Shari'ah and Afghanistan

[Muffled]

I think the honest truth is that most Muslims are not very familiar with Sharia and when it's implemented it's a huge shock, because many likely think it will be more akin to the superior system they've been told that it is. The sad truth is, as far as I am concerned, that most Muslims are in a position where they want to remain Muslim but have a law more akin to the Christian one that led to the modern West (in terms of rights and so on) than what Sharia gives them.

In my view, Islamic law is never good in any form and the only people who want it are hardcore Islamic fundamentalists, usually men.

You're not going to change my mind. I fully believe the Jewish and Christian laws are better.

I believe I like this law:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

 

[Muffled]

Viewing the Taliban's execution of women for wearing tight clothing or going to school and their raping of local women as an "honest attempt to demonstrate the Muslim way of life" would be both damaging and inaccurate. It is a demonstration of a particularly deleterious strain of ultra-fundamentalist Islamism, not of the "Muslim way of life" as seen in the majority of Muslim countries and communities around the world.

Let's not forget for one moment that the majority of the victims of the Taliban's brutality and oppression are Muslims. The beliefs around what constitutes a correct understanding of a Shari'a-based way of life vary widely among many Muslims, ranging from a fairly secular understanding such as what can be seen in Turkey to the violent extremism of the Taliban.

I believe the Taliban is dedicated to eradicating Christianity and killing Christians.

 

[Augustus]

I believe the Taliban is dedicated to eradicating Christianity and killing Christians.

Why would they be dedicated to that? There aren't many Christians in Afghanistan to begin with.

They are pretty insular and more interested in creating a state dominated by Pashtuns and enforcing their harsh form of Deobandi Islam.

 

[danieldemol]

If they were so horrible they would have long faded away.

I can just imagine the human sacrificers of 1500AD being able to look back on the history of human sacrifice dating all the way back to the Olmecs (1200–400 BC) thinking, "If human sacrifice was so terrible it would have long ago faded away.

Certain aspects of various cultures such as slavery, the oppresion of gays etc are terrible, and that these practices have persisted so long is in no way an indication that they are not horrible.

In my opinion

 

[Augustus]

I can just imagine the human sacrificers of 1500AD being able to look back on the history of human sacrifice dating all the way back to the Olmecs (1200–400 BC) thinking, "If human sacrifice was so terrible it would have long ago faded away.

Certain aspects of various cultures such as slavery, the oppresion of gays etc are terrible, and that these practices have persisted so long is in no way an indication that they are not horrible.

In my opinion

Things that have persisted for a long time tend not to have done so purely by chance. That doesn't necessarily mean they are entirely good, but the reasons for their persistence should be understood before people decide to get rid of them.

Summed up in the idea of Chesterton's Fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

 

[danieldemol]

Things that have persisted for a long time tend not to have done so purely by chance. That doesn't necessarily mean they are entirely good, but the reasons for their persistence should be understood before people decide to get rid of them.

Summed up in the idea of Chesterton's Fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

What specifically are you trying to defend here?

In my opinion.

 

[Augustus]

What specifically are you trying to defend here?

"If they [Abrahamic religions] were so horrible they would have long faded away."

You replied about slavery, etc. It's quite obvious why slavery persisted for so long, so according to Chesterton's Fence you can remove it from society.

Comparing slavery with complex socio-cultural belief systems is not really comparing apples with apples though.

The roles traditional religions play in society are not quite so clear cut, and the chances are that they do indeed provide at least some tangible benefits for their adherents.

 

[Rival]

I can just imagine the human sacrificers of 1500AD being able to look back on the history of human sacrifice dating all the way back to the Olmecs (1200–400 BC) thinking, "If human sacrifice was so terrible it would have long ago faded away.

In many societies it did. It faded away from the Ancient Egyptian system pretty early on in their history. It faded from the Mediterranean systems also. The bigger question here, though, is that of purpose - what purpose was human sacrifice serving and when did it stop serving that purpose as well as why. For years, apparently people did not view human sacrifice as the moral evil we see today, so if they made that argument because human sacrifice were still socially and culturally relevent, the only retort we have is 'Well we don't like it'. We're not talking about groups of people who have notions of individual freedom or rights, so I think you're trying to square peg a round hole here.

Certain aspects of various cultures such as slavery, the oppresion of gays etc are terrible, and that these practices have persisted so long is in no way an indication that they are not horrible.

The only group I can think of within the Abrahamic family that still owns slaves in some form are Muslims.

But with the gay thing, my honest answer is: so what? No-one remotely cared about this issue until the 20th century, when the concept of homosexuality was created. It's not been an issue for thousands of years. It's also still a minority of people who think that we need to have some kind of gay liberation, because most peoples in the world simply aren't on board with it. Ideas such as these are from a very modern Western liberal mindset that simply does not translate overseas. So here most Abrahamic systems are still doing just fine. Christendom has been open to homosexuality for at least half a century now in some way or another. Sodomy/private homosexual acts was legalised in the England in 1967. That was 54 years ago. So I'm not really sure what the complaint is.

 

[danieldemol]

"If they [Abrahamic religions] were so horrible they would have long faded away."

You replied about slavery, etc. It's quite obvious why slavery persisted for so long, so according to Chesterton's Fence you can remove it from society.

Comparing slavery with complex socio-cultural belief systems is not really comparing apples with apples though.

The roles traditional religions play in society are not quite so clear cut, and the chances are that they do indeed provide at least some tangible benefits for their adherents.

It is both true that they may provide some tangible benefits, and irrelevant as im not asserting that the entire set of pre-packaged beliefs be done away with, just certain aspects of the culture/beliefs which are demonstrably of negative impact.

In my opinion.

 

[Shakeel]

The only group I can think of within the Abrahamic family that still owns slaves in some form are Muslims.

Of course it's the only one you can think of. Yet, as far as I know, there are no slaves owned in an Islamic manner at the moment anywhere in the world.

Some of the highest numbers of slaves are in certain African countries which have some 90% Christian population.

 

[danieldemol]

In many societies it did. It faded away from the Ancient Egyptian system pretty early on in their history. It faded from the Mediterranean systems also. The bigger question here, though, is that of purpose - what purpose was human sacrifice serving and when did it stop serving that purpose as well as why. For years, apparently people did not view human sacrifice as the moral evil we see today, so if they made that argument because human sacrifice were still socially and culturally relevent, the only retort we have is 'Well we don't like it'. We're not talking about groups of people who have notions of individual freedom or rights, so I think you're trying to square peg a round hole here.

It only faded in areas where people were prepared to question the value of it as opposed to saying, "well its been around forever therefore it must be good".

And the retort for gay rights is hardly limited to only being, "well we don't like it". Talk about a whopper of a strawman.

But with the gay thing, my honest answer is: so what? No-one remotely cared about this issue until the 20th century, when the concept of homosexuality was created.

I dont think this is true;

'Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from requiring all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.'

Source: History of homosexuality - Wikipedia

It's not been an issue for thousands of years. It's also still a minority of people who think that we need to have some kind of gay liberation, because most peoples in the world simply aren't on board with it.

Ever heard of the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy?

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so.[2]"

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Ideas such as these are from a very modern Western liberal mindset that simply does not translate overseas. So here most Abrahamic systems are still doing just fine. Christendom has been open to homosexuality for at least half a century now in some way or another. Sodomy/private homosexual acts was legalised in the England in 1967. That was 54 years ago. So I'm not really sure what the complaint is.

The complaint is against those cultures which still have those negative practices incorporated into their culture.

I have nothing against Christians and others who accept science, gay rights, women's rights etc. Even though such world views dont make sense for me personally.

In my opinion.

 

[Rival]

It only faded in areas where people were prepared to question the value of it as opposed to saying, "well its been around forever therefore it must be good".

I didn't say it was good, I said it served a social and cultural purpose; the same as many religious traditions.

And the retort for gay rights is hardly limited to only being, "well we don't like it". Talk about a whopper of a strawman.

Well what other argument would you make? These aren't people who have the western view of rights and freedoms, as I said before. The idea that you ought to be able to practice homosexuality just because you think it's innate to you and isn't hurting anyone clearly hasn't persuaded most cultures. Do you think you could go back in time to ancient Hebrew culture and convince them via such arguments that are used today to allow open homosexual practices? It wouldn't work, just as it still doesn't for most cultures. And ultimately, we only want to make them have such rights because we don't like how they treat homosexuals. We should just leave them alone and let them get on with their knitting.

I dont think this is true;

'Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from requiring all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.'

Source: History of homosexuality - Wikipedia

We're talking about homosexuality - a word that wasn't even invented to describe a concept that wasn't even around before the 20th century. We can't just retcon our understanding of human sexuality on to other and ancient cultures, it's unhelpful at best and anachronistic at worst. And here I'm talking specifically about homosexuality as current society sees it.

Ever heard of the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy?

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so.[2]"

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

This is how cultures and society work, though. A large group of people agree to behave in a certain way and abide by certain norms and traditions. If enough people in that society agree that being homosexual is wrong, that's the consensus.

The complaint is against those cultures which still have those negative practices incorporated into their culture.

The issue here is that they don't see it as negative, so I see no problem.

 

[danieldemol]

I didn't say it was good, I said it served a social and cultural purpose; the same as many religious traditions.

What you said was, "If they were so horrible they would have long faded away." Which at the very least implies they were not so horrible.

Well what other argument would you make?

That it is not in accordance with the principle of human compassion to forbid a couple a harmless love.

These aren't people who have the western view of rights and freedoms, as I said before. The idea that you ought to be able to practice homosexuality just because you think it's innate to you and isn't hurting anyone clearly hasn't persuaded most cultures.

The Nazi germans didnt have our current concept of human rights either. They too had a societal consensus that killing Jews was ok.
Do you think if you had a time machine you could go back and convince them they were wrong using the arguments we use today? Should we have allowed them to get on with their knitting?

We're talking about homosexuality - a word that wasn't even invented to describe a concept that wasn't even around before the 20th century.

The word was not around but the practice appears to be ancient;

"A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has countered this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato,[8] which describe individuals exhibiting exclusive homosexuality."

History of homosexuality - Wikipedia

In my opinion.