pjMom
Zilla
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
So while stoning a woman for illegal sex, for instance (rajam), is not done everywhere, the penalty is ‘on the books’
It’s not in Oklahoma yet, but the BBC story on Sharia in Indonesia ignores the broader issue. Via Jihad Watch. Comment featured above.
I see the Tribune has another op-ed pooh-poohing concerns. Have you seen these kind of columns in your local media?
Do liberals really want to defend this?
I’ve wondered for years when feminists, and gays, would join us in recognizing this theocratic, terrorist intolerance threat.
…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.
Potluck 
Yukio Ngaby 11:25 AM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.”
No, the commenter was talking about Sharia law being intrinsically part of Islam.
He wrote: “The problem with sharia is, yer honor, that it is ‘Allah’s word’ expressed as law…it is sealed in cement, every part of it…It may not be enforced uniformly in every location, for various reasons, but it is always, ‘on the books'”
Sharia law is not a monolithic thing. It is interpreted differently by various Muslim schools (often for political gain) and comes from multiple secondary sources (not merely the Koran) that are not generally agreed upon– one school believes cleric A’s interpretation should be included, another school says absolutely not, etc.
The commenter’s wrong by the way. Yes, a form of Sharia IS practiced by all Muslims, but what’s “on the books” varies greatly from one school of Islam to another. Islam is NOT a single religion. Just as Christianity is not a single religion.
fuzislippers 6:45 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what commonalities there are in Sharia? You know, those pesky little things that seem to crop up in every instance that it is applied. Baselines, like women are property, lopping off various body parts is a wonderful deterrent and punishment, and . . . oh, let’s see, non-Muslims are treated under a different set of principles, rules, and laws than Muslims. There must be others, though, whatever might they be?
Yukio Ngaby 9:07 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
Lopping off various body parts and women as property are not universals of Islam Fuzzy…
The idea of women as property certainly did not originate with Islam, nor did harsh penalties for breaking laws.
fuzislippers 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Wow, Yukio, really? Which Muslim state or country doesn’t lop off hands, feet, heads for punishment and doesn’t deem women as property? Seriously, which one?
Maia 12:22 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
Seriously?!?
The whole “lopping of hands, feet, heads”- I assume the “hands” is in reference to Saudi Arabia? Reality check- In Saudi Arabia, ONLY after three previous convictions for theft is a hand removed as punishment. If you don’t think you could sell this as a good idea to social conservatives here, check out the popularity of three strikes laws in general (despite their lack of efficacy) and do a quick survey. I imagine you’d be surprised. In addition, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is the ONLY Middle Eastern/Islamic country that actually practices this.
By the “heads, etc” I assume you are referring to the death penalty in general? Yeah, gee, the U.S. doesn’t have a death penalty… Oh wait, we totally DO!!! We don’t give the death penalty for say, adultery (zina), but NEITHER DO THE VAST MAJORITY OF ISLAMIC STATES. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are outliers in this case, not the norm.
This isn’t a defense of fundamentalism OF ANY KIND. The point is that Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently different from or worse than Christian fundamentalism (who are just as eager to treat women as property). The differences between these mostly have to do with the conditions of colonialism. You can ignore that if you choose, but it makes you wrong-headed.
Quite Rightly 2:35 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
Maia: Why don’t you look up “cross amputation” before you lecture people on the cruelty of fundamentalist Christians, who, by the way, authored the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”
backyardconservative 1:44 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.
The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent. And if you live in Shiite Iran, well, you could be just dragged out of your car and beaten to death. Or shot on the street.
Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.
Yukio Ngaby 9:02 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
You: wrote: “Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.”
Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the various forms of Islam are all a bad thing because any Muslim could radicalize at any time?
Yes, Indonesia is in the midst of a pretty important political struggle. After Suharto was deposed, Muslim radicals (a distinct minority) emerged within the country, made proper political allies, and are now a significant political supporter of the Yudhoyono administration. They push for the de-secularization (is that a word?) of the country. All of this was absolutely ignored by Obama in his Indonesia trip BTW.
Radical Muslims are significant players in Indonesia in similar ways that white supremacists are political players in Europe. They have enough reliable, fervent clout to swing close votes– so they are courted by the mainstream political parties.
BTW, Aceh has been pushing for political independence from Indonesia since the 1970s. It was pretty much the tsunami that forced a (most likely temporary) diplomatic solution to the problem. Aceh is a special case among even the Indonesian provinces that have greater administrative and legislative autonomy. In 2003 it instituted a form of Sharia as its legal system– bypassing Indonesia’s secular laws and also can legally receive direct foreign investment– which includes money from Islamic radicals especially Saudi Arabia.
You wrote: “The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent.”
How do you come to this conclusion? Based on what criteria makes it dominant? Wahhabi is certainly not the most popular form of Islam in terms of numbers of believers– not by a long shot. Since it is dominant in Saudi Arabia there’s a lot of money associated with it and it’s aggressively promoted especially in the Muslim world– but I don’t see Wahhabi as being anything that could be described as dominant.
You wrote: “Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.”
Well, everything is dependent on one’s interpretation. All forms of religion believe that they are the truth and thus bestow certain privileges on their members. The special taxes and killing non-believers is hardly a universal belief within Islam.
The problem really comes about when there is no separation between church and state. I addressed this problem when talking about gay marriage (the govt. not having the authority to dictate what constitutes being sacred– such as the institution of marriage), but the point holds true for other countries as well.
backyardconservative 10:13 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.
That is why some brave Islamic scholars have called for reform. Islam could use a reformation.
Yukio Ngaby 10:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yes, Islam does need reformation, especially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, among aother places. However, saying Islam is evil and Sharia is trying to take over the world, does not encourage reform.
Reform has to come from within, but can be supported. As I have said before, the trick is finding the people and countries who are legit and have a chance of succeeding.
Maia 12:16 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
“The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.”
Actually, the supremacist belief is inherent to ALL Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Judaism included). That’s what makes ALL of you people hard to deal with…
backyardconservative 4:02 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
No other religion sets itself forward as an entire body of law that non-believers must adhere to.
And does any other religion punish those who wish to leave with the threat of death?
Some Islamic countries may not enforce this but it is there. Hanging over people’s heads.
Maia 12:24 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
Sure, Islam could use reformation. As could, oh, EVERY religious institution out there.
The point is that your focus on Islam is 1) factually, observably based on falsehoods and myths and 2) inspired by fear that is promoted to you because your fear induces you to support the oppressive policies of powerful entities in the world (most of whom are NOT Muslim/Islamic).
backyardconservative 4:03 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
I suggest you be more specific. Unless you’re afraid of “the oppressive policies of powerful entities”.
Quite Rightly 2:17 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
“Do liberals really want to defend this?”
You could try asking the sweet young thing who innocently brought what she called an “Islamic” dish as her contribution to our family’s Thanksgiving dinner table.
In her liberal circle at least, it seems, apple pie with Wisconsin cheese is now considered as passé as Christmas and the Constitution.
Yukio Ngaby 9:10 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink |
My wife (not a Muslim BTW) loves couscous. Should we never serve this at Thanksgiving?
Quite Rightly 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yukio–How non-PC of me! I should have realized that it is outré to suggest that Islamic dishes are not traditional fare at an American Christian table.
I did take note, however, that the sweet young thing did not call her recipe “Moroccan” or “Lebanese” or “Middle Easter, or whatever, but “Islamic.”
I used to prepare and enjoy couscous at least once a week. Got a fantastic recipe from a friend who married a Middle Eastern guy. Haven’t eaten it since 9/11.
fuzislippers 7:29 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
lol, QR, Yukio can serve whatever he likes at his Thanksgiving table, but there is no way it’s traditional American Christian fare. He knows this. My guess is he’s becoming alarmed by the rightward swing of the ideological pendulum, right, Yukio?
Yukio Ngaby 10:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
No. I’m being alarmed at the attempts to segregate American populations, the emerging “us vs. them” mentality, and the push to control people’s lives.
Is that a result of a rightward swing?
Quite Rightly 10:55 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Yukio–Sometimes it is “us versus them,” and I vote for us.
I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam? Yeah, everyone else just decided life as a Muslim is so much fun.
I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.
And about that “control” thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are wearing a burqa and a face veil and sitting in the back of the mosque. What’s your life like now?
Yukio Ngaby 11:14 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
You wrote: “Yukio–Sometimes it is ‘us versus them,’ and I vote for us.”
Sometimes. But not now– not by a long shot. And I see no reason to make it so now.
You wrote: “I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam?”
Are you talking about the pagans circa 400AD that pre-existed Islam? You’re going to go back 1600 years? What about the Mayans and Aztecs that pre-existed Christianity in the Americas? Proof of Christian imperialism? Really?
You wrote: “I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.”
WWII didn’t start because a group of Nazis blew up a building. Do you really want to declare war against 1.57 billion people (including millions of American citizens) because a dozen or so radical Muslims committed mass murder?
You wrote: “And about that ‘control’ thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.”
You’re right. It’s not.
But the pragmatic question is what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Especially when it’s happening in another country? Declare war? Force them to behave in ways that you agree?
If you think reformation can come from attacking their religion, then we’ll have to kill many, many people to accomplish this. Are you advocating this course?
Quite Rightly 10:35 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink |
Yukio – Your definition of push back and mine are quite different, it seems. Maybe environment has something to do with it. I live in a Progressive paradise where people go out of their way to brag that they know “a Syrian” or “an Iraqi,” always stressing “what wonderful people” they are, as though knowing a Syrian or an Iraqi qualifies them for a Progressive Medal of Honor for exquisitely PC tolerance. I have heard people return from a Muslim country and the “endearing trait” of the villagers to lie to them. Immediately following 9/11, our family doctor grandly embellished the wall of his waiting room with a large poster of a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil with a gorgeous little baby girl perched on her knee to show the peasantry where his real loyalties stood. My email box was filled with frantic missives worrying that there might be “push back” on Muslims. One guy took to wearing a “sympathy turban” around town to ostentatiously demonstrate his support for supposedly threatened Muslims. I guess he wasn’t waiting to find out whether or not his family members, friends, and associates had survived 9/11. One woman told me that having an apartment overlooking the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center (as happened to a young friend of mine) was “not at all traumatic.” On Sept. 11, 2001, my bookseller sent a letter to the NY Times placing blame for 9/11 on the U.S. as a “rogue nation.” Got it published, too. Even to this day, at Thanksgiving, when it’s 30 degrees outside in rural New York and families are eating roast turkey, mashed potatoes, and hot apple pie, a young woman shows her “open-mindedness” by gracing the table with an “Islamic” dish meant to be eaten in an sub-Saharan desert during a holiday she never heard of, never mind celebrated. Etc., etc., etc., etc. etc. Talk about snooty, self-serving, PC “redeemers”. Ugh.
Now, I don’t propose making war on every Muslim that I run into; in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said even one rude word to a Muslim, which is a great deal more courtesy than some Muslims have shown me. But I definitely am not quietly caving in to politically organized Muslim demands–particularly the demands of foreign Muslims or those funded by foreign Muslims (known Hamas co-conspirators), nor am I willing to support the politically expedient notion that Muslims, by virtue of their very existence, should be handed the keys to the city, the school system, NASA, Ground Zero, and/or Justice Department because I am happy no subscriber to their ideology/ideologies has killed me today. I am not in the business of handing out free passes to enslave children, hold open season on Jews, Christians, and Sikhs, or import any brand of Shariah law into our country as some kind of faux First Amendment right.
My freedoms are mine and earned for me by people who sacrificed blood, treasure, and lives, and I’m not giving up those freedoms to make anybody happy. Education is a good place to start. The romantic ideal of PC tolerance for any ideology that rolls down the pike doesn’t stand up to the sobering reality of the Islamic missionary world view, which is so stern that Muslima fruit pickers feel compelled to turn in one of their neighbors for capital punishment because she doesn’t subscribe to their religion and resists the insult of being told that she can’t drink from the same water bucket, just because she is one of the last remaining Christians in their country. Islam is not Christianity, with a set of Commandments lending a relatively peaceful and charitable structure to a society, and that’s obvious. We have plenty of legal means to preserve our cultures in and out of courts; we don’t need to cooperate and we can resist both inside and outside of courts; and, as an obvious step, many European countries are tightening up their immigration policies; too late for them, but we might get away with closing the barn door in time.
backyardconservative 10:18 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Sobering reality all right. Well said.
Yukio Ngaby 5:19 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
QR, don’t take this the wrong way. I like you. I know you to be kind and good-hearted person, and I respect the things you have written on your blog.
Despite the fact this comment is addressed to me, you’re not talking to me, nor are you addressing anything that I’ve said. Who are you talking too?
Exactly when did I advocate child slavery (a real prevalent problem in the US?), hunting Christians and Jews, having NASA engage in Muslim outreach (which I blogged about NASA’s idiocy), etc.? You are assigning to me values that I do not believe in and views which I have not espoused.
Perhaps it is time for this line of debate to be ended, and we shall simply agree to disagree.
Quite Rightly 9:38 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink |
Yukio — Over on her Web site, Fuzzy has posted a wonderful Faulkner quote: “I never know what I think about something until I read what I’ve written about it.” And so it is for me.
I was attempting to answer the pragmatic question that you posed: “What am I going to do about it? What can I do about it? “It” being, in my mind, the ideology that leads to cultural acceptance of child slavery, slaughtering of non-Muslims, etc.
My experiences with Islam overall have been not at all like the romantic image that my (former) doctor wished his patients to accept: Islam as a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil dandling a gorgeous child on her knee. That fact is not a reflection on you. That’s a reflection on Islam.
I can’t say it any more mildly than that.
backyardconservative 10:26 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
It does seem like this food offering was a political statement. From a guest.
fuzislippers 7:31 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
It was and that makes it both rude and insulting. What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality. Except THIS is our country, our home. I’m so done with the PC crap. I’m a white, female Christian American, and I am not going to be “fundamentally transformed.”
Maia 12:30 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
“What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality.”
See, in this statement lies the problem. Not that you want space for your cultural traditions (which is absolutely reasonable and fair), but that YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO DEFINE WHO “WE” ARE and what “our” culture is.
In what reality is the U.S. not a nation of immigrants, from MANY faiths? In what reality are American cultural traditions NOT a mish-mash of things from other cultures and things uniquely local? In what reality are American cultural traditions uniform across the U.S.?
These things are the problem- that white, Christian U.S. Americans (both male and female) feel entitled to control the definition of who “we” are….
Because WE’RE NOT ALL LIKE YOU.
fuzislippers 8:55 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink |
I am entitled to define who “we” are, Maia, because it’s based in our nation’s long history and who we are on this blog. America is a Christian nation, we have traditions and culture, and these are not difficult to find or define. What is “American” is actually quite clear and easy to define. It certainly doesn’t exclude people of all races and faiths, but it does and always has required that people who emigrate here become a part of America. Not the other way around. Now, WE, the people, are being told that we can’t practice our faith freely, that we must hide our religious practices, that we must, in essence, deny who WE, the people, are to make room for a few who don’t like America and who wish to change her. That includes not only our traditional recognition of the Judeo-Christian faith and religion but also the very principles of limited government and the free market on which this nation is based. If you are not like WE, the people, and you do not value America, her traditions and culture, then that’s your choice, but it does not change what America is, nor who the American people are. BO is fond of spouting off about how HE defines America and the American people, and he’s dead wrong. So are you.
Quite Rightly 7:40 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I’m giving her a pass on this one. In our area, it’s not easy finding someone who hasn’t swallowed the Prog bait–hook, line, and sinker. I get to hear whatever the Libs are telling each other because they can’t imagine that anyone disagrees with them. It does get to be funny when you ask for citations so you can “read more about it.” I seldom encounter a Prog that can offer a source other than “I heard it from so and so.”
tennismom 6:04 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Multi culti recipes, no problem. Anti-Christian rhetoric in front of children is another matter. One of my Thanksgiving guests, a liberal man around fifty, whom I’ve known for fourteen years, led the conversation in the direction of bashing Christians for proselytizing. On a holiday, with six children/young adults at the table, I didn’t think this was appropriate. I was already a bit upset because everyone started eating while I was out of the room, and THERE WAS NO PRAYER. When I said to my guest that I found the subject offensive, he didn’t apologize and change the subject, as I expected he would, but argued back at me that he was just making fun of ‘proselytizing’. I suppose I should have pointed out that he was in effect proselytizing for secularism. Instead, I left the room, and the conversation (as I overheard) went on in the same vein for several minutes, making fun of Christians and conservatives for being racist and anti-gay and praising liberals for being tolerant and sophisticated. I said nothing further to criticize the man or his wife, and I sent them home with two pies and a bunch of other stuff. My family’s reaction was, ‘Mom, you shouldn’t have said anything.’ What do you think?
fuzislippers 7:36 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I think that he was incredibly rude and disgraceful. Liberals do tend to have no manners at all at times. He was in your home, no? Inexcusable. In my current It’s Time To Push Back and Defend Our Values mode, I probably would have asked for a word in the kitchen and requested that he respect my home, my children, and my values while he was dining at my Thanksgiving table. If he chose not to, I’d be A-OK with him leaving. With some pies, of course. :)
Quite Rightly 10:25 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
tennismom- This is a difficult one because you want to be hospitable, especially at Thanksgiving. I think it’s okay to interrupt the meal for the grace, which can be done with a light hand and–to save embarrassment–a white lie about everyone’s thoughtfulness to wait for the prayer until you could be present.
The bombardment of Christians for proselytizing is something I haven’t learned to confront successfully. I like your idea of noting that your guest was proselytizing for secularism. I think I’ll try it next time. Since you’ve known this guy for 14 years, you’ll probably have another opportunity to point that out, at a time more convenient for you.
Jill 7:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Sounds like you took a stand, appropriately, then took the high road when he didn’t take the hint.
fuzislippers 7:39 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
Taking the high road is what got us into this mess. We can push back without being unChristian or abandoning good manners, there’s no need to sink to levels of rudeness, but I think it’s important that we stand firm against the onslaught and attacks on our American Christian values.
Quite Rightly 7:45 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink |
I so agree with you, Fuz, but I do have trouble being “as wise as a serpent,” if you know what I mean. I just start gagging. The assumptions that are accepted as absolute, irrefutable, obvious truth out there are just staggering. The other day I took the time to have a conversation with an earnest young “scholar” about what he is certain is the “superior” state of medical care in Cuba.