JohNeo

Okay, so the government is supposed to uphold and enforce Islamic law, but it does not represent Islam? So Islam is indemnified for all wrongdoings of its representative governments? Why not just have a secular government that is not a liability to the truths Islam is supposed to purport?

Separation of Church and State. Look into it.

JohNeo

jbernier

Wait a minute.

Let get this straight: Islam (which is a term which covers all Muslims all over the world) is to blame for this incident. That is to say that a liberal democratic Lebanonese-Candian Sunni Muslim here in Canada would be 'on the hook for this one', when 'this one' was perpetrated by a conservative theocratic Iranian Shiite Muslim legal system? How does that work?

Moreover, let us assume that you can demonstrate how all Muslims are somehow culpable for this (which I would argue is quite simply impossible). You still have not demonstrated that religion as a contentless category is responsible for this. Is the practicing Hindu, the orthodox Jew, the devout Catholic, the pacifist Mennonite, the monastic Buddhist, etc., all responsible for these actions? How does that work?

So what if a Muslim judge abuses his power? Why would Muslims be culpable for this? An example of your argument in another situation. American soldiers abuse their power against Iraqi prisoners. Therefore all Americans are culpable. Would you agree with that statement? Of course not. Neither would I. Hence why I cannot hold all Muslims culpable for these actions in Iran.

(p.s. you might argue that you said that Islam was culpable, not Muslims. True, you did say that. But a Muslim is simply 'one who follows Islam' so in saying that Islam is culpable you also define Muslims as 'those who follow that which is culpable for this incident.' In consequence you suggest that all Muslims are culpable).

jbernier

Of course not, because Islam is bigger than the Iranian government. Just as Christianity is bigger than the Vatican government. One would not hold Protestants culpable for what the Pope does, would one? After all, the Pope has no connection whatsoever to Protestants.

"Islam" as a term which encompasses all Muslims world over is not culpable for the acts of particular government. That is not to say that such government can not and should not be held accountable to the international community; they can and should. It is to say that this accountability must on the same terms as any other government: That the fact that a government is Islamic or secular is precisely irrelevant to determining whether or not they are abusing human rights, etc. The criteria that decide such issues should be based upon measurable phenomena, not ideological critiques: For instance, it should be because of (for instance) unjust executions, not that they do not have the right ideology ('right', of course, defined by the West - by which we should read American military and economic power).

Howard

To say that Islam is blameless for this incident is like saying that Nazism is blameless for the holocaust. Whenever you have a system that gives one person, or one group of people, unchecked power over others, this sort of thing will inevitably happen. And Islamic law gives religious authorities just such power.

Nations with Islamic governments have abysmal human rights records, particularly when it comes to women.

Added: It’s not so much that Islam is a religious system, it’s that Islam is an autocratic religious system, as religious systems tend to be.

jbernier

Entirely a (recent) western idea which is largely foreign to Islamic thought. Question: What right do we have to force our ideas, values and practices upon people with different histories, with different traditions, etc.? Yeah, we might find the idea of formally Islamic governments completely incomprehensible. Newsflash: Many Muslims find the idea of government apart from divine law completely incomprehensible. Problem: What objective means is there to determine which is right? My answer: None.

Thus leading me to the following suggestion: That different peoples need to have different forms of governments that more adequately meet their needs as constituted by history. Liberal democracy is a great thing for those states in which this tradition developed and makes sense to those who live such governments. However in many places it will seem counter-intuitive and even nonsensical; in these cases one cannot force something which does not fit upon the people, not if you want to maintain the illusion that the people rule the state. In fact, it seems to me that the entire liberal project fails entirely if it does not allow people the liberty to think that the liberal project is not something that they want in their state.

WhyBeNormal

Can anybody find where in the Koran it says that a girl should be killed in this situation? I found where it talks about what they did to the man (The Light: verse 2) but not where it says to kill the girl.

JohNeo

Let me put my point in a different light. I would not blame all Catholics for the atrocity committed by an individual practicioner of Catholicism, or a priest. The only Catholics directly responsible when a child is molested is the priest who perpetrated the act, and then on up the chain of command. But you're goddamn right I hold the Vatican responsible for the coverups of abuse, especially where it was well known among bishops and cardinals.

Same goes for Islam. No, I certainly don't hold individual Muslims accountable for this. I hold the highest powers of Islam responsible. Islam is a powerful structure, and if it is going to enjoy the benefits and powers that come with authority, with that needs to come responsibility. It can't impose its laws through a non-representative government and then have nothing to do with the way the government operates. If this story was accurate, and who really knows, the Iranian Supreme Court gave the execution the go-ahead. That's more than just the abuse of power by one judge acting alone.

JohNeo

Bright Life

But I do feel partially culpable for the Iraqi prisoner abuse. Maybe if I had fought the sham of a 2000 election, this never would have happened. I was complacent then, but I'm doing something about it now. I've signed petitions, I've gone out on voter registration drives, made phone calls and sent letters. I'm taking action to make sure the present administration is kicked out on its collective butt.

Point is, when a country's citizens don't take action against the injustice of its gov't, they are culpable for it's actions.


BL

jbernier

Not the case at all. In fact, the analogy breaks down immediately when you realize that Islam and Nazism are not really analogous (not in the sense you use them, at least).

Nazism and the Nazi party were identical; one was a Nazi if one was a member of the Nazi party or a supporter thereof. Thus the political party and the political ideology were identical. Not at all the same with Islam in relation to the Iranian political ideology. One cannot be a Nazi and say that one fully disagrees with the Nazi ideology; One can be a Muslim and say that one fully disagrees with the Iranian political ideology. You can only make this analogy is you assume that Iranian political ideology is identical with Islam but that is not the case; it is true that the Iranian political ideology is Islamic but it is not the case that all of Islam is identical with that ideology.

Let's go back to 1850 Virginia, shall we, and talk about human rights records when it comes to African-Americans, before the abolition of slavery. Or 1950, before the civil rights movement. Or today. And how about all those First Nations peoples who live and hunt throughout North America. Abysmal human rights records are not limited to Islamic governments. They seem to strike liberal democracies, as well.

Wait a minute. So we have to nuance our statements about "Islam" or "religion." That means that Islam and religion are not homogenuous wholes. But wait: How can we say that Islam or religion as a whole are responsible if we nuanced Islam and religion? This homogenizing is getting increasingly difficult, methinks.

JohNeo

I realize force is not going to bring about this change. I'm not talking about use of force even. This is just my opinion, but I think given the choice between liberty and oppression, the overwhelming majority of human beings would naturally choose liberty. Preference to oppression is conditioned by oppressors. This is really getting off the topic, but I'll just close by saying that I don't even think that people in Iran (for example) are afforded liberty by their own authorities to even consider liberal democracy.