Ben Carson

[shockmonster]

You are as irrational as Khan, or maybe just a bigoted, fundamentalist, jihadist Christian. I am glad I dont live next door to you...

Tell that to the family of the lady in Ok. City whose head was severed by a Sharia Law jihadist within the borders of the USA.

[shocka khan]

You are as irrational as Khan, or maybe just a bigoted, fundamentalist, jihadist Christian. I am glad I dont live next door to you...

I really appreciate your gratuitous insult, which was evidently based on other's opinions.

So does that make you a low information moron? I COULD say that, but I won't. No, I'll just tell you that if you disagree with something I say, you might want to try to understand my feelings and opinions instead of doing something that a bigot would do and outright label me.

You might want to include a little more contexting in your explanations in the future so you don't come off looking unintelligent.

PS: I'm glad I don't live next to your sorry ass, either.

[ShockBand]

Folks, it has been so refreshing to see civil discourse even in sharp disagreement on an issue that is akin to handling razor blades. Let's try and keep it that way, and those doing so, thank you! Debates by the written word are tricky with the loss of the nuances and subtleties that you have in a face to face conversation.

[Play Angry]

It'd be kinda nice if the tone could shift away from the "I'M RIGHT AND YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!! SEE!" style that dominates most discussions here to something a little more persuasive. A lot of posts have the charisma and charm of a dirt clod.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

This will be rambling so apologies in advance. When you say...



It betrays a particular view of Sharia that many, many Muslims don't hold, particularly in more developed countries and instead reflects a stereotype that is popular in the west because of its ease of application.

It is hard to analogize a lot of this since there is no direct equivalent in Christianity. Sharia is a set of precepts or guidelines (it literally means the path to the water or something similar) informed by the Qur'an, the Hadith (Muhammad's words and actions) and fatwas (input from religious scholars) which govern a believer's public conduct, private life and personal beliefs. There are five main doctrines of Sharia (four for Sunnis and one for Shiites; Sufis operate under a different "system" if you will) which vary considerably. It operates as a sort of divine guidance for how they should live their lives in every way.

There is a split in Islam on how Sharia is viewed. Some think it is literally infallible rules from God, while others view it as being man-made and informed by God's teachings. Unsurprisingly, believers who think it is basically hard and fast rules from God's mouth to their ears also think that their particular doctrine (of the five above) is the only correct one. Also unsurprisingly, these people tend be (i) among the more strict adherents to Islam, (ii) from Muslim-majority countries with lower GDPs on a relative basis, and (iii) less educated from a formal standpoint. This is the view of most hard-liners within their faith. To these people, you could ask the question in your quote above and they would understand it to mean something like "do you believe in God's rules and teachings," to which they would obviously respond "yes." Modernist Muslims would consider these people to be the orthodox or conservative followers of their faith, whereas these folks would consider a lot of Modernist Muslims to not be Muslims at all. Let's call this Group A.

The sizable contingent who believes Sharia is instead man-made rules structured around interpretations of God and Muhammad's language would be confused by the question since it is not really a matter of faith but rather one of scholarship. This group is the majority in Muslim-majority European countries (including Turkey in Europe here) and former Soviet satellites, parts of Africa and maybe certain countries in the Middle East (Lebanon and UAE would be most likely but I really have no proof). Let's call this Group B.

When pollsters (like in the Pew study referenced earlier in the thread) ask questions like "Do you think Sharia Law should be the law of the land?," Group A responds "yes" more often than not for obvious reasons. If you think rules come directly from God, then everyone should follow them. However, even this group is heavily divided on which aspects of Sharia law should be the law of the land. Dive further into those polls and you'll see almost everybody that says yes believes Sharia law should apply to family and property matters - marriage (the haq mer being a big contract issue), divorce, estate planning, etc. After that it gets dicey quickly. Corporal punishment for crimes is less broadly supported, and things like the death penalty for apostates is far less popular even within this group. There certainly are broad pockets who go for the most fundamentalist views on Sharia law, but a quick glance at the legal codes across Muslim countries will show that its total embrace is actually rare (and by total embrace, I mean adoption and enforcement of the full-on set of rules that we in the west most commonly quote when referencing Sharia law - death to homosexuals, death to those who convert from Islam, etc). These countries usually have the lower GDPs and suffer from chronic unrest. Cause and effect can certainly be argued here. There are also certainly sizable minorities in the more developed Muslim-majority countries who embrace the Group A belief system.

Now, among Group B, a lot of these people think law should at least be informed by Sharia, and some of them would prefer to have the family and property aspects of the legal code adapted to Sharia law. But they are far less likely to support the extreme "tenets" of Sharia like forced conversion, death to apostates, etc. The legal codes in places like Turkey, Albania, and the Soviet satellites are reflective of this viewpoint. It is often sort of a "Muslim-lite" legal code that does not tax non-believers or practice most of the things we think of as "typical" or even required in Muslim-majority countries. While Group A would hear "Do you believe in Sharia?" and immediately think "yes, because there is only one true set of guidelines given from God and it is the one I happen to follow," Group B would hear the question be more like to respond "What do you mean? There are different schools of thought on this and a lot of elements at play."

It is a lot more complicated than this but that is an okay beginning point.

Now, when you say....



That word has a double-meaning (it translates as the "struggle" or something similar). On one hand, and the use we most popularly hear in the west especially in the context of terrorism, it refers to (usually violent) struggle against non-believers. Let's call this Meaning 1. The other meaning refers to an internal struggle with sin. Let's call this Meaning 2.

Group A above would be likely to answer a poll question as firm believers in jihad in Meaning 1 in a broad context (i.e., from an aggressive standpoint), and they would be relatively likely to answer as firm believers in jihad in Meaning 2 as well. Group B, on the other hand, would be more likely to answer as believers in jihad in a narrow context in Meaning 1 (i.e., from a defensive standpoint) while still responding as firm believers in the context of Meaning 2. So if you ask a Muslim if they believe in jihad, the answer is always going to be yes, but that can still mean many different things. Like the concept of Sharia above, when framed simplistically, it makes for a poor litmus test.

This post is already too long, but here is an illustration. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) who is a Muslim. He served in the U.S. military for four years during the apex of the conflict in Iraq. There were about 4,000 other Muslims serving in the military at any given point during that same timeframe. The vast, vast majority of them served honorably. If asked, I am guessing nearly all of them would not unequivocally "renounce" jihad or Sharia for the reasons laid out above. However, it is clear those people certainly do not favor an ISIS-esque theocracy or anything close to it, and instead they risked their lives supporting a country that is founded on the Constitution. I would have a hard time telling this guy his beliefs do not and cannot line up with our country's core principles. Maybe they do, maybe they don't (I do not know his personal beliefs), but an automatic disqualification is unfair.

Don't take this as some broad defense of everything Islam. Horrible, unspeakable crimes are committed in the name of that religion by evil people with great frequency. But grouping the entire demographic into one simple, easily understood silo of beliefs, values and traits is the incorrect approach, and so is painting anyone who might disagree with that viewpoint as too lazy or stupid to fully educate themselves on the threats we face in a post-9/11 environment.

Just gonna quote this because realistically - the thread should have died with this post. But what do I know.

[Kung Wu]

I'm crunched for time, but your write up is great and deserves a response ...

When you say...

I think the obvious point to demonstrate that a Muslim cannot renounce Sharia is that the polls don't ask "Do you believe in Sharia?". They only ask how you define it and how far governments should be entangled with it. I believe that's precisely because you would get about a zero percent response from Muslims that would say "No" to that question.

It betrays a particular view of Sharia that many, many Muslims don't hold, particularly in more developed countries and instead reflects a stereotype that is popular in the west because of its ease of application.

I don't see where I have said anything that "betrays a particular view of Sharia" (I think you meant portrays, but I am not here to correct or parse words).

In fact, I think you actually corroborated what I said: Polls don't ask Muslims if they believe in or practice Sharia, because it doesn't make sense -- of course they do or they wouldn't be Muslim. I also stated, "there is a WIDE difference in how Sharia is interpreted and understood". I said that exactly because I recognize that there are two key takes on Sharia: 1) a hardline view and 2) a "liberal" (that's not the word I'm looking for, but it's good enough) movement that seeks to make Sharia a personal or private "code of conduct", and less of a public one. There's no disagreement there, and never was -- we have the same understanding as far as those points go.

I have a more skeptical view though, because I believe that even those with "personal" or "private" interpretations often have a philosophically different worldview than most Westerners. There is a code of conduct and whether it's actually encoded in civil law or only practiced privately behind closed doors, it's still often out of phase with Western philosophy (and thus often in conflict with laws on the books). And in far too many cases, to an extreme.

There is a split in Islam on how Sharia is viewed. Some think it is literally infallible rules from God, while others view it as being man-made and informed by God's teachings.

This is not quite accurate, but made me go out and reread to confirm (or rethink) my understanding.

The portion of Sharia that comes from the Quran is universally considered and accepted as the word of Allah by all educated Muslims. The other primary source, the Sunnah, which has portions that are often argued man-made is a chronicle of examples and traditions as set by Mohammed. It's the recording of those examples, in the Hadith (and other texts), where the dissension among Muslims exists. The Quran doesn't explicitly empower the Sunnah, but implicitly does because Allah explicitly makes following Mohammed a commandment. Therefore Muslims are required to follow Mohammed's example (universally true), therefore Muslims must heed the Sunnah (universally true), and it's primarily the Hadith that records those events (much dissent around which portions are accurate and true [divine] and which are man-made and therefore possibly inaccurate accounts of Mohammed's teachings).

So, the way I see it is exactly as I have stated before: No Muslim may reject Sharia because it comes from the word of God, the Quran. The Quran makes following Mohammed a commandment, so the Sunnah is universally accepted by all Muslims. There is WIDE discrepancy about what is considered Sharia in the Hadith and other texts.

Ben Carson was clever to say that he would support a Muslim that rejects Sharia, because it can't be rejected. He can sound like he's willing to support a Muslim running for President under certain circumstances, but knows full well that circumstance cannot come to pass.

Unsurprisingly, believers who think it is basically hard and fast rules from God's mouth to their ears also think that their particular doctrine (of the five above) is the only correct one. Also unsurprisingly, these people tend be (i) among the more strict adherents to Islam, (ii) from Muslim-majority countries with lower GDPs on a relative basis, and (iii) less educated from a formal standpoint. This is the view of most hard-liners within their faith. To these people, you could ask the question in your quote above and they would understand it to mean something like "do you believe in God's rules and teachings," to which they would obviously respond "yes." Modernist Muslims would consider these people to be the orthodox or conservative followers of their faith, whereas these folks would consider a lot of Modernist Muslims to not be Muslims at all. Let's call this Group A.

The sizable contingent who believes Sharia is instead man-made rules structured around interpretations of God and Muhammad's language would be confused by the question since it is not really a matter of faith but rather one of scholarship. This group is the majority in Muslim-majority European countries (including Turkey in Europe here) and former Soviet satellites, parts of Africa and maybe certain countries in the Middle East (Lebanon and UAE would be most likely but I really have no proof).

We just have continued disagreement here, because of the original premise which I believe is not correct as stated above. The portion of Sharia from the Quran IS the word of God to all educated Muslims, and that's universally so. So are the acts in the Sunnah, but good luck defining those.

The answer would always be "Yes", because at minimum all Muslims believe the Quran is the infallible word of God, and believe in Mohammed's teachings.

They just disagree in which portions of the various sources of Sharia are Mohammed's teachings (through divine inspiration or whatever) and which are made by man after Mohammed's death.

Now I gotta get back to work or the boss is going to kill me!

[wufan]

I find this argument to be a little thin. As a brief and crude analogy using Christianity; all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The key tenaments of JC are taught in the gospels, so all Christians must believe in JC as taught in the Bible. or they are not Christian. The rest of the old and New Testament has disagreement as to whether or not it was written by God, inspired by God, or written by man. Regardless, it is widely accepted that it was written by prophets. True Prophets by definition are always correct when speaking about God, therefore everything in the Bible is from God. Since the entire Bible is of God, all Christians must practice all laws of God, including stoning adulterers. This thinking is not in line with the Constitution so Christians should not be supported if they run for office.

I don't buy the analogous argument I made any more than I buy the one you made. There is an assumption in both that once you embrace the core writings that are the "word of God", you have started down a path that will eventually be incompatible with western democracy.

Instead, I say you can read, understand, and live by the key teachings of any religion and still give opposing views the freedom to practice their own beliefs. Now, not all people in any religion (including Christianity) share those views, and those are the candidates I can never support. That is the first key principal of freedom, and one on which I will not waver.

[shockmonster]

I find this argument to be a little thin. As a brief and crude analogy using Christianity; all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The key tenaments of JC are taught in the gospels, so all Christians must believe in JC as taught in the Bible. or they are not Christian. The rest of the old and New Testament has disagreement as to whether or not it was written by God, inspired by God, or written by man. Regardless, it is widely accepted that it was written by prophets. True Prophets by definition are always correct when speaking about God, therefore everything in the Bible is from God. Since the entire Bible is of God, all Christians must practice all laws of God, including stoning adulterers. This thinking is not in line with the Constitution so Christians should not be supported if they run for office.

I don't buy the analogous argument I made any more than I buy the one you made. There is an assumption in both that once you embrace the core writings that are the "word of God", you have started down a path that will eventually be incompatible with western democracy.

Instead, I say you can read, understand, and live by the key teachings of any religion and still give opposing views the freedom to practice their own beliefs. Now, not all people in any religion (including Christianity) share those views, and those are the candidates I can never support. That is the first key principal of freedom, and one on which I will not waver.

I've known some Christian Missionaries who spent years in Islamic countries who are very mistrusting of Muslims and Sharia Law and would disagree with your trusting beliefs. They have told me stories about how they felt unsafe and heard threats being uttered in farci or whatever language of the country where they lived. Several times, their lives were saved by(former Muslims) Christians who understood what was being uttered in a crowd. Here in America, I think that moderate muslims need to take charge and push their moderate views. Why do you think that most are largely silent? CAIR is the only group that pushes their agenda and they are very controversial (they are accused of being a funding arm of Hamas).

[Play Angry]

I don't see where I have said anything that "betrays a particular view of Sharia" (I think you meant portrays, but I am not here to correct or parse words).

As much as I appreciate a good vocab check, my usage was correct. Think of it as "unwittingly shows you hold a view of Sharia..." I am guessing you read it in the context of a good old fashioned double-crossing.

In fact, I think you actually corroborated what I said: Polls don't ask Muslims if they believe in or practice Sharia, because it doesn't make sense -- of course they do or they wouldn't be Muslim.

There is a failure of conceptual understanding here. You have repeatedly said that Muslims must "believe" in Sharia or else they are not actually Muslims. To many believers, the question "do you believe in Sharia?" would be perceived to be non-sensical since it is not something you "believe" in as a matter of faith. On the other hand, some others would understand the question in exactly the way you are presenting it.

I also stated, "there is a WIDE difference in how Sharia is interpreted and understood". I said that exactly because I recognize that there are two key takes on Sharia: 1) a hardline view and 2) a "liberal" (that's not the word I'm looking for, but it's good enough) movement that seeks to make Sharia a personal or private "code of conduct", and less of a public one. There's no disagreement there, and never was -- we have the same understanding as far as those points go.

Again, fundamental misconception. You are treating Sharia as something mostly monolithic (monolithic elements might be a better description?) that is only subject to interpretation. Believers do not necessarily interpret Sharia, their personal Sharia is already an interpretation of the values and instructions set forth in its informing sources.

Also, you are mistaken that the "liberal" Muslims support lesser influence from Sharia as a guide to their public conduct - on the other hand, they very much think it should. They just do not embrace the literal practice and enforcement of every single rule set forth in the Qur'an and related religious works.

I have a more skeptical view though, because I believe that even those with "personal" or "private" interpretations often have a philosophically different worldview than most Westerners. There is a code of conduct and whether it's actually encoded in civil law or only practiced privately behind closed doors, it's still often out of phase with Western philosophy (and thus often in conflict with laws on the books). And in far too many cases, to an extreme.

Your view in this thread is not skepticism, it is an absolute denial that a Muslim can possess a value set that is compatible with the American Constitution. Here, however, you are saying instead that their views are "often" in conflict with laws on the books and the western way of life. Is it often? Or always? Because if it is "often," then welcome to my side of the argument over these last few pages. If it is "always," we can resume the debate. :)

The portion of Sharia that comes from the Quran is universally considered and accepted as the word of Allah by all educated Muslims.

The Qur'an itself is considered the direct word of God, similar to how Christians believe the Bible is the word of God divinely given to man. However, you are trying to make this formulaic in a way that does not match up with what Sharia is, as discussed above.

The other primary source, the Sunnah, which has portions that are often argued man-made is a chronicle of examples and traditions as set by Mohammed. It's the recording of those examples, in the Hadith (and other texts), where the dissension among Muslims exists. The Quran doesn't explicitly empower the Sunnah, but implicitly does because Allah explicitly makes following Mohammed a commandment. Therefore Muslims are required to follow Mohammed's example (universally true), therefore Muslims must heed the Sunnah (universally true), and it's primarily the Hadith that records those events (much dissent around which portions are accurate and true [divine] and which are man-made and therefore possibly inaccurate accounts of Mohammed's teachings).

So, the way I see it is exactly as I have stated before: No Muslim may reject Sharia because it comes from the word of God, the Quran. The Quran makes following Mohammed a commandment, so the Sunnah is universally accepted by all Muslims. There is WIDE discrepancy about what is considered Sharia in the Hadith and other texts.

I would disagree with the way you explain this in relation to Sharia for reasons set forth above.

Let's instead restate this as something like "Muslims believe in the Qur'an as the word of God (analogous to Christian belief in the Bible as the word of God), and the Qu'ran tells Muslims to follow Muhammad's actions as a way to lead their lives. These actions are chronicled in texts outside of the Qur'an that are believed to be divinely inspired (by way of Muhammad's actions) but recorded by man and supplemented with man's commentary. Muslims are instructed to follow the Qur'an and these secondary texts, and it logically follows that the above cannot be renounced by Muslims." I think this captures the jist and apologize if it misinterprets your logic, but really it is not too controversial so I doubt our disagreement would amount to much.

The unstated argument from your post that follows would be that because Muslims cannot renounce the Qur'an or those secondary texts, they must believe and follow everything set forth therein. However, this thread has become a wealth of evidence that Muslims do not actually believe and practice those contents in their entirety, at least in a literal sense (as is true with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and any other religion). So either the tens of millions of Muslims in countries that support, implement and practice relatively liberal legal codes and live their lives in accordance with those codes, despite literal commands to the contrary in their holy texts, are either not real Muslims or it is actually possible to pick and choose what is supported and literally practiced from these sources as a matter of personal faith. Evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter- people practice religion in a way that meshes with their own cultural and social mores and experiences.

Ben Carson was clever to say that he would support a Muslim that rejects Sharia, because it can't be rejected. He can sound like he's willing to support a Muslim running for President under certain circumstances, but knows full well that circumstance cannot come to pass.

Clever and insincere are intertwined very closely here. At best, you are praising intellectual dishonesty. On one hand, this is politics, so anything goes, right? On the other, if supporters are to praise Carson for such a courageous and principled stand on his original statement, then backpedaling to hide behind support of something he believes cannot actually ever occur is cowardice and deserves ridicule as well.

We just have continued disagreement here, because of the original premise which I believe is not correct as stated above. The portion of Sharia from the Quran IS the word of God to all educated Muslims, and that's universally so. So are the acts in the Sunnah, but good luck defining those.

The answer would always be "Yes", because at minimum all Muslims believe the Quran is the infallible word of God, and believe in Mohammed's teachings.

They just disagree in which portions of the various sources of Sharia are Mohammed's teachings (through divine inspiration or whatever) and which are made by man after Mohammed's death.

In the end, this comes down to an insistence by one side of the argument that 100% of individuals practicing Islam are denied the flexibility in personal belief and practice that we ascribe to other religions, Christianity or otherwise, and they should be judged on their compatibility with constitutional principles solely on religious self-identification. Evidence of service to our country, statistical evidence showing a diversity of principles and beliefs, and personal anecdotes evidencing contrary examples are discarded completely under this approach because the rule is absolute. This is a poor and often lazy system of judgment that in itself is incompatible with many principles our country holds dear.

We all know that a ton of horrible stuff goes down in the name of Islam and no sane person would defend those atrocities or the people committing them. Lumping all individuals in the same boat as a result of those actions is a popular approach because it reinforces a simplistic worldview from which we can take comfort. However, it is also factually inaccurate, overinclusive and principally flawed.

This has been a very good discussion and I will happily buy you a beer if we ever meet in person.

[wufan]

@Play Angry: explained my argument here much better than my poor analogy:

"Let's instead restate this as something like "Muslims believe in the Qur'an as the word of God (analogous to Christian belief in the Bible as the word of God), and the Qu'ran tells Muslims to follow Muhammad's actions as a way to lead their lives. These actions are chronicled in texts outside of the Qur'an that are believed to be divinely inspired (by way of Muhammad's actions) but recorded by man and supplemented with man's commentary. Muslims are instructed to follow the Qur'an and these secondary texts, and it logically follows that the above cannot be renounced by Muslims." I think this captures the jist and apologize if it misinterprets your logic, but really it is not too controversial so I doubt our disagreement would amount to much.

The unstated argument from your post that follows would be that because Muslims cannot renounce the Qur'an or those secondary texts, they must believe and follow everything set forth therein. However, this thread has become a wealth of evidence that Muslims do not actually believe and practice those contents in their entirety, at least in a literal sense (as is true with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and any other religion). So either the tens of millions of Muslims in countries that support, implement and practice relatively liberal legal codes and live their lives in accordance with those codes, despite literal commands to the contrary in their holy texts, are either not real Muslims or it is actually possible to pick and choose what is supported and literally practiced from these sources as a matter of personal faith. Evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter- people practice religion in a way that meshes with their own cultural and social mores and experiences. "

[Shocker-maniac]

all Christians must practice all laws of God, including stoning adulterers.

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." This is what Christians must follow.

[wufan]

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." This is what Christians must follow.

You totally missed it.

I don't buy the analogous argument I made any more than I buy the one you made.

[Play Angry]

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." This is what Christians must follow.

Can we assume you are unequivocally opposed to the death penalty then, and that you believe all supporters are not actually Christian?



Or is there room for disagreement?

[Shocker-maniac]

Personally, I am unsure about the merits of the death penalty. I do not think these words spoken by Jesus pertain to criminal justice by a society, but how in our hearts we should respond to the wrongs of others.

[Play Angry]

Personally, I am unsure about the merits of the death penalty. I do not think these words spoken by Jesus pertain to criminal justice by a society, but how in our hearts we should respond to the wrongs of others.

This is a good answer. I would agree that despite this being a passage that may appear to be a literal command against capital punishment at face value, there is room for disagreement on its interpretation and application.