BS: Religious law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

Give Rahman a few copies of that nice UN charter to hand out and set him down in Kabul at noon. I'm sure the folks who suggested all those nasty deaths for him will then see the error of their ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

all of the Muslims in the world need to be eradicated.

Well, I have read nothing even remotely similar to that in this thread.

But this particular interpretation of Muslim faith regarding apostasy needs to be completely eradicated from the world. And it's not only Afghanistan. Several Muslim countries have laws punishing apostasy with death. Usually they find a way around like for instance declaring the apostates insane, or sentencing the apostate to death but exiling him after the sentence.

Even if the death penalty for apostasy is extremely rare (more often a religiously motivated crowd lynches an apostate, or a relative just kills him), it has in principle no place in a modern world.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

So how many Muslims do you think we'll need to kill in order to accomplish what you suggest, Wolfgang?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:26 PM

frogprince -

By "brutality" in links I've posted, I presume you're referring to the Phelps Bio? His case, as described there is extreme. My opinions and observations on the subjects are only marginally affected by that case. I have related some more specific "case history" in previous posts elsewhere, so the following is perhaps repetition.

I have had conversations with more than a half-dozen males, over a period of several years, during which they asserted that their pastors had urged them to "discipline" their wives, and in a few cases they were accompanied by their wives who showed visible signs of their "discipline." In one of those cases, the wife affirmed that the pastor had told her "she deserved it" and should just "obey and do what he (the husband) tells you to." The offense was not described; but I took it that she thought it was rather trivial. She appeared to accept the pastor's advice that it was nothing extraordinary. In this half-dozen instances I count only conversations in which specific reference to a specific instance of such "pastoral advice" was clearly indicated.

Two males that I remember specifically, who spoke in some detail, were actually troubled by the advice to "go home and beat her," and both were quite explicit that the "pastor," acting as marriage counsellor, had suggested that as what they should do. One even quoted extensively, and verbatim so far as I could tell, the Bible passages that their "pastors" offered as justification, which I take as an indication that this was not new advice.

Most of the males who spoke fairly openly about this were "drop-ins" that I did not know, and for the most part only saw once or twice. Their opinion was not "popular" and they may have felt that the places I frequented weren't very "friendly" (with some justification?). I do not know which specific churches were giving this advice, but it was apparent that several were involved.

Two or three "regulars" that I knew casually over a fairly long period asserted that they had received similar advice, but claimed "she does what I tell her so I've never had to beat her," or words to that effect. In most cases, it was quite obvious that they considered it an "available remedy," sanctioned by their churches, should the need arise. It was also quite obvious in one case that he frequently used his "right" to administer physical punishment as a threat to keep her obedient.

One female who was employed at a pub where I spent some time appeared sporadically with visible evidence of having been hit, and on several occasion remarked to the effect of "the preacher said I deserved it, so I guess it's okay."

One female known casually over a long period, the sister of a close friend, appeared one day and engaged in a long argument with my friend, her sister, over whether she should divorce her husband. He had beaten her severely enough to need medical attention, and then left her locked in their house. Relatives forced entry to take her to the hospital. She was admitted overnight for treatment, and asserted that her "pastor" had visited her in the hospital and had told her "you didn't do what he told you to do so you deserved it." (She answered the phone while he wasn't there, when HE called repeatedly to make sure she would obey his order not to use it.)

While behaviour of the husband in this instance can only be described as bizarre, I do not doubt her assertion that their pastor, whom they had seen previously for "marital counselling," asserted that it was his "husband's right" to impose any rules he chose, and it was his right and duty to beat her if she disobeyed.

While I don't suspect that the "ministers" intended what they would consider brutality (which might differ from ours), it is my conclusion that the right and duty of a husband to inflict physical punishment on "a disobedient wife" is an entrenched and firmly held tenet of a significant number of fundamentalists' belief.

I have heard "allusions to" similar "religious principles" in places as widely scattered as Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Chicago, from people who admitted to beating, or being beaten, and/or to using the "right" to use such punishment as a threat.

It is not surprising if you have not seen or heard anything other than vague hints. Battery, and especially domestic battery, is a civil crime in most areas. Incitement to commit battery is also a crime in some few places. You are unlikely to hear anything specific - except from a few "lunatics" like *** - unless you are a regular member of a church where one or more pastors/counselors subscribes to this sort of belief and you and/or your spouse seek individual counselling to receive the message first-hand, or if you know (of) specific individuals who have "applied the theory" and are willing to talk (brag?) about it.

Recent articles in my newspaper (within the past year or so) have included remarks by women's hospice workers, to the effect that a large percentage of women treated are married to "fundies" (not their exact word), and citations were given to national studies along with the opinion that my city "was not much different" than many others. Unfortunately, this came before I was aware of how much influence polital activists hiding behind religion had achieved, so I didn't save citations and don't reliably recall the "percentages" quoted.

I don't make a practice of watching the TV services that are plentiful in my area - and in most areas of the US - but on occasions when it's accidental, I hear bits of one or more sermons per week in which subsevience of women to their husbands is stressed in the message. (These are not all local programming.) In a few cases when I've listened to see more fully what they say on the subject, the message is quite clear that women have no rights except what their husbands grant them. I see no difficulty, with the additional discussions I've had with individuals who've "applied the theory," in assuming that at least some of these "ministers" and/or those of their congregation, in one-on-one counselling, would assert the "right and obligation" of a husband to "discipline" a disobedient wife.

I haven't heard (yet) the assertion that women have no souls and are not quite human so they can't go to heaven, as has been parodied; but that line appeared in the suppression of "other minorities" (with Biblical citations) to deprive them of civil rights for quite a few years. In one nationally syndicated sermon I heard a very few months ago on TV, the preacher "addressed the question," and danced around it without answering. His equivocation was that "all those in heaven will be perfect beings so of course they'll all look like men."

I do not believe that this is a phenomenon specific to Kansas. While we have a couple of "fundie" ministers who are locally more vocal than may be commonly seen in many other places, there appear to be plentiful "church leaders" elsewhere who share the same views; although I have no real way of assessing the specifics of how prevalent their influence is elsewhere.

When our illustrious Kansas State Senator, Kay OConnor, *disparaged the 19th Amendment as a "symptom of something I don't approve of and something that "is around because men weren't doing their jobs" as head of the family, it wasn't too surprising. A number of our legislators appear to have come out of the oven a bit too soon.

* Quoted from my local newspaper 03 June 2005.

What was perhaps a surprise(?) is that she reportedly received large volumes of mail in support of her opinion, from across the country. When her (2001) remark was revived in comment on her campaign to be "State Election Commissioner" public comment published at least locally made frequent reference to, and supported, the "Biblical sources" for women's proper subservient, and compliant, role as servants to their husbands. With this misogynistic view of women, the same treatment as is openly advocated for children is to be expected in the treatment of wives. Both are nothing more than the "property" of the husband, to do with as he wishes.

(And recent surveys show that unmarried young women are predominantly "liberal" - but most don't bother to vote.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:59 PM

Shaia law is the basis of the legal system in many muslem countries. Much of it flies in the face of the UN proclamation of human rights but the UN does not have the "balls" to enforce its own code. Apostacy in itself is a dispicable law even without applying the death penalty. Women are considered to be property and the mullahs control the education system. All of this violates the UN code but the world body does nothing. Now with political correctness being the rule in the western world, we should not criticize because it may offend someone's religion, but muslims are free to riot worldwide because of some stupid cartoon.
   Most all religions contain a dunghill of dogma , but the modern world has shown some enlightenment. Most Jews and Christians no longer support stoning women to death who commit adultry, and many feel that it is none of their F'n business. It is long past time for muslims to adopt the same attitude. I fully support religions of any kind promoting peace and harmony, and most muslim leaders in the western world profess that islam does as well. I find that comforting to a point , but when a case such as this one or Rushdie's of a few years back appears, they seem to fall silent or defend the sharia.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:38 PM

Well, Thanks, JohnInAfghanistan--oops, I mean Kansas. I've heard enough extreme stuff first hand, over many years, that I guess I shouldn't be surprised at it fringing on out to what you've been encountering. I've heard plenty on the subservience of wives and children, including things said openly from the pulpit that amount to the authorization of psychological abuse. And I have also heard at least one lay woman from a fundamentalist church say that voting rights for women are inappropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM

You all are fucking insane. I'm a regular, but enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:11 AM

Making unbased assumptions again, Carol?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:38 AM

Oh guest - who asked you? Would you be so kind to hit the road and come back no more, no more, no more?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:02 AM

Our constitution which I pledged to defend valiantly (hand on the flag of the loyal and valiant Hessian Jaeger Battalion - do you remember Flatbush in 1776?) starts with:
The dignity of man is untouchable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of the entire governmental power.

The following 18 articles are concerned with the Human Rights which are basic for the Constitution of a free republic. Religious problems are not the concern of the government if they do not concern the criminal law. So let it be.
Spitting out invectives against those unlucky muslims is a violation of their dignity, too.
The sharia is thought to be partly revealed to man (viz. by Archangel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad) and partly follows the deeds and sayings of the aforesaid prophet. For us westerners they cannot be the base of a free constitution; the human rights prevail.
So we have to take a firm stand, but without dirty insults.

Behave!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

Christians in Afghanistan (from DER SPIEGEL)

"There were a lot of churches, both in Kabul and in the country," he says. "Back then the two religions coexisted here almost peacefully." But that all changed when the Taliban came to power in the mid-1990s. Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar ordered his men to raze churches to the ground, to lynch Afghan Christians and to kill or drive out foreigners who followed Jesus Christ.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

Here's a website that gives a helpful rundown on the various issues involved, and the different views that are held between Muslims on this whole issue.Ontario Consultants in Religious Tolerance

It's fairly evident that the basis for the claim that "death to apostates" as actually laid down in the Quran or the teachings of Muhammed is pretty dubious - just as would have been the case for an analagous basis for similar practices within Christendom not so long ago.

Here's a quote from the site:

"2006-MAR-25: The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) called for Rahman's release. They noted that:

"International scrutiny on this issue has cast sharia as clear-cut on the issue of apostasy -- a person who turns his/her back on Islam is an apostate and must be punished by death. In reality, the 'rules of Islam' are not codified, and the Quran mandates that religious freedom be respected. Furthermore, the Prophet Muhammad himself never sentenced an apostate to death....We strongly oppose the state's use of coercion in regulating Islamic belief in such a manner, since faith is a matter of individual choice on which only God can adjudicate."

It appears that Abdul Rahman has left Afghanistan for refuge in Italy. If I was a Muslim I'd feel pretty ashamed about that being necessary, and I think I wouldn't be alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:24 PM

Making unbased assumptions again, Carol?

No, Wolfgang. I'm making a point. Perhaps a bit obscure and oblique for you, but a point nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,me
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

FWIW department: The Muslim emperor Suleman the Magnificent was apparently the only "European" monarch of his day (1500's) to allow freedom of conscience in matters religious; his domain included much of the near-east, northern Africa, eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor, etc. Most of his famous Janissaries were Christians, as was his (most-favoured) wife, and his long-time Grand Vizier.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM

I didn't quite get your point either Carol.

Eradicating this kind of perversion of their religion is primarily a job for Muslims, as it was for Christians at one time, because that's the only way these things happen.   

But it will happen, and it has to happen, and as that link indicates there are Muslims working towards that.

And in the meantime the rest of us can't collude in this sort of persecution, or treat is as insignificant, any more than if it were happening the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 12:28 AM

Look how many Muslims we've had to kill already just to try and bring "democracy" to Afghanistan, McGrath. And they still don't have it. How many do you think we'll have to kill in order to eradicate the practices like the one this thread is about?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 02:01 AM

Most of his famous Janissaries were Christians - wrong.
The janissaries were Christian children recruited as boys, converted to Islam and educated as muslims. Since their phase of socialization happened in the barracks they were fervent fighters for Sultan and Islam.
The recruiting was called devshirme; it also was called harvest of boys. Christian parents had to supply a certain number of boys for the janissaries; a form of tax for the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

Carol,

you see a connection that is not there in reality. As the SPIEGEL article shows this particular understanding of a part of the Muslim faith has come to Afghanistan with the Taliban and has stayed after they were forced out of power.

Bush had very different reasons for the attack on Afghanistan than their position on apostasy. Apostasy has not even been mentioned as a reason for that would have been too laughable as a reason for a war.

I also would not advise the Western forces in Afghanistan to force a change of the constitution or to consider killing for that aim. Any change in that respect has to come from within the Muslim community to be a lasting change. The hearts and the minds have to change and not only the constitution. What would a change of the law bring as long as your neighbours still kill you when you openly declare you're an apostate?

But what we can do, what other countries can do, is to denounce any punishment for apostasy in any country to be a violation of human rights and to be in violation of the UN charter. Sanctions also could be a possibility.

As it happens all countries in violation of this particular human right are predominantly Muslim countries with a constitution and laws based upon the sharia. Not all Muslim scholars see this interpretation as correct or binding. But the fundamentalist movement in the Islam, those who are called Islamists, see that interpretation as the correct one. This thinking has no place in a tolerant and multiethnical world.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM

Well, I agree that it's not a good or healthy practice, Wolfgang. But it's not going to change any time soon for this reason... the governments of the West will not allow it. Everything our governments do has the effect of (and in my opinion, is designed to) increase radicalism among Muslims, rather than decrease it. Western governments want radicalized Muslims because that's how they justify their acts of aggression against Muslim countries.

So to put it quite simply, as long as Western governments continue to meddle in Middle Eastern countries and other largely Muslim countries around the world, this and other practices with which those of us in the West disagree will not only continue, they get worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:43 AM

And by the way, this bit right here...

But what we can do, what other countries can do, is to denounce any punishment for apostasy in any country to be a violation of human rights and to be in violation of the UN charter. Sanctions also could be a possibility.

That sort of thing is what will lead to Western governments (most notably those of the US, Britain, and Australia) to take military action, and force occupations on those countries. However, in the case of Afghanistan, they've already done that and look how much good it's done. None whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:47 AM

One last point...

This is why I have been making references to killing all Muslims. We've already bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age. We've already got our forces in there as an occupying force. And yet, people in this thread are beating the war drums as if we haven't already done as much damage to that country that we can possibly do (other than killing everyone in the country). So what is left to do besides kill everyone? Nothing, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:58 AM

Who said "we" were going to get rid of this kind of thing? It can't be done that way. It'll be Muslims who get rid of it. Trying to imnpose stuff like that from outside just makes it a lot harder for changes like that to happen.

In fact it tends to have the reverse effect. The situation for non-Muslims in Afghanistan is far worse than it was before the USA and friends powered up the Mujahadeen against the Russian backed givernment; and in Iraq it's far worse for them than even under Saddam.