The daily mail a UK news outlet screwed up the headline I guess

"Country restarted executions this year after 12-year moratorium"

but its actually "Kuwait only recently reimposed the death penalty after a six-year moratorium on executions"[/B] The first set of prisoners to be hanged in April were three convicted murderers, none of whom was a Kuwaiti citizen"

so it appears Kuwait has executed 5 prisoners in the past 12 years, which is still is far less then most nations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2iy8yhXdZ graphic content warning*

LOL

In other news, Zambia is considered to be among the most HIV free nations in Southern Africa. Only 1.4 million people infected!

And talking of LOLs, LOL @ the Taliban stopping the drug trade in Afghanistan. Now that they need the money, they are up to their necks in the poppy business. Have been for years. It always amazes how naïve people imagine a bunch of murderous bearded thugs who preach religion are ever not a bunch of hypocrites.

Kuwait make old South Africa look like complete newbies at apartheid. Had western-based human rights organizations been able to physically tell the oppressed apart from the oppressors it would likely have been one of the more protested regimes in the world.

Ok, if no one wants to discuss the issue of whether or not it's immoral to prevent critical thinking in children, here's another question:

It's common to see people draw a distinction (no doubt valid at the moment) between radical muslims and more moderate Muslims, blaming actions like suicide bombings on a 'radical few'. But there seems to be trend currently towards the acceptance of shariah law by Muslims, the majority of Muslims worldwide would support it's implementaion in some form and there are numerous polls that support this.

So, my question is: If shariah can be considered a more radical form of Islam, is the trend toward the general implementation of Shariah a sign of movement toward a more radical form of Islam? Will moderates eventually be in a minority and will we begin to see more of the violent and aggressive protests of the type that followed the Danish cartoon incident, an increase in the agressive defence of Islam, in the expansion of Islamic ideology through greater exposure and assimiliation, and an increase in the types of conflicts that arise when the desires and needs of non-muslims in a culture conflict with aspects of Shariah law. (For example, I object to Islamic schools in the UK preventing critical thinking in the children they teach along with numerous other aspects of shariah like the punitive measures it enables and the discrimination against women, children and homosexuals etc)

It depends what you mean by critical thinking. To most people, "critical thinking" means " I will allow them the freedom to explore and learn, as long as what they learn, and the conclusions they come to , mirror my own values and beliefs".

In other words, you give them the freedom to do what they want, as long as what they want to do is in line with what you believe.

No.

Because most Muslims live in third-world countries with non-western cultural traditions and you are applying western standards of 'moderation' and 'critical thinking' which may or may not be applicable where these Muslims live. Also, 'shariah' is a buzz-word when it comes to polling and surveying, think about it like 'freedom' or 'free speech'. When surveys in western countries ask vague questions, they get vague answers, similarly, when a non-local surveyor asks people if they support shariah, they are asking 100 different broad questions about different topics and getting one vague answer.

If the idea of Muslim faith schools in the UK bothers you (as it bothers me-I went to a few and I can tell you horror stories) then you should probably campaign against faith schools, or ask for strict guidelines and regulations for all faith schools. If the fact that Muslim women wear traditional clothing in the UK bothers you then you need to remember that we like to think of ourselves as living in a democracy whereby people are free to practice in ways they choose to so long as it doesn't infringe on others. If, you are bothered when you switch on the news and some bearded guy is sent to prison for molestation or attempted terrorism or murder, then you should remember that justice should be blind. An individual's criminal acts should be considered against them, not against their family and certainly not against a community they might belong to. A self-identifying Muslim who abuses underage girls is no less indicative of the failure of Muslims living in Britain as a whole than a self-identifying White English man doing the same thing.

I think ultimately you are conflating a few issues here and mixing real world problems with prejudice, I don't blame you necessarily, this is what you might have been taught or conditioned to do as a Brit (by media, schooling, society etc), but if you wish to solve problems like faith schooling or shariah courts in the UK, you need to address them separately rather than as one big package called 'The Muslim Problem'.

I mean that under Shariah, children are not only not encouraged to question the religious doctrine that they're being taught but that they are explicitly forbiddent to question it. In many Muslim states that operate under shariah, the teaching of ToE is forbidden because it contradicts the creation story in the Q'uran.

If you subscribe to the idea that people should be allowed to operate autonomously in that they should be able to decide for themselves how to live their lives, and to be able to do that they shouldn't be forbidden from learning about alternative ways of thinking, then is it immoral to teach children in the manner that Shariah commands?

So do you disagree with the premise that a move toward the greater implementation of Shariah generally would be a move toward a more radical form of Islam generally?

I'm not being taken in by a 'buzzword', I know that shariah is a set of 'Personal status' laws taken directly from the Q'uran and I'm aware from a variety of sources (I don't read the DM in case you're wondering) of the results of the implementation of Shariah. The thought that the majority of Muslims would accept some form of shariah is alarming to me simply because it's a move, even if not the most extreme possible move, toward a type of behaviour that I strongly object to. If for no other reason, than the manner in which women are treated under Shariah, young girls are taught from an early age that they are a 'lesser' human being. If Shariah meant Muslims generally accepting that little gem, I'd see that as a more radical form of Islam.

No , I dont think its immoral.

I dont think that what you describe is necessarily to do with critical thinking.

I also dont know enough about shariah to be able to state the the shariah commands that children are to be taught in the manner that you describe.

Sure it is, they're not allowed to criticise and decide whether or not to believe the religious doctrine they're being taught ("Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, partially true, or false"), it's forbidden. I object to that in any context because I think that those children are being manipulated and decieved and their autonomy is being violated.

Don't take my word for it, look it up.

What is your source for it being a sin to form and express a judgement of islam?

I am wondering if you know yourself what shariah is?

from wikipedia "Many scholars have pointed out that the sharia is not formally a code,[52] nor a well-defined set of rules"

So it doesnt seem to be a clear set of rules to follow, so I would guess that there is no command to suppress critisism of islam.

Perhaps you are getting shariah mixed up with fiqh, which is the "human interpretation of the law" ( again from wiki)


I wonder if you do actually object to [suppression of critical thinking] in any context?








Where?

I edited that post while you were replying, can you please read it again? 'A sin' was supposed to read 'As in' and then a definition of 'criticise'... an unfortunate typo. I've now replaced that with a better definition anyway.


I'd prefer you to find your own sources on this one, but if you want to read from one of mine, here - National Secular society

Ok, I did wonder if you actually meant A sin.



Can you at least give me the source of it being a shariah command to suppress criticism of religion?


Just to say, shariah law scares the **** out of me too, its not like I am supporting it. I think its crazy that people beat a woman because she removes her burqa ( whether or not thats an actual law in shariah, I dont know). I just think its equally crazy to lock up all our children for 8 hours a day , force them to sit quietly, and learn things that they probably dont want to learn. I dont think our schools promote critical thinking any more than shariah does. So its not that shariah is doing this. People are. And they are doing crazy **** all round the world, not just in muslim countries. I guess you could try and argue that its more crazy in some muslim countries, and I probably couldnt disagree with you there.

As a point of how argumentation works, the one who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. You can't make a claim and then say "I'd really prefer if you look this up yourself."

See also Muslims believe that earth is hell.

I think being worried about the implementation of Shariah is missing the point. Not because Shariah is a force for good in Brunei, but you are worried about Shariah being implemented in Brunei because you fear it'll make Muslims worldwide more 'radical'-this isn't the case.

The problem you should be addressing is the rise of political Islamism. It's no secret that since the 60s, and especially after the Iranian revolution, political Islamism has been mobilising and becoming much more powerful as a movement than it ever was. If you want to do something about this you might want to lobby your government to stop bankrolling Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, and the other gulf states basically pay for Imams, Mosques, books, speakers, researchers etc all to further the Islamist agenda worldwide. This isn't a conspiracy but rather a policy to spread Saudi and Islamist influence worldwide (in the same way that Americans pay for projects to spread their agenda as do Russians, Chinese etc). The funding for terrorist and Islamist groups also largely comes from Saudi sources.

Of course, this is too difficult to do. Western leaders put business far above anything else and they don't care about the effects until they have to. Aside from trying to lobby against this spread through money you can also support education initiatives and take part in democracy-debating and arguing with those who have opposing views and aim to legally set up shariah courts or faith schools.

Ultimately though, shariah isn't the spread of Islamism (this isn't the same as radicalisation btw, one can be a 'moderate' Islamist or a 'radical' anti-Islamist) and the increase of shariah doesn't necessarily make life any worse for women or minorities in Muslim countries. Just to give an example, the list below contains the top 20 worst countries for women from the gender gap report:

1) Yemen 2) Pakistan 3) Chad 4) Syria 5) Mauritania 6) Ivory Coast 7) Iran 8) Morocco 9) Mali 10) Saudi Arabia 11) Benin 12) Egypt 13) Algeria 14) Lebanon 15) Oman 16) Nepal 17) Turkey 18) Jordan 19) Ethiopia 20) Fiji

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Gen...eport_2013.pdf

Notice how most of them are countries with Muslim majorities? But notice also how the shariah heavy countries (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen) don't necessarily do much worse than the more 'liberal' Muslim countries (Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria). This would suggest to me that this problem lies with other factors including culture, education, socio-economics, politics and demographics. Of course, I'm not excluding 'Islam' from the picture, but 'Islam' is so broad and encompassing that just blaming 'Islam' would achieve nothing and find no solutions.

If you want to do something to improve the lives of women overseas then you should campaign for equality in law, education and material support. Sure, shariah can be the obstacle and in many cases, is. But my point is still that 'increasing shariah' and 'radicalisation' are vague terms that can cover a whole list of issues that should be dealt with appropriately rather than as a blanket and with blanket solutions.

To be fair you have not addressed the other side of the issue yet, that is the crime and disparity that comes along with non Sharia law nations. And how much of this are we willing to condone

Now you are admitting there are moderate Muslims, I do appreciate that you have acknowledged this. So for the Islamic schools in the UK are these Muslim children being forced by UK law to enter an Islamic school? There are parents of all religions who make these type of controversial decisions and I would say there might be more Christian families doing this then that of Muslim families, at least here in the US

I have something interesting to tell you, my Muslim nieces and nephews have all been home schooled at the preference of there parents(whom are quite religiously conservative) based on an Islamic tradition of some sorts . The result so far has been the two eldest children, one being a girl, at the ages of 15 and 17 are enrolled in one of the nations finest Universities. We are seeing a growing amount of all religious youth enter college education in not only the US but in many developed middle east nations including Israel and Qatar

He might not have meant all Muslims, at least I hope not b/c that statement is wrong to say the least. It would be like myself saying all Jews believe Israel is the promised land and all non jews should leave (forcibly). Of course I would never suggest that. Israel IMO ,like other nations is not perfect but is a well advanced nation with a growing amount of citizens who want full equality with Palestinians.

The burden is on him to clarify what he means and to cite whatever sources he needs to support his position.

Meh, it depends. Basically the counter-criticism tries to invalidate the argument, not what is taking place. And by all means, that is very legitimate. It would be bad to reach the right answer with the wrong method, 2*2=4 is not very good form if you you think 2 is 3.

However, in this subject (and many "hot potato" issues) people often tend to be overly critical of the form, merely to avoid having to make concessions to their own view. It is for example relatively silly to accuse everybody who criticizes Islam for criticizing all Muslims. Hopefully I can criticize the US without it being implied that my criticism automatically extends to all Americans.

I agree that prejudice is bad, but the fact that religious Islamic rulings infringes on human rights in many, many countries is not prejudice - it is fact.

I agree with all of this. But that side conversation was with regards to the bolded claim about Muslims believing earth is hell.

Also, the original comment was something like "Sharia law commands such-and-such." Such point-of-fact claims definitely fall under the person-making-the-claim rule.

Ah, ok. Then I read the conversation too poorly. My apologies.

To me this is religious conditioning. Rather than point counter point and evidence, and opponents, I think conversations (especially such as this) should involve no sides and all parties working towards understanding of the topic and content at hand.

To me the same belief that we must fight our way to resolution is not separate from the violence we might suppose is enacted under the guise of Sharia law.

Approaching topics like this, cooperatively, although not as enjoyable if winning is the utility, allows contributors to gain practice and experience at intelligent use of the human qualities.

It seems to me this is the obvious stance the M would have taken or any man of the past for that matter, who can see beyond the false divisions man has validated for himself.

Someone alluded to a Muslim elder which I can't remember exactly who it was, but I remember the elder saying that part of the teachings of the quran teach that Muslims are to integrate and adhere to the rules and cultures of the society that they immigrate too. This is important and it should be easy to admit for most of us that it is not what we were taught. I think it renders the argument of Islam having the tendency to impose violent sharia law fallible. I think then an error falls on both those that interpret the quran in a violent/suppressive way and those that come to the table with the prejudice that imposing violent sharia law is a problem rooted in Islam.

No one should argue. Here my argument why...amazing.

Arguing may or may not have merit, good points and/or bad much like sharia law. But its the intent behind it all that is important, and I think there are only 2 kinds, cooperative or conflictive. And if we are going to be conflictive by nature I don't think we have the credentials to make judgments on the morality (or intelligence) of things.

That conflicts with my views.