250 thoughts on “Religion Of PeaceBarbarity”

  1. to suggest that the actions of these villiage thugs is a fair reflection of the wider Bangladeshi community or of Islam is silly.

    It would be silly if this was a Jared Loughner moment, something bizarrely unique. But since women have been stoned recently in Iran for adultery, and gays hanged for sodomy, and Daniel Pearl got his throat cut in Pakistan for the entertainment value of the video, and loads of schoolkids were shot in Beslan, and 202 nightclubbers got blown to bits in Bali, and…well, and on and on…and always by some fruitcake shouting Allahu Akhbar!…it’s not silly to start to see a bit of a worrisome pattern.

    Indeed, I’d say it’s silly (or perhaps disingenuous) to not notice the pattern, and keep talking about all these weird coincidences. I mean, geez, 90% (say) of all terrorist attacks are carried out by people who bow to Mecca daily. Isn’t that a strange coincidence? Couldn’t possibly mean anything, of course. Because Muslims themselves have told us Islam is a Religion of Peace, you know, and besides I know dozens of Muslims who wouldn’t hurt a flea.

    Ever think about the fact that most people who smoke do not actually die of lung cancer? So what’s all this fuss about smoking being bad for you, eh? It doesn’t always kill you, and I know plenty of smokers who’ve lived to be 90.

  2. Curt said: “And to suggest that these actions occur only in muslim countries is probably also silly. Or irrelevant. Just don’t even look there. Meaningless.”

    Or just wrong. Do ten seconds of research, and you’ll see that honor killings are carried out all too often by non-Muslims in Columbia, Brazil, and elsewhere in Latin America, as well as in India (again by non-Muslims). It was only made fully illegal (not a good defense) in Brazil in 1991.

    For example: According to a study in Sao Paulo State for the period 1980-81, 722 men claimed defense of their honor as justification for killing women accused of adultery.
    From: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDC153AF93AA15750C0A967958260

  3. Carl, to the first approximation, Rand actually answered you. I might not have phrased it the way Rand did, but his formulation ( Islam is many different religions) does have the benefit of explaining all the peaceful people among the world’s 1 billion or so Muslims, and gives non-Muslims the room to not be prejudiced toward them.

    Other quick notes: Not a Eugenict at all, and I didn’t expect to have to understand Bengali to satisfy your requirements. Fortunately, policy makers in Bangladesh can read English quite well.

  4. where I rather suspect writers to the major English-language daily represent the tiny wealthy and cosmopolitan tip of that society.

    As indicted by the author of bob’s first link: a physics teacher.

    Why is it those with leftish tendencies always seem to sink back towards eugenics?

    Actually I think he’s got a twofer going: impoverished uneducated hinterlands. Don’t forget about the poverty. That’s got to figure in there somewhere. Didn’t get enough to eat last night? Go whip a 14-year-old girl to death.

  5. Let me simplify things for you, Andrew, since you seem to have problems with logic. I disagree with what happened to Mary Latham. Her punishment was wrong, and I would condemn those who carried out the punishment, and their decision was based on their religious beliefs, I’d condemn those beliefs as barbaric. However, if you think it is wrong me for the condemn people that live in another country; then I can only imagine you indignation that I’d condemn people from another century.

    Here’s my opinion, and I’m sure you’ll dismiss it because that’s what you do; when people condemned such atrocious acts when they occurred centuries ago on US soil; others learned to quit doing those heinous things (hanging people for adultery). But get this, Christians in the US still find adultery to be wrong. Yet you won’t find too many Christians anywhere in the world today that think a 14 year old girl should be flogged because a 30 year old married man raped her. And yes, you’ll find many Christians, particularly in the US, that would consider it rape even if the 14 year old girl supposedly “asked for it”. But don’t take my opinion on that, go read up on others opinion of Roman Polanski; I’m sure Bob can find you some links.

  6. According to a study in Sao Paulo State for the period 1980-81, 722 men claimed defense of their honor as justification for killing women accused of adultery.

    Woah there Bob. How many of those 722 men claimed to be a magistrate of any kind? Are you trying to argue that husbands that kill their wives in anger (then claim a defense) is the same as a village that decides it is appropriate to flog two individuals? Do you understand the difference between “Domestic Violence” and “State Violence”? Is “Domestic” and “State” like “Monarchy” and “Republic” to you?

    And here’s another question, do you think 722 men claiming “defense of their honor” is the same as 722 men being acquitted by a magistrate or jury when using such a defense? Perhaps you need to go back and read that link of yours for comprehension.

  7. It was only made fully illegal (not a good defense) in Brazil in 1991.

    Murder was legal in Brazil prior to 1991? I guess I’ll have to check that link:

    “In the interior of the country, it is easier and cheaper for a man to hire a gunslinger to kill his wife than to get a divorce and to separate the property,” said Rose Marie Muraro, a feminist writer who lobbied against the honor defense.

    Thanks Bob. I wasn’t aware that 14-year-old girl had property someone wanted.

  8. Curt, you seem to have missed this bit: “who lobbied against the honor defense. ”

    So it was a legal defense in Brazil before 1991, basically that put it in the same category as killing in self defense in the US today, justifiable homicide.

  10. Leland, getting off topic but, yes I do have trouble with the judging of moral issues across time and cultures. Let me use a hypothetical example to illustrate; if, 100 years from now, everyones turned vegetarian and decided that eating meat is morally repugnant, would they be right in condemning those of us today who enjoy a piece of steak?

  11. So it was a legal defense in Brazil before 1991, basically that put it in the same category as killing in self defense in the US today, justifiable homicide.

    From BOB’s link:

    Although never part of the legal code of Brazil, the “defense of honor” strategy has been used by lawyers to win acquittals in thousands of cases of men on trial for murdering their wives.

    Try again.

  14. The practice in fact has tribal roots which precede Islam

    So? That’s true of many religious practices. It doesn’t make it incompatible with Islam, and I’d say that given the basic misogyny of the religion in many of its forms, it’s a fine fit.

  16. I had a long response typed up on Wordpad, but it can’t seem to get through the spam filter. I don’t even have links, so I’m not sure why.

    Since others are credibly handling the Islamic issue, I will address just one point (if the spam filter lets me):

    Andrew W said:
    It was the “local imam and village elders” that perpetrated this crime and it had more to do with “the country’s entrenched patriarchal system” than religion.

    Orthodox Christian, Judaic and Confucian culture is also strictly patriarchal and I don’t recall them having any laws proscribing death by whipping for teenage rape victims. Despite what your gender studies teachers may have drilled into your head, patriarchy does not equal evil. Patriarchy simply means “rule by the fathers”, not “rule by the wicked.” Most fathers are kind and decent men (again, despite what your gender studied teachers may have drilled into you).

  17. Which laws are you talking about, Brock? Are you talking about Quranic law? Are you talking about Bangladeshi law?

  18. Bob,
    you’re kind of mixing apples and oranges there, aren’t you? It’s a village, lead by an Imam, swearing out religious orders, against a child who was raped, the rapists wife was one of her tormentors, vs one man, pissed of at HIS wife (an adult) and killing her, because he suspects adultery.

    The first is institutionalized violence and murder against the victim of a crime. The second is murder by ONE adult individual, committed against another adult who may have actually wronged him. (I’m not condoning it!!)

    And I’ve read about the SA honor killings, it’s usually some guy with a history of violence and with connections that keep him from being prosecuted. The wife could leave an abusive husband, this child had no such chance.

  19. death by whipping

    Remember – the death was accidental. They are from the impoverished and uneducated hinterlands. Had they been granted foreign aid they would have had the education and nourishment to be able to administer the punishment without death as a result.

    /bob

  20. “Yes, much of it coming from Islamist apologists.”

    Someone was quoting me passages from the Quran a couple of weeks ago to demonstrate that Muslims were commanded to kill all non-believers, their quotes were BS they’d picked up from anti Islamic sites.

  21. yes I do have trouble with the judging of moral issues across time and cultures.

    Apparently not much trouble.

  22. Brock, I know what “patriarchal” means, I was quoting a Writer in the Bangladeshi paper The Daily Star. I suspect forms of governance that have gender bias in the selection of those who govern, have gender bias in the dispensing of justice.

  23. Koran or Bible?

    “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

  25. Rand, if that verse were in the Quran, would people be leaping on it as evidence of the “barbarity” of Islam?

  26. (Islam is many different religions) does have the benefit of explaining all the peaceful people among the world’s 1 billion or so Muslims, and gives non-Muslims the room to not be prejudiced toward them.

    Geez, Bob, let’s not be logical clowns. If Islam is a poisonous religion, that does not mean everyone who practises it will turn into a murderous thug, any more than everyone who fails to wear a seat belt will die in a car crash or everyone who collected a sievert at Chernobyl got brain cancer and died within the year. Conversely, the fact that not every Muslim turns into a head-hacker proves exactly nothing about whether the religion is bad news, any more than driving 50 miles without your seatbelt and not dying proves that seatbelts are unnecessary. Sit down with a cup of coffee and work through that if the implication arrows are unclear.

    The problem seems to be that enough people turn into wretches that on average the world would be better off with fewer people practicing Islam, or, if you prefer, calling themselves Muslims, whatever they mean by it. Perhaps quite a lot better, since as it turns out it takes a remarkably small amount of religiously-fueled terrorism to shove the world into some pretty suspicious and unpleasant habits.

    No doubt a sound alternative approach would be to follow in Christianity’s 250-year-old footsteps, and reform the religion so as to purge its evil tendencies and preserve the worthwhile. But, of course, that has to happen from within — by masses of believers wanting to rid themselves of opprobrium or guilt. Not seeing that so much yet, except in your Bangladeshi physics teacher friend. Not seeing colleges of imams, major national leaders from Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, India, et cetera, calling passionately for reform. No Islamic Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the local ayatollah’s bushy-browed solid-ivory forehead.

  27. Rand,

    That was the King James translation of Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Just for your amusement (not to somehow score points), here’s some other similar passages (but with a more modern translation) regarding punishments for adultery, although the first one is certainly the weirdest.

    Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

    Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

    Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire .”

    ===
    To answer your question, no of course they have no relevance, although why they have no relevance is harder for me to figure out, particularly regarding what different Christian sects say about the Old Testament.

    I think much of the above conversation is good — I just think quoting the Koran is pointless for this conversation, and the above bible quotes show why.

  28. Rand, if that verse were in the Quran, would people be leaping on it as evidence of the “barbarity” of Islam?

    Probably, and with good reason — because many, many Muslims, and many more than folks like you are willing to admit, including Muslim leaders, take them to heart, as evidenced by their daily behavior and speech.

    On the other hand, I think you’d be hard pressed to find many, if any Christian pastors who would endorse it.

  29. Was that a few, some, many, most, all most all or what exactly? And what source are you using to justify that claim, or is that just anecdotal evidence? I’m sure you know anything at all can be proven with anecdotal evidence. Certainly Islam isn’t as modern (if that’s the word) as Christianity, but if you look for examples to justify preexisting convictions you’ll find them, even if it means resorting to using an incident in a small backwards village in Bangladesh in which the local thugs acted on their own initiative and broke to the nations laws to wide condemnation.

  30. resorting to using an incident in a small backwards village in Bangladesh in which the local thugs acted on their own initiative and broke to the nations laws to wide condemnation.

    I don’t have to “resort” to doing that. I can simply point you to the current (Islamic) government of Iran, which does things just as barbaric.

  31. So what’s your control, what are you measuring the “barbarity” of Islamic countries against? The US, with a homicide rate higher than many third world countries (including Bangladesh) a country that executes many of its own citizens each year, a country that has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

  32. what are you measuring the “barbarity” of Islamic countries against? The US blah blah blah…

    Rookie mistake, Andrew. Are you, by chance, new to the Internet? You could answer your own comment by cut-and-pasting your entire paragraph into Google and reading the Usenet responses from the 90’s…

  34. Or maybe Titus is trying to explain that the internet is full of people making various claims but ignoring the hypocrisy of their own accusations, well, I sorta know that!

  35. The US, with a homicide rate higher than many third world countries (including Bangladesh) a country that executes many of its own citizens each year, a country that has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

    Wow.

    You really went there.

  37. So what’s your control, what are you measuring the “barbarity” of Islamic countries against?

    Common sense? Observation and the brains God gave a goose? In what weird world is it only possible to judge good and bad fortune, joy and sorrow, pain and ease, by comparison to a “control,” whatever that is?

    So if you cut your finger, you’d not know whether you were in pain unless you’d previously tried the “control” of poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick? Or perhaps your point is that if everyone else is vigorously poking himself in the eye with a stick you, by comparison with this normalizing “control,” will feel only pleasure and relief on cutting your finger open?

    Maybe if young what’s her name had seen someone being flayed alive one stoning pit over, she’d have felt damn lucky to be experiencing only the lash, and thanked those whipping her?

  38. Common sense. Common sense? is that your refutation??

    Are you serious?

    Really?

    Do you know what common sense is?

    It’s the ultimate in circular reasoning.

    It’s: what I believe must be right because it’s what I believe.

    It’s: Darwin is wrong because I’ve been brought up to believe in creationism, so evolutions BS.

    It’s: everyone knows Einstein’s nuts because I’ve never seen the effects he claims.

    It’s: Galelio said what!!? The Earth moves around the Sun?!! like we’re all in motion now as we stand here?!! At thousands of miles an hour?!! Crikey, they bloody well should lock him up, and make sure the room’s well padded!

  39. Well, I know what I don’t got. I don’t got odious attempts at moral equivalence between flawed drug laws and painfully executing a fourteen-year-old girl for the crime of being raped, at the behest of a religious leader.

  40. And now we go back and ask, was that appalling act by those few religious leaders representative of the whole one billion member religion?

    Is US soldiers rape and murder an Iraqi girl and her family, is that grounds to condemn the whole US army. I can be consistent and say NO! Where’s your consistency?

  42. …was that appalling act by those few religious leaders representative of the whole one billion member religion?

    No, if by that you mean “Islam” in all its variations.

    But it was representative of a significant minority of it (that is tens, if not hundreds of millions), and one that you continue to refuse to acknowledge.

  43. I’ve no problem acknowledging that Islam isn’t as “modern” over all as Christianity, and I’ve no problem acknowledging that there are plenty of backwaters where this sort of thing can happen, and I’ve no problem acknowledging that organizations like El Quada exist, and that they are a threat to Westerners and Muslims that disagree with them. What I’ll argue against is people who take cherry-picked examples of isolated violent acts perpetrated by Muslims and use them as examples to attack the whole religion. On a shrinking planet the last thing we need is more people looking to stir-up antagonism because it makes them feel superior, or it gives them others to hate. Demonizing the outsiders is an old tactic to create populist support, but what’s at the end of that road?

  44. “The practice in fact has tribal roots which precede Islam”

    I’m certainly not a religious historian, but this timeline would include almost ALL religions. Islam IS the new kid on the block as far as major religions go. As a timeline it’s useless, IMHO.

    BTW, if somebody knocks on the door and starts talking about a ‘marvelous, new religion they’ve discovered”, RUN!! I’m betting they have on black Nike walking shoes and there’s a roll of quarters in their.

  46. What I’ll argue against is people who take cherry-picked examples of isolated violent acts perpetrated by Muslims and use them as examples to attack the whole religion.

    Ignoring the fact that these are far from “isolated acts” –as already noted, they are government policy in Iran and largely in Pakistan (and were under the Taliban where it ruled and rules)…

    Will you similarly criticize those who attempt to anesthetize us against the potential danger by claiming that it is monolithically a “Religion of Peace™.” And that “Jihad” simply means “self improvement”? (Note the blog post title…) As an example, do you believe that we should lend any credence whatsoever to CAIR, and that they should have been the go-to guys (as they foolishly were during the Bush administration) for wisdom on how to deal with the Muslim community?

    Because if not, then your hypocrisy is revealed.

  47. I question your numbers Rand, particularly the hundreds of millions.
    Here’s some data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
    The list is interactive — you can click on a widget to make it sort by population. After you do the sort, look at the list of countries, and add up the ones where even a significant portion might be fundamentalists of the sort that would whip a girl to death. For example, for a first apparoximation, I think you can discount Indonesia’s 202,000,000 entirely — it isn’t that sort of place. Same with Turkey, Bosnia, Senegal, etc. For Saudi Arabia’s 30,000,000, what percentage do you think qualifies? Most of the population is young – certainly children under 10 don’t qualify, some but not all women won’t qualify, etc. When I work through the list, I can’t see how you’d come up with very large numbers, although I have to acknowledge that Pakistan is the big unknown for me.

    I admit this is a fairly bone-headed exercise (I’m on hold). Anyone want to cite any research?

  48. I will simply point out that significant (at least on the order of thirty or forty percent or more) numbers of Muslims in the Middle East are behind the Osama bin Laden program, in terms of setting up the Caliphate, even if few of them admire his methods. Once established, I’m pretty sure that he (and it) would have no problem with what happened in that “backwater village.”

    Will you respond to my challenge to condemn (for example) CAIR for its broad brush about Islam?

  49. Bob-1 Says:
    “Bangladesh is an example of a modern Muslim-majority country with civil rights which has a problem in its impoverished uneducated hinterlands.”

    That is a good point but it is also important to take into account the common occurrence of events like this in nearly all Muslim countries. Even in places like Saudi Arabia. So it isn’t just a problem with backwoods Imams.

    Lack of education also doesn’t seem to be a factor in the type of person that is likely to do bad things in the name of Islam.

    “As one of my links points out, these are actually Jewish laws, from the Old Testament.”

    Which is rather ironic considering the near universal hatred Muslims have for the Jews.

    I hope you were not trying to blame sharia law on Jews from over 2000 years ago.

Comments are closed.