Playing Islam's advocate

[Smart_Guy]

Hey Smart_Guy,

The hijab example is an interesting one, and maybe more complex than it might first seem: In the West - officially - the husband is not in charge of the wife. (Of course bad stuff happens behind closed doors.) So if EVERY Muslim woman in a western community was wearing a hijab in public, I might suspect that coercion is occurring. In other words, an immigrant husband should not be allowed to restrict the freedoms of his wife.

Another example would be Muslims protesting against cartoons of Muhammad. This should be viewed as sedition in my opinion.

Ah, my point was cultural practices vs. specific civil laws. I understood from your original post I quoted that you want immigrants to must follow cultures in their normal practices so a woman that wants to wear hijab should never wear it in a community that its people do not wear it as part of their culture even if there are no laws against it. Is that what you mean?

Do you say that Muslim women can wear hijab if they want in communities that don't have hijab as part of their culture? Or do you say they shouldn't even if there are no laws against it?

I don't think protesting against cartoons of prophet Muhammad is wrong if protesting is allowed in the subject community. If others protest for other things and they are allowed to do it, then why not?

 

[LuisDantas]

Simply saying "Islam not a religion" does not deal with that fact that your are establishing a precedent where the government decides what individuals can and should think. that is not consistent with individual liberty or religious freedom. your virtually saying that the entire Muslim world should be converted to Christianity (as a religion that is historically compatable with western civilisation).

I am just not following the Christianity part.

 

[Laika]

I am just not following the Christianity part.

If Islam were "seditious by nature" it means the whole of it. therefore the only way to stop Muslims being "seditious by nature" is by forcing them to convert to another religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This thread is disgusting and depressing. We have people justifying genocide against Muslims and encouraging discrimination towards them by ignorantly and maliciously painting the entire religion as a danger to society. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and you know who you are.

 

[LuisDantas]

If Islam were "seditious by nature" it means the whole of it. therefore the only way to stop Muslims being "seditious by nature" is by forcing them to convert to another religion.

Not at all. Ensuring them an environment that allows them to go against the worst of the grain of their traditions is plenty enough - as best illustrated by the many non-traditional Muslims that are well integrated in so many places with no Muslim rule, including Israel, France, India and Brazil.

 

[icehorse]

Simply saying "Islam not a religion" does not deal with that fact that your are establishing a precedent where the government decides what individuals can and should think. that is not consistent with individual liberty or religious freedom. your virtually saying that the entire Muslim world should be converted to Christianity (as a religion that is historically compatable with western civilisation).

I think you're setting up a false dilemma here.

Speaking only for the US, no religion can override the constitution, or the laws of the land. Years ago we told the Mormons that could no longer be polygamous. I don't see the precedent? As for religious liberty, it does NOT extend to breaking the law.

No, I'm not asking anyone to convert. But just as the Mormons had to amend their faith, Sharia and secularism are simply incompatible. If you want to immigrate to a secular country, you have to leave your desire for Sharia behind.

 

[Laika]

Not at all. Ensuring them an environment that allows them to go against the worst of the grain of their traditions is plenty enough - as best illustrated by the many non-traditional Muslims that are well integrated in so many places with no Muslim rule, including Israel, France, India and Brazil.

I think you're setting up a false dilemma here.

Speaking only for the US, no religion can override the constitution, or the laws of the land. Years ago we told the Mormons that could no longer be polygamous. I don't see the precedent? As for religious liberty, it does NOT extend to breaking the law.

No, I'm not asking anyone to convert. But just as the Mormons had to amend their faith, Sharia and secularism are simply incompatible. If you want to immigrate to a secular country, you have to leave your desire for Sharia behind.

In other words, the two of you believe that you have the right to determine what people can and cannot believe?

 

[LuisDantas]

In other words, the two of you believe that you have the right to determine what people can and cannot believe?

How did you come at such a conclusion?

I said much the opposite: that it is enough to allow people space to not necessarily follow the expectations of their original culture when it comes to beliefs.

 

[Laika]

How did you come at such a conclusion?

I said much the opposite: that it is enough to allow people space to not necessarily follow the expectations of their original culture when it comes to beliefs.

you implied that Muslims do not have the right to believe in Sharia law.

 

[icehorse]

you implied that Muslims do not have the right to believe in Sharia law.

They have every right to believe in Sharia. But they don't have the right to subvert the constitution. Sharia cannot exist within the bounds of the constitution.

Do you think Muslims have the right to subvert the constitution? On religious grounds or any other grounds?

 

[LuisDantas]

you implied that Muslims do not have the right to believe in Sharia law.

I don't think I did. If you want to point out where I might have implied that, I am curious.

What I said in post #106 was instead that it is not to their - or anyone's - benefit when they do.

It is not a matter of what their rights are, but rather of how much freedom to defend against their beliefs one should allow oneself.

Of course Muslims have the right the believe in Sharia Law, as well as to follow it.

What they lack and hopefully always will is the right to expect others to get out of their ways to accomodate for that.

 

[Laika]

They have every right to believe in Sharia. But they don't have the right to subvert the constitution. Sharia cannot exist within the bounds of the constitution.

Do you think Muslims have the right to subvert the constitution? On religious grounds or any other grounds?

I don't think I did. If you want to point out where I might have implied that, I am curious.

What I said in post #106 was instead that it is not to their - or anyone's - benefit when they do.

It is not a matter of what their rights are, but rather of how much freedom to defend against their beliefs one should allow oneself.

Of course Muslims have the right the believe in Sharia Law, as well as to follow it.

What they lack and hopefully always will is the right to expect others to get out of their ways to accomodate for that.

I'm finding it harder and harder to distinguish between the language of "rights" and the sort of power you'd have to exercise to achieve this. I am struggling to see how you can seriously see this working in practice without large curtailing of civil rights. I can't shake off the deep uneasiness that this whole debate gives me.

see in Bold.

Not at all. Ensuring them an environment that allows them to go against the worst of the grain of their traditions is plenty enough - as best illustrated by the many non-traditional Muslims that are well integrated in so many places with no Muslim rule, including Israel, France, India and Brazil.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me see if I got this right, Laika.

You have a problem with "ensuring them the opportunity to go against the worst of the grain of their traditions" (my wording) because you understand that to mean "curtailing of civil rights"?

Is that it?

 

[Laika]

Let me see if I got this right, Laika.

You have a problem with "ensuring them the opportunity to go against the worst of the grain of their traditions" (my wording) because you understand that to mean "curtailing of civil rights"?

Is that it?

pretty much, yes. the difference between expecting them to change and giving them the oppurtunity to change is in reality very small. If they don't take that oppurtunity to change, I can only see repression being used to forced them inorder to achieve that goal.

 

[LuisDantas]

pretty much, yes. the difference between expecting them to change and giving them the oppurtunity to change is in reality very small.

I would say so. There may well be no difference at all.

Both are very much the opposite of curtailing their rights, though. I wish I understood what made you jump to that.

If they don't take that oppurtunity to change, I can only see repression being used to forced them in order to achieve that goal.

If deportation and perhaps separationism qualify as repression, then I must agree.

But the alternative is a lot more repression than that, far as I can see.

 

[Laika]

I would say so. There may well be no difference at all.

Both are very much the opposite of curtailing their rights, though. I wish I understood what made you jump to that.

essentially, we are trying to use the law as an instrument to enforce cultural changes. so there is never the absence of coercion because of the law. rather it is a question as to the degree with which Muslims are coerced. we are forcing them to be free in a way we expect them to be.

If deportation and perhaps separationism qualify as repression, then I must agree.

But the alternative is a lot more repression than that, far as I can see.

yeah. I can't find a way around it. the threat is always hanging over the discussion that that is where it would lead.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Laika.

I do not know how come you misunderstood me so much, but misunderstand me you did somehow.

essentially, we are trying to use the law as an instrument to enforce cultural changes.

Heck, NO.

I am not.

I will not be caught trusting law to change a culture. Or to do much of anything else really.

so there is never the absence of coercion because of the law. rather it is a question as to the degree with which Muslims are coerced. we are forcing them to be free in a way we expect them to be.

Whatever you are talking about here, I want nothing to do with it. Among other reasons, because it is obviously impossible to "force" someone to "be free".

Why would anyone even want to try such a thing? Using laws and coercion, no less?

yeah. I can't find a way around it. the threat is always hanging over the discussion that that is where it would lead.

I think you may be imagining a slightly direr scenarion than the one I expect to exist.

 

[icehorse]

We have two situations here:

1 - existing immigrants
2 - new, candidate immigrants

Case #2 seems much easier to implement, since we already have strong immigration rules in place. As for the US, I'd say we're lucky that the existing Muslim immigrant population is small. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have the "opportunity" to see how this conflict works out across Europe where the Muslim immigrant population is much larger.

But I'd honestly be surprised if western countries don't make it clear to immigrants that they're not allowed to attempt to subvert the host country's laws or constitution. In other words, I don't think that - for existing immigrants - we'd be pulling any sort of bait and switch to say that Sharia is flat out, off the table.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I think we should not pay too much attention to whether immigrants are recent or consolidated. Or to laws. That way nationalism lies, and nationalism is a poison and a disease.

Instead, we should focus on the social fabric and keep it ever healthy and interactive, for immigrants at least as much as to "nationals", whatever that might be.

People should be invited, sincerely and often, out of their traditions in order to learn better.

Quite often they do. I have seen it happen with Japanese descendents, among others.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Luis,

I'm talking about values here, the associated laws are just for the purpose of defending values. I'm not advocating for nationalism, I'm advocating for values.

For example, secular countries value the separation of church and state. Sharia stands in sharp conflict with that value. This is not about the US or France or Germany as countries, it's about secular values.