BS: Muslims again . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Musket
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 10:57 AM

Well, one mate of mine who happens to be a Muslim reckons capital punishment is barbaric, that his wife wears the trousers in his house and he and his wife had a great time at his own son's civil partnership wedding.

He is a Muslim.

All it takes is one exception to the stereotyping and the stereotyping is irrelevant and false.

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 01:17 PM

Ivorian muslims are quite moderate and believe that only God has the right to punish by taking a life, so no death penalty. There is a sort of matriarchal society there too, and the older, strong-minded women certainly do contribute to decision-making within the family. There are no drachonian punishments and none of my husband's many sisters is veiled in any way. I don't think stereotyping is helpful or enlightening, just misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:25 AM

Nobody is 'stereotyping', Eliza. Everyone knows that not all Muslim states are alike. All you have demonstrated is that the things that happen in N Nigeria & Saudi Arabia do not happen in the Ivory Coast, which I knew already. But how does that make the Sharia-based [by their own claim, not mine or yours or anyone else's] goings-on in those 2 places any the less iniquitous?

Might as well say the crime is OK because you & I are not criminals.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM

Sorry about that ~~ cookie now back.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 03:43 AM

The problem MtheGM, to which you are contributing, is that statements like yours about the evils of Islam and Sharia law tend to give the impression that you are condemning Islam and/or Sharia law as such, not merely some objectionable examples or practices in some places or by some people. There are you and a few others who seem to find something to object to only in Islam and Islamic law, but nothing to criticise in say Xtianity or Judaism, and no examples of objectionable conduct in either of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:23 AM

That happens to be the subject of this thread, Richard. I have had plenty to say on other threads about the iniquities of the activities of the state of Israel [despite my own, long-rejected, provenance]. I have mentioned the activities of the Holy Office {Inquisition}, a Xtn institution, above. I hold no brief, as I have also stated on other threads, for the activities of fundamental Xtns in the USA &c ~~ as I have said about the idiocies being perpetrated on the ongoing Young Creationist thread by the foolish & pertinacious GUEST,Iona.
In attacking me for writing about Islam on a thread dedicated to that subject [look at the thread title for crying out loud], it is surely you, not me, who is persisting in reading and commenting selectively.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:02 AM

With all due respect, MtheGM, once again you generalise in saying that here you are "writing about Islam", whereas the activities and laws to be criticised are those only of some adherents and purported adherents of Islam. You again illustrate the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM

Richard ~ You are being unfair. I have not said that the governments & groups I name are typical of anyone but themselves & the others who choose to associate with them; but how does that make their actions any the less reprehensible & unacceptable? Let me refer you to my answer to Eliza a bit earlier this morning ~ 12.25 a.m.

You arguments look dangerously close to me to the plea that nobody of any race or faith can be criticised because the cry of 'racism!' will apply. Try & find the thread I OPd last year some time about how 'Racism' could be used as a catch-all defence to any sort of criticism ~~ like that Italian footballer who accused an opponent of 'racism' for calling him Italian!

Honestly question the rationality of your own arguments, please, before attacking me for what I have neither said nor implied.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslims again . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 08:37 AM

It seems to me that you have implied what I have said that you have implied. It may or may not have been your intention.

I have considered the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives 4 main meanings to the word "entail". Of the fourth, the fifth and final subsidiary meaning is "to bring on by way of necessary consequence". I'm all for elegant variation in language, but to pretend that that is the primary meaning is irrational.