Ryokan said:
So my Bosnian neighbour is destroying community cohesion? Wow, I will never loot at him the same way..
First we could have a much more fruitful exchange of ideas, be them totally antagonistic, if you renounced this style of patronizing and insulting me. The rules of correct argumentation left aside you are defnitely not on such a high moral ground you believe you are to do this.
Frankly I am clueless where you derived this interpretation from. The idea was that exposing muslims to rational criticism of islam (even if many will perceive it as being a 'violent attack', for various reasons) is no discrimination and is definitely a better approach than appeasing their delusions in order to not destroying 'community cohesion' (finally only a very short term solution).
By the way check if your bosnian friend is more than a cultural muslim or muslim at all (for enough many are irreligious, some born from interconfessional marriages during communist era). Anyways we can talk why these balkan muslims are more moderate, the fact that these communities were cut off from the main body of islam for many years among the infidels and subjected strongly to infidels 'intellectual pressure' and communist methods seem to have given much better results than what it is done today in the West (and it was of course Dedusca Stalin who scored the best here, if islam was ever put down it was under his regime). But of course this does not make the basics of islam as it is today less easy to be used to motivate violence and dicrimination, read for example 'Inspire' the Magazine of al-Qaida in the Arabic peninsula, a simple search in Google "Inspire public intelligence" can bring you there is a few clicks (check the first two appearances in the list), to see how they motivate theologically their actions.
We can agree that sharia is not compatible with modern societies. It would seem most Islamic countries agree with you, as very few of them are under sharia law
.
This seems to be the stuation in your mind. Good at least that you agrre that sharia is incompatible with modern societies. The reality is much more complex as usual, actually all muslim countries, with the (partial) exception of Turkey* are 'hybrids' of some sorts where sharia at least 'influence' the Law. And It is not just that the Law 'pays lip service to sharia' but parts of it are practiced (for example in Egypt, usually labeled secular by Western media, it is against the law to change religion from islam, 'defame' islam and so on, let's see what the new constitution can change).
Even in countries like Kuweit where, legacy of colonialism, sharia is not mentioned at least as a 'source' of the law one could have the surprise to be condemned on account of it (i remember here the case, a few years ago, of a man who wanted to convert to Christianity but was not allowed, the legislators arguing that religious freedom is indeed in the laws but that no one ever expected this to happen in practice).
So no actually there are huge practical problems, sharia ia always there even if not at the front. And now many muslims who moved in the West still have 'dreams of glory' with sharia on the ground that islam was never implemented in the right way so far. Too many 'just conservative' people like these (having the goal of implementing at least part of sharia in the legislation) and the personal freedoms in that society will be severely curbed, transformed at least in just another 'islamic hybrid' if muslims ever become majorities there. There are different degree of secularism and unfortunately all muslim societies are well below the minimum level needed to create healthy societies.(even Turkey is on a slope showing an alarming accelerated re-islamization lately).
*and Tunisia before the Arab Spring, but no more these days: now you nrisk to go to jail is you eat pork outside during Ramadan if a muslim become 'offended' by your action),
.
...with every post you type, you seem frantically phobic of Islam. It's all right, metacristi... The western world is in absolutely no danger of falling under sharia law, and if you took your Muslim neighbour to the pub and shared a beer or two, I'm sure you would discover that he's as human as you and me.
When all over the muslim world the situation is that captured well by Bernard Lewis (such a situation is impossible without the large participation of the masses and the existernce of an islamic worldview indoctrinated via the current religious education):
Turning from international and regional to domestic politics, the difference between Islam and the rest of the world, though less striking, is still substantial. In some of the countries that practice multiparty democracy, there are political parties with religious designations—Christian in the West, Hindu in India, Buddhist in the Orient. But there are relatively few of these parties, and still fewer that play a major role. Even with these, religious themes are usually of minor importance in their programs and their appeals to the electorate. Yet in many, indeed in most Islamic countries, religion remains a major political factor—far more indeed in domestic than in international or even in regional affairs. Why this difference?
One answer is obvious; most Muslim countries are still profoundly Muslim, in a way and in a sense that most Christian countries are no longer Christian. Admittedly, in many of these countries, Christian beliefs and the clergy who uphold them are still a powerful force, and although their role is not what it was in past centuries, it is by no means insignificant. But in no Christian country at the present time can religious leaders count on the degree of belief and participation that remains normal in the Muslim lands.
In few, if any, Christian countries do Christian sanctities enjoy the immunity from critical comment or discussion that is accepted as normal even in ostensibly secular and democratic Muslim societies. Indeed, this privileged immunity has been extended, de facto, to Western countries where Muslim communities are now established and where Muslim beliefs and practices are accorded a level of immunity from criticism that the Christian majorities have lost and the Jewish minorities never had. Most important, with very few exceptions, the Christian clergy do not exercise or even claim the kind of public authority that is still normal and accepted in most Muslim countries.
it is at least odd to talk about 'making easy generalizations' irrational 'phobia' and other ********.
Add here the fact that all 4 schools of sunni islamic schools of jurisprudence still prescribe killing the apostates and homosexuals (2 of them openly sanctioning offensive jihad to bring unbelivers to islam), justify barbaric reactions to insulting islam and a myriad of other obsolete odd requirements and you can easily grasp the proportion of the disaster.
The real liberals (sharia completely outside the social sphere, islam retreated at the personal level) are not winnig at the moment sadly, it is the reactionary ulama establishment (with minor exceptions) which is still in command and their incapacity or unwillingness to change fiqh*.in non trivial ways cannot offer any good reasons to be optimistic at the moment.
*not such a great surprise, if one advocates for example cherry picking the Sunna & Hadith then Muhammad ceases to be 'the perfect Man', if only the Quran is to be believed then the 5 prayers pillar of islam (which is not in the Quran) go to dust etc and they risk to be accused of being motivated by the devil. The problem is that everything revolves around a single man Muhammad and his 'perfect' revelation and thus the ways to introduce major reforms are severely narrowed. We return at the previously mentioned fact that the fundamentals of islam are to blame (little internal logic for major change).
