Samira was a child bride married at 15 and a victim of domestic violence. She had two young children, one a new-born baby, when she was arrested and had not seen her children in ten years. She saw them for the first and last time when they came to the prison to say goodbye.
At the time of writing, her execution has not been reported by domestic media or officials in Iran.
Rights group calls for Ali Khamenei and other leaders of the Islamic Republic to be held accountable for this crime.
I would propose that perhaps linking religion with the religious leadership is linking Christianity with “the church”. And using that logic all Christians condone pedaphilia which isn’t the case. Islam the religion isn’t about cruelty anymore than Christianity is about white supremacy.
Yes, linking the religious leadership of the inherently strongly hierarchical belief systems with these belief systems sounds very reasonable to me.
I have an impression we agree on the reasoning, just not on the details and the conclusions from these details. At this point we’re arguing the semantics of whether the religious people rejecting their religious leadership still belong to the same religion or rather they invented their own religion distinct from the original one. In other words, whether the leadership is an inherent part of their religion.
Do I have that right that apart from the above we’re pretty much on the same page?
I think the trouble with the conclusion you’re drawing is that it enables one to make sweeping statements about Muslims on the whole while maintaining plausible deniability in claiming that they’re only referring to “the bad ones.” In other words, sort of an inverse “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Furthermore, I would wager that most people you’re referring to as “ex-Muslim” would still very much consider themselves to be Muslim, and even though you’re explicitly not addressing them in your claims, it’s not a huge leap that someone acting in worse faith would use your rationale as an excuse to generalize the entire demographic (including the so-called “ex-Muslims”).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I would propose that perhaps linking religion with the religious leadership is linking Christianity with “the church”. And using that logic all Christians condone pedaphilia which isn’t the case. Islam the religion isn’t about cruelty anymore than Christianity is about white supremacy.
Yes, linking the religious leadership of the inherently strongly hierarchical belief systems with these belief systems sounds very reasonable to me.
I have an impression we agree on the reasoning, just not on the details and the conclusions from these details. At this point we’re arguing the semantics of whether the religious people rejecting their religious leadership still belong to the same religion or rather they invented their own religion distinct from the original one. In other words, whether the leadership is an inherent part of their religion.
Do I have that right that apart from the above we’re pretty much on the same page?
I think the trouble with the conclusion you’re drawing is that it enables one to make sweeping statements about Muslims on the whole while maintaining plausible deniability in claiming that they’re only referring to “the bad ones.” In other words, sort of an inverse “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Furthermore, I would wager that most people you’re referring to as “ex-Muslim” would still very much consider themselves to be Muslim, and even though you’re explicitly not addressing them in your claims, it’s not a huge leap that someone acting in worse faith would use your rationale as an excuse to generalize the entire demographic (including the so-called “ex-Muslims”).