[kamaal]

>>This is part of their legal system, which is called "islam", or "sharia"

This has nothing to do with Islam. This is all about money and a few rich idiots abusing their power.

Bulk of the practices you associate with any religion, are not that of a religion but that of the local civilization at that point of time.

Your post resembles the attitude of the western masses today, which is to hold the perception created by media and politicians as a fact. Islam is followed by more than 1/3rd of the world today, no one wakes up with knives searching for slaves to kill. These people are ordinary people just like any other people in the west who go out and make a living, in the hopes of a good life for themselves and their family.

And they have their local culture which dominates bulk of their lifestyle.

Secondly you quote Winston Churchill, This is heights of hypocrisy. The man has made extreme racial remarks. For eg from : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

>>I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Basically he is saying, anything that what the so called self proclaimed 'stronger' or 'higher-grade' race does is right.

This is the exact same attitude these rich guys in Qatar show today. Something tells me they are both just the same. Regardless of the religion.

People like these should think about their own morals before talking about somebody else's.

[smsm42]

>>> People like these should think about their own morals before talking about somebody else's.

People like Winston Churchill can't think anything because they, like Winston Churchill, have been dead for decades. And in all civilized countries slavery has long been illegal. So if in one country - namely Qatar - institution of slavery still exists, Churchill quote from the thirties is not actually a good way to prevent somebody from talking about the morals of Qatar slaveholders.

[kamaal]

>>People like Winston Churchill can't think anything because they, like Winston Churchill, have been dead for decades.

They could think when they were alive. To talk about freedom and morals, when your own country has set up colonies all round the globe and committing atrocities is hypocrisy.

[smsm42]

US and Europe have some black pages in their histories, that is true. Not that they are unique in that - we all know about slaves being brought into the US, but I encourage you to look up who was selling those slaves and where the centers of the slave trade were located and how much of power in Africa and Middle East depended on selling the slaves - but with all that, the past can not be denied. However, for US and Europe is is the past and slavery has been long recognized as immoral, unacceptable and evil. In Qatar, the slavery exists today. It is not hypocritical at all to call Qatar out today and tell them that in 21th century we don't do these things. Even if people did it some time ago. We grew past that, and it's time for Qatar to do the same.

[simonh]

Which country are you from, by the way?

[don_draper]

A few people at the top are greedy and exploiting these laborers or slaves. But it appears religion and culture and being used to justify it in the general population.

[waps]

I don't understand. What exactly are you saying is not true : 1) islam is a system of laws

2) those laws include slavery

3) people who are fighting to introduce those laws to society are reintroducing legal slavery

4) the muslim world is the major hotbet of slavery

Copious evidence for all claims is easy to come by. Start with : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery And if you want to hear it from an imam: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/94840 (note that many of the "advantages" slaves had are the exact same as they had in the Roman Empire. An owner, for example, would generally treat his own educated slaves better than fellow free men)

If you want to be completely horrified by this site, just read the category http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/362

Some examples, and the TLDR

"Islam and slavery" (TLDR: taking slaves is allowed "in war" and buying them and kidnapping them. There are lots of rules about slaves)

"Intercourse with female prisoners of war." (TLDR: allowed for men)

"What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women?" (TLDR: allowed for men)

"Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)" (TLDR: true, provided certain conditions are met. Also: A muslim man fucking a non-muslim woman is perfectly OK if not done in an islamic country, because any muslim is at war with everyone outside of muslim countries) (note how he squirms to avoid saying what the ruling is on muslims living in non-muslim nations. Why ? Because that's punishable by death, except for soldiers and -maybe- ambassadors. Where do you live ?) ...

Your "evidence" that this is not true, is, as I read it :

a) 1/3rd of the world follows islam (in reality, it's probably between 1/5th and 1/6th)

b) "no-one wakes with knives searching for slaves to kill" (that's not allowed, btw, you have to buy them first)

c) Winston Churchill is a hypocrit with often similar socialist eugenic standpoints as the people he fought -> not a surprise to anyone who knows a smitten of history. Nobody denies he was a keen observer and a very effective leader either.

[flumbaps]

Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion. Like all organised religions, what's written in its holy books is of far less practical importance than what is preached by its leaders. Adherents don't read and figure out for themselves, they follow what they are told the books say. Like most religious leaders, the Islamic holy men tend to preach what is convenient to them. The fact that the religion is Islam isn't of particular note. It wasn't so long ago that American Christian leaders preached that God condoned slavery. You might explain this by talking about different branches of Christianity, and likewise there are different interpretations of Islam too. But really, I think that unless a religion actively encourages a practical pursuit of self-enlightenment (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, spiritual Yoga), then it is nothing more than a system of control. Ultimately the important thing is how corrupt the leaders are.

Think of it this way, if there were no courts and no defence lawyers and no-one ever bothered to read the legal statutes for themselves, then would the actual text of the law mean anything? Or wouldn't it rather be that, in application, the law would tend serve the interests of the police?

[rayiner]

> Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion.

That's a very secular western view of religion. The distinction between law and religion is one seems important to people familiar with Christianity, because that religion has historically existed alongside a state with a separate system of laws (either English common law or some derivative of Roman civil law). It's a distinction that makes a lot less sense in Islam, which has historically not existed alongside a separate state, but has been an integral foundation for the state.

[_delirium]

I wouldn't say that Christianity has "historically" been particularly well factored from a separate system of laws, unless you mean to start history with the Enlightenment. The seat of power in Constantinople for centuries was a shifting alliance of Emperors and Patriarchs, and the law that was enforced was not really separated into secular and church law, but more like negotiated spheres of influence of each leader's representatives. The same goes for most of Western Europe's history, which involves a very long shadow cast by the Pope, and an extensive role for the Catholic Church in comprehensively ordering society and the operation of courts—in many places and eras there was essentially no distinction between canon law and civil law. This is because, exactly as you say, religion has traditionally been considered an integral foundation for the state in Christian countries.

[Mikeb85]

Islam absolutely contains a set of laws. For the Muslim, you cannot have the religion without the law. Even in countries where Islam is the minority, disputes between Muslims are settled by a community Islamic court...

[flumbaps]

Please read again. I have not denied that Islam contains a set of laws. I said that Islam is not exactly equal to a set of laws. Which is correct.

I've also stated that, in practical terms, it is the behaviour and beliefs of the religious leaders that matter more that the laws themselves. The community Islamic courts you cite are a perfect example of this. You seem to expect them to behave according to some monolithic interpretation of Sharia law. Whereas, in reality, these courts are run by the Islamic community and are presided over by local religious leaders who make decisions (and interpret the laws) according to their own beliefs, informed by their own prejudices and self interests.

If you have any doubt that this is true, then simply consider that there are moderate Muslims in the world, and there are Muslims that believe God wants them to commit murder. Do you think it is a coincidence that those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference? Do you think it is by chance that within the West and within countries allied with the West, we find more moderate viewpoints?

Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

[waps]

1) many muslims disagree that there is a difference between islam and sharia. The word itself disagrees with your assessment. Besides, ever met a muslim that didn't care what halal was ? Ever wondered what "halal" refers to. These people that call themselves muslim use the sources I referred to as guidance on what is halal, they do not decide for themselves.

2) slavery, incuding kidnapping people, even children into slavery is halal. So is raping them. Yes there's limits to exactly who, when and where, but frankly that doesn't matter to the morality of that. Halal = morally reprehensible.

3) Even seemingly stupid parts of the islamic faith, like halal food (practiced by the vast majority of muslims), you're going to find discriminatory/racist at best (religious discrimination in employment, to start with). Even that part is morally reprehensible.

4) I disagree strongly with your assessment that "those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference". Aside from the fact that that statement reads like a conspiracy theory, those hotbeds you refer to are Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan. In a different way Egypt has been a hotbed. You might be able to build a weak case America has harmed Somalia, but the others have massively benefited from America's influence and help.

I propose instead that those who see the west as the devil come from societies (or at least families) that take islam very seriously and let it guide their life. The stronger the place of islam in their lives, the more hate for everyone they have (not just for America, in case you truly are that naive. Israel, Holland (because there is a whore at every intersection, one Egyptian explained to me not very long ago), France (something about a Jewish school that you just can't repeat, and the "fact" that they support ex-muslims in Lebanon), Ethiopia, Kenia, ...).

> Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

Everything, including your rhetoric, aligns itself with realpolitik. That's the definition of realpolitik. Your statement is true, but it contains no information, other than what's in the dictionary. Barbie dolls align themselves with realpolitik too, and it is equally naive to see things otherwise.

[swalkergibson]

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

You are a bigot.

[marrs]

This is true, but besides the point. Laws on how to treat slaves are redundant in a country where slavery is illegal. And there is nothing in Islam to say that keeping slaves is compulsory or even desirable.

[Mikeb85]

People operate under the law all the time. I know of plenty of places where polygamy is practiced, despite being illegal in those countries...

[seivan]

It's a political power.

[waps]

"Islam isn't a system of laws"

Really ? Have you ever -even once- asked a muslim this ? Seriously ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[marrs]

Islam isn't a system of laws. Sharia is not Islam. I'm pretty amazed that I've just read this thread, to be honest.

[flumbaps]

Sharia is the laws OF Islam. Sharia is not equal to Islam. Set A contains set B. Set A is not equal to set B. You might as well say that Christianity is the ten commandments, Judaism is the halakhah and Atheism is the American Atheists’ conference code of conduct.

[kamaal]

The problem in Qatar is vastly the exploitation of poor, by the rich. Which is hardly any different than situations in certain parts of China, India, North Korea and where not?

I'm pretty darn sure you don't talk about religion of people who commit suicides in those Foxconn factories.

I don't know what agenda you hold in continually dragging Islam into all this.

[sampk]

We don't talk about their religion because their religion doesn't encourage slavery, obviously.

[polymatter]

No religion doesn't have something that Western society doesn't have moral difficulty with. Christianity has a load of crap about stoning people, homophobia and subjugation of women for a start. Also includes God sanctioned rape and murder of non-Christians. Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy is full of that crap.

[cmdkeen]

Except Christianity broadly doesn't believe in the Bible being the literal word of God and thus all of those rules applying now - and no country accepts it as their view of Christianity. Biblical infallibility is a modern, revivalist concept. Even during the good old days of the Mediaeval Church no-one stoned adulterers.

No Christian country has laws stoning people on the basis of "it's in the Bible". However it is the law in many Muslim countries.

That's the problem. Christianity is a religion that has had philosophy and interpretation bedded in from the off. US revivalists may ignore that rich history but it is a minority. Islam lost that argument many centuries ago, before which it led the world in scientific discovery and culture, now only a few, oppressed, sects think that way.

[aldous]

A valuable point worth noting in relation to this is the fact that Jesus, in the new testament, specifically dismisses such practices as stoning:

John 8:7. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_him_who_is_without_sin_cas...

It is one of the central tenets of Christian faith that one should not judge others. Quotes attributed to Jesus explicitly state this many times in the new testament.

[flumbaps]

Yeah, but during medieval and early modern times the church tortured and killed heretics and supposed witches. There isn't even anything in the Bible about doing that. Oppressive theocratic regimes aren't caused by the religious texts they interpret. The Turkish people have a very tolerant culture, despite being an Islamic nation.

The fact is, when a set of beliefs is used as a foundation for nation building, it usually gets twisted over time to create an oppressive regime. Think about the rhetoric of Communism, how explicit that is about equality and fairness, and how well that turned out. It is not amazing that Islamic nations are shitty places to live. What is amazing is that secular, democratic, capitalist nations are quite nice places to live.