RE: Sharia law anyone?
March 28, 2019 at 6:04 pm
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2019 at 6:17 pm by fredd bear.)
@AtlasS33
"Malaysia should only base its Islamic laws on the Quran, but Sharia there is only a choice in specific regions where Muslims are the majority."
--and if wishes were fishes everyone would eat.
I prefaced my last post by pointing out the difference between what the law says and actual practice. That was to show that as an individual believer, your opinion is irrelevant in such circumstances.
I agree with your interpretation of women's modesty as written in the Q'uran. I suspect that is the same in most Muslim countries. It's certainly true of every Muslim I've known. (and I've known quite a few)
As it turns out, the Muslim population in Malaysia makes up 60% of the population , with Chinese making up most of the remaining 40%, apart from a few million Indians, mainly Tamil and Sikh. That is how they manage to have religious police with powers to arrest. They tend to concentrate on Muslim behaviour, but will arrest a kafir trying to convert Muslims to another religion..
It is also the law in Malaysia that any business above a certain size MUST have a Malay (Muslim) partner. In practice this means many businesses have 'silent' Malay partners, who contribute nothing and get paid for for doing nothing
I arrived in Malaysia the first time in march 1969. The race riots began in May. They were started by the Malay Muslim majority. Because there were no Chinese in either the army or police, several hundred Chinese were murdered, but no Malays. The dusk till dawn curfew was still in effect when I left Malaysia in December.
I have a theory about Wahhabi Muslim absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia:: It is my perception that dictatorships everywhere tend to be socially conservative. The Saudi royal family does not seem to practice the Islam they claim. Ascribing to Wahhabi Islam has little to do with Islam. It is simply a means to an end.That end is power and control.
I also think there is a causal connection between social/religious conservatism and the marginalised in a society. Ie the poor and uneducated.(ignorant) I don't rule out lack of intellect, but it's often hard to the the difference between ignorance and a 'modest' 'IQ.
I have also noticed the same groups in societies tend to also be politically conservative, or working class Tories. In this country it is their votes which elect and keep conservative governments in power.
My perception has been reinforced by reading the posts of our more extreme Christian members especially..
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"Why focus on Muslim nomadic regions and forget the rest of the world?"
I'm afraid that's a common logical fallacy, called 'you too" (latin Tu quoque) or appeal to hypocrisy.
THIS thread is focussed on Islam. We are not discussing other countries. Pointing out issues in other countries does not diminish nor excuse egregious muslim behaviour.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
The fallacy
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.
An example would be
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
"Malaysia should only base its Islamic laws on the Quran, but Sharia there is only a choice in specific regions where Muslims are the majority."
--and if wishes were fishes everyone would eat.
I prefaced my last post by pointing out the difference between what the law says and actual practice. That was to show that as an individual believer, your opinion is irrelevant in such circumstances.
I agree with your interpretation of women's modesty as written in the Q'uran. I suspect that is the same in most Muslim countries. It's certainly true of every Muslim I've known. (and I've known quite a few)
As it turns out, the Muslim population in Malaysia makes up 60% of the population , with Chinese making up most of the remaining 40%, apart from a few million Indians, mainly Tamil and Sikh. That is how they manage to have religious police with powers to arrest. They tend to concentrate on Muslim behaviour, but will arrest a kafir trying to convert Muslims to another religion..
It is also the law in Malaysia that any business above a certain size MUST have a Malay (Muslim) partner. In practice this means many businesses have 'silent' Malay partners, who contribute nothing and get paid for for doing nothing
I arrived in Malaysia the first time in march 1969. The race riots began in May. They were started by the Malay Muslim majority. Because there were no Chinese in either the army or police, several hundred Chinese were murdered, but no Malays. The dusk till dawn curfew was still in effect when I left Malaysia in December.
I have a theory about Wahhabi Muslim absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia:: It is my perception that dictatorships everywhere tend to be socially conservative. The Saudi royal family does not seem to practice the Islam they claim. Ascribing to Wahhabi Islam has little to do with Islam. It is simply a means to an end.That end is power and control.
I also think there is a causal connection between social/religious conservatism and the marginalised in a society. Ie the poor and uneducated.(ignorant) I don't rule out lack of intellect, but it's often hard to the the difference between ignorance and a 'modest' 'IQ.
I have also noticed the same groups in societies tend to also be politically conservative, or working class Tories. In this country it is their votes which elect and keep conservative governments in power.
My perception has been reinforced by reading the posts of our more extreme Christian members especially..
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"Why focus on Muslim nomadic regions and forget the rest of the world?"
I'm afraid that's a common logical fallacy, called 'you too" (latin Tu quoque) or appeal to hypocrisy.
THIS thread is focussed on Islam. We are not discussing other countries. Pointing out issues in other countries does not diminish nor excuse egregious muslim behaviour.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
The fallacy
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.
An example would be
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
