If "the West" is nice, 500 mil. Islamists won't push for Sharia??

[Jeremiahcp]

Where are you getting the 500 million number from?

Imaginary numbers?

 

[icehorse]

Where are you getting the 500 million number from?

shockingly, i googled "where muslims live":

Islam by country - Wikipedia

 

[icehorse]

I noticed that too. Big difference between "law of the land in their country" and "law of the land for the entire world".

@Jeremiahcp

Are you guys contending that Muslim majority countries that implement Sharia - a fundamentally supremacist and conquest driven ideology, will stay happily within their own borders? Well THAT hasn't ever happened in the last 1400 years.

 

[leibowde84]

shockingly, i googled "where muslims live":

Islam by country - Wikipedia

So, you went through every single country on that chart in the article and compared the percentages in each to the number of Muslims in that country?

While that is impressive, the outcome still seems unimpressive. About a third of muslims want Sharia Law to be the law of the land, not in the world, but in their own specific country. And, the vast majority of these muslims live in majority muslim countries anyways.

Countries in Europe, the Americas, and Asia don't seem to be at any risk, as the vast majority of muslims in those areas DO NOT favor making Sharia Law the official law of the land.

 

[icehorse]

So, you went through every single country on that chart in the article and compared the percentages in each to the number of Muslims in that country?

While that is impressive, the outcome still seems unimpressive. About a third of muslims want Sharia Law to be the law of the land, not in the world, but in their own specific country. And, the vast majority of these muslims live in majority muslim countries anyways.

Countries in Europe, the Americas, and Asia don't seem to be at any risk, as the vast majority of muslims in those areas DO NOT favor making Sharia Law the official law of the land.

I did some simple estimating. If you do the same, you'll see that the 500 million number is VERY conservative.

Here are some finding from a recent poll of Muslims living in the UK:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/world/europe/poll-british-muslims.html?_r=0

Again, it strikes me as incredibly naive to think that such popular anti-secular worldviews will be abandoned when immigrants cross the border.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I noticed that too. Big difference between "law of the land in their country" and "law of the land for the entire world".

To be fair, no, the difference isn't always that big when you consider that many non-Muslims are forced to live under abusive laws as a result of the belief that certain interpretations of Shari'a should be state law in their countries--which happen to be Muslim-majority ones.

Raif Badawi is just as much of a Saudi as Islamists. It's his country as much as it's theirs, so saying that he has to be ruled by a version of Shari'a that is inherently oppressive to him and his rights is no better than saying the U.S. or Europe should be ruled by Shari'a.

 

[leibowde84]

I did some simple estimating. If you do the same, you'll see that the 500 million number is VERY conservative.

Here are some finding from a recent poll of Muslims living in the UK:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/world/europe/poll-british-muslims.html?_r=0

Again, it strikes me as incredibly naive to think that such popular anti-secular worldviews will be abandoned when immigrants cross the border.

Well, the article you cited admits that there were probably serious problems with the polls. And, what do you mean by "once they cross the border"? Are you only making these generalizations about muslims who are moving to different countries?

Also, just out of curiosity, do you know many muslims personally? Because your views on Sharia and how modern muslims view it seems way off base. Sharia, to every muslim person I have met, and I would contend most in western countries, is no more serious than catholic rules on homosexuality, divorce, and premarital sex. Sure, they are rules, but, to most, they aren't taken very seriously at all. And, even to those who do take sharia seriously, they don't have any intention on pushing the rules on others or expecting non-muslims to adhere to the rules. Like a lot of catholics, they might think that you are going to hell if you don't follow the rules or might be in disfavor with God, but they don't consider it any of their business.

Muslims are no different than any other religious group. Sure, there are extremist muslims just like there are extremist christians (which I certainly see A LOT more of here in the US, and they do try to push their rules/beliefs on non-believers all the time). In the Middle East, the problem with groups like ISIS is political. In any situation where power isn't centralized, there will be violence and chaos. Don't get me wrong, ISIS is despicable. But, they shouldn't be associated in any way whatsoever with the majority of muslims who are peaceful, respectful, and good neighbors.

 

[leibowde84]

Raif Badawi is just as much of a Saudi as Islamists. It's his country as much as it's theirs, so saying that he has to be ruled by a version of Shari'a that is inherently oppressive to him and his rights is no better than saying the U.S. or Europe should be ruled by Shari'a.

Any version of Sharia that is inherently oppressive to any group is a different story. But, in a majority muslim country, I would imagine that they don't know any other way. Sharia seems normal. But, in Germany, for example, it would have to be forced on the people militarily. So, there would have to be an intent for violence and oppression.

Maybe we should pinpoint the "version" of Sharia we are discussing here.

 

[icehorse]

But, they shouldn't be associated in any way whatsoever with the majority of muslims who are peaceful, respectful, and good neighbors.

Please note that I have specifically excluded terrorism in my posts. Here's a slightly older, but more broadly sweeping Pew poll. It doesn't matter if I know only 6 Muslims personally and you happen to know 15. These polls are across thousands of people and several dozen different countries.

Any Muslim who is truly peaceful (and I believe many are), is living a huge lie. Islam is the opposite of peaceful. So a peaceful person who identifies as a Muslim has a massive, persistent burden of cognitive dissonance to deal with. We would all be FAR better off if peaceful Muslims created a new Sharia-free, secular, human-rights-friendly version of Islam and declared themselves to be of that new denomination. But they really couldn't do that could they? Because if they did, their most violent enemies would be non-reformed Muslims, who would take such a massive break with Islam very seriously.

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

This article is many pages long. Don't read just the page on Sharia. And the graphs are quite self explanatory, so you can glean a lot even if all you do is look at the graphs.

 

[Glaurung]

Any version of Sharia that is inherently oppressive to any group is a different story. But, in a majority muslim country, I would imagine that they don't know any other way. Sharia seems normal. But, in Germany, for example, it would have to be forced on the people militarily. So, there would have to be an intent for violence and oppression.

How do you think most Muslim majority societies became Muslim majority societies in the first place?

Of course, history is history, but I'm completely convinced that in the west we will see louder and louder demands that Islam be specifically catered to as Muslims grow more demographically represented.

And all versions of Sharia are oppressive. It's a theocratic, medieval system of jurisprudence built around advancing the supremacy of one religious group. Where in the Islamic world that isn't explicitly secular (however long that will last) is personal freedom even remotely close to what we have in the west?

Maybe we should pinpoint the "version" of Sharia we are discussing here.

Most versions (if they're serious about instituting Sharia) will include the following.

• Death for apostasy.
• Death for blasphemy (or even for the mere accusation of it).
• Severe punishment (if not death) for homosexuality.
• Dhimmitude.
• Strict restrictions on the practice of other religions.
• An infidel tax.

That more or less seems to be the historical precedent.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think our current interactions with Muslims are likely to change this crucial fact. I think that our leaders are not honest about this situation, and that we do everyone a disservice when we pretend that if we're nice, Muslims will integrate with western values.

Why would 500 million people not living in the West be expected to integrate with Western values?

And most Muslims have very little thought for conquering the World for Islam. Not even most Islamists have much thought for that, even if they would like a Caliphate in the 'Muslim World'.

 

[Stevicus]

"Provide better education stressing universal human rights. "

You mean force our views on them?

Why don't we just do what we have done in the past, and destabilize their government then try to force our laws on them.

This is an interesting point. In 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was voted on by 48 nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

I don't know if it means that we're forcing our beliefs on them as much as it's a matter of protecting the rights of human beings, which some might view as more important than the sovereignty of governments.

Some interesting points were made in the Wiki article regarding how Islamic countries saw the UDHR:

Islamic countries
Turkey—a secular state with an overwhelmingly Muslim population—signed the Declaration in 1948.[30] However, the same year, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration, claiming that it violated Sharia law.[31] Pakistan—which had signed the declaration—disagreed and critiqued the Saudi position.[32] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" which could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.[33] On 30 June 2000, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[34] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah", without any discrimination on grounds of "race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations".

A number of scholars in different fields have expressed concerns with the Declaration's alleged Western bias. These include Irene Oh, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Riffat Hassan, and Faisal Kutty. Hassan has argued:

What needs to be pointed out to those who uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the highest, or sole, model, of a charter of equality and liberty for all human beings, is that given the Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the "universality" of the assumptions on which it is based is – at the very least – problematic and subject to questioning. Furthermore, the alleged incompatibility between the concept of human rights and religion in general, or particular religions such as Islam, needs to be examined in an unbiased way.[35]

Irene Oh argues that one solution is to approach the issue from the perspective of comparative (descriptive) ethics.[36]

Kutty writes: "A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home ... It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights."[37] On the other hand, others[who?] have written that some of these "cultural arguments" can go so far as to undermine the very nature of human freedom and choice, the protection of which is the purpose of the UN declaration. For example, typical versions of Sharia law forbid Muslims from leaving Islam under the penalty of capital punishment. Islamic legal scholar Faisal Kutty argues that existing blasphemy laws in Muslim countries are actually un-Islamic and are a legacy of colonial rule.[38] Mohsen Haredy, an Islamic scholar, states that Muslim countries have their own views of Sharia and blasphemies are the internal issues of those countries.[39]

Ironically, a number of Islamic countries that as of 2014 are among the most resistant to UN intervention in domestic affairs, played an invaluable role in the creation of the Declaration, with countries such as Syria and Egypt having been strong proponents of the universality of human rights and the right of countries to self-determination.[40]

 

[icehorse]

Why would 500 million people not living in the West be expected to integrate with Western values?

Well we should be clear here about "western values" - I was using that term as a shorthand for secular and human-rights-compliant values. And the reason is that those values tend to produce the most successful societies. Read a little Ibn Warraq if you need some convincing on this point.

 

[leibowde84]

Please note that I have specifically excluded terrorism in my posts. Here's a slightly older, but more broadly sweeping Pew poll. It doesn't matter if I know only 6 Muslims personally and you happen to know 15. These polls are across thousands of people and several dozen different countries.

Any Muslim who is truly peaceful (and I believe many are), is living a huge lie. Islam is the opposite of peaceful. So a peaceful person who identifies as a Muslim has a massive, persistent burden of cognitive dissonance to deal with. We would all be FAR better off if peaceful Muslims created a new Sharia-free, secular, human-rights-friendly version of Islam and declared themselves to be of that new denomination. But they really couldn't do that could they? Because if they did, their most violent enemies would be non-reformed Muslims, who would take such a massive break with Islam very seriously.

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

This article is many pages long. Don't read just the page on Sharia. And the graphs are quite self explanatory, so you can glean a lot even if all you do is look at the graphs.

"Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know."

The above is why I think you are wrong on this. You are speaking as if Sharia is the same for all Muslims and cannot be removed from Islam. Sharia is not in the Quran, for example. It is law based on what is stated in the Quran.

 

[leibowde84]

Most versions (if they're serious about instituting Sharia) will include the following.

• Death for apostasy.
• Death for blasphemy (or even for the mere accusation of it).
• Severe punishment (if not death) for homosexuality.
• Dhimmitude.
• Strict restrictions on the practice of other religions.
• An infidel tax.

Can you back this claim up? That, if Sharia was going to be instituted in the western world, it would include all of these things necessarily?4

 

[Augustus]

Well we should be clear here about "western values" - I was using that term as a shorthand for secular and human-rights-compliant values. And the reason is that those values tend to produce the most successful societies. Read a little Ibn Warraq if you need some convincing on this point.

Worldviews are cultural constructs that develop due to historical and social circumstances. There is almost nothing more certain than there being a diversity of cultures and ideologies in the World. Unless you believe in monotheist eschatology, then hoping for the universal adoption of a particular set of values is borderline insane.

What other people in other societies want to believe should be none of your concern because there is nothing you can do about it, and any attempts to coerce or interfere will mostly be counterproductive.

As I frequently say, we don't need a world where everyone gets along swimmingly, we just need a world where people who hate each other are drawn into violence as infrequently as possible (radical federalised decentralisation in case you are wondering how).

Once you rule out magic solutions, you have to look at what is practical and achievable.

 

[icehorse]

"Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know."

The above is why I think you are wrong on this. You are speaking as if Sharia is the same for all Muslims and cannot be removed from Islam. Sharia is not in the Quran, for example. It is law based on what is stated in the Quran.

Sorry, you're strawmanning me here. Of course there are different interpretations of Sharia. But there are also some common elements that are almost universally agreed to. That core would include things like:

- religiously driven legal systems
- theocratically influenced government
- scripture-driven restrictions on free inquiry
- institutionally enforced misogyny
- loss of key universal human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion

As for whether Sharia can be removed from Islam, I would of course welcome such a move, I never said it was impossible, but you'd have to admit that it's highly unlikely.

 

[icehorse]

As I frequently say, we don't need a world where everyone gets along swimmingly, we just need a world where people who hate each other are drawn into violence as infrequently as possible (radical federalised decentralisation in case you are wondering how).

Once you rule out magic solutions, you have to look at what is practical and achievable.

Thanks for chiming in! (sincerely)

I agree to some degree. And to that end, we should be especially wary of ideologies that have supremacism and conquest built into their fabric. But we also have to stand for something. I think it's naive to imagine that we can allow a huge chunk of humanity to be denied their basic human rights, and that we will somehow manage to remain isolated from such abuses.

 

[icehorse]

Can you back this claim up? That, if Sharia was going to be instituted in the western world, it would include all of these things necessarily?4

which of those would you be happy to compromise on?

 

[Augustus]

I agree to some degree. And to that end, we should be especially wary of ideologies that have supremacism and conquest built into their fabric. But we also have to stand for something. I think it's naive to imagine that we can allow a huge chunk of humanity to be denied their basic human rights, and that we will somehow manage to remain isolated from such abuses.

We should also beware of seeing devils everywhere that we have a responsibility to cast down, especially as they often don't exist or are a lot less fearsome than they are given credit for.

Anyway, the point of decentralisation only within a federalised system is so you can support a powerful enough military to dissuade any would be conquerors.

What is your suggestion as to how to impose Western Human rights over the entire world, especially as many people don't seem that interested in them or at least put other things on an equal or higher pedestal?

Putin is far more popular at home than any human rights promoting politician after all. History has show that people quite happily give up their rights in exchange for security, national prestige, prosperity or other tangible or intangible factors.

Much as they mean well, people need to realise that it is not their job to 'fix' other societies and cultures and they are as likely to do harm as they are to do good.

We are psychologically biased in favour of action; we believe that when there is a 'problem' then something must be done, however imperfect. We never seem to learn that it is often just as good, or even better to do nothing.

With complex issues we lack the level of control over events that we think we have.