[QUOTE=CM]Actually yes it is. You see in Islamic society and law (shariah) homosexuality is for the lack of a better word a crime (a moral sin which is to be punished in this world). Just like murder, rape and stealing. It is considered a crime and there is a punishment set out for it. In that regard it is not seen as an issue of individual choice or freedom.[/QUOTE]
But unlike murder, rape and stealing, homosexuality does no harm to others.
And applying religious law on a person who might not agree with this religion, even if only in parts, is not just.
[QUOTE=CM]As for Malaysia, i can easily understand what they are thinking of saying because Pakistan has had a similar problem with the Ahmadies. An Ahmadi is a follower of a man who they claim is a prophet. They have been outlawed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as a heritic sect. They are not muslims even though they say they are.[/QUOTE]
Fascinating you call it a problem. Does freedom of religion not mean also the freedom to choose to abandon or reinterpret a religion (which is punishable in Malaysia). Why should these people be prosecuted under the law (of a state)? This is a religious question, not a question of justice.
[QUOTE=CM]Islam has a strict set of codes of what is acceptible and what is not. Anything that is changed is no longer considered part of Islam. The tenets are straight forward. If you change them they are not part of Islam anymore. I hope that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
Two remarks:
- If the tenets are so straightforward, how come there so much different " versions" (by lack of a better word) of Islam? To start with Shi'a and Sunni and within Sunni Islam there are different schools if I'm not wrong.
- The Catholic Church calls all other Christian denominations heretics (not to their face of course, and not in public), but they care brown stuff. No risk of persecution by the authorities (anymore, there was a time it was different).
[QUOTE=CM]Pakistan and Afghanistan have a very large gay scene and population - male and female due to sexual repression in the society. But that doesn't mean it is acceptable in islam. [/QUOTE]
OK with me if it isn't acceptable in Islam, that is religion. Kick them out, declare them bad muslims, whatever. But let them live their life and do not involve the law.
Clash of Civilizations?
[QUOTE=CM]
Racist (far right) is pretty easy. Austria, Holland and Denmark all have far right parties in power which have gained their votes on anti-muslim sentiments.[/QUOTE]
Can't speak for Austria and Denmark, but in Holland we have a center-right government. The smallest coalitian partner is Left Center, the largest Center and the middle one Center Right and I challenge you to find one piece of legislation or one line in the government program that one could consider far right. (Unless you lean so far to the left that the center is far right for you).
[QUOTE=CM]
The law is a violation of the right to practice religion freely. Muslim women are forbidden to wear the headscarf in schools. Violation of human rights. 2 Women were fired from their jobs in germany because they refused to take off the headscraf. The French and germans have restricted that right and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the EU constitution (the one that has not been ratified).[/QUOTE]
This is a matter of legal interpretation. I don't think it's helpful to get into that right now. I do however find it ironic that you have to refer to western custom (constitution and all) as an argument to support your claim that western society is rascist. I doubt you hold the Islamic world to the same high standards.
[QUOTE=CM]
From a western view point it is not wrong. But then again that would be imposing the culture and societal values of western society on the Islamic one.[/QUOTE]
So if racism and religious persecution were part of western custom it would be alright? You can't have it both ways CM.
Racist (far right) is pretty easy. Austria, Holland and Denmark all have far right parties in power which have gained their votes on anti-muslim sentiments.[/QUOTE]
Can't speak for Austria and Denmark, but in Holland we have a center-right government. The smallest coalitian partner is Left Center, the largest Center and the middle one Center Right and I challenge you to find one piece of legislation or one line in the government program that one could consider far right. (Unless you lean so far to the left that the center is far right for you).
[QUOTE=CM]
The law is a violation of the right to practice religion freely. Muslim women are forbidden to wear the headscarf in schools. Violation of human rights. 2 Women were fired from their jobs in germany because they refused to take off the headscraf. The French and germans have restricted that right and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the EU constitution (the one that has not been ratified).[/QUOTE]
This is a matter of legal interpretation. I don't think it's helpful to get into that right now. I do however find it ironic that you have to refer to western custom (constitution and all) as an argument to support your claim that western society is rascist. I doubt you hold the Islamic world to the same high standards.
[QUOTE=CM]
From a western view point it is not wrong. But then again that would be imposing the culture and societal values of western society on the Islamic one.[/QUOTE]
So if racism and religious persecution were part of western custom it would be alright? You can't have it both ways CM.
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
As you two are new i will state what i have stated in the past as a disclaimer. I am a muslim. A self-defined conservative though many in my society refer to me a as liberal or moderate. My views are not the only way people see Islam and i am in no way the custodian of islamic knowledge or history. My views i feel are the ones that are common among the people i know and hang out with from the Islamic world. Does that account for 100% of the islamic world? No. But a good portion of it? Maybe, but that is not for me to judge. I am no way the end all and be all there is to islam.
Btw i started a thread after Sept 11th on Islam. I am linking it here if you guys have any other questions on the matter. I will be responding to the Reformation and Islam (a thread i started) some time tomorrow, so you two keep an eye on that. I would like your views and anybody else who wants to give them.
Doesn't matter now does it. It is stated as such in shariah law and that is how it is accepted. Secondly shariah law is only applicable to muslims, thus islamic law. If you are non-muslim the laws do not apply. Now i am not sure how islamic law is to apply to non-muslims can you give me an example?Lestat wrote:But unlike murder, rape and stealing, homosexuality does no harm to others.
And applying religious law on a person who might not agree with this religion, even if only in parts, is not just.
I don't all 54 islamic nations do. You can choose to abandon a religion. That is not a problem. Socially unacceptable. Religiously acceptable. However its very simple. Moses for jews. Jesus for christains. Mohammad for Muslims. If you do not believe Mohammad is the seal of the Prophets you are not muslim. Ahmadies do not believe that. They believe their Shiekh is another prophet. Additional part of the history of Ahmadies is that they were created during the rule of the British Raj in Colonial India after the muslims in 1884 staged an uprising. You can google all of this.Fascinating you call it a problem. Does freedom of religion not mean also the freedom to choose to abandon or reinterpret a religion (which is punishable in Malaysia). Why should these people be prosecuted under the law (of a state)? This is a religious question, not a question of justice.
Can we agree on how many schools we are discussing? Because the most dominant schools are Sunni and Shia. Then you have many smaller schools which are not Islamic. Alwaties in Syria are not muslims and for the past 5 years they state the same themselves. Druze have considered themselves a seperate religion since the early 40's and 50's. The Bahai's have been a seperate religion for a couple of centuries now in Iran. Like Sufism or Wahhabism are not schools of religion. They are schools of philiopshy (spelling?)Two remarks:
- If the tenets are so straightforward, how come there so much different " versions" (by lack of a better word) of Islam? To start with Shi'a and Sunni and within Sunni Islam there are different schools if I'm not wrong.
- The Catholic Church calls all other Christian denominations heretics (not to their face of course, and not in public), but they care brown stuff. No risk of persecution by the authorities (anymore, there was a time it was different).
Once again, in Islamic society they are usually killed. It is not acceptable under shariah law. Regardless if it doesn't hurt others or not. Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done.OK with me if it isn't acceptable in Islam, that is religion. Kick them out, declare them bad muslims, whatever. But let them live their life and do not involve the law.
Btw i started a thread after Sept 11th on Islam. I am linking it here if you guys have any other questions on the matter. I will be responding to the Reformation and Islam (a thread i started) some time tomorrow, so you two keep an eye on that. I would like your views and anybody else who wants to give them.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
The issue is not legislation, rather it is the platform on which the parties were elected. They were elected on anti-muslim sentiments.Audace wrote:Can't speak for Austria and Denmark, but in Holland we have a center-right government. The smallest coalitian partner is Left Center, the largest Center and the middle one Center Right and I challenge you to find one piece of legislation or one line in the government program that one could consider far right. (Unless you lean so far to the left that the center is far right for you).
Audace as you are new, please read up on the various threads i have posted in the past on such subjects. It is very obvious where i stand lets not get personal and instead stick current violation of human rights in case of religious freedom the French and Germans are responsible for. There is no matter for legal interpretation. It is a violation of religious freedom. Its like stating in Pakistan the 2% christian minority can not pray in church on sundays. You are limiting aspect of their religious practices.This is a matter of legal interpretation. I don't think it's helpful to get into that right now. I do however find it ironic that you have to refer to western custom (constitution and all) as an argument to support your claim that western society is rascist. I doubt you hold the Islamic world to the same high standards.
There is a big difference between the basic premise between religion and custom. One is the words/will of God. The other is a man made construct. However you do make a good point. I am stumped. Islamic society considers it fair and the law of the land. Western society and custom does not. It considers it wrong. So for muslims it is rights. For western society it is wrong. Same applies to that. If racism and religious persecution were part of western culture, they could be acceptable to one society and not accepted to another. After all no one society or group of people holds a monoploy on the truth or justice.So if racism and religious persecution were part of western custom it would be alright? You can't have it both ways CM.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
@ CM: Short reaction (out for dinner shortly) so no quotes.
Application of Islamic law, :
- IMO the state has no business applying religious law, which happens in many muslim countries. From its inception Islam has been as much a socio-political project as a religious project, contrary to Christianity. Apparently this still works through and the separation of state and religion seems to sit uneasy with a lot of the Muslim world. See also the case of Malaysia and people being prosecuted as heretics (by the state).
- Concerning the application of Islamic law to non-Islamic people: I was actually speaking of Islamic people who might take exception to some of the rules, e.g. an muslim homosexual might take exception with the rule he should be killed. Or he would have to give up his muslim fate and then he won't be killed
.
Schools in Sunni Islam: I'll google and come back.
Well read your disclaimer. But I'm interested in your views for what they are, all the same. If my dogging you with questions becomes bothersome, let me know, and if you take offense with anything I write, well you're a moderator so you what to do... Apart from that, do not take my views as representative of the smallish community of amoral principled agnostic ex-catholics, it probably isn't .
Application of Islamic law, :
- IMO the state has no business applying religious law, which happens in many muslim countries. From its inception Islam has been as much a socio-political project as a religious project, contrary to Christianity. Apparently this still works through and the separation of state and religion seems to sit uneasy with a lot of the Muslim world. See also the case of Malaysia and people being prosecuted as heretics (by the state).
- Concerning the application of Islamic law to non-Islamic people: I was actually speaking of Islamic people who might take exception to some of the rules, e.g. an muslim homosexual might take exception with the rule he should be killed. Or he would have to give up his muslim fate and then he won't be killed
.Schools in Sunni Islam: I'll google and come back.
Well read your disclaimer. But I'm interested in your views for what they are, all the same. If my dogging you with questions becomes bothersome, let me know, and if you take offense with anything I write, well you're a moderator so you what to do... Apart from that, do not take my views as representative of the smallish community of amoral principled agnostic ex-catholics, it probably isn't
.I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
[QUOTE=CM]The issue is not legislation, rather it is the platform on which the parties were elected. They were elected on anti-muslim sentiments.[/QUOTE]
No they weren't. Please get your facts straight. Or just don't mention Dutch internal politics.
[QUOTE=CM]
Audace as you are new, please read up on the various threads i have posted in the past on such subjects. It is very obvious where i stand lets not get personal and instead stick current violation of human rights in case of religious freedom the French and Germans are responsible for. There is no matter for legal interpretation. It is a violation of religious freedom.[/QUOTE]
1.) I'm hardly new, just don't post much.
2.) I did not intend to get personal, but if I came across as being personal I apologize.
3.) Wether legal documents are open for interpretation is not a matter of opinion. They are always open for interpretation.
4.) I don't quite see why I should read up on every post you ever made, I've just been reacting on what you posted in this thread.
[QUOTE=CM]
Once again, in Islamic society they are usually killed. It is not acceptable under shariah law. Regardless if it doesn't hurt others or not. Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done .[/QUOTE]
But while on the topic where do you stand? Because if this is your opinion I would consider this a violation of the forum rules. And lacking of any form of social decency considering where I stand. (Italics/color mine).
[QUOTE=CM]
Its like stating in Pakistan the 2% christian minority can not pray in church on sundays. You are limiting aspect of their religious practices.[/QUOTE]
No of course not. Everybody is still allowed to go to church or mosque and pray. This is a matter of the interaction between religion and public space in a society that has seperation of state and church. Again this is a matter of legal interpretation.
[QUOTE=CM]
There is a big difference between the basic premise between religion and custom. One is the words/will of God. The other is a man made construct. However you do make a good point. I am stumped. Islamic society considers it fair and the law of the land. Western society and custom does not. It considers it wrong. So for muslims it is rights. For western society it is wrong. Same applies to that. If racism and religious persecution were part of western culture, they could be acceptable to one society and not accepted to another. After all no one society or group of people holds a monoploy on the truth or justice.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Audace]
As to your post in general. I don't believe in moral equivelance, I don't think all customs wether religious or not are equal, and I think some customs are actually offensive to human dignity and safety and are repulsive. But you are allowed to disagree.[/QUOTE]
Appearantly you don't agree.
No they weren't. Please get your facts straight. Or just don't mention Dutch internal politics.
[QUOTE=CM]
Audace as you are new, please read up on the various threads i have posted in the past on such subjects. It is very obvious where i stand lets not get personal and instead stick current violation of human rights in case of religious freedom the French and Germans are responsible for. There is no matter for legal interpretation. It is a violation of religious freedom.[/QUOTE]
1.) I'm hardly new, just don't post much.
2.) I did not intend to get personal, but if I came across as being personal I apologize.
3.) Wether legal documents are open for interpretation is not a matter of opinion. They are always open for interpretation.
4.) I don't quite see why I should read up on every post you ever made, I've just been reacting on what you posted in this thread.
[QUOTE=CM]
Once again, in Islamic society they are usually killed. It is not acceptable under shariah law. Regardless if it doesn't hurt others or not. Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done .[/QUOTE]
But while on the topic where do you stand? Because if this is your opinion I would consider this a violation of the forum rules. And lacking of any form of social decency considering where I stand. (Italics/color mine).
[QUOTE=CM]
Its like stating in Pakistan the 2% christian minority can not pray in church on sundays. You are limiting aspect of their religious practices.[/QUOTE]
No of course not. Everybody is still allowed to go to church or mosque and pray. This is a matter of the interaction between religion and public space in a society that has seperation of state and church. Again this is a matter of legal interpretation.
[QUOTE=CM]
There is a big difference between the basic premise between religion and custom. One is the words/will of God. The other is a man made construct. However you do make a good point. I am stumped. Islamic society considers it fair and the law of the land. Western society and custom does not. It considers it wrong. So for muslims it is rights. For western society it is wrong. Same applies to that. If racism and religious persecution were part of western culture, they could be acceptable to one society and not accepted to another. After all no one society or group of people holds a monoploy on the truth or justice.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Audace]
As to your post in general. I don't believe in moral equivelance, I don't think all customs wether religious or not are equal, and I think some customs are actually offensive to human dignity and safety and are repulsive. But you are allowed to disagree.[/QUOTE]
Appearantly you don't agree.
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
Oddly enough that is not how BBC reported it. I guess they were wrong.Audace wrote:No they weren't. Please get your facts straight. Or just don't mention Dutch internal politics.
My comment was respectfully with regard to your accusation that i am not as harsh with Arab or the regimes within muslim countries. I am actually harsher with regard to these regimes then Western systems of govt. The Saudi Royal family needs a good old fashioned hanging. As does Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. I personally know very little of African regimes within "muslim" countries. So i refrain from commenting on them.1.) I'm hardly new, just don't post much.
2.) I did not intend to get personal, but if I came across as being personal I apologize.
3.) Wether legal documents are open for interpretation is not a matter of opinion. They are always open for interpretation.
4.) I don't quite see why I should read up on every post you ever made, I've just been reacting on what you posted in this thread.
The Geneva conventions are not. Its very simple, they have been applied for 50 years now. The parameters and definitions have been defined and iron-clad. Thus it is a violation of human rights. To limit religious freedom is a violation of human rights.
I am quoting from another thread where this came up:But while on the topic where do you stand? Because if this is your opinion I would consider this a violation of the forum rules. And lacking of any form of social decency considering where I stand. (Italics/color mine).
I have never openly stated before this time that i think Homosexuals should be punished. If my religion says it so be it. But i am not gonna go out of way and cause someone i don't even know grief. I let god decide on that matter. I am a sinner as is everybody else and i have no right to pronounce my judgement on one sin when i am guilty of many others which may be consider worse off.
Those are my views on homosexuality.
In Islam that doesn't exist. There is no seperation of Church and State as it is seen that all is by the will and word of Allah and we as humans and his followers can not decide what to pick and choose. Basically Church or rather Mosque and State are one and the same and there is to be no seperation at all.No of course not. Everybody is still allowed to go to church or mosque and pray. This is a matter of the interaction between religion and public space in a society that has seperation of state and church. Again this is a matter of legal interpretation.
What exactly do you mean by moral equivelance exactly? That one society or tradition has the monoploy on what is right in one case and that if other societies and customs do not agree then they are wrong?Appearantly you don't agree.
Edit: Lestat i will respond when you have got all your info
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=CM]Oddly enough that is not how BBC reported it. I guess they were wrong. [/QUOTE]
Either the BBC is or you are. We had two elections in half a year prior to this cabinet. But I'm not gonna write an essay about it.
[QUOTE=CM]
My comment was respectfully with regard to your accusation that i am not as harsh with Arab or the regimes within muslim countries. I am actually harsher with regard to these regimes then Western systems of govt. The Saudi Royal family needs a good old fashioned hanging. As does Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. I personally know very little of African regimes within "muslim" countries. So i refrain from commenting on them.[/QUOTE]
We weren't discussing governments but customs in different societies. So what I would like you to do is hold some of the religious views and customs in the Islamic world to the same high standards.
[QUOTE=CM]
The Geneva conventions are not. Its very simple, they have been applied for 50 years now. The parameters and definitions have been defined and iron-clad. Thus it is a violation of human rights. To limit religious freedom is a violation of human rights. [/QUOTE]
Since it would take the entire UN to actually take some action on violations of the Geneva convention you can imagine how "ironclad" the "parameters and definitions" are. And repeating yourself doesn't make things more true.
[QUOTE=CM]
I am quoting from another thread where this came up:
I have never openly stated before this time that i think Homosexuals should be punished. If my religion says it so be it. But i am not gonna go out of way and cause someone i don't even know grief. I let god decide on that matter. I am a sinner as is everybody else and i have no right to pronounce my judgement on one sin when i am guilty of many others which may be consider worse off.
Those are my views on homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done .[/QUOTE]
I hope you can see that these to statements are conflicted at best. Just because you wrote a disclaimer once doesn't mean you can write all the hate-speech you want after that. And yes I do take this serious. Especially since you are a mod.
[QUOTE=CM]
In Islam that doesn't exist. There is no seperation of Church and State as it is seen that all is by the will and word of Allah and we as humans and his followers can not decide what to pick and choose. Basically Church or rather Mosque and State are one and the same and there is to be no seperation at all.[/QUOTE]
I doubt we'll ever find a common ground on this. But I do wonder why this is actually an argument in discussing western legislation.
[QUOTE=CM]
What exactly do you mean by moral equivelance exactly? That one society or tradition has the monoploy on what is right in one case and that if other societies and customs do not agree then they are wrong?
[/QUOTE]
No it means that just because something is a custom it doesn't mean it is morally justifiable or morally equal to all other customs. Using rape as a form of punishment is not on the same moral level as not eating cow.
Either the BBC is or you are. We had two elections in half a year prior to this cabinet. But I'm not gonna write an essay about it.
[QUOTE=CM]
My comment was respectfully with regard to your accusation that i am not as harsh with Arab or the regimes within muslim countries. I am actually harsher with regard to these regimes then Western systems of govt. The Saudi Royal family needs a good old fashioned hanging. As does Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. I personally know very little of African regimes within "muslim" countries. So i refrain from commenting on them.[/QUOTE]
We weren't discussing governments but customs in different societies. So what I would like you to do is hold some of the religious views and customs in the Islamic world to the same high standards.
[QUOTE=CM]
The Geneva conventions are not. Its very simple, they have been applied for 50 years now. The parameters and definitions have been defined and iron-clad. Thus it is a violation of human rights. To limit religious freedom is a violation of human rights. [/QUOTE]
Since it would take the entire UN to actually take some action on violations of the Geneva convention you can imagine how "ironclad" the "parameters and definitions" are. And repeating yourself doesn't make things more true.
[QUOTE=CM]
I am quoting from another thread where this came up:
I have never openly stated before this time that i think Homosexuals should be punished. If my religion says it so be it. But i am not gonna go out of way and cause someone i don't even know grief. I let god decide on that matter. I am a sinner as is everybody else and i have no right to pronounce my judgement on one sin when i am guilty of many others which may be consider worse off.
Those are my views on homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done .[/QUOTE]
I hope you can see that these to statements are conflicted at best. Just because you wrote a disclaimer once doesn't mean you can write all the hate-speech you want after that. And yes I do take this serious. Especially since you are a mod.
[QUOTE=CM]
In Islam that doesn't exist. There is no seperation of Church and State as it is seen that all is by the will and word of Allah and we as humans and his followers can not decide what to pick and choose. Basically Church or rather Mosque and State are one and the same and there is to be no seperation at all.[/QUOTE]
I doubt we'll ever find a common ground on this. But I do wonder why this is actually an argument in discussing western legislation.
[QUOTE=CM]
What exactly do you mean by moral equivelance exactly? That one society or tradition has the monoploy on what is right in one case and that if other societies and customs do not agree then they are wrong?
[/QUOTE]
No it means that just because something is a custom it doesn't mean it is morally justifiable or morally equal to all other customs. Using rape as a form of punishment is not on the same moral level as not eating cow.
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
Audace you say you are an old member but don't post much and yet you say that you would like me to hold the Islamic world to a higher standard. That of course is a contradiction, for if you have read my views on the matter you would see it.Audace wrote:We weren't discussing governments but customs in different societies. So what I would like you to do is hold some of the religious views and customs in the Islamic world to the same high standards.
Neither does your denial. Additionally the Geneva conventions are self enforcing at the national level. So you do not need the UN to get involved. The local courts of any nation have to apply it across the board. It is a defacto violation of Human Rights.Since it would take the entire UN to actually take some action on violations of the Geneva convention you can imagine how "ironclad" the "parameters and definitions" are. And repeating yourself doesn't make things more true.
Not true. The second quote you paste is a fact. It is not my opinion it is not a personal statement. It is a fact. If i make a statement of truth with regard to Islam that does not mean i agree with it. My views are posted below and they have been posted before. If however you have a problem with it, please do PM Buck and link this entire thread. Its his site and he can decide what is best.I hope you can see that these to statements are conflicted at best. Just because you wrote a disclaimer once doesn't mean you can write all the hate-speech you want after that. And yes I do take this serious. Especially since you are a mod.
Because you brought up the subject of seperation of church and state and that does not exist in Islam.I doubt we'll ever find a common ground on this. But I do wonder why this is actually an argument in discussing western legislation.
Agreed. However that does not mean that just because they are not morally equal that they two are wrong. A custom is to be seen in the light of its background and society.No it means that just because something is a custom it doesn't mean it is morally justifiable or morally equal to all other customs. Using rape as a form of punishment is not on the same moral level as not eating cow.
I would humbly request we get back on track with subjects and not try to bring my character into judgement.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=CM]Audace you say you are an old member but don't post much and yet you say that you would like me to hold the Islamic world to a higher standard. That of course is a contradiction, for if you have read my views on the matter you would see it.[/QUOTE]
Well appearantly I don't and again I can't quite see why ancienity is an issue here. And like I said, I'm just reacting on what you wrote in this thread. If this all comes down to what you wrote in the past you might as well not have started the thread.
[QUOTE=CM]
Neither does your denial. Additionally the Geneva conventions are self enforcing at the national level. So you do not need the UN to get involved. The local courts of any nation have to apply it across the board. It is a defacto violation of Human Rights.[/QUOTE]
I was assuming you meant the UN charter. And still am. The Geneva convention is for war issues only. I hope you aren't trying to state that there is a civil war going on in France. Anyways, you do need to get the UN involved since, I assume, you meant the UN charter. If not please state which charter you did mean.
[QUOTE=CM]
Not true. The second quote you paste is a fact. It is not my opinion it is not a personal statement. It is a fact. If i make a statement of truth with regard to Islam that does not mean i agree with it. My views are posted below and they have been posted before. If however you have a problem with it, please do PM Buck and link this entire thread. Its his site and he can decide what is best.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done. [/QUOTE]
This is not fact. It's personal opinion. "So that is what is to be done". You can spin this as much as you want. It doesn't change what you wrote. And I'll take your suggestion into consideration.
[QUOTE=CM]
Because you brought up the subject of seperation of church and state and that does not exist in Islam.[/QUOTE]
Erm...we were discussing French legislation here. In France seperation of state and church does exist. They invented it. Just because it's not Islamic custom doesn't make it bad.
[QUOTE=CM]
Agreed. However that does not mean that just because they are not morally equal that they two are wrong. A custom is to be seen in the light of its background and society.[/QUOTE]
If you don't view rape as an immoral punishment then we might as well stop this discussion.
[QUOTE=CM]
I would humbly request we get back on track with subjects and not try to bring my character into judgement.[/QUOTE]
Not your character, just your opinions.
Well appearantly I don't and again I can't quite see why ancienity is an issue here. And like I said, I'm just reacting on what you wrote in this thread. If this all comes down to what you wrote in the past you might as well not have started the thread.
[QUOTE=CM]
Neither does your denial. Additionally the Geneva conventions are self enforcing at the national level. So you do not need the UN to get involved. The local courts of any nation have to apply it across the board. It is a defacto violation of Human Rights.[/QUOTE]
I was assuming you meant the UN charter. And still am. The Geneva convention is for war issues only. I hope you aren't trying to state that there is a civil war going on in France. Anyways, you do need to get the UN involved since, I assume, you meant the UN charter. If not please state which charter you did mean.
[QUOTE=CM]
Not true. The second quote you paste is a fact. It is not my opinion it is not a personal statement. It is a fact. If i make a statement of truth with regard to Islam that does not mean i agree with it. My views are posted below and they have been posted before. If however you have a problem with it, please do PM Buck and link this entire thread. Its his site and he can decide what is best.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
Shariah law states it should be punished. A capital offense i believe. So that is what is to be done. [/QUOTE]
This is not fact. It's personal opinion. "So that is what is to be done". You can spin this as much as you want. It doesn't change what you wrote. And I'll take your suggestion into consideration.
[QUOTE=CM]
Because you brought up the subject of seperation of church and state and that does not exist in Islam.[/QUOTE]
Erm...we were discussing French legislation here. In France seperation of state and church does exist. They invented it. Just because it's not Islamic custom doesn't make it bad.
[QUOTE=CM]
Agreed. However that does not mean that just because they are not morally equal that they two are wrong. A custom is to be seen in the light of its background and society.[/QUOTE]
If you don't view rape as an immoral punishment then we might as well stop this discussion.
[QUOTE=CM]
I would humbly request we get back on track with subjects and not try to bring my character into judgement.[/QUOTE]
Not your character, just your opinions.
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
Audace this thread was originally about the actions of Belgium. Not the regimes in the Islamic world. The change of track was started when you asked me to comment as harshly on Islamic countries. Honestly the regimes of the Islamic world are not the subject of the thread and have not been until you brought up the matter. I am more than willing to discuss it in another thread. If you have any questions or comments please post them in a factual manner in another thread. I will try to answer any of your queries as best as i can.Audace wrote:Well appearantly I don't and again I can't quite see why ancienity is an issue here. And like I said, I'm just reacting on what you wrote in this thread. If this all comes down to what you wrote in the past you might as well not have started the thread.
The UN has several Geneva conventions, war, human rights etc. The one on Prisioners of War is just one of many. I have stated 3 times: The Geneva Convention. I meant the Declaration on Human Rights as that is a Geneva convention. The UN Charter is not a convention nor has it ever been referred to as a Geneva covention.I was assuming you meant the UN charter. And still am. The Geneva convention is for war issues only. I hope you aren't trying to state that there is a civil war going on in France. Anyways, you do need to get the UN involved since, I assume, you meant the UN charter. If not please state which charter you did mean.
The link is here for a majority of the Human Right conventions and covenants of the UN - http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#Geneva. The majority of those apply to the case in France.
That may be your personal opinion. But under shariah law that is what has to be done. The law is very clear in this regard. It is a statement of fact.This is not fact. It's personal opinion. "So that is what is to be done". You can spin this as much as you want. It doesn't change what you wrote. And I'll take your suggestion into consideration.
Ok we seem to be jumping around as i am losing track of what we are discussing. The French do have seperation of church and state. However that does not mean you can limit the religious freedoms of a miniority. Outlawing the wearing of the headscarf is a violation of human rights.Erm...we were discussing French legislation here. In France seperation of state and church does exist. They invented it. Just because it's not Islamic custom doesn't make it bad.
Now where did i say that? Please don't make baseless comments on assumptions and not facts.If you don't view rape as an immoral punishment then we might as well stop this discussion.
Just to add what are the subjects we are covering?
1. French Laws and Human Rights
2. Homosexuality in Islam
Anything else?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=CM]Audace this thread was originally about the actions of Belgium. Not the regimes in the Islamic world. The change of track was started when you asked me to comment as harshly on Islamic countries. Honestly the regimes of the Islamic world are not the subject of the thread and have not been until you brought up the matter. I am more than willing to discuss it in another thread. If you have any questions or comments please post them in a factual manner in another thread. I will try to answer any of your queries as best as i can.[/QUOTE]
The change of track started when you started to point out "examples" of racism in western countries. And i never made this about countries. I, contrary to you, stuck to (religious) custom. If you do not wish to discuss Islamic custom in this thread anymore just say so, but don't make this about me changing subjects.
[QUOTE=CM]
The UN has several Geneva conventions, war, human rights etc. The one on Prisioners of War is just one of many. I have stated 3 times: The Geneva Convention. I meant the Declaration on Human Rights as that is a Geneva convention. The UN Charter is not a convention nor has it ever been referred to as a Geneva covention.
The link is here for a majority of the Human Right conventions and covenants of the UN - http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#Geneva. The majority of those apply to the case in France.[/QUOTE]
So it is a UN issue. Glad you agree. And if you'd actually read your own link you'd know what is meant with the Geneva convention. Or look it up in a dictionary. Anyways happy we meant the same thing. You'll find the stipulations you are and have been referring to under the UNCHR. Can we now also agree on the fact that the definitions and parameters are not ironclad?
[QUOTE=CM]
That may be your personal opinion. But under shariah law that is what has to be done. The law is very clear in this regard. It is a statement of fact.[/QUOTE]
You've stated this as personal opinion/conviction, not as just a neutral observation.
[QUOTE=CM]
Ok we seem to be jumping around as i am losing track of what we are discussing. The French do have seperation of church and state. However that does not mean you can limit the religious freedoms of a miniority. Outlawing the wearing of the headscarf is a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE]
Again, they did not outlaw headscarfs. And you are yet to make an argument why this is a violation of Human Rights instead of just stating that it is.
[QUOTE=CM]
Now where did i say that? Please don't make baseless comments on assumptions and not facts.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
However that does not mean that just because they are not morally equal that they two are wrong.[/QUOTE]
If this is just a general statement, instead of referring to my specific example, we can finally agree on something. But in my example one is clearly morally wrong. And I don't mean not eating cow.
Just to add what are the subjects we are covering?
[QUOTE=CM]
1. French Laws and Human Rights
2. Homosexuality in Islam
Anything else?[/QUOTE]
Since I didn't start either I'd be quite happy to drop them both. They do of course have some relevance to the subject "clash of cultures" which given the title of this thread is still the subject?
The change of track started when you started to point out "examples" of racism in western countries. And i never made this about countries. I, contrary to you, stuck to (religious) custom. If you do not wish to discuss Islamic custom in this thread anymore just say so, but don't make this about me changing subjects.
[QUOTE=CM]
The UN has several Geneva conventions, war, human rights etc. The one on Prisioners of War is just one of many. I have stated 3 times: The Geneva Convention. I meant the Declaration on Human Rights as that is a Geneva convention. The UN Charter is not a convention nor has it ever been referred to as a Geneva covention.
The link is here for a majority of the Human Right conventions and covenants of the UN - http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#Geneva. The majority of those apply to the case in France.[/QUOTE]
So it is a UN issue. Glad you agree. And if you'd actually read your own link you'd know what is meant with the Geneva convention. Or look it up in a dictionary. Anyways happy we meant the same thing. You'll find the stipulations you are and have been referring to under the UNCHR. Can we now also agree on the fact that the definitions and parameters are not ironclad?
[QUOTE=CM]
That may be your personal opinion. But under shariah law that is what has to be done. The law is very clear in this regard. It is a statement of fact.[/QUOTE]
You've stated this as personal opinion/conviction, not as just a neutral observation.
[QUOTE=CM]
Ok we seem to be jumping around as i am losing track of what we are discussing. The French do have seperation of church and state. However that does not mean you can limit the religious freedoms of a miniority. Outlawing the wearing of the headscarf is a violation of human rights.[/QUOTE]
Again, they did not outlaw headscarfs. And you are yet to make an argument why this is a violation of Human Rights instead of just stating that it is.
[QUOTE=CM]
Now where did i say that? Please don't make baseless comments on assumptions and not facts.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CM]
However that does not mean that just because they are not morally equal that they two are wrong.[/QUOTE]
If this is just a general statement, instead of referring to my specific example, we can finally agree on something. But in my example one is clearly morally wrong. And I don't mean not eating cow.
Just to add what are the subjects we are covering?
[QUOTE=CM]
1. French Laws and Human Rights
2. Homosexuality in Islam
Anything else?[/QUOTE]
Since I didn't start either I'd be quite happy to drop them both. They do of course have some relevance to the subject "clash of cultures" which given the title of this thread is still the subject?
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
Incorrect. Like i said before you changed track when you called on me directly:Audace wrote:The change of track started when you started to point out "examples" of racism in western countries. And i never made this about countries. I, contrary to you, stuck to (religious) custom. If you do not wish to discuss Islamic custom in this thread anymore just say so, but don't make this about me changing subjects.
I have no problem discussing them and will like to continue. However i just wanted to clarify what we were going to discuss as i felt we were bouncing all over the place.post 64]I doubt you hold the Islamic world to the same high standards.[/quote] and... [quote=post 68] So what I would like you to do is hold some of the religious views and customs in the Islamic world to the same high standards.[/quote] In both cases you called on me specifically to comment on matters which are not subjects of this discussion and at the same time you made it personal. [quote]So it is a UN issue. Glad you agree. And if you'd actually read your own link you'd know what is meant with the Geneva convention. Or look it up in a dictionary. Anyways happy we meant the same thing.[/quote] Actually no. The UN Charter governs the function of the UN and its various bodies. The Geneva Conventions are by no means related to the governing of the UN. They are international legally binding documents that countries accede to. Honestly if you join the UN you do not have to ratify the Geneva Conventions. They are seperate. The Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter are not one and the same and never will be. The Geneva Conventions were mainly signed and came into force post 1948. The Charter came into force in 1945. [quote]You'll find the stipulations you are and have been referring to under the UNCHR. Can we now also agree on the fact that the definitions and parameters are not ironclad?[/quote] Again incorrect. The CHR is a inter-governmental body which deliberates on the Human rights situations in the World. It is not a legislative or legal body. Secondly the Geneva conventions are independent of the CHR. That is why the US is wants a HRC (Human Rights Council) in the UN like the SC (Security Council). But lets forget the details. Would you like to discuss the Declaration of Human Rights and how france violates the principle of Freedom of Religion? [quote]You've stated this as personal opinion/conviction wrote:
That Audace is how you read it and i can not be held responsible how you read very simple and direct sentences. I have stated 3 times in a row that this is what is to happen under Shariah law. If you wish to read into that my own personal opinion when i have said it is not, that is honestly not my problem.
Re-read the law.Again, they did not outlaw headscarfs. And you are yet to make an argument why this is a violation of Human Rights instead of just stating that it is.
HRW article - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02 ... ce7666.htm
BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3309885.stm
Want more links or would you like to discuss what rules of international relations it violates?
General statement.If this is just a general statement, instead of referring to my specific example, we can finally agree on something. But in my example one is clearly morally wrong. And I don't mean not eating cow.
Since I didn't start either I'd be quite happy to drop them both. They do of course have some relevance to the subject "clash of cultures" which given the title of this thread is still the subject?
1. Headscarf ban
2. Homosexuality in Islam.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
Sorry to bump up (or whatever the internaut term is) this thread but much info in wikipedia (nice informative site), specifically this thread concerning Homosexuality & Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_vi ... osexuality
Haven't surfed through all info yet but Read In Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_vi ... osexuality
Haven't surfed through all info yet but Read In Peace.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
-
Fiona
@ Lestat. Thanks for that link - it helped me to understand this thread
@ CM. At the risk of adding to a quite heated debate I would like to ask a question. You say that the penalty for homosexuality is part of the law and that is what is to be done. Do you feel the same way about the forced conversions from islam and judaism which were common in Christian countries in the past? That was also the law of the land at the time, and church and state were not completely separated then.
@ CM. At the risk of adding to a quite heated debate I would like to ask a question. You say that the penalty for homosexuality is part of the law and that is what is to be done. Do you feel the same way about the forced conversions from islam and judaism which were common in Christian countries in the past? That was also the law of the land at the time, and church and state were not completely separated then.
[QUOTE=CM]Incorrect. Like i said before you changed track when you called on me directly:
and...
In both cases you called on me specifically to comment on matters which are not subjects of this discussion and at the same time you made it personal.[/QUOTE]
I'll stop debating this and...
[QUOTE=CM]That Audace is how you read it and i can not be held responsible how you read very simple and direct sentences. I have stated 3 times in a row that this is what is to happen under Shariah law. If you wish to read into that my own personal opinion when i have said it is not, that is honestly not my problem.[/QUOTE]
This. We could repeat ourselves on this until armaggedon comes (only a slight pun intended) and still don't see eye to eye on it.
[QUOTE=CM]
Actually no. The UN Charter governs the function of the UN and its various bodies. The Geneva Conventions are by no means related to the governing of the UN. They are international legally binding documents that countries accede to. Honestly if you join the UN you do not have to ratify the Geneva Conventions. They are seperate. The Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter are not one and the same and never will be. The Geneva Conventions were mainly signed and came into force post 1948. The Charter came into force in 1945.[/QUOTE]
You are simply factually incorrect on the Geneva convention part. Historically and with respect to content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention
[QUOTE=CM]
Again incorrect. The CHR is a inter-governmental body which deliberates on the Human rights situations in the World. It is not a legislative or legal body. Secondly the Geneva conventions are independent of the CHR. That is why the US is wants a HRC (Human Rights Council) in the UN like the SC (Security Council). But lets forget the details.[/QUOTE]
With the UNCHR I meant the charter for Human rights not the commission governing it, which appearantly you were not referring to, but since it was the only on topic document I could think of that was signed roughly 50 years ago(your time-frame) I thought that was what you meant. You are still reffering to articles in the Human Rights Charter though.
Which leaves me with;
[QUOTE=CM]
Would you like to discuss the Declaration of Human Rights and how france violates the principle of Freedom of Religion?
Re-read the law.
HRW article - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02 ... ce7666.htm
BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3309885.stm
Want more links or would you like to discuss what rules of international relations it violates?[/QUOTE]
At least we seem to agree that it is in fact a matter of legal interpretation. You, however, have linked to two opinions that support yours. Since you seem to wish to discuss the legal part of the French law concerning religious symbols in public schools I will post on that in a later post.
[QUOTE=CM]
I have no problem discussing them and will like to continue. However i just wanted to clarify what we were going to discuss as i felt we were bouncing all over the place.
1. Headscarf ban
2. Homosexuality in Islam.[/QUOTE]
I do, surprisingly enough, not agree with the wording of your first point but that as an aside.
I do not necissarily have to discuss the latter as a stand alone subject though it might come up with regards to the general subject of the thread which, correct me if I'm wrong, is Clash of Civilizations/Different Customs.
I'll try to post a bit more tomorrow, but gotta get up in 6 hours so forgive me my early parting for today.
and...
In both cases you called on me specifically to comment on matters which are not subjects of this discussion and at the same time you made it personal.[/QUOTE]
I'll stop debating this and...
[QUOTE=CM]That Audace is how you read it and i can not be held responsible how you read very simple and direct sentences. I have stated 3 times in a row that this is what is to happen under Shariah law. If you wish to read into that my own personal opinion when i have said it is not, that is honestly not my problem.[/QUOTE]
This. We could repeat ourselves on this until armaggedon comes (only a slight pun intended) and still don't see eye to eye on it.
[QUOTE=CM]
Actually no. The UN Charter governs the function of the UN and its various bodies. The Geneva Conventions are by no means related to the governing of the UN. They are international legally binding documents that countries accede to. Honestly if you join the UN you do not have to ratify the Geneva Conventions. They are seperate. The Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter are not one and the same and never will be. The Geneva Conventions were mainly signed and came into force post 1948. The Charter came into force in 1945.[/QUOTE]
You are simply factually incorrect on the Geneva convention part. Historically and with respect to content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention
[QUOTE=CM]
Again incorrect. The CHR is a inter-governmental body which deliberates on the Human rights situations in the World. It is not a legislative or legal body. Secondly the Geneva conventions are independent of the CHR. That is why the US is wants a HRC (Human Rights Council) in the UN like the SC (Security Council). But lets forget the details.[/QUOTE]
With the UNCHR I meant the charter for Human rights not the commission governing it, which appearantly you were not referring to, but since it was the only on topic document I could think of that was signed roughly 50 years ago(your time-frame) I thought that was what you meant. You are still reffering to articles in the Human Rights Charter though.
Which leaves me with;
[QUOTE=CM]
Would you like to discuss the Declaration of Human Rights and how france violates the principle of Freedom of Religion?
Re-read the law.
HRW article - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02 ... ce7666.htm
BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3309885.stm
Want more links or would you like to discuss what rules of international relations it violates?[/QUOTE]
At least we seem to agree that it is in fact a matter of legal interpretation. You, however, have linked to two opinions that support yours. Since you seem to wish to discuss the legal part of the French law concerning religious symbols in public schools I will post on that in a later post.
[QUOTE=CM]
I have no problem discussing them and will like to continue. However i just wanted to clarify what we were going to discuss as i felt we were bouncing all over the place.
1. Headscarf ban
2. Homosexuality in Islam.[/QUOTE]
I do, surprisingly enough, not agree with the wording of your first point but that as an aside.
I do not necissarily have to discuss the latter as a stand alone subject though it might come up with regards to the general subject of the thread which, correct me if I'm wrong, is Clash of Civilizations/Different Customs.
I'll try to post a bit more tomorrow, but gotta get up in 6 hours so forgive me my early parting for today.
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"