Is it fair to insinuate about Islam?

[Netti-Netti]

Recently on another message board somebody reposted a story about a woman who had apparently been tried for the "undefined crime of witchcraft" and convicted based on nothing more than "written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them. " Here's the story:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Including this story in a thread that is supposedly dedicated to the religion of Islam (Title= "Religion Of Peace Update" ) would seem to suggest that the way this alleged "witchcraft" case was handled is typical of the Islamic world in general and presumably reflects on Islamic doctrine and ideas about justice.

The "witchcraft" case may or may not reflect on Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic law. To credibly suggest that it does would require a fairly good knowledge of Islamic law. In order to make the case, wouldn't one need to cite a specific law that deals with the prosecution of witchcraft? The post in question doesn't get into that at all. It is just a repost of the barebones BBC story, with nothing in the way of analysis. It's as though the idea is to leave it open for readers to conclude that the Saudi way of doing things is pretty much the norm in the Muslim world.

I'd say it's a stretch to suggest that the Saudi legal system in general or that its handling of this case in particular reflects directly on Islamic doctrine and jurisprudence. At face value, isn't it like insinuating that Islam is generally misogynistic and arbitrary as far as convicting people on bogus Nonesuch crimes? In other words, the way the article is presented is suspect from the getgo.

As far as I know, Muslims countries vary widely with regard to the death penalty. Many have a de facto ban on it. Is fair for someone to insinuate normativeness regarding Islam based on nothing more than a single case of something that came to pass in one of the most extreme fundamentalist Islamic states ? Again, the BBC story is simply reposted without analysis and without any attempt to provide some context or perspective in a thread that's supposedly devoted to Islam.

The analogy would be for me to start a thread called "Gospel of Jesus" and then start plugging in stories about weird fringe "Christian" groups who burn Harry Potter books by the thousands or run disciplinary "Christian bootcamps" that practice child abuse. Such juxtapositions are obviously misleading as a basis for inferences about the Gospel of forgiveness and salvation or as a basis for generalization about Christianity and Christians in general.

One might say it's a "smear" of sorts. Basically, it's presenting a news story in a certain context (a thread supposedly about Islam - or so says the title) in order to shape people's conclusions about that story. As such, it would appear to be a kind of devious form of propaganda that uses argument by implication.

IMHO, the suggestion that Saudi practices are typical for the Islamic world is highly questionable. What do you think?

Please discuss.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by from the article

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.

Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.

Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.

It was the religious police who did this. What do Islamic scholars have to say about police acting this way in the name of Islam?

Originally Posted by article

When an appeal court decided she should not be executed, the law courts imposed the death sentence again, arguing that it would be in the public interest.

I hope the King pardons her.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It was the religious police who did this. What do Islamic scholars have to say about police acting this way in the name of Islam?

Depends upon which ulama you ask...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It was the religious police who did this.

And so we should automatically assume they are implementing Islamic law? Mmmm..... You can tell a book from its cover?

What do Islamic scholars have to say about police acting this way in the name of Islam?

If you would research that for us, so that we can then explicitly link the case to Islamic doctrine. Btw, did the religious police claim to be acting in the name of Islam, as you say? Should we assume that everything they do is done in the name of Islam?

Btw, what "Islamic" purpose is served that would lead you or anyone else to conclude that the prosecution of an "undefined crime of witchcraft" has any religious significance at all?

As it stands, plugging the BBC story into a thread that is supposedly about the religion of Islam (title=Religion Of Peace Update) only insinuates a connection to Islam without actually making the case. It is a weak and highly misleading line of argument.

[wil]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

I find it interesting that you bring the topic and discussion here, are the results of the discussion on the other board so unsatisfactory?

I would think you might be able to imply something about the way Saudi Law treats Islamic Law. But not Islam in general.

As I understand it there are many Muslims that are not exceedingly pleased with the way the Saudis interpret Islam.

If Muslims think that this treatment of this woman is in opposition to Islamic law, than they should be standing up and demanding justice rather than non-Islamic folks.

I'm thinking that this is in some part why the US is in Iraq. We are looking to have bases in the middle east where we are not beholden to Turkey or the Saudis.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Netti-Netti.

Namaste Wil. Good to meet you. (bend at the waist)

I find it interesting that you bring the topic and discussion here, are the results of the discussion on the other board so unsatisfactory?

There is no discussion of the subject on the other board. It's basically a cut-and-paste thread where one or two posters dig up stories about countries that are undergoing difficult cultural transformations and present these stories as though they reflect badly on Islam. I would feel out of place there. I'd probably be branded an "Islamofascist wannabe" and tossed out on my keester.

I would think you might be able to imply something about the way Saudi Law treats Islamic Law. But not Islam in general.

Given that an "undefined crime" is at issue, it is unclear whether the alleged "witchcraft" case even tells us much about how Saudi Law treats Islamic Law.

As I understand it there are many Muslims that are not exceedingly pleased with the way the Saudis interpret Islam.

I believe this is also true for Iran.

I'm thinking that this is in some part why the US is in Iraq.

Alas, the Iraqi government has stated specifically that they will not allow permanent US bases there. Things have not gone as expected.

where we are not beholden to Turkey or the Saudis.

The US gets most of its petro fuel from the Saudis. The US also has major arms deals with the Saudi government.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Netti

the suggestion that Saudi practices are typical for the Islamic world is highly questionable. What do you think?

Hi. Welcome.

I think that to use the term "Islamic world" is to begin the caricaturization. We don't refer to Europe and North America as the Christian world. I've heard any number of times that Islam is a religion of peace, and I believe that's true. So that makes me think that all the unrest has little to do with Islam proper. I'm tired of being played, especially with religious overtones. I'm tired of the medieval rhetoric on all sides.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hi. Welcome.

I think that to use the term "Islamic world" is to begin the caricaturization. We don't refer to Europe and North America as the Christian world. I've heard any number of times that Islam is a religion of peace, and I believe that's true. So that makes me think that all the unrest has little to do with Islam proper. I'm tired of being played, especially with religious overtones. I'm tired of the medieval rhetoric on all sides.

Chris

Accusing someone of "witch-hunting" for pointing out a real witch hunt? We humans are notorious for that. I can see how it would get tiresome.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Accusing someone of "witch-hunting" for pointing out a real witch hunt?

In this case it was an instance of promoting religious prejudice by a not-so-subtle slight of hand - i.e., sliming Islam on the pretext of presenting a story about something that happened in Saudi Arabia.

To avoid the impression of being politically motivated propaganda, it would have been very easy to present the story in a thread about Saudi Arabia. The thread in question contains numerous stories about that particular country. Instead, the story was plugged into a thread that is supposedly about Islam, as though it reflects on Islam.

Btw, as yet no one has established the relevance of the witch hunt to Islamic law.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Btw, as yet no one has established the relevance of the witch hunt to Islamic law.

The "witch hunt" I'm referring to is the Saudi prosecution of an "undefined crime of witchcraft."

I fail to see where propaganda analysis would qualify as a "witch hunt." The suggestion that that's what it is strikes me as a not-so-subtle ad hominem swipe.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Accusing someone of "witch-hunting" .....

Actually, one does not have to look very hard to see the propaganda in action.

The meaningful juxtapositions are not hard to detect. Right now on the same board there's another story that has been meaningfully positioned in a "Religion of Peace" thread. It's about the recent assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh. What does this story have to do with Islam? Indeed, why would anyone want to suggest that various Middle East conflicts are purely religious in nature?

Hezbollah is a group that wants to rid Lebanon of Western colonialism. They also seek justice in connection with atrocities committed against Muslims and Christians during Lebanon's civil war. Aren't these secular or political goals that are rooted in historical events?

It seems the idea is to suggest that anything concerning Hezbollah has religious significance by tinting the news story with "Religion of Peace" overtones. A particularly shabby and devious form of anti-Islamic propaganda that exploits contextual cues to promote religious conflict.

This planet does not need religious war.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Actually, one does not have to look very hard to see the propaganda in action.

The meaningful juxtapositions are not hard to detect. Right now on the same board there's another story that has been meaningfully positioned in a "Religion of Peace" thread. It's about the recent assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh. What does this story have to do with Islam? Indeed, why would anyone want to suggest that various Middle East conflicts are purely religious in nature?

Hezbollah= Party of G!d, yes?

Comprised of Shia, yes? Shia are Islamic yes, or do you deny them as sect? Hezbollah secular?? Pardon me if I misunderstand.

This would be like me trying to say the Pope was secular, why do you keep referring to him as a religious figure. Catholics are a large denomination of the Christian religion as Shia are a portional representation of Islam.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hezbollah is a group that wants to rid Lebanon of Western colonialism. They also seek justice in connection with atrocities committed against Muslims and Christians during Lebanon's civil war. Aren't these secular or political goals that are rooted in historical events?

Those seem to be, they are also the first two of three goals of Hezbollah, the third as I understand it is to create an Islamic state like Iran as they grew out of the Ayatolla in the 80's. Why would you omit this goal in your contemplation?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This planet does not need religious war.

I most stridently agree with that!! But the respective leaders see to it that this is the perception us peons are left with. How much better the world could be if we all woke up from our love affairs with superstition and dogma and stop letting our leaders manipulate us with them to their own gain.

Back on topic. I applaud the calm, measured way in which you raise your issue and your choice to move it somewhere else rather than have it lost in the biases of that other thread.

What you are really objecting to is human nature. Not the prettiest aspect of it to be sure but human nature none the less. The west are taught, and in some sense rightly, to fear the rise of Islam. And so we will always find the extreme end of Islamic faith portrayed as mainstream. That western "justice" can be equally as inhumane and barbaric as that found in Islamic nations is not lost on me. But the nature of the case you highlight is in some sense a glorification of western advancement. We, westerners, are all aware of our own brutal flirtation with witchunting and it boosts the collective ego to point out that Islam is savage or backwards in still performing such acts in this modern era. You know the answer to all your questions and are perhaps saddened by the Islamaphobic nature of the post. Likewise I am saddened that there are any Muslims, or Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists.

But of all the worlds major religions Islam is the most perceivably threatening to me. A religion that cannot separate itself from politics and social inclusion is to my mind a fascist entity. Coming from Scotland, with a long history of liberal, secular philosophy I see the rise of Islam as a return to the dark ages. Its leaders enjoy too much power within the body and its message is too totalitarian for my sense of freedom to countenance. I applaud that the extreme cases are highlighted, for as history has so often demonstrated, extremes all to easily become norms.

A more important question all westerners should be asking is why we do business at all with nations that are so guilty of flouting basic human rights.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

Hezbollah= Party of G!d, yes?

Originally Posted by wil

Comprised of Shia, yes? Shia are Islamic yes....?

Greetings,Wil. Yes, Shia Islam is an Islamic school. It arose long after the death of the Prophet Mohammad. Their religious texts are not thought of as being divine revelation the way the Koran is. But yes, they are "Islamic" -- at least for general classification purposes. Are they representative of all Muslims and all of Islam? I don't know enough about it, so I wouldn't venture an assumption in this regard any more than I would be prepared to suggest that the Saudi witch hunt is typically "Islamic" legal conduct.

Hezbollah secular??

I didn't say that. I said the organization had secular goals. It seems to me that you are superimposing on the situation the very kind of polarizing/divisive religious imagery that the Western propagandists want people to see, you know, "Islam versus everybody else, and don't give an inch because all Muslims want to take over the world," or something like that.

I have no doubt that the Hezbollah has at least some quasi-religious elements. I would also think that the organization has enough PR savvy to position itself as a "party of the people" by connecting to Islamic culture. The "religious" significance of that is unclear, however. Their stated goals don't strike me as particularly "religious."

As you know, the Catholic Church at one time had a lot of real estate in South America. Jesuit priests and other religious order controlled the land holdings and agricultural workshops.that were essentially slave labor camps. Would you argue that the Church's conquests in South America were "religious" just because the organization involved was the Church????... Was enslaving the native Indians of South America supposed to bring them closer to G-d?

Pardon me if I misunderstand

No, I don't think you misunderstand. However, it does seem that you want to ignore what I wrote. I believe it wouild be fair to say that you devoted a goodly part of your post to promoting polarization on the basis of religious affiliation. Of course this is exactly what Western propagandists would have us do.

Please reread my post and note the intent of my writing, which relates to propaganda analysis. Did you have reason to believe that the assassination of one of Hezbollah's leaders has to the best of my knowledge nothing to with religion. ... More than likely, it was a political assassination. Maybe you have reason to believe otherwise.

I might mention here that the individual person who engaged in the cut-and-paste propaganda at issue totally ignored the fact that this assassination was a loss to Hezbollah. This kind of one-sidedness -- which in this instance borders on insensitive as well as uncouth -- would seem like an obvious indicator of propagandistic intent.

Why would you omit this goal in your contemplation?

It is an aspect of the first goal I mentioned, which is to rid Lebanon of Western colonialism. Most of the Republican presidential candidates in the US presented with very obvious religious affinities. But I don't think any of them would agree with you if you were to portray them as being committed to a purely "religious" platform. In fact, they have political and socioeconomic goals that have little to do with religion.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Greetings,Wil. Yes, Shia Islam is an Islamic school. It arose long after the death of the Prophet Mohammad.


It seems to me that you are superimposing on the situation the very kind of polarizing/divisive religious imagery that the Western propagandists want people to see, you know,





Of course this is exactly what Western propagandists would have us do.

Please reread my post and note the intent of my writing, which relates to propaganda analysis.

would seem like an obvious indicator of propagandistic intent.


.

The schism that created the the Sunni and Shia sects happened immediately following the death of Muhammad in 632. Not long after. The collection, re-writing, and destruction of inconvenient texts the succeeding warlords of both groups undertook at this time. Propaganda abounds. But there is no reasonable way to refute the assertion that the Q'uran was a political tool devised and engineered very deliberately by powerful warlords.


Tao