Sharia poll amongst Muslim people

[EnragedMaldivians]

I can only assume you'd be indifferent to slavery in other countries as long as it is an institution that has popular support?

Yes? Oh well.

Keep on preachin' Bubba, you'll win them all one fallacy at a time.

There's no fallacy. You are okay with countries killing people who leave a certain religion as long such laws have popular support. In effect you are okay with, or at least indifferent to, legalised religious persecution in foreign countries, because hey, it's their culture right? And hey, who are you to judge others who have different world-views to yours? Not much of a stretch to ask if you'd be okay with or indifferent to other countries legalising enslavement under certain circumstances if it had popular support?

Though I don't suppose I should expect anything more than a vapid dismissal wrapped in a poor attempt at wit.

[Kemalist]

I don't think Taliban came to power in a democratic way, they didn't even have full authority in the whole country, although not officially. I don't want to believe only %1 of the population would prefer a secular law in Afghanistan...

[Risottia]

Yet they have the same effects on some people. That I consider detrimental to society.

Hardly. Christianity does not have so-called "honor-killings"

Yeah because Sicilians aren't Christians, they're crypto-m00zlem-niggers anyway, right?

and it does not teach that if a Christian kills an infidel, he goes to heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

You may consider both detrimental to society, but a society without religion is the worst of all.

That's what religious zealots say.

I'd say that a society without religion but with public hospitals and schools is way better than a society with religion, no hospitals and no schools.

[Risottia]

I don't think Taliban came to power in a democratic way,

Neither do I.
Then again, Mussolini didn't come to power democratically, yet he was able to survive because he had a lot of support. Maybe half-hearted, still support.

[Central Kadigan]

We do not know how life began, and Evolution is not science. Creationism, Evolution and Intellegent Design are all inherantly religious. In Evolution, you have to believe that nothing made everything (Which is a scientific impossibility). There is only 1 other theory that could make the Big Bang, and thus evolution as Atheists know it, possible, and that is that energy was compressed into a very small very dense and very hot point in space and it all exploded. I ask, where did the matter that caused the big bang come from. You're probably going to answer "We don't know." well then, I rest my case. On an unrelated note, this thread has derailed into a religious argument within a period of 2 pages.

You clearly have never studied, or even goggled, science. Evolution is science. If there was a valid completing theory, it would come from other scientists, not from the dogmatic religious wingnuts. Evolution has passed every test of validity thrown at it. If it had failed even one of these, then scientists would start the hunt for a new theory immediately. I could certainly explain the basics of the Big Bang theory to you – but I choose not to waste my time teaching to those close-minded who don’t want to learn.

I want to apologize to [nation]‪Kemalist[/nation]. I want to respect that this is a thread about Šarīʿah Law, but I can not and will not sit idly by as the religiously brainwashed baselessly attack science.

[Kemalist]

I don't think Taliban came to power in a democratic way,

Neither do I.
Then again, Mussolini didn't come to power democratically, yet he was able to survive because he had a lot of support. Maybe half-hearted, still support.

Not really, Mussolini won an election with a great percentage. So did Hitler.

[Kemalist]

I want to apologize to [nation]‪Kemalist[/nation]. I want to respect that this is a thread about Šarīʿah Law, but I can not and will not sit idly by as the religiously brainwashed baselessly attack science.

I support you dude, go ahead.

[Uelvan]

Keep on preachin' Bubba, you'll win them all one fallacy at a time.

There's no fallacy. You are okay with countries killing people who leave a certain religion as long such laws have popular support. In effect you are okay with, or at least indifferent to, legalised religious persecution in foreign countries, because hey, it's their culture right? And hey, who are you to judge others who have different world-views to yours? Not much of a stretch to ask if you'd be okay with or indifferent to other countries legalising enslavement under certain circumstances if it had popular support?

Though I don't suppose I should expect anything more than a vapid dismissal wrapped in a poor attempt at wit.

In some magic fairy land there was a country who had majority support on slavery, then yes. But I'm not going to debate about a country that does not exist.

If a nation wants to cause problems for themselves, and create dumb laws that's their business not mine.

[Mollary]

No, you're advocating making a storybook equivalent to facts. You don't get to do that. Though I know how much you love to disregard facts you don't like so why am I bothering to type this?

That is your opinion. My opinion is that evolution is bullshit and that God created the world in 6 days. It's your opinion that the Bible is just a storybook and that evolution made us all.

Yes, but evolution is supported by evidence. Creationism isn't.

[EnragedMaldivians]

There's no fallacy. You are okay with countries killing people who leave a certain religion as long such laws have popular support. In effect you are okay with, or at least indifferent to, legalised religious persecution in foreign countries, because hey, it's their culture right? And hey, who are you to judge others who have different world-views to yours? Not much of a stretch to ask if you'd be okay with or indifferent to other countries legalising enslavement under certain circumstances if it had popular support?

Though I don't suppose I should expect anything more than a vapid dismissal wrapped in a poor attempt at wit.

In some magic fairy land there was a country who had majority support on slavery, then yes. But I'm not going to debate about a country that does not exist.

If a nation wants to cause problems for themselves, and create dumb laws that's their business not mine.

That's how hypotheticals work, pumpkin. But alright. At least you are consistent.

[Benuty]

I don't think Taliban came to power in a democratic way, they didn't even have full authority in the whole country, although not officially. I don't want to believe only %1 of the population would prefer a secular law in Afghanistan...

I think the Taliban basically couped the remnants of Afghanistan's communist regime ( Not sure but I think that's how there rule started)

[Mike the Progressive]

in b4 Gauthier talks about how this poll is really an imperialist, RepublicKKK conspiracy orchestrated by the anti-gay but really secretly homosexual alliance that hates brown people and blacks; and that how all Muslims are really good, and innocent. minus the fact that no demographic is actually like that.

On the contrary, they're all part of an insectoid hivemind that's bred to destroy Western civilization and impose a barbaric theocracy. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim after all right? [/sarcasm]

Indeed, because that's exactly what I said! I mean I clearly see in in the post. oh damn, no I don't.

[The Steel Magnolia]

In some magic fairy land there was a country who had majority support on slavery, then yes. But I'm not going to debate about a country that does not exist.

If a nation wants to cause problems for themselves, and create dumb laws that's their business not mine.

That's how hypotheticals work, pumpkin. But alright. At least you are consistent.

You know I'm all for the moral and cultural relativism argument but good fucking god.

[Uelvan]

That's how hypotheticals work, pumpkin. But alright. At least you are consistent.

You know I'm all for the moral and cultural relativism argument but good fucking god.

I'm not for relativism.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You know I'm all for the moral and cultural relativism argument but good fucking god.

I'm not for relativism.

Abatael? Is that you?

[Uelvan]

I'm not for relativism.

Abatael? Is that you?

----Referance------>

My head

[Ainin]

I recently came across a research about the support for Sharia law amongst Muslim populations in some countries.

http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worl ... haria.aspx

(Image)

What are your opinions on it? I knew Lebanon had a quite secular society but the result is much less than what I would expect. Also; Malaysia and Indonesia disappointed me a lot, considering that they have a more-or-less contact with secularism.

And wtf Afghanistan?

Wait wut? Lebanon is the sanest country in the Middle East?

[Kemalist]

I recently came across a research about the support for Sharia law amongst Muslim populations in some countries.

http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worl ... haria.aspx

(Image)

What are your opinions on it? I knew Lebanon had a quite secular society but the result is much less than what I would expect. Also; Malaysia and Indonesia disappointed me a lot, considering that they have a more-or-less contact with secularism.

And wtf Afghanistan?

Wait wut? Lebanon is the sanest country in the Middle East?

Lebanon is pretty cool and its society is quiet secular. I would expect much less from Lebanon, that's a pretty disappointing result. But I still have faith in them, this poll can not be totally accurate after all.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Wait wut? Lebanon is the sanest country in the Middle East?

Lebanon is pretty cool and its society is quiet secular. I would expect much less from Lebanon, that's a pretty disappointing result. But I still have faith in them, this poll can not be totally accurate after all.

It's been subject to a number of internal and externally imposed wars in its recent history. It would make sense that conflict zones tend to become more religious as a method of coping.

Hell, Sri Lanka's Buddhist right-wing these days are absolutely barking mad.

[Meryuma]

Palestine was rather embarrassing on this one.

Azerbaijan is pretty classy though.

They want to make abortion illegal, not murder the women who have them (though that's what they would be doing).

Abortion isn't generally very emphasized by Muslims as an issue, even fundamentalist ones.

There is of course a difference here. The majority of the country are not Republicans, and Republicans themselves are split in how far they wish to push God in our faces. Certainly, people like Bachmann and West give that impression, as does Santorum, but none of these also advocate for what Sharia law does for those who breaks it. They want to make abortion illegal, not murder the women who have them (though that's what they would be doing). They want to make gay marriage illegal, but not stone and kill them the homosexuals. They want to degrade women, but not to the point where their faces are hidden, where they can't drive, where their husbands can beat them.

The GOP is certainly fucked up. I'll be the first one to admit that. But I will not even dare make the comparison unless I'm seriously drunk or high. And unfortunately, I have an exam in a few hours, so that's not an option till after class.

I am Republican (I identify with the Republican Party) and I don't want to force God down the throats of anyone. I just don't want Atheism forced down the throats of children. I am simply making one request: Just tell students that we don't know how life began and present them with Evolution, Creationism and Intellegent Design, and let children chose their religious path, weather it's Atheism, Theism, Scientology (I think Scientology is a belief in a form of intellegent design. I really don't know) or whatever they want to believe. I'm not advocating less religious freedom, I am advocating more.

Evolution is only tangentially related to atheism.

Back on topic:
Do you think they really are? Or is this a case of some other factor skewing the poll?

The Taliban do have quite an intimidation campaign going, after all. Maybe they don't feel safe telling strangers that they are in favor of secularism? Maybe they fear pollsters may be informants?

Or it could be a translation thing... Sharia does mean "law" after all...

Sharia Law translates to Law Law?

Yes, and Sahara Desert translates as Desert Desert.

Well, the poll is accurate. There are virtually no Muslims who would not want Sharia Law. Muslims feel that they have been failed by current ideologies, that they have lagged behind in every field since Islam declined. Hence it is only natural there is a very strong movement to bring back the Sharia as a proper source of law in Muslim countries, not the fake imitation that some 'Islamic states' currently employ. It is designed to protect minorities, to insure justice for all citizens, to end huge gaps between the rich and the poor and the exploitation of the lower classes by the elite, the wholesale destruction of moral values, families and the environment and to end the horrible state the world finds itself in. Hadd punishments are hardly implemented in a proper Islamic state. A sharia state is aimed at insuring justice and freedom. It was the system that brought the world basic juristic principles such as 'innocent until prove guilty', the end of the use of torture as a way to extract a confession and habeas corpus. It created giant scientific powerhouses such as Al Andalus that brought Europe out of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance and Enlightenment and men such as Saladin who would go on to symbolize the very meaning of chivalrous and magnanimous kings.

The Islamic Golden Age was great because of its focus on rational investigation and the arts, not because of religious law.

Do you support justice and freedom for me as a gay person? Or am I an inferior to you?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Umm, the abortion discourse in Muslim countries is similar to the discourse in Christian countries; it's just quieter. My mom had to fly out to Sri Lanka to get one. Not sure where you got that tidbit from, Meryuma.

As for Palestine, the rise of religious fundamentalism there is actually a relatively new phenomenon and largely to do with Saudi funding for Islamic charity networks starting in the 80's; it was designed put a final nail on the coffin of Pan-Arab Nationalism's leadership on the Palestinian question (also to keep in mind is that the PLO under Arafat did call for a single secular state). Didn't help that Israel was initially so complicit in the strengthening of Hamas.

Saudi Arabian money has been a significant factor in the rise of conservative theology in the Sunni world.

[Libertarian California]

I'd like to see the numbers for Muslims who live in Western nations. This is frightening.

[New Chalcedon]

I recently came across a research about the support for Sharia law amongst Muslim populations in some countries.

http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worl ... haria.aspx

(Image)

What are your opinions on it? I knew Lebanon had a quite secular society but the result is much less than what I would expect. Also; Malaysia and Indonesia disappointed me a lot, considering that they have a more-or-less contact with secularism.

And wtf Afghanistan?

This fails to surprise me even a little bit. I'd have loved to see the numbers for Western Muslims, but I guess that Pew didn't want to publish those numbers - it might have made Islam look bad.....

[Dilange]

Too be honest, Im surprised Russia has a number that high, and Turkey has a number that low.

[Yorkopolis]

Neither do I.
Then again, Mussolini didn't come to power democratically, yet he was able to survive because he had a lot of support. Maybe half-hearted, still support.

Not really, Mussolini won an election with a great percentage. So did Hitler.

Bullshittest of bullshit. Mussolini ain't won no election, he was just invited by the king to prevent a civil war from happening with the March on Rome incoming. As for Hitler, Hindenburg did pretty much the same thing, he just wanted to silence Hitler. Hitler ain't won no election, and he was not democratically elected and thus not legally the head of state of Germany. ^{[Citation #1] [Citation #2]}