Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amaya wrote:@Sebster: There's no point talking you when you're unable to accept that the problem is not essentialy Islam, but radical Muslims, who are predominately Arabic.

What? When have I at any time suggested there isn't a problem with radical Islam. And what does that have to do with Islam being problematic because of events that occurred hundreds of years ago? You're not making any sense.

The revived interest in establishing Sharia law both in Muslim nations is directly linked to Islamism.

No, it's linked to immigrants wanting to retain some part of their own culture in their new country. This is no different to the Jewish courts that have existed there for a hundred years - do you think the Jewish courts rose out of increase Jewish fanaticism a hundred years ago?

The difference is that we worry about the Islamic courts and not the Jewish courts because of the freakout over Islam that grew in the last decade.

For whatever reason, the fact that there are radical Arab Muslims living in Europe escapes you.

No, it doesn't, I am entirely aware of the issue. I am just able to understand that issue has nothing to do with Sharia courts in the UK.

Yes, I dislike Islam, I dislike Christianity for that matter, and any religion or culture that actively seeks to convert and control others.

Great. But what has that got to do with sharia courts in the UK?

All you've done above is repeat the mistake you've made throughout this thread; you keep claiming Islam is bad (adjusted to elements of Islam in the new version, it doesn't matter). The problem is that this is irrelevant - we're talking about Sharia law as it is applied in the UK, and to actually make the case that Sharia law in the UK is bad, you need to actually explain what elements of Sharia courts as they exist are actually causing a problem.

Instead you've offered vague descriptions of the general rise of extremism in Islam and tried to accuse us of being unaware of that issue. Now, stop for a second and think, and then try and explain what is actually wrong with the idea of private individuals agreeing to resolve civil matters through their own traditional legal systems?

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.

Yes, that exists as well. As I said, there are dozens of interpretations.

In any case, I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining to you that your opinion of the matter is based on a very simplistic understanding of Koranic text, and Islam as a whole.

One can only come to conclusions based on the evidence presented and researched. You continue to claim I have a limited understanding and therefore am incorrect in reaching my conclusion but you're not offering anything solid to counter it. In regards to it's simplistic nature, that is how the words in the book are being interpreted and acted upon within the muslim communities and nations. Can other conclusions be reached, probably, are they being reached, doesn't appear (from the evidence) that this is the case in daily muslim life for a great many.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.

Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.

No, you've been talking about how those supposed sanctions make Islam incompatible with your conception of Western values. My point is that there are lots of Western citizens whose values are also incompatible with the conception you have advanced. As you have said, we, currently and in most cases, will find and punish people that break the legal prohibitions that we have put in place to protect a certain class of citizens. There is no reason that we cannot do the same thing to Muslims that insist on practicing a "barbaric" form of Sharia. The fact that such people might be punished does not indicate that Islam is not compatible with your set of values, it simply indicates that there will be a conflict that the state must arbitrate, just like any other.

So you're now suggesting that the muslim community will only operate these Sharia courts according to how they are informed by western infidels they should be applied? Now who's demonstrating their lack of understanding of Islam.
What happens when the outside western community starts 'interfering' with the Sharia court's adjudications? Further accusations of racism and accusations that the Sharia courts are being undermined.
We do punish those who break our laws, what happens when the Sharia being practised does that? When the court it's self is guilty of breaking the laws of the land. Who will report that? What happens when you allow a court that is answerable to God only to be put on trial by a state judiciary? Further escalation of religious anger and further division.

We will reap the whirlwind. This court is going to lead to further division, not integration.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.

See, that's just wrong, and plainly illustrates why you're having a problem understanding Islam.

There is a massive amount of variance in the practice of Islam, possibly more than any other religion due to the geographic spread of the faith. What is considered good practice by a Saudi Arabian will have very little in common with the same normative conceptions of an Indonesian.

It is true that the practices you describe are practiced by many Muslims, but there are also many far more moderate Muslims that tend to be largely ignored by Western media because they don't make for good television.

You're right, there is a good deal of variation, there is a good deal of variation within countries, regions and families. But that you think any nation governed by or made up of citizens who follow Islam treats it's women as equals of men, I would like to know which.

You keep saying 'you have a problem understanding it' or 'you're plain wrong' and offer nothing to counter it but your own opinion that things are different in different countries, that's understood by me, but different does not equate to 'not wrong'.

Find me the nation of Islamists with entirely fair and equal law and treatment for women.

There are non-Islamic countries and cultures that do not treat women well, there are those that do. Now find me one Islamic nation that treats women well, where they have equality that is equal to the equality we enjoy in the West.

I am not a total idiot, I do understand the 'degrees of separation' between the various Islamic nations according to originating tribal and social customs, but that they all have a prejudice against women and that that prejudice is grounded in the religion they follow seems fairly self evident.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.

You really do love your tautological descriptions, don't you?

Thank you for your observation. I hope it doesn't offend you. I confess, I had to look up 'tautological' and the definition I read basically said repetitive, so sorry if I'm basically saying the same thing in a variety of different and swanky shirts, but we are, unfortunately repeating drawn lines in the sand from different angles, you challenge my stance that Islam is sexist and encourages violence against women and I keep saying yes, but here, it's still sexist and women are still suffering violence in it's name and justified by it's religious leaders in Sharia courts, religious media and elsewhere.
(but thanks for the new word, always a plus to increase the vocab.)

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?

Unfortunately that is not sufficient to indicate that Islam is the problematic variable. Note that many non-Islamic nations that are given to similar levels of development also feature poor treatment of women.

So, we can agree that those countries that follow Islam in their native tongue treat women poorly according to our western viewpoint. Further, as I said above, those other Islamic nations, who do not speak arabic as a native tongue but follow Islam, have a record of treating women poorly. Further, as I've shown in interpretations of the Qur'an, there are texts that (according to the majority of interpretations put forward...) clearly state the woman is a second class individual, that violence against her can be met out. Further, that this interpretation is agreed upon and acted upon in many Islamic nations with several languages.

Is that still not sufficient to identify the religion as the issue? Perhaps not for you, for me, it is and I hold an opinion of that religion based upon it, one that prohibits my support for that religion's right to self adjudicate within a western nation without directly acting against the principles that western nation claims to uphold.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion.

See, that's another problem. You're not hinging your opinion on what is popular in the "Muslim world", you're hinging your opinion on what a large amount of Western media tells you is popular in the "Muslim world" where "Muslim world" is basically just code for "Middle East".

Again, that is a part of the evidence presented, I have also experienced the testimony of the victims of violence in Islam. You are, I think, clouded by American media bias for the middle east, British media is a little more cosmopolitan in it's definition. (from my experience of both).

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not making a qualitative argument at all. I am, again, merely explaining to you what the words you're discussing actually mean outside your own judgment of the matter.

I guess I'm thinking along a scientific evidence conclusion here, 2 confirmed negative connotations and 1 variable negative connotation still gives me the confirmed negative confirmation. If 1 connotation had been a positive instead of a negative, I might have been willing to go back and reexamine in far more detail, but the variable reinforced the 2 negatives, not countered them.

And of course we're in the realms of my judgements given that you are challenging them, it's just that what you presented as a challenge did not counter.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.

No, the issue is whether or not those women are worse off because of Islam, and if Islam is therefore something that cannot be integrated into Western culture. This is an argument that requires a careful regard for any sort of necessity that follows from the translation, and subsequent interpretation of Koranic text.

For the reasons stated above, I believe that Islam is the unifying glue across all those nations and that it is the common underlying factor for a disparate, geographically and culturally diverse group of nations that have a record of abuses of women's rights.

Consider this for a moment, let's drop the book containing the wording and then imagine the religious leaders continued to advise the men across the muslim world to hit women and suppress them, does the religion suddenly find it's self exonerated? I think the fact the book contains the wording is a damning thing, but with or without it and your point on interpretation, the Religion as an entity across it's geographical boundaries, is still guilty of the crimes I've charged it with here given the diverse nature of it's constituent cultures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interestingly this was just linked to me by my wife. Just including it for it's timing.

SKYNEWS wrote:
Four people have been arrested in Bangladesh after a young girl was whipped to death for allegedly having an affair with a married man.

Rural scene in Bangladesh
Police say cases such as these are most common in remote areas
The suspects, including an Islamic cleric, are accused of issuing a fatwa for 14-year-old Mosammet Hena to receive 100 lashes.
This was despite her insistence she had been raped by the man, believed to be her cousin, and did not consent to an affair or physical contact of any kind.
She collapsed after receiving 70 of the lashes from a bamboo cane. She was taken to hospital unconscious but died shortly afterwards.
The public beating occurred in a south west village in the district of Shariatpur, approximately 35 miles from the capital of Dhaka.
The district's chief of police, Shahidur Rahman, said incidents such as these usually occurred in remote areas.
He added the 40-year-old man involved was also sentenced to 100 lashes but has since fled the village. "We are hunting for him," Rahman said.
Fatwas are illegal in Bangladesh, but Islamic clerics are often found presiding over courts that use Sharia law.
Action Aid Bangladesh has demanded exemplary punishment for those responsible for Hena's death, and called on the government to do more to stop crimes like this from happening again.

In related news, super Dave just gave a speech about the failure of our multi culture " melting pot" in the UK, and I agreed with every word he said.

As I've said many times, we need less carrot and more stick.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So you're now suggesting that the muslim community will only operate these Sharia courts according to how they are informed by western infidels they should be applied? Now who's demonstrating their lack of understanding of Islam.

Nope, not what I said.

I said that Western authorities will impose their will upon Sharia courts because they have the power to do so, and that this will have a generational effect on the character of Muslim immigrants. Sure, there will be oppression and suffering with respect to many Muslim women as well, but the beautiful thing about human life is that its really very insignificant on case by case basis when there are ~6.7 billion other examples of it.

Regardless of what you believe about Islam there are still going to be ~1.7 billion people that rather like the faith. These people must either be accommodated, or forcibly "convinced" to be fond of something else. One requires the suffering of a few, the other requires the suffering of ~1.7 billion people; the choice is obvious.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
What happens when the outside western community starts 'interfering' with the Sharia court's adjudications? Further accusations of racism and accusations that the Sharia courts are being undermined.

So? You're already claiming that Islam is inferior, so why do you care at all that Sharia is being undermined, or that the Muslim "race" is being treated as lesser? It seems like you're openly saying that you have disdain for Islam, but don't really want to recognize that fact, or be told as much by others.

Its really quite hilarious.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We do punish those who break our laws, what happens when the Sharia being practised does that? When the court it's self is guilty of breaking the laws of the land. Who will report that? What happens when you allow a court that is answerable to God only to be put on trial by a state judiciary? Further escalation of religious anger and further division.

We will reap the whirlwind. This court is going to lead to further division, not integration.

As I said above, you don't really have a choice. Either you let the courts do some part of their thing, and presume that it will ease tensions, or you don't let it have any say at all and thereby guarantee that the "whirlwind" will be reaped.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You're right, there is a good deal of variation, there is a good deal of variation within countries, regions and families. But that you think any nation governed by or made up of citizens who follow Islam treats it's women as equals of men, I would like to know which.

There are maybe 5 nations on Earth that treat women as the equals of men, so that's not really a huge issue.

Hell, its debatable as to whether or not women should be regarded as the equals of men, or, for that matter, whether men should be regarded as the equals of women.

You're not going to hire that 100-pound girl to carry cinder blocks for you.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You keep saying 'you have a problem understanding it' or 'you're plain wrong' and offer nothing to counter it but your own opinion that things are different in different countries, that's understood by me, but different does not equate to 'not wrong'.

What it really comes down to is the fact that I'm not arguing from a moralistic position because, quite honestly, I simply don't care about anything in that sense. I'm a self-admitted amoral being, and find those people that take umbrage to the behavior of others, as you've been doing, to be hilarious curiosities.

Anyway, I'm tired of this. You've already misunderstood my argument, willfully or otherwise, 3 times. There is no point in speaking to you.

Ah, so several pages of me being polite for you to just be rude and argue the toss.

Fair enough, there is no point in my answering your points, baseless as they are.

Human beings taking umbrage at the actions of other human beings is, I think, entirely human.

Congratulations, you have successfully trolled me. The oppressed and abused women of Islam would doubtlessly offer their own commentary to your amusement, I suspect.

Good day sir.

sebster wrote:The difference is that we worry about the Islamic courts and not the Jewish courts because of the freakout over Islam that grew in the last decade.

No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.

Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.

That depends entirely on the particular form of Sharia being considered. There are 8 dominant schools of jurisprudence, and quite a few less important ones; with 5 of the critical schools not being particularly reprehensible from a Western perspective.

I for one welcome our new Islamist overlords.

If there any further cases to judge I will be back in the pub.

I saw a great story regarding this law and horrendous death in the paper tonight

wait till I sober up, ill post a link.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.

That depends entirely on the particular form of Sharia being considered. There are 8 dominant schools of jurisprudence, and quite a few less important ones; with 5 of the critical schools not being particularly reprehensible from a Western perspective.

If the law is sexist, then it is reprehensible to me.

Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.

Christianity is also inherently sexist, but it doesn't show quite as blatantly in practice in the modern world because people prefer to interpret it figuratively rather than literally. This is all liable to change, but I oppose it regardless of its source.

mattyrm wrote:I saw a great story regarding this law and horrendous death in the paper tonight

wait till I sober up, ill post a link.

Sober up faster.

Melissia wrote:Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.

You don't really have very many practitioners of Islam in the modern world (Comparatively). Most of them are in the third world. The ones in the modern world tend to be the more liberal ones who allow women to wear nice slacks and get mannicures

Melissia wrote:
Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.

Some of it is, and some of it isn't.

So many people in this thread need to stop making poor generalizations.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.

Some of it is, and some of it isn't.

So many people in this thread need to stop making poor generalizations.

What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be sexist before you judged Islam itself to sexist?

What quantity can anyone prove?

And which exact definition of sexism are we applying?

Fair enough. Change the term 'sexist' to 'misogynistic'.

And I'm curious as to whether there is actually a method of concrete proof or evidence Dogma would accept, and how he would expect such proof to be obtained.

By modern I meant specifically "in modern times", not first world countries. Islamic countries might have been far ahead of the game when it comes to social advancement in the medieval period, but every single one of them in the modern age are lagging behind.

Ketara wrote:
What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be sexist before you judged Islam itself to sexist?

It isn't a matter of quantity, but causality.

Where there exist Muslim nations that are not demonstrably more sexist than equivalent states there is no reason to conclude that Islam is what causes people to behave in a sexist manner.

For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.

Morning chums, i am sober once more, and here is a link to the story i mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12344959

14 year old girl, beaten to death in the name of Sharia. Lovely stuff, i am very pleased that such common sense is being imported to the UK.

In other related news, a new report has been published over at http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/ and can be read in full there, but heres the highlights.

-----------------

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.

- There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

- Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

- These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.

- There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised.
According to Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the One Law for All Campaign and an author of the report, “The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous. Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK. Their very existence and legitimisation puts pressure on vulnerable women not to assert their civil rights in a British court. As long as Sharia Councils and Tribunals are allowed to continue to make rulings on issues of family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial to them and their children.”

The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:

1. Initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils
2. Amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration
3. Launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law
4. Proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and
5. Strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be sexist before you judged Islam itself to sexist?

It isn't a matter of quantity, but causality.

Where there exist Muslim nations that are not demonstrably more sexist than equivalent states there is no reason to conclude that Islam is what causes people to behave in a sexist manner.

For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.

But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility or casuality for one state to be inherently misognystic due to adherence to a misogynstic religion, and the other state to be inherently misogynstic due to adherence to a misogynstic political creed for example. The state that is misogynistic due to political creed would not owe its misogny to Islam, yet its lack of Islam and the prevalence of misogny does not prove Islam not to be inherently misogynistic, any more than the existence of Islam and misogny in the other proves their political creed to not be inherently misognyistic due to the lack of that political creed there.

Note that I am not referencing any political creed in particular here, rather making a demonstration that other such factors could exist.

As such, by using your approach, it would still be perfectly feasible to see Islam as being inherently misogynistic, as long as one recognizes other factors as being even more inherently more misogynistic than they.

Also, if quantity is irrelevant, (as you seem to imply, feel free to ignore this point if that's wrong), then if every muslim person in the world claimed to think beating women into submission was a good idea, but there were no Muslim run states, than surely Islam would still not be recognised as being misogynistic?

I'm not approaching this out of any desire to see Islam ruled one way or the next (as can be seen by my earlier posts in this topic), but I find your logic to be a little....unpersuasive here?

mattyrm wrote:Morning chums, i am sober once more

Is it April already?

Ketara wrote:
But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.

Of course, but that's why I said "most likely" and not "necessarily certain" cause of the discrepancy in levels of misogyny.

Ketara wrote:
Also, if quantity is irrelevant, (as you seem to imply, feel free to ignore this point if that's wrong), then if every muslim person in the world claimed to think beating women into submission was a good idea, but there were no Muslim run states, than surely Islam would still not be recognised as being misogynistic?

I didn't mean to imply that quantity is irrelevant, but that causality is the most important issue. Quantity can be used to establish causality, but they aren't necessarily connected.

Note also that I'm not claiming that my example is the only way to establish that Islam is somehow the cause of misogyny, but that it is one way of doing so.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.

Of course, but that's why I said "most likely" and not "necessarily certain" cause of the discrepancy in levels of misogyny.

The original quote of yours was:

For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.

when I asked:

What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be misogynistic before you judged Islam itself to sexist?

Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.

If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.

Not only that, even if we insert the term 'necessarily certain' in your quote to derive the following:

For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the necessarily certain cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.

the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.

Ketara wrote:
Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.

The crux of my test is the discrepancy between Islamic states of a given level of development, and non-Islamic states of the same level of development. Simply looking at Islamic states alone is not sufficient to isolate Islam as a causal variable.

Ketara wrote:
If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.

Yes, I'm doing that by design. I'm only interested in whether or not Islam is necessarily, and causally, misogynistic. Simply proving that is can be misogynistic is trivial as everything can be misogynistic; even feminism.

Ketara wrote:
the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.

No, you're misreading. The test has nothing at all to do with all sexist nations being Muslim. The key variable is the degree of sexism present in Muslim nations relative to the degree of sexism in non-Muslim nations. It is a comparative test.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.

The crux of my test is the discrepancy between Islamic states of a given level of development, and non-Islamic states of the same level of development. Simply looking at Islamic states alone is not sufficient to isolate Islam as a causal variable.

But if your only method of reasoning is that 'whilst other misogynistic states are not islamic, islam cannot be misogynistic', you are still denying the possibility of it being a factor of misogny, whether casually, or inherently.

Ketara wrote:
the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.

No, you're misreading. The test has nothing at all to do with all sexist nations being Muslim. The key variable is the degree of sexism present in Muslim nations relative to the degree of sexism in non-Muslim nations. It is a comparative test.

It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?

Dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.

Yes, I'm doing that by design. I'm only interested in whether or not Islam is necessarily, and causally, misogynistic. Simply proving that is can be misogynistic is trivial as everything can be misogynistic; even feminism.

In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.

What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).

Ketara wrote:
But if your only method of reasoning is that 'whilst other misogynistic states are not islamic, islam cannot be misogynistic', you are still denying the possibility of it being a factor of misogny, whether casually, or inherently.

But that isn't my method of reasoning. You're indicating that I'm talking about categorical differences when I'm talking about degrees of misogyny.

Remember, there is no (or perhaps there are very few) non-misogynistic nation on Earth.

Ketara wrote:
It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?

Again, it accounts for other variables by eliminating them. The point is to determine whether or not Islam, the religion not the culture or associated set of qualities, makes people misogynistic.

Allowing for other variables to have a causal effect would invalidate the test of whether or not Islam is inherently misogynistic.

You're inferring things from my words that I am not writing.

Ketara wrote:
In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.

What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).

The test I have outlined, all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development, would provide a strong body of evidence to indicate that Islam is inherently misogynistic.

It is most likely impossible to prove that Islam is causally misogynistic, but a test that would allow for that would be a statistically comprehensive survey of people that converted to Islam; noting whether or not they became misogynistic..

Ketara wrote:
It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?

Dogma wrote: Again, it accounts for other variables by eliminating them. The point is to determine whether or not Islam, the religion not the culture or associated set of qualities, makes people misogynistic.

Allowing for other variables to have a causal effect would invalidate the test of whether or not Islam is inherently misogynistic.

You're inferring things from my words that I am not writing.

But then to perfectly frank, what is the point of using states as a standard of measurement? If you fail to take into account factors in other nations that can be causative of misogny, in what way is even including other nations as a your requirement for 'evidence' even meaningful?

Dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.

What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).

The test I have outlined, all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development, would provide a strong body of evidence to indicate that Islam is inherently misogynistic.

It is most likely impossible to prove that Islam is causally misogynistic, but a test that would allow for that would be a statistically comprehensive survey of people that converted to Islam; noting whether or not they became misogynistic..

I'm sorry, I genuinely believe your requirement for evidence deeply flawed from several angles. By eliminating all other variables from your comparisons, you render them meaningless as things to compare to.

Also

all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development

strikes me as flawed, because you require them to be 'more misogynistic'. If we recognise that there are degrees of misogynism, as you yourself have stated, then why should Islam have to be 'more' misognistic than other misogynistic states in order to count as being misogynistic by Western standards? For example, assuming the western moral standard, Let us say an Islamic man beats his wife for cheating, and a Chinese man shoots her. The fact the Chinese man is more misogynistic does not prove the Islam not to be misogynistic, rather just that the people in China are moreso.

Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.

You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. You've had it explained to you a dozen times or more in this thread that isn't true.

At this point we're left with you repeating constantly something that you know is not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:14 year old girl, beaten to death in the name of Sharia. Lovely stuff, i am very pleased that such common sense is being imported to the UK.

You've established that Sharia law is an oppressive law in many places around the world. Well done, you've successfully proven something no-one was arguing against.

Again (and likely again and again...) Sharia law as it exists in the UK is not the same thing as Sharia law practiced in other places around the world. It is an extremely restriced version, with powers to only rule on civil matters where both parties agreed to arbitration. This is a thing that has been pointed out in this thread dozens of times.

- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.

Yes, the involvement of Sharia courts in family affairs is a problem, and one that we could have been discussing in this thread, if only people had accepted the basic and well documented limits of Sharia courts in the UK and stopped complaining about things that have nothing to do with Sharia as it exists in the UK.

sebster wrote:
Again (and likely again and again...) Sharia law as it exists in the UK is not the same thing as Sharia law practiced in other places around the world. It is an extremely restriced version, with powers to only rule on civil matters where both parties agreed to arbitration. This is a thing that has been pointed out in this thread dozens of times.

Yet and for the time being.

It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.

As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.

It also remains extremely likely that muslim lobbying groups living within the UK will push for the Sharia court to have extension of it's power. The fear of some is that once something is established, that is to say, gains a foothold, it's encroachment is easier than an immediate push for powers.