posted August 26, 2006 03:08 AM              

In order to put myself in your shoes, since I'm of Irish descent, I'm imagining a scenario where the IRA (Irish Republican Army) are forming terrorist cells and carrying out terrorist attacks throughout the western world (my world, that is near & dear to me - you too, hello), and spewing hateful retoric etc...And people of the world start talking strong words of contempt toward the Irish people. I might say HEY I'm Irish, and I don't feel that way at all. But, I may also sympathize with their plight and want the world to understand why they've resorted to this.

At the same time, I wouldn't be cheering them on. I'd see them as just misguided and obsessed with hate, and I'd see that as a sickness of the soul. I'd take issue with comments that painted all Irish people as hateful brutes, sure - but I'd be all for putting them in check, whatever that would take. I wouldn't be giving them a "hell ya!" for every blow they deal. And I would strongly discourage my fellow Irish Canadians from falling into the mob mentality of "let's blow them up - they deserve it!" I would report any instance of terrorist activity, or planning of such without hesitation.

Now, let's take this a step further, and pretend that all Irish people were born with a Shamrock on their foreheads, so everyone in public would know they were Irish. Everyone could see I was Irish just by looking at me. In light of the current affairs, many may look at me with distain, pity, contempt, whathaveyou...I suppose all I could do is just smile. I'd know in my heart that I'm not of that terrorist mindset, and I'm light & free in my heart, because I have no guilt. People who knew me, would know this.

Now, if I were to add another dimension to this imaginary scenario, and suppose that my circle of people are not only sympathetic to the IRA, but also want to be active in their cause, and I am so deeply entrenched in this crowd that I can't speak any words of opposition to it, I think my heart would be very heavy. In order to live with myself, I may take it upon myself to try to convince outsiders that the IRA's fight is the good fight, whether I agree with their tactics or not. If I can get enough people to agree with me, I may be able to sleep at night, because if the majority agrees, it must be just and right. The only way I could give this habit up is if I could be removed from the enviroment that so passionately promotes it. But, they are my people. That option is not attractive to me. The rest of the world does not accept me, because of this Shamrock on my forehead. I don't feel like I have much choice.

My conscience is nagging me, but my need to be a part of my familier community is keeping me chained to an ideology that doesn't reside in my soul. So, my choices are a) be blind to what my instincts tell me b) be cast out of my circle, and perhaps be considered a traiter c) just disappear, never to be heard from again, and go somewhere far removed from it all, and change my identity, my life, my circle - find someplace where I can just BE ME.

Not an easy choice to make, but I think I'd really be tempted by C. Edmonton is nice. Ever been there? There's tons of work in Alberta.

posted August 26, 2006 03:37 AM              

Speaking of Ireland and the IRA in comparison with the terrorist groups of the Middle East makes a good point though. The IRA was formed due to the oppression of the system in Northern Ireland where the Prostestants, supported by Great Britain, were only elected to office there, where the Prostestants had the nice homes and good jobs and the Catholics lived in poverty in ghettos. The IRA was formed out of oppression to fight their oppressors. That is also the root cause of terrorism so being Irish and understanding the IRA as you claim you do then you should be able to easily see what the root cause of terrorism is. Which is what DD has been trying to point out to you rather than "cheering on" the terrorists as you accuse her of doing.

DD has told you repeatedly she DOES NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM, yet you still say she does. So what can she do? You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter how many times she has told you otherwise.

Would you just up and move away from your hometown, your family and friends, lioneye? I doubt it. Most people wouldn't. And why should they?

posted August 26, 2006 03:46 AM            

Christians take a lot of flack on this site. "Crazy right wing nut job Christians" I've seen all those terms toss haphazardly around. But when someone talks about those "Crazy right wing nut job Christian terrorists" blowing up abortion clinics, nobody assumes that that person is suggesting that all Christians are like that. Why is the Muslim religion any different?

posted August 26, 2006 05:16 AM            

quote:

---

Now, if I were to add another dimension to this imaginary scenario, and suppose that my circle of people are not only sympathetic to the IRA, but also want to be active in their cause, and I am so deeply entrenched in this crowd that I can't speak any words of opposition to it, I think my heart would be very heavy.

---

I don't know what the exact story is here. I haven't been following on ongoing conversation. I don't think DayDreamer is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

I appreciate the attempt to step into another's shoes, but I'm wondering if this is fully thought through. The part quoted above isn't fully explored I don't think. (I'm not judging it to be an accurate assessment either as I have no idea whatsoever who DD hangs out with) I don't think an Aquarius of all signs is going to feel like they can't speak opposition to something that they're opposed to. They're quite fond of speaking opposition. A Leo, being the opposite, should probably know that all too well. Have DD's comments made the terrorist's fight out to be the 'good' fight, or have DD's comments made the terrorists fight out to be a fight that the terrorists believe to be just? There's a crucial distinction there. Making the terrorist's fight out to be good means you're ok with making the other side bad. Making the terrorist's fight out to be just is displaying a desire for there to be understanding in hopes that there can be reconciliation through mutual respect.
(Knowing the nature of this board I hope that no one's been trying to trap her into saying anything she doesn't really mean, or portraying anything she isn't really trying to portray.)

posted August 26, 2006 12:22 PM              

quote:

---

The whole topic is way out of hand. I think it's very attention seeking and childish on one person's part. "Oh look, so-and-so said this about me and they have made me so upset and offended." Now not only are they creating problems with the people disagreeing with them but they are causing disagreements between the people who sympathise with them and those who don't.

---

Racism is not something that can be brushed off and hidden. None likes being discriminated against be it religion or the color of ur skin. Shame on you for thinking of it as nothing.

Charlotte, ur a little troll who just follows the racist crowd.

posted August 26, 2006 01:44 PM              

But when the element of religion is intertwined with policy in such a way as to tranlate to imposing those extremist dogmas on other peoples of the world, it's no longer just their own business.

DD, you align yourself with these extremists when you take offence to any objections to their policies, and you take them personally. That says that you identify with them, so I'm not painting you with that brush, YOU ARE. I'm very aware of the distinction between extremists and moderates. I know there are many Muslim groups and individuals who also oppose the extremist's philosophies, and the resulting terrorism, and I consider these Muslims comrades in arms. Often times, you don't come across as being of that moderate school of thought, in the way you take offence to criticisms of the extremist mind-set, so that makes me wonder - why do you take those criticisms personally? Perhaps you're entrenched in social circles who wholeheartedly support it, and you're doing your best to defend that mind set. So, either you agree with it, or you're just being loyal to your circle. I'm not sure where you stand, but I like to believe it's the latter.

I wish I had another way of identifying the extremist set, so as to not need to associate the word "Islam" with them, but I don't have another way of identifying them. And this is how they identify theirselves to the world. They wear that badge loud and proud as the impetus for their goals. If I were in your shoes, I'd cringe at the way these groups are tarnishing the world view of Islam. And I'd be right in there condemning them as well, not defending them. This is where I don't get you.

posted August 26, 2006 03:58 PM              

quote:

---

Why Sharia Law must be Opposed

Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people. The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.

The problem for all of us is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in the Sharia without being accused of blasphemy or apostasy. We would suggest that the answer lies in a return to the Five Pillars of Islam.

For non-Muslims who want to help, the problem is how to avoid charges of cultural imperialism, neocolonialism and racism, or of failing to respect “the other”. But cultural relativism is not the answer. In India, each religion has its own social laws. Muslim women do not enjoy the same rights as Hindu women. Why not? Justice cries out for secularism. One law for all – equality before the law – for Muslims and non-Muslims, for men and women alike, must be the answer.

Many of the arguments for permitting each religion or culture to determine its own laws are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of human rights. Human rights as defined in the UDHR are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to a group rather than to individuals, conflict becomes possible not only between one group and another, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies the right of its members to leave is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. Yet clearly, one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century has been that becoming a Muslim is a one-way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion) once you are a Muslim the only way out, under the Sharia, is death.

When Political Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, then anyone deeply concerned with humanity and human rights will be critical. Of all the existing ideologies, Political Islam remains the greatest danger to humanity. Political Islam has been neither tamed nor moderated by progressive forces. It has the power to inspire the terrorist mind, and, through its ties to oil-rich states, the funds to pursue its plans.

Islamic apologists often claim that many so-called violations of human rights are based on a misreading of the Holy Quran and will quote this or that sura in its defense. But the arguments against Political Islam are not against the holy texts but against the Sharia as it is practiced today in Islamic states. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that the struggle, jihad, to impose Islam by conquest is not to be taken literally. But for Political Islam it is. Ask the suicide bombers. The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway.

The world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to criticize Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully recognized. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. Once we are prevented from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas we will be heading back to the Dark Ages.

We must recognize that we now live in a global community. Society is far larger, more diverse and far more complex than the primitive tribal society of 7th century Arabia that gave birth to Islam. It is time to renounce the idea that anyone should be ruled exclusively by the Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion for those that have none, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means that we must reject the claims of the Islamists that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah – by which they mean His representatives, that is, themselves. Indeed it demands that the very concept of an Islamic state be challenged. The imposition of Sharia law for political ends must be opposed.

What is needed is nothing less than the secularization of Islamic society, and the establishment of the idea that individual conscience must be our guide and the judge of personal, private conduct. But secularization cannot be imposed from outside by force. Attempts by America and its allies to impose democracy and human rights on the Islamic world will rightly be resisted as neocolonialism and will simply drive more and more Muslims into the arms of the extremists. The onus is on us to promote the ideals of personal freedom, progress and change from within Muslim society, with help from those in the rest of the world who share our ideals and hopes for the future.

We call on all Muslims and all who value freedom, democracy and human rights to support our campaign: NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights.

---

Mehdi Dibaj was born into a Muslim family but became a Christian in the 1940s. In December 1993, an Islamic court in Sari sentenced him to death for apostasy. The conviction was based on the charge that he had abandoned Islam 45 years earlier by becoming a Christian.

Following a worldwide campaign, Dibaj was released in January 1994.

Five months after his release from prison, Dibaj was abducted and murdered.

posted August 26, 2006 04:02 PM            

I pay very close attention, unlike you who only reads what they find convenient. Show me where, exactly where, I've taken part in "racism against Muslims" as you allege. And I suggest you don't make allegations against me that you can't back up. These are serious accusations you're throwing out around here. Expect those whose reputations you've tried to tarnish needlessly to take them seriously, as well. It's called libel so make sure you know what you're talking about before you start making any more false accusations. Don't make the mistake of thinking you haven't been recognized.

posted August 26, 2006 06:05 PM              

I especially liked this quote:

" More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion for those that have none, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people."

Religion has no business being entangled in any government. There is no way you can be in favor of both human rights and this "religious law".

That said, being against Sharia Law is not the same thing as being anti-Muslim. The very reason any sane person is against this law is because of the Muslim people (esp. women....) it harms.

posted August 26, 2006 06:08 PM              

You don't have even a clue what mainstream Muslims think or feel.

You won't even let me tell you without throwing some racists comments about Muslims around.

Most Muslims are against your Bush, Blair and Harper's foreign policy and strategies.

Does that make them terrorists, or terrorist-sympathizers?

You don't even know what Shariah Law is. There are different interpretations. And the ones practiced in some countries is extreme...and it seems like the governments/ruling parties use these extremes in defiant opposition to Western culture, more than anything else.

So how do you suggest they become more moderate? Start a moral war there?

posted August 26, 2006 06:15 PM              

Can we stick to one subject at a time?

posted August 27, 2006 04:07 AM              

quote:

---

The religion and the state are one in places like Iran, Pakistan, formerly Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

---