Thursday, 03.06.08
Strange Gymfellows
Wikimedia Commons
Islam and Liberal Democracy
February 1993
What Is The Koran?
January 1999
Toby Lester examines recent efforts to liberalize Islamic society by reinterpreting the Koran.
Religious Accommodation
6 March 2008
For Matt Yglesias, religious accommodation is an inevitable part of life in a liberal democracy.
The argument about how Western societies — from universities to nation-states — should accommodate their Muslim inhabitants tends, for the moment, to break down along the pre-existing left-right lines of partisan debate. The liberal administrators who granted the Harvard Islamic Society's request no doubt viewed it as an innocuous and reasonable gesture, and a case study in how multiculturalism ought to work. Critics of such accommodations, meanwhile, tend to be right-wingers fretting about creeping shari'a, and the possibility that multiculturalism's tendency to buckle under pressure from aggrieved minorities who reject its premises entirely is paving the way for the Islamification of the West.
But this alignment is deeply unstable. Liberals who stick up for accommodating Muslim views about the female body risk lending aid and comfort to a view of sexuality and gender that runs counter to their own. Conservatives who criticize Harvard for creating a safe space for female modesty can find themselves tacitly defending the sort of gender-neutral, hypersexual culture they usually decry. And what's true in minor contretemps over gymnasium space is true more broadly as well, in the U.S. and especially in Europe.
Already you can see new alignments and strange bedfellows emerging out of these contradictions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam whose views on religion and the separation of church and state would place her on the far left of AmericaÂ’'s domestic debate, ends up clasped to the bosom of the American conservative establishment. Pim Fortuyn, a gay Dutch politician who opposes Muslim immigration in the name of social liberalism and anti-totalitarianism, finds himself assassinated by a left-winger who considers him the fascist. The Archbishop of Canterbury argues for accepting certain aspects of shari'a and seems to see Islam and Christianity as potential partners in a struggle against secularism; the Roman Pontiff, meanwhile, appears to view a rising Islam as a potentially existential threat to a fading Christendom.
The challenge Islamic immigration poses to liberal societies may not transform the West quite so profoundly as many pessimists fear (and at least some Muslims hope). But at the very least it's likely to leave Western politics forever altered.
Paging Roger WilliamsAli Eteraz, a leading Muslim-American blogger, argues that Harvard's religious-based distinction was a mistake. |
Defending the veilBritish playwright David Edgar chastises liberalism's double standards on Muslim religious expression. |
Too diverse?David Goodhart, editor of Prospect Magazine, finds that the left's embrace of diversity comes at the expense of deeply-held cultural values. |
Sharia CreepMark Steyn, reacting to the Harvard decision, argues that what we used to condemn as segregation is now praised as multiculturalism. |
(36)
It is the same in Europe, we must surrender and the Muslims shall win! http://newsweden.wordpress.com
Well, let me please upset the categories. I'm certainly no conservative: I oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine, favor more regulation of banking and other "public interest" businesses, favor gay marriage and oppose the war in Iraq.
But I also firmly support the separation of church and state and oppose making accommodations to groups with religious other peculiarist agendas. If your god tells you to be a teetotaler, don't go to a bar. If your religion forbids men and women mixing, you'll either have to endure American culture as it is or finance your own gym.
If you want to change American culture, settle here, become a citizen and take your chances with the democratic system.
There is a very fundamental issue here: Harvard University is a secular institution. As such, fundamental to its principles of organization is the separation of Church and State.
What is being done violates this fundamental premise.
That would not be the case for a non-secular institution.
It is one thing to ask a private organization to accommodate a particular religion, but quite a different thing when it involves the state --- which has been separated from the Church since the treaty of Westphalia.
Two points that were expressed on the original Yglesias thread--first, this is not about gender separation per se, but about the REASON FOR THE SEPARATION in the first place. Harvard's women did not ask for some female-only time at the exercise facilities in order to avoid the "meat market" atmosphere. A group of students asked that other students be excluded because their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS demanded it. It's astonishing that Harvard went along with a request based on such a justification.
Second, the supporters of this policy who posted on the thread steadfastly refused to answer this question--if this nugget of religiously-based segregation is OK, or no big deal, then where do you draw the line? What if evangelical Christians demanded single-sex dorms based on their belief that unmarried, unrelated people of different genders shouldn't live under the same roof? What if male orthodox Jewish students demanded the exclusion of female students from kosher dining facilities during certain times of the day? What if conservative Muslims started demanding female-only classes?
Like it or not, this policy is about the accomodation of a form of religiously-based intolerance. Yes, it may be a minor form of intolerance, with presumably minor impact upon those being inconvenienced, but it's intolerance nonetheless.
Does anyone remember the Yale 5? They were five orthodox or ultra-orthodox , I can't remember which, students at Yale, who did not want to live at the dorms as required first year because of the "hypersexualized culture". Many had been told to do what Orthodox jews had done before - pay the fee, officially "live" at the dorm, and have a place off campus. These students protested, saying they shouldn't have to pay for a dorm room that they weren't going to use, and they sued.
They lost. That was ten years ago. The case is similar because the argument is a service that the student is forced to pay for, and how the student is unable to utilize it as it should be utilized, because of personal religious beliefs. The Yale Five said, fine, we won't use it, but don't make us pay for it. The female students this time said fine, we'll use it, but only on our terms. The problem is that these women didn't pay more for the gym than any other student on campus, including the guys. Accordingly, in the interest of fairness, they should not be able to use it more than the men. If these women want to use it without men, then there has to be correspondingly men-only hours.
Regardless, these women are messing with the schedules and conveinence of other users, who have the exatly same rights and responsibilities towards the gym. I would be more sympathetic if their activities and building fees were prorated and partially refunded so that they could go join Curves, rather than state that students do not enjoy equal access to the facilities at the time of their choice.
Conservative Muslims have no greater right to expect that the larger society will accommodate their ignorant "beliefs," however strongly held, than conservative Christians or Jews do. We don't post the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls and there's no telling whether kosher meals will always be available in university cafeterias. The burka, like the insistence on segregation from men, stems from a set of cultural beliefs about women that are simply backward. They have no place in a modern society. At least not here.
This is not anti-Islamic, nor an abandonment of our bedrock values of diversity and multiculturalism. Most of the West is incredibly accepting and tolerant of foreign practices and beliefs, compared to just about anywhere else. Try going to Saudi Arabia and opening a church if you think otherwise.
There's a very simple yet blatant hypocrisy at work here but considering we're discussing liberals that decide things based on feelings instead of reason this isn't shocking news.
This is unquestionably a religious issue or derived from such (separation by gender). Liberals become hysterically indignant and invoke "separation of church and state" over even the most minor of Christian-based "intrusions", however are only too happy to bend over backwards in utterly ignoring their otherwise proactive "separation of church and state" argument when it comes to accomodating Muslims!!
And these Harvard people consider themselves "educated"?
Mr. Douthat is only half right. Conservatives do not object to reasonable accomodation of Islamic beliefs. They object to institutions like Harvard that are willing to accomodate Islam but are hostile to Christianity. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. It reflects the self-loathing that prominent institutions of Western civilization have for ... Western civilization.
There is no need to overanalyze what the Muslims want from the West. They want what Allah has told them is rightfully theirs—the whole planet. But most Muslims are realistic enough not to demand payment in full for Allah’s promises. The few that do might prove to be more than a mere nuisance though. Any pressure group that demands long and hard enough makes politicians sit up and take notice, and being a vote hungry lot politicians have a strong tendency to want to oil that squeaky wheel.
The really strange thing about the kinds of people that demand that the majority accommodate their needs is that they do not seem to have a clue as to possible backlash effects. They seem to live for the excitement of wresting from the other something that they do not deserve. If only our politicians were somehow less inclined to accommodate them. But that’s like trying to keep a shark from following a scent into bloody water.
Harvard, obviously, is not part of the solution. The irony of the left's identify politics is that it divides not unites. When all people are treated equally, with no favors, then we unite.
Muslim women have clothing designed for physical activity that satifies Islam's standard of modesty. They should just wear those togs and join the others in the gym. Guess what, it might start breaking down some barriers.
Osama bin Laden is laughing out loud as Harvard abandons its values in favor of his.
Do we "accommodate" Catholics? Do we "accommodate" those of the Jewish faith? How about atheists, Protestants and Hindus? Why in the world does anyone believe that we must "accommodate" Muslims? It is the Muslim community that must accomodate their practices to the culture in which they live, not the other way around.
This doesn't just benefit Muslim women, it benefits any woman who wants to work out without a perv gawkin at them.
I'm curious when the male-only hours are.
If there are none, why hasn't anyone sued Harvard under Title IX yet?
Hmmm. Perhaps this is a little clever by half. Where are on earth are American conservatives bemoaning men and women in the same swimming pool? Spare me a comparison to Title X or co-ed dorms.
As for the Archbishop of Canterbury--c'mon Ross--do you really think he's pulling his hair out about secularism. You even had to toss in a "seems to see" to get through that one.
The issue is very simple. These people, even in their small numbers, are poisoning the foundations of our civilization - its basis in Platonic idealism, more than the Judeo-Christian side of it.
Indeed, in making these obstinate demands, it is their intention to do so. I'll tell you what, set up women-only hours in the Harvard gym open to all women, and see how these tribalist geopolitical schemers take that one.
Sometime, a line has to be drawn, the argument has to end. It has to be either this way or that way. We have to tell these people, you do it our way, or don't be here.
Why can't Harvard figure this out? I didn't go to Harvard, and I could figure this out, just reading the book.
What would happen if Harvard told the Muslims this was not Harvard's practice when they enrolled, and if they could not accomodate cultural practices in this US university, then perhaps they should enroll in a Muslim university? What would happen if Harvard told the Muslims that Harvard does not go out of its way to accomodate special requests of Christians and Jews, so it would not for Muslims either?
What would happen if Harvard got some grit?
James needs to get a little perspective. He seems to be saying that giving some women-only time to Muslims makes Harvard a patsy for Muslim extremists, and yet Harvard is somehow "hostile to Christianity."
Harvard, like many other supposedly "hostile" institutions, gives the vast majority of their students (and employees) a day off every Sunday for the Christian Sabbath. They even give their employees a PAID day off for Christmas. That doesn't sound very hostile! What Muslim holidays does Harvard pay for?
There's a disturbing tendency for wing-nut Christians to label any institution they don't control as "anti-Christian." Give it a rest, will you? Christians still control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and all 50 state governments. If you want to give all that up, I'll work tirelessly to get you some private time at the gym of your choosing.
That being said, Harvard should definitely not be giving its tacit approval to the abhorrent notion that women need to be hidden away and segregated from the rest of society, especially if there's a religious motivation for it.
No accomodation to Muslims until Muslims stop the jihadis world wide. Islam and the Koran are the problem. Accomodating them exaserbates the problem.
The west should stop all Muslim emmigration until they get the terrorists under control.
"finds himself assassinated" ?!
The most jarring solecism one has seen in a long time. Amusing but hideous.
As a liberal Muslim, I cringe when I see an institution like Harvard kowtowing to the demands of Saudi-influenced Islamic groups. But Harvard is not doing this just out of religious pluralism (because it does not accord this privilege to other religions); the power of such group to force Harvard to bend their way is because of the feminist anima that permeates such left-leaning institutions. Without the fertile environment of the feminist war against the all-evil patriarchy, Islamists could not get such privileges. If women, Muslim or otherwise, claim that your presence as a man in the gym is making them uncomfortable, then they will get what they want. Most Western women do not make that absurd claim, but some of them do. I once lived in a building in Dubai which had a gym with separate hours for men and women. Many women did not observe the gender segregation and came to exercise in men's hours, and no man paid attention. One day they changed the hours and I did not know and went to the gym in the women's hours. There was no one in the gym and I began exercising. Suddenly an American lady, who was not Muslim, showed up and man how she dressed me down for invading her space!
Many of the comments left here are extremely well-written. I congratulate those of you who took the time to write thoughtful, well-reasoned responses.
I agree with Nora and Claudius, that it is not a clash of Islam and Christianity/Judaism, but a conflict between those who embrace modernity and those who reject it.
As gordo pointed out, Muslim women don't have to wear tight-fitting, revealing outfits to work out, just as they don't have to wear them to class. If they don't want to attract the attention of men, they won't because there are plenty of other women to look at, who are showing a lot more skin than they are. And if they want to preclude the possibility of men ever seeing their faces then they are living in the wrong country. They must adapt to the 21st century, not demand that Harvard adapts to their 7th century worldview.
I find it interesting that so many responders who claim to be conservative find it outrageous that a woman's religion requires that she be modest. Do conservatives approve of the "meat market" that our college campuses and so many of our public spaces have become. My mother and my grandmothers certainly would not. If Harvard restricts its women only hours to Muslims alone, then our opprobrium is warranted. If, however, the space is available to any and all ladies, young, old, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, then I say it should be applauded; and for once at least we might gain something positive from the Muslims among us.
Gee, Liberals at Harvard being hypocritical. What a shocker. Some people are more equal than others, right Harvard?
Muslim trees bear strange fruit, Blood on the leaves, blood at the root, Infidel, Gay and female heads on the ground Shouts of Allahu Akbar all around
Peter Sloan: Your post is an example of the negetive and derogatory view that even the postmodernist liberal West has towards Islam.
Notice your use of Nazis and KKK example to highlight your point. This is a basically faulty and untenable comparison as Islam is not a hate Ideology but a Religion.
Now if you were to consider the example of Sikhs being allowed to wear turbans & carry their "Kirpans" - daggers, as they do in most western institutions then your argument falls flat on its face.
Likewise, how can you criticise female only excercise hours if you are okay with women only nights at your local night club?
There are a lot of well-thought responses and its somewhat refreshing, as well as a bit surprising, to see the views of some liberals here match those of mine, mostly conservative ones.
To those who welcome the change done by Harvard as a benefit for women, not just to those who are Islamic, you are missing a bigger picture. If this request was made by a woman's group with no religious affiliation, there wouldn't be such an uproar. But it was made as an accommodation for the religious beliefs of one group, regardless to whom else stood to benefit from it. Therein lies the problem of the whole issue.
ISLAM IS FASCISM ISLAM IS TERRORISM
By Larry Houle www.godofreason.com intermedusa@yahoo.com
ISLAM IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BOGUS – A SHAM AND A FRAUD
Islam is not a religion but an evil, political, military ideology.
The ten commandments teach: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
The Koran teaches: Thou Shalt Kill Infidels.
In Islam, it is a holy religious duty to murder infidels. The Quran is written in the language of terrorism. It is filled with numerous verses urging the Muslims to terrorize the non Muslims, kill them, and take possession of their lands and properties. The important points to remember is that whatever Muhammad did to terrorize the infidels was actually the actions of God. Among the many verses which exhort Islamist terrorism, the following verses stand out as naked aggression of Allah/Muhammad on the unbelievers: 2:63, 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 8:59, 9:29, 9:50 9:55, 11:102, and 17:59 These are the Eternal Laws of Allah authorizating murder and extermination as a holy duty. THIS IS THE EVIL INSANITY THAT IS ISLAM.
Islam is murdering infidels, raping their women and little girls, selling and breeding them as slaves, looting and pillaging their property and keeping 80% of the proceeds from the looting and selling slaves, and distributing the women not sold into slavery as sex slaves.
Murder, rape, looting, slavery are all ETERNAL LAWS OF ALLAH in the KORAN. These LAWS OF ALLAH are divine and can never BE CHANGED.
All Muslims believe the Koran is the Eternal divine word of God – the Eternal laws of God. All Muslims believe that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just "fundamentalists," the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places forever; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim's duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands without question.
Muslims can be killed (beheaded) for doing any of the following:
Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
This means exactly what it says. ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE that the Koran is the ETERNAL word/teachings of God to be followed without question. If a Muslim challenges or questions the Koran, HE IS NO LONGER A MUSLIM BUT AN APOSTATE OF ISLAM and can be killed. The Koran can never be changed not even one word. When you are reading teachings of the Koran, you are reading the word of God himself and you must OBEY. THERE IS NO CHOICE. There is no exercising free will, no employing logic, reason, rationality, morality. These teachings are for all time - FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.
This is the most important insanity that ALL Muslims believe – THAT MEANS ALL MUSLIMS. This belief in the KORNIC ETERNAL LAWS OF GOD is a disaster that has the potential to destroy humanity and civilization as we know it.
Again all the teachings of murder, rape, slavery, looting, sex with little girls etc are FOREVER.
They are Islam.
Islam is not a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked and perverted by a few bad apples of evil Islamo – Facsists, Islamic militants, Islamic Fundamentalists, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, political Islam, Islamists etc There has been no hijacking. There has been no perversion. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet - Muhammad. ITS ALL ABOUT ISLAM STUPID INFIDEL
The reality is that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim – a holy man of the book who is following exactly the teachings of Islam as recorded in the Koran.
By not exposing the perverted teachings of Islam, those who use the term Islamo – Fascism etc are elevating Islam to an equal footing with Christianity and other world religions.
WHY ISLAM IS FASCISM
Islam is a barbaric, sexist, violent ideology (not a religion) that worships a pagan god (Allah) and women are oppressed under Islam.
THE CRIMINALITY OF MUHAMMAD
How could any person be ‘proud’ to follow a man who was a pedophile, endorser of clitoridectomy, slave trader ( Muhammad owned 40 slaves), rapist, polygamist, punched his child bride and endorsed whipping/beating women and ploughing them like fields, stoned women to death, flogged his slave women for fornication while he raped his slaves, propositioned women and passed them round to friends, denied women equal inheritance, or equality under the law etc forever and abused and denigrated them in every way--not to mention his general sadism to others, mass murder, beheading captives, massacres, terror, torture, owning slaves and raping them, looting and pillaging, amputations, flogging, thievery, lying, hate, megalomania, had followers burned alive in their homes, the eyes burnt out of peoples heads, ordered the pants pulled down of young Jewish boys and their genitals inspected for pubic hair. Just the slightest growth of hair and these poor young boys were taken away and beheaded --- unending horror.
Following are some of the close to 1000 Islamo – Fascist teachings of the Koran that are not sins against God, are not crimes against God but are THE LAWS OF GOD.
MURDERING INFIDELS AS AN ETERNAL LAW OF GOD
9:50 When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS (unbelievers) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them
This is the notorious VERSE OF THE SWORD. 9:50 abolishes ALL peace teachings from the Koran. God is commanding as a holy duty the EXTERMINATION OF ALL INFIDELS FROM FACE OF THE EARTH.
9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.”
This verse means EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. Convert to Islam, or pay a devastating submission tax or BE MURDERED.
5:36 The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)
Quran-8:67—“It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land….” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia.”
Quran-33:26- “And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)”
APOSTATES SHOULD BE EXECUTED
4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom God hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find
SLAVERY AND RAPING AND KILLING SLAVES ARE LAWS OF GOD FOR ALL ETERNITY
4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like).” 4:24
If some one kills your freeman, you must kill one of their free men, if some one kills your slave, you must kill one of their slaves, if some one kills your woman you must kill one of their women.
2.178 O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained you for the slain: The free [shall die] for the free, and the slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman.
23.1-6: Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable.
LOOTING AS AN ETERNAL LAW OF GOD AND SHARING 1/5 OF THE PROCEEDS FROM LOOTING AND SELLING SLAVES WITH GOD
Quran-8:41— “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.
Quran-33:27- “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.” [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of the surrendered Jews]
100% OF BOOTY WAS MUHAMMAD’S IF NO VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED
However if the victims surrendered without any fight, all the booty belonged to Muhammad.
59.6 Allah gave all the booty (Fai') to His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) if the unbelievers surrendered without fight.
For those Muslims who slay and are slain in fulfilling the above teachings, murdering Infidels, they are GUARANTEED accession to a sexual Paradise filled with full breasted, lustrous eyed eyes virgins who re – generate as virgins after each sex act to sexually molest for all eternity.
THIS IS TRUE INSANITY
EVIL PARADISE
An evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed Hurs to be sexually molested for all eternity as a reward for those who slay and are slain in the service of God.
9:111 “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden (Paradise) will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain”
"As for the righteous (Muslims)...We (Allah) shall wed them to beautiful virgins with lustrous eyes" - Q 44:51-54
BRUTAL AND INHUMANE INJUSTICE OF GOD
"Lewd" women should be punished with life imprisonment
4:15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.
It is unclear what "lewdness" actually means. This verse is so open-ended, almost any woman could potentially be accused of lewdness and sentenced to a life of house arrest, except ultraconservative women who never do anything to offend strict Muslim men.
Stealing should be punished by amputation of hands
5:41 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.
When a person has no hands, they probably cannot earn a living anymore, so they will end up as a beggar on the street. That doesn't seem very beneficial to society. Also, before medical sanitation and anesthesia, amputation of the hands was in many cases the equivalent of a death sentence.
Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes.
24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
This verse leaves no other option for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Quran. It specifically says they must not have mercy on people who have committed adultery or fornication, and that this brutal punishment of 100 lashes is "prescribed by God." However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non- Muslim is allowed.
IS IT RATIONAL - IS IT A REASONABLE HUMAN THOUGHT
Does anyone truly believe that God would have as His Prophet for His one and only true religion a criminal – Muhammad and teachings of slavery, rape, murder etc. Is this a rational, reasonable human thought that God would be a criminal involved in these evil criminal acts.
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to murder unbelievers after giving them a warning to convert or pay a submission tax. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion who slay and are slain in His service to ascend to an evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed virgins (Hurs) that they can sexually molest with eternal hard ons for all eternity in the presence of God who teaches you how to engage in orgies, group sex. Virgins that re-generate as virgins after each sex act. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable? How can you be normal and believe that by fulfilling Kornic teaching 9:111 (quoting again) - “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” you will go to this demented sexual whorehouse of God and not directly to hell and damnation.
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion with such an evil sexually depraved Paradise. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational, reasonable human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to enslave the unbelievers, breed and sell them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His male followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to rape unbelievers and gang rape them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to marry up to 4 women and His Prophet to marry as many women as he desired and own and rape his slaves. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion were women are evil, vile, stupid creatures - ˝ human beings. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that required His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to share the booty gained from the looted property of the unbelievers and from the sale of slaves with God Himself. And if no fighting was involved then allowing His Prophet of Peace to obtain 100% of the booty. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to amputate hands or flog to death (100 lashes is death) for robbery or adultery.
Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to murder freemen, slaves and women in retaliation for someone killing one of their freemen, slaves, and women.
We can go on and on.
THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT IS NOT RATIONAL. IT IS NOT REASONABLE. THERE IS NO SUCH CRIMINAL GOD.
Islam was the invention and creation of Muhammad. There was no Allah. The Koran is the teachings of Muhammad and not of any God. By not exposing the truth of Islam, and trying to be politically correct and not be labeled as a racist or Islamaphobic , these people utilizing these terms are doing us all a grave disservice. By perpetrating the myth of a hijacking and perversion of the teachings of Islam, they are granting Islam – legitimacy.
By leaving these violent and abhorrent teachings in the Koran, Muslims are in effect saying that these teachings are NORMAL. They are basically acquiescing to evil. Once you accommodate evil, you lose your moral center and become willingly or unwillingly an accomplice to evil. You cannot call yourself a Good Muslim – pray 5 times a day etc – and ignore the evil – the moral black hole that lies at very the heart of Islam.
We can no longer allow Muslims to declare Islam as a Religion of Peace and Love and tolerance etc while leaving in the Koran and Islamic texts evil teachings calling for the destruction of infidels. We can no longer allow these Muslims to live in a fantasy world of an ALLAH of all Goodness and Muhammad – The Prophet of Peace while the Koran contains teachings of a hateful, murderous ALLAH (the ANTI GOD). By demanding that Muslims prove that they are Truly Peace Loving – by removing these evil teachings from the Koran – and condemning their evil founder Muhammad will be a TRUE MOMENT OF CATHARSIS FOR ISLAM.
you all are missing the only relevant point here; multiculturalists and Conservatives. Here in the West we practice a culture if tolerance-on both sides of the aisle to a greater or lesser degree. A tolerant culture can tolerate everything EXCEPT intolerance. One can NOT tolerate intolerance if one truly believes in tolerance, for the intolerant will kill all the tolerant people of whatever belief.
Rid the culture of the intolerant, those who kill everyone in disagreement with them, and one then - and only then - can continue discussion between those willing to tolerate but who may disagree with one another.
A civilzed culture has no place for the intolerant. They must be removed as one rids one's neighborhood of rabid dogs, allowing all the other dogs to play in the park.
denis, you wrote: "If you want to change American culture, settle here, become a citizen and take your chances with the democratic system."
This is exactly what we are doing. We are working through our democratic system. So get used to it. When our Muslim immigrant's numbers are large enough, you will prostrate yourself to Islam or you might face death. That's how democracy works denis.
Nothing odd at all about these political re-alignments over creeping Sharia. The individuals you cite - the brave and heroic Ayann Hirsi Ali, Pim Fortuyn, et.al. are LIBERTARIANS! They are not Leftists, nor Right-wing Conservatives. They are precisely like Bruce Bawer, a liberal turned "libertarian," former Euro-Journalist for the NY Times, and author of "While the West Slept: How Europe is losing the War on Radical Islam," or they are like "libertarian" of the Right, anti-Islamo-Fascist author Richard Miniter.
They consistently oppose Radical Islam, because what it will do to civil liberties, such as making prostitution illegal (already happening in the Netherlands), pushing gays back in the closet, cracking down on free speech, supporting toughened laws against marijuana use and gambling, endorsing liquor store bans, and forcing local government, like in Paris, to ban nude or sem-nude sunbathing.
Why is it that the MSM sees libertarianism as somehow "inconsistent"? It's liberalism and conservatism that are out of whack. Libertarians support freedom across the board. Thus we oppose creeping Sharia, and support fighting back against Radical Islam.
Eric Dondero, Publisher MainstreamLibertarian.com
Dear Moog, Sorry it won't work. Business and education long ago adopted the week-end, having Saturday and Sunday as days off. Harvard does not observe Christmas. It does take a winter recess, but Harvard's . Harvard is not doing anything special for Christians by observing the week end and a winter recess. What does Harvard do for Good Friday? A big fat nothing. If it closed for Good Friday, you might have a case.
Hi all...most of the comments are very good, with a few fanatics thrown in unfortunately. I would like to say that we as a nation still observe many Christian practices..ie Sundays, Christmas break (Now winter break etc) to name a couple. I know there are a lot of places and schools that offer meatless entrees and such during the Lent season and even Fridays to appease Catholics... The U.S. was formed to let people practice what they will..or even not to follow a faith. Just because we have separation of church and state doesn't meant that we as a nation can't recognize aspects of any religion. And I mean aspects... We certainly would not accept harmful practices, but what we can do is accomodate harmless ones. If muslim women choose to cover themselves, let them. These women are living and breathing Americans...they can CHOOSE to throw out their beliefs tomorrow with no repercussions from the government or authorities. They may face the wrath of their families unfortunately, but what child doesn't when they choose to break the mold?
So much wrist-wringing and hyperbole!
It is not necessary to resort to chiding religious groups for backward customs, or to engage in reductio ad absurdum arguments that include neo-nazis in order to illustrate the wrong-headedness of Harvard's decision to accommodate Muslim women in gyms through dis-accommodation of men.
It's right there in the Constitution, which to simplify, states that one is basically free to do what they want; UNTIL ONE'S ACTIONS INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Much as they would like to have it otherwise no one group, religious or otherwise, may trample on another's rights. The size of the infringement does not enter into the equation.
Like it or not, the gyms at Harvard are common spaces that are paid for by all who attend. As a result certain common denominators dictating access must apply.
Those who choose a more ascetic lifestyle are the ones who should be rightfully burdened with resolving the limitations of that lifestyle choice, not the student population of Harvard or even the general public.
Placing the burden as it has, the Harvard administration finds itself on a steep incline with a very low coefficient of friction.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
The title of this piece is apt. Strange socio-political alliances are being formed by groups with no consistent logic guiding their worldviews.
Consider these alternative situations:
A neo-nazi organization requests "Aryan"-only hours for the facilities, because their belief system dictates that they not exercise in the company of Jews.
The KKK asks for similar accommodations, regarding blacks.
etc.
As a postmodernist, liberal atheist, I see tremendous value in multiculturalism, in diversity for diversity's sake. And that value lies in having a broader range of potential experiences and ideas from which to draw, the idea being that one will then be in a better position to make a decision about what is best. The idea is not that all things are equal and no value judgments can be made, but rather that more choices results in a higher likelihood that we will get closer to a good decision.
Then there is this issue of respecting others' religions. I find it clarifying to remember that a religious system is only a set of ideas, and consequences of those ideas. But there is a distinction to be made between tolerance and endorsement. And there is certainly a difference between individual liberty and liberty of individuals to limit the liberties of other individuals.
I do not ask Harvard to ban conservative Muslims from their exercise facilities, but I do ask that they kindly tell them that all people are welcome, and if they have a problem with that, then they should re-evaluate their ideas, or exercise elsewhere.
Posted by Peter Sloan | March 7, 2008 12:10 AM