Racism veiled as liberation

[Zafran]

Salaam

Yeah Iran was a secular government in the 50s before the shah - it was overthrown by the western powers becasue it was working against there interests in the region - I cant believe i keep forgeting that one.

 

[Karl]

Exactly.



I am not sure where you live or what you're watching on T.V. but most western countries let people pray 5 times a day, whether they are at school or work or anyplace; people are allowed to build places of worship; people are allowed to follow the dress code of their particular religions and they are allowed to preach their religions. So when you say 'atheist' oppression I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you missed the point of my earlier post; since many people of different faiths live under a secular country, the government can't create laws that just benefit one religious group. This would lead to society being fragmented and destroyed. Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.



Most western countries have not banned the veil so don't generalize unless you're trying to create strawmen. Yes, laws from the Bible should be removed if they don't promote overall good for the citizens. I don;t think you quite understand what you're recommending. If my religion says taht I should be able to kill anyone I want to, are you going to let me follow that practice?



this is plainly false and i dont know if you're trolling because i don't typically read your posts to see if this is the type of stuff you say but look around you and tell me if the law allowing freedom of religion caters to atheists. oh and tell me if a presidential candidate would be elected in USA if he said he was an atheist.

Ok if secularism is so freedom loving why can't you have more than one wife? Why not have polygamy? Why are there marriage age laws? That is a domestic issue not a public one, therefore it is the fathers decision, not the states! Most religions do not have any issue with these practices but atheists DO. Secularism is a euphemism for interloping socialist oppression. Secular states impose millions of oppressive laws that religion would not have even dreamt up. Secularism is nothing but tyranny.
Btw democracy is just mob rule so you can have up to 49% of the population oppressed by the 51%. In the USA most people don't even bother to vote 'cos they know nothings going to change. The system is just a farce and a lot of people are just waiting for it to fall over. It would be a lie to assert that democracy and secularism isn't despised by many people.

 

[Karl]

Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.

Is this a joke??? EVERYONE is happy? If so why do so many people moan and winge about politics and democracy?
Laws that are universal cannot work simply because there is no such thing as universal values and cultures etc.

 

[Seeker1066]

Maybe the Muslims traveling to the West are trying to compete with the Jews that have dug in, in the past for political power. As the Christian kings the defenders of the faith have all gone and democracy and secularism now exist in the West. It's a numbers game now. When you have enough Muslims in the West then it will be ruled by them. Christianity was not the original religion of the Western nations so turning to Islam is no big deal.
Or maybe a lot of those Muslims going West are just chasing the dollar. And as for Western converts who knows?

Excellent point. All of Europe was Pagan before Christianity. Europe didn't stamp out Paganism until after 1,000ad. Which they did by the sword by the way. People think the only Crusades were against the Muslims but the Teutonic knights launched a Crusade

The Baltic Crusades started in the early 12th century, not as a planned and proclaimed holy war but only a general expansionist movement, as Denmark and various German states moved aggressively into the lands of the pagan, Slavic Wends (what's now the Baltic coast of Germany). Beyond the Wends, they encountered other peoples: Prussians, Livonians, Lithuanians, and Estonians (reading west to east along the southern shore of the Baltic).

Missionaries went east to convert these pagans to Christianity and to European feudal society. But the pagans didn't always want to be converted; sometimes they resisted, violently. Threats to the missionaries led Pope Alexander III to preach a crusade against the Baltic pagans in 1171, a full crusade on the Outremer model, with remission of sins and everything, the first of a series that became almost continuous in the next two centuries.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Europe didn't stamp out Paganism until after 1,000ad.

Small nitpick, paganism was never completely stamped out in Europe. Its still there today, though yes, its was reduced so much and forced to hide that few would have noticed it wasn't gone.

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

Interesting article that favours the Burkha/Nigab I found on the telegraph...

Just avoid the Comment section:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html

 

[Woodrow]

Just cleaned up the war zone. Some of the deleted posts were innocent, however they contained quotes or referred back to deleted posts.

You may now return to posting but check your hats, firearms and tempers at the door before coming in.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I was actually fascinated by somebody taking the position that people own their children and that the state should not interfere, even if they abuse them.

Karl, is this just your individual view or do you think it is in any way representative of Islam?

 

[Karl]

I was actually fascinated by somebody taking the position that people own their children and that the state should not interfere, even if they abuse them.

Karl, is this just your individual view or do you think it is in any way representative of Islam?

It is my individual position, but also it is a position that is widely viewed by some people, both out and inside of Islam, particularly the Shafi'i school of thought.

I don't know why so many people get freaked out over such a fundamental concept. I would have assumed that most parents would have considered their offspring as belonging to them. I would have assumed that they would have considered themselves as naturally entitled in having complete authority over their very own young. Then again I suppose socialism is so entrenched now in the Western psyche, its intrusiveness has been bludgeoned into the masses for so so long, having increased its reign of terror since the close to the French Revolution, so I guess I shouldn't really be all that surprised that contemporary people would find my position to be bizarre.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It is extreme is all. I think many of us would agree with libertarianism (I do agree with most libertarian views) but when it comes to children (or other people) being abused or killed we feel a need to protect them - even if that means interfering with a parent's role over their children. We'll even take children away from abusive parents and arrest the parents and I'm down with that.

You got me thinking though, that Islam to me seems anti-libertarian generally and yet you are a libertarian muslim and that is fascinating to me. Would you also embrace the libertarian view that such acts as sodomy, marijuana, prostitution, self mutilation, etc should not be attacked by the state so long as they are kept out of the inter-public and done in the privacy of one's home?

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms. Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father. Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms. Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be? Children are not toys.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Subhaan`Allaah!. . . . .

 

[جوري]

This reminds me of a topic I just read today:

Blind Couple Reunited With Baby Taken Away by State

by Tom Henderson (Subscribe to Tom Henderson's posts) Jul 23rd 2010 5:09PM
Categories: Newborns, Medical Conditions, In The News, Amazing Parents
PrintEmailhttp://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...pre=http://w.main.welcomescreen.aol.com/&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...pre=http://w.main.welcomescreen.aol.com/&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...pre=http://w.main.welcomescreen.aol.com/&tt=0http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...pre=http://w.main.welcomescreen.aol.com/&tt=0More

Text Size:

Erika Johnson and Blake Sinnett's daughter, Mikaela Sinnett, was returned to them after 57 days in foster care. Credit: David Eulitt, Kansas City Star / MCT



Erika Johnson and Blake Sinnett of Missouri had a baby. For two days. Then they had a nightmare. State authorities took their baby away because both Johnson and Sinnett are blind.

Following a public outcry, little Mikaela was returned to her parents this week, and authorities were reminded of an ancient truism: None are so blind than those who will not see.

But Johnson tells the Kansas City Star she's not bitter.

Blake Sinnett is guided to his mother's van with Erika Johnson as the two parents left for their Kansas City, Missouri apartment with their 2-month-old daughter. Credit: David Eulitt, Kansas City Star / MCT


"I'm a forgiving person," she says. Nonetheless, she adds, she resents the lingering prejudice people in power have against the handicapped.

"Disability does not equal inability," she tells the newspaper.

Mikaela was born May 21 at Centerpoint Medical Center in Independence, Mo. The Star reports doctors let Sinnett "see" his daughter's birth by feeling the crowning of her head.

According to the newspaper, Johnson's first attempts at breast-feeding were clumsy. A nurse noticed Mikaela's nostrils were covered by Johnson's breast, and Johnson felt that something was wrong. She switched the baby to her other side, but not before Mikaela turned blue.

A nurse wrote on a chart: "The child is without proper custody, support or care due to both of (the) parents being blind, and they do not have specialized training to assist them."

That notation kicked the system into auto-pilot and plunged the new parents, both 24, into a nightmare. It would be 57 days before they were reunited with their baby.

When Johnson held Mikaela again July 20, the Star reports, the new mother couldn't stop crying.

"We never got the chance to be parents," she tells the newspaper. "We had to prove that we could."

Although they were able to return to their home in Independence that day, they still faced an adjudication hearing to determine whether or not they would have to basically share custody of their baby with the state.

However, the Star reports, they got a call from their attorney, Amy Coopman, saying the state had dropped the case.

"Every minute that has passed that this family wasn't together is a tragedy -- a legal tragedy and a moral one, too," Coopman tells the Star. "How do you get 57 days back?"

Arleasha Mays, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Social Services, tells the newspaper she can't comment on what happened because of privacy rules. Still, she insists, "the only time we recommend a child be removed is if it's in imminent danger."

Johnson tells the Star questions from a social worker started flying as soon as Mikaela was born.

How could they take the baby's temperature? With a talking thermometer. How would they get her to a doctor? In an emergency, they'd call an ambulance. For a regular appointment, they'd call a cab or ride a bus.

Johnson tells the paper those solutions weren't enough for the social worker. She and Sinnett were told they would need 24-hour care by a sighted person at their apartment. Johnson responded they couldn't afford such help and didn't need it.

"I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent," Johnson tells the Star.

Soon, Mikaela was gone. The Star reports her parents weren't even allowed to hold her as she left the hospital. All they could do was touch her arm or leg.

Advocates for the blind were quickly on the case.

Gary Wunder, the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri, tells the Star he found the story almost too incredible to believe.

"I needed to verify their whole story," he tells the newspaper. "We had to do due diligence. I found the couple to be intelligent and responsible. We knew this was an outrage that had taken place."

Wunder and other advocates rallied other associations for the blind nationwide. More than 100 people at a National Federation of the Blind national convention in Dallas volunteered to travel to Kansas City to protest and testify, both as blind parents and as the sighted children of blind parents.

They also hired Coopman, who tells the Star this is not the end of the story. Legal action will be taken.

"Whether a couple is visually impaired or deaf or in a wheelchair, the state should not keep them from their children," she adds.

Related: Woman Having Babies from 2 Separate Wombs

Source

 

[Pygoscelis]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms. Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father. Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms. Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be? Children are not toys.

Glad to see you write this and I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Karl]

It is extreme is all. I think many of us would agree with libertarianism (I do agree with most libertarian views) but when it comes to children (or other people) being abused or killed we feel a need to protect them - even if that means interfering with a parent's role over their children. We'll even take children away from abusive parents and arrest the parents and I'm down with that.

As I said, I will defend my private property rights frantically to the death! And I don't care about what those who would aggress my parental authority happen to actually call themselves, be it of a religion or of atheism. It makes NO difference to me. As far as I am concerned my offspring have absolutely NOTHING to do with either YOU, or SWEET or any of your other little busybody state worshipping friends. In fact I am so passionately protective of my inborn parental authority that if any invading usurper attempted to aggress that, and my back finally became up against the wall and I could no longer hold my private property battlement, as a last resort I would need to carry out familicide (including myself) before my enemies finally smashed down my walls. A Masada job, in other words. That is how strong I feel about the preservation of my inherent parental authority.

You got me thinking though, that Islam to me seems anti-libertarian generally and yet you are a libertarian muslim and that is fascinating to me.

I don't know why you seem to be impliying that there is some kind of contradiction. Some things just so happen to be approved by both religion and libertarianism alike. So what?

Would you also embrace the libertarian view that such acts as sodomy, marijuana, prostitution, self mutilation, etc should not be attacked by the state so long as they are kept out of the inter-public and done in the privacy of one's home?

Sharia law only affects matters of public behaviour, not domestic behaviour in the privacy of PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is because under Sharia law trespass is not permissible. Under Islam one needs to gain permission to enter your property. So basically if someone actually wished to indulge in these illegal activities, who's simply going to KNOW anyway?

 

[Karl]

Of course the state should interfere if a child is being abused in ALL forms.

As I said to Pygoscellis, I regard that as simply none of your or anyone elses business if you are meaning to imply it towards me and my own offspring. PERIOD.

Subhallah, imagine a child being sexually abused by her father.

He is the master of the house. She is his offspring, his biological property. Therefore that is his private prerogative if he so wishes. Personally I am not into incest, but if I DID happen to be into it, it would be NONE of anyones business whatsoever. And if they wanted to ever MAKE it their business then they would receive by me something that I will refrain from giving description to all the ghastly details of what I would do to them. Answer me this: Do you think the Taliban would be ones to bow down to your state authority if they were being threatened to have their offspring seized from them because of some apparent mistreatment of their offspring? I bet you they wouldn't! They too would fight you to the death.

Don’t worry let not get involved, the child belongs to him! Islam does not give a leeway for parents to abuse their children in any forms.

Prove it then. You obviously are unaware that some sects and schools of Islam support my position and that there is an exemption when it comes to offspring! I would have never converted to Islam in the first place if I ever thought that that proviso was not included. Private property rights and the attached absolute parental authority are utterly sacred to me and I would never give that up for anything in the world.

Children are human beings, and they are entitled to taken care of by their parents. But if the parents abuse their position it should be absolutely the authority business. why shouldnt it be?

Because as far as I'm concerned my offspring have no inherent connection to you or to your society. I put a very heavy emphasis on clan, I am not a collectivist or a monogenist. So another part of my fundamental reason for this is that I object to different species of hominid laying judgement on what I do in my private affairs and how I raise my own biological offspring. I don't regard a different species of hominid to have the inherent right to judge how I conduct my private affairs. They have no more right to judge me than I have any right to judge a rhinosaurus which I deem to be mistreating its own offspring.

Children are not toys.

I don't care if you wish to speak that on behalf of your own offspring. Just don't speak on behalf of MINE. That is a no go zone for you, sorry. *I* will be the one to decide such matters, not you.

 

[nousername]

You are an absolutely disgusting man. saying a CHILD should suffer sexual abuse at the hands of his/her own father or other realative. in Islam he would be be sentensed to death for this. So those pervs who like to take pics of themselves abusing their own children then posting it on the net for other pervs to see is ok for you? those kids shouldn't be rescued from this situation, or any other sexual assult?

 

[Trumble]

Private property rights and the attached absolute parental authority are utterly sacred to me and I would never give that up for anything in the world.

Children are NOT 'property', they are a responsibility. I you really hold the attitudes you have presented, may I seriously suggest you seek psychiatric help before somebody gets hurt and/or you get locked up? You are sick.

 

[nousername]

I don't want the above member to give the impression to nonMuslims that incest is "allowed" and should be "tolerated". this is the Islamic perspective:

This is Islamqa.com fatwa regarding those that molest relatives:

Undoubtedly what your uncle did is a crime that deserves punishment in this world and torment in the Hereafter. Many people’s religious conscience has been weakened by what they see and read, which provokes their desire, so they fulfil their desires in ways that Allaah has forbidden. One of the most abhorrent and evil examples of that is incest between a man and his mahrams (female relatives to whom marriage is forbidden), which is deserving of a severe punishment in the Hereafter.

a question about a father molesting his daughter
Praise be to Allaah. Firstly:
Undoubtedly what the husband did to this small child – if it is proven – is a serous crime, for which he deserves to be stoned to death. Perhaps such incidents indicate how far such scum are from the laws of Allaah. Hence the Muslim should be careful with regard to marriage, and he should be caution and be careful about letting female relatives of the wife be alone with people who are weak in faith, even if they are small.



and also

What is the hadd punishment for incest? Can there be any repentance from that?.

Praise be to Allaah. Firstly:
Zina with a mahram relative is a graven sin that zina with a non-mahram, because it is severing the ties of kinship, and an act of aggression against those with whom we are enjoined to uphold ties of kinship. Hence some of the scholars are of the view that the one who commits zina with a mahram should be executed in all cases, whether he was married or unmarried. This was narrated from Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him). The majority are of the view that he should be subjected to the hadd punishment; so if he was married he should be stoned and if he was not married he should be given one hundred lashes, even though his sin is greater.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Karl, maybe you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you're real agenda is? are you an apostate by any chance?