Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31

    the Canadian province of Ontario which sought to judge Muslims according to the Sharia,




    Who is Ontario, anyway?
    In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sirotnikov
      What will the Jews do, now that they can't sacrifice and eat away christian children?
      from what I gathered in Syria and Jordan, they switched to muslim ones
      "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
      I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
      Middle East!

      Comment


      • #33
        Bruckner, along with many others, writes about society. However, he doesn't have the honesty that we should expect from an analysis: he has a pre-conceived idea before writing his article (or his book), and he just uses the part of the reality that backs it up

        So did plato.

        I would imagine that every political writer has a pre-concieved idea. No one really starts with a blank page. Anyone who says he does is bullsh*tting.

        There's no "research" in this paper, therefore it has no pretence to being objective or what ever. Political writing is supposed to be ideological and that doesn't stop it from being thought-provoking.

        The most thought provoking articles for me have been articles with whose point of view I disagreed with.

        The writer does mention several examples in his books, and I can bring you several more examples from the US and Israel, of (mostly) muslims (but also jews) wanting exemption from normal ethical standards.

        I strongly disagree with Bruckner's idea that enligntenment progressed as it was enforced.....
        But otherwise, the fight has generally led to alienate people instead of pushing them faster towards enlightenment.... - and now, the Mullahs are fearing a modernization coming from the urban middle class).

        The fact that enlightenment progressed has nothing to do with the feelings it evokes.

        What he names progression, means that so called enlightened ideas are not abused to justify totalitarian rule "for the good of the people".

        The rest of what you said, is in my understanding a non-sequitor.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Oncle Boris

          the Canadian province of Ontario which sought to judge Muslims according to the Sharia,




          Who is Ontario, anyway?
          The government.

          Some Muslims pointed to rabbinical courts being recognised by the court system (2 parties can agree to settle the matter with the rabbis and the courts endorse the end result) and asked for the same status for Sharia in civil and family matters. The politicians thought it was OK and were going to go along with it and then the **** hit the fan with some muslim women and womens groups in general saying 'no way in hell'. The government canned the idea.
          (\__/)
          (='.'=)
          (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by notyoueither


            The government.

            Some Muslims pointed to rabbinical courts being recognised by the court system (2 parties can agree to settle the matter with the rabbis and the courts endorse the end result) and asked for the same status for Sharia in civil and family matters. The politicians thought it was OK and were going to go along with it and then the **** hit the fan with some muslim women and womens groups in general saying 'no way in hell'. The government canned the idea.
            I remember the uproar - people couldn't make the difference between Sharia and stoning women.
            In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Heresson


              from what I gathered in Syria and Jordan, they switched to muslim ones
              But they aren't as crunchy as polish ones.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Oncle Boris


                I remember the uproar - people couldn't make the difference between Sharia and stoning women.
                Funny, muslim women seem fail to make the difference too

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/...777972,00.html

                http://www.herearth.com/index_files/Page368.htm


                http://www.ishr.org/activities/campa...tion_paper.htm

                At the same time, sharia also includes regulations concerning penal jurisdiction and criminal law. Within these regulations, crimes are defined in different categories, the most severe crimes being the so-called hudud crimes. The forms of punishment for hudud crimes are severe and include stoning to death. Death by stoning mostly applies to cases of adultery, but may possibly also apply to homosexuality. The legitimacy of stoning as a form of punishment is derived from the hadith, sayings and written records of the prophet Muhammad. Stoning is not mentioned in the Koran. Penal codes tend to prescribe the execution of the stoning in detail. Thus, men are buried up to their waste, women up to their chest (Art. 102, Iranian Penal Code). Article 104 of the Iranian Penal Code prescribes the size of the stones, which must not be too large as to kill the person immediately, but not too small either.

                Sharia tends to be at least partly in force, wherever Islam is the official state religion of a specific country or where the majority of the population is Muslim. However, the extent of its application varies from country to country. Not every Muslim country has endorsed sharia penal laws in its penal code or applies its regulations in its harshest form. For example, jurisprudence in Turkey, a member state of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is secular and fully independent from sharia law. In Egypt, which does base its jurisprudence on sharia, adultery is punished with prison sentences of up to six months for men and up to two years for women. Stoning as a form of punishment is provided in the criminal codes of at least the following countries: Iran, one province in Indonesia (Aceh), two federal states of Malaysia (Terengganu, Kelantan), twelve federal states in Northern Nigeria (Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, Zamfara), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. However, provisions for stoning in the penal codes does not necessarily mean its strict application.

                Cases of stoning sentences or execution of stoning sentences have been reported from Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sudan. At the same time, execution of stoning sentences in these countries needs to be differentiated. Thus, only in Iran sharia court stoning sentences were carried out in 2002. In Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court overruled the stoning sentence of a sharia court; instead, extrajudicial stoning executions have occurred in the country. It is impossible to record all stoning sentences, actual executions and illegal stoning executions world-wide. Overall, the number of undetected cases of stoning is estimated to be much higher.

                Pakistan introduced the so-called Hadood Ordinance, which punishes adultery with death by stoning, in 1979. In accordance with this law, Zafran Bibi was sentenced to death by stoning on 17 April 2002. However, she was acquitted by the appellate Federal Shariat Court on 6 June 2002. On 5 July 2002, the 40-year old Zahid Shah was stoned to death by a mob in the Chak Jhumra village near Faisalabad, because he had called himself "the last prophet of Islam"



                Funny how you always claim you stand up for human rights, yet you are hypocritical when it challenges your political views.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sirotnikov

                  But they aren't as crunchy as polish ones.

                  Then, I believe, You should lure some polish women and trick them into converting to islam.
                  "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
                  I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
                  Middle East!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I've realised the best way of destroying Islam is to give it what it wants. Muslims want Sharia - give it to them in personal matters. That'll keep them happy and regressive. They want isolation? Give it to them. Cut off all relations except trade. Don't let Enlightenment ideas spread to Muslim lands, so that freedom will be crushed under theocracy. It's the ideal recipe - the Muslims are happy, and rest of the world is happy.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You all suck.
                      Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by aneeshm
                        I've realised the best way of destroying Islam is to give it what it wants. Muslims want Sharia - give it to them in personal matters. That'll keep them happy and regressive. They want isolation? Give it to them. Cut off all relations except trade. Don't let Enlightenment ideas spread to Muslim lands, so that freedom will be crushed under theocracy. It's the ideal recipe - the Muslims are happy, and rest of the world is happy.
                        1) most people don't want to "destroy islam"
                        2) not people living in majorly muslim lands are muslims. Of course, You can let them into other societies. But that would mean, f.e. end of christianity in its holy lands.
                        3) not all muslims want shari'ah. I'd say in countries like Syria minority wants it. Of course, You can let such individuals into western societies, but, then, their grandchildren may reflect and say they want shari'ah after all... and it will undermine anti-shari'ah opposition anyway
                        4) perhaps we have a responsibility of people elsewhere in the world - not necessarily. We see how bringing freedom & happiness to the people of Iraq ended. But it doesn't feel right to let them opress each other, does it.
                        "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
                        I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
                        Middle East!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Heresson, VJ
                          Spiffor : Iran under the shah was a tyranny trying to impose technical progress without democracy; this does not reflect the ideals of enlightenment which you seem to ignore.
                          Statistical anomaly.
                          The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sirotnikov
                            The fact that enlightenment progressed has nothing to do with the feelings it evokes.

                            What he names progression, means that so called enlightened ideas are not abused to justify totalitarian rule "for the good of the people".

                            The rest of what you said, is in my understanding a non-sequitor.
                            OK, that's where we differ. We don't interpret this article in the same vein.

                            For me, Bruckner wants western countries (and in particular France, his frame of reference) to re-affirm its enlightenment values, and not to let any room to various obscurantists (most prominently the Muslim ones). Because otherwise, people stuck in an obscurantist society within our western territory will never get out of it.

                            The logical consequence of that, which is pretty obvious in the article, is that we need to enforce our enlightenment values on those who don't share them. At least on our territory (though Bruckner would love to see the west actively spreading them worldwide). For example, this is why Bruckner supports the headscarf ban, an example he brought up in this very article.

                            I disagree with that, because I think it will only alienate people against the values of enlightenment, and that they'll have an extreme reaction as soon as the enforcement dies down (see the reactionary victory in Iran 1979, see how the Islamists seem to easily win elections in secular Arabic dictatorships).

                            In other words, I think his criticism of multiculturalism is grounded on a false premise: that we can achieve better results by enforcing the "right" values, 3rd Republic-style.
                            "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                            "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                            "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DAVOUT
                              Spiffor : Iran under the shah was a tyranny trying to impose technical progress without democracy; this does not reflect the ideals of enlightenment which you seem to ignore.
                              Iran under the Shah (like Saddam's Iraq) was becoming quite secular however, and with a more modern economy as well. The Shah, among other things, instituted women's suffrage, which was loathed by the clergy despite its meaninglessness.
                              "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                              "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                              "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?
                                If you don't like reality, change it! me
                                "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                                "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                                "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X