) of Algerian code specifies a prison term to anyone who criticizes or insults the creed or prophets of Islam through writing, drawing, declaration, or any other means; further, Algerian law makes conversion from Islam and proselytizing by non-Muslims an offense punishable with fine and prison term.[14]
• Brunei – per recently enacted Sharia law, Section 112(1) of the Brunei Penal Code states that a Muslim who declares himself non-Muslim commits a crime that is punishable with death, or with up to 30 year imprisonment, depending on the type of evidence. However, if the accused has recanted his conversion, he may be acquitted of the crime of apostasy.[14]
• Comoros[18]
• Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment)[19]
• Iran – not in the Penal Code.[20]
• Iraq[18]
• Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy[21][22][23]
• Kuwait – Apostasy is not illegal in Kuwait,[24][25][26] although apostasy is penalized in family courts for Muslims.[24][25] For Muslims, apostasy in family court can result in loss of child custody, inheritance rights and normally annulment if married to a Muslim.[24][25]
• Malaysia – illegal in five of thirteen states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)[27][28]
• Maldives[18]- illegal for Muslim nationals (loss of citizenship).[29][30] Illegal to proselytise for religions other than Islam.
• Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)[31]
• Morocco – not illegal, but official Islamic council decreed apostates should be put to death.[14] Illegal to proselytise for religions other than Islam (15 years' imprisonment)[32]
• Nigeria[18]
• Oman – illegal (prison) according to Article 209 of Oman penal code, and denies child custody rights under Article 32 of Personal Status Law[14]
• Pakistan – not illegal, but apostates vulnerable to charges of blasphemy, a potential capital offence.[14]
• Qatar – illegal (death penalty)[14]
• Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)[19][23]
• Somalia – illegal (death penalty)[33][34]
• Sudan – illegal (death penalty)[35]
• Syria[18]
• United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging, death penalty)[14][36]
• Yemen – illegal (death penalty)[14][34]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Islam

so lets talk about freedom of belief, thought and religion... shall we?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sorry, but I just spent twenty-five years in a social revolution, and here's the thing: Christ was absent from the Christian argument.

the truth of what you have written is incredibly telling about human nature, power and egoism... yes ...sadly Christ is often missing from Christianity.... ( I am not a Christian either I might add)

 

[Tiassa]

so lets talk about freedom of belief, thought and religion... shall we?

So ... how did Christians dig themselves out of that hole?

Economics and education seem really, really important.

Now, here's the thing: For years, I've posted an article from time to time, from 1982, in which a Lebanese Christian professor explained the rise of what we now describe as "Islamism" or "Islamic extremism":

To the careful observer of Muslim countries it is quite evident that a phenomenon hardly visible in the 1960s and the early half of the 70s appears to be gaining momentum and mass approval. A growing consensus among an increasing number of intellectuals as well as the common people suggests that "the time has come to try Islam".​

Interestingly, there is a possibility that in the next decade we might be saying the same thing about Christianity. That is, it's all a matter of what one means by "the time has come to try". Yvonne Haddad↱ continues:

There is also evidence that an increasing number of national governments feel it is necessary to appeal to Islamic principles to maintain legitimacy. They do this either through the adoption of Islamic apologetics to justify their policies or through the implementation of various Islamic laws. There are numerous examples of such efforts in press reports in the 1970s and 80s. In Pakistan, Zia Ul-Haqq, upon assuming office, aligned himself with Jamaati Islam and attempted to implement Islamic laws. Other nations, including Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Bangladesh, the Sudan and Indonesia, introduced various Islamic laws. Syria found it necessary to explain that Baath ideology is grounded in Islam, while Ja'far al-Numeiry of the Sudan has written a book justifying Islamic government, entitled The Islamic System: Why?​

I might point to the difference, for instance, between traditional and traditionalist. In our social revolution, traditionalists appealed to traditional marriage; in this case, their "tradition" was a glamorous height of a transformational period―their "tradition" was, in the early twentieth century, denounced as a denigration of marriage by that period's traditionalists.

Much of what we are dealing with in terms of "traditional" Islam is more "traditionalist". Don't get me wrong, it's probably more traditionally legitimate than Gardenerian Wicca, but I sincerely doubt you would hold similar applications of "traditional" to cultural propositions you are more sympathetic toward.

I would also point you to Martin Riesebrodt's Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran, which is an incredibly dry and excruciating read―

―because it is also important to note that Haddad is not describing the beginning of a cycle, but, rather one that is already well underway: Rapid social change has occurred; crisis consciousness has or is emerging in many places; there is a revitalization and search for authenticity taking place in the period she examines―and at that point things get confusing. We're looking, at that point, it would seem, at a portion of the mythical regress, in this case, most likely the literalist-rational branch of identical authentication. Again, Haddad:

The growing consensus in Islamic countries for the necessity of articulating an Islamic world view―that can define, supervise, and govern all aspects of life―is part of the on going search for dignity, identity, and purpose. It is an attempt to provide authentic answers to basic human questions such as: Who am I? Where did I come from? And where am I going? These are questions that have challenged several generations of Muslims throughout this century as their countries have been conquered, divided, parcelled out and assigned to various spheres of foreign influence.

‡​

The Muslim Encounter with "the West" in the 19th and 20th centuries was most intimately experienced through European conquests of Muslim lands which facilitated Western political, economic, social and cultural domination of the daily lives of Muslims. By the end of World War I, there were only four Muslim nations―Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen―which had not experienced direct or indirect European rule.​

So, yeah. I don't know, take a bunch of human beings, subject them to circumstances we've never experienced, and expect them to behave just like we want them to in order to convince ourselves that these savages are worthy of us investing the energy in pretending they are worthy. That's pretty much the problem I have with these sorts of examinations of Islam's fitness to exist in the world.

I don't think anybody aiming to judge Islam and Muslims as such would tolerate the same judgment of themselves. Nor would I expect they should. Now, I still don't get why Muslims should be regarded any differently.

Look, in the U.S., at least, part of the way we get over murderously self-righteous religion is a combination of education and economic security encouraging participation and discouraging upheaval and strife. The historical record reminds it is not some random accident by which so many Muslims live in times and places of upheaval and uncertainty. Refusing to account for this in our attempt to understand Islam and Muslims is―oh, right, silly me: I forgot the point has nothing to do with understanding Islam and Muslims.
____________________

Notes:

Haddad, Yvonne K. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15 no. 4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. 10 October 2016. http://bit.ly/1KB97vq

Reisebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Oakland: University of California Press, 1993.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thank you for a well measured post

So ... how did Christians dig themselves out of that hole?


Economics and education seem really, really important.

Yes, very much so re: education, which is often somewhat constrained, censored, oppressed due to various political and religious agendas is the key, I feel, to how the Christianity based societies managed to progress from the "dark ages". Traditional Islam could be argued, to be maintained by ongoing restrictions on education, particularly with regards to the education of women and of any view that may contradict the prevailing ideology.

Keeping in mind that "formal" education was mainly the province of the medieval Christian Church one could suggest that in evolutionary terms Christianity has the potential to "self evolve" due to the fundamental tenants of Christ's teaching.

Voluntary religious participation as distinct to forced participation. leading to secular democracies, open minded debate and the freedom to choose to be a Christian or other "with out prejudice" ultimately lead to a healthier society and nation accordingly. However let us not forget the human "will to power" that seems to rear it's ugly head so very often, a "will to power" that is endemic across all races and religions. Christianity however appears, in the main, to aid the pursuit of collective knowledge (power) rather than seek to inhibit it thus as the community acquires knowledge society can, but not always, achieve a greater freedom from the oppression that ignorance naturally generates.

Sure there are many who would condemn some in the Church for deliberately ignoring mainstream science etc avoiding the logic of Darwin for example and harken-ing to more ancient and traditional ideas of creation etc... However generally most progressive , open societies, maintain a Christian under belly to provide a moral compass regards the basics of equality, freedom and justice, and legislating accordingly.

Fundamental human rights as recommended by the UN in 1948 especially article 18 are the result and outcome of a horrific global war (WW2) and if anything the people that passed during those troubled times have not suffered in vain as the modern world united under the banner of human rights, for the first time in human history.

Reading this pre-amble to the Charter tells you many things about the times

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction"

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

​

Unfortunately certain entrenched belief systems that existed in the world then and still do today means that the global community is not yet united under the basic issues of fundamental, individual human rights.

Modern Christianity is entirely compatible with that charter however, need I suggest that societies are made up of other issues and not just religious ones. Talk to most Christians about the equality of men and women and you will get my point.

So, yeah. I don't know, take a bunch of human beings, subject them to circumstances we've never experienced, and expect them to behave just like we want them to in order to convince ourselves that these savages are worthy of us investing the energy in pretending they are worthy. That's pretty much the problem I have with these sorts of examinations of Islam's fitness to exist in the world.

Sometimes people are not ready for freedom.
Sometimes people are not ready for democracy
Sometimes people need generational time to evolve from desert nomad to citified dwellers selling ice-cream to wealthy tourists.
Sometimes people are not ready for the wealth they are given due to what they happen to find under the ground (oil)
Often people are not ready for power...( empowerment )

Here in Australia we are well versed with what happens when a contemporary culture ( British) arrives on the door step of an ancient ( some say 50,000 years of relatively no change), self sustaining, and sometimes brutal indigenous community. Suffice to say "Culture shock" is a huge issue.

In fact one could suggest that most of today's problems with middle eastern culture stem from culture shock generated by Western greed for growth (oil) and thus power.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, ....

The Hague and the UN should be, by idea, neutral about ideological issues. The Hague should rule about a few very horrible crimes despised by all religions and ideologies, and the UN should find compromises between different states, also ruled by governments with different ideologies.

Unfortunately, the American unipolar world has compromised above. So, above have been heavily distorted toward a support American, Western ideology. The Hague is now known as a prejudiced pro-American court, and the UN is back to Cold War times.

But your proposal would make these things even much worse.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think the following sums up my position.
If a person of any religious or other persuasion comes to my home front door wishing to enter, and refuses to respect my right to think and believe as I choose to as I do his right like wise then he will not be welcome in my household.
The golden rule:
"respect others as you wish to be respected"

 

[billvon]

Yes unfortunately, Christians are stuck with the old testament. Christ himself recommended none of those indictments.

He not only recommended, but demanded that his followers obey the Old Testament (then called the Law.) From Matthew 5:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Name one instance where Christ advocates violence against another and I will stand corrected.

Matthew 10:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."

Now, needless to say, you would have to be VERY selective in your reading of the Bible to think that that meant that, overall, Jesus advocated violence - just as you would have to be VERY selective reading the Koran to decide that God wanted you to kill all the unbelievers.

 

[Quantum Quack]

He not only recommended, but demanded that his followers obey the Old Testament (then called the Law.) From Matthew 5:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."​

To be more specific he recommended the devotion to the ten commandments of the old testament which he considered as law and clarifies his position further into the discourse.

"The Ten Commandments are written with room for varying interpretation, reflecting their role as a summary of fundamental principles.[17][42][43][44] They are not as explicit [42] or detailed as rules [45] or many other biblical laws and commandments, because they provide guiding principles that apply universally, across changing circumstances. They do not specify punishments for their violation." - wiki​

You will note that the 10 commandments do not specify any punishment or method of enforcement. That was left up to man and his ego to work out.

"Thou shall not kill" if obeyed in full would obviously rule out death as a punishment.
Further Christ goes onto discuss how a pacifist approach to adversity is the better path rather than confrontation and retribution.

Mathew Ch5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
and
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,​

Thus setting a new bench mark for tolerance, forgiveness and generosity of spirit.

Matthew 10:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household."

basically he is saying that only he is to be worshiped above all others, thus creating division in those who do not.

Now, needless to say, you would have to be VERY selective in your reading of the Bible to think that that meant that, overall, Jesus advocated violence - just as you would have to be VERY selective reading the Koran to decide that God wanted you to kill all the unbelievers.

Very selective indeed!
It is clear he is advocating non-violence and silent protest in the face of violence.
"love your enemy and pray for his soul"

 

[Tiassa]

Sometimes people are not ready for freedom.
Sometimes people are not ready for democracy
Sometimes people need generational time to evolve from desert nomad to citified dwellers selling ice-cream to wealthy tourists.
Sometimes people are not ready for the wealth they are given due to what they happen to find under the ground (oil)
Often people are not ready for power...( empowerment )

Here in Australia we are well versed with what happens when a contemporary culture ( British) arrives on the door step of an ancient ( some say 50,000 years of relatively no change), self sustaining, and sometimes brutal indigenous community. Suffice to say "Culture shock" is a huge issue.

I just need to work with this for a moment, because it is to a certain degree ... um ... well, it's a bit rattling. I'm not ignoring the next paragraph―

In fact one could suggest that most of today's problems with middle eastern culture stem from culture shock generated by Western greed for growth (oil) and thus power.

―about which I dispute nothing. Rather, I just need to check: We're all aware this is recursive?

I mean, this is part of how we, the West, got into this problem in the first place; some people weren't ready for freedom, democracy, and all that. I could quote pretty much the whole "Colonial Challenge" section of Haddad's article↱, which echoes themes we in the Americas hear from the indigenous peoples we displaced. Different times, different places, similar ways. Mari Boine's "Oppskrift for Herrefolk"↱ sings a familiar lamentation from the north of Europe, for instance. Haddad, for her part, summarizes:

From the beginning the "civilizational" challenge as experienced by Muslims was supported and advanced by military and political power, by various economic interests and by a Christian theology that judged all values and ideals developed outside of Christianity as ungodly, or at best immoral and deficient. Thus the total encounter was seen as a struggle between a higher and lower set of values, between the forces of light and darkness, of purity and corruption, of modernity and antiquated, obsolete systems.​

Nobody can rightly propose that the human endeavor has yet emerged from that framework; I would further suggest the proposition of judging Islam "immoral to the core", as say, the thread title has it, is utterly subservient to the framework and its purpose.
____________________

Notes:

Haddad, Yvonne K. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15 no. 4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. 10 October 2016. http://bit.ly/1KB97vq

 

[billvon]

You have neatly "argued away" the large parts of the Bible the call for violence and killing through various means (i.e. Jesus is mostly talking about peace, it was really a metaphor etc.) I have no problem with that; indeed, most Christians take a very similar approach. A very few do not, and use those parts to defend their heinous actions.

That is very similar to what happens in Islam.

 

[Carcano]

Hans Breivik went to a Martyr's Mass before he went on his massacre.

So I will put you down for demanding a ban on Christianity.

Violence of that nature is already illegal....regardless of its motivation.

To ban a religion text is not possible under our system unless it is ruled by the supreme court as an INCITEMENT to already established crimes. One cannot be locked up simply for having ideas or beliefs.

Thats why I stated that the first amendment regarding freedom of religion should itself be amended.

 

[billvon]

Violence of that nature is already illegal....regardless of its motivation.

Definitely - no matter what the religion is.

To ban a religion is not possible under our system unless religious texts are ruled by the supreme court as an INCITEMENT to already established crimes. One cannot be locked up simply for having ideas or beliefs.

I agree. Looks like you changed your mind, which is great.

 

[Carcano]

Looks like you changed your mind, which is great.

What has changed...I never said I excluded any particular religion in my previous posts.

 

[billvon]

What has changed...I never said I excluded any particular religion in my previous posts.

You initially said that, under certain conditions, the US should outlaw Christianity and Islam. As you correctly point out, one cannot be locked up simply for having a belief in a religion, nor should the government be involved in religious decisions.

 

[Carcano]

You initially said that, under certain conditions, the US should outlaw Christianity and Islam. As you correctly point out, one cannot be locked up simply for having a belief in a religion, nor should the government be involved in religious decisions.

What I referenced was the "free exercise" of Islam...which is what the first amendment speaks to.

 

[billvon]

What I referenced was the "free exercise" of Islam...which is what the first amendment speaks to.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of both Islam and Christianity. (As long as that exercise does not violate any civil laws, of course.)

 

[Carcano]

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of both Islam and Christianity. (As long as that exercise does not violate any civil laws, of course.)

What you have added in brackets is the product of an 1879 supreme court case Reynolds vs The United States....its not part of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I mean, this is part of how we, the West, got into this problem in the first place; some people weren't ready for freedom, democracy, and all that. I could quote pretty much the whole "Colonial Challenge" section of Haddad's article↱, which echoes themes we in the Americas hear from the indigenous peoples we displaced. Different times, different places, similar ways. Mari Boine's "Oppskrift for Herrefolk"↱ sings a familiar lamentation from the north of Europe, for instance. Haddad, for her part, summarizes:

From the beginning the "civilizational" challenge as experienced by Muslims was supported and advanced by military and political power, by various economic interests and by a Christian theology that judged all values and ideals developed outside of Christianity as ungodly, or at best immoral and deficient. Thus the total encounter was seen as a struggle between a higher and lower set of values, between the forces of light and darkness, of purity and corruption, of modernity and antiquated, obsolete systems.
Nobody can rightly propose that the human endeavor has yet emerged from that framework; I would further suggest the proposition of judging Islam "immoral to the core", as say, the thread title has it, is utterly subservient to the framework and its purpose.

I think it is worth keeping in mind that due the significant influence of spiritual teachings the common rant would have been at the time and even now... "they are the devil incarnate", they are evil, thus immoral to the core... (refer to the threads OP)

If you look at the worlds very recent evolution and note that the rate of change has been tremendous over the last 50 years or so you may be able to accept the notion that "perhaps we are expecting way to much of ourselves" when condemning those who still remember milk being delivered to their door step by a horse and cart and toilet pans being emptied by the "dustman". eg. Black and white television only came to be in the 50's - only 70 years or so ago.
Example:
George Bush Jnr was quoted as referencing a holy war against Gog and Magog in Iraq when discussing it with the President of France ( Chirac(?)) that the allies would be performing a "moral and ethical mission" on behalf of God by removing Saddam from office.
This was only a few years ago....and in the often exalted 21st century.

Taking the moral high ground is always a common tactic (psychosis) in the garnering of support for an act that is believed to be "righteous" in the eyes of God (any God will do)

(At least in some mature forms of Islam , this battle between good and evil ( referred to as Jihad) is internal and one of conscience and not external as demonstrated by the radicalized Islamic extremists who fail to understand the distinction due to their cultural and spiritual immaturity.)​

Aside:
To me it is no coincidence that the world's recent increase in warmongering and violence, seems to have been progressively on the rise when knowing that the "living memories" of those who endured the atrocities and hardships of ww1 and ww2 are passing due to old age and associated illness. The societal "brake" or call to reason is not as strong as it was...

It's a bit like saying that the world is living in a surreal fantasy world where they believe the changes they wished for are actually taking place, when in fact the changes are still a fantasy yet to be fully integrated into the global community.

 

[Quantum Quack]

just as you would have to be VERY selective reading the Koran to decide that God wanted you to kill all the unbelievers.

If I am not mistaken, the Quran in itself is not the main problem, it is more to do with the other religious texts such as the "Haddiths"