一位勇敢的阿拉伯女性
週二, 2006-08-22 04:05 — 大頭仔
一位勇敢的阿拉伯女性
幾天前因爲以色列和真主党的衝突跟領男在網路上爭辯了阿拉伯和伊斯蘭教的一系列問題。原因是我總覺得左派知識份子在中東問題上，有時實在過於平面地思考這些回教國家和它們的宗教問題。是的，戰火中的孤兒寡母當然值得同情，而美國和以色列的行爲當然是恃強淩弱。但是否如此簡單的判斷就可以決定我們要站到這些中東回教徒的一邊反美反以呢？難道這些穆斯林自己一點問題都沒有嗎？
與其讓我來說一些大道理，不如看一位移民到美國洛杉磯的阿拉伯女性學者如何與一位伊斯蘭教士在半島電視臺爭辯吧。儘管我並不是完全同意這位女學者的觀點，但起碼，作爲一位阿拉伯穆斯林，她或許比我們都要有發言權。
搜尋
回應
回教
我不是回教徒﹐不過我也在思考回教到底有沒有存在的價值。若果結論是沒有的話﹐回教就應該和法輪功一樣﹐定為邪教並加以取締。宗教自由是建立在該宗教對社會無害之上﹐可是信回教真的是無害嗎﹖這是一個值得深入研究的問題。
Religious bigotry?
To use the same prejudice logic of bigot-hevangel.
Change the word from 回教 to 天主教.
Clarification: I view 回教,天主教,法輪功 as equal, and people who are part of it enjoy the same religious freedom.
//天主教
我不是天主教徒﹐不過我也在思考天主教到底有沒有存在的價值。若果結論是沒有的話﹐回教就應該和法輪功一樣﹐定為邪教並加以取締。宗教自由是建立在該宗教對社會無害之上﹐可是信天主教真的是無害嗎﹖這是一個值得深入研究的問題。//
請回到我提出的問題上來討論
一個宗教有沒有存在價值應該由他的信衆去決定，只要它不損害其他宗教和其他族群的生存，就沒有取締的理由。
在這個視頻中，我想提出的問題是，伊斯蘭的教義是不少衝突的根源之一？例如伊斯蘭教義寫到明要征服異教徒，寫到明凡屬於過穆斯林的土地就永久屬於穆斯林，這些教義是否有值得商榷的地方呢？而大家又有否想過，如果這位女士不是在美國，而是在中東發表這些言論，會有什麽後果呢？這反映了什麽？
當然，不應以伊斯蘭的落後和愚昧來證明軍事入侵的正當，我也反對美國的入侵；但也不應以文化和傳統爲理由去拒絕女性的權利和人民的民主，更不應以教義爲理由強迫非伊斯蘭教徒信奉可蘭經和拒不承認以色列這個國家的生存權。
這位女性提出的一個觀點很值得思考：文明並不衝突，文明有的是競爭。
宗教存在價值
宗教存在的價值﹐應該用一套客觀普世的準則去衡量。
我們不可以低估迷信非理性的魔力﹐有人信的宗教不一就要被容許存在﹐日本的真理教夠有人信喇。
again, please can you focus on the topic?
I have to repeat: 一個宗教有沒有存在價值應該由他的信衆去決定，只要它不損害其他宗教和其他族群的生存，就沒有取締的理由。The problem of 真理教 is it did harm others, but as to the case of 法輪功, it is not as clear as what the Chinese gov has claimed.
The problem of Islam is not because it promotes a value which is viewed as one from the middle age, but becaue it is so aggressive that orders its followers to conquer non-muslims, or the heretic.
Muslims have their freedom to follow whatever God they believe, I believe this is their right and should be respected. But the point is we have our right to choose what we believe which should also enjoy the same degree of freedom.
The Catholic & Christian Churches have done a lot of harm too
When it comes to sexism, the Catholic Church and most of the Christian Churches are actually more sexist than the Islamic practicing faith.
Do not believe me? Just take a look at the exemption of the local Catholic Church and local Christian Churches have got when the Sex Discrimination Ordinance.
Yes, Catholic Church and the Christian Church have requested and granted exemption to continue discriminate against women.
Why target on the practice of Islamic faith when the Catholic and Christian church practice is just as bad.
Read up on Church history and you know that Catholics killed and murdered a lot of people. Christians are doing just the same as Muslims, to kill in the name of their god.
Talking about 迷信
//我們不可以低估迷信非理性的魔力﹐有人信的宗教不一就要被容許存在﹐日本的真理教夠有人信喇。 //
The Catholics still believe a virgin could get pregnant and give birth to baby, and the death could resurrect, if this is not 迷信, what is? Why target on 真理教 that we don't know much about. Why don't we focus on the harm of the Catholic Church to the modern world?
Sexism?
"the Catholic Church and most of the Christian Churches are actually more sexist than the Islamic practicing faith."?
You might be referring to the number of female bishops, but a critical difference between Chritianity and Islam is those who disagree with Chritian church can leave without any problem, but can Muslim leave Islam?
A muslim woman who is viewed as a heretic will be executed. Is there any Christian woman executed simply because she disagree with the church? You tell me.
Needless to say, muslim women are not allowed to receive education, they will face death penality after being raped or killed someone who intented to rape them. They will have to mask their faces and not allow even to wave hands to the man they love on the street......and as you all know, they can't stop their husband from marrying several wives.
Who is more sexist then?
想返回重點
XOX 的第一篇文講野所有我想講的話，我不如省下口水講番正題。
在數量上，基督教的傷害大於回教。但在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教。當然，對於同志基督徒來說，脫教或自我人格否定都是不理想的選擇，但至少他有痛苦但理智的選項。我希望大家作出理智的選項，但同時保留他人有權作出不理智的選項，他人要這樣選擇，我們無權干涉。
我們要知道巴勒斯坦人同情以色列的下場是什麼。
http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=704
巴勒斯坦人同情以色列，會被視為叛徒。當然，相反在以色列也會出現同樣的情形，然而以色列社會較給予國民較大的政治信仰空間，而巴勒斯坦人則沒有這樣的空間，立見天國描述薩依參與自殺式攻擊，原因是父親「通敵」，到底與以色列通敵是什麼大罪？
伊斯蘭教法容許家庭處死「背叛」伊斯蘭的家庭成員，伊斯蘭除了暴力之外，到底憑什麼可以擁有「境地」內的家庭？一人作出良心異見，為何要整個家庭向真主表忠？這樣的社會確實是伊斯蘭法西斯。
廿一世紀應該是世俗主義的世紀，不要像伊斯蘭這樣折磨信眾的宗教，不要他們編造謊言仇外，把自己加害者的身份美化成受害者，這是對世俗主義的重大威脅。
Any Choice???
Is there any choice to stay alive?
One should at least have the right to survive.
Back to the specific (deadly, for SURE!) situation.
A female is nearly being raped, and there are practically two options, which are in fact NO CHOICE at all!!! A normal gal in HK could choose to surrender in order not to be killed, or choose to defense and even to kill the rapist when neccessary.
SO, UNTIL HERE, any choice left for the 'muslim ladies' in those several countries? Either be cowardly or brave, but NEITHER this NOR that helps to keep the sufferers' lives! Does it mean that once a rapist has chosen the prey, she has to die because of another person's sins?
It is simply horrible! If the life of a woman is not seen as a treasured thing, I guess it is not unreasonable to call this religion a 'sexist' one.
P.S. A Turk netfriend told me (he used to try to chase me, in fact, hehee...), nowadays (at least in Turkey, probably the most 'open' Muslim country, I am not sure......) the men would need the agreemnt of all their wives (including the 'fiancée' involved) to marry their second, thrid and fourth wives.
何謂「本質上」？如何量度？
「在數量上，基督教的傷害大於回教。但在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教。」
我對伊斯蘭教識很少，對基督教(Christianity)則有較深認識，因為讀了十二年天主教學校兼做了七、八年天主教徒。小學時，修女告訴我們，寧可自殺也不可接受被「污辱」，因為抗拒「污辱」自殺而死，可以上天堂，教會也會給你封聖。而我真的曾這樣相信。雖然如此，當天主教徒多年，我也有不少得著，因為某些神學家對聖經的詮釋，強調耶穌愛人(包括敵人)如己，強調他拒絕對猶太法典的教條式的理解和遵從，強調他總是站在最弱小的人的一方…。
我相信一定有伊斯蘭徒對他們的宗教有跟我對基督教(Christianity)相同的經驗。
歷史中各主要宗教都曾(或仍然)服務當權者，它們的經典都曾(或仍然)被人作出教條的解釋，甚至成為法律的依據 (大部份西方社會過去都曾將墮胎和肛交行為刑事化，主要依據就是聖經) 。但大部份主要宗教中，也有人對其教義有不同的詮釋，我相信伊斯蘭教亦然。據我所知，有信仰伊斯蘭教的女性主義者多年來一方面爭取世人關注穆斯林法律對女性的傷害，同時支持改革穆斯林法律。她們對伊斯蘭的經典有著跟伊斯蘭原教旨主義者完全不同的詮釋（詳見Women Living Under Muslim Laws: http://www.wluml.org/english/index.shtml）。
因此，「在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教」這樣的說法我覺得只會加深人們對伊斯蘭教和其信徒的偏見（何謂「本質上」？如何量度？）。這種偏見在主流媒體上其實已非常非常泛濫。我覺得可以討論和批評伊斯蘭教或其他各個宗教在實踐上如何影響不同人、不同社群的處境，就像Women Living Under Muslim Laws所做的那樣，但也應加深對伊斯蘭教（或其他宗教）的歷史的認識，而不應將伊斯蘭教或其信徒看成為一個統一的或內部同質化的宗教和群體。
價值二﹐
為什麼有人信的教就可以被容許存在﹖吹雙氧水教沒有傷害其他人﹐只會傷害信教的人﹐那我們又是不是應該讓它存在。
法輪功的問題﹐你們忘記了為什麼中共要取締法輪功﹖有份報紙的記者科學去篤爆法輪功騙人白迷信﹐結果法輪功發動群眾去圍報社要求交人。這種的宗教還說是對社會無害﹖
回教的問題很特別﹐我還沒有下結論說回教在本質上是壞﹐會不會只不過現代給原教旨主義者騎劫了。因為我不能無視歷史﹐回教文明曾經是中世紀西方黑暗時期最開明的文化。
天主教和基督教也同樣有問題﹐今時今日基督教問題比天主教大﹐但整體上這兩教沒有大問題。若果一個宗教不能在乎合政教分離世俗主義和科學精神的原則﹐那個宗教就是必需要改革進化。若不能改革進化的話﹐則是該宗教在本質上出現問題應該被取締。
我們不能單單討論回教是否好壞﹐而是應該先建立一個標準分別宗教的好壞﹐再用這個這個標準去決定回教是否不好﹐是否要像真理教般被取締。
原本不想回XOX的廢話﹐不過順帶說兩句﹐我對天主教一樣批評﹐事實上身為自由派教徒﹐我是支持女人做神父的﹐甚至研究過下其神學的理據﹐有機會可以篇寫文章。信童貞聖母在本質上和信耶穌復活無異﹐不過信單一神蹟事件的發生不是迷信。迷信是指以神蹟取代理性去出思考。例如說﹐練轉輪法可以醫病而不去看醫生。
那邊的回應沒人理，轉放到這邊吸引注意。
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=147263&group_id=143
Extreme or general situtation
原本不想回Hevangel的廢話﹐不過順帶說兩句.
Yes, the most extreme brand of Islamic faith will have execution for men and women who violated their "rules".
Catholic church and the Christian Church have done similiar things in the past. Burning of witches (wrong labelled witches of women who were independent) and people who don't buy into church bullshit.
Let's look at the present. In Hong Kong, the Muslims mostly keep to their own community and they probably are more liberal brand.
Now, look at the law. The Sexist Catholic Church of Hong Kong and the Sexist Christian Church of Hong Kong have asked for and granted exemption in the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. Look it up and you see. Why? Because they want to continue to exclude women from church leadership and continue to keep women as "second class".
I don't see the same damage done by the Islamic faith in Hong Kong.
OK. We are talking about the world now. In the world, the most extreme form of Islamic faith have turned into Terrorist Cults. But the most extreme form of Catholic Church and Christian Church have also turned nasty too. Who do you think were bombing England? Not the Muslim but the Catholic extremists. Who do you think were bombing clinic and killing doctors and nurses in US? Not the Muslims but the Catholics and Christians anti-choice terrorists.
Just because most people in country share the same faith do not condemn the Catholics and Christians who turn terrorists.
If you want to condamned religious extremists, do not leave out the Catholics and Christians extremists. It is just bias and not fair.
good points
//因此，「在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教」這樣的說法我覺得只會加深人們對伊斯蘭教和其信徒的偏見（何謂「本質上」？如何量度？）。這種偏見在主流媒體上其實已非常非常泛濫。我覺得可以討論和批評伊斯蘭教或其他各個宗教在實踐上如何影響不同人、不同社群的處境，就像Women Living Under Muslim Laws所做的那樣，但也應加深對伊斯蘭教（或其他宗教）的歷史的認識，而不應將伊斯蘭教或其信徒看成為一個統一的或內部同質化的宗教和群體。 //
Good point. I could not agree more.
The warmongers in US are mostly Christians, and they supported the action of US invasion of Iraq even if it caused many lives loss of Muslims in the district.
宗教多元化不是宗教不被統一批判的理據
XOX 在這一點並不誠實，他不斷地統一批判基督教（不論美國基督教派多於天上繁星），我暫且相信他對基督教的敵視是真誠的。然而，轉個頭又對〔而不應將伊斯蘭教或其信徒看成為一個統一的或內部同質化的宗教和群體〕評予 "I could not agree more." 這是不同是非只問立場的表現
ahchoii 把〔內部同質化〕的帽子扣在我身上，我只好說實在這頂帽不合我的頭。他所舉的例子 Women Living Under Muslim Laws 只相等於香港基督徒學會，或佛教上的左翼佛教，在其神學上只屬於唔入流(quick edit: Their theology is decided by their religous status, not me, it is not me to day whether 香港基督徒學會's view point is accepted by christian theology, but it is a matter of fact. This is the same as "Women Living Under Muslim Laws". Few Islam theologian accept their view as Islam theology too)。我對那些宗教作出批判，就正於原本女子身為回教徒對回教的批判，並沒有內部同質化，我沒有反對宗教自我完善。（To be Cont'd）
ahchoii 利用宗教的多面向性質作為不能批評宗教的理由，其實是不正當的，甚至不合乎多元主義。任何信仰文化甚至國家（國家只是人民的工具，絕無不可吞併消滅或分裂的理由，把國家絕對化反而是法西斯）都應該面臨汰弱留強的考驗。正如原文中的女學者一樣，衝突的原頭不是東西文明，而是廿一世紀與中世紀之戰。在中世紀，社會需要宗教極權維持秩序，我可以接受中世紀人以宗教之名壓迫自由主義者（妖魔化為巫女，巫婆），但同樣的行為不可以出現在廿一世紀，這個時間分別是重要的，因為我們會以為歷史學者把現代民主套在中世紀的社會是適當。我有必要一問 ahchoii，原文中的女學者，她是美國走狗嗎？她曲解了回教嗎？她批評回教為「中世紀思維」不當嗎？她把回教〔內部同質化〕嗎？你看看她發言文稿的翻譯，她（或這篇翻譯）有什麼冤枉了回教？
她沒有對穆斯林作出侮辱，只是實話實說。話說回頭，〔穆斯林〕這個字使他們自我內部同質化，片中的回教教士甚至否定她作為穆斯林的資格，這是一項卑鄙的要脅，是回教把女權份子驅逐出去，而不是我片面地否定女權份子對回教神學的影響力。
Very honest
What I agreed on, is the obvious prejudice, especially among Catholics/Christians Countries against Muslims.
I don't consist Christian as one faith, that is why I condemned most of the Christian Church teachings of bigotry, sexism, racism, hetersexualism, but not the Christian faith.
Obviously I don't hate any religion. As a Christian myself, I'm just disgusted by what most of the local Catholic and Christian Churches are doing.
Back to the topic. There are several brands of Islamic faith. The one we read on the news is usually the more extreme type.
The more tolerance brand of Muslims could be form in more liberal country. And even Malaysia has a more tolerate brand of Islamic faith when compare to Iraq?
The problem is not the religion itself, but the influence it has on the government. The more religion dominate the government actions, the worst it is for the world.
See country run by Islamic faith, and read their constitution, and you will find it is much harder to change unreasonable policy and law within the governming system.
I'm for religious harmony, and believe all faiths could leave together in coexistence.
Answering your question
//but can Muslim leave Islam?//
Not if the government is controlled by religion.
For Muslims in country not dominate by religions, any Muslim could change his/her faith to whatever he/she wants.
But of course, there would be social/family pressure, plus social isolation from his/her previous faith.
A Catholic who leaves his faith and join the Islamic faith would be excommunicated, as so that you know.
More on honesty
(There are so many typo because I must type very rapidly) I believe XOX is honest. I accepted XOX is not double-standard on a way as I have said. However, XOX created another double-standard.
I am suprised that XOX claimed that the problem or issue is not laid on the core substance of religon (or related priesthood and thelogy). Then, XOX should not pinpoint christians even he believe the eveil-doer are mostly christian and motivated by "some of the christians". This is a sterotype and he rendered all his cliam against christians as hate-speech (although only technically).
To justify the claims against christians is not hate speech, the claim must pinpoint the wrong/issue of the core/important subtsnace within christian religon. You cannot say all woman is not capable to do police/hard-working because that can sterotype "all woman" are weak replacing "many" into "all".
覆麥當勞(一)
1.麥當勞：「ahchoii 利用宗教的多面向性質作為不能批評宗教的理由…」
1.1 我指出各個宗教的眾多信徒對其信仰都可能有不同的體驗、不同的詮釋以至不同的實踐，目的是指出所有宗教都是在歷史中形成和發展，也是在具體的社會和歷史中被體驗、詮釋和實踐的，因此並不存在甚麼「本質上」的問題。
（噢，對了，你還未回答何謂一個宗教的「本質」和如何量度這個「本質」？）
你將我說的這點說成是甚麼「宗教的多面向性質…」。你是真的不明白我說甚麼，還是在遮掩你其實知道我在說甚麼？你知道Women Living Under Muslim Laws跟「香港基督徒學會」是類似組織，就是對其所信仰的宗教的教義抱著跟主流或當權者不同的理解的信徒。你說他們「在神學上不入流」，因為他們不被教內的主流所接納，但你不得不承認他們的存在。
Protestants（即現在香港人一般說的「基督教」）本來就是羅馬天主教眼中「不入流」的信徒，並且因為他們對聖經的不同詮釋和不同的信仰實踐而遭迫害，但今時今日誰可以說基督教（更不要說基督教的眾多教會）和天主教誰更擁有基督教信仰（Christianity）的「本質？」相信只有基督教的原教旨主義者才敢說他們知道，而他們的答案就是只有他們才知道和擁有基督教信仰（Christianity）的「本質」。基督教的歷史我猜你是知道的。
1.2 我在回應中明明說「我覺得可以討論和批評伊斯蘭教或其他各個宗教在實踐上如何影響不同人、不同社群的處境」，也介紹了「爭取世人關注穆斯林法律對女性的傷害」的國際組織Women Living Under Muslim Laws，你卻說我「利用宗教的多面向性質作為不能批評宗教的理由」，是甚麼原因呢?根據我看過你在其他問題上的回應，你對他人文字的理解能力不是那樣低的，為甚麼在涉及伊斯蘭教的問題上，你卻有如此表現呢?
覆麥當勞(二)
2. 麥當勞：「任何信仰文化甚至國家（國家只是人民的工具，絕無不可吞併消滅或分裂的理由，把國家絕對化反而是法西斯）都應該面臨汰弱留強的考驗。」
我也從來不認為國家是必須的，但不等如我接受以「汰弱留強」為邏輯的對他國或他人土地的「吞併消滅或分裂」。當年西方白人以暴力和欺詐來掠奪美洲原住民的土地和資源，借的不是甚麼「民族主義」大道理而是赤祼祼的種族主義和「汰弱留強」的邏輯。基督教當時為這些殖民主義者姦淫擄掠和殺戮的行為祝福，雖然明明白白違反了十誡中不可殺人、不可盜竊、不可姦淫等訓示，但因為基督教在「汰弱留強」的歷史中靠攏了「強者」，所以至今不衰。
我想問，如果我們認為一個宗教因為靠攏了俗世的「強者」，靠攏了俗世的權貴和俗世的暴力而得以生存下去是理所當然並且理應如此的話，俗世的當權者為甚麼要保障宗教自由？為甚麼不乾脆只確保只對自己的統治有利的宗教存在？照這邏輯推論下去，如果有阿拉伯國家當權者想實施政教合一，只要他們能藉此利用人民的宗教熱情來煽動他們對「敵人」的仇恨，進而讓他們「吞併消滅」敵人，那政教合一有甚麼問題？
坦白說，你那「汰弱留強」的邏輯跟你口中的甚麼「中世紀」和「廿一世紀」的討論完全扯不上關係（其實你並沒有真的討論了這問題，你只是試圖為基督教血腥的歷史開脫）。你反對伊斯蘭教的原因很簡單，就只是因為那是現今世界被認為是「落後」的國家和民族的信仰。既然伊斯蘭教在你眼中是「落後」的代名詞，在「汰弱留強」的邏輯下就命定要被「消滅」的。因此你不能接受我指出穆斯林信徒對其信仰可以有不同的體驗不同的詮釋不同的實踐，因為這表示伊斯蘭教仍然是一個有生命力的宗教，並非命定要被「消滅」的。
在你那「汰弱留強」的邏輯下，基督教(Christianity)是因為靠攏了「強者」而歷久不衰。但我其實相信基督教是因為有異見者，有不屈從於教內和教外的權貴的信徒才得以歷久不衰。我希望也相信伊斯蘭教亦是如此。
致大頭仔
大頭仔：「我總覺得左派知識份子在中東問題上，有時實在過於平面地思考這些回教國家和它們的宗教問題。是的，戰火中的孤兒寡母當然值得同情，而美國和以色列的行爲當然是恃強淩弱。但是否如此簡單的判斷就可以決定我們要站到這些中東回教徒的一邊反美反以呢？難道這些穆斯林自己一點問題都沒有嗎？」
「看不過眼有人恃強淩弱」為甚麼不是一個讓我們站出來指責他的充份原因呢？既然是指責他「恃強淩弱」，當然就是站在被欺負一方的立場來指責他了，但同情被欺負一方不等如說要支持被欺負一方做的所有其他事呀！我覺得已故巴勒斯坦裔學者Edward Said的政治實踐可以解答大頭仔的疑問。
在以色列建國後被迫遷徙到美國生活的Edward Said生前一直為爭取巴勒斯坦的解放而努力。他雖然是巴勒斯坦人，但他來自基督教家庭而非穆斯林家庭。對他來說，爭取巴勒斯坦的解放為的不是一套抽象的政治理念或意識型態，而是為了讓失去家園和失去應有政治權利和基本人權的同胞重新獲得具尊嚴的生存權利。與此同時，他還不斷對抗美國主流傳媒和美國自由派（和一些左派）人士對以色列的包庇。
但Said不但批評美國政府和主流媒體包庇以色列各種暴力和違法（違反聯合國決議）行為和措施，他同時經常批評阿拉伯國家當權者的專制、愚昧和不思進取。他反對伊斯蘭原教旨主義，深信所有阿拉伯國家都應推行民主體制，實行政教分離。他雖然曾公開支持巴解領袖阿拉法特，並且成為巴勒斯坦流亡議會的成員，但眼見阿拉法特為維護一已權力和私益而拒絕進行政治改革，即多次公開讉責阿拉法特。
對於巴勒斯坦人以自殺式襲擊對抗以色列，Edward Said並不贊成，也反對任何針對以色列平民的襲擊。但他一直都清楚指出，即使巴勒斯坦人採取了這些他不同意的反抗方式，但這沒有改變以色列掠奪了巴勒斯坦人土地，摧毀了巴勒斯坦人家園和殺害了無數巴勒斯坦人的事實。而以色列立國到現在，從來沒有改變它作為侵略者的位置。事實上，它繼續在巴勒斯坦人的土地上建立和擴大殖民區，限制巴勒斯坦人的生活／活動；而面對巴勒斯坦人的抗爭，以色列採取的立場是以更強大的暴力進行鎮壓和報復。指出這一點很重要，因為所謂的以巴衡突正正是一個「恃強凌弱」的歷史事件。Edward Said已經去世，但這「恃強凌弱」的歷史事件並未結束…
Testing on our integrity
Before replying, I must apply the 'hate speech' rule on you as of applied on XOX. If you accused the christianity or "many chirstian" as evil-doer or attached themselves to evil-doer, but failing to assert that there is any wrong/problem within essence of christianity, you commited a hate crime. You should not pinpoint the evil to the christianity or "many christian" or "christian countries" at the very first place. This is ungrounded sterotyping. To make the argument not a hate crime, you must ground it with some essence of christianity.
When you mentioned the word Christianity you already held that there is common essence of Christian religon. There are something uncommon too, but it is not related matter. The existence of WLUML is one truth, and WLUML has no influence to Islamic theology (one of essence of Islamic religon) is also another truth.
Theology can be dynamic (although slow) and divided. It can change from time to time. So when I accused christian theology in the past, my accuscation can be invalid in the next year because the old theology is no longer practiced (Althrough the accuscation held when it is released). Theology can split among cults. "Nation of Islam" is one major cult, "Sunni" and "Shita" is also major cults, and there are sub-cults under the major cults. This fact alone does not destory Islam theology, the same thing you have mention "Christianity" when christian theology is divided as protestant, catholic and orthdoix(eastern).
By denying the existence of religous essence while still using the world "Christianity" widely harms you integrity. You have denied something you faithfully devoted believed in. Let's be honest and express your comparsion between Christian and Islamic essence.
I shall also discuss the religous freedom and positive atheism later, reply to you why social Darwinism support religous freedom even there exists some inhuman/cruel religons.
Simple test
I think I have the right to criticize Christians Community because I'm part of it.
If I'm Blacks, I oculd criticize the Black community more freely than the White. Not only because I'm Black myself, but I have a much more indepth understanding of the community than an outsider.
Hate speech, even using the EU standard do not apply here. Because I did not labelled or generalized the whole community, nor do I advocate for any negative "action" against the community. I just simply pointed out, that many Christian Churches are filled with homophobic bigots, and many of these homophobic bigots are sexists and racists too. That is to say, the mainsteam churches have bigots/sexists as majority and they have taken over the mainstream churches. I do not advocate for any action other than the chance of hearts of these bigots and sexists.
People forgive, but only when the wrongdoers repent.
It could not be mistaken for the hate speech that homophobic bigots have on gays and lesbians. Homophobic bigots, especially church going ones, have no real understanding of gays or lesbians, nor do they want to. Homophobic bigots usually attack based not on reality but their own prejudicial misconception of gays and lesbians. What these bigots have harbored in their minds, are hatred for gays/lesbians, not unlike the KKK have for Blacks.
You should have noticed that I do not attack any religion at all. None of the religion exist in the world that I know of, ask people to behave like jerks to other people.
And so that it is very clear, I respect atheism equally.
I truly because that all religions start off as trying to create something good (just use the term loosely and include atheism), but people who are in power of the religious system, abused their power to turn these religious institutes nasty.
I do not trust religous institute (church) but I respect religion in its purest form (non institutionalize).
Instead of guessing what they are doing
...why don't you find out for yourself.
Women Living Under Muslim Laws
Canada: WLUML dress code exhibition in Montreal
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[157]=x-157-536536
I found many times I could not agree with, within the current "male dominated-distorted teachings" of Islamic faith.
But that doesn't mean it could not be better.
to : 麥當勞
invoking the rule (or the law) of "hate speech" and "hate crime" is a serious matter ... so, before you made the accusation, i'd expect you to at least quote the relevant legislation, and/or do a point-by-point exposition of what statement constitutes "hate speech" and under which section of the legislation has "hate crime" been committed ...
otherwise, i see it nothing but your attempt to stifle a free flow of discussion ...
all in all, i just want to say that i haven't seen any "hate speech" here ... you care to expound your assertion / accusation in a more detailed manner ???
Stifle a free flow of discussion?
"Stifle a free flow of discussion" is a very serious charge to me that felt confused.
"Hate speech" is very simple moral phrase for me that I never turn it into legistative authority. This is not a legal term for me. This is only about moral. If anyone extremely demonized a group of people without honest ground the problem is rooted by that attribute, it is dishonest streotyping, and it is an attempt to draw public attention that that attribute means evil and should be dismissed by general public. I don't care whether that attribute means man or woman, homosexual, christian or simply church-going. That label cannot be affixed unless it is a nature/fact instead of merely a label.
This moral concept obviously cannot be legisative as such, because we cannot decide one's true intent in the law court. This inability of legal process makes the "hate speech law" losing its credit. For example, Holoucast denial is view as hate speech even if the speech is honestly delivered by historian. It is merely jail-of-conscience. On the other hand, we cannot blame a community a evil-doer even if that community is never disadvantaged, unless that "affix" is actually an honest deliver of opinion against a problem rooted behind that community. I think reader can agree I am using the term "hate speech" in strict moral sense is much better than its legalized sense.
If you look carefully, I did not accuse anyone of making "hate crime" in very confronting sense. I just remind ahchoii and XOX that if they hold contradicting beliefs it would lead them into the trap of "hate speech" and ask them to avoid asap. I am not asking for public sanaction. If you think the wording of "hate speech" is too strong, then "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" can do the same. My point is not blaming anyone broke a law and should be sanctioned. My point is to uphold a moral standard within a discussion, when I believe all discussion parties are willing to uphold (or maybe with honest dispute).
As a sidenote, I do not trust religon even in non-institutionalized form. If you read Leviticus 24: 13-23 you can see how evil Yahweh could be. It does not make sense to say a religon itself cannot be grossly critised. However, I want to keep it as sidenote only and never use this point to support my argument, because Yahweh is incapable to inflict damage. It is the people who spread religon inflict damage. When we critised a religon, the main issue is its priesthood, its theology, it relgious practices and culture, rather than its "purest" and non-institutionalized form. When I say Islam damage to their believer is deeper christian damage to their believer, I never hinted Allah is more evil than Yahweh.
to 麥當勞
"在數量上，基督教的傷害大於回教。但在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教。"
These are your words, Mr. 麥當勞!
AND you still haven't given me a reply as to 何謂一個宗教的「本質」和如何量度這個「本質」? And you yourself has never qualified your statement "在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教" with facts or figures.
ahchoii, you owe me answer instead
Refer to 宗教多元化不是宗教不被統一批判的理據
Your said: 我覺得可以討論和批評伊斯蘭教或其他各個宗教在實踐上如何影響不同人、不同社群的處境，就像Women Living Under Muslim Laws所做的那樣，但也應加深對伊斯蘭教（或其他宗教）的歷史的認識，而不應將伊斯蘭教或其信徒看成為一個統一的或內部同質化的宗教和群體
Which imply No one should 伊斯蘭教 critized as 統一的宗教. Do not stress on "你對他人文字的理解能力" again, it is your true meaning to ban me from comparing the Islam and christian and do not hide your your true intention.
You still owe me (1) why you said such, and (2) how do you treat those adsurd results, including when people validly accused christian as a whole, and your argument turned these valid accusation into hate speech.
拗甚麼？
不明大頭仔的觀點！
以家庭比喻，是否一個父親虐兒，其他人便可以 “替天行道” ，把這父視痛打一頓，然後搶去其家當？然後另一群人譴責這群 “土匪” ，卻被批評為偏幫虐兒的父親？是否不對題？
再者，伊斯蘭國家多是很世俗化的，極端的不多。而極端之成為極端，也不是本質問題，更大程度來自外來壓迫與不平等關係而造成，任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧。再看伊朗，九十年代可作為中東開放典範，但現在又較為宗教化，難道美國那種欺人太甚的霸道政策不是主因？將極端宗教與民族主義 “迫” 出來嗎？
找個伊斯蘭女學者談談可蘭經的不義及對伊斯蘭極端政權的影響，在戰爭脈絡下，在我看，不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非！
Not very honest
//"Hate speech" is very simple moral phrase for me //
Come on! You could say the other person is rude.
Saying someone is using "hate speech" is a very serious accusation.
You know better than that, so why lie about it.
No one on this thread has used any word that could be classfied as "hate speech". Why not just take it back instead of digging yourself deeper into the "trap" of covering up a mistake.
XOX, that why I never accused you except only stated a mere fac
I do think "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" is morally identical to hate speech, although there are legal difference.
I do think "rude" is not precise enough. It is too emotional when the mistake I pointed out is purely technical. The "rude" is also too weak in the sense that christian commentors are streotyping christian as wrong-doers.
However, I admit the terms "hate crime" can be confused with its legal sense and it is inaccurate. I replace this term as "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult", which is equally bad within a discussion.
The term "dishonest streotyping" means:
//If anyone extremely demonized a group of people without honest ground the problem is rooted by that attribute, it is dishonest streotyping, and it is an attempt to draw public attention that that attribute means evil and should be dismissed by general public//
The whole problem can be rephrased as: the argument made by ahcholic render most valid criticism against christians community into dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult, and I found XOX's cannot agree more is pushing themselves into his trap. It is impossible to to held both arguments, unless they think dishonest streotyping is acceptable in open discussion.
Just response to the use of term "hate speech"
//I do think "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" is morally identical to hate speech, although there are legal difference.//
Dishonest stereotyping?
First, no I don't think it is dishonest stereotyping. There are "honest" stereotyping of one form or the other and it will not even remotely related to "hate speech"
Demonizing?
I haven't find any demonizing. To demonizing a person or a group of person, you still have a certain concept of "demon" which may of us lack (include me). The non-existing demonizing may or may not be related to "hate speech", depend on how you use it.
Insulting?
Some of the posts are rightfully insulting. But being insulting has little to do with "hate speech", with exception to the homophobic posts.
You have used this term too loosely, and you should be mindful that it is not right. Especially when there are laws against "hate propagangda" with well defined terms.
Conclusion, use the term "hate speech" according to the Common Law standard that everybody could understand, and stop throwiing it around as if it is OK.
Side note, I have a serious conflict on the "hate speech law" in Canada, although I would like to see homophobic bigot like Horace Chan being fined or thrown in jail for what he said. I'm actually a bit old school when it comes to free speech.
Now, take it back your wrong accusation and be done with it.
Hate speech as a Common Law standard?
This is also a sidetrack discussion. I give up the use of terms "hate speech" regardless the result of this sidetrack discussion.
XOX, I think your understanding of "hate speech" is different than my understanding. First of all, there is no Common Law standard define what is hate speech. All "hate speech" are defined by written legisation. In HK there is no generalized "hate speech", and you have to look at Disability Discrimination Ordinance to identify the essence of hate speech specific to disabled. However, if the law is generalized one, this law is the best legisation of "hate speech" I have seen (I have the original draft of Equal Op Ordinance submitted by 胡紅玉). I do not know there are hate speech defined in common law nation except USA, and becuase USA supports affirmative action instead of equal opportunites, their legistration has little reference values. Hate speech is an ambiguous legal terms in regard to different laws. For example, France and German define hate speech to include Holoucast denial, which is violation of human rights and conscience. In UK, the term "hate speech" is merely used to prevent normal critism against so-called weak group, and there are example of victims in the press industry.
Some may refer hate speech to Article 20 of ICCPR. However, that article is only an out-of-style in many years ago. It fails to assert one can provoke war in good will and honest reason; and also spread hate against religon and nation in good will and honest reason. The word "hate propagenda" is far too vague and unacceptable to jail a man by conscience. It is actually poison to Equal opportunities, and therefore supporter of equal op should not define hate speech in the way expressed by ICCPR #20.
阿丙的奇怪回應
//以家庭比喻，是否一個父親虐兒，其他人便可以 “替天行道” ，把這父視痛打一頓，然後搶去其家當？然後另一群人譴責這群 “土匪” ，卻被批評為偏幫虐兒的父親？是否不對題？//
這是典型的自製槄草人。
當我較早時提及 Social Darwinism 的觀點時，ahohlic 立即把這個觀點等同帝國主義，這樣是令對手無從申辯的。帝國主義與社會達以文主義並不相抵，帝國主義在十九世紀更是公義的，帝國主義對殖民地及宗主國兩者皆得益，但重點是，社會達以文主義根本不是帝國主義，只是重申任何信仰文化甚至國家都應該面臨汰弱留強的考驗，否則不能長久存在。所謂強弱，是指這些工具對文明發展有無貢獻，而不是船堅炮利上的強弱。晚清政府以為西方之強大依靠的是船堅炮利，「中學為體西學為用」，這是愚不可及的。
信仰文化甚至國家都是人的工具，不是什麼「父親」。庫爾德人在伊拉克「解放」後仍然無法獨立，沒有真正的解放，正是因為這類國家永恒不滅的心態。
//再者，伊斯蘭國家多是很世俗化的，極端的不多。//
首先回答一個事實：現在在伊斯蘭國家有多少女回教徒帶上面紗或頭罩？你不要告訴我面紗是用來吸引男士追求的裝飾，這是徹頭徹尾的 Sexism，說明女人的身體就是罪惡的來源。這樣的宗教可以稱為世俗化與不極端？
//而極端之成為極端，也不是本質問題，更大程度來自外來壓迫與不平等關係而造成，任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧。再看伊朗，九十年代可作為中東開放典範，但現在又較為宗教化，難道美國那種欺人太甚的霸道政策不是主因？將極端宗教與民族主義 “迫” 出來嗎？//
絕對不是這樣。阿拉伯政界太過把加害者政治化裝為受害者，他們以為我們忘記了過去或完全不會上網查資料。
在六日戰爭之前，美國一直都是不支持以色列的一方。阿拉伯世界竟然編了個大話，說以色列所使用的軍備是美國製造。他們甚至把這個大話編入教科書內。他們硬把美國推給以色列，而事實美國長久政策都願意與所有對美國親善的國家友好，大致上其外交是務實的。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#U.S._and_British_support
阿拉伯世界在六日戰爭的仇美態度，才是美國被迫轉靠以色列的原因。其實美國也有爭取與其他務實的阿拉伯國家友好，即使那些國家是極權國家。
說「任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧」是訴緒情緒的天真說法，全無事實根據。我們返回 Oslo Accord 後的巴勒斯坦社會，這個是阿拉法（他在當時是巴勒斯坦人的事實代表，巴人唔可以片面否定阿拉法的代表性）曾經接受的路線圖，。然而在二千年，巴勒斯坦人片面地毀壞 Oslo Accord。在 Intifafa 之中，以色列人的死者中有超過四分之三是巴人故意殺害的平民，而以軍的表現遠為克制，並無故意殺害平民，而且巴人平民死傷也只低於四成，對於面對沒有正規軍服的以軍對說，這是非常困難才能達到的，尤其是巴人讓兒童佩槍，巴人亦讓無槍的人上攻擊點，製造假平民死傷。但更重要的是巴人發動 Intifafa 的原因完全是無理的：當時沙龍到聖殿山被指玷污回教聖地，但事實是，一，沙龍到那裡為的是公務，當時有考古學者相信回教組織破壞猶太人在聖殿山的古遺址；二，沙龍的視察是得到巴人政府包括阿拉法同意的。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada
事實上真理教信徒也會認為自己「活在極端吧」。這類理論背後實質上很冷血的。
伊朗現在的政局變得〔宗教化，我不認為那是宗教化，但姑且用番阿丙的詞語〕，那是伊朗（有權勢者）自己的選擇，怪不得美國。你按良心自問，換了你是外交人員，你怎看伊朗總統言行，他是不是可靠的合作伙伴？是伊朗換了令外國難以合作的總統，而不是美國把伊朗的民族主義「迫」出來，牛唔飲水邊迫得出民族主義出來？
//找個伊斯蘭女學者談談可蘭經的不義及對伊斯蘭極端政權的影響，在戰爭脈絡下，在我看，不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非！//
這句〔找個〕之前漏掉一個主語。你是指這位女學者是大頭仔找出來的嗎？如果是這樣的意思，我只能說你的反美情結大得令你的眼什麼都看不見。我亦姑且相信你的攻擊對象不是大頭仔，他只不過是這段片的轉載者。
如果所指的不是大頭仔，這個主語也許就是半島電視台。這讀起來就有趣了。變成〔在我看，半島電視台不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非〕，這樣的笑話我不忍加以具體的批評，我恐怕你漏掉的主語不可能是統籌及公開片段的半島電視台。
我們有一點要小心，這位伊斯蘭女學者是自主的，我們不要任意婑化她只被什麼政治力量的工具利用。她出來只是說事實，說道理，帶大家從穆斯林的角度看穆斯林，有什麼不好？是不是因為反美情結是金科玉律，所以這位伊斯蘭女學者就是混淆視聽，蒙混是非？
p.s> 我終於都較有系統地講述我對中東的見解，雖然仍然是九牛一毛，馨竹難書。我願意對疑問作解釋，但基於時間不容許，我不接受任何人強迫我出代這出代哪。我想我所打的字數已經夠多，內容也夠多，任何人都是會疲累的。