News Forum - Muslim groups discuss legislation contrary to religious beliefs

[Thaiger]

Twenty-five Muslim organisations met yesterday to discuss the government’s new cannabis law and other legislation contrary to their religious beliefs. The religious groups met at Baan Nuer Mosque Hall in the southern province of Songkla, to set up an Unethical Laws and Regulations Opposition Association, in opposition to the new law to decriminalise cannabis on June 9, same-sex marriage proposals, and the Progressive Liquor Act. President of Baan Boontem, Butsayamas Itsadul, who looks after children in Yala, in the south of Thailand, says she is concerned there are no rules or restrictions to control the use of cannabis around children. […]

The story Muslim groups discuss legislation contrary to religious beliefs as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[ThaiEyes]

So what did everyone expect? It’s OK for these groups to protest against the controversial laws and have their say, but Thailand is NOT a Muslim country by any means and likely never will be. At some point they should probably focus on other issues they can control and live and let live if it doesn’t directly affect them. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by ThaiEyes

[Bobbyj]

What about the dangers of shooting police officers, or soldiers, or planting exolove devices. Are those actions not a danger to society? Or are they compatible with there religion. Hypocrisy.

[Cabra]

Muslims (or any religion) meddling in politics/legislation is the worse possible outcome for everyone involved. I'm about as interested in hearing what the Muslims say on marijuana legislation (in Thailand, a Buddhist population) as I am from hearing from the Pope in Rome. Zero. 

[TheDirtyDurian]

9 minutes ago, Bobbyj said:

What about the dangers of shooting police officers, or soldiers, or planting exolove devices. Are those actions not a danger to society? Or are they compatible with there religion. Hypocrisy.

You're conflating illegal acts carried out by a very small minority, with legally sanctioned activities. They're not the same. 

I'm fairly sure a good read of the Thai news will show you that murder, rape, and robbery are carried out by Buddhists too. 

 

[Grumpish]

I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will defend their right to say it. What can't be defended is people trying to force their beliefs or culture (be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or some other) onto others. Alcohol and narcotics are forbidden to Muslims, I don't have a problem with that, that is their belief and culture - but they are not forbidden to to non-Muslims.

[TheDirtyDurian]

2 minutes ago, Grumpish said:

I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will defend their right to say it. What can't be defended is people trying to force their beliefs or culture (be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or some other) onto others. Alcohol and narcotics are forbidden to Muslims, I don't have a problem with that, that is their belief and culture - but they are not forbidden to to non-Muslims.

Did you read the story?

They met to DISCUSS the legislation, because they were concerned about their children's access. Fair enough. Don't see what the problem with that is. 

What they didn't do was talk about prohibition, just as they haven't with alcohol in the D.South. 

[Vigo]

7 hours ago, Bobbyj said:

What about the dangers of shooting police officers, or soldiers, or planting exolove devices. Are those actions not a danger to society? Or are they compatible with there religion. Hypocrisy.

It  is unlikely that these people are responsible for the violence you describe. if anything they are just as likely to suffer from such acts.  They are  discussing issues which have an immediate and direct impact upon their lives.  Your position is that they have no right to discuss same sex marriage or the availability of cannabis in their neighborhood. Your position is one of discrimination, solely on the basis of their religion.  It is your position which is hypocritical as you would deny these people their fundamental human right to express their concerns.

Not all Thai muslims are terrorists. More of them serve in the government and engage in civil discourse  than those who do not.  A Thai parent has a right to protect their child from reefer madness. There is a lot to criticize about Islam and southern Thais, but it should also be recognized that the southern muslim communities do not suffer the ravages of yaba, alcoholism, STIs, and HIV to the same extent as do the non muslim communities. The difference isn't due to Islam in itself, but to a culture influenced by Islam, so it is not all bad.

[Venusianhart]

All they need to do is not partake.

And keep their beliefs out of our lives.

Simple.

I have met a number of Muslim people in Asia, and even dated a very progressive lady for a time (her only "Haram" was pork, she had gay freinds, drank like a fish, and wore no headgear, even during holidays) from all, I received nothing but kindness.

It is the clerics who are the source of everyones trouble!

[Skip]

13 hours ago, TheDirtyDurian said:

Did you read the story?

They met to DISCUSS the legislation, because they were concerned about their children's access. Fair enough. Don't see what the problem with that is. 

What they didn't do was talk about prohibition, just as they haven't with alcohol in the D.South. 

There children's access is not a government function... it is a family and religious function... 

Society has lost its direction... morals and ethics are a function of environmental control (family... friends... religion)... NOT governmental control

[jaktipper]

As a believer, I am not worried about recent developments about the legalization of cannabis as it is a plant with much utility.  It should have never been made illegal. With proper guidance, I only see benefits. Yes, children, adolescents, pregnant and breast feeding women should only use if under doctor's guidance as this is common sense. I would be more concerned about the alcohol, cigarettes and pork products that continue to be pushed on everybody...including kids. 

[Pinetree]

These groups should stick to their deluded religious doctrine and not get themselves concerned in politics and domestic law, but of course, we all know that is much too easy for them and not how religions of all kinds work. 

[Fanta]

What’s the fuss? They want to discuss the implications of this on their communities. 

[TheDirtyDurian]

3 hours ago, Fanta said:

What’s the fuss? They want to discuss the implications of this on their communities. 

Indeed. But that doesn't fit in with a bit of Muslim bashing. 

[Guest1]

says the bill is dangerous because children are naturally curious and willing to try things. 

So why they not doing it in there muslim communities, like they doing it with pork. Forbid it to the children.

Last time, I checked, that is not in general forbidden to children, too.

But Muslim kids , even curious like other kids, are  not eating it, right?

And same goes outside muslim communities, parents (usually) are the guardians of the kids. And, with stict rules ...., outch, is there the problem?

[astro]

On 6/16/2022 at 10:57 AM, Bobbyj said:

What about the dangers of shooting police officers, or soldiers, or planting exolove devices. Are those actions not a danger to society? Or are they compatible with there religion. Hypocrisy.

What about aboutism?

 

Not part of this topic.