Muslim Cleric justifying execution of gays

[Clint Barton]

This time in Manchester, England.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/226/226549_muslim_cleric_backs_execution_of_gays.html

Where's the outcry?

[Michael P]

Where's the outcry?
In the lead of the article?

"A ROW has blown up over a claim a prominent Manchester Muslim has defended the execution of sexually-active gay people as "justified"."

And in the third paragraph?

"But [the remarks] have been condemned as "encouraging conflict between the area's large gay and Muslim communities."

[Clint Barton]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?

EDIT:

It is understood Imam Misbahi believes his comments were taken out of context and misrepresented. He says will be issuing a statement to clarify his views.

Why, of course. "Out of context" and "misrepresented". I'm sure those aren't his real views.

Spin control time!

[HomerJay]

C'mon be original.
This guy needs to get his own schtick and quit ripping off Fred Phelps.

[Grazzt]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?

Yes, because one stupid holy man in one part of the world means that the rest of the world has to jump up and be outraged.

I mean, does Reverend Phelps make the news anywhere outside of America?

Edit: Do I owe HomerJay a coke?

[Clint Barton]

Yes, because one stupid holy man in one part of the world means that the rest of the world has to jump up and be outraged.

I mean, does Reverend Phelps make the news anywhere outside of America?

Yes. Phelps does (make the news) and he should. His crap should be shown to everyone with some sense and decency. In the spirit of fairness, this Iman should be all over the world press as well.

[Clint Barton]

It's all about fairness!

[Dreadstar]

I think what Clint means is: Where's all the CBR outrage?

As in: Hey you guys are constantly jumping on Phelps' neck, show me that you'll jump on this guy's, too.

Ah, the last Muslim cleric from Engalnd that I ranted about at least wrote some decent music in a previous life. This guy don't make the cut.

[Ed Cunard]

Well, everyone knows that leftists love Muslims because the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Seriously, in the spirit of fairness, I wouldn't be upset if this guy got prostate cancer either.

[Clint Barton]

computer slow today....double post

[HomerJay]

Edit: Do I owe HomerJay a coke?
I usually prefer something a bit stronger, but a Coke is a good start.

[Clint Barton]

I think what Clint means is: Where's all the CBR outrage?

As in: Hey you guys are constantly jumping on Phelps' neck, show me that you'll jump on this guy's, too.

Ah, the last Muslim cleric from Engalnd that I ranted about at least wrote some decent music in a previous life. This guy don't make the cut.

Not just CBR outrage, but that's a point as well.

This kind of crap should get world attention in the spirit of fairness regarding terrorism and militant Islam and the reality of what they both truly espouse.

[Grazzt]

Clint, you claim that there's world outrage at Phelps. Could you back that up please? Say, link to an article from somewhere in Britain or Australia? Canada's too close to count. I have doubts you'll be able to do that. If you can manage either of those, and then go on to find a news article on Phelps from anywhere else in the world, I will be beyond surprised.

[Wesley Dodds]

The right: we don't like Muslims!

The left: we don't like people who are against gays!

So, basically, we're all in agreement.

If someone on the left or the right decides to stand up for executing gays then we'd have a thread.

[Clint Barton]

Clint, you claim that there's world outrage at Phelps. Could you back that up please? Say, link to an article from somewhere in Britain or Australia? Canada's too close to count. I have doubts you'll be able to do that. If you can manage either of those, and then go on to find a news article on Phelps from anywhere else in the world, I will be beyond surprised.

Sorry I couldn't find it in less than 2 mins!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5015552.stm

[Boldido]

This may ruffle feathers, but I honestly feel that the reason for a lack of outrage is that most people don't hold Islam or Islamic countries to a very high standard.

Brutal treatment of women, beheadings, the severing of limbs, execution of homosexuals; all of these things are not uncommon in many muslim countries. We have read the stories for years and don't expect better.

When something like that happens from a church that claims to be Christian, there is outrage because people expect more. (These days I don't know why they expect more, what with pedophile priests and extreme fundamentalists, but I believe they do.)

[Nick Soapdish]

Yes. Phelps does (make the news) and he should. His crap should be shown to everyone with some sense and decency. In the spirit of fairness, this Iman should be all over the world press as well.

I don't recall hearing tons of castigation about Phelps from all the major Christian leaders around the world.

Maybe a quote from a local minister and something about the Liberty Riders (or whatever they're called).

But has the Pope denounced him? Or other major Christian leaders? Maybe they have. I haven't gone looking for it. But it seems like that's been a lot of the criticism in those Phelps threads.

And in the other thread about Muslims saying bad things, Winslow was asking that people not consider Falwell to be representative of Christians, but Christians don't seem to be doing much to distance themselves from him right now. McCain just gave the commencement address at his university.

[Dreadstar]

This may ruffle feathers, but I honestly feel that the reason for a lack of outrage is that most people don't hold Islam or Islamic countries to a very high standard.

Brutal treatment of women, beheadings, the severing of limbs, execution of homosexuals; all of these things are not uncommon in many muslim countries. We have read the stories for years and don't expect better.

When something like that happens from a church that claims to be Christian, there is outrage because people expect more. (These days I don't know why they expect more, what with pedophile priests and extreme fundamentalists, but I believe they do.)

You... you didn't go for the easy joke.

I expected more of you.

[Dreadstar]

But has the Pope denounced him?

Why would he? Different religion.

[Ed Cunard]

Why would he? Different religion.

Plus, as much as it would probably pain Phelps to hear it... he's just not important enough to be denounced. He's Don Quihomophobote, tilting at giant phallic windmills in his head.

[Clint Barton]

I don't recall hearing tons of castigation about Phelps from all the major Christian leaders around the world.

Maybe a quote from a local minister and something about the Liberty Riders (or whatever they're called).

But has the Pope denounced him? Or other major Christian leaders? Maybe they have. I haven't gone looking for it. But it seems like that's been a lot of the criticism in those Phelps threads.

And in the other thread about Muslims saying bad things, Winslow was asking that people not consider Falwell to be representative of Christians, but Christians don't seem to be doing much to distance themselves from him right now. McCain just gave the commencement address at his university.

Well, Conservative talkshow host Michael Gallagher denounced him (and Gallagher is crazed himself in my opinion):

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/51586d06-0a99-4a1e-ae94-4ad341ce111e&comments=true

[Boldido]

You... you didn't go for the easy joke.

I expected more of you.
Easy joke?!?! You accuse me of going for the easy jokes?!?!

I need to up my game.

[Grazzt]

When something like that happens from a church that claims to be Christian, there is outrage because people expect more. (These days I don't know why they expect more, what with pedophile priests and extreme fundamentalists, but I believe they do.)

Maybe it's because the people being outraged are Christian (for the most part), and don't want their religion being smeared by these people?

Sorry I couldn't find it in less than 2 mins!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5015552.stm

Excellent! Now if we could find proof of him being castigated by a newspaper in a country other than Britain, Canada or Australia, I will truly believe that hatred for Phelps is global.

[Clint Barton]

I don't recall hearing tons of castigation about Phelps from all the major Christian leaders around the world.

Maybe a quote from a local minister and something about the Liberty Riders (or whatever they're called).

But has the Pope denounced him? Or other major Christian leaders? Maybe they have. I haven't gone looking for it. But it seems like that's been a lot of the criticism in those Phelps threads.

And in the other thread about Muslims saying bad things, Winslow was asking that people not consider Falwell to be representative of Christians, but Christians don't seem to be doing much to distance themselves from him right now. McCain just gave the commencement address at his university.

I've got a bunch of local stuff denouncing Phelps as it's important to me for various reasons I won't get into right now....but I've not seen anything nationally....I'll have to look.

[Nick Soapdish]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?



It's a junior imam in a Manchester mosque and apparently not going out of his way to be a publicity hound like Phelps since it was an interview with a doc on persecution of gays in Islamic states.

It may not even be his opinion since the doc is careful to quote the disclaimer "in a true Islamic state" to the "justified" part of the claim.

[Nick Soapdish]

Why would he? Different religion.

Both are Christian. Clint was wondering why there wasn't worldwide denunciations of this Muslim guy from other Muslims and they don't have a monolithic faith either.

Heck, Clint is asking why us at CBR haven't denounced this imam and I bet most of us aren't Muslim.

[Clint Barton]

Not just CBR, Nick. But your response before the one above made me think a bit differently. Thanks.

I've got a great deal of information and sources of actual Christian leaders denouncing Fred Phelps....just not on this computer...maybe, once I'm home some time later, I'll post some of them if some of you are interested.

Anyway, it's a stance that I've pushed for since I first heard of Fred Phelps and his "flock" of idiots. I'm just a small fish in a very big pond though. But, I'm satisfied that I'm doing my part in letting people know that Fred Phelps "ain't representin' Christianity". In fact, I'd go so far as to espouse my belief that he's well qualified to be judged as a false prophet/teacher which Jesus warned us about back in the day.

My point is that it's no secret that I am Christian and I don't hate gays. The two words (hate/gays) are not compatible in the least in my beliefs/opinions. That said, I am taught and believe that homosexuality is a sin....just like all the other sins there are. "For all have sinned and come short...(you know the rest)."

Lastly, if mainstream Christianity can denounce Fred Phelps at a bigtime level....and it does......

Then I'd just like to see Islam denounce this guy (and others like him) to the point that Muslims who are espousing terror/crimes on women/beheadings/etc. get a clue....AND consequently bring their protests against this Iman to light in the Western World to where we Westerners all have a better understanding.

[VanEyck]

Brutal treatment of women, beheadings, the severing of limbs, execution of homosexuals; all of these things are not uncommon in many muslim countries.

Evidence?

Sure, there have been some stories to that effect... fewer than 10. Does that justify saying that it is "not uncommon."

You've heard of school shootings at elementary schools about as often.

Certainly, all of the above are very uncommon (except for maybe spousal abuse, which is somewhat common, but not any more so than in the West).

[Noah Johnson]

If I went out of my way to get outraged individually about every small-minded bigoted prick in the world, I'd get even less done than I do. So yeah, some guy in Manchester's a bigoted prick. Big damn shock. The world's full of bigoted pricks. I can't imagine how one more is in any way news.

[Clint Barton]

Evidence?

Sure, there have been some stories to that effect... fewer than 10. Does that justify saying that it is "not uncommon."

You've heard of school shootings at elementary schools about as often.

Certainly, all of the above are very uncommon (except for maybe spousal abuse, which is somewhat common, but not any more so than in the West).

Evidence?

How about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/world/main626196.shtml

[Clint Barton]

More evidence from Amnesty USA (and this is just from Saudi Arabia):

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/saudi_arabia/index.do

[Boldido]

Since it was asked of me, let me add another.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/oct/1262.html

Eight women currently awaiting a sentence of stoning for adultery in one muslim country hardly seems like an isolated incident.

[Charles RB]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?

I doubt most of the world reads the website of a local newspaper for Manchester.

[VanEyck]

Lastly, if mainstream Christianity can denounce Fred Phelps at a bigtime level....and it does......

Then I'd just like to see Islam denounce this guy (and others like him)....AND consequently bring their protests ...to light in the Western World to where we Westerners all have a better understanding.

There are a lot of factors here:
1- No matter what we do, the West will never gain an understanding of Islam from watching the news. The news, quite simply, doesn't go into sufficient depth, nor is there enough time. To get even a basic inkling of understanding you would have to take a course of some kind (or at least spent a lot of time with a knowledgable Muslim). So one major problem in "East-West" relations is that neither side really grapples with the issues and seeks understanding in any productive way.

2-Among the things that you don't understand about Islam is that our religion teaches us to try not to expose the faults (or any shameful thing) of others. So we are much more likely to discuss extremists in private and to speak to the culprit directly rather than to use the press. But, I assure you, the VAST majority of Muslims condemn extremists on a regular basis.

3-Muslims in the West, who often understand the need to invite the media to their protests and to sent statements to media outlets, have been sending statements and inviting the media to their events. But frequently, it doesn't appear in the news. I guess it isn't "scintillating" enough. But, the fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

4-And why does the West need to see our outrage anyway? From the Muslims' standpoint, the extremists are primarily a threat to Muslims, not to the West. They distort our religion and seek to use it to support their politcal movements. There is a risk of Muslims actually believing some of their lies and being led astray. So Muslims tend to dedicate their efforts, not towards making the West hear us, but towards making sure as many Muslims as possible hear us denounce the terrorists. That way, we protect our religion from corruption, and we rob the extremists of potential recruits.

5-Another reason why you don't hear about Muslim protests is because some people are so extreme that their position is ludicrous. It doesn't need to be commented upon. Take beheadings for example. Beheading is not part of the Islamic law. It is not part of the Islamic religion. And, as far as I know, there is no historical precedent (from a person or era that Muslims respect). As a result, many Muslims see them as being out of their minds and they cannot fathom that anyone would possibly associate that with Islam. They don't think that it needs to be said.

By way of analogy, if a Christian preacher stood in front of a camera and claims that the Bible commands Christians to dress up like Klingons and migrate to Jupiter, I think most Christians would just chuckle to themselves and say "he's crazy!" They would assume that everyone agrees and that a protest is (a) unnecessary and (b) going to give this nut the one thing he is looking for... attention.

6-People in the West do not have a decent understanding of Islamic Law and how it works. So the media persistently ask the wrong questions. For example, you might remember a story that was all over the news (and on Oprah Winfrey) several years ago. A woman in Nigeria was found pregnant. But her husband couldn't have been the father. So when the media asked what the penalty for adultery is under Islamic Law (stoning), they reported it all over the world and made a huge outcry over how "they are gonna stone this poor woman!!!" There were all kinds of movements on tv to save her, to bring her to the US so she will live, etc.

But the Muslims just shook our heads at the ignorance of the West. We know that according to Islamic Law, pregnancy is not admissable as evidence of intercourse. So, in order to convict her, you would have to prove it in one of two ways. Either she will have to freely confess (which she did not want to do), or the prosecution would have to produce 4 adult male witnesses who all witnessed a man other than her husband penetrate her. In the entire history of Islam, no one has ever yet produced the 4 witnesses. So there is no chance of a conviction, and thus, no chance of stoning.

So, the media should have handled it differently. (1) Instead of asking what the penalty for adultery is and then assuming that a conviction will follow, they should have asked some questions to actually gauge the risk that the woman faced. And (2) they should have taken some responsibility for their sensationalism by plastering with equal fervor the acquittal that she received. Instead, they kept the acquittal hush-hush, and left the whole world believing that she was stoned.

.

[Michael P]

Evidence?

Sure, there have been some stories to that effect... fewer than 10. Does that justify saying that it is "not uncommon."

You've heard of school shootings at elementary schools about as often.

Certainly, all of the above are very uncommon (except for maybe spousal abuse, which is somewhat common, but not any more so than in the West).
Do a google search on the word "Mutawwa," then get back to me.

[VanEyck]

Evidence?

How about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/world/main626196.shtml
Saudi Arabia's official so-called "interpretation of Islam" is Wahhabism. In case you don't know, Wahhabis are extremists. Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. And many Islamic scholars consider Wahhabis to be non-Muslims.

[Clint Barton]

By way of analogy, if a Christian preacher stood in front of a camera and claims that the Bible commands Christians to dress up like Klingons and migrate to Jupiter, I think most Christians would just chuckle to themselves and say "he's crazy!" They would assume that everyone agrees and that a protest is (a) unnecessary and (b) going to give this nut the one thing he is looking for... attention.


.


Thanks VanEyck! I sincerely appreciate your response!

I understood and essentially could see great logic in everything you posted...except the analogy.

Klingons is one thing, but Fred Phelps is another altogether.

I wish more Christians would stand up to him. Yet, there are many who already do and are quite vocal about it.

[Clint Barton]

Saudi Arabia's official so-called "interpretation of Islam" is Wahhabism. In case you don't know, Wahhabis are extremists. Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. And many Islamic scholars consider Wahhabis to be non-Muslims.

I know this. That link was provided as evidence to Noah who seemed to think the types of beheadings, etc were more uncommon than they actually are.

[Clint Barton]

I doubt most of the world reads the website of a local newspaper for Manchester.


There are other reports on this story. Give me a break.

[StoneGold]

You want to know the biggest difference? Fred Phelps is the leader of his church who, for all his faults, is a genius at getting media attention. This is a story about a junior imam who is alleged to have said to a psychiatrist that it is OK to execute gays. Seriously, you don't see the difference between the two in terms of media coverage?


EDIT: I screwed up. I read it wrong. He's not even saying it's OK to execute gays. He's saying it's an acceptable form of punishment in Iran and Iraq. In fact, according to the story presented, he refused to qualify the Western Muslim response. So basically, he confirmed something I could have told you to begin with!

[J. Robb]

This time in Manchester, England.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/226/226549_muslim_cleric_backs_execution_of_gays.html

Where's the outcry?
Does every individual bigoted ultra-conservative require their own outcry?

...Because that could take up a lot of bandwidth...

[Clint Barton]

Yes. I think they do.

[VanEyck]

Eight women currently awaiting a sentence of stoning for adultery in one muslim country hardly seems like an isolated incident.
I can't speak on this one, because Iran is a Shia country and they have their own laws.

But, under Shariah Law (Sunni), the penalty for adultery is non-negotiable. Therefore, there is no need to "await sentencing." It's not like anyone has a decision to make as far as what the sentence would be.

So, reading between the lines of the heavily slanted article, when they say that 8 women are "awaiting sentencing," what they most likely mean is that 8 women are scheduled to be "tried." And as I posted above, it is almost impossible to convict a person of adultery. Basically, a person would have to want to be stoned (which, interestingly, actually happens to guilt-burdened types).

[Spike-X]

Yes. I think they do.
You're gonna be busy then, aren't you?

[Clint Barton]

You want to know the biggest difference? Fred Phelps is the leader of his church who, for all his faults, is a genius at getting media attention. This is a story about a junior imam who is alleged to have said to a psychiatrist that it is OK to execute gays. Seriously, you don't see the difference between the two in terms of media coverage?

To some degree I do. But it's still outrageous and there still should be a response. Junior Iman's grow up sometimes to be Senior Imans....same as Fred Phelps starting somewhere.

[Clint Barton]

You're gonna be busy then, aren't you?

I'm always busy.

[Michael P]

To some degree I do. But it's still outrageous and there still should be a response. Junior Iman's grow up sometimes to be Senior Imans....same as Fred Phelps starting somewhere.
I'm getting severe Emily Litella flashbacks from this post.

[Clint Barton]

"Nevermind".:D

[StoneGold]

To some degree I do. But it's still outrageous and there still should be a response. Junior Iman's grow up sometimes to be Senior Imans....same as Fred Phelps starting somewhere.
Yes, but as I added in my edit, the imam wasn't even saying that this was a good thing. He said it was an acceptable form of punishment in Iran. Which is true. In fact, he didn't comment on whether or not he found it acceptable one way or another. So all he really did was confirm something I could have looked up myself.


So what was the point to all this? Or did you do what I did initially, and not actually bother to read the entire story before commenting?

[JeffreyWKramer]

This may ruffle feathers, but I honestly feel that the reason for a lack of outrage is that most people don't hold Islam or Islamic countries to a very high standard.

Brutal treatment of women, beheadings, the severing of limbs, execution of homosexuals; all of these things are not uncommon in many muslim countries. We have read the stories for years and don't expect better.
Bingo!!!!!!

This guy isn't even newsworthy compared to some other Islamic douchebags.

[K'Nort]

Clint, you claim that there's world outrage at Phelps. Could you back that up please? Say, link to an article from somewhere in Britain or Australia? Canada's too close to count. I have doubts you'll be able to do that. If you can manage either of those, and then go on to find a news article on Phelps from anywhere else in the world, I will be beyond surprised.

Well I bet the Swedes are on record as being none too fond of him.


But in terms of the original post, what Bolido said.

[Iangould]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?



Where's the world outcry over Fred Niles and Peter Hollingsworth?

At this point, non-Australians are asking who're Fred Niles and Peter Hollingsworth?

Which is my point exactly.

[Iangould]

Yes. Phelps does (make the news) and he should. His crap should be shown to everyone with some sense and decency. In the spirit of fairness, this Iman should be all over the world press as well.

If this guy repeats his alleged comments (rather than repudiating them) publicly over a period of decades and demonstrates at funerals etc. then I imagine he'll get just as much attention as Phelps.

[Iangould]

This may ruffle feathers, but I honestly feel that the reason for a lack of outrage is that most people don't hold Islam or Islamic countries to a very high standard.

Brutal treatment of women, beheadings, the severing of limbs, execution of homosexuals; all of these things are not uncommon in many muslim countries.

Some or all of these acts are also depressingly common in non-muslim countries in Africa, Asia and South America but somehow no-ones blames Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism for them.

[Iangould]

Why would he? Different religion.

Do you even know what the major divisions within Islam (besides the Sunni/Shia divide) are?

Without looking it up can you name the four principal schools of Sunni islam?

[StoneGold]

If this guy repeats his alleged comments (rather than repudiating them) publicly over a period of decades and demonstrates at funerals etc. then I imagine he'll get just as much attention as Phelps.
But even then, saying that homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran isn't all that much of an opinion. Should I be outraged if someone tells me that in California, it is legal to make right turns on a red light?

[Mike Smash!]

Should've clarified.

Where's the world outrage?

EDIT:



Why, of course. "Out of context" and "misrepresented". I'm sure those aren't his real views.

Spin control time!

That's pretty standard for a fundamentalist asshole. Say something really inflamatory and hateful, get backlash from even your own religious community and then fall back on pretending that you were misquoted or taken out of context.

(see also: Robertson, Pat)

[Iangould]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Contemporary_practice_of_Sharia_law

Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft, stoning for adultery and apostasy.

So Sharia law is applied in five countries (including one of those "liberated" by the US) and part of a sixth.

The combined population of those countries is around 170,000,000 (I'm not going to try and work out the population of the Nigerian states which apply Sharia law).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Islam

The world's muslim population is estimated at 1.46 billion by the US State Department.

So close to 90% of the world's muslims DON'T live in sharia states.

Judging Islam by those states is probably marginally more reasonable than determing "Christian" attitudes to abortion and divorce by reference to the laws of Nicaragua and Ireland.

But not by much.

[Gingold]

I just denounced the guy to my cat. When my wife wakes up, I'll denounce him to her too.

[Boldido]

Some or all of these acts are also depressingly common in non-muslim countries in Africa, Asia and South America but somehow no-ones blames Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism for them.

But how many of them are taking place in Christian theocracies or Buddhist theocracies or Hindu theocracies?

[Iangould]

But how many of them are taking place in Christian theocracies or Buddhist theocracies or Hindu theocracies?

Other than Saudi Arabia and Iran, how many muslim theocracies can you name?

[Erebus]

My brother is actually a converted Muslim. His political and social views are very similar to extremenist muslims, which I find frightning.

[Paradox]

Converts tend to go a bit overboard at first, in any religion.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

My brother is actually a converted Muslim. His political and social views are very similar to extremenist muslims, which I find frightning.

Family's always embarrassing, isn't it.

[Boldido]

Other than Saudi Arabia and Iran, how many muslim theocracies can you name?

Its not the prevalence of Muslim theocracies that is the crux of my point, but rather that the ones that exist are known for what many would consider systematic barbarism and as such, westerners don't really hold them to very high standards. The fact that African countries engage in similar barbaric behavior doesn't make that behavior and less barbaric.

I have seen you point out the hypocrisy among the postings by many Christians trying to attack Islam Ian and I agree with most of it. There are many posters on this board that go out of their way to post any anti-Islamic story they can find, whether they are true or not. I am not attempting to do this. I'm merely pointing out what I believe is a commonly held belief among many in the western world. Is it prejudice? Absolutely. I think its the most prevalent and perhaps the most damaging type of prejudice that exists. Not overt hatred. Not violence or the hurling or epithets, but rather the prejudice of low expectations. Unfortunately, very little is being done to raise the bar of Islam in the eyes of people in the west.

[king mob]

Sorry I couldn't find it in less than 2 mins!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5015552.stm

I'm suprised you even found that. Phelps is virtually unknown here outside the very fleeting cameos on programmes showing right wing Christian nutters. I only heard about him from reading about him on websites such as this.

As for the Iman, he's a cock. However the problem is that there's been such a deluge of scare stories and lies spread about Muslims in order to demonise them (see the ongoing veil nonsense) that when there is genuine reasons to criticise Islam and Muslims, it gets lost in the hysterical noise created by those with anti-Muslim agendas.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Even if the guy did make comments to the effect of "gays should be killed", and that's if - because some of the guys are showing evidence he didn't - he's still not as bad as Phelps.

Phelps protests people's funerals, and uses innocnet peoples funerals (and not just gay people's - soldiers as well) to grab media attention.

That's a lot worse than just being a bigot (if this guy is - they've shown some cause he's not here, you can't do the same for Phelps).

And on a not entirely unrelated note, what the fuck is with all the anti-muslim threads on this board of late?
Be ashamed!
So not every Muslim is devout or perfect or smart.
Neither is every non-Muslim - especially those in power.
So honestly, why the need to drive the wedge further between communties?
Where is it coming from?
Is being anti-Islam the new anti-semetic or somthing?
Grow the hell up, and start acting like civilised people, and not a bunch of goddamn bigoted cavemen.
Where's the world outcry over Fred Niles and Peter Hollingsworth?

At this point, non-Australians are asking who're Fred Niles and Peter Hollingsworth?

Which is my point exactly.
It was a shame the day Fred Niles gave his report on Sydney's corrurpt/ill advised Cross-City Tunnel. When they read his findings out on the radio, I cheered.
Then I felt odd because I agreed with somthing Fred Niles had said.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

It was a shame the day Fred Nile gave his report on Sydney's corrurpt/ill advised Cross-City Tunnel. When they read his findings out on the radio, I cheered.
Then I felt odd because I agreed with something Fred Nile had said.

Doesn't he and his "Congregational Union of Australia" fellow travellers always pray for rain the day of the "No longer avant garde, just accepted" gay Mardi Gras?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Doesn't he and his "Congregational Union of Australia" fellow travellers always pray for rain the day of the "No longer avant garde, just accepted" gay Mardi Gras?

It's possible, but being one of them I wouldn't know.

In the early to mid 90's he was going to have a protest march that clashed with theirs (ie on the same street to block them), but he ditiched the plans when he found out it was illegal.

Don't know why he'd want it to rain though, it'd just make everyone hit the pubs and clubs quicker and get up to even more naughtiness.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

It's possible, but being one of them I wouldn't know.

In the early to mid 90's he was going to have a protest march that clashed with theirs (ie on the same street to block them), but he ditiched the plans when he found out it was illegal.

Don't know why he'd want it to rain though, it'd just make everyone hit the pubs and clubs quicker and get up to even more naughtiness.

Bugger.

That's not good.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Bugger.

That's not good.

Which bit?

I think although he's an idiot, at least he called off his march, and hasn't tried to have one again - an there'd be no point, no way could he get more christians there than there are supporters, gay and straight, of the Mardi Gras - especially if word got out that someone was going to try and stop it.
Phelps would hate it - he probably wouldn't even be allowed to protest near by - the Mardi Gras provides a lot of tourist revenue to the city.

And I'm sure the people getting up to naughtiness wouldn't be complaining - that's some good messy fun they'd be having.

(That even said, I'm pretty sure rain, hail or shine the dykes on bikes rev up the parade goes ahead).

[TheTen-EyedMan]

The whole "anti-gay" thing is bad.

I've never ever had a problem with Homosexuals.

It's funny, I'm usually mr insensitivity.

[Spike-X]

Doesn't he and his "Congregational Union of Australia" fellow travellers always pray for rain the day of the "No longer avant garde, just accepted" gay Mardi Gras?
Yeah. It's kinda funny to see - bunch of sour-faced old farts in fully-buttoned short sleeved shirts, standing around looking miserable while everybody else is having a good time.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Yeah. It's kinda funny to see - bunch of sour-faced old farts in fully-buttoned short sleeved shirts, standing around looking miserable while everybody else is having a good time.

You've just described the Democratic National Convention.

Oh shit...someone call Leonard Weinglass and get me out of this Jam.

That's the last time I chill out with Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis.

[Naldo]

I'm not sure I understand the comparison between Fred Phelps and Muslim extremists.

Fred Phelps represents what, maybe 3 or 4 dozen followers?

I think there may be at least a few more muslim extremists than that.

Several months ago, I was involved in a conversation about the Quran and the whole "context" issue was brought up. So, I decided to sit down and actually read it, cover to cover.

As religious texts go it's absurdity is pretty fucking high. More so than the OT or NT? Perhaps, perhaps not, certainly more intolerant and violent towards the unbeliever, especially more so than the NT.

It seems to me that the vast majority of muslims are clearly capable of living in a secular society. There are, though, a good number that aren't, or at least don't wish to and rather than move to a place that will easily accommodate their wishes, would rather force everyone to live under Shar'ia.

Does this make Islam bad? Of course not, it makes those individuals that do violence bad.

One of the most ridiculous arguments I hear is "Well Christianity doesn't have such a great reputation historically". That's right, it doesn't but so what? Because one group of people acted like assholes doesn't give another group of people an excuse to act like assholes.

Why did this discussion, get diverted into a Fred Phelps fest? He has nothing to do with Arshad Misbahi.

[Clint Barton]

I was wondering the same thing. :confused:

[heretic]

Evidence?

How about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/world/main626196.shtml
The House of Saud is Into Capital Punishment.

Moreso, in fact, than a lot of Theologians consider appropriateIslam permits the death penalty for certain crimes, but few mainstream Muslim scholars and observers believe beheadings are sanctioned by Sharia, or Islamic law.
So?

Are we to declare Texas proof of Christian Barbarism?

HTG

[heretic]

Since it was asked of me, let me add another.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/oct/1262.html

Eight women currently awaiting a sentence of stoning for adultery in one muslim country hardly seems like an isolated incident.
I've little respect for the Islamic Republic's current administration either (where are the guys?), but I advise you to take note of the nationality of those protesting same.

HTG

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Why did this discussion, get diverted into a Fred Phelps fest? He has nothing to do with Arshad Misbahi.

They're both religious crackpots?

They're both complete assholes?

They both should shut the fuck up?

[Iangould]

Doesn't he and his "Congregational Union of Australia" fellow travellers always pray for rain the day of the "No longer avant garde, just accepted" gay Mardi Gras?

A couple of years back he wanted the police to provide his group picketing the Gay Mardi Gras with their own portaloos because they were afraid of catching AIDS if they had to use the same toilets as the gays.

[Adam Crocker]

Unfortunately, very little is being done to raise the bar of Islam in the eyes of people in the west.

How so? Whenever I hear people go on and on about those Muslims and how they don't condemn terrorism/extremism I start posting a ton of examples of them doing so. But people go on complaining about the same damn thing anyways like there was never counter-example the contrary. So how much of the "raising the bar" is the fault of Muslims as a whole and how much of it is on the West continually focusing on the worst examples? It was several pages into the Dutch Cartoon threads before anyone posted counter-examples of the violent riots in the Middle East showing peaceful protests elsewhere in Europe, Indonesia, India, and even Pakistan. And half of those were from me because most other people didn't bothered to look. They just kept posting pictures from protests and riots in places like Iran and Syria where their respective governments were allowing them to happen because they provided a handy escape valve.

[Clint Barton]

Changing course a bit....

I wonder if how the gay community on this board feels about the Iman? Is it worth a protest?

[J. Robb]

Whenever I hear people go on and on about those Muslims and how they don't condemn terrorism/extremism I start posting a ton of examples of them doing so. But people go on complaining about the same damn thing anyways like there was never counter-example the contrary.
Yeah, I see that constantly. There's a lot of willful ignorance out there, people living with blinders on, and if you point out the world beyond their narrow view, they just ignore it. It's sad, and it probably explains most of the war and misery in the world.

[heretic]

How so? Whenever I hear people go on and on about those Muslims and how they don't condemn terrorism/extremism I start posting a ton of examples of them doing so. But people go on complaining about the same damn thing anyways like there was never counter-example the contrary. So how much of the "raising the bar" is the fault of Muslims as a whole and how much of it is on the West continually focusing on the worst examples?
The complaint I regularly hear is that the Umma are not loud/open/forthright enough in thier condemnation. However I wonder how loud/open/forthright one must get for the cameras/press to not pass them over in favor of a screaming lunatic or three.

But then I grew up in South Central L.A. and knew of more households than not containing people who worked for a living and did not shoot up people at random, despite what I saw on TV.

HTG

[JerrBear81]

Hmmm. If he gains about 75 pounds, I can make sure he never wants gays dead again! Just two or three hours in a room alone :D (I image googled him, could be the wrong guy though)

[Iangould]

The complaint I regularly hear is that the Umma are not loud/open/forthright enough in thier condemnation. However I wonder how loud/open/forthright one must get for the cameras/press to not pass them over in favor of a screaming lunatic or three.


One of the various US islamic groups actually bought TV air-time for ads denouncing terrorism and supporting the war in Afghanistan.

I guess they weren't really sincere though or they would have paid to run them during the superbowl.

[VanEyck]

rather than move to a place that will easily accommodate their wishes, [they] would rather force everyone to live under Shar'ia.

According to Shariah Law, non-Muslim religious communities govern themselves. So, for example, Jews govern themselves, and Christians govern themselves. Thus, your statement is grossly misleading.

[Iangould]

According to Shariah Law, non-Muslim religious communities govern themselves. So, for example, Jews govern themselves, and Christians govern themselves. Thus, your statement is grossly misleading.

This leads to the rather bizarre situation in Iran where the local Jewish, christian and Zoroastrian communities are left pretty much alone but the Ba'hai, because they're regarded as muslim apostates, are persecuted.

[heretic]

According to Shariah Law, non-Muslim religious communities govern themselves. So, for example, Jews govern themselves, and Christians govern themselves. Thus, your statement is grossly misleading.
Perhaps so, although the Pact of Umar (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html) (whether legitimate or no), is widely considered a considerable step back from the situation (theoretical/legal at least, and actionable if violated) in the West today.

HTG (Godless Secularist)

[VanEyck]

Several months ago, I was involved in a conversation about the Quran and the whole "context" issue was brought up. So, I decided to sit down and actually read it, cover to cover.
When we say that Qur'an is frequently taken out of context, we generally mean that it's been taken out of its historical context. You see, the Qur'an is a collection of messages that were spoken by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). To properly interpret the meaning of its verses you need to understand what the Prophet was doing at the time that the verses were revealed. Whom was He speaking to? Whom was He speaking about? What situation was the young community of Muslims in? Many verses in the Qur'an refer to specific individuals or specific tribes/groups of individuals. You might read it and think it applies to all non-Muslims, or all humans, but you would be wrong. You would taking those verses out of context.

The problem is then further complicated by the fact that a particular verse may have been revealed years after the verse that's before or after it.

In short, reading the Qur'an from cover to cover, without the aid of qualified people, is far more likely to mislead you than provide the context you were hoping for.

Perhaps this is why God ordered us to "Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not!" [Qur'an 16:43]. This verse means that if there is something you do not know, DO NOT try to figure it out yourself, rather ask the scholars who have studied the relevant historical, linguistic, scriptural, and legal disciplines and as a result are in a position to explain, rather than to speculate.

[VanEyck]

Perhaps so, although the Pact of Umar (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html) (whether legitimate or no), is widely considered a considerable step back from the situation (theoretical/legal at least, and actionable if violated) in the West today.
But in this letter, the Christians restricted themselves to a greater degree than the Shariah requires them to.

By the way, when I said that other religions govern themselves, I should have mentioned that they still had to agree to basic peace-keeping principles, like not attacking Muslims, and not provoking them. And most of these restrictions would be considered reasonable even in the West today.

[heretic]

But in this letter, the Christians restricted themselves to a greater degree than the Shariah requires them to.Unfortunately, a lot of Muslims (in Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, post-war Iraq, and Saudi) are using this as justification for some rather serious harassment/opression of religious minorities.

(personally, I've long wondered if the Pact of Umar is any more factual than the Donation of Constantine in any case)

By the way, when I said that other religions govern themselves, I should have mentioned that they still had to agree to basic peace-keeping principles, like not attacking Muslims, and not provoking them. And most of these restrictions would be considered reasonable even in the West today.
Clarify provocation. Muslims may preach in the west, and those who convert are not subjected to any legal penalties/restrictions. Nor are there any restrictions on open display of faith or mandatory distinctive wear.

HTG

[heretic]

When we say that Qur'an is frequently taken out of context, we generally mean that it's been taken out of its historical context. You see, the Qur'an is a collection of messages that were spoken by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). To properly interpret the meaning of its verses you need to understand what the Prophet was doing at the time that the verses were revealed. Whom was He speaking to? Whom was He speaking about? What situation was the young community of Muslims in? Many verses in the Qur'an refer to specific individuals or specific tribes/groups of individuals. You might read it and think it applies to all non-Muslims, or all humans, but you would be wrong. You would taking those verses out of context.

The problem is then further complicated by the fact that a particular verse may have been revealed years after the verse that's before or after it.

In short, reading the Qur'an from cover to cover, without the aid of qualified people, is far more likely to mislead you than provide the context you were hoping for.

Perhaps this is why God ordered us to "Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not!" [Qur'an 16:43]. This verse means that if there is something you do not know, DO NOT try to figure it out yourself, rather ask the scholars who have studied the relevant historical, linguistic, scriptural, and legal disciplines and as a result are in a position to explain, rather than to speculate.
You know, I am on a mailing list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrescentland/)you may be interested in....

[TheTen-EyedMan]

A couple of years back he wanted the police to provide his group picketing the Gay Mardi Gras with their own portaloos because they were afraid of catching AIDS if they had to use the same toilets as the gays.

That's stupid...even for a religious leader.

A dick...pure and simple.

[VanEyck]

Unfortunately, a lot of Muslims (in Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, post-war Iraq, and Saudi) are using this as justification for some rather serious harassment/opression of religious minorities.You're probably right. We Muslims fall very short of our religious ideals...

Clarify provocation.By provocation, I mean that they were expected to NOT corrupt the Muslim community. So, it was allowed for dhimmis to sell alcohol in their own communities, but to sell it in the Muslim communities, where it is banned, could provoke Muslims to forcibly keep them from doing it. The general rule was "live and let live." Let the Muslims handle their communities, and let the Dhimmis handle their respective dhimmah.

Muslims may preach in the west, and those who convert are not subjected to any legal penalties/restrictions. Nor are there any restrictions on open display of faith or mandatory distinctive wear.If you believe that Islam is the ticket to Paradise and that other religions are tickets to Hell, then this rule makes perfect sense.

Also, I remind you that the dhimmis chose to live under those rules. They were not forcibly converted. They were allowed to continue the free practice of their religions. Their life and property were protected. Furthermore, the authority of their respective churches (or other religious authority) was upheld. At the time, it was a no-brainer. There was no other Empire in the West (by West I mean the former Roman Empire) that allowed free practice of religion. The Muslims were showing far more justice than they could have hoped to receive.

[Naldo]

When we say that Qur'an is frequently taken out of context, we generally mean that it's been taken out of its historical context. You see, the Qur'an is a collection of messages that were spoken by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). To properly interpret the meaning of its verses you need to understand what the Prophet was doing at the time that the verses were revealed. Whom was He speaking to? Whom was He speaking about? What situation was the young community of Muslims in? Many verses in the Qur'an refer to specific individuals or specific tribes/groups of individuals. You might read it and think it applies to all non-Muslims, or all humans, but you would be wrong. You would taking those verses out of context.

The problem is then further complicated by the fact that a particular verse may have been revealed years after the verse that's before or after it.

In short, reading the Qur'an from cover to cover, without the aid of qualified people, is far more likely to mislead you than provide the context you were hoping for.

Perhaps this is why God ordered us to "Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not!" [Qur'an 16:43]. This verse means that if there is something you do not know, DO NOT try to figure it out yourself, rather ask the scholars who have studied the relevant historical, linguistic, scriptural, and legal disciplines and as a result are in a position to explain, rather than to speculate.

So then by this reasoning, most muslims aren't qualified to be muslims, since most muslims would not be considered "scholars" by this definition and thus are just being led by those who "know better".

If reading the Koran doesn't allow you to critique it then it follows that reading it doesn't allow you to follow it.

[VanEyck]

So then by this reasoning, most muslims aren't qualified to be muslims, since most muslims would not be considered "scholars" by this definition and thus are just being led by those who "know better".
Well, the people who "know better" are the Prophet Muhammad Himself (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and His Companions. Obviously, a Muslim will defer to the Prophet of God, and allow themselves to be led by Him. Similarly, we defer to those who spent LARGE amounts of time with Him. They had the best understanding of what Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) taught.

The scholars who came after them have studied the life and teachings of those early Muslims. So if you have a question about a particular verse in the Qur'an, the scholars will be able to tell you what Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said about that verse and/or what His Companions said about it. Clearly, they understood what it means better than we do today. They were present when it was revealed.

It is the scholars that protect the religion from changing. If everyone was allowed to just read the book for themselves, then everyone would have their own opinions and the Muslim community would fly in a 1000 different directions.

Just so you know, this is how Islamic extremism came about 200 years ago, and how it accelerated in recent decades. The extremists read books and draw their own conclusions (based on their own motives), and they have ended up going against the teaching of our Prophet (alayhiSSalaatu wassalaam). To make things worse, the extremists urge people to "read for themselves," so that they can dupe people into following them.

After all, Islam is the most meticulously preserved religion on Earth (not counting the super-recent ones). If Christianity is burdened by a lack of information about the life of Christ (alayhissalaam) and the early Christians, we are burdened by an over-abundance of such records. What's the point of having such records if we are just going to ignore them?

[Patient Boy]

It is the scholars that protect the religion from changing. If everyone was allowed to just read the book for themselves, then everyone would have their own opinions and the Muslim community would fly in a 1000 different directions.


With all due respect, even with the help of the ulama the Muslim community has flown in a thousand different directions.

[VanEyck]

With all due respect, even with the help of the ulama the Muslim community has flown in a thousand different directions.
Yeah, but almost all of these groups have sprung up in the last 70 years. And still about 85% of all Muslims are "orthodox" Sunnis.

[Patient Boy]

Yeah, but almost all of these groups have sprung up in the last 70 years. And still about 85% of all Muslims are "orthodox" Sunnis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam ?

[VanEyck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam ?
Most of these aren't even divisions!!

Example, Sufis are generally either Sunni or Shia, so they are not a separate division.

The 4 "schools of thought" are all Sunni. They pray side-by-side, they attend the same mosques. There is no division among them.

The "schools of kalam" are similar. Ash'ari and Maturidi are both "orthodox."
And there is no division between the two of them. The others are miniscule in terms of followers.

I am aware of the different groups, but still, as I said, approx 85% of them all are "orthodox" Sunni. And most of the rest are 12er Shia. All of the remainder are less than 5% of the total Muslim population. Not counting the Zaydis and Ismailis, these groups are probably less than 2%.

[Adam Crocker]

But then I grew up in South Central L.A. and knew of more households than not containing people who worked for a living and did not shoot up people at random, despite what I saw on TV.

People in South Central who don't shoot or rob each other!? UNTHINKABLE!