Or captured.
I’m not sure if you’re genuinely confused or if this is part of your general form-above-substance shtik. In the event that it’s the former, I’ll break it down a bit for you.
[ul]
[li]That blogger is not personally someone who wants to see Obama arrested as an apostate, and he additionally seems to have appreciated that this would not be practical.[/li][li]However, the premise of his blog post is that this is what the law in Malaysia would require.[/li][li]That blogger is Malaysian and someone who is likely somewhat familiar with relevant laws and attitudes about religious status.[/li][li]Similarly, his blog is aimed at a local audience who are also likely familiar with these.[/li][li]Therefore, the fact that he based a blog post on this premise is some evidence that the law in Malaysia is that a son of a Muslim father who leaves the religion is a Muslim apostate – similar to what’s already been documented in the case of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Sudan.[/li][/ul]
Of course, the evidence is not as conclusive here as in the case of the others, being just the word of some blogger versus State Department and CNN reports in the case of the other countries. Hence, the use of “FWIW” in my original post. But it’s something and it does add to the weight of the evidence introduced about the other countries (& Pakistan) so possibly worth noting. And again, it stands in marked contrast to the denialists in this thread who have offered absolutely nothing in support of their assertions.
I have absolutely zero dog in this bizarre tangent, and I don’t know or care anything about what law or tradition says about Muslim children being Muslim or not, but… you are getting your ass absolutely handed to you by Fotheringay-Phipps in this sequence of exchanges, and quite frankly you’re embarrassing me as a liberal. He keeps bringing up pieces of supporting evidence, claiming (rightly) that they are evidence but not proof. You keep either saying “but that’s not PROOF”, when of course he didn’t claim it was proof, or bringing up bizarrely spurious objections to his evidence.
Somehow the law of the nation of Iran, which is an ISLAMIC THEOCRACY, and specifically the bits of the law that actually address how is and who is not Islamic, are irrelevant to a discussion of the traditions and laws of Islam?
There is no such critter as “…the traditions and laws of Islam…”. It is not a discrete entity, it has no “thingness”.
You are familiar, I trust, with the notion of infant damnation? That a just and loving God, Father to all being, would send an innocent soul into eternal torment simply because a specified ritual of baptism was not performed? To this day, there are Christians who believe that.
There are Christians who believe that an all-knowing God is fully aware of which souls He is creating that are going to go to Hell, because He knows all. And He does it anyway, because He loves us so much that he gave his only begotten Son… There are Christians who believe that.
And of course, there are Presbyterians who couldn’t tell you what a “presbyter” is to save their…ass. Methodists who have only a vague notion of what John Wesley was on about. Catholics who practice birth control, Unitarians who are really pretty sure, sorta, kinda.
Which is the traditions and laws of Christianity? If a Muslim seizes upon infant damnation as a central and universal premise of Christianity, how long before you say “Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!”? Quicker than me? (And may the blessed baby Jesus shut their mouth and open their heart.)
Dare I suggest that one needs to know a great deal more about any religious tradition before one advances such judgement? Why, yes, I do dare, do dare. All the livelong day.
Or alternatively use the idea of transubstantiation to demonstrate that Christians are required to be cannibals.
You needn’t be, I’m a radical lefty. Embarrassing liberals is what we do.
Wait, what? That is evidence? I asked if he was kidding - he wasn’t. OK, then his evidence is weak, in support of a premise that demands some pretty strong shit. Not “FWIW” or “possibly worth noting”. If he has better evidence, why offer that? And if he doesn’t, why not just shut the fuck up?
It is the widely accepted Cecilian tradition that if one is reduced to CAPS, one brings more heat than light, and can safely be brushed aside.
Anyway, the answer to the question about why Republicans are allowed to vote is that its God’s will that they do so. Something about the jawbone of an ass.
Could look it up, its probably in Leviticus, most of the real bullshit is in Leviticus.
How do you figure? Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. “In Islam, a son of an Islamic father is considered to be Islamic at birth” is hardly an extraordinary claim.
I have no idea if it’s TRUE or not, but it’s not something that is so bizarrely outside of the norm that it requires some extra special level of proof or evidence.
(But oh noes, I typed “true” in all caps there… guess you can just brush aside everything I have ever said.)
Again?
OK. Too much snark. To simplify, if one is to claim that a given thing is “Islamic tradition”, that implies a commonality that is insupportable. Just as claiming that infant damnation is “Christian tradition”. Sometimes, something with a grain to truth to it is a bigger lie than something without it.
What I don’t understand is where you got your null hypothesis.
Personally, I started with zero information about whether or not the statement “it is Islamic law/tradition that the son of a Muslim male is also Muslim” is true. It seems plausible. For example, in Jewish law/tradition, the children of a Jewish mother are considered to be Jewish. I don’t know that every single different version of Judaism agrees on that, and I don’t know to what extent it’s a law vs a tradition, and I don’t know whether it comes from the Torah vs the Talmud vs oral tradition, but it’s a claim that I’ve heard made by enough knowledgeable people in enough different contexts that I’m perfectly happy to view it as established fact.
So, then FP makes the claim that in Islamic law/tradition, the son of a Muslim male is also Muslim. As I said, I don’t know much about Islamic law/tradition, and that claim is plausible, and while I disagree with a lot of FP’s politics I haven’t found him to be someone who just makes up outright lies. So upon reading his claim, I thought “huh, well, that might well be true”.
So… what was your response to reading his claim?
What is “well, I happen to actually know that that claim is false, due to my knowledge of Islam”? If so, that’s a completely reasonable response, and if that was your claim, it seems like it should be pretty easy to provide evidence that his claim is false.
But it seems like your response was more along the lines of “What a bizarre and ridiculous claim that is! Why, everyone knows that Islam is not just ONE thing but MANY things. Therefore, your claim is prima facie false unless you prove that it is true for EVERY SINGLE VARIETY OF ISLAM, and clearly you can not do that, therefore I will just sit back and snipingly mock your feeble attempts to support your claim, which we all agree was just ludicrous to begin with”.
But of course even though there are lots of variety of Islam, it’s still possible for a statement to be generally true about all of them. In addition, if a statement “In Islam, X” is true about the vast majority of varieties of Islam and false for only a few of them, then I think that in general imprecise usage, it’s totally reasonable to say “In Islam, X”. That statement could be made MORE accurate and MORE precise, but I’m still willing to accept it as stated.
And furthermore, if we’re trying to evaluate the truth value of “In Islam, X”, and someone provides evidence that states “In Islam as practiced in Iran, X”, well, that’s certainly evidence FOR the truth of the original statement. It’s not comprehensive, it doesn’t prove it, but if we start with zero evidence for or against “In Islam, X”, and someone provides evidence for “In Islam as practiced in Iran, X”, well, that moves the probability needle for “In Islam, X” towards true. It’s evidence. It’s an argument. It’s a data point.
And one last thing, it’s not like “male children of Muslim men are considered to be Muslim” is some kind of offensive or bigoted statement. If someone was arguing that “Muslims believe that they should kill Jews and drink their blood”, and started out by providing evidence that members of one particular extremist sect of Islam literally believe that to be true, it’s entirely reasonable to scoff at them because they’re making an offensive and bigoted and extraordinary claim, and they ought to recognize the difference between one particular extremist sect of Islam, and Islam as a whole. But the particular claim under discussion is not that kind of claim at all.
So, fundamentally… what precisely is your problem here?
Context. The post wherein this “evidence” is offered is largely a sneer at several persons who question FP’s presumptions. Rightly, in my estimation.
Challenged, what does he offer? Evidence with no more weight than a butterfly’s eyelash.
Challenged to provide evidence, he offers a weak-as-shit example that he must admit is weak. Even that the source may not actually believe it himself, but is perhaps being “facetious”, may even be something of a “liberal”. WTF?
He then finishes up by insulting his interrogators, claiming that as weak and specious as his evidence may be, it is still evidence! And therefore he triumphs because “…it stands in marked contrast to the denialists in this thread who have offered absolutely nothing in support of their assertions…”.
(Amongst other insults, such as “…But of course, what you really mean is that in general you would be far more likely to trust someone who says something that you like than someone who says something you don’t like, regardless of validity of sources…”)
I wasn’t in the mood to let him skate on that sort of bullshit. Seldom am. I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking.
See post 104.
Sharh Muslim, 16/208 - Google Search and https://revivalofthemuslimfamily.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/regarding-an-apostate-child/
Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Almost a quarter of the people in the world are Islam. Almost ninety percent of them are Sunni, and of those over five million are Salafiyyah. The ultra-conservative nutters are not by any means the majority of Muslims in the world, but there are enough of them that in some places they hold power, and base their laws on their belief as set out in their holy and learned documents. Thus for most Muslims, it would not be right to execute a woman raised since birth as a Christian for refusing to revert to Islam simply because the father she never new was Muslim, but for a significant number of Muslims, it is right that she be executed, based on the likes of authorities such as those quoted above.
As with Christianity, it often happens that one sect’s religious authorities are disavowed or ignored by another sect.
Bottom line: religion is fucked-up, including Islam, and in particular the more violent and extreme versions of it.
I would think it would be pretty clear from history that disenfranchisement has terrible effects on the governed. If you are denied a voice in your representation, government will soon lose all credibility to you.
If we’re going to limit voting rights, then I suggest we use a simple lottery rather than some made-up qualifications that will never achieve their intended result in the face of inevitable backlash.
But it’s important to realize that there are really two separate questions. 1) Is someone whose father is Muslim automatically considered to be a Muslim under Islamic law, regardless of their personal beliefs in another religion, and 2) should such people (or any former Muslims) be executed as apostates. I would bet there are a lot of people who would consider such people to be Muslim apostates, but would be uncomfortable actually executing them.
Maybe it’s not the Republicans (conservatives in general) who are the problem. Maybe it’s just ridiculously unqualified free speech.
Seriously. The only reason people believe bullshit on such a scale is because media faces are allowed to spew whatever lies they want without repercussion. FOX should have lost its broadcasting licenses years ago.
I’m not sure exactly what your point is, but no one in their right mind doubts that the liberals and the liberal media are full of institutionalized bigotry, hatred, racism, lies, distortions and intolerance.
The examples are multitude, one of my favorite recent ones is the attempted terrorist attack in Texas, where two Muslim terrorists where killed, while attacking “Draw Mohammed” event (thank God the attack took place in Texas, where there are plenty of guns). You “would” think the liberal media would be in uproar over this blatant attack on one of the most sacred freedoms of our society (freedom of speech), but here’s a prime example of liberal media attacking the victim. A liberal bimbo spent 15 minutes trying to have an intended victim admit that she “provoked” the attack.
Yes, and the rape victims provoke their assailants, by wearing short skirts…
I fully endorse your example, but I do agree with Max that in general there’s more totally out there stuff coming from the right. It’s frustrating, actually. As a conservative, I actually find liberals easier to talk to about politics. Having a water cooler conversation with an everyday conservative can get, er… interesting, really fast.
I don’t know that I’d call Republicans more ignorant overall. Quite the opposite, actually. I find that Republicans are actually more informed. But along with what they know, they also carry around a lot of stuff they picked up from various nutty places that they absolutely refuse to let go of. whereas with liberals it’s more of a “Oh, I don’t really follow politics all that closely.” IT’s a different type of ignorance. Republicans are ignorant because they believe a lot of stupid things. Democrats are ignorant because they just don’t invest much time in politics.
Well, the single most influential mass media show aimed at liberals over the past decade has been The Daily Show… and it was filled with none of those.
Or do you count everything other than Fox as “liberal media”?
You do realize that it’s entirely possible for the following two statements to be true simultaneously:
(1) It is totally unacceptable to respond to someone drawing Mohammed with violence, and it is a paramount sacred value of the USA that such expression is protected against government interference. The people who wanted to violently attack that event were scum, and I’m glad they’re dead*.
*with some disclaimers about the death of another human never actually being something to rejoice about
and
(2) The people who organized that event are dicks, were trying to provoke a response, and definitely bear some responsibility for what occurred. If the terrorists had, instead of driving directly up to the event itself and being killed, decided to go to the town but then just drive around shooting random civilians, the blood of those civilians would have partly been on the hands of the organizers of the event.
You absolutely positively have the right to make a work of art which depicts Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin being urinated on by Satan in hell. If you make such a work of art and rent billboards all around poor black neighborhoods and put your work up in all those places, and a riot occurs, and someone is killed, you sure as hell should feel some guilt for that death.