Islam and Western Society

[a_majoor]

No, we need to get rid of hate speech laws and "speech codes".

Using arbitrary, undefined and undefinable criteria simply means you have given the State an arbitrary tool to wield against those who they choose to prosecute. The most infamous example is the Human Rights Kangaroo courts, which attempted to prosecute Mark Styen and Ezra Levant for repeating what an Iman said, while refusing a complaint against another Iman who was explicitly calling for violence against Christians and Jews. Evidently someone calling for you to be killed or hurt isn't "offensive" or "hateful" if you are not in the right spot on the hierarchy of victimhood.

As Edward says, freedom of speech is only academic if it means freedom to say what I already agree with. (Political Correctness is the attempt to stifle speech that SJW's don't agree with and take entire topics off the table for discussion and debate).

Like I said upthread, the best defense against bad speech is better speech, and if you cannot muster arguments against bad speech them maybe you need to examine your premise (why is that "bad" speech) or exercise your God given talents more to become a proper Free Speecher and make your case. Becoming a Brownshirt and using force to stop people speaking isn't the direction we should be wanting to go.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The way we're going it feels like free speech will be whatever social media decides is allowable.

A bit off topic but regarding free speech I was reading something that stuck out to me.  Some gay conservative shit disturber recently got banned from Twitter for apparently starting a movie review of the new shitty Ghostbusters that turned racist (I don't even think he made the comments himself). What struck me is the commentary about how this guy got banned yet twitter is full of pro ISIS, death to the infidels tweets as well as a shit ton of KILL PIGS tweets from black lives matter dummies.

As far as Islam in the West it seems like countries like Germany and Sweeden are write offs.  Everything I've read leans towards the number of sexual attacks by various Muslim refugees is sky rocketing. What I find is the most disturbing (or at least right up there) is that the government in some of these EU countries are going out of their way to hide (or lie) about the nature of these attacks. Sexual assaults are being covered up. In some cases the attackers are even being apologized to by the victims or excuses made for them by the government. "It's a different culture bla bla". It's messed up.

 

[mariomike]

July 31, 2016

Pope Francis: "I don't like to talk about Islamic terrorism"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-i-dont-like-to-talk-about-islamic-terrorism/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=27134384
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRCRAFT -- Pope Francis wrapped up a five day tour in Poland on Sunday, and on the flight back to Rome with reporters, the topic of terrorism in the wake of a French Catholic priest's slaying was discussed.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

No, we need to get rid of hate speech laws and "speech codes".

Using arbitrary, undefined and undefinable criteria simply means you have given the State an arbitrary tool to wield against those who they choose to prosecute. The most infamous example is the Human Rights Kangaroo courts, which attempted to prosecute Mark Styen and Ezra Levant for repeating what an Iman said, while refusing a complaint against another Iman who was explicitly calling for violence against Christians and Jews. Evidently someone calling for you to be killed or hurt isn't "offensive" or "hateful" if you are not in the right spot on the hierarchy of victimhood.

As Edward says, freedom of speech is only academic if it means freedom to say what I already agree with. (Political Correctness is the attempt to stifle speech that SJW's don't agree with and take entire topics off the table for discussion and debate).

Like I said upthread, the best defense against bad speech is better speech, and if you cannot muster arguments against bad speech them maybe you need to examine your premise (why is that "bad" speech) or exercise your God given talents more to become a proper Free Speecher and make your case. Becoming a Brownshirt and using force to stop people speaking isn't the direction we should be wanting to go.

I disagree.  I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.

Where speech should be protected is anything non-violent.  As soon as you cross a line and begin promoting violence against another racial, ethnic or religious group, you're done. 

I would add that we're not talking about un-PC topics like native canadian or black crime which make people uncomfortable.  We're talking about allowing a platform for a virulent ideology responsible for the execution of thousands (and probably tens of thousands) of innocents.  Would you also provide a similar public forum for neo-nazis who would advocate a second holocaust?  The evil is the exact same.  The only difference is their potential reach.

I should add that you should look up the frightful claims of the indoctrinated mother of the Boston Marathon bomber.  Her words sound scarily like a wish to see a nuclear detination in a major US city.  Here's the crux:  Yes, we may lose some freedom of debate.  However, what if this restriction saves lives? Then how does your math look?  Ten people in a subway station?  One hundred people in a sports stadium?  Several hundred people on an aircraft?  Tens of thousands with an atomic device?  What is the price you're willing to pay to guarantee unlimited free speech? 

Caveat:  You need to state an actual number.  If it's higher than zero, then I hope the victims are not your friends, family or loved ones. If the number is zero, you have a conundrum because that's not how this ideology works.  If you allow exposure, there will be fatalities.  The only question is "How many?"

 

[Brad Sallows]

I want expression as unrestricted as possible, including those arguing for various forms of - call it what it is - war.

I want them right out in the open where they can be seen, monitored, tracked, and - when/if it becomes necessary - imprisoned/incapacitated/killed.

 

[Remius]

I disagree.  I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.

Where speech should be protected is anything non-violent.  As soon as you cross a line and begin promoting violence against another racial, ethnic or religious group, you're done. 

I should add that you should look up the frightful claims of the indoctrinated mother of the Boston Marathon bomber.  Her words sound scarily like a wish to see a nuclear detination in a major US city.  Here's the crux:  Yes, we may lose some freedom of debate.  However, what if this restriction saves lives? Then how does your math look?  Ten people in a subway station?  One hundred people in a sports stadium?  Several hundred people on an aircraft?  Tens of thousands with an atomic device?  What is the price you're willing to pay to guarantee unlimited free speech? 

Caveat:  You need to state an actual number.  If it's higher than zero, then I hope the victims are not your friends, family or loved ones. If the number is zero, you have a conundrum because that's not how this ideology works.  If you allow exposure, there will be fatalities.  The only question is "How many?"

You're going down a slippery slope with that line of thinking.  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are cornerstones of our democratic way of life.  Here and in the West as a whole. This is the same line of reasoning that China, Iran etc etc use to justify imprisoning political activists, journalists et al.  Mess with it and you mess with everything. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

You're going down a slippery slope with that line of thinking.  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are cornerstones of our democratic way of life.  Here and in the West as a whole. This is the same line of reasoning that China, Iran etc etc use to justify imprisoning political activists, journalists et al.  Mess with it and you mess with everything.

I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.

I can see where Cdn Blackshirt is coming from and in a big way I agree with him.  We've built a pretty damn good society (including our rights and social programs) and it's being turned around and used against us (Like attacking Canadian soldiers then showing up at their hospital for treatment).  There's that saying about not agreeing with what someone says but giving their life to defend their right to say it etc.. etc...  I get the theory but the  practical leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[YZT580]

Those who live in this country deserve those rights.  Those who live elsewhere should not be invited to share their warped and twisted logic in this country.

 

[a_majoor]

I find it rather interesting that people on this board, people who's posts are some of the best examples of better speech that I have come across, would want to ban speech outside of the four unprotected categories.

Really guys, you have demonstrated the ability to make powerful, subtle and impassioned defences of what you believe in, the ability to advance your opinions in the wake of counterarguments and debate everything from obscure bands to international grand strategy. Some pissant little comedian should be polished off by any one of you as a light warmup.

We are not Brownshirts (our illustrious predecessors crushed them and their hateful ideology, then polished off the Communists as an encore), so we don't need to use or enable Brownshirt tactics to win. The pen really is far mightier than the sword, and speakers across the ages have rallied men and women to do great deeds.

What I would prefer is you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect what made her great were men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard. If they ever failed in an enterprise, they made up their minds that at any rate the city would not find their courage lacking to her, and they gave to her the best contribution that they could. They gave her their lives, to her and to all of us, and for their own selves they won praises that never grow old, the most splendid of sepulchers- not the sepulcher where their body is laid but where their glory remains eternal in men’s minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action.

Pericles: Funeral Oration

 

[CougarKing]

:facepalm: Any religion that does not permit a degree of secularism in its host society like these clerics won't survive till the next century.

Japan Times

Malaysian Islamic leaders say no to ‘Pokemon Go’

AFP-JIJI
AUG 6, 2016
KUALA LUMPUR – Islamic leaders in Kuala Lumpur have said that Muslims should avoid playing “Pokemon Go” because the popular mobile game was harmful and could “lead to gambling.”
Senior religious official Zulkifli Mohamad al-Bakri said Friday that the city’s Islamic Legal Consultative Committee had taken into consideration top scholars’ opinions on the cartoon creatures.
” ‘Pokemon Go’ and all the Pokemon characters should be avoided as it can bring harm,” he was quoted as saying by the national news agency Bernama.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Bass ackwards]

:facepalm: Any religion that does not permit a degree of secularism in its host society like these clerics won't survive till the next century.

Japan Times

Given the number of reports I've read of allegedly intelligent adults wandering into traffic, onto subway tracks and off the edge of cliffs while engrossed in  this game, I'm not sure if this is the yardstick I'd use to predict whether their religion is going to outlast our society...

 

[AbdullahD]

Given the number of reports I've read of allegedly intelligent adults wandering into traffic, onto subway tracks and off the edge of cliffs while engrossed in  this game, I'm not sure if this is the yardstick I'd use to predict whether their religion is going to outlast our society...

But, in all seriousness. The point is extremely valid. If everything even remotely fun becomes forbidden, the youth will become disenfranchised and leave Islam, sadly.

Now my opinion on Pokemon Go is.. quite negative to be honest. I find it a waste of time and lives, kids and adults spending so much time playing these silly games is quite worrying. They waste otherwise useful time that could be alloted into bettering themselves or the position that they currently hold in life.. (albeit I will admit I heard of a pokemon go account being sold for $10,000.. so maybe it is a good life...)

Anywho these scholars who classify games as Haram (forbidden) concern me, especially on the premises that they use which seem tenuous at best to me. Also makes me think they are salafis or followers of taymiyyah's ideas, which is basically make everything haram.

Islam is about balance and in my humble (or arrogant) opinion I think these chaps have messed it up. The Prophet peace be upon him, used to play and have fun, make jokes and poke fun all in good taste. He allowed us all sorts of Halal (permitted) fun, but more specifically he left a lot of things un mentioned and something that is not mentioned in Islam is usually by default permitted because of the saying close to the meaning were the prophet told us not to ask so many questions that everything becomes forbidden.

Islam is "supposed" to adapt to the needs of the time, not be stuck in some archaic version of itself. I would be ok with this fatawa if they said someone who dedicates to much time to these games is crossing the line.. but to just make pokemon go haram period is a joke.

But I think S.M.A is right or at least on to something. If we dont give these scholars a reality check... we may be on troubled times...

Also as an aside... I just thought of something... this could be something radicals or semi radicals use against so called "bad" Muslims. Such as making Muslims feel sinful for playing a silly game and espousing an ignorant narrative on how it is "the west" trying to keep Muslims docile etc... the more strict Islam becomes the more polarized Muslims become, we desperately need to put a cap on silly fatawas like these.

Abdullah

 

[jollyjacktar]

But, my wife explained to me that fatwas are more or less useless drivel as they hold no force in proclamation and can be ignored at will if it's not to your tastes.  Makes them more like,  one "beard's" opinion and little else.

 

[AbdullahD]

But, my wife explained to me that fatwas are more or less useless drivel as they hold no force in proclamation and can be ignored at will if it's not to your tastes.  Makes them more like,  one "beard's" opinion and little else.

Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?

They can be ignored at will and you can take other fatawas too. Such as these scholars say it is forbidden and others say it is permitted so I'll take the permitted ruling.

In the broader world no enforcement body exists to really do anything about it. But certain countries do have agencies that enforce the fatawas that the scholars promote... and that is where the issues arise.

I personally feel fine taking any fatawa within the Hanafi madhab and running with it... but if I go to certain countries I would or could be forced (more correctly my wife) to follow salafi fatawas which I conpletely disagree with and consider garbage.

So for the most part it is useless drivel from out of touch scholars... but in some areas of the world.. it has a very real consequence.

Abdullah

 

[mariomike]

Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?

 

[Bass ackwards]

But, in all seriousness. The point is extremely valid. If everything even remotely fun becomes forbidden, the youth will become disenfranchised and leave Islam, sadly.

Now my opinion on Pokemon Go is.. quite negative to be honest. I find it a waste of time and lives, kids and adults spending so much time playing these silly games is quite worrying. They waste otherwise useful time that could be alloted into bettering themselves or the position that they currently hold in life.. (albeit I will admit I heard of a pokemon go account being sold for $10,000.. so maybe it is a good life...)

Anywho these scholars who classify games as Haram (forbidden) concern me, especially on the premises that they use which seem tenuous at best to me. Also makes me think they are salafis or followers of taymiyyah's ideas, which is basically make everything haram.

Islam is about balance and in my humble (or arrogant) opinion I think these chaps have messed it up. The Prophet peace be upon him, used to play and have fun, make jokes and poke fun all in good taste. He allowed us all sorts of Halal (permitted) fun, but more specifically he left a lot of things un mentioned and something that is not mentioned in Islam is usually by default permitted because of the saying close to the meaning were the prophet told us not to ask so many questions that everything becomes forbidden.

Islam is "supposed" to adapt to the needs of the time, not be stuck in some archaic version of itself. I would be ok with this fatawa if they said someone who dedicates to much time to these games is crossing the line.. but to just make pokemon go haram period is a joke.

But I think S.M.A is right or at least on to something. If we dont give these scholars a reality check... we may be on troubled times...

Also as an aside... I just thought of something... this could be something radicals or semi radicals use against so called "bad" Muslims. Such as making Muslims feel sinful for playing a silly game and espousing an ignorant narrative on how it is "the west" trying to keep Muslims docile etc... the more strict Islam becomes the more polarized Muslims become, we desperately need to put a cap on silly fatawas like these.

Abdullah

I will confess to being completely ignorant about Malaysia. A quick glance through wikipedia just now suggests that they're considerably more advanced or progressive than, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Thus a couple of questions:

Is everything even remotely fun forbidden? (you alluded to this at the top of your post)

Is this fatwa "optional" as jjt suggests? Or are there real, serious consequences to being caught chasing pikkachus or whatever the hell they're called?

All religions act as the fun police and quite often there are good practical reasons to heed what they're telling you to do or not do.

Maybe the hairy old gents in Malaysia need a better PR agent. Instead of issuing some stodgy fatwa, they should just repost pictures from this part of the world that show people doing their level best to win a Darwin award because of a ridiculous game.

 

[AbdullahD]

I will confess to being completely ignorant about Malaysia. A quick glance through wikipedia just now suggests that they're considerably more advanced or progressive than, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Thus a couple of questions:

Is everything even remotely fun forbidden? (you alluded to this at the top of your post)

Is this fatwa "optional" as jjt suggests? Or are there real, serious consequences to being caught chasing pikkachus or whatever the hell they're called?

All religions act as the fun police and quite often there are good practical reasons to heed what they're telling you to do or not do.

Maybe the hairy old gents in Malaysia need a better PR agent. Instead of issuing some stodgy fatwa, they should just repost pictures from this part of the world that show people doing their level best to win a Darwin award because of a ridiculous game.

When I brought up the point about everything fun being forbidden, I was joking and making fun of certain groups of scholars who seem to label everything forbidden. Don't get me wrong the historical "vices" are all forbidden, but outside of that, you are usually good.

I agree that what religions tell you not to do is usually for your own good, but in this case I argue it is a culture making this forbidden not the religion.

This fatawa should be considered optional.. fatawas are "supposed" to work in certain ways, but sadly no one uses them that way (even our own scholars sadly). See you have the shia vs sunni divide so sunni Muslims should only take sunni fatawas, which is not to say that they can not look at shia fatawas and discuss the merits or demerits of it, but it is not generally done.

Then you have the 4 or 5 major schools of thoughts within Sunni Islam (hanbali, hanafi, maliki, shafi'e and Salafi if you count them). Now most or almost all Sunni Muslims follow one of those schools of thought and it is encouraged to only take religious rulings from the school of thought you follow. But each school of thought has many positions within it, so you "should" be able to choose the fatawa that suits you with no consequences... but sadly that is not the case.

One example.. the beard, I keep mine a little tidier nowadays then what a lot of hanafi scholars say I should with their respected opinions. But I am following an accepted position within the hanafi madhab, so I am okay and not perverting Islam. Which is how Islam "should" be... but sadly, certain groups around the world would gladly take my head off for following a fatawa they dont approve of. Which is a complete perversion of Islam.

Certain things are ruled "Haram" to do but have absolutely no real world consequences to them.. or well they should not. A beard should not have consequences attached to the growing or not growing of it, but certain extremist groups have made it a punishable offence, which it should not be. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, Murder, rape, thievery are also haram and have real world consequences within Islam. So just because something is Haram doesn't mean anyone should do anything about it in certain cases, it is up to the individual person and how much of Islam he wants to follow.

Anywho long story short, the fatawa is optional and their should be no consequences for ignoring it.. but sadly certain extremists groups tend to ignore these particular teachings of Islam and prefer murdering or beating etc anyone who does anything they disagree with.

Also if the respected elders and scholars consider it a waste of time, or what have you that is fine. But I think your idea of using humor to tackle the issue may be a bit wiser then just making it haram.

I hope this makes sense... if not I will try to clarify.

Abdullah

Ps im fairly ignorant of malaysian culture too

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?

Oh yes, just ask her.  ;D

 

[Bass ackwards]

OK, I'm not much of a hand with computers, so please bear with my formatting here.

When I brought up the point about everything fun being forbidden, I was joking and making fun of certain groups of scholars who seem to label everything forbidden. Don't get me wrong the historical "vices" are all forbidden, but outside of that, you are usually good.

My bad then, I should have caught the nuance since I constantly do that myself.
I note from the Wikipedia article that sports are popular over there, so I gather their clerics are nowhere near as hard core as the ones in places where playing soccer is considered a capital offense.

I agree that what religions tell you not to do is usually for your own good, but in this case I argue it is a culture making this forbidden not the religion.

Religion or culture -if they're saying that playing pokemon go isn't all that good an idea, I think they're onto something there.
Frankly, when I think of things like Keeping up with the Kardashians or Jerry Springer or the US presidential race, I don't blame any cleric or leader who'd like to keep western entertainment and culture the hell out of his culture.

This fatawa should be considered optional.. fatawas are "supposed" to work in certain ways, but sadly no one uses them that way (even our own scholars sadly). See you have the shia vs sunni divide so sunni Muslims should only take sunni fatawas, which is not to say that they can not look at shia fatawas and discuss the merits or demerits of it, but it is not generally done.

Then you have the 4 or 5 major schools of thoughts within Sunni Islam (hanbali, hanafi, maliki, shafi'e and Salafi if you count them). Now most or almost all Sunni Muslims follow one of those schools of thought and it is encouraged to only take religious rulings from the school of thought you follow. But each school of thought has many positions within it, so you "should" be able to choose the fatawa that suits you with no consequences... but sadly that is not the case.

To put this is a western context, would this be a rough equivalent to various Christian religions having prohibitions that the others don't (such as alcohol, blood transfusions, caffeine, etc) ?

The writer Mark Steyn often points out that nice thing abut multiculturalism is that you don't actually have to know anything about the cultures you are welcoming. As long as you occasionally mindlessly chant "celebrate diversity" (it's the new Hail Mary), you're good to go.
It was working too. People were quite happy to overlook honour killings and stonings and beheadings and the killing of gays and the slicing of sensitive parts off young women and the oppression of all women.
But then some Islamic bugger had to say "No pokemon go".
So much for tolerating other cultures. I can hear the B-52's spooling up as I type this.

One example.. the beard, I keep mine a little tidier nowadays then what a lot of hanafi scholars say I should with their respected opinions. But I am following an accepted position within the hanafi madhab, so I am okay and not perverting Islam. Which is how Islam "should" be... but sadly, certain groups around the world would gladly take my head off for following a fatawa they dont approve of. Which is a complete perversion of Islam.

No arguments here, Partner.
I'm just poking fun at westerners and our priorities. Judging from the tone of the article, I don't think the clerics in Malaysia are going to be slicing off body parts over this.
As to the violent ones elsewhere who would: we'll deal with them eventually. Or maybe they'll deal with us.

 

[CougarKing]

Haters gonna hate. As usual.

When I was in graduate school at SFU, I had a number of classmates who were foreign students from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whenever the Middle East was the topic, they would quickly dominate the discussion and endlessly rant about how Israel was "evil".

The Pakistanis in particular were the most outspoken. I thought: Pakistan only has a 40% literacy rate and all you could do is vent your energy against a country that doesn't even border your own?  :

Canadian Press

IOC reprimands Egyptian who wouldn't shake Israeli's hand
Canadian Press

Stephen Wilson
17 hrs ago


RIO DE JANEIRO - An Egyptian athlete who refused to shake his Israeli opponent's hand after their judo bout has been reprimanded and sent home from the Rio Olympics, officials said Monday.

The International Olympic Committee said Islam El Shehaby received a "severe reprimand" for his behaviour following his first-round heavyweight bout loss to Or Sasson on Friday.

When Sasson extended his hand, El Shehaby backed away and shook his head, injecting Middle Eastern politics into the Rio Olympics. The referee called the 34-year-old El Shehaby back to the mat and obliged to him to bow; he gave a quick nod and was loudly booed as he exited.

(...SNIPPED)