Yup. Saying that Muslims who are willing to emigrate to the US are somehow “least representative” of all Muslims, as you did in post #367, is a silly assertion, because it’s not consistent with factual data.
For example, I cited factual data that shows that over 7% of all adult Bangladeshis, who by themselves represent over 10% of all the world’s adult Muslims, would be willing to emigrate to the US.
To say that such willingness is somehow “least representative” of Muslims overall, even though at least 5-10 percent of all Muslims worldwide evidently share it, is nonsense.
That’s about the same percentage of Muslims worldwide who have made the pilgrimage to Mecca, FFS. You can hardly call those kinds of numbers “least representative” as though they were just some tiny insignificant fraction of the world’s Muslims.
Note that, as I pointed out in another thread which I don’t have to hand at the moment, there are also several Buddhist-majority countries (such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka) in which homosexuality is illegal.
And of course, there are still plenty of Christian-majority countries in which homosexuality is illegal. They just don’t happen to be the Christian-majority countries of the developed and wealthy western world.
You missed the point, vigorously. What I said was that Muslims who wished to travel to and live in the US or the West would naturally have different outlooks than the rest of the enormous population of Muslims who did not emigrate.
You have some other thing to bloviate about, and I wish you luck with that.
Those goalposts are not as mobile as you seem to imagine. We can all see by looking at your actual post that what you said was exactly this:
To which I replied, not unreasonably:
To which you replied, feebly:
Well, now you apparently know why you would need a cite for such a silly assertion, since now you have apparently recognized the expediency of pretending that what you actually asserted was something quite different.
Unlike Magiver’s failed “gotcha” list, with its Christian, Buddhist, and other countries, your list is, with one exception, a list of countries that have been heavily propagandized by the Salafists/Wahhabists, and the one exception, Iran, was subjected to a revolution based on the ideas of a Salafist-influenced cleric.
So, rather than the “Ooooh! Let’s blame Islam” point that you were trying to make, you have reinforced my point that it is not Islam, but a specific sect within Islam that is promoting hatred and violence.
Note also that countries where there have recently been serious legislative efforts to make homosexuality a capital crime include Uganda (85% Christian) and Kenya (83% Christian). Furthermore, these efforts have largely been promoted and funded by Christian evangelical organizations in the US. (The tiny vocal minority supporting the death penalty for homosexuality in the US itself, of course, is overwhelmingly Christian.)
Given that most modern western Christian-majority nations removed the death penalty for homosexuality only within the last 200 years or so, and that several Christian-majority nations still criminalize it, I don’t see how anyone can logically argue that the difference in modern attitudes to gay rights in most Christian-majority nations versus most Muslim-majority ones is somehow due to differences in Christian vs. Muslim “scripture”.
:dubious: So in the mid-19th century when homosexuality was a crime in the British Empire but not in the Ottoman Empire, were Christians and Muslims somehow using different original “progenitor-based dogmas” from the ones they have now?
As I keep saying, this sort of simplistic essentializing just dissolves into illogical nonsense when confronted by the complexity of actual historical facts.
stop blaming Wahhabism/Salafism; the violent anti-homosexual societies in most of those countries existed long before Al-Wahab. And the fact is that everyone of those countries I cited are Muslim countries. Tamzimat reforms didn’t come out of thin air, nor did they face little resistance, in the previous caliphate (the caliphate before ISIS).
**
Most of these “Christianity was once worse than Islam” arguments are mere post-colonialism distortions out of the academic left. Even then, people care about today, not hundreds of years ago, or the Crusades 1000 years ago.**
Also, while yes, Magiver’s list had countries of several faiths, there is zero doubt* that a higher proportion of Muslim countries criminalize homosexuality than the proportion of non-Muslim countries that do.*
The point is that violent anti-homosexual societies existed long before Al-Wahhab in non-Muslim countries too. Britain, for example, decreed the death penalty for homosexuality as late as 1836 (and the law wasn’t actually repealed until decades later).
[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
Most of these “Christianity was once worse than Islam” arguments are mere post-colonialism distortions out of the academic left. Even then, […]
[/quote]
:dubious: “Even then” apparently meaning “I can’t refute these arguments so I’ll just call them distortions and change the subject”.
[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
[…] people care about today, not hundreds of years ago, or the Crusades 1000 years ago.
[/quote]
If “people” are trying to explain the situations of today by appealing to differences in different religions’ ancient “dogma” or “scriptures” or “progenitors”, then they have to care about how their explanations account for intervening events “hundreds of years ago” or “1000 years ago”.
Unless, of course, “people” cling to demonstrably illogical and ahistorical arguments, which unfortunately several “people” in this thread seem all too willing to do.
[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
[…] there is zero doubt* that a higher proportion of Muslim countries criminalize homosexuality than the proportion of non-Muslim countries that do.*
[/QUOTE]
There is also zero denial of that well-known fact. What we’re objecting to is merely the repeated clumsy illogical and ahistorical arguments that attempt to explain that well-known fact by ignorant simplistic assertions about the “intrinsic” nature or “progenitor” or “dogma” or “scripture” of Islam versus Christianity, which completely fail to account for their very diverse development in the many centuries since those ancient origins.
That whole Ottoman Tanzimatthing was a desperate attempt at slowing the decline of the empire by exempting non-muslims from Muslim law; it wasn’t a case of Islam accepting gays. This tolerance of homosexuality was not based on sharia law, it was specifically not sharia law. Is there any evidence that Muslims were allowed to be gay Muslims, based on Islamic law?
I’m almost embarrassed to bring it up, because it’s almost certainly been highlighted many times, but Islam is significantly younger than Christianity, right? And a few hundred years ago, Christianity had the same sort of attitude toward homosexuality (burn 'em based on our holy scripture). How much of the absolutely appalling attitude toward homosexuality can be ascribed to the-ahem- immaturity of the faith?
Islam is I think about 600 years younger than Christianity. 600 years ago, what happened to homosexuals in fervently Christian countries? it typically was a pretty ugly fate. I don’t mean this as some sort of “blank check” for Islam to treat anyone horrifically, but simply as perspective.
Shouldn’t be too difficult to answer. It’s pretty straight forward. Mohammad was a warlord who codified laws. Jesus went to his death without so much as a post-it-note and on his way out asked God to forgive those who killed him.
That you’re somehow confused when followers of Mohammad actually follow his actions and laws is mind boggling.
It’s like you’re whistling your way past Leviticus. LEVITICUS IS STILL IN THERE! It’s still part of the Christian scriptures! I understand that when it’s not YOU that large portions of the Bible are used to vilify (all through your life), it’s easy to forget that those portions are still there. Believe me, there isn’t a single non-self-denying LGBT person in this country that has forgotten that, because Christians in this country WON’T LET US FORGET!
No - non-Muslims in the Ottoman state had recourse to non-Muslim law for domestic issues from at least the 15th century under the Millet system ( and more informally before that ). Non-Muslims actually had recourse to both, which caused some non-Muslim authorities to complain when non-Muslims would avail themselves of Muslim courts that were less stringent in certain areas. The Tanzimat reforms ironically went hand in hand with a greater focus on state Islam in the 19th century as the Caliphal title, previously little more than a ceremonial frippery, started to be played up in an attempt to build a new state identity.
The law applied to everyone, including Muslims. Ottoman law as above was not purely religious in character and indeed NO pre-modern Islamic state operated on purely religious law, because Sharia simply didn’t and doesn’t cover certain areas. “Secular law” was being being introduced within a few years of Muhammed’s death when a semblance of a real state structure became necessary.
In the Ottoman state secular law a.) often trumped religious law and b.) tended to treat sex offenses relatively more leniently, for example by simply levying fines. However it was also subject to weaker evidentiary procedures, since technically sharia offenses required four direct adult witnesses. So sharia = often harsher punishments, hard to prove offense; kanun = more lenient punishments, easier to prove offenses. Easy to see why a bureaucratic state apparatus would prefer secular law that generate income via fines.