Understanding the Left's stance toward Sharia Law

[ckaihatsu]

You want to know why Hillary Clinton is not outraged that women cannot get an abortion under Sharia law? She also does not get outraged over the fact that poor women in the US cannot get abortions. She gets mildly upset about it. Now, if they made it illegal for wealthy, white women to board an airplane with the intent of flying to San Francisco to get an abortion then she would get outraged. With her it's a class thing.



It would also resemble Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Satanism. But that's not the point. People need religion as a drug to numb themselves to the reality of life under slavery/feudalism/capitalism. That's what Marx meant when he said that religion is an opiate of the masses.

It is the psychological equivalent of being addicted to heroin.

Small but significant correction here -- 'intellectual equivalent' instead of 'psychological equivalent'.

(Psychological needs are more basic than intellectual / worldly ones.)

[ckaihatsu]

If I ever get un-restricted, I would love to ask about how the classless society that communists and Socialists actually works. I mean it sounds good in principal, however everywhere I look, it doesn't seem possible, due to human nature and our animal instinct.

The only things we even *know* about 'human nature' is due to our human history to-date, which, by definition, excludes any *advances* that we may happen to make in the *future* -- in other words we shouldn't be *beholden* to the past, when there may very well be *improvements* to be made, with the time that's in front of us.

Much of human behavior -- as in primitive and pastoralist societies -- may actually be *derived* from observed animal behavior, which is problematic, of course, for any given *modern* society and way of living, going forward.

So, likewise, we shouldn't be bound by any past attempts at socialism that happened to become constrained to the nation-state system, instead of expanding worldwide, as it should.

Even the most communist governments (take North Korea, or China for example), still have a hierarchy, where every person isn't equal (in terms of money) or has equal influence in social change. A currency still exists in these countries and there is still a upper, middle and lower class in these countries. On top of that, Xi Jinping has more say in social change than say your every day china man/women, which means there is still a hierarchy.

No argument.

Even if you were to create a money less society. You would still have people who are more powerful than others simply because some people have better social and communication skills (and can influence more people) then others

You're basing your definition / understanding of 'power' on 'some [...] can influence more people [than] others'.

This is *small-scale*, at best -- actual political economy has to do with *social production*, and what the material basis is for such. (If, for example, the people of a society need and widely expect *goat meat*, then those who can actually provide it will be the ones who have 'more influence' than others, depending.)

, you only have to look into autism spectrum to see my point, which I am BTW (I wanted add to the discussion on the topic "Questions for Autistic people"). While others are better at innovation. I myself see money as a symptom of human nature and human instinct rather than a problem of society.

But that's a debate for another day.

[ziggyfish]

The only things we even *know* about 'human nature' is due to our human history to-date, which, by definition, excludes any *advances* that we may happen to make in the *future* -- in other words we shouldn't be *beholden* to the past, when there may very well be *improvements* to be made, with the time that's in front of us.

Much of human behavior -- as in primitive and pastoralist societies -- may actually be *derived* from observed animal behavior, which is problematic, of course, for any given *modern* society and way of living, going forward.

That would be correct if these studies (the stuff we "know") were based on history and animal behaviour however this is not the case. However this is debate for another time.

So, likewise, we shouldn't be bound by any past attempts at socialism that happened to become constrained to the nation-state system, instead of expanding worldwide, as it should.

But here is the question, what do you think causes these nation-states to constrain socialist societies?

You're basing your definition / understanding of 'power' on 'some [...] can influence more people [than] others'.

This is *small-scale*, at best -- actual political economy has to do with *social production*, and what the material basis is for such. (If, for example, the people of a society need and widely expect *goat meat*, then those who can actually provide it will be the ones who have 'more influence' than others, depending.)

No argument from me. Issues arise when the number of people who can provide the goat meat are relatively small (one or two). For example if your the only one that can produce goat meat, then you can charge what ever you want for it whether its money or other things you want/desire (political power for example). Remember that the person producing the goat meat is loosing a goat and the cost of raising that goat (e.g time, physical energy, grain, water, etc) each time he makes a sale, so he needs something in return for his hard work.

[ckaihatsu]

That would be correct if these studies (the stuff we "know") were based on history and animal behaviour however this is not the case. However this is debate for another time.

Well, you're *disputing* what I'm saying, but then you're backing away from supporting your contrarian position -- I'm merely saying that we can only go by *experience* so far in the human story, and that there may be things we *haven't* done yet, like organize a worldwide socialist society, which would by definition be outside of what we know about 'human nature' so far.

But here is the question, what do you think causes these nation-states to constrain socialist societies?

'Inertia', in a word -- we're used to thinking of the existence of nation-states as being 'human nature', more-or-less -- along with 'property', 'family', 'competition', etc. -- that may, at this point in world development, be more trouble than they're worth. Certainly humanity is *capable* of transcending the arbitrary divisions of nation-states (nationalities, etc.), as happens every day in major fields of endeavors, while these divisions continue to *cause problems* daily regarding arbitrary constraints of the movement of migrants, for example.

No argument from me. Issues arise when the number of people who can provide the goat meat are relatively small (one or two). For example if your the only one that can produce goat meat, then you can charge what ever you want for it whether its money or other things you want/desire (political power for example). Remember that the person producing the goat meat is loosing a goat and the cost of raising that goat (e.g time, physical energy, grain, water, etc) each time he makes a sale, so he needs something in return for his hard work.

Well, this is certainly simple in construction when the scenario is simplified to just one or two individuals who can provide goat meat or whatever, but in reality those who do the 'providing' will have a group interest in claiming 'ownership' over certain lands they use for grazing, which then complicates social relations greatly:

Enclosure (sometimes inclosure) was the legal process in England during the eighteenth century of enclosing a number of small landholdings to create one larger farm.[1] Once enclosed, use of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceased to be common land for communal use. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

We can readily question why 'ownership' and exchange values should even enter the picture at all when all that's happening is the shepherding and slaughter of goats -- perhaps the result of this kind of labor should be provided for *free*, while others in the vicinity provide the material benefits of *their* labor, likewise, so that everyone can enjoy the results of everyone else's labor *commonly*, all without having to complicate things with 'money', 'ownership', and 'sales'.

[ziggyfish]

This assertion is supporting something that's only *historical* at best -- sure, humanity may have a *history* of god-worship, but that doesn't mean that such is the sum total of what makes up 'civil society', which is what you're asserting.

This is a debate for another day, and I would love to start a thread on this forum about it, but can't due to restrictions.

Also, I don't know why you decided to use 'AI' as a buzzword here, but you should probably elaborate, or at least provide some references on that one.

I have studied AI for quite a few years. AI is a field of computer science dealing with the simulation of human behaviour. My main focus is multi-agent systems, which studies how intelligent agents (i.e humans) interact with each other in a given environment.

No, politics is *not* religion, because all matters of politics have to do with realities of *political economy*, which does not depend on what people may or may not happen to believe.

The political economy is abstract, was created by humans and doesn't exist in the real world. So any "realities of *political economy*" are only theoretical at best and does not represent the real world. You have to believe there exists a political economy, you also have to believe that in that ideology, and that it will result in a better place for humanity.

Not only this, there are concepts such as political religion and civil religion. North Korea has created it own political religion (from wiki):

The North Korean government has promulgated Juche as a political alternative to traditional religion. The doctrine advocates a strong nationalist propaganda basis and is fundamentally opposed to Christianity and Buddhism, the two largest religions on the Korean peninsula. Juche theoreticians have, however, incorporated religious ideas into the state ideology.[citation needed] According to government figures, Juche is the largest political religion in North Korea.[citation needed] The public practice of all other religions is overseen and subject to heavy surveillance by the state.

thus politics is a religion.

No, because an individual may happen to be born and *grow up* under any given kind of political economy, and they do not have to *believe* in it in order to live -- and even live well -- within it, whatever kind it may happen to be.

Correct.

If you have enough people who believe differently to everyone else, but then the political economy changes correct?

You may want to begin by putting *your own* cards on the table here, and describe what you think is wrong about the way the world works, and what could be better with it.

I want a world where everyone gets along, and everyone helps each other. I want a world where I can speak as I will (without getting restricted), and that everyone contributes to society in equal amounts.

I want a world where those who work the hardest get the most rewards from life and those who work the least get the least. Which is different to this backward unfair world we live in today, where someone can live on welfare, do nothing and get more then those who work 14 hours a day, everyday. The system we currently have only gives us more lazy people.

Well, the whole point of revolution is to *relieve* those who currently have power in this elitist system that we live under. The personal opinions of those who hold power, about their own power-wielding, are simply not relevant to those who want to do away with 'power' altogether.

But the revolution has so far has given us quite the opposite, hasn't it? Its given us more elitists. Look at Greece, EU, Germany, North Korea, and China for examples. Take the EU for example. At the moment it is using its power (i.e money) to change how Greece is spending money. Mind you the EU is of the left by its very nature.

There will always be people who have more power than others, its just human nature and animal instinct for us to do this. It stems from our basic family foundations we all grew up in. Everyone has a mother, and father we all look up to and which control us. Everyone (even the most powerful), is looking up to a more powerful human being, alive or otherwise.

[ziggyfish]

Feel free to PM them to me/post the broken links (sans "." usually works) in the thread.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226097889992
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/fam...ion-sharia-law
http://www.halalchoices.com.au/what_is_sharia.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-1...tralia/2717096
http://concit.org/australia-under-is...-of-australia/


Let me know if you need more.

[Comrade #138672]

Religion just gives people the ability to justify why they did what they did. However most importantly religion also give people a moral foundation to base their actions on and without religion people wouldn't have any morals or beliefs (this has been studied in the field of Artificial Intelligence).

[citation needed]

[ckaihatsu]

This assertion is supporting something that's only *historical* at best -- sure, humanity may have a *history* of god-worship, but that doesn't mean that such is the sum total of what makes up 'civil society', which is what you're asserting.

This is a debate for another day, and I would love to start a thread on this forum about it, but can't due to restrictions.

This entire exchange is widely off-topic, so it may be best to continue it as a new thread topic here, anyway, in 'OI Learning' -- maybe something about 'political economy', and I'll leave the naming of it to you, if you concur. (If you're unable to start a new thread yourself then I'll do it and post a link at this thread, pointing to it.)

I'll actually leave off with this, and keep the existing content from here ready for posting to the new thread.

[ziggyfish]

This entire exchange is widely off-topic, so it may be best to continue it as a new thread topic here, anyway, in 'OI Learning' -- maybe something about 'political economy', and I'll leave the naming of it to you, if you concur. (If you're unable to start a new thread yourself then I'll do it and post a link at this thread, pointing to it.)

I'll actually leave off with this, and keep the existing content from here ready for posting to the new thread.

Agreed, this is way off topic. I'll compile my arguments over the week and create a new topic on the weekend.

[ckaihatsu]

Agreed, this is way off topic. I'll compile my arguments over the week and create a new topic on the weekend.

Okay.

[#FF0000]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226097889992
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/fam...ion-sharia-law
http://www.halalchoices.com.au/what_is_sharia.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-1...tralia/2717096
http://concit.org/australia-under-is...-of-australia/


Let me know if you need more.

From what you've shown me (minus the last one, which is from an explicitly islamophobic source), all anyone is talking about is allowing for the use of Islamic law in civil arbitration, e.g. for things like family law, and only between two people who agree to use it. That is, exactly what other countries (The US, France, I think the UK) do for all religions.

When you talk about "creeping Sharia law", what it sounds like you're concerned with is introducing laws for blasphemy and apostasy, or brutal punishment for relatively minor crimes like theft. That isn't what anyone is talking about, and that is never what is happening in any of the cases where people wring their hands over "Sharia law" being in effect in European or American towns or neighborhoods.

And one more thing from your source:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...e70-1448335343

In their article, associate professor Sadiq and Ms Black note that research on Islamic marriage found in 2008 that 90 per cent of Muslims did not want to change Australian law.

[ziggyfish]

#FF0000 (nice nick, always thought it was a darker red):

You maybe right that we are overreacting and there is nothing to worry about. However when I see articles like this and see what's going on around the world, I get very worried and concerned.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...spx?ARTID=4476 (English version of it is linked in the article, however if you know Arabic and then http://www.investigativeproject.org/...s/misc/687.pdf )

In particular these objectives:

- Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
- Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
- Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals.

The left seems to be protecting Islam, and not allowing debate on these issues (calling anyone who calls this stuff out as "islamophobic"). Now I might be reading to much into this, however its very concerning and the full introduction of Sharia Law is something I don't think any of us actually want. If we play with fire, we will get burned.

[ckaihatsu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideolo...and_the_Levant

Description of the group[edit]

As Sunni militant[edit]

USA Today writes that "The Islamic State is a group of Sunni militants" that "believes in the strict enforcement of Sharia law.[10] According to some observers, ISIL emerged from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, the first post-Ottoman Islamist group dating back to the late 1920s in Egypt.[11]

As Radical Islamist[edit]

The BBC defines the group's ideology as "radical Islamist," that "aims to establish a "caliphate", a state ruled by a single political and religious leader according to Islamic law, or Sharia." Furthermore, the BBC adds that "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike."[3]

Ideological implications of the Caliphate[edit]

From the viewpoint of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its declaration of a Caliphate meant that Al-Qaeda had lost its reason for existing independently and should instead join ISIL. This was reflected in statements by Baghdadi, who said "We inform the Muslims that, with the announcement of the caliphate, it has become obligatory for all Muslims to give Bay'ah and support him", and "O Muslims in all places. Whoso is able to emigrate to the Islamic State, let him emigrate. For emigration to the Abode of Islam is obligatory".[1]

Also:

Women and sex roles[edit]

ISIL publishes material directed at women. Although women are not allowed to take up arms, media groups encourage them to play supportive roles within ISIL, such as providing first aid, cooking, nursing and sewing skills, in order to become "good wives of jihad".[18]

A document entitled Women in the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study, released 23 January 2015 by the media wing of ISIL's all-female Al-Khanssaa Brigade, (issued in Arabic and not translated by ISIL but by an anti-Islamist Quilliam Foundation[19]) emphasized the paramount importance of marriage and motherhood (as early as nine-years-old) for women. Women should live a life of "sedentariness", fulfilling their "divine duty of motherhood" at home: "Yes, we say ‘stay in your houses,’ ....."[20][19] Under "exceptional circumstances," women may leave home -- doctors, teachers, women studying Islam are exempt from confinement, as are women if they are needed to fight jihad and ordered to do so by religious leaders when there are not enough men around to protect the country from enemy attack.[20][19]

In education, the document author envisions a system where girls complete their formal schooling by age 15. Women are encouraged to study, provided the content is not "worldly" knowledge, but religious, for example Shari'ah, (Islamic law). Women should not study

these worthless worldly sciences in the farthest mountains and the deepest valleys, ... She travels, intent upon learning Western lifestyle and sitting in the midst of another culture, to study the brain cells of crows, grains of sand and the arteries of fish!

If instead she studies fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), "there is with no need for her to flit here and there to get degrees and so on, just so she can try to prove that her intelligence is greater than a man’s."[20]

The treatise decries Western feminism and the blurring of lines between the roles of each sex, which has caused Muslims to forget how to worship God properly. “Women are not presented with a true picture of man”, and men have become emasculated.[19]

Equality for women is criticized on the grounds that

"Women gain nothing from the idea of their equality with men apart from thorns ... Under 'equality' they have to work and rest on the same days as men even though they have ‘monthly complications’ and pregnancies and so on, in spite of the nature of her life and responsibilities to their husband, sons and religion."[20]

[Counterculturalist]

FrontPage magazine has zero credibility. It's the pet project of David Horowitz, who has made a career of trying to "prove" extremely tenuous links between radical Islamists, commies and mainstream liberals/the democrat party. Check out his "Discover the Networks" site for laughable McCarthyite schlock that would embarrass Glenn Beck. Any article published by FrontPage is likely to be poorly researched, factually incorrect and dishonest.

[ziggyfish]

FrontPage magazine has zero credibility. It's the pet project of David Horowitz, who has made a career of trying to "prove" extremely tenuous links between radical Islamists, commies and mainstream liberals/the democrat party. Check out his "Discover the Networks" site for laughable McCarthyite schlock that would embarrass Glenn Beck. Any article published by FrontPage is likely to be poorly researched, factually incorrect and dishonest.

If you don't believe FrontPage, go read the book yourself. Its all there in black and white. http://www.investigativeproject.org/...s/misc/687.pdf has a translation after it.

[ziggyfish]

Also:

ISIL publishes material directed at women. Although women are not allowed to take up arms, media groups encourage them to play supportive roles within ISIL, such as providing first aid, cooking, nursing and sewing skills, in order to become "good wives of jihad".[18]

A document entitled Women in the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study, released 23 January 2015 by the media wing of ISIL's all-female Al-Khanssaa Brigade, (issued in Arabic and not translated by ISIL but by an anti-Islamist Quilliam Foundation[19]) emphasized the paramount importance of marriage and motherhood (as early as nine-years-old) for women. Women should live a life of "sedentariness", fulfilling their "divine duty of motherhood" at home: "Yes, we say ‘stay in your houses,’ ....."[20][19] Under "exceptional circumstances," women may leave home -- doctors, teachers, women studying Islam are exempt from confinement, as are women if they are needed to fight jihad and ordered to do so by religious leaders when there are not enough men around to protect the country from enemy attack.[20][19]

In education, the document author envisions a system where girls complete their formal schooling by age 15. Women are encouraged to study, provided the content is not "worldly" knowledge, but religious, for example Shari'ah, (Islamic law). Women should not study

these worthless worldly sciences in the farthest mountains and the deepest valleys, ... She travels, intent upon learning Western lifestyle and sitting in the midst of another culture, to study the brain cells of crows, grains of sand and the arteries of fish!

If instead she studies fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), "there is with no need for her to flit here and there to get degrees and so on, just so she can try to prove that her intelligence is greater than a man’s."[20]

The treatise decries Western feminism and the blurring of lines between the roles of each sex, which has caused Muslims to forget how to worship God properly. “Women are not presented with a true picture of man”, and men have become emasculated.[19]

Equality for women is criticized on the grounds that

"Women gain nothing from the idea of their equality with men apart from thorns ... Under 'equality' they have to work and rest on the same days as men even though they have ‘monthly complications’ and pregnancies and so on, in spite of the nature of her life and responsibilities to their husband, sons and religion."[20]

These are these injustices that I am talking about. The left say they believe in Equality, however when you look at what they seem to want to protect (via calling people racist or islamophobes when they speak out about it), its seems quite the opposite.

By the way that was the original intent of this question/topic. Why is it when you speak out about the discrimination (Sharia Law discriminates based on religion, gender and sexual preferences) that goes on in a Sharia legal system, you get Restricted on this forum?

This has nothing to do with hating Muslims as individuals, but hating the legal system they want us to live by.

[Ricemilk]

If you would ban Talmudic Law, you're not incredibly unlikely to be a fascist. If you would do the same to Muslims, you might be a fashionable fascist.

ETA: To me both can fuck right off to their own corner, where we will hopefully quickly get around to distributing information and offering material and emotional support to those who welcome it- and an escape route. We will inevitably 'recruit' people by demonstrating an equitable and fair society, one of abundance and internationally, freely coordinated work and consumption, if we can break through the inevitable blocks in the flow of information. Any communism worth its name will offer a free and easy alternative to oppressed people everywhere who decide to reclaim their freedom. Cultural complications can be overcome by maintaining diverse, decolonial institutions including those that influence the global and crossborder flow of news.

It is not necessary to ban either legal system in its official entirety; religions will adapt to local customs as they always have, and no extra act of repression is needed to further limit traditional practices if the law of the land (however constituted) already requires equality and fairness and mandates provision of basic needs.

those who take it to extremes and form hierarchical relationships can be denounced, perhaps sanctioned in some way, ultimately banned as individuals for those specific acts if needed; this is like exile, except generally you're not forced to go anywhere, you can be a hermit or live with the other dispossessed exploiters if you don't mind having no rights or capital. in societies with justice systems like this, typically the banned person responds by tearfully pleading for reentry into society in exchange for starting to give mind to its customs and values, on pain of another ban. (Hopefully more firmly.)

[Counterculturalist]

If you don't believe FrontPage, go read the book yourself. Its all there in black and white. http://www.investigativeproject.org/...s/misc/687.pdf has a translation after it.

I'm unable to find a credible source that shows that this document is what it claims to be. Brigitte Gabriel, Glenn Beck, Pamela Gellar, theblaze.com and barenaked islam don't count. As such, its suspicious similarities to contemporary right wing talking points makes me think it's another Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

But let's say it's real. So what? Why should some thirty-year-old plan from the Muslim Brotherhood impugn the integrity of refugees seeking asylum today?

[ziggyfish]

I'm unable to find a credible source that shows that this document is what it claims to be. Brigitte Gabriel, Glenn Beck, Pamela Gellar, theblaze.com and barenaked islam don't count. As such, its suspicious similarities to contemporary right wing talking points makes me think it's another Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

But let's say it's real. So what? Why should some thirty-year-old plan from the Muslim Brotherhood impugn the integrity of refugees seeking asylum today?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

[ziggyfish]

I'm unable to find a credible source that shows that this document is what it claims to be. Brigitte Gabriel, Glenn Beck, Pamela Gellar, theblaze.com and barenaked islam don't count. As such, its suspicious similarities to contemporary right wing talking points makes me think it's another Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

BTW the link I gave you is not on any of those, did you maybe you forgot some sites?