Wahabbhism

Discuss the latest news in the media and voice your own opinions about the news.

Postby mattie » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:30 pm

I have to say I disagree with Vicky and Esther on this issue.

It's alright talking about Western decadence, but is the non-Western world really any more moral? It seems to me that the death penalty, repression of women is the norm in the Middle East, whether through policy (i.e. the stoning of adulterous women - i.e. would this happen to Middle Eastern men ??, or the strict rules placed on women in public places) or through custom. They also seem to have massive problems with civil wars, political and social repression and terrorism. I admit that there are many areas of Western life I would like to see changed, but I don't want to see the UK changed into a non-Western or middle Eastern type country.

I think where it becomes wrong is when immigrants feel that they are able to take their country's culture and force it on the UK. Why should we have to take on the rules or customs of other countries, especially if their values conflict with our own? :?

We seem to be the only country which doesn't stand up for our own culture. Afterall, if I went on holiday or decided to live in the middle east, I would be forced to have to abide by their culture and customs *(and rightly so!!). Why should this be any different in the case of the UK??


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby steve » Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:32 pm

the statement was not "improve western civilisation" the statement was "destroy western civilisation" It is very hard to interpret that as being anything other than anti-western.The line between the public and private realm in western civilisation at least is when the government starts interfering with the choices of the individual. Westerners don't think for example that a person's sexual choices should be regulated or that we should enact legislation to make sure that people are adhering to the practices of a certain religion or that public courts should be set up to deal with disputes in the family (home disputes not legal ones). We are ( not in theory but in practice) a secular country. It is definitely possible that many of those surveyed would like Britain to become a theocracy. That is worrying, even if they don't intend to use violence. I wouldn't say we should "force them to abide by our culture and customs" though (that would be pretty authoritarian).
steve
Super Poster
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby mattie » Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:52 pm

by forcing them 'to abide by our culture and customs' I merely meant that they should NOT be able to reject our culture and values in favour of their existing country's. That's what is essentially causing the problem with integration between different communities at the moment. Quite often certain groups want to replace our culture/values with their own country's. This is wrong IMO.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:12 pm

There are "massive problems" in the Middle East. But there are "massive problems" in any region of the world. The Middle East isn't the same everywhere. There are different countries, languages, governments and laws.

By the way, it;s great to see you back on the forum, Mattie.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby eastlondonluke » Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:28 pm

I don't give a crap dat outhers don't like western culture sure its not perfict but dis is britain and over here we do things how we like lol so any peeps from eastern culture dat diserprove sod off we don't all ways like your ways but still as long as every 1s ok,yep its ok lol
eastlondonluke
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: london

Postby parnassus » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:10 pm

steve wrote:the statement was not "improve western civilisation" the statement was "destroy western civilisation" It is very hard to interpret that as being anything other than anti-western.


No, the exact statement was, "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".

Esther then wrote, "That is another vague statement. "Bring it to an end" could mean "destroy wstern civilization" - which is scary. Or it could simply mean "change Western civilization so that it is no longer decadent and immoral." I looked up this poll and less than one per cent of respondants said that they should bring about this change by violent means."

You have accepted the first interpretation that Esther gave, and now you misremember the statement itself. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. This is how people get misrepresented and problems spread.

Westerners don't think for example that a person's sexual choices should be regulated or that we should enact legislation to make sure that people are adhering to the practices of a certain religion or that public courts should be set up to deal with disputes in the family (home disputes not legal ones).


We do believe that sexual choices should be regulated. Paedophilia is against the law. That's the most obvious one. It is illegal to have sex under the age of sixteen, and a seventeen-year-old boy who sleeps with a fifteen-year-old girl could theoretically be prosecuted for rape. There are special laws in place to govern the sale of sex (no official brothels, for example) and laws to judge who can patronise sex shops (no customers under the age of eighteen). These rules may not look abitrary to us - after all, we have grown familiar with them and accept them as a part of our society. But to some citizens in Holland, the regulatory laws that surround prostitution in Britain look like a violation of personal freedom. The idea that a seventeen-year-old boy could be charged with rape for sleeping with an underage girl seems grossly unjust to some people.

Regarding the family court that exists in Britain, who decides which dispute qualifies as a 'home dispute' and which dispute qualifies as a 'legal dispute'? Again, that decision is made by the state. And to people in other countries, who are used to a different system, it may look arbitrary. There are plenty of laws that impinge on an individual's private life - the difference is that we are so used to them that we rarely see them as invasive. The same is true for Muslims who choose to abide by Shari'ah. A lot of Westerners look at it and see an oppressive set of rules: a lot of Muslims look at it and see the lynchpin of a secure and stable society. And for what it's worth, the crime rate is much lower in Wahabbi-governed Saudi Arabia than it is in our own secularist society, especially where serious crimes such as murder are concerned.

It seems to me that the death penalty, repression of women is the norm in the Middle East, whether through policy (i.e. the stoning of adulterous women - i.e. would this happen to Middle Eastern men ??, or the strict rules placed on women in public places) or through custom.


In Shari'ah law the death penalty for adultery can only be carried out if four independent witnesses actually see the adulterous couple having sex. This means that it hardly ever happens. And yes, the penalty is applicable to adulterous men as well. Rape also carries a capital sentence.

I disagree with the death penalty and do not seek to justify it for anything. But it's important to realise that the death penalties exacted in Shari'ah countries are no more or less barbaric than the executions that take place in the USA - executions that cause far less consternation and public censure. Is it because the idea of a Western-style government authorising capital punishment is somehow less alarming than the thought of the Mysterious Man in the Turban authorising the same? There is a double standard at work here.

As for the repression of women, a lot of Muslim ladies look at our adverts for cars (marketed by scantily-clad women), our adverts for alcohol (marketed by scantily-clad women), our adverts for computers (scantily-clad women again), and our adverts for Barclays bank (yet more scantily-clad women) and say, "You call this liberation?" There is rampant sexism in many areas of Middle Eastern society, but our own country is not exactly a model of equality. We cannot advocate our own society's values as being better for females when a voracious media continues to reduce women to pieces of meat without criticism or censure. This is only one of Britain's problems where gender equality is concerned. Middle Eastern countries have a different set of problems that are no less crucial, but before attempting to solve the societal problems of the Brown Masses™ we need to get our own house in order first. Otherwise we will simply be viewed as hypocrites.

by forcing them 'to abide by our culture and customs' I merely meant that they should NOT be able to reject our culture and values in favour of their existing country's.


What are 'our values'? What is 'our culture'? My values and my culture are unlikely to be absolutely identical to anybody else's on this forum. Do my ideas and my lifestyle fall under the umbrella of Britishness just because I have white skin, speak the English language, and hold a British passport? Or is there something more fundamental about me that makes me British? The problem is that we demand that immigrants 'integrate'...but don't tell them what they should become. We also continue to label them as immigrants even if they are second or third-generation. There is a tendency to pigeonhole them in accordance with what we have decided they are. A clear example of this is the case of a Muslim woman in Oxford who decided to go swimming in a special swimsuit designed to meet Islamic modesty requirements as well as being practical. She was verbally harassed by a man at the pool, who told her in no uncertain terms that if she wanted to use the facilities she should dress like anybody else would at the pool. He lodged a complaint with the manager.

It provoked a media storm. The same people who nod sagely and say, "Oh, they're oppressed, those women," when they hear that Muslim ladies won't use public swimming baths were suddenly saying triumphantly, "You see! They won't integrate! Our clothes aren't good enough for them. They have to wear their gear even in the pool." The supreme irony of this is that as soon as a Muslim woman, British to her bones, thinks up a creative way of being able to participate in sports along with the rest of the community, she isn't praised for integrating but is condemned for not being integrated enough. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. It is this frustrating limbo that contributes to the growth of extremism, which at least offers solid ground to stand on.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby mattie » Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:22 am

Exactly - all countries/cultures are hypocritical!!! That's why I think that both the Western World and non-Western world both have it wrong, although for different reasons. Whether we like it not, much of the non-western world is currently in chaos, with civil war and religious extremism the norm. The Western World, on the other hand, is experiencing a form of 'moral anarchy', where 'anything goes'.

I think the Uk was good as it was in in the 1900-1960 period, where personal freedom was, on the whole, pretty widespread, but people had much stricter views on morality. In fact, I guess that was the golden age in British morality, and this kind of reflects in the way that people used to treat each other.

Having said that, I am glad I am living now instead of then, particularly with regards to jobs, health and technology. It's just that it would be great if we could somehow combine the good points of the two eras.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby steve » Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:12 pm

it's alot more oppressive to lash people for "fornication" and hang people for "sodomy" than it is to regulate prostitution. We don't know how many of those polled hold these sorts of views. And if they do then they're seperating themselves from western principles and thus creating sectarianism.
steve
Super Poster
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: coventry, england

Postby Henri » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:48 pm

I am not in any way an advocate of this site, but, Vicky, if you would like to test your debating skill, and fight for something you so evidently care a great deal about, disprove their claims in a logical manner. You may even end up twenty five thousand pounds richer.

<a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/2.htm"> www.faithfreedom.org</a>
Last edited by Henri on Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby mattie » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:10 pm

I don't think it's a question of disproving someone's claims. That is virtually impossible, as cultural values are very personal and vary from individual to individual. You cannot 'prove' that one culture is more corrupt or immoral than another, as it is entirely down to personal opinion as to what constitutes corruptness.

My point was merely that both Western and non-Western societies have their own problems. I would personally prefer to live in a Western country (hence the reason I choose to live here), but that doesn't mean that I discard non-Westerner's views offhand. Indeed, they are absolutely right when they say Western society is immoral, just as Westerners are correct when they say that non-Western societies are also immoral. I guess both cultures see it how they want to see it. I just think it's incorrect to think that all Western society is morally corrupt (i.e. unlike non-Western society), when there are massive problems in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, caused by greed and religious extremism. It seems sort of odd that they can criticise our 'Western lifestyles' (whatever that means!) when so many non-Western societies are fighting amongst themselves and anarchy reigns supreme!!!

In conclusion, I'd say that both cultures are hypocritical really. They are both as bad as each other, but for different reasons.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Henri » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:52 pm

mattie wrote:I don't think it's a question of disproving someone's claims. That is virtually impossible, as cultural values are very personal and vary from individual to individual. You cannot 'prove' that one culture is more corrupt or immoral than another, as it is entirely down to personal opinion as to what constitutes corruptness.



Mattie.


If your statement was correct, the world would fall upon its knees in stubborn procrastination. There is a general standard to everything, thus a convincing argument is capable of provoking a paradigm shift in almost every individual, despite the amount of dedication and resolve they posess.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Previous

Return to News and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest