GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=CM]Factually incorrect but i am happy that someone else reads Foreign Affairs. The problem with the definition of "Salafism" and this discussion is that it is illogical, incorrect and absurd. "Salafism" is supposedly according to Foreign Affairs another form of Wahabbism. Problem here is that Shia's can not be wahabbis and by that they can't be part of the Salafist school of thought. We are dealing with one sub-sect of islam and secondly a school of thought conjured up purely in the minds of western "intellectuals".

Something people forget is that 99% of the words Sunni populations of Islam are wahabbis and thus a salafist. I am myself a wahabbi or a salafist. And sunnis are easily 60% of the muslim population. So you see you are dealing with nearly 650 million people which share the same faction or denomination as OBL, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the GIA.

I posted a thread along time ago Cuch on assimilution and integration and discussed this very concepts. Muslims do not move for social or cultural reasons. They move for economic reasons and thus they do not need to assimilate. They need to integrate. That means they should learn the language and mingle with the host citizens. That does not mean you give up eating halal meat or going to prayers. It does not mean you start drinking and adopt every single cultural aspect of the host society.

[/QUOTE]


Which is exactly why I refrained from naming factions and made comments like these.

"As for my "current indecisiveness": what do you want me to do? Generalize? This is were your beta background is failing you. There are dozens of different factions within Islam. There are dozens of different Islamic countires. There are dozens of different factions in these countries. There are different religious streams within these factions. There are different ways in which religious people within these streams and factions act on and with their religion (passive - active, moderate-conservative, public-private, aggresive-reflective etc. etc.). "

My point being that within Salafism some people think they are a bit more "rightly guided" then others. If I keep my posts vague I am indecisive, If I do not, I am factually incorrect. Makes it impossible to say anything about this subject.

[QUOTE=Lestat]As a Belgian who has travelled and worked in countries & regions with significant muslim populations, I have a few comments to make.

Regularly in this thread the words diplomat, diplomacy and ambassador crop up. None of the parties involved in the incidents are part of the diplomatic corps. Herman De Croo is president of Chamber of Representatives, Anne-Marie Lizin is president of the Senate, the visiting Iranians were delegates of the Iranian Parliament. So stop the talks about diplomats not doing their jobs: these were politicians doing what they do best: politicking.

Apart from that, concerning the lunch: if a religion (or an interpretation thereof) imposes limits on what people of other religions or non-religious convictions can do or not do, especially in their own country, I think that religion has problems. One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom starts.
And concerning the handshake: I must say I find Ms Lizin at fault, in this case. Here it is she who imposes her value and belief system on the visitors.

Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...[/QUOTE]

If it were an isolated incident I'd might agree. But like I said the same happened in Holland a week earlier. Wether they were politicians or ambassadors is a non-issue. When one PM or MP visits another PM or MP the diplomates always prepare and smooth the way. Or do you reckon they just jump on a plane and ring the door bell once they arrive?

[QUOTE=Audace]If it were an isolated incident I'd might agree. But like I said the same happened in Holland a week earlier. Wether they were politicians or ambassadors is a non-issue. When one PM or MP visits another PM or MP the diplomates always prepare and smooth the way. Or do you reckon they just jump on a plane and ring the door bell once they arrive?[/QUOTE]

Oh, probably the diplomats did prepare the ground and such, but then politics kicked in... And frankly I think that the diplomats where cringing when this happened. They will have to work overtime to patch up things. What I want to say is that this is not principally diplomatic blundering, but mainly well thought-out use or abuse of cultural conflict for interior political reasons.

Anyway I remember, the Belgians still had a bone to pick with the Iranians: some time ago Iran was not all that cooperative in repatriating two Belgian children abducted by their Iranian father after custody was given to their Belgian mother (Belgian courts had jurisdiction BTW).

First of all from the original link

Strict Islamic teaching instructs Muslims to avoid looking at alcohol, as well as to avoid drinking it.

What a load of bs. The person who wrote this article needs a nice big kick. There is absolutely nothing in Islam that says we can't even look at alcohol. How ridiculous.

But true that Islam forbids drinking alcohol.

As for the hand shake. I will try explaining that situation. In Islam it is stated that it is best to avoid physical contact with the opposite gender, unless that other person is closely related to us. In other words, we are allowed to shake hands, but it would be "best" to avoid physical contact as much as possible.

Now Islam doesn't ask the impossible. In no place is it "haram" (against Islam and stirictly forbidden) to shake hands.

[QUOTE=Audace]
If the Iranians want to cancel then that's completely up to them. But religion can not be the highest standard for social conduct. Conservative believers just arent fit diplomates. It is western culture to shake hands and it is part of European culture to have a drink during dinner/lunch. If it is aginst your believes to wear shoes shoes to a restaurant does that mean nobody in the restaurant should be allowed to wear shoes? Get real. This sais more about the intolerance and rudeness of the Iranians then about the intolerance and rudeness of the western diplomats.

And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions. To each his own, and a clash this may be but not one of civilizations.[/QUOTE]

From this post of yours, I get the impression that you do not know much about such religions. And you do state you did not use the term Islam, but we are clearly talking about Islam in this thread, and by your comment, I can only say you still did mean Islam.

We , Muslim women are not oppressed, its very simple actually. People for the most part misunderstand the role and lives that Muslim women live.

Yes we avoid physical contact with strangers, men that is. Yes we cover up and modesty is an important issue in our lives. But we are able to work and interact and such with men . Covering up or not shaking hands has not stopped me or all the other Muslim women from living normal lives. Shocking isnt it?

Covering up properly is a sign or symbol what have you, of respect for our bodies. We feel that not any tom **** or harry has the right to ogle our bodies when they please.

As for the hand shake, it is better to avoid, but if it cant be , we are free to shake hands.

I have met a few politicians and such, and honesty about 80% of them asked politely if I would mind a hand shake. I said I did not.

Back to what this thread was originally about, its very simple. We have to respect each other. True the Muslims "could" have shaken hands. But its also true that the other party "could" have served the dinner without alcohol.

[QUOTE=CM]Additionally i was alluding to the thesis by Samuel Huntington and his notion that Islamic society and Western Society will always be at odds.[/quote]
I figured you were talking about Huntington. the "Clash of Civilizations" theory has made him a living legend in IR circles, but my impression is that he is regarded actually as a sensationalist more than a true scholar. "Clash of Civilizations" was criticized for being heavy on bombast and relatively light on social science work when it was originally published, but 9/11 has given it new life. Huntington's recent work is "Who Are We", a book about (as near as I can tell) why anyone who isn't White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant/Cathloic isn't a true American. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that is actually the impression I got from reading book reviews.

[QUOTE=CM]Just a point to note i do truly love it that western "intellectuals" define the conflict between Islam (religion) and western ideals (freedoms). Its such an uneven and biased comparision its amazing. These same people of course forget that western society is responsible for racism, slavery and nazism.[/QUOTE]
Tastefully done Fas, I agree. This comparison is made in the media and by politicians, I think to create an "us-against-them" frenzy.

(However, as I mentioned before, Islam never had a renaissance/reform period where ideals were seperated from religion, so maybe there is a comparison to be made between middle eastern religion and western ideals...)

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82](However, as I mentioned before, Islam never had a renaissance/reform period where ideals were seperated from religion, so maybe there is a comparison to be made between middle eastern religion and western ideals...)[/QUOTE]
An important historical difference between Christianity and Islam is that the latter was from the beginning a "state" religion: Mohamed was a political leader as well as a religious leader and this was even more the case with his successors the Caliphs. Islam was spread by conquest, certainly in its beginning, and thus often started of as the religion of the ruling classes in those areas where it was newly established (while gradually permeating all layers of the population). While for the first centuries of its existence, Christianity was a minority sect, often persecuted, internally divided on matters of belief and certainly not a religion of the ruling class (until the adoption by Constantin in the early 4th century AD, and by Clovis in the late 5th century AD). It's initial spread had no relation with conquests of worldly rulers. And in the Gospel one can find the phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (sorry don't know exact phrasing but you catch my drift), which can be construed as support for the separation of church and state.

[QUOTE=CM]Just a point to note i do truly love it that western "intellectuals" define the conflict between Islam (religion) and western ideals (freedoms). Its such an uneven and biased comparision its amazing. These same people of course forget that western society is responsible for racism, slavery and nazism. (this is not directed anybody on SYM. It is just a comment on the way these others think).[/QUOTE]


Do you mean 'responsible' in the sense that western society has engaged in racism, slavery and nazism? Or in the sense that western society is the cause of the above?

[QUOTE=Beowulf] Do you mean 'responsible' in the sense that western society has engaged in racism, slavery and nazism? Or in the sense that western society is the cause of the above?[/QUOTE]

You're right it is not quite clear. Racism and slavery are certainly not the prerogative of Western society.

I think he meant "responsible" in the broad sense. Maybe the West did not originally create the idea of slavery and racism, but various factions in the west have embraced these ideas as "values" historically, with great gusto in fact. To argue based upon Western "values" doesn't make for a fair argument, because the West only chooses the values it likes while railing the middle east/Islam for values it doesn't like- similar to a straw man argument.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I think he meant "responsible" in the broad sense. Maybe the West did not originally create the idea of slavery and racism, but various factions in the west have embraced these ideas as "values" historically, with great gusto in fact. To argue based upon Western "values" doesn't make for a fair argument, because the West only chooses the values it likes while railing the middle east/Islam for values it doesn't like- similar to a straw man argument.[/QUOTE]

Now what are these Western values and Middle Eastern/Islamic values exactly? Is the freedom and democracy a million Lebanese clamoured for in the streets of Beyrut a Western or Middle Eastern value? Is the freedom from oppression that the Palistinian people are aspiring to in anyway different than the freedom from oppression that many Eastern & Central European countries recently gained?

[QUOTE=Lestat]Now what are these Western values and Middle Eastern/Islamic values exactly? Is the freedom and democracy a million Lebanese clamoured for in the streets of Beyrut a Western or Middle Eastern value? Is the freedom from oppression that the Palistinian people are aspiring to in anyway different than the freedom from oppression that many Eastern & Central European countries recently gained?[/QUOTE]
I believe that is the point that CM was getting at- the differentiation of "Western" and "Islamic" values is artificial, inaccurate, and generally used as part of invalid rhetoric.

Cuch thanks for speaking on my behalf. You actually have said most of what i wanted to say and some stuff i did not mean

The reason i posted that above sentence is that in todays political environment muslims are demonized as the worst thing since Brittney spears and that all ills of society can be found in Islam and Islamic society. What my comment was targetting is that racism is still very much part of western society. I am not saying it is by anyway dominant as it was during the colonial era or before that when slavery was rampant. I am merely stating that each society has its own ills and failures, islamic society has many, the first being the Saudi Royal Family, but it is by no means the demons that it is protrayed to be in the media.

I used the examples of slavery, racism and nazism as they are the most dominant examples of social ills which portions of western society had a hand in. Today portions of islamic society are responsible for targetting innocent people and killing women and children and causing just general mayhem and destruction.

Additionally the notion of islamic values is evident in islamic society. No offense to Audace in anyway but in Islamic society homosexuality is seen as wrong. That is by defintion an islamic value. Does it discriminate? Yes it does. Is it wrong? Now that is the crux of the matter. To a westerner it is wrong. To your average muslim (who i define as conservative) it isn't.

That is where your culture clash exists or problems arise. The Islamic society definition of human values or humanitarian rights are distinctly different from that of western humanitarian values or rights. That is where the differences exist and occur. A majority of the values held in Islam (the religion and not society) are extremely similar to western values. The actions or values held in Islamic society are not. I make that distinction as alot that is supposedly done in the name of Islam is actually a violation of our code of conducts and code of warfare.

In Islamic laws of war you may not kill women or children and damage economic assets. Now these terrorists ignore this and call it jihad . In Islam if you rape a woman you are to be killed. In Pakistan people use rape as a socially and according them religiously acceptable method of punishment for transgressions. These men in Islamic society should be strung up and lashed till they die. But that is Islamic society for you.

Also the Burqa or the black garment women wear is not required religiously. It is not a must. It is part of arab society and not islamic. WR and none of the women in my family wear the Burqa. Malaysia, Indonesia, India and Pakistan this is not common at all. It is only common or a requirement of "islamic law" in arab countries and even then only the gulf nations. Turkey and Egypt have out lawed the Burqa. It is not common at all in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan.

Are there differences between Western values and Islamic society values? Yes. Islamic society on the most part is at fault. Is there a difference between Western Values and the values within the religion Islam? Few and far between.

Hope that helps in clarifying some stuff. Cuch thanks man for the explanation.

[QUOTE=winter rose]
Now Islam doesn't ask the impossible. In no place is it "haram" (against Islam and stirictly forbidden) to shake hands.

As for the hand shake, it is better to avoid, but if it cant be , we are free to shake hands.

I have met a few politicians and such, and honesty about 80% of them asked politely if I would mind a hand shake. I said I did not.
[/QUOTE]

Which was my point exactly...

"Though it may not be custom to shake hands in Islam, in only the most orthodox factions(Like the Salafists) of Islam it is religious doctrine not to shake the hands of women (they do shake hands with men, just to be clear that it is not about custom but about religious doctrines). It just is not that big a deal in most of Islam."

[QUOTE=winter rose]
From this post of yours, I get the impression that you do not know much about such religions. And you do state you did not use the term Islam, but we are clearly talking about Islam in this thread, and by your comment, I can only say you still did mean Islam.

We , Muslim women are not oppressed, its very simple actually. People for the most part misunderstand the role and lives that Muslim women live.

Yes we avoid physical contact with strangers, men that is. Yes we cover up and modesty is an important issue in our lives. But we are able to work and interact and such with men . Covering up or not shaking hands has not stopped me or all the other Muslim women from living normal lives. Shocking isnt it?[/QUOTE]

Not shocking at all...Thought I already covered this.
"And using personal experience as proof just doesn't cut it CM. I'm gay. I've never been gay-bashed. Oh so gay-bashers don't exist. Right."

But good for you. It's appearantly shocking for some people here to believe I am not generalizing especially when they themselves are. ("all muslim women" "muslim women" "you are talking about Islam") . But convincing people of that has been a lost cause before I even started posting so I'm not even gonna try anymore.

@CM...nice last post except for the historical examples they just make no sense at all. It is due to modern western values that these issues have been defined, abolished and are and have been actively fought against. The fact that these issues are recognized as issues is a merit of modern western society not the other way around. Western society is far from perfect so you should be able to come up with some real examples.

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.

I also don't think you can make this seperation between local customs and Islamic custom in more then just a theoretical way. Islam is a child of Arabic culture and has, like every other major religion, become intwined (sp?) with the cultures to which it spread. Islam will always be used to justify these local customs even apart from the fact that there is enough fuel in the Qu'ran (and the Bible) to start a few customs as well.

[QUOTE=CM]
Additionally the notion of islamic values is evident in islamic society. No offense to Audace in anyway but in Islamic society homosexuality is seen as wrong. That is by defintion an islamic value. Does it discriminate? Yes it does. Is it wrong? Now that is the crux of the matter. To a westerner it is wrong. To your average muslim (who i define as conservative) it isn't.

...

Hope that helps in clarifying some stuff. Cuch thanks man for the explanation.[/QUOTE]

It helps clarifying some stuff but not all.
On the issue of homosexuality: it is also seen as wrong in official Roman Catholic Church doctrine and by quite a lot of other Christian denominations. Look at the debate going on in the US of A.
But while one is free to think that homosexuality is wrong, does that justify a society to lock homosexuals in jails, deny them jobs, or in other ways deny them the basic freedoms it gives other citizens. Where is the danger to society that would require such measures?

While one is free to think that men and women, if not related, should remain separate and avoid contact, should society impose this segregation even on those who belief otherwise and want to mingle with the opposite sex?

As I said before the problem starts when a religion imposes its beliefs on those who don't agree with it.

I do not belief in values as such, but I think that everyone should be given the freedom to belief whatever they think and live their life accordingly, and that society or government should be the guardian of that freedom and only step in when one person's way of living interferes with the freedom of another person to live his life. And screw values.

Audace wrote: <snip> WR can answer this when she has the time <snip>

@CM...nice last post except for the historical examples they just make no sense at all. It is due to modern western values that these issues have been defined, abolished and are and have been actively fought against. The fact that these issues are recognized as issues is a merit of modern western society not the other way around. Western society is far from perfect so you should be able to come up with some real examples.

Right. The fact that in france, germany, denmark et al. the religious freedom of muslims is stifled because it is not in line with western values. The fact that france passed the rule that forbids the headscarf is a violation of any persons right to religious freedom under the geneva conventions and even under the very constitution of europe. The fact that people have been fired from their jobs because they have been told to choose either their religion or their jobs is another example (this happened in Germany).

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.

Agreed.

I also don't think you can make this seperation between local customs and Islamic custom in more then just a theoretical way. Islam is a child of Arabic culture and has, like every other major religion, become intwined (sp?) with the cultures to which it spread. Islam will always be used to justify these local customs even apart from the fact that there is enough fuel in the Qu'ran (and the Bible) to start a few customs as well.

Actually you can. The cultural traits from Senegal and those in Indonesia are very different. Where Islam has prescribed laws and standards they are met, but other wise it depends on the local culture. For example Islamic law and custom has no set rituals for marriage. So the customs in Indonesia and Senegal are no where near the same.

Arabic culture was re-written into islamic law. Alot of the customs common in in arabic society were deemed unacceptable and eliminated. Thus most arabs are wahabbis.

------------

Lestat it depends from what position you are looking at the whole issue of homosexuality in. There is no one view to any situation, even though modern media wants to protray it as such. In Islamic society it is written and said homosexuality is wrong and Allah leveled an entire city/civilization for practicing it. So from our societal and religious point of view it is unacceptable. The more hardline conservatives say it is unpunishable by death.

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.

The Islamic world consists of 54 nations (OIC membership) out of that only 10 or 12 of the arab states at maximum consider segragation as mandatory and by law. The other 44 - 42 don't. There is no such concept in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Morroco etc.

The problem also increases when other wish to force their values on other with a different value system.

One thing that is not highlighted in any islamic society save malaysia and indonesia is that non-muslims do not need to comply with islamic law. That is why tehre are different laws for muslims and seperate for non-muslims, in small areas. Not over-arching and spliting all the rules down, but some areas muslims are better or worse off and the same with the minorities.

[QUOTE=CM]Lestat it depends from what position you are looking at the whole issue of homosexuality in. There is no one view to any situation, even though modern media wants to protray it as such. In Islamic society it is written and said homosexuality is wrong and Allah leveled an entire city/civilization for practicing it. So from our societal and religious point of view it is unacceptable. The more hardline conservatives say it is unpunishable by death.

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.

The Islamic world consists of 54 nations (OIC membership) out of that only 10 or 12 of the arab states at maximum consider segragation as mandatory and by law. The other 44 - 42 don't. There is no such concept in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Morroco etc.

The problem also increases when other wish to force their values on other with a different value system.

One thing that is not highlighted in any islamic society save malaysia and indonesia is that non-muslims do not need to comply with islamic law. That is why tehre are different laws for muslims and seperate for non-muslims, in small areas. Not over-arching and spliting all the rules down, but some areas muslims are better or worse off and the same with the minorities.[/QUOTE]

I know that mandatory segregation is not practised all over the Islamic world, and I never said it was. It certainly was not in those predominantly muslim countries & regions I visited or worked in (on the fringes of the Islamic world, not in its Arab Heartland). But I question whether it is justifiable to impose it on people who might have other beliefs or another interpretation of Islam.

And concerning homosexuality and values: asking not to punish a homosexual for being homosexual or pracitising homosexuality is for me not imposing western values. It is question of respecting the person as an individual. From his point of view homosexuality is not wrong, so can we please respect that, since it in no way harms other people?

Interesting you mention Malaysia, I quote from this weeks Economist:

The national government of Malaysia, headed by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), says that it believes in persuasion rather than coercion in matters of religion. But it refuses to endorse the idea that Muslims should interpret and observe their faith as they see fit. It is tracking 22 sects it deems deviant, with some 22,800 members between them. When some of Ayah Pin's Muslim followers appealed last year to the Federal Court, Malaysia's highest, to recognise their right to profess the religion of their choice, the judges ducked the issue. Meanwhile, in states like Terengganu, also run by UMNO, repressive laws against heresy and apostasy remain on the books, and officious local functionaries occasionally enforce them.

It's not so much the attitude of Muslim governments towards other faiths, but to those within their own faith & culture who might think differently I rue (the homosexuals that I was referring to could very well be Moroccans or Egyptians, both of which countries have a covert gay scene as I heard from knowledgeable sources).

[QUOTE=CM]Right. The fact that in france, germany, denmark et al. the religious freedom of muslims is stifled because it is not in line with western values. The fact that france passed the rule that forbids the headscarf is a violation of any persons right to religious freedom under the geneva conventions and even under the very constitution of europe. The fact that people have been fired from their jobs because they have been told to choose either their religion or their jobs is another example (this happened in Germany).[/QUOTE]

How does this connect with slavery, racism and fascism??

Anyways they did not forbid headscarfs in France. I do understand which law you mean and though you might disagree with that it is in no way unconstitutional (which constitution do you mean anyways) or in conflict with the Geneva convention. There is a difference between persecuting religions and not facilitating/paying for it. It still pains me to see that we in Holland still have the government paying for religious schools.





[QUOTE=CM]
Actually you can. The cultural traits from Senegal and those in Indonesia are very different. Where Islam has prescribed laws and standards they are met, but other wise it depends on the local culture. For example Islamic law and custom has no set rituals for marriage. So the customs in Indonesia and Senegal are no where near the same.

Arabic culture was re-written into islamic law. Alot of the customs common in in arabic society were deemed unacceptable and eliminated. Thus most arabs are wahabbis.

[/QUOTE]

I don't see how this conflicts with what I said.

[QUOTE=CM]
Lestat it depends from what position you are looking at the whole issue of homosexuality in. There is no one view to any situation, even though modern media wants to protray it as such. In Islamic society it is written and said homosexuality is wrong and Allah leveled an entire city/civilization for practicing it. So from our societal and religious point of view it is unacceptable. The more hardline conservatives say it is unpunishable by death.

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]

This is exactly why I don't believe in moral equivalence.

In the 10 to 14 countries i mentioned, a majority are from the gulf where the population is only muslim. If foriegners are to viist they must abide by the customs and rules of the country as much as possible. That said, westerners or non-arabs have their own demarcated compounds where they can do as they please. In UAE, Bahrain and Qatar all 100% muslim states foriegners can do as they please. Drinks are freely served for foriegners in hotels and stuff. But to be more direct it is not justifable to impose your own views on others.

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.

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.

The same can be applied to the Druze, Alwaties and Bahai. All 3 of these religions stem from Islam, however they were changed to such an extent they no longer are considered within Islam and their followers consider their religions seperate now.

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.

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=Audace]How does this connect with slavery, racism and fascism??

Anyways they did not forbid headscarfs in France. I do understand which law you mean and though you might disagree with that it is in no way unconstitutional (which constitution do you mean anyways) or in conflict with the Geneva convention. There is a difference between persecuting religions and not facilitating/paying for it. It still pains me to see that we in Holland still have the government paying for religious schools.[/QUOTE]

Oh darn. I thought you wanted more recent examples of issues where western society has not made the proper humanitarian choices. While you wanted modern day examples of slavery, racism and fascism.

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.

Fascism i personally link directly with racism. So i contect that with the parties in power and the lastly slavery. Give me 30 minutes. BBC has an excellent story/feature on modern day slavery and trafficing. That has a section on europe. However slavery is by no means as prevalent - rather it is non-existant - compared to 200 - 300 years ago.

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=CM]

Lestat it depends from what position you are looking at the whole issue of homosexuality in. There is no one view to any situation, even though modern media wants to protray it as such. In Islamic society it is written and said homosexuality is wrong and Allah leveled an entire city/civilization for practicing it. So from our societal and religious point of view it is unacceptable. The more hardline conservatives say it is unpunishable by death.

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.

snip

The problem also increases when other wish to force their values on other with a different value system.

One thing that is not highlighted in any islamic society save malaysia and indonesia is that non-muslims do not need to comply with islamic law. That is why tehre are different laws for muslims and seperate for non-muslims, in small areas. Not over-arching and spliting all the rules down, but some areas muslims are better or worse off and the same with the minorities.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to butt in so late.

When Salman Rushdie was made the subject of an edict (fatwah) which said it was legitimate to kill him for his views, one of the arguments was that this could not be done legitimately because he is not a muslim. This was not accepted and he was described as an apostate. Apparently once a muslim always a muslim and so the safeguards you describe don't seem to exist in those circumstances.

I note the legitimacy of making laws against some offences which can be seen as moral crimes. But the other examples quoted were murder, rape and theft, Those all hurt someone else directly. Consenting homosexuality does not.I don't think they are comparable