reply to post by ollncasino
Yes, the questions ARE vague and misleading, and the conclusions drawn from it (by you or the articles, it is difficult to know anymore) are ALSO
Earlier, you said:
Originally posted by ollncasino
A third of British Muslim students back Killings in the name of Islam and desire the introduction of a Worldwide Islamic State
Then you quoted a text that said that the question was:
Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?
How supportive if at all would you be of the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Shari’ah Law?
These two are definitely not the same thing. I hope you are not so naive as to not see that. A murder could be caught and then possibly executed- this
would be valid in the name of Islam. Anyone can kill someone and then say "I DO THIS IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!"- this is not valid.
And I'm not quite sure you realise what the word "Caliphate" means. Here is an online dictionary definition:
"The office or jurisdiction of a caliph. The last caliphate was held by Ottoman Turkish sultans until it was abolished by Kemal Atatürk". In case you
haven't noticed, nothing about a "Worldwide Islamic State". I mean, is the Catholic Pope the leader of a "Worldwide Catholic State"? Even that
comparison is not valid, because the function of a Caliph was never the same as that of a Pope...the Caliph wasn't the "Head of Islam", had no
authority to make new rules, or bless people, or anything like that.
And what is up with the phrasing "How supportive would you be of.."? Do they mean supporting it's introduction? Or supporting it once it has been
introduced? It definitely does not sound like it is asking if you'd actively pursue the introduction.
And especially considering the "degrees" allowed in the answer. For example: I personally would not really care for the introduction of a Worldwide
Islamic Caliphate* (a Caliph accepted by all the muslims in the world), because of the potential for abuse of this position (as can be exemplified by
the Ottoman Turkish Sultans in the definition). But would I actively oppose it? No. Would I support it? No. If it had already been introduced, I would
actively seek to bring it down? No. I'd just shrug my shoulders and continue life as if it didn't exist. Would I support it? No.
To make a clearer example: A person who doesn't actively seek to have a caliph (or implementation of Shariah in the UK), but wouldn't mind if it
existed would be categorised as "In support of". A person who would not oppose a Caliphate or the existence of Shariah in the UK (if they already
existed), would also be counted in the "In support of" group.
And then you say (or the article says?) "75% of Young British Muslims would prefer Muslim women to "choose to wear the veil or hijab"" as if it is
something bad. Would you rather that they prefer to force Muslim women?
And then again there are vaguenesses in the use of the word "Shariah". When you think of the word, you probably
understand it as "the kind of
laws they have in place in countries like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan". A muslim may understand it as "no nepotism, fairness, clear and
explicit contracts about everything, etc". See, what countries like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan have/had can't really be called Shariah,
because they had loads and loads of stuff that was certainly not derived from Islam, and in many cases is in direct contradiction of it. No country in
the world that claims to be "Islamic" and have Shariah has the same set of laws. I don't think you'd get a unified agreement of what "Shariah" entails
from any muslims anywhere. Heck, in the Quran "Shariah" is used to mean "way" or "path" ("We put you on a way about the matter, so follow it, and do
not follow the desires of those who do not know").
So yeah, I'd say they were vague and misleading.
*This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a Caliph accepted throughout the world would be impossible- why would the shias and sunnis agree on one?
Even if we just made it "A Caliph accepted by the majority of muslims in the world", I'd say it'd still be impossible to get an agreement.
edit on 17-9-2010 by babloyi because: added stuff