Covering up women

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If you want to make men and women completely equal, and you are willing to use FORCE to achieve your objective, then you are on the far-Left. Class-warfare and gender-warfare are agendas of the far-Left.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean that everybody on the Right or the Left are extremists. The moderates on the Left and the Right, along with the Muslim moderates, even though they all have completely different platforms, they believe that criticizing is better than condemning. Extremists don't know where to draw the line because they have gone way beyond it. Moderates CRITICIZE each other, whereas extremists CONDEMN each other. Condemnation leads to physical violence. It's the next logical step.

By NC's proposed ad hoc definition, Ghandi, who "condemned" the British occupation of India, was an "extremist" that went "way beyond" the line. Ditto for any person that "condemns" slavery, and for the United Nations which has "condemned" the Isreali occupation of the the Gaza and West Bank.

That's not what NC intends, of course; what NC is looking for is some way to rationalize his failure to be rational when his religous superstitions are condemned. They are condemned not just because they are superstitions, but because many of them are inherently oppressive. Now he's invented a dichotomy, an unsubstantiated, subjective, and unworkable one which he hopes will justify his ad hominems and excuse his inability to provide a substantantial reply.

By categorizing negative comments as he sees fit into either "criticisms" or "condemnations", and those that speak them either "moderates" or "extremists", also conveniently subject to his judgement, he hopes not only to mitigate his failure to adequately defend his faith (good Muslims are supposed to be able to), but also to provide an excuse for launching hateful personal attacks rather than refuting the arguments and evidence. It's more than mere coincidence that he provides no objective standard here, but instead applies his own prejudice to judge us (ironic, considering the earlier posts in which he condemned us for being judgemental). When this is pointed-out, he replies "Perhaps you should look harder" as if our failure to appreciate the self-serving way he throws out words like "extremist" and "bigot" is somehow our fault.

NC can't defend the faith, so he attacks the unfaithful, thinking that is an adequate substitute for refuting the evidence that shows, for instance, that FGM is linked by its practioners to Islam. He just groups all those that don't believe as him together; there's his right belief, and then there's the Taliban and the far-left, which are really "all the same." There's never a need to look at any other point of view, because they are all the same.

NC capitalizes the word force as if the it is really important in his explanation, yet he doesn't even define it. If he means "the use of physical power or violence to compel," then ironically, after referring to most anyone rational on this thread as members of the "far Left", he has excluded most of us because no one here has advocated the use of physical force and many of us, if NC were to bother to ask somewhere amongst his perserverating denounciations of the "lying, slandering, hypocritical, extremist, bigots," would renounce it's use in the pursuit of equality.

NC's semantics-based arguments trip him up in other ways. When confronted with the hadith that proclaims, No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants, he tries to argue a strawman that "it's incorrect to say that women could be bought and sold because it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold." That a man has been advised to buy as many women as he wants does not imply that he may by any woman that he wants; it's disingenuous of NC to act as if he doesn't grasp that.

Disingenuity has been the common denominator in NC's posts. When asked to address a specific issue or answer a straight-forward question, NC waffles with rants like the one above and/or orders "don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong" and "get-off your high horse;" it's as if Islam must be an off-limit topic on a free-thinkers forum and no one has the right to criticize his religion. When others condemn the oppression of women, NC takes them to task for not just "criticizing" the wrong and calls them "bigots" and "slanderers." When caught in his lies about Islamic justification for all types of oppression, from FGM to burqas, NC just labels his opponents "hypocrites" and "extremists" as if those that refuse to accept the mutilation of a woman's genitals are the ones engaged in "gender-warfare." Everytime some horror, like the little girls being trapped and burned to death because they weren't wearing the headscarves and abayas required by other Muslim's strict interpretation of Islam, is turned up, NC says "don't blame Islam," though he never really tells us directly what then is to blame or what can be done to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

"Islam is a beautiful religon" we've been told, and if the kafir can't appreciate the beauty in little school girls dying because they weren't dressed modestly enough to be saved, that's because we are "bigots." Sure, what happened was "wrong," but don't blame the beautiful religion, because Islam is never "wrong." Of course it wasn't Islamic belief that caused the Islamic vice police to stop the would-be rescuers because it was their interpretation of Islam that made them believe it would be sinful; it was quite obviously...something else...that was at fault. Those weren't real Muslims; they were the "Taliban/far-Right/Wahhabi/far-Left/whatever" types. They're all the same, afterall; "Do you want to tell him that they are not all alike?"

Just don't condemn Islam, it's beautiful, and if you can't accept that, then you too might be just a "lying, slandering, hypocritical, bigoted, Talibani, far-Rightist, Wahhabi, far-Leftist."

[NonContradiction]

The people on the far-Right demonize the people on the far-Left, often referring to them as Communists, along with the Muslim extremists, often calling them Islamists. The people on the far-Left demonize the far-Right, along with the Islamists, as being oppressors. The Islamists ( I don't like the word, but I will use it anyway here) demonize the far-Right and the far-Left as Crusaders. In the end, they are all the same. They look at each other with contempt and disgust, but what they don't realize is that they are looking at themselves.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Then no one here is far left. We have no interest in forcing people to be free. The force is directed at those who deny the freedom of people. Once free, a person is free to shackle himself if he chooses.

This is what is dangerous about people who think the way you do. You think that, for some reason or another, you know better than everybody else what is right and wrong. It sure sounds like a fundamentalist mentality to me. To you, a Muslim woman receiving half the inheritance of a man is wrong, and so, by logical extension, you believe that the use of force would be justified against Muslims who defend what the Quran says. It's amazing how blind you are to yourself.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
The people on the blah-blah demonize the people on the blah-blah, often referring to them as blahs, along with the blah blahs, often calling them blahs. The people on the blah-blah blah the blah-blah, along with the blahs, as being blah. The blahs ( I don't like the word, but I will use it anyway here) blah the blah-blah and the blah-blah as blah. In the end, they are all the same. They look at each other with blah and blah, but what they don't realize is that they are looking at themselves.
My poor attempt to show the meaning imparted by the poster's (incredible overuse of!) vitrolic dogma and rhetoric.

Thanks to Dr Rick and others who have tried to take the poster seriously, and address his claims. Wading through a sewer would probably be more enjoyable. The poster may have a valid point or two, but hidden as they are in a ton of crap, who the hell can tell?

NonContradiction, in case it's not yet clear, your style is hurting your cause. Those with doubt may indeed be persuaded by your "arguments", although not in a direction you would like.

But then maybe it's just me. Lord knows I hate politics.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Blah blah blah. You think that, blah blah blah.
Once a side is reduced to telling the other side what that other side thinks, then the first side has lost the debate.

If that's not a posting rule, imo it oughta be. :)

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
My poor attempt to show the meaning imparted by the poster's (incredible overuse of!) vitrolic dogma and rhetoric.

Thanks to Dr Rick and others who have tried to take the poster seriously, and address his claims. Wading through a sewer would probably be more enjoyable. The poster may have a valid point or two, but hidden as they are in a ton of crap, who the hell can tell?

One thing I will say for Dr. Rick, even though I find his accusations prejudiced, he does make an attempt to defend his position. You, on the other hand, have contented yourself to jump in every once in a while and just make assertions like "this is a ton of crap" and "this is like wading through a sewer."

Anytime you would like to back up any of your assertions, feel free to do so. Until then, they are just assertions, much like the assertions of the Christian fundamentalists that you so despise.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
NonContradiction, in case it's not yet clear, your style is hurting your cause. Those with doubt may indeed be persuaded by your "arguments", although not in a direction you would like.

But then maybe it's just me. Lord knows I hate politics.

I am not out to persuade people of anything. I fight with people to get them to look at their own bigotry and hatred. It's my contribution to world peace.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
To you, a Muslim woman receiving half the inheritance of a man is wrong, and so, logical extension, you believe that the use of force would be justified against Muslims who defend what the Quran says
I'm going to call you to task on this one.

How does this:

"use of force against Muslims is justified"

logically follow from this:

"a Muslim woman receiving half the inheritance of a man is wrong"

You keep accusing us of advocating the use of force against Muslims. I've brought up this unsupported accusation before, and asked you to back it up, but you've just ignored me.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Who implied that it wasn't wrong? I thought that I made it clear that I thought that it was wrong by calling it stupid. I believe those girls should have been taken from that building even if they were naked. I am to the left of the Wahhabis and the Taliban, remember? Perhaps you have a short memory.
I didn't doubt that you thought it was wrong, but I did find it very interesting that, given your method of differentiating moderates and extremists, you are so quick to condemn us for supporting equal rights for women but very restrained in your criticism of fanatical mass murderers who just so happen to be fellow Muslims.

Note: There is a big difference between "stupid" and "morally/ethically wrong". The former involves sloppy judgement, the latter involves deliberate action. What those Saudi men did puts them in the same moral ballpark as Nazi and Japanese prison camp guards, as far as I'm concerned.
What I am saying to you is to take a good look at the Taliban and the Wahhabis, take a good look at the people on the far-Right, and then take a good look at the people on the far-Left. Do you want to tell me that they are not all alike? Why is that such a difficult task for you?
OK, I'll try one more time.

1. I (and I'm sure most of us here as well) know that the Taliban and Wahhabis do not represent all of Islam.

2. That said, there is still plenty to criticize about more moderate versions of Islam (especially w.r.t. the way women are regarded as half-people before the law)

3. This is a thread about societies that impose far more restrictions on women's dress than men's. It's not about Communists or Nazis, unless you can show that they too had such rules (or perhaps their lack of such rules somehow led to the great crimes of Stalin and Hitler).

4. If you are distressed that you see far more criticism and condemnation of Islam than of Stalinism and Nazism in this forum, there is a simple explanation. Talking about these things isn't very interesting because every reasonable person agrees about these things. There is no such thing as a reasonable Nazi or Stalin supporter, and we have no interest in talking to them. There are, despite your significant efforts to convince us otherwise, reasonabe Muslims.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
By NC's proposed ad hoc definition, Ghandi, who "condemned" the British occupation of India, was an "extremist" that went "way beyond" the line. Ditto for any person that "condemns" slavery, and for the United Nations which has "condemned" the Isreali occupation of the the Gaza and West Bank.

That's not what NC intends, of course;

Of course, it's not, but, in typical Dr. Rick fashion, you take part of what I say and leave the rest. Condemnation implies a justification to use force, whereas criticisim doesn't. Extremists have a propensity to do violence, and it all begins with condemnation. Didn't Hitler condemn the Jews?, Didn't the terrorists on 9/11 condemn America? Moderates are far more likely to criticize people rather than condemn them.

You condemn Islam, and so if I defend Islam, as you say, I put myself in the firing line. Therefore, you condemn me. You are authorizing the use of force against anyone who defends Islam because, in your eyes, Islam is worthy of condemnation and contempt. I don't know of any moderate who would agree with your position, do you? Racism and Nazism may be worthy of condemnation, but to equate Islam with racism and Nazism is stupidity on your part. You simply deny your mistake, but it's obvious to others, no matter how many people here tell you that you are right.

what NC is looking for is some way to rationalize his failure to be rational when his religous superstitions are condemned. They are condemned not just because they are superstitions, but because many of them are inherently oppressive.

Rationalize my failure to be rational when my religious superstitions are condemned? I would rather take, what you call my religious superstitions, than your failed ideologies. Karl Marx thought that his ideas were rational, also, but we all know now that they were completely irrational. The same holds true for the feminist ideology of the Left. All of these ideologies have failed, yet you keep attacking what you perceive to be failed religious superstitions. Why don't you look at your own failures? How many millions of people have been killed by the far-Left in the name of an ideology based on reason? It's not as obvious to me, as it is to you, that your ideologies are better than my religious superstitions. Islam has worked in the past, but when have your failed ideologies ever worked?

Now he's invented a dichotomy, an unsubstantiated, subjective, and unworkable one which he hopes will justify his ad hominems and excuse his inability to provide a substantantial reply.

By categorizing negative comments as he sees fit into either "criticisms" or "condemnations", and those that speak them either "moderates" or "extremists", also conveniently subject to his judgement, he hopes not only to mitigate his failure to adequately defend his faith (good Muslims are supposed to be able to), but also to provide an excuse for launching hateful personal attacks rather than refuting the arguments and evidence.

I have shown you evidence which indicates that the claim that Muhammad was a pedophile cannot be substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. You simply ignore the evidence. I don't think that you can stop bashing Muhammad.

Yes, there is the hadith that you quoted, but there are also discrepancies which cannot be reconciled, as the link I provided pointed out. Moreover, simply because a hadith is in the most authentic books of hadith doesn't mean that its text is without a flaw. It just means that its chain of narrators is flawless.. For example, there is a hadith in Bukhari that states that the heavens and the earth were created in seven days. The Quran, clearly, states that the number is six and not seven. That hadith has a flaw in its text, but not in its chain of narrators and that's why it's in Bukhari. There simply isn't enough evidence to convict Muhammad as a pedophile, so give it up Dr. Rick.

The reason why I called you a lying, hypocritical bigot is because it's obvious that you are out to assassinate the character of Muhammad, which, in my opinion was exemplar. I wish that I was 1/10 the man that Muhammad was. It's extremely unfair, IMO, to search for whatever dirt you can find on anybody in order to assassinate his character because you have a political
agenda that you want to forward. What you are doing is wrong, whether you
want to admit to it or not.

NC can't defend the faith, so he attacks the unfaithful, thinking that is an adequate substitute for refuting the evidence

One must have an offense in order to score any points. I am not going to sit here letting you fire away at Islam while I do nothing but defend Islam against every assault that you can come up with. I am going to throw some punches back at you. You are actually quite vulnerable because the failed ideologies of the Left have caused humanity much pain and suffering in the name of liberation. You may condemn Islam, but the failed ideologies that you support are worthy of condemnation, also. The same holds true for the Christian Right. They can condemn Islam, but at the same time they open themselves up to condemnation of their own religion, which they have proven that they can't defend either.

that shows, for instance, that FGM is linked by its practioners to Islam. He just groups all those that don't believe as him together; there's his right belief, and then there's the Taliban and the far-left, which are really "all the same." There's never a need to look at any other point of view, because they are all the same

You bring a plethera of issues, some of which are in the Quran and some are not. The testimony of women being half that of a man, in addition to inheritance, are issues in the Quran. The issue of FGM is nowhere in the Quran. Therefore, it's from the hadith literature, if anywhere, and hadith, as anyone who knows Islam will attest, can be flawed in its text or chain of narrators. Every hadith must be examined on an individual basis, which includes not only the text, but the chain of narrators as well.

As far as FGM is concerned, it's nowhere in the Quran, and I have never heard of it in the hadith literature. If it is in the hadith literature, then one must examine the hadith and its chain of narrators for authenticity. I find the practice of FGM to be repulsive, and I never heard of it among Muslims until some detractors of Islam were making it an issue. It's certainly not widespread among Muslims, as the detractors would imply. Also, the idea that FGM is practiced because women should not experience the pleasure of sex is contradicted by other hadith. For example, in some hadith Muhammad spoke of a man and a woman tasting each others "aseelah" which means honey. Clearly, Muhammad was referring to the pleasure experienced between a man and a woman. Sex has never, nor will it ever be, looked upon as something dirty and shameful. It's looked upon in Islam as one of the sensual pleasures of this life and it's also in paradise.

NC capitalizes the word force as if the it is really important in his explanation, yet he doesn't even define it. If he means "the use of physical power or violence to compel," then ironically, after referring to most anyone rational on this thread as members of the "far Left", he has excluded most of us because no one here has advocated the use of physical force and many of us, if NC were to bother to ask somewhere amongst his perserverating denounciations of the "lying, slandering, hypocritical, extremist, bigots," would renounce it's use in the pursuit of equality.

You have implied the use of force against anyone who defends the Quran in its entirety. You have made it very clear that you condemn the verse which makes the inheritance of a woman half that of a man. Do you want to tell me that if Muslims were living under your rule that you would not prohibit, by force of law, this verse in the Quran?

NC's semantics-based arguments trip him up in other ways. When confronted with the hadith that proclaims, No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants, he tries to argue a strawman that "it's incorrect to say that women could be bought and sold because it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold." That a man has been advised to buy as many women as he wants does not imply that he may by any woman that he wants; it's disingenuous of NC to act as if he doesn't grasp that.

I have looked for the hadith in Muhalla, ibn Hazm's book on jurisprudence. Which chapter is this hadith in? I looked in vol 6, but all I could find were the chapters on Zakat and Fasting. I can almost guarantee you that there is a mistranslation here. To say that women can be bought and sold implies all women, and that is simply not true. You are making a big deal out of nothing, anyway. A man could only marry up to four women, but he could have as many female slaves as he could afford. If you want to argue that Islam should have abolished slavery in one swoop, then argue that, but arguing over this ridiculous. The only one who has been disingenuous here is you.

Disingenuity has been the common denominator in NC's posts. When asked to address a specific issue or answer a straight-forward question, NC waffles with rants like the one above and/or orders "don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong" and "get-off your high horse;" it's as if Islam must be an off-limit topic on a free-thinkers forum and no one has the right to criticize his religion.

Criticize is fine, but you have no right to condemn Islam when your own ideologies are worthy of condemnation. Yes, you should get off of your high horse.

When others condemn the oppression of women, NC takes them to task for not just "criticizing" the wrong and calls them "bigots" and "slanderers."

You have no right to condemn anybody. You are like a racist who condemns a black man for doing something wrong. Clean up your own act, first. Did Hitler have a right to condemn the Communists as oppressors? Did the Communists have a right to condemn the Nazis as oppressors? If you want to condemn somebody else's belief, why don't you start with your own first? The right to condemn is a right that you have to earn, and I don't see where you have earned that right.

When caught in his lies about Islamic justification for all types of oppression, from FGM to burqas, NC just labels his opponents "hypocrites" and "extremists" as if those that refuse to accept the mutilation of a woman's genitals are the ones engaged in "gender-warfare." Everytime some horror, like the little girls being trapped and burned to death because they weren't wearing the headscarves and abayas required by other Muslim's strict interpretation of Islam, is turned up, NC says "don't blame Islam," though he never really tells us directly what then is to blame or what can be done to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

Why don't you blame the ignorant people who behave the way they do? Why blame Islam, unless you can demonstrate a link between Islam and this tragedy. As I said before, the parents of those children who were killed were outraged. The parents were Muslim also. Do they blame Islam for the stupidity, and immorality (are you listening Silent Acorns) of these ignorant religious police? When abortion terrorists blow up clinics, thereby killing people, I don't blame Christianity.

"Islam is a beautiful religon" we've been told, and if the kafir can't appreciate the beauty in little school girls dying because they weren't dressed modestly enough to be saved, that's because we are "bigots."

I have never said that and never will. Your debating tactics are grossly unfair, but I have come to expect nothing more from you.

[Silent Acorns]

Since NonCon refuses to answer my simple questions, I'll just continue point out distortion of Dr. Rick's words.

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You condemn Islam, and so if I defend Islam, as you say, I put myself in the firing line. Therefore, you condemn me. You are authorizing the use of force against anyone who defends Islam because, in your eyes, Islam is worthy of condemnation and contempt.
1) Dr. Rick never condemned Islam, he evaluated it, found it lacking, and judged it accordingly. In other words, he criticized it.
2) Your use of the word condemn is inconsistant. You use a lose definition when applying it to Dr. Rick (Dr. Rick speaks negatively about Islam, therefore he is condemning it) and a very specific meaning to conclude that he is an extremist (to condemn something means to authorize the use of force, therefore Dr. Rick is calling for the use of force against Islam).

For the, hopefully, last time no one here is calling for the use of force against Islam. This threat exists only in your mind. Please stop slandering Dr. Rick and the rest of us here.
Karl Marx thought that his ideas were rational, also, but we all know now that they were completely irrational. The same holds true for the feminist ideology of the Left. All of these ideologies have failed
1) Please demonstrate how Marx's ideas wer "completely irrational". Please note that demonstrating this will take a lot more than "Soviet Russia was a failure". This would be equivalent to arguing that Islam is a disaster because the Taliban was a disaster. The Soviet Union represents the ideas of Karl Marx no more than the Taliban represents the ideas of "True" Islam.
2) Please demonstrate how the supposed "complete irraionality" of Marx has anything to do with Feminism. "Feminism is Marxism" does not logically follow from "some feminists are marxists".
You may condemn Islam, but the failed ideologies that you support are worthy of condemnation, also.
Using your logic:
1) By your own admission, you condemn the "far-left", which includes anyone who believes that women deserve the same rights as men
2) Anyone who condemns anything is an extremist
3) You claim that you are a Muslim
4) Therefore you are an extremist Muslim
5) The Taliban is an extreme Islamic sect
6) Therefore you support the policies of the Taliban
7) The Taliban wants to destroy America
8) You therefore want to destroy America
9) You are in America
10) You therefore want to destroy yourself
11) You are therfeore suicidal
12) It is not rational to be suicidal
13) You are therefore not sane

I'm sure you see the flaws in this "logic". Unfortunately, you've used this same type "reasonnig" throughout this thread. The only hypocrit here is you.
You have implied the use of force against anyone who defends the Quran in its entirety.
This implication exists only in your mind.
Do you want to tell me that if Muslims were living under your rule that you would not prohibit, by force of law, this verse in the Quran?
I'm sure Dr. Rick would agree with me that under "our rule" a Muslim woman would be free to refuse half her inheritance if she chose to.
To say that women can be bought and sold implies all women, and that is simply not true.
Finally we agree. To say that "being able to buy as many women as one wants" implies "all women can be bought" is, in fact, not true. :)
If you want to argue that Islam should have abolished slavery in one swoop, then argue that
I've brought this up numerous times and all you've done is ignore me.
The right to condemn is a right that you have to earn, and I don't see where you have earned that right.
1) you're throwing around the word "condemn" again without justification
2) we aren't condemning anything (by your definition of the word), we're criticizing
3) one does not have to earn the right to criticize
Why don't you blame the ignorant people who behave the way they do? Why blame Islam, unless you can demonstrate a link between Islam and this tragedy.
This is rich. The murderers were trying to enforce their interpretation of Islamic law. Even if it's not substantial enough for you, it's still a link. Also, our critique of Islam exists on several levels:

1) It is an irrational and dogmatic belief system in general (just like Christianity and Judaism)
2) It's primary text, the Quran explicitly endorses the oppression of women by mandating the unequal treatment of women
3) It's primary text, the Quran explicitly endorses a form of slavery
4) Various sects of Islam are extremely oppressive and dangerous
5) Because of (1) and (2) it is distressingly easy for various sects of Islam to justify to themselves that barbaric practises like FGM are morally acceptable.

There are others, but this will do for now. You seem to think that there is only one Islam. It's a nice thought, but it's obviously not true, at least not any more than there is only one Christianity. I, for one, have gone out of my way to differentiate between critiques of Islam in general, and critiques of certain sects.
As I said before, the parents of those children who were killed were outraged. The parents were Muslim also. Do they blame Islam for the stupidity, and immorality (are you listening Silent Acorns) of these ignorant religious police?
I never said that Islam makes all Muslims inhuman. What I am saying is that certain aspects of Islamic teaching are inhumane and that these aspects encourage it's adherents to become more inhumane than they otherwise would be. I am arguing that flaws in the Islamic moral code make such actions as those taken by the "morality police" in Saudi Arabia more likely than they would otherwise be. If the Islamic code was more liberal, none of those girls would have died.
When abortion terrorists blow up clinics, thereby killing people, I don't blame Christianity.
Well I do. The irrationality of Christianity encourages it's followers to become more irrational.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
It is clearly assosciated with and justified today by Islam:



"FGM predates Islam and is not practise
d by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy" - report from Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm)

Another hadith proclaims: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." - Al-shawkani, Nayl Al-awtar, Dar Al-Jeel, Beirut, 1973, vol. 1, p. 139.

And just in case some apologist want's to suggest that because these are hadiths and not of the Qur'an, they aren't really so important:

"Male circumcision is clearly a Muslim tradition. Although it is not prescribed [mandatory] in the Qur'an, it was definitely approved of by the Prophet...FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute

Now, watch, everyone; just as before...

From Imad-ad-Dean, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute

Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act (i.e., one following the practice of the Prophet and his companions). There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however. Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done. Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete) or infibulation, or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations.

The emphasis in bold is mine. The idea that FGM is something that Islam deems as honorable, especially in light of the fact that Islam PROTECTS the woman's right to sexual enjoyment, is nonsense. I am sure that this isn't going to stop you from linking Islam to FGM, or anything else that you can find which is evil.






.

[NonContradiction]

Can I get a summarized list of all of the charges against Islam?

1) Islam endorses FGM.

2) Muhammad was a pedophile.

3) Womens inheritance and testimony is half that of a man.

4).....

I want to make sure that the Muslim apologists don't overlook anything.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns

1) Dr. Rick never condemned Islam, he evaluated it, found it lacking, and judged it accordingly. In other words, he criticized it.

Many people evaluate Islam and criticize it, but they don't assassinate the character of Muhammad by calling him a pedophile and Islam misogynistic. I doubt that you will ever see that condemning Islam is going too far because Islam bashing is enjoyable to you. What a sick payoff. It's ironic that you would probably find gay bashing disgusting, yet you have no problem with Islam bashing.

It's also completely irresponsible to be bashing Islam in a world where Muslim radicals are willing to hijack airplanes and ram them into buildings. As I have said, the extremists on the Right and Left, along with the Muslim extremists, are the people who threaten world peace more than anybody else with their reckless behavior and loose mouths.

2) Your use of the word condemn is inconsistant. You use a lose definition when applying it to Dr. Rick (Dr. Rick speaks negatively about Islam, therefore he is condemning it) and a very specific meaning to conclude that he is an extremist (to condemn something means to authorize the use of force, therefore Dr. Rick is calling for the use of force against Islam).

My use of the word condemn is consistent. I have never said that Dr. Rick is condemning Islam simply because he says something negative about it. Criticism and condemnation are both negative, but they are clearly not the same. Can you give me an example of condemnation that didn't imply justification for the use of force? We condemn racism. We condemn Nazism. We condemn murder. We condemn stealing. Any condemnation, which I can think of, implies justification for the use of force. Condemnation should never used without thoughtful, careful deliberation. Dr. Rick has shown that he is being reckless in his condemnation of Islam, which puts myself, my family, and the Muslim community, in general, in harms way. Islam isn't racism, Nazism, or misogyny.

For the, hopefully, last time no one here is calling for the use of force against Islam. This threat exists only in your mind. Please stop slandering Dr. Rick and the rest of us here.

Unless you can provide me an example of condemnation which doesn't imply justification for the use of force, then you don't have a case.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
What those Saudi men did puts them in the same moral ballpark as Nazi and Japanese prison camp guards, as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to condemn them for having done what they did, that's fine. If you want to condemn Islam because of what they did, then that is not okay. Why is it so difficult for you to realize that inciting hatred towards Islam will lead to hatred towards Muslims?

Why is Islam bashing okay with you, but gay bashing isn't? I don't bash gays and lesbians. I don't bash gays and lesbians because I don't want to incite hatred and enmity towards them. I don't want to see some gay guy being dragged behind a pickup truck by a bunch of yahoos. I criticize homosexuality, but I am careful not to go too far because I don't want to jeopardize the lives of gays. Why does all of this seem to fly way over your head?

[NonContradiction]

From Imad-ad-Dean, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute

Here is the link for the full article from Imad-ad-Dean concerning FGM

http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm

How does this article support your position, Dr. Rick, since you quoted him as a source?

[NonContradiction]

The following is a quote from a book review by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad from the book What went wrong? by Bernard Lewis.
In his conclusion, Lewis rejects the question "What has Islam done to the Muslims?" He notes that blaming Islam for the status of Muslims is not plausible since both science and freedom flourished in the Muslim world for centuries to a degree "that led persecuted Jews and even dissident Christians to flee for refuge from Christendom to Islam" [p. 156]. He quotes unnamed sources that ask the more pertinent question: "What have the Muslims done to Islam?" and identifies four different categories of answers [pp.156 ff.]. One category attributes the decline to the adoption of alien ideas. Another attributes the decline to a fanatical retention of obsolete ways. Another category lays the blame on particular religious problems (e.g., failure to separate church and state or the legacy of sexism). The last category is the asymmetry of factors between East and West(e.g., precious metals, inbreeding, environmental degradation). The two most popular answers are the abandonment of the divine heritage of Islam and the failure to adopt secular democracy [p. 158]. To Lewis these appear to be alternative answers, but I would suggest that a return to ijtihâd and to Qur?anic principles would provide the opportunity to return to religious pluralism in the form of secular (in the American, not French) sens of the word Constitutional democracy, a religious Republicanism. Such an attempt will not be successful, however, unless it reckons with the kind of critique offered by this book. Notwithstanding it errors and biases, this book demonstrates how an erudite outside observer of a culture can provide important insights into the decline of that culture. Lewis correctly notes in his conclusion that whether or not the Middle East once again assumes a role as a major center of civilization in the world is its own choice. Muslims who desire to be leaders of civilization again must take into account his analysis, taking advantage of its insights and correcting its shortcomings.

The question isn't "What has Islam done to Muslims," but rather, "What have Muslims done to Islam." To blame Islam, which many of the people here are doing, for the backwardness of the Muslim world is simply wrong. It's obvious that these attacks on Islam are politically motivated by people on the far-Right and the far-Left.

[dk]

MollyMac: I agree Western culture has become consumed with appearances but I'm not sure how it warps our perspective, policies and judgement. Care to give an example? I think it's fair to say that Islamic societies are obsessed with appearances, or rather with the appearances of the female half of the population - that’s why they enforce such a strict dress code under threat of such barbaric punishment.
dk: I was responding to your comments about Arab garb by demonstrating how fanatical Western values and women must look to Islamic culture. Some would argue the Taliban in Afghanistan enacted a strict dress codes to maintain a modicum of order in a nation torn by 20 years of Civil War under petty War Lords armed to the teeth by US, Soviets, and more recently Pakistan, Iran, Pakistan…etc.. The dress code for men is equally enforced… It seems to me an appeal to Moslems on the basis of mutual respect and self interest makes a more persuasive argument. For example the Prophet’s mother and wives were amongst his closest and most trusted confidents and advisers, and at the height of Islamic civilization women often held great political power. One can legitimate postulate mothers were the advocate, champions and progenitors of the Caliphs, and therefore Ala’s will. Many of these women were not wilting wall flowers but prime time players that wielded great power and influence. Thirty years ago Afghan women were amongst the best educated and esteemed as professionals and political leaders.

dk: I simply don't understand what "freedom of clothing" means.
MollyMac: Let me make a suggestion: Ask the Middle Eastern women who are demanding freedom of clothing what it means to them. The link I provided for the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East has two email addresses on it.
dk: Ask Moslem mothers on the West Bank what they think about the treatment of women in the US. I asked a straight up question and you didn’t answer.

dk: It's my opinion that the most radical Islamic sects grow and prosper in response to the threat they perceive from Western culture. I'm not sure why they perceive us as a threat, maybe it was the last century, for example the war to end all wars, the war against tyranny, and the cold war to make the world safe for democracy. hmmm, surprise, surprise, Islamic nations and peoples feel threatened by the West, and sometimes respond with extreme prejudice?
MollyMac: I'm not sure why you have responded to my post with this comment since I haven't said anything about the growth of radical Islamic sects or their response to any perceived threat from the West. In my post I confined myself to drawing your attention to the fact some women and men from Islamic backgrounds experience Islam as an oppressive, anti-woman religion and I did this only because you had suggested that Islamic dress codes were something to do with respect.
dk: Well if you’re interested in the welfare of Moslem women then the growth of radical Islamic sects becomes a concern. Perhaps your more interested in fashion?

dk: Millions of Wahhabi Moslems have actually attended US Universities. In fact after 9/11 our Universities had a conniption at the prospect of Arab student visas being scrutinized, because the lost revenues threatened to send their finances into a tailspin. Check out the leadership of Moslem terrorists organizations, most have been education at Western Universities.
MollyMac:And your point is?
dk: The leadership of radical Islamic factions respond to the corruption and threats (real and perceived) presented by the US cultural hegemony, economic hegemony, technological hegemony and military hegemony. I mentioned Arab student visas and the university for three reasons. First, Moslem leaders are often educated by US universities. Second, that universities peruse their own political, economic and cultural interests i.e. at the thought of Arab visas being scrutinized universities collectively displayed a rare glimpse of political muscle. Third, to hint that universities are part of the problem, and therefore must be part of the solution.

dk: Do Moslem schools use metal detectors, armed hall guards, drug sniffing dogs, and security cameras too? No, that would be the US educracy. If Moslem women suffer from a dogmatic education then... the violence, illiteracy, obesity and security that bastardizes US public schools indicates a super crisis for the super power. Our system runs amok with special interests groups, dogmatists and social engineer's. Clearly this was not the answer.
MollyMac: And your point is? Honestly dk, I haven't a clue why you're telling me this stuff. I can assure I have a thoroughly healthy contempt for virtually everything American. Does that make you feel better? I'm a Brit and I find your assumption that I would be remotely interested in the security arrangements of your public schools or any of the other points you care to make about US culture and the US economy quite bewildering!
dk: The problem isn’t Arab garb or dress codes, but the detached Machiavellian sense of history we in the West rationalize verses the warped idealized deterministic view of humanity radical Islamic factions cultivate.

dk: In my opinion, the real problem stems from the wolf in sheep's clothing, not the clothing.
MollyMac: It sounds as if you think the views of those women who hate being forced against their will to be clad from head to foot in hot, oppressive garments and are demanding freedom of clothing don't matter. Is that right?
dk: People matter, and to the degree clothing denigrates people in a culture it matters a great deal. However, this issue has been distorted by radicals on both sides. Islamic culture teaches women are sacred vessels because they conceive, deliver and nurture new life into the world, and therefore valued and defined as wives and mothers. In the West women are chastised on Malthusian principles for being mothers, then systematically defined and celebrated as sex objects and workers in an egalitarian workforce. None of this has anything to do with freedom. I have no idea what the “will” of women might be apart from men, but I know it isn’t the “monolithic theme” expounded by feminist agitators, propagandists and pollsters. Women that don’t like the cloths they wear do have a problem, but women degraded by the clothing they wear dehumanize everyone. I’m interested in the latter, not the former.

dk: How can we hope to reform Islam without being able to put our own house in order.
MollyMac: I hope by 'we' you are not including me! At the risk of sounding like an NC sympathiser, how arrogant to assume that non-muslims have any right to interfere with Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. It is a religion and it is prescriptive. The very word 'Islam' means submission to the will of God (which, IMO, is why present day Islamic societies are paralysed in ignorance. If everything is the will of Allah, then there is no room for new ideas, personal empowerment and individuality. Instead there is unsustainable population growth and a poorer quality of life as the Islamic world falls further and further behind the West).
dk: Lets put “New Ideas” in a rational historical perspective. All cultures are prescriptive, but not all cultures dehumanize people. In pursuit of Marx’s new ideas 100s of millions of people were mindlessly slaughtered in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Pacific Rim and South America. I doubt the loved one’s of slaughtered magnitude thought well of the “New Ideas” that sent their loved ones to an early grave like diseased cattle. Still, some new ideas are good, not because they are new, but because they enable people to solve problems. All ideas are not equal, and many harbor tragedy on an apocalyptic scale. New ideas like China’s “Great Leap Forward”, Germany’s Third Reich, and Soviet gulags didn’t solve problems, these NEW IDEAS became the ghoulish substance of nightmares. If Arabs are “over-breeders” then I’m at a loss to explain why European nations have been forced to employ Moslem immigrant laborers to sustain their high standard of living. Sounds to me like Europeans have a problem that they try to blame on Moslem’s garb. The US and Europe’s problem with Moslem over breeders isn’t about cloths, its about their own cultural, intellectual and technological infertility.

The Malthusian population bomb is a laugher. Civilizations, nations, communities, families and individuals grow and prosper by solving new problems presented by time. Malthus’ theses and economics haven’t solved a single problem over the last 200 years. I’ll grant you the world has a finite carrying capacity but there’s no evidence that overpopulation poses any specific or general threat to humankind. On the contrary, Malthus’ Principle of Population has been used again and again over the last century to rationalization the mindless slaughter of 100s of millions of people around the globe. I submit societies aren’t paralyzed by ignorance, but bad ideas, some new and some old. The wheel, and the arch were a good idea three thousand years ago, and remain good ideas because they enable people to solve problems. Malthus’ Principle of Population has no historical merit because it hasn’t enabled people to solve any problems, except those imagined by fascists, megalomaniacs and radical ideologues.

MollyMac: However, like all religions its tenets are open to subjective interpretation. I have muslim friends, both women and men, who - much like xian cherry pickers - take from their religion what they want and ignore the rest. My own humble mission is to support them in defending their right to do this and oppose those whose stricter interpretation has a detrimental effect on human rights.
dk: So, after trampling across the Middle East and North Africa for two centuries now you’ve taken on the ?humble? mission of saving Arab women from Arab men. I’m sure that’s going fly big in Arab nations that have been starved, marginalized, dehumanized, exploited and slaughtered by the British, French and Germans for the last 10 or 15 generations. Consider this Molly, the Puritans and Quakers were sent packing in the 16th and 17th Century as religious fanatics, then against all odds came back to save the Royal British ass on at least three occasions. If religious fundamentalism were the monster you purport then Britain would be praying to a Swastika or a Hammer and Sickle today. I think you are missing something very important. While I agree Islamic Wahhabism spawns an irrational form of Islamic fundamentalism, I don’t view Islam or the Moslem religion the problem, and much less a dress code. There’s got to be something else we haven’t touched upon.

dk: Hey, did you know in October US public schools instructed children to disguise themselves as goblins, vampires, ghouls, etc… to extort and terrorize the community. Can you imagine, in Philadelphia and Detroit on the night before Halloween people celebrate Devil's Night by burning cars, people's homes and vacant buildings. I wonder what Moslem theologians think about our special secular hedonism.
MollyMac: I couldn't care less what theologians of any brand of theism think about anything. Personally, I have always found the American predilection for making such a big thing out of Halloween (Devil's Night? Never heard of it) incomprehensible and the manner in which they celebrate it (allowing children to go begging and threatening around the neighbourhood) abominable. But I don't see what that's got to do with anything.
dk: From what I can gleam from our conversation you focus on feminism, and subsequently order your argument women’s rights. From this perspective I can understand why you find Shariah Law so offensive. But understand, many Islamic fundamentalists care about Shariah Law (family courts) with the same madness Western women pursue equality, and they order their lives accordingly.

dk: On a more serious note, as a rule I find cultural issues couched in historical context more persuasive than the hyperbole of sexist rhetoric. But that's just me. I've noticed fanaticism usually gets a fanatic response, one fanatic more corrupt than the next. What do you suggest, perhaps a fatwa on Islamic machismo?
MollyMac: This is what you call a serious note? No I don’t suggest a fatwa. I don’t believe in fatwas, which I understand to be a sacred term of Islam meaning ‘a religious ruling’. I had rather thought the contents of my posts would reveal that I am not religious, much less a muslim but an atheist and – more importantly - a humanist, therefore I believe in trying to persuade people through discussion and argument rather than through issuing fatwas. Sorry if my arguments sound like so much ‘sexist rhetoric’ or ‘fanaticism’ to you but as I have said repeatedly, I am open to persuasion to a different point of view by reasoned, rational and relevant argument alone. So far, I haven’t been presented with any.
dk: Sharia means family, and law modeled on the religious Shariah Courts follow from the Ottoman Empire. But make no mistake, despite Islamic traditions of tolerance, their history has been dominate by infighting and tribalism. The escalating rhetoric feminists sound accentuates sectarian and secular differences. To a Moslem Nation, how the social inequities under Sharia Law stack up against the social maladies of secular law is a matter of opinion. The Islamic world knows well that Western secular nations experience unacceptably and unsustainable high rates of gang violence, drug addiction, teenage prostitution, divorce rates, falling birth rates, infidelity, unwed mothers, abortion, absentee fathers, rape and STDs. In fact even African secular nations like Nigeria defy Western expectations to challenge the secular, psychological and social principles that underpin Western courts and law. If you want to be persuasive I'd focus on the family and education. For example if education is necessary for a man to make his way in the world i.e. provide/protect his family, then the good education given a women is multiplied with each new child.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NC can't defend the faith, so he attacks the unfaithful, thinking that is an adequate substitute for refuting the evidence that shows, for instance, that FGM is linked by its practioners to Islam.

Where is the irrefutable evidence that links the practioners of FGM to Islam?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

FGM: A cultural not a religious practice:

This mutilating operation is often associated mainly with the religion of Islam. This is incorrect. FGM is primarily a social practice, not a religious one. Female genital mutilation predated Islam. It originated in Africa and remains today a mainly African cultural practice.

One of the motivations for this essay is the misperception by many people that the practice is a religious one. That belief has led to unjustified religious intolerance against Muslims.

[NonContradiction]

How does it feel for the bigots on the far-Left to know that they fit right in with the bigots on the far-Right?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/3451104.htm

Vines, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla., deplored the rising tide of pluralism.

"Today, people are saying all religions are the same," Vines said. "They would have us believe Islam is just as good as Christianity. But I'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that Islam is not as good as Christianity. Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Lord Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives and his last one was a 9-year-old girl."

Reaction to Vines' comment came as the annual meeting formally began with about 9,600 messengers, or delegates. President Bush addressed the Baptists by satellite Tuesday morning, praising them for their belief that religion should not be separated from political life.

[MollyMac]

dk. I’ve waded through your post and again found much of it incomprehensible. This is what I think I understood from it:

Although the opening post in this thread was about how women in Islamic societies have to dress, you don’t think that’s an important enough topic to dwell on and we should instead be discussing the question of the west’s relationship with Moslem nations and the rise of radical Islam. If we comment on any aspect of Islamic culture or history we should accompany this with suitably self-flagellatory comments about what is wrong our own culture and history.

And here are some points I think I understood you to have made:

Some Islamic societies haven’t always been as oppressive as they are today. Radical Islam is a response to US hegemony. The problem isn’t dress codes. Islam has one view of women, Western culture has another, both are problematic - who’s to say which is worse? Religious fundamentalism isn’t as bad as all that. Not all new ideas are good, some have proved disastrous. The Western economy depends on immigrant labour. Overpopulation doesn’t particularly threaten mankind. There are many social inequities in Islamic societies but there are social maladies in western societies – who’s to say which is worse? Give up the divisive feminist rhetoric and focus instead on education and the family.

Sorry, if you feel I’ve misrepresented you in any way but your post was unnecessarily long-winded and I found it very difficult to cut through the crap.

I will deal first with the fib, the cheap shot, and the distortion.

dk: Ask Moslem mothers on the West Bank what they think about the treatment of women in the US. I asked a straight up question and you didn’t answer.

You did not ask a straight up question – if you had, I would’ve answered it. You made a statement: “I simply don’t understand what ‘freedom of clothing’ means”. As you took the term ‘freedom of clothing’ from number 4 of the charter of the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East and not from me, my suggestion that you ask them what it means to them as Middle Eastern women who are making this demand was a reasonable one while your suggestion that I ask Moslem women about US women, was a total non sequitur.

dk: Well if you're interested in the welfare of Moslem women then the growth of radical Islamic sects becomes a concern. Perhaps your more interested in fashion?

How pathetic! I am interested in the welfare of all people and not remotely interested in fashion. Discussing the welfare of Moslem women – which was, after all, the topic of the OP – does not, however, necessitate a consideration of the reasons for the growth of radical Islam which, IMO, should be the topic of a separate thread.

And how does this:

MollyMac: I have muslim friends, both women and men, who - much like xian cherry pickers - take from their religion what they want and ignore the rest. My own humble mission is to support them in defending their right to do this and oppose those whose stricter interpretation has a detrimental effect on human rights.

translate to this????

dk: So, after trampling across the Middle East and North Africa for two centuries now you've taken on the ?humble? mission of saving Arab women from Arab men. . I'm sure that's going fly big in Arab nations that have been starved, marginalized, dehumanized, exploited and slaughtered by the British, French and Germans for the last 10 or 15 generations.

I find your erroneous assumptions about my parentage and ancestry very irritating. Britain, and particularly London, is a multi ethnic society. More importantly, I am very disturbed by the implication of the above statement which is that, in the light of history, people in the West shouldn’t SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL MUSLIM MEN AND WOMEN in their struggle for human rights. Because that is all I claimed my ‘humble mission’ to be, if you would care to read it again.

Having read your post again (and again), I have struggled to ascertain what exactly it is, that you see as ‘the problem’. I’m afraid your statement

dk: The problem isn't Arab garb or dress codes, but the detached Machiavellian sense of history we in the West rationalize verses the warped idealized deterministic view of humanity radical Islamic factions cultivate.

is much clearer on what you think isn't the problem, than what you think the problem is.

Let me clear something up, once and for all. I don’t see women being forced to cover up as THE problem. But it is A problem – it is one of many ways in which women are manifestly treated inferior to men. Other ways have been touched on in this thread but Muslim women’s dress happens to be the one that this thread was started to discuss. Islam, like any other system of practice and belief, should be open to analysis and criticism and choosing to focus on ONE aspect in ONE thread doesn’t turn it into a ‘monolithic theme’.

Oh wait…I just waded in again and caught this gem:

dk: I don't view Islam or the Moslem religion the problem, and much less a dress code. There's got to be something else we haven't touched upon.

As you don’t appear to know what THE problem is, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t appear to have a solution. All I find is this:

dk: It seems to me an appeal to Moslems on the basis of mutual respect and self interest makes a more persuasive argument

Having spent a lot of words spelling out everything you think is wrong (and everything you think Muslims think is wrong) with the West and having suggested that much of what is wrong with the West is the result of self-interest, you now think it is reasonable to “appeal to Moslems on the basis of mutual respect and self interest”. We’ll respect you if you’ll respect us sort of thing, right? I’m sure it’ll work a treat. :rolleyes:

Islam may not be a problem for you but it is a problem for those whose human rights are abused because of it, it is a problem for those whose personal freedom and happiness are denied because of it. It is a problem because in Islam, God’s word shapes society, because – unlike in the West where ‘the church’ is an entity, an institution – there is no ‘the mosque’; Islam is not an institution, Islam is society. The Sharia was formulated before there was any concept of an ‘institution’ and it cannot, therefore, be adapted in any way to meet the different conditions of modern life. It is a problem because it cannot be reformed.

Perhaps THE problem then, is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in Islamic law without being accused of cultural imperialism or of – as Meritocrat put it in the second post in this thread of “forcing our own morality onto Muslims”. The cultural relativist approach implicit in your posts and your suggestion that we “respect” them would be fine, were it not for the fact that people of Islamic origins are themselves taking the initiative in opposing the most pernicious aspects of Islam and bringing them to our attention (reference all the links I posted earlier). They themselves are promoting ideas of personal freedom, progress and change.

Frankly I’m disgusted by your repeated use of ‘ look at everything that’s wrong with the west’ as an excuse to turn a deaf ear on them and by your mischaracterization of what I stand for because I refuse to do the same.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by MollyMac
I have muslim friends, both women and men, who - much like xian cherry pickers - take from their religion what they want and ignore the rest. My own humble mission is to support them in defending their right to do this and oppose those whose stricter interpretation has a detrimental effect on human rights.

Islam isn't a "cherry picker religion" anymore than a constitution is a "cherry picker constitution." Of a surety, there are ways to amend a constitution, whereas there is no way to amend Islam, but be that as it may, a constitution is a constitution and anyone sworn to uphold and defend a constitution must do so in its entirety. One cannot pick and choose what they will uphold and defend when they are sworn in.

Secondly, we are not talking about a "stricter interpretation" here. A text is one thing and an interpretation of a text is something quite different. Reasonable people can disagree on interpretations of many different texts, but how many different ways can one interpret a text that clearly makes the inheritance of a woman half that of a man? Therefore, it becomes a matter of either accepting the text or rejecting it, and not a matter of interpretation. If one believes that the verses in the Quran, which make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man, are oppressive, then one should not be a Muslim because to be a Muslim implies swearing to uphold and defend the Quran in its entirety.

MollyMack
I find your erroneous assumptions about my parentage and ancestry very irritating. Britain, and particularly London, is a multi ethnic society. More importantly, I am very disturbed by the implication of the above statement which is that, in the light of history, people in the West shouldn?t SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL MUSLIM MEN AND WOMEN in their struggle for human rights. Because that is all I claimed my ?humble mission? to be, if you would care to read it again.

Firstly, you haven't successfully argued that you, and those who agree with you, have been appointed to determine what are, and are not, human rights for all of humanity.

Secondly, you are setting Islam up as "the other" and calling for a revolution against Islam. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that these verses are unfair, as you say. Do these inequities justify a revolution? If you say yes, then you might as well declare a revolution against all systems, including your own, because I don't know of anything that is perfect, do you? One must evaluate the benefit and harm of each system on an individual basis and then decide. Revolution creates great upheaval in a society and should only be considered after thoughtful deliberation.

Let me clear something up, once and for all. I don?t see women being forced to cover up as THE problem. But it is A problem ? it is one of many ways in which women are manifestly treated inferior to men. Other ways have been touched on in this thread but Muslim women?s dress happens to be the one that this thread was started to discuss. Islam, like any other system of practice and belief, should be open to analysis and criticism and choosing to focus on ONE aspect in ONE thread doesn?t turn it into a ?monolithic theme?.

Islam, like any other system of practice and belief, should be open to analysis
and criticism, but so should your system of practice and belief. It's not uneasonable for any Muslim to ask you what is your alternative to Islam. We can then compare and evaluate the benefit and harm of each system of practice and belief.

dk: I don't view Islam or the Moslem religion the problem, and much less a dress code. There's got to be something else we haven't touched upon.

MollyMackIslam may not be a problem for you but it is a problem for those whose human rights are abused because of it, it is a problem for those whose personal freedom and happiness are denied because of it. It is a problem because in Islam, God?s word shapes society, because ? unlike in the West where ?the church? is an entity, an institution ? there is no ?the mosque?; Islam is not an institution, Islam is society. The Sharia was formulated before there was any concept of an ?institution? and it cannot, therefore, be adapted in any way to meet the different conditions of modern life. It is a problem because it cannot be reformed.

Not only is Islam the problem to you, but all of the Abrahamic religions, as well. If the world could just rid itself of all of these superstituous, ignorant religions, then it would be a better world for everybody. Hitler appealed to his people with the same kind of simplistic thinking.

Perhaps THE problem then, is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in Islamic law without being accused of cultural imperialism or of ? as Meritocrat put it in the second post in this thread of ?forcing our own morality onto Muslims?. The cultural relativist approach implicit in your posts and your suggestion that we ?respect? them would be fine, were it not for the fact that people of Islamic origins are themselves taking the initiative in opposing the most pernicious aspects of Islam and bringing them to our attention (reference all the links I posted earlier). They themselves are promoting ideas of personal freedom, progress and change.

Your solution to the problem appears to be to support ex-Muslims who have become radical Leftists who now attack Islam. Islam isn't the problem, no matter how much you want to make it the problem. You are not making the situation better, but rather worse, in your ignorance. A far better approach would be to support the moderates against the extremists, but in your narrow-minded world no one could possibly support the Quran, in its entirety, and still be a moderate.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
A text is one thing and an interpretation of a text is something quite different. Reasonable people can disagree on interpretations of many different texts, but how many different ways can one interpret a text that clearly makes the inheritance of a woman half that of a man?

So the Quran, as a text, contains verses which inscribe inequality between the sexes. That's one potential interpretation. Are there others?

If there is indeed a correct way to read the Quran, what then is the right way for us to understand the double standard implied by this inheritance rule in particular?

Who sanctions the official interpretation of the Quran anyway?

Therefore, it becomes a matter of either accepting the text or rejecting it, and not a matter of interpretation. If one believes that the verses in the Quran, which make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man, are oppressive, then one should not be a Muslim because to be a Muslim implies swearing to uphold and defend the Quran in its entirety.

How is one to read the Quran without interpreting the Quran? One cannot accept or reject a text without first interpreting what that text is saying. Reading always involves interpretation.

So, if one reads the verses in the Quran which 'make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man' as 'oppressive,' this is an interpretation of the Quran.

Conversely, if one reads the verses in the Quran which 'make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man' as not 'oppressive,' this too is an interpretation of the Quran.

Either reading is an interpretation, and involves a value judgement. The first reading interprets the verses in a negative way; the second reading interprets the same verses in a positive way.

Even an all-or-nothing approach to the Quran is itself a theory of interpretation being put into practice.

Islam, like any other system of practice and belief, should be open to analysis and criticism...

Hmmm....this statement in favour of interpretation (which involves 'analysis' and 'criticism') sits rather uneasily with the following earlier statement with regards to the Quran qua the textual underpinnings of Islam, namely:

'...it becomes a matter of either accepting the text or rejecting it, and not a matter of interpretation. If one believes that the verses in the Quran, which make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man, are oppressive, then one should not be a Muslim because to be a Muslim implies swearing to uphold and defend the Quran in its entirety.'

So...on the one hand, Islam is 'open to analysis and criticism'; on the other, the Quran is 'not a matter of interpretation...to be a Muslim implies swearing to uphold and defend the Quran in its entirety.'

Goodness...

A far better approach would be to support the moderates against the extremists, but in your narrow-minded world no one could possibly support the Quran, in its entirety, and still be a moderate.

Accepting any text in its entirety, and without interpretation, is hardly a 'moderate' reading practice.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I was waiting for somebody to raise this issue. What took you so long? I am surprised that no one has played the anti-semite card yet. Where is your evidence that Islam teaches to "kill the infidels" who don't believe in Islam?


If they believe in the same god as the bible, it is highly likely that genocide is encouraged. Just look at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by winstonjen
If they believe in the same god as the bible, it is highly likely that genocide is encouraged.

Not genocide, just murder and terror.

Muslims that want to kill kafir (infidel non-believers) don't have to look past the Qur'an for justification to so, and your ethnicity is not the issue:

“Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, make them prisoners, besiege them and watch intently so as to ambush them” (Surah 9, 5)

“...make war with those who do not believe” (Surah 9, 29).

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" (Surah 8:12, 17)


“The true believers say: has not God prescribed a chapter that gives orders for a holy war?” (Surah 47, 22)

“...When you come across infidels, kill them until there is absolute carnage, and tighten the chains of those you have captured. Later you either free them or deliver them up for a ransom” (Surah 8, 57).

Why should they kill non-believers? Because they are worse than scum in the eyes of Allah:

“In the opinion of Allah, there is no animal more vile than those who do not believe and who remain unfaithful” (Surah 8, 57)

"O prophet Muhammad urge the believers (Muslims) to fight" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65).

"Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's cause) is ordained for you" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216)."

"Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" Surah 8:60

Naturally, there is a nice exclusion clause if one finds oneself about to be done-in for not being Muslim:

"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Surat At-Taubah 9:5).

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
So the Quran, as a text, contains verses which inscribe inequality between the sexes. That's one potential interpretation. Are there others?
You are confusing interpretation with value judgement. Justices of the Supreme Court of the US must interpret the law, but they cannot make value judgements. As citizens of the US, perhaps, they can make value judgements , but not as Justices of the Supreme Court because they have been sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution in its entirety.

If there is indeed a correct way to read the Quran, what then is the right way for us to understand the double standard implied by this inheritance rule in particular?

Firstly, there is no "one way" to interpret the Quran. Some verses have many different interpretations, and some don't . As I asked before, how many different ways can you interpret the verse about the inheritance of a woman being half that of a man? You may make a value judgement about the verse, but that isn't an interpretation.

Secondly, there is no double standard because the Quran has never called for radical equality, as the far-Left has done. The far-Left has the double standard.


Who sanctions the official interpretation of the Quran anyway?

There is no offical interpretation of the Quran and there never will be because we don't have priests and rabbis in Islam. Anybody can interpret the Quran as long as one can rationally support one's interpretation.

How is one to read the Quran without interpreting the Quran?

Who ever said that the Quran cannot be interpreted?

One cannot accept or reject a text without first interpreting what that text is saying. Reading always involves interpretation.

True.

So, if one reads the verses in the Quran which 'make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man' as 'oppressive,' this is an interpretation of the Quran.

No, that isn't an interpretation of the Quran. That is a value judgement.

Conversely, if one reads the verses in the Quran which 'make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man' as not 'oppressive,' this too is an interpretation of the Quran.

No, that is a value judgement, not an interpretation.

Accepting any text in its entirety, and without interpretation, is hardly a 'moderate' reading practice.

When you stop confusing interpretation with value judgement, then perhaps we can move on..

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You are confusing interpretation with value judgement.

Hardly. Interpretations involve judgements of value...judgements of value entail interpretation. There is no 'confusion'...just co-existence.

Firstly, there is no "one way" to interpret the Quran. Some verses have many different interpretations, and some don't .

If some verses are open to multiple interpretations, and some are not, then how are we to tell the difference between these two kinds of verses? By what criteria do we judge the 'interpretability' of any given verse?

For example, Dr. Rick quoted from the Quran...which of the excerpts that he posted are to be interpreted in one way; which are to be interpreted in 'different' ways?

Full post to be found here-------------------->
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58368&perpage=25&pagenumber=11


As for your question about the inheritance rule, namely

As I asked before, how many different ways can you interpret the verse about the inheritance of a woman being half that of a man?

Depending upon the theoretical framework being employed, the verse can be interpreted in various ways ---> reader-response theory; feminist theory; new historicism; discourse theory; marxist theory (just to name a few).

Indeed, even on the simplest level of interpretation, the verse could be read in either a literal or a metaphorical sense. It could also be read as descriptive or prescriptive.

You may make a value judgement about the verse, but that isn't an interpretation.

The verse itself contains a 'value judgement'....the verse is a judgement that women are not equal to men. The verse values men's testimony and inheritance rights over those of women.

Secondly, there is no double standard because the Quran has never called for radical equality...

How has the fact that the Quran has never called for radical equality suggest, in any way, that there is no double standard at work in the Quran?

Indeed, the fact that the Quran does not call for radical equality between the sexes, but rather calls for inequality between men and women, is evidence for the existence of a double standard in the Quran.

There is no offical interpretation of the Quran and there never will be because we don't have priests and rabbis in Islam. Anybody can interpret the Quran as long as one can rationally support one's interpretation.

Sounds fair. How, then, do we go about interpreting some of the verses posted by Dr. Rick? In other words, what do these verses mean?

Who ever said that the Quran cannot be interpreted?


Posted by NonContradictionReasonable people can disagree on interpretations of many different texts, but how many different ways can one interpret a text that clearly makes the inheritance of a woman half that of a man? Therefore, it becomes a matter of either accepting the text or rejecting it, and not a matter of interpretation. If one believes that the verses in the Quran, which make the testimony and inheritance of a woman half that of a man, are oppressive, then one should not be a Muslim because to be a Muslim implies swearing to uphold and defend the Quran in its entirety. (Italics added for emphasis)

How is the above excerpt to be interpreted (especially the italicised bits)?

When you stop confusing interpretation with value judgement...

There is no such thing as a value-free interpretation. Objective interpretations do not exist...all interpretations are laded with value judgements.

[Edited to provide a link to correct page of the thread on which Dr. Rick's post that includes excerpts from the Quran is to be found...]

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Interpretations involve judgements of value...judgements of value entail interpretation. There is no 'confusion'...just co-existence.

There is confusion. If you want to interpret texts with total disregard for what the author intended, then I suppose interpretations would involve personal value judgements, as is the case here. However, when one interprets a text in order to ascertain the intent of the author, I don't see any room for personal value judgements.

It appears as though many people here are applying critical theory to the texts of Islam in an attempt to show the prejudice of the author, but what they are showing, in reality, is their own prejudice. They want to demonstrate that Islam hates women, or that it's a violent religion, but, in the end, they only wind up demonstrating their own hatred for Islam.

If some verses are open to multiple interpretations, and some are not, then how are we to tell the difference between these two kinds of verses? By what criteria do we judge the 'interpretability' of any given verse?


Different interpretations for texts will naturally evolve as people attempt to understand the intent of the author behind the text. Different interpretations, all plausible, will emerge.

For example, Muhammad said to his companions that no one should pray Asr( afternoon prayer) until he reaches Bani Quraiza (a Jewish tribe in Medinah). Some of his companions prayed the afternoon prayer because they didn't believe that Muhammad intended for them to miss the prayer, but rather for them to hurry to Bani Quraiza.. The other companions interpreted the verse literally and didn't pray until they reached Bani Quraiza. When Muhammad was informed of what the two groups had done, he didn't blame either one.

If people disagree on the intent of the author behind any given text, then I don't see where any personal value judgement is involved, do you? If one completely disregards the intent of the author behind any text, then I don't think that is fair to the author, do you?

For example, Dr. Rick quoted from the Quran...which of the excerpts that he posted are to be interpreted in one way; which are to be interpreted in 'different' ways?

Dr. Rick quoted from verses which he thought would support his own personal bias that Islam is a war-mongering religion. He ignored all other verses, in typical Dr. Rick fashion, which didn't support his bias.

Surah (Anfal, 61) And if they incline towards peace, you incline, also, towards peace and trust in Allah.

Surah (Nisaa, 77) Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! a party of them fear men as they ought to have feared Allah, or (even) with a greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? Wherefore didst Thou not grant us a delay to a near end? Say: The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for him who guards (against evil); and you shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone

Surah (Mumtahinah, 6-9) Certainly there is for you in them a good example, for him who fears Allah and the last day; and whoever turns back, then surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised.

It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

Here the Quran encouraged the Muslims to restrain themselves from fighting, and to incline towards peace if the enemy is so inclined.

Also, in Mumtahinah, the Quran distinguished between the extremists and the moderates among non-Muslims. As far as the moderates were concerned, the Quran encouraged the believers to deal with them with kindness and justice. As far as the extremists were concerned, the Quran admonished the believers to not take them as friends or protectors.

The Quran must be taken in its entirety. One cannot pay attention to some verses and ignore others. If there is an apparent contradiction between verses in the Quran, then one does not have a right to accept some verses and reject others. One must tajma' (combine the verses). One must provide a plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction. One cannot reject the verses that call for war and accept the ones that call for peace. Similarly, one cannot reject the verses which call for peace, and accept the ones that call for war. When one approaches the Quran with this methodology, then the complete picture comes into focus. To focus on a verse that exhorts the believers to "kill the infidels" to the exclusion of other verses distorts the picture, which is what the detractors of Islam want to do. These attacks on Islam are politically motivated by people on the far-Right and far-Left that want to further their own agenda.

[dk]

MollyMac: dk. I’ve waded through your post and again found much of it incomprehensible. This is what I think I understood from it:
Although the opening post in this thread was about how women in Islamic societies have to dress, you don’t think that’s an important enough topic to dwell on and we should instead be discussing the question of the west’s relationship with Moslem nations and the rise of radical Islam.
dk: Grrrrr, I’m criticizing the Western egotistical view of traditional Islam on the basis of dress codes and/or Western standards of fashion. I said radical feminists focus on dress codes because they are 1) consumed with appearances 2) subversive and 3) duplicitous. If you didn’t catch my drift, I’m equally critical of radical feminism and Wahhabism.

MollyMac: If we comment on any aspect of Islamic culture or history we should accompany this with suitably self-flagellatory comments about what is wrong our own culture and history.
dk: If you consider common respect a self-flagellatory virtue then you paraphrased me correctly.

MollyMac: And here are some points I think I understood you to have made:
dk: You’re not off to a very good start so far.

MollyMac: Some Islamic societies haven’t always been as oppressive as they are today. Radical Islam is a response to US hegemony. The problem isn’t dress codes. Islam has one view of women, Western culture has another, both are problematic - who’s to say which is worse? Religious fundamentalism isn’t as bad as all that. Not all new ideas are good, some have proved disastrous. The Western economy depends on immigrant labour. Overpopulation doesn’t particularly threaten mankind. There are many social inequities in Islamic societies but there are social maladies in western societies – who’s to say which is worse? Give up the divisive feminist rhetoric and focus instead on education and the family.
dk: First, if you must slander religious people as oppressive, please have the decency to define “religious fundamentalism”. Fanatics and bigots have a lot in common, for example they both show their true feathers by slandering multitudes with a single slur. I’ll bet you can’t even define Religious fundamentalism, yet out of habit just assume everyone knows what it means. I don’t say this to be confrontational, but I know you don’t want to talk like racist or bigot.
.
All human societies regulate conduct. Fanatics regulate society with laws designed to hold/mold/use people without regard for their innate dignity, and human rights are an extension of the innate human dignity of all people independent of religion, race, sex, nationality… etc.. For example, 20th Century fanatics in the US passed laws to hold/mold/use black people to institutionalize a source of cheap labor, nostalgic of the Plantations System (slavery). In the 20th Century freedom loving people use the law (rule of law) to foster good will, respect, trust and judgment necessary for social, cultural, economic and political intercourse, essential in a technological diverse world. Shariah Law isn’t a women’s issue, but prevents Moslem nations from participating in the modern world, thus condemns them to bleak and brutal future. I have no reason to think Moslem men persecute women out of malice, especially by denying women education. Rather, Islam hides/employs Shariah Law to protect themselves from the modern world. They are under the delusion that God commands Shariah Law. That God will protect them from the humiliation, violence, deprivation and dehumanization they have suffered at the hands of the USA, USSR, Britain, France, and Germany for/over the last 2 centuries.
.
I’m trying to persuade you that Wahhabism and Shariah Law (dress codes) isn’t about feminism/religion but life i.e. that Islam peoples see the West as a threat to their way of life for good reason. Most Moslem people (men and women) find Feminist’s arguments very unpersuasive precisely because of the dominant culture we project. To a young Moslem raised to value sexual fidelity, motherhood and children Western women act like whores, despise their own bodies, curse like sailors, celebrate sexual perversions, rap about the joy of rape, and demean family values! What on earth do you think Islamic people find attractive about the images Hollywood projects of women or the pop culture that dominates Western universities? I’ll tell you what, nothing.

MollyMac: Sorry, if you feel I’ve misrepresented you in any way but your post was unnecessarily long-winded and I found it very difficult to cut through the crap. I will deal first with the fib, the cheap shot, and the distortion.
dk: Cool, I love the irony, but I don’t understand why you feel sorry? If you feel sorry then don’t misrepresent my responses. Surely you don’t think “a misrepresentation” in any way can be construed as “persuasive argument”.

dk: Ask Moslem mothers on the West Bank what they think about the treatment of women in the US. I asked a straight up question and you didn’t answer.
MollyMac: You did not ask a straight up question – if you had, I would’ve answered it. You made a statement: “I simply don’t understand what ‘freedom of clothing’ means”. As you took the term ‘freedom of clothing’ from number 4 of the charter of the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East and not from me, my suggestion that you ask them what it means to them as Middle Eastern women who are making this demand was a reasonable one while your suggestion that I ask Moslem women about US women, was a total non sequitur.
dk: Ok, but the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East never defined what “Freedom of Clothing” means. If you know please tell me, and if you don’t know what these women are talking about why bring them up?

dk: Well if you're interested in the welfare of Moslem women then the growth of radical Islamic sects becomes a concern. Perhaps your more interested in fashion?
MollyMac: How pathetic! I am interested in the welfare of all people and not remotely interested in fashion. Discussing the welfare of Moslem women – which was, after all, the topic of the OP – does not, however, necessitate a consideration of the reasons for the growth of radical Islam which, IMO, should be the topic of a separate thread.
dk: Moslem dress codes form a main plank of Wahhabism, and over the last 20 years Wahhabism has become very popular in many Islamic nations. You don’t like Moslem dress codes. Wahhabism is the source of the dress codes you detest, therefore one in the same.

MollyMac: And how does this:
-------------- I have muslim friends, both women and men, who - much like xian cherry pickers - take from their religion what they want and ignore the rest. My own humble mission is to support them in defending their right to do this and oppose those whose stricter interpretation has a detrimental effect on human rights.
--------------
translate to this????[/quote]
dk: Translate what? You seem to be confused about the protocol of a discussion. Here’s how it works.. First: you make a statement, Second: I respond to your statement. I ignored your ad hominem attack about xian cherry pickers, and responded to your “My own humble mission is…”, as follows…

dk: So, after trampling across the Middle East and North Africa for two centuries now you've taken on the ?humble? mission of saving Arab women from Arab men. . I'm sure that's going fly big in Arab nations that have been starved, marginalized, dehumanized, exploited and slaughtered by the British, French and Germans for the last 10 or 15 generations.
MollyMac: I find your erroneous assumptions about my parentage and ancestry very irritating. Britain, and particularly London, is a multi ethnic society. More importantly, I am very disturbed by the implication of the above statement which is that, in the light of history, people in the West shouldn’t SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL MUSLIM MEN AND WOMEN in their struggle for human rights. Because that is all I claimed my ‘humble mission’ to be, if you would care to read it again.
dk: Molly you’re the one that claims to be on a “humble mission”. I felt obliged to put your “humble mission” in an historical context. In many ways I’m a big fan of Britain, but for 2 centuries you folks stomped all on the Middle East and North Africa. In the world that was the British Empire the sun never set. Britain ruled its empire on the principle of “divide and conquer”, for which Islamic tribalism was made to order. The British Navy controlled all the trade routes, hence could played one colonial faction against another, both sides paying homage (and tribute) to the British Crown who sat above the chaos as ultimate arbitrator, benefactor, judge and master. Feminists employ the same Machiavellian tactics with a new angle, they pit women against social infrastructure and family in a Freudian game of sexual subterfuge. Muslim’s aren’t buyin Molly, they perceive Western women as castrated men, inferior hedonistic infidels. I don’t mean to support the Wahhabism, only that Islamic people find the argument offensive. Feminism and feminists looked a lot more attractive in the 1950-60s before divorce, abortion, deadly stds, domestic violence, teenage gangs, infertility and sexual assault rose up in an assault against human dignity. The bottom line is that most Moslem women find Western feminism and feminists ugly, even if they don’t like the Wahhabi dress code.

MollyMac: Having read your post again (and again), I have struggled to ascertain what exactly it is, that you see as ‘the problem’. I’m afraid your statement, “dk: The problem isn't Arab garb or dress codes, but the detached Machiavellian sense of history we in the West rationalize verses the warped idealized deterministic view of humanity radical Islamic factions cultivate.” is much clearer on what you think isn't the problem, than what you think the problem is.
Let me clear something up, once and for all. I don’t see women being forced to cover up as THE problem. But it is A problem – it is one of many ways in which women are manifestly treated inferior to men. Other ways have been touched on in this thread but Muslim women’s dress happens to be the one that this thread was started to discuss. Islam, like any other system of practice and belief, should be open to analysis and criticism and choosing to focus on ONE aspect in ONE thread doesn’t turn it into a ‘monolithic theme’.
Oh wait…I just waded in again and caught this gem:
dk: If we can agree that dress codes are merely SYMBOLIC for greater issues then we are on the same wavelength.

dk: I don't view Islam or the Moslem religion the problem, and much less a dress code. There's got to be something else we haven't touched upon.
MollyMac: As you don’t appear to know what THE problem is, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t appear to have a solution. All I find is this:
dk: In my world there is certainly a problem, and I think generally speaking everyone agrees. Al Qaeda sees the problem, and thinks the answer is wage a Holy War or terror. NATO sees the War Of Terror and Al Qaeda as the problem, and Wahhabism as a symptom of the problem. Human Rights activists see poverty, illiteracy, systematic torture etc… as the problem. Feminists view “female rights” as the problem. I agree these are all problems in some sense, but not the root problem.

dk: It seems to me an appeal to Moslems on the basis of mutual respect and self interest makes a more persuasive argument
MollyMac: Having spent a lot of words spelling out everything you think is wrong (and everything you think Muslims think is wrong) with the West and having suggested that much of what is wrong with the West is the result of self-interest, you now think it is reasonable to “appeal to Moslems on the basis of mutual respect and self interest”. We’ll respect you if you’ll respect us sort of thing, right? I’m sure it’ll work a treat.
dk: When Western institutions disrespect Islam we teach Moslem people to distrust US(infidels). That’s not a problem statement but a moral and ethical truism or dilemma. That is, “Moslem people should distrust religion and trust the US (Western nations)”, or “Muslim people should distrust Western Nations and trust God” . Given the state of the Arab nation-state, Arab press, and Arab culture that’s exactly how most Moslem people perceive their options. I'll grant you its a false dichotomy, but the feminists play right into the false dichotomy by attacking religious symbols i.e. dress codes.

MollyMac: Islam may not be a problem for you but it is a problem for those whose human rights are abused because of it, it is a problem for those whose personal freedom and happiness are denied because of it. It is a problem because in Islam, God’s word shapes society, because – unlike in the West where ‘the church’ is an entity, an institution – there is no ‘the mosque’; Islam is not an institution, Islam is society. The Sharia was formulated before there was any concept of an ‘institution’ and it cannot, therefore, be adapted in any way to meet the different conditions of modern life. It is a problem because it cannot be reformed.
dk: Sharia dates back to the Ottoman Empire when the Nations of Islam pushed Western Europe into the Atlantic, and that started the Age of Discovery. The Islamic Empire wasn’t defeated, and that’s what makes Bin Laden an appealing charismatic figure in the Moslem world. It’s the same line Hitler used after WW I. He claimed Germany hadn’t been defeated after WW I, but betrayed by Jews and Communists. Bin Laden claims the Nations of Islam were never defeated, but betrayed by Jews and infidels. There’s nothing new here, no new ideas, simply an old theme repackaged to suit Islamic history, a simple case of revisionist history. That’s what Moslem intellectuals have learned form Western intellectuals. In a secular sense, there’s only one fundamental principle… Civilizations, empires, nations, tribes, households, families and individuals prosper and grow by solving problems with life affirming solutions, problems presented by time. The Nations of Islam tried to solve all their problems with military superiority. Western Europe tired of the brutal wars against Islam sailed off into the sunset and left Islam alone to fight amongst themselves. Today, Western Civilization has a new problem, dependency on Arab oil. We can solve the Arab oil problem, else we will be ruined. Western Civilization has a lot of problems today, but oil is arguably the most threatening. Arab nations a different problem, they believe God will solve their problems with a sword. Truth stranger than fiction.

MollyMac: Perhaps THE problem then, is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in Islamic law without being accused of cultural imperialism or of – as Meritocrat put it in the second post in this thread of “forcing our own morality onto Muslims”. The cultural relativist approach implicit in your posts and your suggestion that we “respect” them would be fine, were it not for the fact that people of Islamic origins are themselves taking the initiative in opposing the most pernicious aspects of Islam and bringing them to our attention (reference all the links I posted earlier). They themselves are promoting ideas of personal freedom, progress and change.
Frankly I’m disgusted by your repeated use of ‘ look at everything that’s wrong with the west’ as an excuse to turn a deaf ear on them and by your mischaracterization of what I stand for because I refuse to do the same.
dk: Hey, constructive criticism is the method we preach. If my presentation was disgusting its because we all have our sacred cows.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The Quran must be taken in its entirety....One must provide a plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction......we'rrrrre waiting..........still waiting........12 pages into the thread and we're still waiting....
Allah does not forbid...
...and when it comes to killing infidels, there isn't even a contradiction presented! There is no contradiction to striking terror in and killing non-Muslims here as the other verses clearly exalt Muslims to do. There's merely an allowance, and even that appears optional, for "respecting" those they murder or maybe for being friendly towards them if they are so inclined.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
.we'rrrrre waiting..........still waiting........12 pages into the thread and we're still waiting....

Nothing I have said within these 12 pages is going to make a difference to you anyway. Your interpretation of Islam is that it's a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert. Your interpretation of Islam isn't the only interpretation of Islam, but to you it is. You say that you don't advocate the use of force against Islam, but don't expect moderate Muslims to believe you.

You remind me of many people in the news media that do interviews. They interview somebody, but by the time they get done cutting and editing the interview, what the person said in the interview doesn't resemble anything like what is shown on TV. Another example would be the way Indians were portrayed as savages on TV when I was growing up. You are doing the same thing to Muslims and Islam.

You represent the bigotry on the far-Left and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson represent the bigotry on the far-Right. Bigots are all the same in the end.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


Nothing I have said within these 12 pages is going to make a difference to you anyway. Your interpretation of Islam is that it's a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert. Your interpretation of Islam isn't the only interpretation of Islam, but to you it is. You say that you don't advocate the use of force against Islam, but don't expect moderate Muslims to believe you. [/B]

Translation: I can't think of a damn thing to say so I will revert to name-calling and special pleading.

You remind me of many people in the news media that do interviews. They interview somebody, but by the time they get done cutting and editing the interview, what the person said in the interview doesn't resemble anything like what is shown on TV. Another example would be the way Indians were portrayed as savages on TV when I was growing up. You are doing the same thing to Muslims and Islam.

As far as I know, the Koran is available in its entirety.

You represent the bigotry on the far-Left and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson represent the bigotry on the far-Right. Bigots are all the same in the end.

As long as there are bigots willing to kill each other, which should hopefully result in no bigots, the world should be a better place for it.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
As long as there are bigots willing to kill each other, which should hopefully result in no bigots, the world should be a better place for it.

Yes, I am looking forward to the day when the bigots on the Left and the Right are gone.

[MollyMac]

Here we go:

MollyMac: Sorry, if you feel I’ve misrepresented you in any way

dk: Cool, I love the irony, but I don’t understand why you feel sorry? If you feel sorry then don’t misrepresent my responses. Surely you don’t think “a misrepresentation” in any way can be construed as “persuasive argument”.

No I don't think a misrepresentation can be construed as persuasive argument. My "Sorry" was intended to convey that any misrepresentation was not intended. :banghead:

dk: First, if you must slander religious people as oppressive, please have the decency to define “religious fundamentalism”. Fanatics and bigots have a lot in common, for example they both show their true feathers by slandering multitudes with a single slur. I’ll bet you can’t even define Religious fundamentalism, yet out of habit just assume everyone knows what it means. I don’t say this to be confrontational, but I know you don’t want to talk like racist or bigot.

I don't say this to be confrontational either but what the hell are you talking about, dk? I have not used the term 'religious fundamentalism' ANYWHERE in ANY of my posts apart from the one where I was paraphrasing YOU. In your previous post you had said this:

If religious fundamentalism were the monster you purport then Britain would be praying to a Swastika or a Hammer and Sickle today.

And I paraphrased that as this: "Religious fundamentalism isn't as bad as all that." But I had not used the term myself.

So in fact it is you who out of habit just assumes everyone knows what it means and it should be you who has the decency to define it. In fact, that was really funny from someone whose posts are peppered with sentences like "Feminists employ the same Machiavellian tactics with a new angle, they pit women against social infrastructure and family in a Freudian game of sexual subterfuge" and then complains of being misrepresented.

dk: Ok, but the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East never defined what “Freedom of Clothing” means. If you know please tell me, and if you don’t know what these women are talking about why bring them up?

I do know what these women are talking about. Sorry if I have the habit of assuming that everybody understands plain English. The term 'freedom of clothing' means freedom to choose what to wear.

dk: Molly you’re the one that claims to be on a “humble mission”. I felt obliged to put your “humble mission” in an historical context.

Why? What purpose does that serve? What difference does it make?

dk: In many ways I’m a big fan of Britain, but for 2 centuries you folks stomped all on the Middle East and North Africa.

I am the daughter of immigrants. My ancestors weren't doing any stomping all over the Middle East. They were too busy being stomped on - under the Ottoman Empire as it happens. So less of the 'you folks'!

Apart from that I don’t anything particularly contentious in your last post. I have said time and time again that I support all people from Islamic backgrounds in THEIR struggle for human rights and I’m not talking about the ones “who aren’t buying”. I’m talking about the ones who are. Whatever I say, you seem intent on pigeon holing me as a blinkered Western radical feminist and I can’t be bothered with it any more.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
You remind me of many people in the news media that do interviews. They interview somebody, but by the time they get done cutting and editing the interview, what the person said in the interview doesn't resemble anything like what is shown on TV. Another example would be the way Indians were portrayed as savages on TV when I was growing up. You are doing the same thing to Muslims and Islam.
winstonjen
As far as I know, the Koran is available in its entirety.
The Quran is available in its entirety. For that reason, the truth can be known, as long as people are willing to look past their bigotry and see the big picture.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, I am looking forward to the day when the bigots on the Left and the Right are gone.

Good. Your first targets are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. :D

Of course, I was only joking. No one should take this as a threat to those people.

[alek0]

Noncontradiction,

if we are misrepresenting Quran and you are the only one here who knows what true Islam is, could you please tell me, according to true Islam what happens to a woman who is raped and cannot produce male witnesses that it is so?

Of course, there are many examples from different Islamic countries on what happens in that case, but I would like to hear your version first.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...when one interprets a text in order to ascertain the intent of the author, I don't see any room for personal value judgements.

If we wish to ascertain the intent of the 'author' of the Quran, then, how are we to interpret this intent in the excerpts posted here --->
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....5&pagenumber=11 ?


For example, Muhammad said to his companions that no one should pray Asr( afternoon prayer) until he reaches Bani Quraiza (a Jewish tribe in Medinah). Some of his companions prayed the afternoon prayer because they didn't believe that Muhammad intended for them to miss the prayer, but rather for them to hurry to Bani Quraiza.. The other companions interpreted the verse literally and didn't pray until they reached Bani Quraiza. When Muhammad was informed of what the two groups had done, he didn't blame either one.

And this demonstrates what, exactly? Simply that neither group of companions was sure as to what Muhammad intended when he said that 'no one should pray Asr...until he reaches Bani Quraiza'? And that, therefore, both contradictory 'readings' of his words are equally plausible?

If people disagree on the intent of the author behind any given text, then I don't see where any personal value judgement is involved, do you? If one completely disregards the intent of the author behind any text, then I don't think that is fair to the author, do you?

lol...what about that wee story with Muhammad's companions using their 'personal value judgement' to interpret the intent behind Muhammad's words? Each group interpreted the author's (Muhammad's) intent differently.

One group used their collective 'personal judgement' to guess that Muhammad did not intend for them to miss their prayers; the other group, on the other hand, used their personal judgement to interpret Muhammad's intentions 'literally.'

Muhammad 'didn't blame either one' for interpreting his 'text' (his words) according to their personal judgement, did he. He left interpretation up to his companions, and accepted both interpretations, despite the fact that they clearly contradicted one another.

Goodness, what are we to make of this?

Should we agree with Muhammad, who clearly legitimises the use of personal judgement when interpreting his words (seeing as he saw both interpretations of his intent as equally 'unblameworthy')?

Or should we instead agree with this earlier statement, namely

NonContradiction
...when one interprets a text in order to ascertain the intent of the author, I don't see any room for personal value judgements...

(underlining added for emphasis)

The bit I underlined contradicts Muhammad's validation of the use of personal judgement in the interpretation of his intent.

Is there a 'plausible explanation for' this 'apparent contradiction'?

Here the Quran encouraged the Muslims to restrain themselves from fighting, and to incline towards peace if the enemy is so inclined.

So how are these excerpts to be plausibly reconciled with contradictory excerpts?

The Quran must be taken in its entirety. One cannot pay attention to some verses and ignore others.

Yes, that is true. Again, however, and within the context of the entire Quran, how are contradictory excerpts to be interpreted coherently?

If there is an apparent contradiction between verses in the Quran, then one does not have a right to accept some verses and reject others. One must tajma' (combine the verses). One must provide a plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction.

So, if a plausible explanation for apparent contradictions is to be articulated, how do the interpreters go about reconciling these contradictions?

One cannot reject the verses that call for war and accept the ones that call for peace. Similarly, one cannot reject the verses which call for peace, and accept the ones that call for war.

Why do some verses call for war and yet others call for peace? Why is the text of the Quran riddled with such ambiguity and contradiction, in your view?

When one approaches the Quran with this methodology, then the complete picture comes into focus.

No methodology has been fully articulated as yet with which the contradictions in the Quran may be reconciled.

To say that they can be reconciled is one thing...as to how to reconcile these contradictions, this is another matter altogether.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
If we wish to ascertain the intent of the 'author' of the Quran, then, how are we to interpret this intent in the excerpts posted here --->
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....5&pagenumber=11 ?

We were pushing the edge before, but it looks as though we are going way over the edge here. This thread started out concerning the head scarf of a Muslim woman. It soon evolved into a discussion of women's rights in Islam, which I had no problem with, because I think that was the broader issue. Now, we are going way off topic here.

We could start a new thread, and go from there, but the problem is I don't have the time to get into another marathon thread. Secondly, if I were to debate you in another thread, I would want to know what you believe in. It's not a fair fight if I can't attack what you believe in, but you can attack what I believe in. Of course, I have to defend what I believe in to the best of my ability, but I also want to have an offense to go with my defense.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
We were pushing the edge before, but it looks as though we are going way over the edge here. This thread started out concerning the head scarf of a Muslim woman. It soon evolved into a discussion of women's rights in Islam, which I had no problem with, because I think that was the broader issue. Now, we are going way off topic here.

We could start a new thread, and go from there, but the problem is I don't have the time to get into another marathon thread. Secondly, if I were to debate you in another thread, I would want to know what you believe in. It's not a fair fight if I can't attack what you believe in, but you can attack what I believe in. Of course, I have to defend what I believe in to the best of my ability, but I also want to have an offense to go with my defense.

Firstly, we have not gone 'off topic,' because we are discussing the question of how to interpret the Quran, given that there are verses within the Quran which contradict one another. We need to articulate a coherent method of interpretation before we can understand what the Quran is saying about 'women's rights.'

As for the erroneous suggestion that I am 'attack what [you] believe in': asking questions about the Quran, and how to go about reconciling its inherent contradictions, is not an 'attack' on 'beliefs,' but rather a query into how to go about interpreting the meaning(s) of the text of the Quran.

As it looks as if the issue of how to go about interpreting the intentions of the author of the Quran without 'personal value judgements' will remain unresolved for the moment (even though I think that charming wee story about Muhammad suggests that he would agree that 'personal value judgements' are indeed involved when interpreting his words), however, we can finally address the following:

Getting back to the inheritance and testimony rule (which is [i]directly relevant to both the issue of sexual equality and the question of interpretation, authorial intention and textual contradiction), here is a re-posting of my response to your question, wherein I raise some issues and queries which have not been addressed as yet. Perhaps it would be interesting to discuss some of these:

Luiseach
As for your question about the inheritance rule, namely

NonContradiction
As I asked before, how many different ways can you interpret the verse about the inheritance of a woman being half that of a man?

Luiseach
Depending upon the theoretical framework being employed, the verse can be interpreted in various ways ---> reader-response theory; feminist theory; new historicism; discourse theory; marxist theory (just to name a few).

Indeed, even on the simplest level of interpretation, the verse could be read in either a literal or a metaphorical sense. It could also be read as descriptive or prescriptive.

NonContradiction
You may make a value judgement about the verse, but that isn't an interpretation.

Luiseach
The verse itself contains a 'value judgement'....the verse is a judgement that women are not equal to men. The verse values men's testimony and inheritance rights over those of women.

NonContradiction
Secondly, there is no double standard because the Quran has never called for radical equality...

Luiseach
How has the fact that the Quran has never called for radical equality suggest, in any way, that there is no double standard at work in the Quran?

Indeed, the fact that the Quran does not call for radical equality between the sexes, but rather calls for inequality between men and women, is evidence for the existence of a double standard in the Quran.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
As for the erroneous suggestion that I am 'attack what [you] believe in': asking questions about the Quran, and how to go about reconciling its inherent contradictions, is not an 'attack' on 'beliefs,' but rather a query into how to go about interpreting the meaning(s) of the text of the Quran.

You will have to excuse me if I am skeptical of your intentions. Many people here haven't been interested in "query". They have been more interested in slandering Islam with their bigoted rhetoric that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert.

Secondly, there are no "inherent" contradictions in the Quran. There are "apparent" contradictions in the Quran which have logical explanations, but that is the subject of another thread.


Getting back to the inheritance and testimony rule (which is [i]directly relevant to both the issue of sexual equality and the question of interpretation, authorial intention and textual contradiction), here is a re-posting of my response to your question, wherein I raise some issues and queries which have not been addressed as yet. Perhaps it would be interesting to discuss some of these:

Luiseach
As for your question about the inheritance rule, namely

NonContradiction
As I asked before, how many different ways can you interpret the verse about the inheritance of a woman being half that of a man?

Luiseach
Depending upon the theoretical framework being employed, the verse can be interpreted in various ways ---> reader-response theory; feminist theory; new historicism; discourse theory; marxist theory (just to name a few).

Indeed, even on the simplest level of interpretation, the verse could be read in either a literal or a metaphorical sense. It could also be read as descriptive or prescriptive.

Again., I ask you, how many different ways can you interpret the verse? It's obvious that we are not talking about something which is metaphorical, or descriptive. The verse is clearly referring to something concrete, so it should be taken literally, and it's clearly prescriptive.

As far as the theoretical framework being employed, I think that you are talking nonsense here. When people have an agenda, as the feminists and Marxists do, they are going to twist the author's intended meaning to fit their personal bias. BTW, this is the same thing that Muslim extremists do - they twist the meanings of verses from the Quran to fit their narrow-minded agendas.


NonContradiction
You may make a value judgement about the verse, but that isn't an interpretation.

Luiseach
The verse itself contains a 'value judgement'....the verse is a judgement that women are not equal to men. The verse values men's testimony and inheritance rights over those of women.

The verse does contain a "value judgement", namely, that a man should inherit twice as much as a woman. Be that as it may, our own interpretations should be free from PERSONAL value judgements, or PERSONAL bias. We should not come upon any text with a preconceived personal bias.

Having said the above, the verse is NOT a judgement that women are not equal to men. It's a judgement that a man should inherit twice as much as a woman. You are reading your own PERSONAL value judgement and bias into it.

I don't know of any Muslim man that would hesitate to claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was better than him. Just because men and women don't inherit equally doesn't mean that men are better than women. Just because men and women don't inherit equally doesn't mean that women are inferior to men. That is your own Marxist interpretation, but that isn't what the text says or implies.


NonContradiction
Secondly, there is no double standard because the Quran has never called for radical equality...

Luiseach
How has the fact that the Quran has never called for radical equality suggest, in any way, that there is no double standard at work in the Quran?

Indeed, the fact that the Quran does not call for radical equality between the sexes, but rather calls for inequality between men and women, is evidence for the existence of a double standard in the Quran.

I see what you are saying. The point that I was making was that Islam isn't being hypocritical.

In conclusion, Islam does NOT call for inequality between men and women, as you suggest, anymore than Islam calls for slavery. The inequality between rich and poor, master and slave, men and women, predates Islam. To say that Islam calls for inequality is another one of your twisted Marxist interpretations.

I believe that Islam was very, very, very wise to not call for radical equality between people, as the Eastern and Western Marxists have done. Instead, Islam recognized the inequalities between people, while at the same time it solved the politico-socio-economic problems of the day.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Again, I ask you, how many different ways can you interpret the verse? It's obvious that we are not talking about something which is metaphorical, or descriptive. The verse is clearly referring to something concrete, so it should be taken literally, and it's clearly prescriptive.

So are these:

Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, make them prisoners, besiege them and watch intently so as to ambush them” (Surah 9, 5)

“...make war with those who do not believe” (Surah 9, 29).

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" (Surah 8:12, 17)


“The true believers say: has not God prescribed a chapter that gives orders for a holy war?” (Surah 47, 22)

“...When you come across infidels, kill them until there is absolute carnage, and tighten the chains of those you have captured. Later you either free them or deliver them up for a ransom” (Surah 8, 57).

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Again, I ask you, how many different ways can you interpret the verse? It's obvious that we are not talking about something which is metaphorical, or descriptive. The verse is clearly referring to something concrete, so it should be taken literally, and it's clearly prescriptive.

Originally posted by Dr Rick
So are these:

Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, make them prisoners, besiege them and watch intently so as to ambush them? (Surah 9, 5)

?...make war with those who do not believe? (Surah 9, 29).

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" (Surah 8:12, 17)


?The true believers say: has not God prescribed a chapter that gives orders for a holy war?? (Surah 47, 22)

?...When you come across infidels, kill them until there is absolute carnage, and tighten the chains of those you have captured. Later you either free them or deliver them up for a ransom? (Surah 8, 57).

You first tried to prove that Muhammad was a sexual pervert. Having failed to prove that he was, then you tried to prove that Islam was misogynistic. After having failed to prove both claims, now you are trying to prove that Islam is a violent religion. You are going to fail here also.

(Surah (42,40)
The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.

Surah (42.41)
But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame.

Surah (42.42)
The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous.

Surah (42.43)
But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs.

Surah (4, 77) Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! a party of them fear men as they ought to have feared Allah, or (even) with a greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? Wherefore didst Thou not grant us a delay to a near end? Say: The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for him who guards (against evil); and you shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone

Surah (45.14)
Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned.

Surah 42 encourages the believers to have patience with the unbelievers. Surah (4,77) commands the believers to restrain themselves. And finally, Surah (45,14) commands the believers to forgive those who have wronged them.

How do we reconcile between the verses that command the believers to have patience, restraint, mercy, and forgiveness and the verses that you posted. The answer is very easy. The verses commanding the believers to have patience, restraint, and forgiveness were revealed before the verses commanding the believers to stand up and fight. Of course, all of this is consistent with Allah's saying that His mercy precedes His anger. Moreover, the chronological order of the Quran places surah 9 at the end of the Quran, which is also consistent with what I have been saying.

As a final note, when Muhammad conquered Mecca, he did so without any bloodshed. He asked his enemies, "What do you think that I am going to do to you?" They replied, " You are an honorable man, and the son of an honorable man." He said to them, "Go, you are free." Muhammad wasn't a hateful man who wanted to slaughter his people, but rather a loving man who realized that war was a necessary part of life after years of patience, restraint, and forgiveness in the face of abuse.

[Silent Acorns]

I've been gone for a few days, but I see that NonCon continues to label people "Far-left Radicals" based on the flimsiest of evidence. Today, the target is Luiseach, who is apparently a Marxist because of his/her support of the "radical" idea that men and women should be treated equally before the law.
Originally posted by NonContradiction
Secondly, there are no "inherent" contradictions in the Quran. There are "apparent" contradictions in the Quran which have logical explanations, but that is the subject of another thread.

<snip>

As far as the theoretical framework being employed, I think that you are talking nonsense here. When people have an agenda, as the feminists and Marxists do, they are going to twist the author's intended meaning to fit their personal bias. BTW, this is the same thing that Muslim extremists do - they twist the meanings of verses from the Quran to fit their narrow-minded agendas.
One could also point out that "having an agenda" is not limited to Marxists and Muslim extremeists. I could just as easily say that your agenda is to show that there are no contradictions in the Quran and that you will "twist the meanings of the verses to fit" your "narrow-minded" agenda.
Be that as it may, our own interpretations should be free from PERSONAL value judgements, or PERSONAL bias. We should not come upon any text with a preconceived personal bias.
I'll add that to my list of items on NonCon's agenda: any attempt to show that the writers of Islamic holy texts may have had an agenda of their own is an example of applying a "preconceived personal bias".

Sorry NonCon, but the assumption that the writers didn't have an agenda of their own is itself a "PERSONAL" bias.
I don't know of any Muslim man that would hesitate to claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was better than him. Just because men and women don't inherit equally doesn't mean that men are better than women.
But apparently, according to Islamic texts, a Muslim man would be justified to be upset if Mary's testimony in a court of law was given equal weight to his own. NonCon, you keep brining up the inheretance issue as a justifiable inequality, but you continue to ignore the far more important issue of testimony before a court. The minimum standard is two men, or (failing that) one man and two women. Why the double standard? The text given also never says if four women could substitute for two men, thus suggesting that the testimony of a thousand women is of less value than the testimony of two men.
In conclusion, Islam does NOT call for inequality between men and women, as you suggest, anymore than Islam calls for slavery. The inequality between rich and poor, master and slave, men and women, predates Islam.
You are splitting hairs here. Muhammed could have outlawed such inequities if he so desired, but he chose to limit them instead. Islam therefore considers these "limited inequities" to be acceptable. In fact, it explicitly calls for these "limited inequities" to be carried out via the inheretance and testimony laws. Muhammed should be seen as what he was, an important reformer, but not the last word in human relations.
I believe that Islam was very, very, very wise to not call for radical equality between people, as the Eastern and Western Marxists have done.
Well that's your opinion. I would say that it was wise enough to recognize a serious inequity and decided to partially alleviate it. Unfortunately, it wasn't wise enough to recognize that the average woman is just as credible as the average man.
Instead, Islam recognized the inequalities between people, while at the same time it solved the politico-socio-economic problems of the day.
And created a modern problem where people refuse to take an ancient text in it's proper ancient context.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Surah...encourages the believers to have patience with the unbelievers.

...and also kill them.

Surah...commands the believers to restrain themselves.

...and also kill them.

And finally, Surah...commands the believers to forgive those who have wronged them.

...and if they are unbelievers, to kill them.

Commanding someone to be nice and forgiving does not make an order to kill right or justifiable, even if the intended victim is just an infidel.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Commanding someone to be nice and forgiving does not make an order to kill right or justifiable, even if the intended victim is just an infidel.

Surah (9,7) How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

Surah (9,8) How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you

Surah (9,13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

The Muslims were a persecuted minority in Mecca because of their religion. Most of the Pagans had violated their oaths, plotted to drive Muhammad and his companions from their homes, and were the first ones to commit aggression upon that MINORITY community. Are not the people on the Left supposed to support MINORITY communities? I guess they support all MINORITY communities except the community of Muhammad because it was an Abrahamic religious community. This is just more hypocrisy of the Left. The crap keeps coming. It's stinking up the place.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The crap keeps coming. It's stinking up the place.
Yes. It smells like fundamentalism.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction ]The verses commanding the believers to have patience, restraint, and forgiveness were revealed before the verses commanding the believers to stand up and fight. Of course, all of this is consistent with Allah saying that His mercy precedes His anger.
One could just as easily say that the time for mercy is past.

I went through the trouble of finding an online version of the Quaran in English. I found one here (http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/quran/). I read through Surahs 8 and 9. Most of the verses Dr Rick quoted deal with what to do with non-believers (in Islam), except for those who who have signed a treaty (and have not broken the terms). The most generous way to interpret Surah 9 is:

Allah and "his messenger" (Muhammad, I assume) are not (no longer?) bound by any treaties made with idolaters/disbelievers. Allah proclaims that Allah and Muhammed is free of any obligation to disbelievers. The disbelievers had therefore better repent or they will suffer "a painful doom", except those who have signed a treaty and have lived up to the terms. Then, after a period of four months, all idolaters should be slain, captured, beseiged, and ambushed. However, Allah is so merciful that those who agree to become Muslims will not suffer this fate.

There then follows what could be called "The Allah/Muhammad Doctrine":

1) Go to war with any non-believer who wrongs you (including those who have a treaty but "satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse" - whatever that means).

2) To not go to war against a non-believer who wrongs you is a cowardly act that proves a lack of faith in Allah. The "reward" for such "believers" is also a "painful doom".

Then come some more troubling verses:
Surah 9:23 - Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers

Surah 9:29 - Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah ... until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low [i.e. to Hell].
There then follows a great many lines to the effect of: Allah protects the faithfull and punishes the non-believers; Allah provides a painful doom in a great fire for "them who disbelieve" and shall provide a "supreme triumph" in heaven for those who believe.
Surah 9:123 - O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
Nowhere does it say that the time to fight will ever end until the "last day".

Based on this, it is not fair to say that Islam is a religion of war, but it's not exactly a religion of peace either. Rather, it is a religion that calls on it's followers to fight those who wrong them, and fight without any fear for themselves, or their enemies. I have three comments on this:

1) Surah 9 suggests that the appropriate response to any trangression by non-believers is all out war. I can't find a single moderating statement as to what qualifies as sufficient or insufficient cause for such a war.

2) As an individual non-believer, by this code, I am 100% responsible for the actions of my country's leadership. If my "king" breaks a treaty with Islam and loses the subsequent war my only chance for survival is to "repent" and become a Muslim.

3) This surah constantly degrades non-believers as unclean, unworthy of friendship, perverse, and deservant of a most painful doom. The contempt for non-believers is extreme. The language used is comparable to the worst books of the Old and New Tesaments.

With this kind of mentality I can see why NonCon reacts to us the way he does. The Islamic code for dealing with non-believers seems to be, "leave us alone or it's war".

I find this aspect of Islam (and most other religions) to be very troubling. I can only hope that Muslims (and their fellow theists) will not see this as a guide for dealing with inter/intra-faith relations in the modern era. Such all-or-nothing thinking is best left in the distant past.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
...it is not fair to say that Islam is a religion of war

sa:

no one here has said that it is; that's a strawman argument NC introduced.

What was said and has been shown to be correct is that Muslims are commanded by the Qur'an to kill infidels.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
no one here has said that it is; that's a strawman argument NC introduced.
I realize this. I was just hoping that I could get him to tone down his rhetoric if I explicitly said that "it is not fair to call Islam a religion of war". We'll have to wait and see if he does.

I'm not holding my breath.

[winstonjen]

Slaughter is the best forgiveness.

So, NC, how did I do?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
One could just as easily say that the time for mercy is past.

Yes, I think those Muslims are called extremists.

There then follows what could be called "The Allah/Muhammad Doctrine":

1) Go to war with any non-believer who wrongs you.

So if somebody cuts me off on the expressway, then I can declare war? Kill the infidels! Sounds pretty extreme to me.

2) To not go to war against a non-believer who wrongs you is a cowardly act that proves a lack of faith in Allah. The "reward" for such "believers" is also a "painful doom".

Yes, get out of your car and fight like a man you infidel!

This surah constantly degrades non-believers as unclean, unworthy of friendship, perverse, and deservant of a most painful doom. The contempt for non-believers is extreme. The language used is comparable to the worst books of the Old and New Tesaments.

Yes, it's a lot like the contempt that the far-Left has for Islam and Muslims.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Slaughter is the best forgiveness.

How many millions of people have been slaughtered by the far-Left in their pursuit of radical equality? It's really ironic that you, and others here, talk about how violent Islam is. You are a lot like the Christian Crusaders on the Right that talk about how violent Islam is. Oh the irony of it all! I don't believe that it was the Muslims who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction:
How many millions of people have been slaughtered by the far-Left in their pursuit of radical equality? It's really ironic that you, and others here, talk about how violent Islam is. You are a lot like the Christian Crusaders on the Right that talk about how violent Islam is. Oh the irony of it all!

NC probably has no idea how ironic it is:

also posted by NC
You really have a tough time focusing on the issue here. We are talking about the religion of Islam

After failing to justify or refute Islamic oppression, commands for murder, or Muhammad's little girl-turned-wife with a barrage of strawmen and personal attacks, NC turns once again to the ad Hominem tu quoque fallacy:

I don't believe that it was the Muslims who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

In other words:

P1) Infidels condemn Islam

P2) It was infidels that bombed Hiroshima

therefore:

C1) Infidels have no right to condemn Islam

C2) Islam is good

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, I think those Muslims are called extremists.
Unfortunately, their interpretation is more straightforward than yours. One of the problems with ancient texts in general is that they were not written in a way that avoids the chance of multiple interpretations. It is far too easy to take a book like the Quran or the Bible and read in it exactly what you want to read in it. Everyone thinks that their interpretation is the obvious and true one, and that the others are twisted. A moral code that lends itself to different interpretations is a flawed code. A moral code that doesn't give an unambigious answer to the question "Should we kill all the non-believers?" is a seriously flawed code.
So if somebody cuts me off on the expressway, then I can declare war? Kill the infidels! Sounds pretty extreme to me.
Laugh all you want, but that is exactly the kind of thinking that Surah 9 encourages, only on a much larger scale
Silent Acorns: This surah constantly degrades non-believers as unclean, unworthy of friendship, perverse, and deservant of a most painful doom. The contempt for non-believers is extreme. The language used is comparable to the worst books of the Old and New Tesaments.

NonContradiction: Yes, it's a lot like the contempt that the far-Left has for Islam and Muslims.
Once again, I'm not a Marxist or a far-left extremist so I don't see the relevance. The only thing I'm advocating here is the equal treatment of all people before the law. The claim that a text written over 1300 years ago is the perfect and timeless word of God seems far more "radical" and "extreme" to me.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
How many millions of people have been slaughtered by the far-Left in their pursuit of radical equality? It's really ironic that you, and others here, talk about how violent Islam is. You are a lot like the Christian Crusaders on the Right that talk about how violent Islam is. Oh the irony of it all! I don't believe that it was the Muslims who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

In other words, I was spot-on with my summary of Islam. Thanks for your honesty.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NC probably has no idea how ironic it is:
After failing to justify or refute Islamic oppression, commands for murder, or Muhammad's little girl-turned-wife with a barrage of strawmen and personal attacks, NC turns once again to the ad Hominem tu quoque fallacy:

You can put your little book of logical fallacies down. If you are going to condemn Islam and Muhammad, then you open yourselves up to condemnation, much in the same manner that the Christians on the Right open themselves up to condemnation. I am going to defend Islam and Muhammad, but I am not going to limit myself to defending. I am also going to fight back because Islam isn't a punching bag.

Also, just for the record, you never did answer my question why you didn't sympathize with Muhammad and his followers as an oppressed MINORITY community in Mecca. I thought that you were a sympathizer of oppressed minority communities.

In other words:

P1) Infidels condemn Islam

P2) It was infidels that bombed Hiroshima

therefore:

C1) Infidels have no right to condemn Islam

C2) Islam is good

Weren't you saying something about strawmen?

[alek0]

NC,
why do you keep avoiding the issue of inequality between men and women in court testimonies and could you answer my previous question: what happens to a woman who was raped and can't produce any male witnesses to prove it?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by alek0
NC,
why do you keep avoiding the issue of inequality between men and women in court testimonies

What is there to say? Who can say what the reasoning is behind the verse? I can speculate, but it's just speculation.

Women tend to be better equipped to mulitask than men can, whereas men tend to be able to focus on one thing better. Perhaps, it's these differences between men and women that might have something to do with it. I don't know


and could you answer my previous question: what happens to a woman who was raped and can't produce any male witnesses to prove it?

I don't know. I am not a lawyer. With DNA evidence, she may not need any witnesses. What is interesting is that many men, convicted of rape by the testimony of a woman, have been released from prison because of DNA testing. The testimony of woman can be unreliable, but one could argue that the testimony of a man can be unreliable as well. I haven't read any studies comparing the testimonies of women and men.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You can put your little book of logical fallacies down.

non sequitur

If you are going to condemn Islam and Muhammad, then you open yourselves up to condemnation, much in the same manner that the Christians on the Right open themselves up to condemnation. I am going to defend Islam and Muhammad, but I am not going to limit myself to defending. I am also going to fight back because Islam isn't a punching bag.

Please do so if that is what you wish, but irrational attacks upon other belief systems and people that don't believe in them don't make a good argument in favor of your religion. Your off-topic rants on Marxism and Christianity don't help your cause in any way, as they are fallacious and do nothing to justify Islam

Also, just for the record, you never did answer my question why you didn't sympathize with Muhammad and his followers as an oppressed MINORITY community in Mecca.

That's an irrelevant loaded question.

Weren't you saying something about strawmen?

Yes, why did you bring up Hiroshima?

[Timberline]

If one destroys gender relationships, one destroys familial relationaships. If one destroys familial relationships, one destroys the society.

This I don't understand. Please explain how making women's testimony in court equal to men's "destroys familial relationships."

The problem with complete equality is that it doesn't work.

Giving each individual equal opportunities works just fine. Any inherent inequalities will become apparent on their own, without need for law or society to enforce those inequalities. To pick a random example, even if it were true (and I don't think it is) that men were, on average, better at science than women, it would still be silly and unfair to pass a law forbidding women to pursue careers in science, or to limit their salaries to half of what male scientists earn, or to apply social pressure discouraging women from working in science. Because there would still be individual men who were terrible at science and individual women who were great at it. Society would lose the contributions of the latter. As for individuals who were terrible at science, male or female, they most likely wouldn't train for such careers in the first place.

When law or culture forcibly pigeon-holes people into groups--white, black, men, women--instead of treating them as the unique individuals they are, that's usually a recipe for oppression.

Men are the guardians and protectors of women and children.

Are you saying that women are, in essence, "permanent children"?

I believe in Islam because it's a viable alternative to the failed ideologies on the Left and the fanaticism of the Bible thumpers on the Right. When you come up with a better alternative, let me know.

Better? Easy. Think of a system exactly like Islam in every way but one: a woman's testimony in court is fully equal to a man's.

NC, you say you've compared many ideologies, weighing the good and evil in each. Do you have any reason to reject the system I just described above (other than that it was written 13 seconds ago instead of 1300 years ago)?

[alek0]

NC,

about court testimonies, here is an explanation for website on Islam:
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/
"In some instances of bearing witness to certain civil con-tracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. This lack of experience may cause a loss to any party in a given contract. So the Law requires that at least two women should bear witness with one man. if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her. Or if she makes an error, due to lack of experience, the other would help to correct her. This is a precautionary measure to guarantee honest transactions and proper dealings between people. In fact, it gives woman a role to play in civil life and helps to establish justice. At any rate, lack of experience in civil life does not necessarily mean that women is inferior to man in her status. Every human being lacks one thing or another, yet no one questions their human status (2:282)."

Do you honestly don't see anything wrong with "if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her"? How is this intellectual equality between men and women?

As for my other question, what happens to a woman who is raped and cannot produce male witnesses to prove it - in many Islamic countries, if she is unlucky enough to get pregnant from rape and therefore can't hide it, she gets stoned to death. That is, if her family doesn't kill her first. Is this just and equal treatment of women?

Also, what about rape within marriage?

[dk]

MollyMac: No I don't think a misrepresentation can be construed as persuasive argument. My "Sorry" was intended to convey that any misrepresentation was not intended.
dk: I apologize for being a smartass.

dk: First, if you must slander religious people as oppressive, please have the decency to define “religious fundamentalism”. Fanatics and bigots have a lot in common, for example they both show their true feathers by slandering multitudes with a single slur. I’ll bet you can’t even define Religious fundamentalism, yet out of habit just assume everyone knows what it means. I don’t say this to be confrontational, but I know you don’t want to talk like racist or bigot.
MollyMac: I don't say this to be confrontational either but what the hell are you talking about, dk? I have not used the term 'religious fundamentalism' ANYWHERE in ANY of my posts apart from the one where I was paraphrasing YOU. In your previous post you had said this:
If religious fundamentalism were the monster you purport then Britain would be praying to a Swastika or a Hammer and Sickle today.
And I paraphrased that as this: "Religious fundamentalism isn't as bad as all that." But I had not used the term myself.
So in fact it is you who out of habit just assumes everyone knows what it means and it should be you who has the decency to define it. In fact, that was really funny from someone whose posts are peppered with sentences like "Feminists employ the same Machiavellian tactics with a new angle, they pit women against social infrastructure and family in a Freudian game of sexual subterfuge" and then complains of being misrepresented.
dk: The term “cherry picker” as caricature misrepresents the pedagogues of Muslims and Christians i.e. the traditions of Muslim verses Western (Roman) verses Eastern (Byzantine). How? First… Islam & Byzantine historically consolidated secular and sectarian authority under one crown/staff and the tradition dates back to the Prophet and Constantine, respectively. Second… Peter (Papacy) follows from a tradition that draws a distinct line between secular and sectarian power. Third… Islam uniquely teaches fatwa/jihad to formulate the means by which a secular power serves sectarian ends (God’s Will). There’s simply no adequate descriptor that can possibly describe all three traditions.

dk: Ok, but the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East never defined what “Freedom of Clothing” means. If you know please tell me, and if you don’t know what these women are talking about why bring them up?
MollyMac: I do know what these women are talking about. Sorry if I have the habit of assuming that everybody understands plain English. The term 'freedom of clothing' means freedom to choose what to wear.
dk: The definition still looks convoluted to me. In the US dress codes are legally enforceable and apply to all public venues. This necessarily infringes upon my “freedom of clothing”, as you’ve defined it. I don’t find anything plain about the Committee’s complaint, and I find the lack of clarity disturbing. Maybe I just expect too much.

dk: Molly you’re the one that claims to be on a “humble mission”. I felt obliged to put your “humble mission” in an historical context.
MollyMac: Why? What purpose does that serve? What difference does it make?
dk: It matters because many predators wear masks to confuse their prey. Though you’ve described the mission as “humble” I fear a hidden agenda masked by the euphemism “Freedom of Clothing”. I suspect a much broader unspoken agenda.

MollyMac: I am the daughter of immigrants. My ancestors weren't doing any stomping all over the Middle East. They were too busy being stomped on - under the Ottoman Empire as it happens. So less of the 'you folks'!
Apart from that I don’t anything particularly contentious in your last post. I have said time and time again that I support all people from Islamic backgrounds in THEIR struggle for human rights and I’m not talking about the ones “who aren’t buying”. I’m talking about the ones who are. Whatever I say, you seem intent on pigeon holing me as a blinkered Western radical feminist and I can’t be bothered with it any more.
dk: If you’re for human rights then why focus on women’s dress codes?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Unfortunately, their interpretation is more straightforward than yours. One of the problems with ancient texts in general is that they were not written in a way that avoids the chance of multiple interpretations. It is far too easy to take a book like the Quran or the Bible and read in it exactly what you want to read in it.

You can say that about any text. Look at how the Constitution of the US is nterpreted. I think that the Quran speaks in very clear language, but there will always be people who will twist any text to fit their agenda. These people are even mentioned in the Quran.

Surah (3,7)
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.


Everyone thinks that their interpretation is the obvious and true one, and that the others are twisted. A moral code that lends itself to different interpretations is a flawed code.

Where is there a moral code which doesn't lend itself to different interpretations? You are setting up an impossible standard that even you can't live up to.

A moral code that doesn't give an unambigious answer to the question "Should we kill all the non-believers?" is a seriously flawed code.

There is no absolute answer. It's relative to the situation, and I think that the Quran does an excellent job of conveying that message. One cannot pick and choose verses like a cherry picker, otherwise, they will walk away with the wrong idea.

Laugh all you want, but that is exactly the kind of thinking that Surah 9 encourages, only on a much larger scale.

If you want to take verses out of the context in which they were revealed, then you have a point. However, most Muslims don't take things out of their context, as you do, because they are not trying to disparage Islam.

Once again, I'm not a Marxist or a far-left extremist so I don't see the relevance. The only thing I'm advocating here is the equal treatment of all people before the law.

People may say that they are not extremists, but for people to persist in saying that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert is far from a moderate position. You cannot say that you are a moderate, yet you cling to extremist views.

The claim that a text written over 1300 years ago is the perfect and timeless word of God seems far more "radical" and "extreme" to me.

Whether the Quran was revealed 1300 years ago, or 13 years ago, is irrelevant. It's not the passage of time that makes a text outdated. Liberals may believe that these texts are outdated, but they haven't demonstrated that they can produce something better. I am skeptical of anyone who advocates abandoning the wisdom of the past, for the empty promises of an idealistic future, especially when they don't have a very good track record so far.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You can say that about any text. Look at how the Constitution of the US is nterpreted. I think that the Quran speaks in very clear language, but there will always be people who will twist any text to fit their agenda. These people are even mentioned in the Quran.

False analogy; the US constitution is not a holy book, has specific provisions that allow it to be reworded and rewritten, and does not command murder. NC is partially correct, however, in that the Qur'an clearly commands the murder of infidels and considers men superior to women.

We've covered the former, now let's see more of the latter:

"II/223: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them...IV/15:If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them. [Allah is a bit more lenient with lewd men:] IV/16: If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful....XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies... "

Many of the ahadith are even less charitable

People may say that they are not extremists, but for people to persist in saying that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert is far from a moderate position. You cannot say that you are a moderate, yet you cling to extremist views.

Times have changed; in the 21st century, the extremist is now the one that attempts to justify misogyny, murder, and child molestation


Liberals may believe that these texts are outdated, but they haven't demonstrated that they can produce something better.

False dichotomy; that another point of view may be unsatisfactory does not automatically justify Islam. Both "liberalism" and Islam could be wrong.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
If you are going to condemn Islam and Muhammad, then you open yourselves up to condemnation, much in the same manner that the Christians on the Right open themselves up to condemnation. I am going to defend Islam and Muhammad, but I am not going to limit myself to defending. I am also going to fight back because Islam isn't a punching bag.

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
Please do so if that is what you wish, but irrational attacks upon other belief systems and people that don't believe in them don't make a good argument in favor of your religion. Your off-topic rants on Marxism and Christianity don't help your cause in any way, as they are fallacious and do nothing to justify Islam

Your startegy, so far, has been to throw as much mud on Islam as you can, hoping that some of it might stick. It's sort of similar to a theist who brings a multitude of arguments for the existence of God in the hope that the sheer number of arguments will prove his point. As soon as I answer one charge against Islam, you bring another, and another, and another, etc. The bottom line here is that you haven't proven that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert. My objective has been to argue that these attacks are nothing more than a political witch-hunt.

NonCon
Also, just for the record, you never did answer my question why you didn't sympathize with Muhammad and his followers as an oppressed MINORITY community in Mecca.

Dr. Rick
That's an irrelevant loaded question.

It's not an irrelevant loaded question. You are portraying yourself as a minority rights sympathizer, yet you don't sympathize with the plight that Muhammad and his followers were in. Why? Muhammad and his small band of followers had to fight for basic human rights. Many of them died in their struggles against the Pagans who were practicing female infanticide and denying women any rights whatsoever. Not only you don't sympathize with the plight that Muhammad was in, you condemn him as a violent misogynist. You can avoid answering the question, but it's going to haunt you until you do

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You can say that about any text. Look at how the Constitution of the US is nterpreted. I think that the Quran speaks in very clear language, but there will always be people who will twist any text to fit their agenda. These people are even mentioned in the Quran.[/b]
As Dr. Rick said, the US Constitution doesn't pretend to be a perfect holy unalterable text. Also, the range of interpretations is a lot smaller for the Constitution than for the Quran.
Where is there a moral code which doesn't lend itself to different interpretations? You are setting up an impossible standard that even you can't live up to.
It wouldn't be impossible for a perfect God. If Allah can't be as unambiguous as Thomas Jefferson, that doesn't say much for Allah's claim of perfection. The existance of a single flaw in the moral code of the Quran proves that it is not a perfect text. Once this is established, the question becomes how serious are the flaws and what should be done to address them.

I am not claiming that the Quran is rotten to the core, but it is flawed and some of these flaws are serious. They need to be recognized and addressed. The idea that Book X is perfect and unalterable is a very dangerous idea. Such thinking has led to far more murders than the far-left ideas that you hate so much (and that I don't endorse either).
One cannot pick and choose verses like a cherry picker, otherwise, they will walk away with the wrong idea.
They would get the wrong idea if the Quran was indeed a perfect text. If it's not, however, "cherry picking" is exactly what one should do. IMO, the latter is FAR more likely than the former. Infinitely more likely, in fact.
If you want to take verses out of the context in which they were revealed, then you have a point. However, most Muslims don't take things out of their context, as you do, because they are not trying to disparage Islam.
The fact that it can be taken out of what you say is the proper context so easily, and that the consequences are so severe, is a serious problem. The "war on the expressway" was your example, not mine. It is rather obvious from the text of Surah 9 that the fight it describes is one between nations. The thinking described in this Surah is very bi-polar. It lends itself very easily to "we have been wronged by the West - the time for war is now" type thinking. The "proper context" for the Quran is to read it with the realization that it was written by men in a particular time and place and history.

I am not trying to "disparage Islam". I am trying to show that the Quran is a work written by flawed men of another era. Some of their ideas are good and probably timeless. Others are products of the time and politics of their era. An important few are downright dangerous to apply today. The same could be said for any other text. It is the idea that the Quran (or the Bible, or Das Kapital) is the "Truth" that is so dangerous because it is so easy to abuse. The Soviets did it, the Crusaders did it, the Bushites are on the verge of doing it, and a number of extremist Islamic sects are eager to try it too. All this leads from a single bad idea, "I know the Truth".
People may say that they are not extremists, but for people to persist in saying that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a sexual pervert is far from a moderate position. You cannot say that you are a moderate, yet you cling to extremist views.
1) I have said very litttle about the "9 year-old-wife" issue, and have never said anything about Muhammed being a pervert. So please stop subscribing that claim to me.

2) I never said that Islam is an inherently violent and misogynistic religion. Rather, I have been saying that many Islamic sects are violent and misogynistic, and that they use the Quran to justify their actions to themselves. The fact that they do this is a serious problem and is the direct result of dogmatic ideas like "The Quran is the one True Perfect Book".
Whether the Quran was revealed 1300 years ago, or 13 years ago, is irrelevant. It's not the passage of time that makes a text outdated.
1) It wasn't "revealed" it was written by flawed men
2) Anything written by flawed men becomes outdated the moment they put pen to paper
3) The idea that a 1300 year-old-book can provide solutions to modern political problems is silly in the extreme. Valuable insights? Sure. Solutions to all our problems? Nonsense.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Your startegy, so far, has been to throw as much mud on Islam as you can, hoping that some of it might stick...As soon as I answer one charge against Islam, you bring another, and another, and another, etc.

The "mud" you refer to is the Quran, ahadith, and the practices justified by some Muslims as Islamic.

Your answers have been name-calling and strawmen.

My objective has been to argue that these attacks are nothing more than a political witch-hunt.

In other words, it has been your startegy, so far, to throw as much mud as you can.

If you were to respond in a rational manner, your objective would be to refute the arguments against Islam rather than to post ad hominems, strawmen, and irrelevant, loaded questions. None of these are a defense of your beliefs.

...you don't sympathize with the plight that Muhammad and his followers were in.

Another ad hominem from NC; Having sympathy for Muslims, then or now, doesn't mean approving of or applying their superstitous, oppressive beliefs and teachings to the 21st century.

Muhammad and his small band of followers had to fight for basic human rights. Many of them died in their struggles against the Pagans who were practicing female infanticide and denying women any rights whatsoever.

That may explain, but it does not justify, the continuing oppression of women and commands to kill infidels.

Not only you don't sympathize with the plight that Muhammad was in, you condemn him as a violent misogynist. You can avoid answering the question, but it's going to haunt you until you do

By "haunt," do you mean that you're going to keep repeating your irrelevant questions, strawmen, and ad hominems over and over again? I never called Muhammad "a violent misogynist;" you just made that up.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
In other words, it has been your startegy, so far, to throw as much mud as you can.

If you were to respond in a rational manner, your objective would be to refute the arguments against Islam rather than to post ad hominems, strawmen, and irrelevant, loaded questions. None of these are a defense of your beliefs.

The burden of proof here is upon YOU, not me. You are the one who has been bringing one slander after another, but so far you haven't been able to prove anything. Only the most simple-minded yahoos would believe, as you do, that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion founded by a pedophile.

...you don't sympathize with the plight that Muhammad and his followers were in.

Another ad hominem from NC; Having sympathy for Muslims, then or now, doesn't mean approving of or applying their superstitous, oppressive beliefs and teachings to the 21st century.

What it does underscore is that you do have a hidden agenda. You label a minority community that fought for social justice in the face of oppression "violent misogynists". They fought and died so that women, slaves, the elderly, and the poor would be treated justly. By the liberal moral standards of the 21st century, you are condemning and slandering a minority community that fought for social justice 1400 years ago. What escapes me is how you don't see that as being unfair.

As Muslims, we don't see where your liberal moral standards are better than our moral standard of 1400 years ago. It may be obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to us.


By "haunt," do you mean that you're going to keep repeating your irrelevant questions, strawmen, and ad hominems over and over again? I never called Muhammad "a violent misogynist;" you just made that up.

What about pedophile? Didn't you call him a sexual pervert, even after that charge was refuted? If you claim that Islam is a violent, misogynistic religion, and Muhammad was the founder of that religion, then it certainly is implied that you are a calling him a violent misogynist.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
They fought and died so that women, slaves, the elderly, and the poor would be treated justly.

Slavery is incompatible with justice; you cannot treat a slave justly as long as you keep him or her as a slave. Islam did not do justice to slaves.

Subordinating women to men just because they are women is not treating them justly, either; Islam did not do justice to women.

Islam did not give justice to elderly women, poor women, or poor slaves, so at best it preached justice for some elderly and some poor as long as they were free and as long as they were men.

That was a long, long time ago. Back then, Islamic pronouncements were in many ways progressive, but times have changed, and now many of those same rules are oppressive. We live in the 21st century; decent people no longer tolerate nor even make excuses for slavery, misogyny, and pedophilia. Such things were acceptable in centuries past, but that was then. Today we do not excuse intolerance just because the victims are in bondage, female, underage, or non-believers. On the contrary; we condemn injustice and any person or belief that supports it as well.

What about pedophile? Didn't you call him a sexual pervert, even after that charge was refuted?

That charge was never refuted, and most Islamic historians know that it can't be, and most honest Muslims don't claim that it can be. We can explain Muhammad's actions by noting that they weren't considered sick and perverted then as they are today, just as we can explain but do not condone or try to deny how Grecians treated little boys. Muhammad did some good relative to his time, as did the Greeks, but neither deserves our worship.

In any event, your claim that I called Muhammad a "violent misogynist" was another falsehood; Islamic belief does not justify your lies.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NC is partially correct, however, in that the Qur'an clearly commands the murder of infidels and considers men superior to women.

So now we have murder added to the list: violent, misogynistic, murdering pedophile. I hope some day that you are treated in the same way that you have treated Muhammad. That would only be fair.

NonCon
Liberals may believe that these texts are outdated, but they haven't demonstrated that they can produce something better.

Dr. Rick
False dichotomy; that another point of view may be unsatisfactory does not automatically justify Islam. Both "liberalism" and Islam could be wrong.

I have asked you before where is the dichotomy and you failed to answer me, like so many other questions I have asked you before. I have never asserted that Islam must be correct if liberalism is wrong. My point is that it's not unreasonable to request someone who is crticizing something to provide an alternative to what they are criticizing. If you convince me that Islam is as bad as you say it is, then what text do you propose that we follow?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
On the contrary; we condemn injustice and any person or belief that supports it as well.

So you and your comrades decide what is just and unjust for the rest of humanity and anybody who opposes you is the enemy. It's amazing how much you are like a fundamentalist.

NonConWhat about pedophile? Didn't you call him a sexual pervert, even after that charge was refuted?

Dr. RickThat charge was never refuted, and most Islamic historians know that it can't be, and most honest Muslims don't claim that it can be.

The only evidence you have is a hadith from MUSLIM sources. You don't know the first thing about evaluating a hadith for authenticity, but that doesn't matter because you have found what you believe to be some dirt on Muhammad. You are the one who is dirty, Dr. Rick, not Muhammad. When you stop the ad homs on Muhammad, then I will stop the ad homs on you. It's called justice.

Muhammad did some good relative to his time, as did the Greeks, but neither deserves our worship.

We don't worship Muhammad. If Muhammad did some good, relative to his time, then are you saying that good and evil are relative? How are you so sure that your liberal standard of morality is better than Islam?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

We don't worship Muhammad. If Muhammad did some good, relative to his time, then are you saying that good and evil are relative? How are you so sure that your liberal standard of morality is better than Islam?

Because almost anything is better than Islam. Ditto for Xianity.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If you convince me that Islam is as bad as you say it is, then what text do you propose that we follow?
Science, history, mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. For starters.

However, it looks like Islam adherants require authority even more than Christianity adherants. I guess it's difficult and frightening to learn to think for oneself.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
If you convince me that Islam is as bad as you say it is, then what text do you propose that we follow?
NoWhere357
Science, history, mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. For starters.

However, it looks like Islam adherants require authority even more than Christianity adherants. I guess it's difficult and frightening to learn to think for oneself.

If you are such a great thinker, then you shouldn't have trouble thinking about my question and answering it. As far as I know, science, history, mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology don't inform us about what is ethical and unethical.

Try answering my question again if you truly are a thinker.. If you believe that we shouldn't follow the Quranic text, then what text do you think that we should follow? If you are going to crticize the Quranic text, then it's not unreasonable to ask for an alternative.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
How are you so sure that your liberal standard of morality is better than Islam?
Originally posted by winstonjen
Because almost anything is better than Islam. Ditto for Xianity.

What text do you think that we should follow instead of the Quranic text?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by alek0
NC,

about court testimonies, here is an explanation for website on Islam:
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/
"In some instances of bearing witness to certain civil con-tracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. This lack of experience may cause a loss to any party in a given contract. So the Law requires that at least two women should bear witness with one man. if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her. Or if she makes an error, due to lack of experience, the other would help to correct her. This is a precautionary measure to guarantee honest transactions and proper dealings between people. In fact, it gives woman a role to play in civil life and helps to establish justice. At any rate, lack of experience in civil life does not necessarily mean that women is inferior to man in her status. Every human being lacks one thing or another, yet no one questions their human status (2:282)."

Do you honestly don't see anything wrong with "if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her"? How is this intellectual equality between men and women?

The verse in the Quran didn't say anything about forgetting. It said that if one errs, the other could remind her. My daughter related a story that she saw on ABC news, or some other program, that talked about the differences between the male and female brain. The scientists gave the men and women two different stories to remember. The men had a tendency to remember one story or the other, whereas the women, on the other hand, had a tendency to mix between the two stories.

Despite all of this, perhaps, one could argue that modern society is much different than the society at the time of Muhammad, and therefore, this ruling wouldn't apply to us. They would, however, have to argue how it's different and why this ruling should not apply. The Quran is a context sensitive book, so this type of argument is valid and is not without precedent in Islam.

for my other question, what happens to a woman who is raped and cannot produce male witnesses to prove it - in many Islamic countries, if she is unlucky enough to get pregnant from rape and therefore can't hide it, she gets stoned to death.

Firstly, Islam is a conservative religion, and therefore, is concerned with protecting women from being raped. It's one of the reasons why the Quran has commanded the women to cover their nakedness. Secondly, if a woman does get raped, then it's the responsibility for the authorities to investigate and bring the perpretrator to justice. If the Muslims stone to death an innocent woman who was raped, then they have failed her on several counts:

1) They failed to protect her from being raped.

2) They failed to protect her from being falsely accused of adultery.

3) They failed to protect her from being punished unjustly.


Is this just and equal treatment of women?

I don't think so.

Also, what about rape within marriage?

Muhammad commanded the wife of a Muslim man to answer the call of her husband, at anytime, unless she has a valid reason not to do so. The woman cannot simply refuse to have sex with her husband because she doesn't feel like she is in the mood. Islam does this in order to PROTECT the husband from going elsewhere to gratify himself. It's a protection for the husband since the punishment for adultery, as you know, is severe.

You may not agree with this ruling, or the reasoning behind, but to say that it's rape is ridiculous IMO. This is just more liberal garbage.

[lpetrich]

First, one has to question the canonical accounts of pre-Islamic Arabia, because they are all from Islamic sources, and some of them may be propaganda:

"See how bad we were before Mohammed came along and revealed Islam to us."

Muslims are known to concede that many of the Hadiths are forgeries, and some even believe that nearly all of them are. Ignaz Goldziher and others, who have studied the Hadiths in detail, have concluded that the large majority of them are forgeries -- many of them do not go as far back in time as one might expect them to. This also means that Islamic isnadology is worthless -- the isnads (chains of transmitters) are also forgeries.

And it is seriously proposed that some pre-Islamic Arabic poetry was forged to justify certain linguistic constructions.

For more, see this nice article on the origins of Islam (http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm).

With such pious fraudulence, one must view with a jaundiced eye anything that Muslim historians say about pre-Islamic Arabia. For example, the claim of having abolished female infanticide could simply be a way of frowning on the practice.

But even if female infanticide had been common among pre-Islamic Arabs, it's clear that women were not helped very much more than that.

Where are all the female mullahs, imams, etc.?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
How are you so sure that your liberal standard of morality is better than Islam?

The subject is Islam.

If you believe that we shouldn't follow the Quranic text, then what text do you think that we should follow? If you are going to crticize the Quranic text, then it's not unreasonable to ask for an alternative.

False dichotomy (a false dichotomy is when only two choices are offered, such as in this case where the answers proposed are either The Qur'an or alternative texts when more than just two options exist.); there is no specific text that we must follow.

When you stop the ad homs on Muhammad, then I will stop the ad homs on you. It's called justice.

Criticising a historical figure that is part of the subject of debate is not a logical fallacy, otherwise historical figures could never be rationally discussed.

I would prefer you continue the ad homs, btw; they make your argument appear even worse than it is. I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I'm demonstrating to rational people how irrational Islam is and how irrational it makes its believers, and you are making the task quite easy.


So you and your comrades decide what is just and unjust for the rest of humanity and anybody who opposes you is the enemy.

I'm not the only one that opposes murder, oppression, and pedophilia. I do not consider every one that doesn't believe as me to be my enemy as apparently some Muslims do; that's extremist thinking.

The only evidence you have is a hadith from MUSLIM sources. You don't know the first thing about evaluating a hadith for authenticity.

It's ahadith, as more than one discusses Aisha and reveals her to be a little girl when he became the Prophet's wife:

There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.


Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4915 and Number 4915
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.


Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3327:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
Narrated 'Aisha:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Speaking of not knowing how to interpret hadith:

Muhammad commanded the wife of a Muslim man to answer the call of her husband, at anytime, unless she has a valid reason not to do so.

A woman who refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband becomes the target of the curses of angels according to one hadith, and another says that a woman may not refuse her husband even if she is in the middle of preparing food for the family when he calls her.

You may not agree with this ruling, or the reasoning behind, but to say that it's rape is ridiculous IMO.

How are you so sure that your Muslim standard of morality is better than liberalism?

[alek0]

The woman cannot simply refuse to have sex with her husband because she doesn't feel like she is in the mood.

If she is not in the mood, that is rape, plain and simple. If she is not in the mood, there won't be enough lubrication and sex will be painful and unpleasant. Why should she have to endure that, just because someone 1400 years ago thought that men are animals who can't control their sexual urges?

And what if she has a valid reason and her husband still has sex with her? Would this be recognized as rape and if yes how would it be punished?

As for failing innocent woman who was raped, if slam is so concerned about protecting women why are there only measures to prevent rape and nothing in favour of a woman once rape has occured? How can she prove she was raped? What happens if she lives in Islamic country where so called "honour killings" are common so once her family finds out she is not a virgin anymore she will be killed without even having a chance to present her side of the story? I am asking you again, please point out where is equality and justice for women who have been raped in Islam?

[Invader Tak]

What happens if she lives in Islamic country where so called "honour killings" are common so once her family finds out she is not a virgin anymore she will be killed without even having a chance to present her side of the story?

I bet he's going to reply with, "That's not Real Islam".

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
As far as I know, science, history, mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology don't inform us about what is ethical and unethical.
Good point. Add philosophy to that un-ended list I mentioned. Put it in front.

If you believe that we shouldn't follow the Quranic text, then what text do you think that we should follow? If you are going to crticize the Quranic text, then it's not unreasonable to ask for an alternative.
Asked and answered. For a list of possible philosophical texts, see this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49012) thread. Look for texts on morals and ethics.

If a person requires authority in order to function (and many do, I understand this), then I suggest the Buddha. No single text, we have to reasearch a little, but then things worth having require effort, right? And Buddha is worth the effort.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
If you believe that we shouldn't follow the Quranic text, then what text do you think that we should follow? If you are going to crticize the Quranic text, then it's not unreasonable to ask for an alternative.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Asked and answered. For a list of possible philosophical texts, see this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49012) thread. Look for texts on morals and ethics.

If you are such a great thinker, as you imply you are, then why is it difficult for you to answer my question? Philosophy may ask the question, "What is Justice?", but it does little to answer the question.

If a person requires authority in order to function (and many do, I understand this), then I suggest the Buddha. No single text, we have to reasearch a little, but then things worth having require effort, right? And Buddha is worth the effort.

So in other words, you have no alternative. You have no single body of texts that you believe WE should follow. You point to a sea of texts - moral theories, Buddism, etc. - and tell me that I should pick and choose from among these texts whatever I think is right. First of all, I didn't ask you what text you think that I should follow, I asked you what text do you think that WE should follow. The administering of justice is a collective effort, which cannot be carried out by one individual.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Invader Tak
I bet he's going to reply with, "That's not Real Islam".

It appears as though you think that Islam should be blamed for everything evil that Muslims do in the name of Islam. Are you not from among the people that portray themselves as 'social justice" advocates? Where is the justice here?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by alek0
If she is not in the mood, that is rape, plain and simple.

It may be obvious to you that it is rape, but it's not so obvious to me. What is dangerous about these issues is that rape isn't simply a question of morality. It's a legal issue, as well, which implies the use of force. You completely disregard the plausible reasoning behind the text and decide for the whole world that this is injustice, and so, by logical extension, you have the right to use force against Muslims. This is what Muslims don't like about the liberal West. They feel as though they have a right to impose their morality upon everybody else in the world. Where are the Muslims who are dictating to the West how they should live? Why don't you just leave Muslims alone?

If she is not in the mood, there won't be enough lubrication and sex will be painful and unpleasant.

K Y jelly works just fine.

[NonContradiction]

If she is not in the mood, that is rape, plain and simple.

It may be obvious to you that it is rape, but it's not so obvious to me. What is dangerous about these issues is that rape isn't simply a question of morality. It's a legal issue, as well, which implies the use of force. You completely disregard the plausible reasoning behind the text and decide for the whole world that this is injustice, and so, by logical extension, you have the right to use force against Muslims. This is what Muslims don't like about the liberal West. They feel as though they have a right to impose their morality upon everybody else in the world. Where are the Muslims who are dictating to the West how they should live? Why don't you just leave Muslims alone? It's the liberal moral hegemony that is creating many of the problems in the ME.


If she is not in the mood, there won't be enough lubrication and sex will be painful and unpleasant.

K Y jelly works just fine.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
How are you so sure that your liberal standard of morality is better than Islam?
Originally posted by Dr Rick
The subject is Islam.
I know that you want to make the subject Islam, and I know why you want to do that, but the subject is really liberalism vs. Islam.
Originally posted by NonCon
If you believe that we shouldn't follow the Quranic text, then what text do you think that we should follow? If you are going to crticize the Quranic text, then it's not unreasonable to ask for an alternative.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
False dichotomy (a false dichotomy is when only two choices are offered, such as in this case where the answers proposed are either The Qur'an or alternative texts when more than just two options exist.); there is no specific text that we must follow.
Theoretically you are correct. Practically speaking, you are not. I don't know of anybody who believes that we shouldn't follow any text. Perhaps an anarchist, but I think that it's a ridiculous proposition for human beings to live together in a society without some sort of text that spells out what is just and unjust. Having said that, what text will be used? If you say that the Quran should not even be considered, then it's not unreasonable to ask what is the alternative.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
Criticising a historical figure that is part of the subject of debate is not a logical fallacy, otherwise historical figures could never be rationally discussed.

I would prefer you continue the ad homs, btw; they make your argument appear even worse than it is. I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I'm demonstrating to rational people how irrational Islam is and how irrational it makes its believers, and you are making the task quite easy.

I think that it's irrational for liberals to call Muhammad a sexual pervert, while at the same time they sit around discussing whether beastiality is immoral or not. The focus of their discussion tends to be on how the consent of the animal can be obtained. Muhammad wasn't a sexual pervert, but rather they are.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
I'm not the only one that opposes murder, oppression, and pedophilia. I do not consider every one that doesn't believe as me to be my enemy as apparently some Muslims do; that's extremist thinking.
I oppose murder, oppression, and pedophilia, also.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.
You bring a plethera of ahadith, but, as I said before, you don't know the first thing about critiquing a hadith. A hadith is composed of two parts: the matn(text) and the isnad(chain of narrators) A hadith is both the text and the chain of narrators, so what you have posted are technically not ahadith. Unless you can bring the chain of narrators and critique them, you don't have a case. One sound hadith is better than 100 ahadith of questionable narration, so it's not a question of numbers here. The article that I posted to you raised questions about the narration of Hisham bin Urwa after he moved to Iraq at the age of seventy.

There is no doubt that Aisha was very young, much younger than Muhammad. However, the age difference isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not Muhammad violated Aisha and sexually abused her. Since many of the ahadith are narrated by Aisha, particulary about the family life of Muhammad and how he used to treat his wives, one would expect to see some sort of evidence of sexual abuse if it, in fact, occured. Also, Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's most ardent supporter, Abu Bakr, the first successor of Muhammad. If Muhammad was sexually abusing Aisha, then the father of Aisha must have been aware of the abuse and even encouraged it. Also, the whole society must have been aware of the abuse since his marriage to Aisha wasn't a secret. This means that the whole society must have encouraged it also.

Any Muslim would find what you are doing here disgusting. You are trying to slander the character of a man who isn't even alive to defend himself because you have your own liberal political agenda that you think the whole
world should follow. Islam protects its teenage girls, unlike the liberals in the west that throw their teenage girls to the pornography industry to be exploited.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
How are you so sure that your Muslim standard of morality is better than liberalism?
The liberals are the ones who started throwing mud at Islam and Muhammad, first, so I think that it's only fair that they should have to explain why they think that liberalism so much better than Islam.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
What text do you think that we should follow instead of the Quranic text?

Compassion and the modifed golden rule.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The administering of justice is a collective effort, which cannot be carried out by one individual.
Exactly. Which is why a system based on one book is doomed to fail - especially when the book is ancient, written for primitive people, and irrelevant to modern times.

You have completely contradicted your own position. My position stands - the answer is education and introspection, not slavish obedience to religious dogma and rhetoric.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
K Y jelly works just fine.
So does your right hand - which incidently avoids violating the human rights of your busy headachy wife.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
The administering of justice is a collective effort, which cannot be carried out by one individual.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Exactly. Which is why a system based on one book is doomed to fail - especially when the book is ancient, written for primitive people, and irrelevant to modern times.

You have completely contradicted your own position. My position stands - the answer is education and introspection, not slavish obedience to religious dogma and rhetoric.

You are having a very difficult time answering my question. If liberals are as smart as you think they are, then why can't they get together and produce a text? Call it the Book of Liberals, if you will. At least you would have a text that you can point to. Right now, you have nothing. All you can do is criticize the texts of the other people, but you don't have your own text. Put all of that education and introspection that you are talking about to good use, and produce the Book of Liberals so that you can show the world how smart you are and how slavish and dogmatic the Muslims are.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
The administering of justice is a collective effort, which cannot be carried out by one individual.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Exactly. Which is why a system based on one book is doomed to fail - especially when the book is ancient, written for primitive people, and irrelevant to modern times.

You have completely contradicted your own position. My position stands - the answer is education and introspection, not slavish obedience to religious dogma and rhetoric.

You are having a very difficult time answering my question. If liberals are as smart as you think they are, then why can't they get together and produce a text? Call it the Book of Liberals, if you will. At least you would have a text that you can point to. Right now, you have nothing. All you can do is criticize the texts of the other people, but you don't have your own text. Put all of that education and introspection that you are talking about to good use, and produce the Book of Liberals so that you can show the world how smart you are and how slavish and dogmatic the Muslims are.

[winstonjen]

Book of Liberals

Chapter 1 Verse 1:

Thou shalt not double-post. It does not help your argument.

[stilus]

May I offer this one thing to the current discussion: I think the problem lies within that very often used word, which is the opposite to both “thinking” and “knowing” while in discussions it is always used to mean exactly that. I mean the word “believe”. If you believe in something, you know it not. Could we agree to untangle those words? They represent too important things to get so sloppy and some people abuse the confusion. Their trick is a simple one: poison a persons words, and his grip on reality dies with them.

And knowing this: should we put our faith in even more of those dangerous words and their confusions, slipped into texts by dangerous men and women who have “a way with words”? Isn’t that like inviting the poisoners into your house to cook you dinner?

[edit]

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Book of Liberals

Chapter 1 Verse 1:

Thou shalt not double-post. It does not help your argument.

The last couple times that I have gone back to edit my post I suddenly found a double post. I am not sure why.

[Timberline]

You have no single body of texts that you believe WE should follow. You point to a sea of texts - moral theories, Buddism, etc. - and tell me that I should pick and choose from among these texts whatever I think is right.

I don't think you can shrug off Buddhism as "a sea of texts" while embracing Islam with its equivalent "sea of hadith" among which people pick and choose and debate authenticity. I've seen no sign that you are a "Koran only" Muslim.

But if you need a single text, I have one. It's on the shelf right next to my copy of the Koran, and it's called "The Teaching of Buddha." It's a compendium of Buddhism, clearly formatted to be used as a kind of "Buddhist Bible." Some Buddhist group must have seen how well that was working for Christianity and Islam. Like my copy of the Koran, The Teaching of Buddha has an English translation opposite the same text in the original language (in this case, Chinese). The same book in the same format has been translated into at least 34 languages, based on the information in the back. So it's a pretty authoratative and widespread "text" for Buddhism. There you go, a Buddhist Bible. Certainly a better moral alternative than the repetitive, sexist, and frequently violent Koran.

Another alternative: How about the Constitution of the U.S.? Not perfect by any means, but I'd rather base a society on that than on the Koran. Is it even possible to base a society on the Koran alone? I'm not sure there's enough meat there; it's heavy on Allah repeating over and over how great he is, and rather light on actual concrete laws and rules (most of which seem to involve putting women and unbelievers in their place).

I have to say, the very idea of needing a universal "text" for basic morality and everyday behavior seems very strange. Common decency shouldn't require an instruction manual. For example, neither Islam nor any other "text" instructed me yesterday to call a depressed friend in the middle of the workday and cheer her up with an unexpected joke, and then lend an ear, which turned out to be exactly what she needed. I figured that out on my own. NC, perhaps you should try using less "text" and more empathy.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Theoretically you are correct. Practically speaking, you are not. I don't know of anybody who believes that we shouldn't follow any text. Perhaps an anarchist, but I think that it's a ridiculous proposition for human beings to live together in a society without some sort of text that spells out what is just and unjust. Having said that, what text will be used? If you say that the Quran should not even be considered, then it's not unreasonable to ask what is the alternative.
Obviously, for practical reasons, at any given time some "text" needs to be used. The difference between you and us is that you think the Qu'ran is so wonderful that it alone should be used, it should be used forever, and that it should never be altered or updated.

You want something better than the Qu'ran, try any constitition (or similar set of documents) of any democratic western nation.

Thank the IPU, that the British didn't think like you. Otherwise we'd be stuck with the Magna Carta forever just because "it made things better than before".

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Obviously, for practical reasons, at any given time some "text" needs to be used. The difference between you and us is that you think the Qu'ran is so wonderful that it alone should be used, it should be used forever, and that it should never be altered or updated.

Okay, now we are making some progress here. Some text needs to be used which spells out, clearly, what is just and unjust. I have my text, which you are well aware of, that I am going to defend. The liberals need to get their own text which they are going to support and defend. I don't really care if they borrow from Buddhism, a consitution, or some other text. They could make up their own if they don't want to borrow from some other text. The point is they would have their own text which they could support and defend. The liberals are never going to get anywhere as long as they are simply criticizing someone else's text, yet they have nothing to put down on the table as a better alternative. For this reason, so many people say that the liberals have a hidden agenda because nobody knows exactly what their agenda is.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You want something better than the Qu'ran, try any constitition (or similar set of documents) of any democratic western nation.

I see this as nothing more than more liberal moral hegemony. You may say that any constitution is better than the Quran, but that statement needs to be supported. As a Muslim, I don't believe that any western nation can claim moral superiority if it doesn't protect its teenage girls from being exploited by the pornography industry.

[alek0]

Could you elaborate on justice of inequality of women's testimony in court and point out what are Muslims doing to protect females who were victims of rape? Unless you think that stoning them for adultery is protection - after they are dead, no one will rape them anymore.

Also, please explain why is it acceptable for a man to force himself on his wife who is not in the mood at the moment (or maybe sick, or it is too soon after childbirth and her episiotomy isn't healed and the bastard keeps tearing out her sticthes) and why is that better than the other options a) masturbation b) simply controlling the urge which shouldn't be too difficult for a sentient being. If nothing else works, go to the gym and after heavy workout you'll just want shower and sleep. Why should a man have right to instant gratification of his desires?

Also, please explain why Islam considers human beings, both male and female, absolutely incapable of controling their sexual urges?

Do you honestly believe that females are better off in an islamic country than a western democracy because some teenage girls happen to be "exploited by the pornography industry"? I don't know any woman who would exchange places with a female from Saudi Arabia because she thinks her life is better. Do you?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
I don't think you can shrug off Buddhism as "a sea of texts" while embracing Islam with its equivalent "sea of hadith" among which people pick and choose and debate authenticity.

When I said "sea of texts", I wasn't referring to Buddhism in particular. I meant that there are a sea of texts in existence from which people can pick and choose and from. Islam is a body of texts. Christianity is a body of texts. Constitutions of nations are bodies of texts.

I've seen no sign that you are a "Koran only" Muslim.

One cannot reject any hadith on a whim. One must have rational justification for doing so.

But if you need a single text, I have one. It's on the shelf right next to my copy of the Koran, and it's called "The Teaching of Buddha." It's a compendium of Buddhism, clearly formatted to be used as a kind of "Buddhist Bible." Some Buddhist group must have seen how well that was working for Christianity and Islam. Like my copy of the Koran, The Teaching of Buddha has an English translation opposite the same text in the original language (in this case, Chinese). The same book in the same format has been translated into at least 34 languages, based on the information in the back. So it's a pretty authoratative and widespread "text" for Buddhism. There you go, a Buddhist Bible. Certainly a better moral alternative than the repetitive, sexist, and frequently violent Koran.

Simply because you say that it's a better alternative doesn't make it so. If you look at your post here, you will find that you haven't said anything which would make me want to become a Buddhist. You haven't said why Buddhism is better. Is your book better because it was translated into 34 different languages? Is your book better because it's an authoritative and widespread text for Buddhism? You are giving me a lot of information, but it's all worthless because you are not telling me why it's better. Instead, you have chosen to bash the Quran as a repetitive, sexist, and frequently violent text. Why the Quran bashing if what you believe in is so superior to the Quran? Bashing what others believe in is a sign of insecurity about you believe in and your ability to defend it.

Another alternative: How about the Constitution of the U.S.? Not perfect by any means, but I'd rather base a society on that than on the Koran.

What would you change in the Constitution of the US?

Is it even possible to base a society on the Koran alone? I'm not sure there's enough meat there; it's heavy on Allah repeating over and over how great he is, and rather light on actual concrete laws and rules (most of which seem to involve putting women and unbelievers in their place).

I think one of the beautiful aspects of the Quran is its simplicity.

I have to say, the very idea of needing a universal "text" for basic morality and everyday behavior seems very strange. Common decency shouldn't require an instruction manual. For example, neither Islam nor any other "text" instructed me yesterday to call a depressed friend in the middle of the workday and cheer her up with an unexpected joke, and then lend an ear, which turned out to be exactly what she needed. I figured that out on my own. NC, perhaps you should try using less "text" and more empathy.

What I don't think most liberals understand is how someone could ever possibly become conservative. I can assure you that I understand how liberals think because I used to be one. Islam is very protective of the poor, the elderly, women, children, etc. Of course, one can be overprotective and infringe on people's freedom as the wahhabis have done in Saudia Arabia. However, on the other hand, one can be underprotective, as most liberals are in America. The liberals have not done a very good job of protecting women from being sexually exploited and abused. I know that you are going to have some sort of excuse for me and try to deflect the blame away of liberals, but it's not going to fly with me. I blame the liberals for not protecting teenage girls from being sexually exploited and abused. If it wasn't for liberalism in the west, the pornography industry wouldn't even exist as it does today. Sooner or later, liberals are going to have to grow up and face the reality of themselves and stop making excuses and deflecting blame to others. When liberals grow up, they become conservatives. Do you want to know my definition of liberalism? It's nothing more than ancient paganism without the gods.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
One cannot reject any hadith on a whim. One must have rational justification for doing so.

Here is a rational justification (http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm) for rejecting essentially all of them. :)

Bashing what others believe in is a sign of insecurity about you believe in and your ability to defend it.

Like your bashing of what you label "liberalism"?

I think one of the beautiful aspects of the Quran is its simplicity.

"Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe! Believe!" is certainly very simple. :D

What I don't think most liberals understand is how someone could ever possibly become conservative. I can assure you that I understand how liberals think because I used to be one.

That's what they all say (sarcasm).

Islam is very protective of the poor, the elderly, women, children, etc.

Protecting women by making them second-class citizens :rolleyes:

Of course, one can be overprotective and infringe on people's freedom as the wahhabis have done in Saudia Arabia.

You're complaining about that? What would you prefer as an alternative to making women wear burqas, not allowing them to drive cars, etc.?

However, on the other hand, one can be underprotective, as most liberals are in America. The liberals have not done a very good job of protecting women from being sexually exploited and abused.

And what do you think they ought to be doing? Seriously.

I blame the liberals for not protecting teenage girls from being sexually exploited and abused. If it wasn't for liberalism in the west, the pornography industry wouldn't even exist as it does today.

Evidence: {}

Sooner or later, liberals are going to have to grow up and face the reality of themselves and stop making excuses and deflecting blame to others.

After you.

When liberals grow up, they become conservatives.

Pat yourself on the back all you want.

Do you want to know my definition of liberalism? It's nothing more than ancient paganism without the gods.

Which shows how little NonContradiction knows about ancient paganism.

[Timberline]

Simply because you say that it's a better alternative doesn't make it so. If you look at your post here, you will find that you haven't said anything which would make me want to become a Buddhist.

The text has all the "be nice" moral guidelines of many other religions without the outdated, impractical sexist dogma of Christian and Muslim texts. That's why it's better. I'm not a Buddhist, however. Perhaps I read you wrong, but it sounded as if you were suggesting there was no Buddhist equivalent of the Koran. So I listed one.



What would you change in the Constitution of the US?

I would cut some obsolete passages, such the bit about slaves being counted as a fraction of a person. I'd also firm up the language on a few sentences that have proved ambiguous and contentious. But this is a topic for another thread.




Why the Quran bashing if what you believe in is so superior to the Quran? Bashing what others believe in is a sign of insecurity about you believe in and your ability to defend it.

Sigh. Here we go again. Why all the liberal bashing if what you believe in is so superior to liberalism? Bashing what others believe is a sign of insecurity, etc., etc.



I blame the liberals for not protecting teenage girls from being sexually exploited and abused. If it wasn't for liberalism in the west, the pornography industry wouldn't even exist as it does today.

Your fixation with the pornography industry is, well, strange. I've never known a single teenage girl "exploited by the pornography industry." I'm sure some have been, but it can't be more than a miniscule percentage of the population. You make it sound as if every second teenage girl in the U.S. has been kidnapped and forced to make smut films. That's not true. The way you continually trumpet this as some kind of ultimate indictment of the West is unconvincing.

Should I blame Islam for not protecting girls from not being sexually exploited and abused in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? (I'm referring specifically to the abuse of Filipino maids, which received some news coverage last year.) Frankly, a society where women are segregated, cloistered, and "prized" as sexual objects seems more likely to encourage widespread sexual exploitation than a society where women are free, equal participants. Just because the abuse in Kuwait occurs in private doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

Women should be free to wear comfortable, practical clothing outdoors on hot days, just as men do. Women should be considered fully equal before the law. You're kidding yourself, NC, if you think that only "far left liberals" agree with those two statements.

[Timberline]

...force against Muslims. This is what Muslims don't like about the liberal West. They feel as though they have a right to impose their morality upon everybody else in the world. Where are the Muslims who are dictating to the West how they should live? Why don't you just leave Muslims alone?

Who's using force? Turkey is the only country I'm aware of that has forced women to abandon tradition Muslim dress. Usually it's the liberals you so disdain who support Muslim women's right to dress in traditional grab.

If a Muslim woman wants to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that's her right. No one will ever force her not to. The West only objects when Muslim majorities try force this dress code on individuals who want no part of it, through legal or social pressure.

Why do fundamentalist Muslims feel they have the right to impose their morality on everyone around them? A friend of mine was forced to wear hijab on a trip to Thailand, and she hated every minute of it. Many women in Iraq currently are complaining about harrassment and social pressure to get them to wear clothes they don't want to wear. When Chechnya declared indpendence from Russia, one its first official acts was to pass a law making Islamic dress for women mandatory. To borrow a phrase from you, why don't you just leave women alone?

[Nowhere357]

Timberline
Another alternative: How about the Constitution of the U.S.
And as the amendments prove, this system allows our education and introspection to lead to productive changes - promoting the health and happiness of society and environment. Answering the slut-trade charge.

NC's insistence of a text to compare just means he should pick one - Buddhism for example, then head to Non-Abrahamic Religion and Philosohy forum and ask about the teachings of Buddha.

Forcing women to cover up under threat of physical punishment (while men don't have to) is wrong, and if a religion insists on it, then that religion is wrong. Islam stands or falls on it's own merits.

[stilus]

Originally posted by NonContradiction



I have my text, which you are well aware of, that I am going to defend. The liberals need to get their own text which they are going to support and defend. I don't really care if they borrow from Buddhism, a consitution, or some other text. They could make up their own if they don't want to borrow from some other text. The point is they would have their own text which they could support and defend.


"To support and Defend a text". How do you see that NonContradiction? Do we really want westerners defending and supporting monolithic texts even more? The Crusades of old were based on internal powerstruggles and... A Book! The Empire, 'scuse me..., The USA is trying to gain world-domination and with what excuse? Faith in their Constitution! Defending and supporting those texts is what they were and are doing. Now I have this question for you NonContradiction: Could it be that truly defending and supporting a text, is all about daring to face the need to doubt and possibly reject it?

Originally posted by NonContradiction


You may say that any constitution is better than the Quran, but that statement needs to be supported. As a Muslim, I don't believe that any western nation can claim moral superiority if it doesn't protect its teenage girls from being exploited by the pornography industry.



I am tempted to start quoting about planks, splinters, eyes. etc,... But lets use our noodles instead. Your claim is:
If government A has "codified morals" B and does C, I reject its moral superiority. It would be easy to find governments with Quran as a Book of codified morals and then some gruesome abuse of little girls they tolerate. Does that mean those muslim countries are using a morally inferior Text? You do not seem to think so, so why do you think you can then go and aim that argument at western nations?

Then as to your seach for "moral superiority"... I would like to use an example: If I was an eskimo (Inuit), I would have certain ideas about life, survival, my environment and about relating to the people I meet. I probably would have some thoughtconstruct that would make survival, and maybe even happiness, possible in the cold snowy nights. When I then move to the desert, I will have to adjust, or die. Does this mean my former thoughtconstruct was "bad", "flawed", "inferior"? Or is it just that different circumstances require different perceptions on life? Do you understand what I am trying to say? Could it maybe be NonContradiction, that morals are never absolute, but should ultimately be tested against reality?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
NonContradiction:
One cannot reject any hadith on a whim. One must have rational justification for doing so.
Here is a rational justification (http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm) for rejecting essentially all of them. :)
When people have prejudice, all they need is someone to confirm their prejudice.
Editorial Note

Most of the articles in this collection were originally published more than fifty years ago (and a couple dare to the nineteenth century), when there was little consistency in the way Arabic terms were transliterated into English.
Most of these articles were written by western orientalists at academic universities. One of my good friends has a Ph D in Islamic studies and has spent the last 30 years refuting their claims. Many of these orientalists that wrote those articles are liberals who are full hatred and enemity towards Islam. As I said, when people have prejudice, all they need is someone to confirm their prejudice.
NonCon
Bashing what others believe in is a sign of insecurity about you believe in and your ability to defend it.
Originally posted by lpetrich
Like your bashing of what you label "liberalism"?
I am glad that you brought this point up. When many liberals stop bashing ALL of the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam, then I will stop bashing liberalism. I don't think that they can stop.

I have come to expect these kinds of games from most liberals. They bash the Abrahamic religions, with impunity, but when somebody fights back and bashes liberalism, they cry foul. If liberals don't want liberalism to be bashed, then I would suggest that they stop bashing the Abrahamic religions.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I oppose murder, oppression, and pedophilia, also.


You are attacking the Prophet and all of Islam with such slander. How dare you question the holy Qur'an? You have endangered world peace and countless families with this bigoted attack. It's prejudice. You promote beastiality; get off your high horse.

May your K -Y burn and scorch you.

[Worldtraveller]

First off, the disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread, only the first and last few pages.

I am interested in Noncontradiction's seeming obsession with teenage girls being exploited by the porn industry. Without doing any armchair psychoanalysis of NC, it strikes me as odd to say the least.

There are laws in the US that state a person has to be 18 (the legal age to sign a contract) in order to work in that industry. So while it may happen illegally, it is just that, illegal.

Blaming every problem in 'western cultures' on this is like saying all Musilims are just as bad as the worst of the Taliban, and the terrorists who perpetrate attacks around the world.

We (mostly, don't get me started on Rumsfeld)) give Muslims the benefit of the doubt and assume that they condemn, not condone, that kind of behavior.

So NC, why is it unreasonable to ask you to do the same to us?

What I don't think most liberals understand is how someone could ever possibly become conservative. I can assure you that I understand how liberals think because I used to be one. Islam is very protective of the poor, the elderly, women, children, etc.

Most 'liberal' social programs tend to increase protections for the young, elderly, and otherwise disadvantaged. While the conservatives had to coin a new phrase 'compassionate conservative' although it's an oxymoron. So unless you are talking about different conservatives than I think you are...this is just plain wrong.

[stilus]

Dear NonContradiction, how did you get to this point:

Originally posted by NonContradiction


I am glad that you brought this point up. When many liberals stop bashing ALL of the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam, then I will stop bashing liberalism. I don't think that they can stop.I have come to expect these kinds of games from most liberals. They bash the Abrahamic religions, with impunity, but when somebody fights back and bashes liberalism, they cry foul. If liberals don't want liberalism to be bashed, then I would suggest that they stop bashing the Abrahamic religions.

It is funny and at the same time deeply disturbing to see how you fall neatly into that worn out path: you have gone from "supporting and defending" your Holy Text to, as you yourself call it "fighting back and bashing". Did you notice you are scaling up the violence?

I totally agree with you that this argument has arrived at it's inherent "I am right and you are wrong"-level, but wouldn't you agree that any spiral of (verbal) violence is really below your intellectual level? You want to express your views about liberals, women, religion or Your God knows what, but when a discussion turns into an argument, all sides stop listening. Maybe you should try to get the thread back to the "discussion" level, perhaps even with the help of some of your opponents? I would like to help. Maybe you could answer this for me, because I truly do not know: does it say somewhere in the Quran that women are to wear scarfs or cover themselves totally?

And maybe it would help to remember you are on a profoundly non-religious forum: people here, I guess, would tend to disagree with your views. This is something you will most probably not change. So chill out, relax, take a deep breath, and enjoy the play of words and ideas!

[Invader Tak]

I am interested in Noncontradiction's seeming obsession with teenage girls being exploited by the porn industry.

Maybe he just read Traci Lords new book?

[lpetrich]

I first notice that NonContradiction has not revealed what he considers ideal clothing for a woman, but given how he praises the Saudi Wahhabis with faint damns, it should not be very difficult to guess.

NonContradiction:
When people have prejudice, all they need is someone to confirm their prejudice.

Same to you.

Most of these articles were written by western orientalists at academic universities.

So what?

One of my good friends has a Ph D in Islamic studies and has spent the last 30 years refuting their claims.

Will this gentleman apply the same level of skepticism to the Koran?

Many of these orientalists that wrote those articles are liberals who are full hatred and enemity towards Islam.

How are they supposed to be "liberals", and how do they have "hatred and enemity towards Islam"?

(whining about bashing the Abrahamic religions...)

Except that the Koran is full of religion-bashing.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The liberals need to get their own text which they are going to support and defend.
Since you use the word "liberals" so loosely, this is an inappropriate comment. You include everyone from Stalin to (at least) Lyndon Johnson. Why, you'd probably include hardcore Libertarians and Ayn Rand. We're not going to all agree on a single text or group of texts. We realize tha tthis is impossible, so instead we set up Liberal Democracies where the rights of individuals are protected and the difficulty of creatig a perfect moral code is replaced with the creation of a practical "legal code". We recognize that times and people change, so we design this legal code to be ammendable. You live in the US for IPU's sake! Is this so hard to understand?

Theocratic approaches, which you seem to support, are very different however. They assume up front that they have access to divine, perfect, total knowledge via some supposedly sacred text. If their text actually was sacred, this approach could be justified. I would argue that it's easy to show that books like the Bible and the Qu'ran are NOT perfect, and that this theocratic approach is therefore unacceptable. Liberal Demoncracy, for all its problems, is superior to any theocratic system for this reason.
The liberals are never going to get anywhere as long as they are simply criticizing someone else's text, yet they have nothing to put down on the table as a better alternative.
Individual liberals suggest their own alternatives all the time. The difference is that a consciensous liberal never assumes that they've "got it all figured out". We recognize that the ammendment process never ends for two basic reasons:

1) since we're not perfect, it's virtually impossible to find the "ideal" code.
2) the "ideal" code, to the extent that such a thing may exist, constantly changes as society changes

Your comment that "old liberals become the new conservatives" doesn't invalidate any individual "liberal" idea. All it does is point out the weakness of labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" as you use them.

Suppose there are two possible, but mutually exclusive laws, Law X and Law Y. Suppose I think that Law X is better than Law Y. If Law X is part of my country's legal code, and someone wants to change it to Law Y I am a "conservative" (by your apparent definition), but if the situation is the other way around, then I am a "liberal" (again, by your definition). Most people don't call for changes to laws just for the sake of changing them, including most people that you label "liberals".

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
I am glad that you brought this point up. When many liberals stop bashing ALL of the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam, then I will stop bashing liberalism. I don't think that they can stop.I have come to expect these kinds of games from most liberals. They bash the Abrahamic religions, with impunity, but when somebody fights back and bashes liberalism, they cry foul. If liberals don't want liberalism to be bashed, then I would suggest that they stop bashing the Abrahamic religions.

Originally posted by stilus
It is funny and at the same time deeply disturbing to see how you fall neatly into that worn out path: you have gone from "supporting and defending" your Holy Text to, as you yourself call it "fighting back and bashing". Did you notice you are scaling up the violence?

Surah (8,61) If they incline towards peace, then incline towards them with peace.

Surah (8,19) If you (those who bash Islam) desist, it would be better for you. If you return to the hostilities, then we will return.

I am not the one who has escalated the hostilities here. I am not going to sit here and let people bash Muhammad by calling him a sexual pervert. This is nothing more than politically motivated character assassination of a man who did the best he could to fight for social justice in the Arabian Peninsula 1400 years ago.

I am still defending my holy text, but I am not going to just sit here defending my holy text while people are bashing it. If I came in here bashing liberalism, then I would expect people here to bash Islam back.

Surah (6,108) And do not insult the gods which others worship, lest they insult Allah back, out of spite, in their ignorance.

Islam isn't about bashing people, their gods, their religion, their culture, or their tradition, and it never will be. At the same time, Islam isn't a "turn the other cheek religion" either. As I have said before, there is a line (it's not a fine line, either) between criticizing and bashing, and many of the people here have crossed that line more than once. I criticize Christianity, but I don't bash it. As Muslims, we have nothing but respect for Jesus, the son of Mary, even though we have major theological differences with the Christians. We don't bash Christianity because we don't want them bashing Islam. We don't bash the Bible because we don't want them bashing the Quran.

I don't expect Islam to be above criticism, and as a matter of fact, I welcome it. Criticism of Islam forces us to think about our religion in many ways that we might never think of. Secondly, it gives us an opportunity to clarify our religion to others who might have misunderstandings about it. I welcome criticism because I think that the worst thing that could happen to Islam is for people to ignore it.

I totally agree with you that this argument has arrived at it's inherent "I am right and you are wrong"-level, but wouldn't you agree that any spiral of (verbal) violence is really below your intellectual level?

I am not the one who escalated the verbal violence, but I would be more than welcome to de-escalate it.

You want to express your views about liberals, women, religion or Your God knows what, but when a discussion turns into an argument, all sides stop listening.

I am being perfectly honest with you when I say that I never stop listening to the other side. I can't speak for the other side.

Maybe you should try to get the thread back to the "discussion" level, perhaps even with the help of some of your opponents? I would like to help. Maybe you could answer this for me, because I truly do not know: does it say somewhere in the Quran that women are to wear scarfs or cover themselves totally?

We have already covered this, but I realize that this thread is impossible to read at this point. The burqa is NOT a requirement of Islam, nor is FGM, nor the prohibition of women driving, among other things. I am vehemently against all of these restrictions that conservative Muslims fabricate in the name of protecting society from temptation. To begin with, Islam is a conservative religion. To be to the right of Islam is, for sure, to be too far right.

I describe myself as a liberal Muslim, NOT a Muslim liberal. A Muslim liberal is an oxymoron since one cannot be a liberal/conservative. As a liberal Muslim, I try to be as easy and understanding as possible with people, without crossing the line that Islam has drawn. As a matter of fact, for new Muslims, I am against imposing all of the restrictions of Islam upon them at once. To become conservative is a process, and it doesn't happen over night. As a matter of fact, there is precedent for this in the Quran, itself.

For example, the prohibition of alcohol came gradually. The first prohibition of alcohol instructed the Muslims to not come to the prayer drunk, but rather to wait until they sobered up so that they may understand what they are reciting.

Surah (2,219) They ask you concerning intoxicants and gambling. Say: "In them is benefit and harm, but the harm outweighs the benefit."

Surah (4,43) Oh you who believe, do not approach the prayer while you are drunk until you become sober and know what you are saying.

Surah (5,90) Oh you who believe, Verily intoxicants and gambling, dedication of stones, and divination of arrows are an abomination from satan, so avoid them.

Surah (5,91) It is the desire of satan to excite enemity and hatred among you with intoxicants and gambling, and to prevent you from the remembrance of Allah and the prayer, so will you not desist?

From the first verse, we see that alcohol wasn't forbidden at all in the beginning.. What is interesting to note here is that alcohol and gambling wasn't condemned as being completely evil. It merely said that the harm outweighs the benefit.

The second verse made it forbidden to come to the prayer intoxicated, but didn't prohibit it. The third and fourth verses made alcohol and gambling completely forbidden.

What this shows us is that there is evidence, within the Quran itself, that demonstrates that the process of becoming conservative is a gradual process. The problem with conservative Muslims is that they want too much, too fast. Moreover, they want people to become more conservative than the Quran requires, even though, as I have shown, the Quran does not advocate such a course of action. To ascribe their behavior to Islam is a big mistake, but the people who have political agendas that they want to further are going to take advantage of this situation.

And maybe it would help to remember you are on a profoundly non-religious forum: people here, I guess, would tend to disagree with your views. This is something you will most probably not change. So chill out, relax, take a deep breath, and enjoy the play of words and ideas!

Yes, this is true. I have been in much worse forums than this one. Actually, I have found most of the moderators here to be fair. These kinds of discussions are not

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
I am glad that you brought this point up. When many liberals stop bashing ALL of the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam, then I will stop bashing liberalism. I don't think that they can stop.I have come to expect these kinds of games from most liberals. They bash the Abrahamic religions, with impunity, but when somebody fights back and bashes liberalism, they cry foul. If liberals don't want liberalism to be bashed, then I would suggest that they stop bashing the Abrahamic religions.

Originally posted by stilus
It is funny and at the same time deeply disturbing to see how you fall neatly into that worn out path: you have gone from "supporting and defending" your Holy Text to, as you yourself call it "fighting back and bashing". Did you notice you are scaling up the violence?

Surah (8,61) If they incline towards peace, then incline towards them with peace.

Surah (8,19) If you (those who bash Islam) desist, it would be better for you. If you return to the hostilities, then we will return.

I am not the one who has escalated the hostilities here. I am not going to sit here and let people bash Muhammad by calling him a sexual pervert. This is nothing more than politically motivated character assassination of a man who did the best he could to fight for social justice in the Arabian Peninsula 1400 years ago.

I am still defending my holy text, but I am not going to just sit here defending my holy text while people are bashing it. If I came in here bashing liberalism, then I would expect people here to bash Islam back.

Surah (6,108) And do not insult the gods which others worship, lest they insult Allah back, out of spite, in their ignorance.

Islam isn't about bashing people, their gods, their religion, their culture, or their tradition, and it never will be. At the same time, Islam isn't a "turn the other cheek religion" either. As I have said before, there is a line (it's not a fine line, either) between criticizing and bashing, and many of the people here have crossed that line more than once. I criticize Christianity, but I don't bash it. As Muslims, we have nothing but respect for Jesus, the son of Mary, even though we have major theological differences with the Christians. We don't bash Christianity because we don't want them bashing Islam. We don't bash the Bible because we don't want them bashing the Quran.

I don't expect Islam to be above criticism, and as a matter of fact, I welcome it. Criticism of Islam forces us to think about our religion in many ways that we might never think of. Secondly, it gives us an opportunity to clarify our religion to others who might have misunderstandings about it. I welcome criticism because I think that the worst thing that could happen to Islam is for people to ignore it.

I totally agree with you that this argument has arrived at it's inherent "I am right and you are wrong"-level, but wouldn't you agree that any spiral of (verbal) violence is really below your intellectual level?

I am not the one who escalated the verbal violence, but I would be more than welcome to de-escalate it.

You want to express your views about liberals, women, religion or Your God knows what, but when a discussion turns into an argument, all sides stop listening.

I am being perfectly honest with you when I say that I never stop listening to the other side. I can't speak for the other side.

Maybe you should try to get the thread back to the "discussion" level, perhaps even with the help of some of your opponents? I would like to help. Maybe you could answer this for me, because I truly do not know: does it say somewhere in the Quran that women are to wear scarfs or cover themselves totally?

We have already covered this, but I realize that this thread is impossible to read at this point. The burqa is NOT a requirement of Islam, nor is FGM, nor the prohibition of women driving, among other things. I am vehemently against all of these restrictions that conservative Muslims fabricate in the name of protecting society from temptation. To begin with, Islam is a conservative religion. To be to the right of Islam is, for sure, to be too far right.

I describe myself as a liberal Muslim, NOT a Muslim liberal. A Muslim liberal is an oxymoron since one cannot be a liberal/conservative. As a liberal Muslim, I try to be as easy and understanding as possible with people, without crossing the line that Islam has drawn. As a matter of fact, for new Muslims, I am against imposing all of the restrictions of Islam upon them at once. To become conservative is a process, and it doesn't happen over night. As a matter of fact, there is precedent for this in the Quran, itself.

For example, the prohibition of alcohol came gradually. The first prohibition of alcohol instructed the Muslims to not come to the prayer drunk, but rather to wait until they sobered up so that they may understand what they are reciting.

Surah (2,219) They ask you concerning intoxicants and gambling. Say: "In them is benefit and harm, but the harm outweighs the benefit."

Surah (4,43) Oh you who believe, do not approach the prayer while you are drunk until you become sober and know what you are saying.

Surah (5,90) Oh you who believe, Verily intoxicants and gambling, dedication of stones, and divination of arrows are an abomination from satan, so avoid them.

Surah (5,91) It is the desire of satan to excite enemity and hatred among you with intoxicants and gambling, and to prevent you from the remembrance of Allah and the prayer, so will you not desist?

From the first verse, we see that alcohol wasn't forbidden at all in the beginning.. What is interesting to note here is that alcohol and gambling wasn't condemned as being completely evil. It merely said that the harm outweighs the benefit.

The second verse made it forbidden to come to the prayer intoxicated, but didn't prohibit it. The third and fourth verses made alcohol and gambling completely forbidden.

What this shows us is that there is evidence, within the Quran itself, that demonstrates that the process of becoming conservative is a gradual process. The problem with conservative Muslims is that they want too much, too fast. Moreover, they want people to become more conservative than the Quran requires, even though, as I have shown, the Quran does not advocate such a course of action. To ascribe their behavior to Islam is a big mistake, but the people who have political agendas that they want to further are going to take advantage of this situation.

And maybe it would help to remember you are on a profoundly non-religious forum: people here, I guess, would tend to disagree with your views. This is something you will most probably not change. So chill out, relax, take a deep breath, and enjoy the play of words and ideas!

Yes, this is true. I have been in much worse forums than this one. Actually, I have found most of the moderators here to be fair. These kinds of discussions are not easy for anybody involved because, usually, there are a lot of pent-upped emotions inside of everybody that typically are repressed in society. Atheists, typically, must hide how they feel about religion if they are working for theists. Similarly, as Muslims, we have to hide many of our emotions as well.

[Nowhere357]

After hitting the "submit reply" button, there is a "now returning to... " screen. The appearance of that screen means the post has been uploaded, even if you don't get forwarded correctly. I was double posting for a while due to that - maybe that explains your doubles also?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Since you use the word "liberals" so loosely, this is an inappropriate comment. You include everyone from Stalin to (at least) Lyndon Johnson. Why, you'd probably include hardcore Libertarians and Ayn Rand.

The Libertarians and Ayn Rand would not be considered modern liberals, but they are classical lliberals. The liberals, by far, are not a monolithic community, but that doesn't mean that we can't make some generalizations among them. For the last 200 years, the classical liberals and the modern liberals have been competing with each other for leadership of the western world. No one group has been able to dominate the other. Although communism under Stalin is different from the civil rights movement in the US, there is a common thread there. All of these movements are leftist movements.

The classical liberals, for the most part, are not hostile towards tradition. They did not want to wage a war against religion, but they did want to strip religion of all political influence, hence the separation of church and state. As long as separation of church and state is maintained, classical liberals are not hostile towards religion, and may even encourage it. For this reason, we see that the classical liberals, the capitalists, and the Christian conservatives have formed a coalition against the modern liberals,. The modern liberals, on the other hand, waged a war, and are continuing to wage a war, against the Abrahamic religions. They are the most hostile people, in general, towards the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic religions represent what I would call conservatism because they predate the liberal era in the western world. One cannot be more conservative than one who believes in, and defends, ancient texts. It has been argued that liberalism is better than Christian conservatism, and perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean, by default, that liberalism is better than Islam. Liberalism has prevailed in the western world, but I don't think that it has been intellectually challenged, yet. I believe that the debate of the 21st century is going to be between liberalism and Islam, and I am confident that Islam is going to win in the end. Muslim intellectuals just need to do a better job of articulating the advantages of Islam over liberalism.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
I first notice that NonContradiction has not revealed what he considers ideal clothing for a woman, but given how he praises the Saudi Wahhabis with faint damns, it should not be very difficult to guess.

What is that supposed to mean? How am I praising the Saudi's with faint damns?

NonContradiction
When people have prejudice, all they need is someone to confirm their prejudice.

Same to you.

Are you saying that ALL people are bigots? If so, then you are calling yourself a bigot. If not, then tell me who is and who is not a bigot.

NonCon:Most of these articles were written by western orientalists at academic universities.

So what?

This figures. You found some articles on the internet written by some western orientalists over the last 50 years, and so you think that whatever they have to say is the final word. You don't even care to know what the other side is. Sure sounds like prejudice to me.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
I first notice that NonContradiction has not revealed what he considers ideal clothing for a woman, but given how he praises the Saudi Wahhabis with faint damns, it should not be very difficult to guess.

What is that supposed to mean? How am I praising the Saudi's with faint damns?

NonContradiction
When people have prejudice, all they need is someone to confirm their prejudice.

Same to you.

Are you saying that ALL people are bigots? If so, then you are calling yourself a bigot. If not, then tell me who is and who is not a bigot.

NonCon:Most of these articles were written by western orientalists at academic universities.

So what?

This figures. You found some articles on the internet written by some western orientalists over the last 50 years, and so you think that whatever they have to say is the final word. You don't even care to know what the other side is. Sure sounds like prejudice to me.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Are you saying that ALL people are bigots? If so, then you are calling yourself a bigot. If not, then tell me who is and who is not a bigot.

This is just an overt invitation to the poster to get into a name-calling contest with you. Throughout this thread, you've emphasized name-calling over substance. Who makes the argument isn't relevant to the validity of the argument itself; the facts of an argument stand independently of the source. If the argument is flawed, the facts will refute it; name-calling will not. It isn't bigotry that is defeating your position; it's your failure to defend it that is.

This figures. You found some articles on the internet written by some western orientalists over the last 50 years, and so you think that whatever they have to say is the final word. You don't even care to know what the other side is. Sure sounds like prejudice to me.

Once again, no factual refutation comes from you; just an attack on the source. You don't even care to present what the other side is. Westerners have just as much right as you to analyze and critique Islam; do you think otherwise?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler

There are laws in the US that state a person has to be 18 (the legal age to sign a contract) in order to work in that industry. So while it may happen illegally, it is just that, [b] illegal.

I am not talking about underage teenage girls.

Blaming every problem in 'western cultures' on this is like saying all Musilims are just as bad as the worst of the Taliban, and the terrorists who perpetrate attacks around the world.

We (mostly, don't get me started on Rumsfeld)) give Muslims the benefit of the doubt and assume that they condemn, not condone, that kind of behavior.

So NC, why is it unreasonable to ask you to do the same to us?

The difference is that Islam condemns terrorism, whereas liberalism doesn't condemn pornography. If liberalism condemned pornography, even though some liberals advocated it, then I wouldn't blame liberalism for pornography. Similarly, it would not be right to blame Islam for the terrorism of some Muslims.

Most 'liberal' social programs tend to increase protections for the young, elderly, and otherwise disadvantaged.

One of the reasons why modern liberals created big government programs, from the New Deal of Roosevelt, to the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, was out of self-interest. They used the black community, for example, to justify creating many of these projects so that they could funnel more money into government programs. The "empathy" of the modern liberals is quite tiring in the face of the facts.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The difference is that Islam condemns terrorism

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" (Surah 8:12, 17)

"Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" Surah 8:60

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." IX/123

"Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor- due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." IX/5:

[Theli]

Wouldn't having the muslim women dress up like Britney Spears, and see how long they last in the sun be even worse for them? :D

[NonContradiction]

NonContradiction:
One cannot reject any hadith on a whim. One must have rational justification for doing so.
Lpetrich
Here is a rational justification for rejecting essentially all of them.
NonContradiction:
This figures. You found some articles on the internet written by some western orientalists over the last 50 years, and so you think that whatever they have to say is the final word. You don't even care to know what the other side is. Sure sounds like prejudice to me.
Dr. Rick
Once again, no factual refutation comes from you; just an attack on the source. You don't even care to present what the other side is. Westerners have just as much right as you to analyze and critique Islam; do you think otherwise?

Dr. Rick, it appears as though you have a problem. If you accept Lpetrich's assertion that all of the hadith should be rejected, then you have no argument, whatsoever, that Muhammad was a pedophile.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Dr. Rick, it appears as though you have a problem. If you accept Lpetrich's assertion that all of the hadith should be rejected, then you have no argument, whatsoever, that Muhammad was a pedophile.

You have asserted yet another strawman as I do not accept that all ahadith should be rejected, and I never stated or implied that I did. For that matter, I don't see where Ipetrich has made that claim, either; he simply linked a site that does.

What was pointed out was that you were responding to evidence against your position in the usual manner with no evidence or rational discussion, just your usual asortment of falsehoods, ad hominems, contradictions, and/or strawmen, and you tried it again, here.

It is you that contradicted yourself on the issue of accepting or rejecting hadith:

One cannot reject any hadith on a whim. One must have rational justification for doing so.

...and yet you have whimsically dismissed the ahadith that place Aisha at the age of nine still playing with dolls when Muhammad had intercourse with her.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You have asserted yet another strawman as I do not accept that all ahadith should be rejected, and I never stated or implied that I did.
Where did I say that you stated or implied that all ahadith should be rejected? I worded my statement carefully. You do have a problem "IF" you accept Leptrich's assertion that there is rational justification for rejecting, essentially, all of the ahadith. There is no strawman here. IF you accept Lpetrich's assertion, then you have no argument concerning Aisha.
Originally posted by Dr Rick
For that matter, I don't see where Ipetrich has made that claim, either; he simply linked a site that does.
The following sure sounds like a claim to me.
Originally posted by Lpetrich
Here is a rational justification for rejecting essentially all of them.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
IF you accept Lpetrich's assertion, then you have no argument concerning Aisha...The following sure sounds like a claim to me.

Let's let Ipetrich speak for himself. In the meantime, your platter is still full; you have asserted that Islam 'condemns' terrorism even though the Qur'an and some ahadith sanction and command it; please address the contradiction, NonContradiction.

Just to make sure we're clear; is it your position that all ahadith are to be ignored? Should we ignore the Qur'an, too? Why should we ignore one and not the other? If we can just pick and choose amongst the religious traditions and texts, what is there left of Islam to devoutly believe?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
What was pointed out was that you were responding to evidence against your position in the usual manner with no evidence or rational discussion, just your usual asortment of falsehoods, ad hominems, contradictions, and/or strawmen, and you tried it again, here.

The only falsehoods here have been your own false allegations against Islam and its founder. I have responded to every allegation you have put on the table. I even asked you for a summarized list of all of these allegations, which up until now, you haven't responded to. The following issues are the ones that I have addressed:

1) Aisha affair
2) Woman's inheritance and testimony
3) Rape of Muslim women by their husbands
4) FGM
5) Burqa
6) violence in the Quran
7) Honor killings
8) Terrorism

I am sure that there are others that I can think of, but these are the main ones. The only issue I haven't responded to has been the link posted by lpetrich because it's a big topic and would lead us away from the issue of women's rights, which is the topic of this thread. It's amazing how you blame me for ad homs, yet you, more than anybody else here, have been intentionally offensive. You could have chosen to follow a more respectful approach in your discourse, but you decided to take the low road. This is nothing more than Islam baiting and you know it.

...and yet you have whimsically dismissed the ahadith that place Aisha at the age of nine still playing with dolls when Muhammad had intercourse with her.

You are the one who has whimsically dismissed the critique of the ahadith concerning Aisha.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The following issues are the ones that I have addressed:

Yes you have; let's sum up:


1) Aisha affair: it was okay with daddy.
2) Woman's inheritance and testimony: chics don't need bucks
3) Rape of Muslim women by their husbands: "I've got an erection; do me or else."
4) FGM: your clit doesn't mean squat
5) Burqa: deal with it.
6) violence in the Quran: deal with it or die
7) Honor killings: deal with it or lots of people die
8) Terrorism: Screw it; lots of people die

[NonContradiction]

Silent Acorns
Theocratic approaches, which you seem to support, are very different however. They assume up front that they have access to divine, perfect, total knowledge via some supposedly sacred text. If their text actually was sacred, this approach could be justified. I would argue that it's easy to show that books like the Bible and the Qu'ran are NOT perfect, and that this theocratic approach is therefore unacceptable. Liberal Demoncracy, for all its problems, is superior to any theocratic system for this reason.

Islam isn't a theocracy as it's understood in the West. The Islamic jurists, typically, had no political power, whatsoever. They studied the texts and gave their opinions to the hukkam (rulers), but they had no authority to enforce their opinions upon people. For this reason, no one school of thought could impose itself upon the other. There was an air of tolerance among the jusrists, as history will attest to. The rulers, on the other hand, concerned themselves with running the government and solving the day to day social, political and economic problems, relying upon advice from the different schools of thought, but never being obliged to follow one opinion or another.

The Quran acted in a way very similar to what we now call a constitution. It was the supreme text of the land, as the Constitution of the US is today in America, but the difference was that it could not be altered or modified. The jurists were an independent body supported by the people, not the rulers. They represented the people and had tremendous influence in the society, but they had no political power. There job was to educate the masses and make sure that the rulers didn't overstep their boundaries.

So there was a system of checks and balances there. The rulers had to be wary of going against the boundaries of the Quran because of the popular support of the people behind the jurists and scholars. While on the other hand, the jurists and scholars had to be wary of going against the boudaries of the Quran because of the political power of the rulers.

You may believe that liberal Western democracies are better, but I don't. It was a classical liberal democracy that broke covenants and treaties with the Indians and enslaved blacks, treating them with contempt because they were non-white.. Racism and nationalism are all foreign to Islam, but they are not foreign to liberal western democracies. Muslims would have never condoned the racism that was practised in these liberal western democracies.

It WAS, and IS, a classical liberal democracy, with all of its emphasis upon strong property rights, that is supporting the state of Israel, which denies those same basic property rights to Palestinians living in the West Bank and Israel. No Arab can buy land in Israel. If Israel wants to build a road through the living room of a Palestinian home, they don't have to compensate them at all. They just tell them to move. The Muslims see the hypocrisy of the liberals for what it is worth.

When I use the word "liberal" I mean the classical liberals, including the capitalists, and the modern liberals, including the socialists. The liberals need to leave the Muslims alone, but I don't expect that to happen anytime some. If they think that liberal democracy is fine for them, then good for them, but who do they think that they are to go to the Arab world and ell them how to live? Western liberals think that their values are superior to anyone else's values, and so they believe that they have a right to impose their values upon others. The Muslims will never accept liberal values being shoved down their throat.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

The Quran acted in a way very similar to what we now call a constitution.

There's the problem right there.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
Who's using force? Turkey is the only country I'm aware of that has forced women to abandon tradition Muslim dress.

Yes, the LIBERALS in Turkey who wanted to secularize the Muslim population by banning the Arabic language and forcing women to abandon traditional Muslim dress. Good example.

Usually it's the liberals you so disdain who support Muslim women's right to dress in traditional grab.

Hah! What a joke! Liberals like you, for example? Didn't the liberals in the international community support the LIBERALS in Turkey against the Muslims? A very small liberal minority, weilding political muscle and supported by international liberals, forced liberalsim upon the Muslim majority in Turkey.

If a Muslim woman wants to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that's her right.

It sure is, so why don't the liberals leave the Muslims alone?

No one will ever force her not to.

That isn't what happened in Turkey, is it?

The West only objects when Muslim majorities try force this dress code on individuals who want no part of it, through legal or social pressure.

So who appointed Western liberals as the policemen of the world?

Why do fundamentalist Muslims feel they have the right to impose their morality on everyone around them?

Why do Western liberals think that they have a right to police the whole world and force their values upon non-liberals? I don't see Muslims doing that in liberal democracies, do you? Why do liberals invade Muslim countries and impose their values on others?
A friend of mine was forced to wear hijab on a trip to Thailand, and she hated every minute of it.

So what? Who forced her to go to Thailand? Do you think that the whole world should accomodate the liberals wherever they go? Here is a simple solution to the problem: stay out of Thailand if you don't like their customs. Why are liberals so dense about these issues? Why do they think that they have a right to tell everybody in the world how to live their lives, yet nobody can tell the liberals anything? Freedom is okay for them, but it's not okay for anyone else? How convenient. The hypocrisy of liberals is obvious to all, except to the liberals.

Many women in Iraq currently are complaining about harrassment and social pressure to get them to wear clothes they don't want to wear.

Don't worry. The classical liberals of the West, John Wayne style, have conquered the Muslims over there, and they will make sure that there is separation of religion and politics, just like there is in the West. Did I say "conquered"? Oh that's right....It 's operation Iraqi freedom.

When Chechnya declared indpendence from Russia, one its first official acts was to pass a law making Islamic dress for women mandatory. To borrow a phrase from you, why don't you just leave women alone?

If that is what Chechnya wants to do, then that is their business. Who made you the police of the world? If women don't like it there, then they should be allowed to leave.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If women don't like it there, then they should be allowed to leave.

They aren't.

If you don't like our laws against terrorism, female genital mutilation, sex discrimination, religious discrimination, honor killings, censorship, and pedophilia, you are allowed to leave. Ironically, many people living under Islam don't have the freedoms that you as a Muslim enjoy here in America living amongst the "liberals." It is a sin for women to travel alone according to some that practice Islam, and justifiable grounds for being killed by your brother or some other relative if it's even tried.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


Yes, the LIBERALS in Turkey who wanted to secularize the Muslim population by banning the Arabic language and forcing women to abandon traditional Muslim dress. Good example.
[/B]

BZZZZZT! The women don't like dressing up like walking curtains. I wonder why.

[Dreamer_87]

This thread was meant to question whether wearing 'modest' clothing lowered a woman's chances of being raped, and from what I gather the consencus is that it does not, and that other factors are more important and that a woman's appearance can't be used by a rapist as justification for his actions. I agree with all of the above but not with the assumption that this is the reason islam teaches women (and men) to dress modestly. I don't think islam is the topic per se rather society's views of what is acceptable and what isn't is the topic because the insistence on women dressing 'modestly' is noticable in non-islamic societies. I think the priority at the moment is to establish what islam teaches about women's (and men's) dress codes and what it considers appropriate and unappropriate, so would anyone be so kind as to list *all* of the quranic verses (and if possible the ahadith) that deal with the issue? The point of this not being to defend or condem islam but to compare its teachings on the issues with other cultures and to see what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

Hope that made sense,
Dreamer.

[Nowhere357]

LIBERALS in Turkey
I've heard that as the LIBERALS took power from Islamic rule, they outlawed wearing of fez by men.

Heh. I wonder if it was like banning gang colors. Anyway, I guess there are all sorts of LIBERALS.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dreamer_87
I don't think islam is the topic per se rather society's views of what is acceptable and what isn't is the topic because the insistence on women dressing 'modestly' is noticable in non-islamic societies.

Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.

I think the priority at the moment is to establish what islam teaches about women's (and men's) dress codes and what it considers appropriate and unappropriate, so would anyone be so kind as to list *all* of the quranic verses (and if possible the ahadith) that deal with the issue? The point of this not being to defend or condem islam but to compare its teachings on the issues with other cultures and to see what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

Hope that made sense,
Dreamer.

I can't help but notice that you are posting from Saudia Arabia. Surely, you have an idea about what the Quran says about women's dress.

[Timberline]

NC, let me try to follow your logic.

Me : You can wear whatever you want, you just can't force your dress code on others.

You : We can impose our dress code on other people whether they want it or not, and if you interfere with us imposing our customs on unwilling people, you're taking away our freedom .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be your position.

Moving on...I wrote, "If a Muslim woman wants to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that's her right." And you replied:

It sure is, so why don't the liberals leave the Muslims alone?

You missed or avoided the point, which is this: If a Muslim or non-Muslim woman doesn't want to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that's also her right. Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp? The "liberals" are leaving Muslims alone; they only make noise when "Muslims" won't leave other people alone.


So what? Who forced her to go to Thailand? Do you think that the whole world should accomodate the liberals wherever they go? Here is a simple solution to the problem: stay out of Thailand if you don't like their customs.

Again, let me try to follow your logic. When racist bigots in the U.S. harrass and imtimidate traditionally-dressed Muslim women, that's okay with you because, hey, who forced those women to come here anyway? They should stay out of the West if they don't want to wear Western-style clothing. Is that what you're saying? Sure sounds like it.


the LIBERALS in Turkey

Never thought I'd hear the government of Turkey referred to as "liberal." Then again, in the same post you also used "liberal" in reference to me, George Bush's war cabinet, and, possibly, John Wayne. What exactly does "liberal" mean to you, anyway?

[Timberline]

One more question, getting back to a topic raised much earlier in this thread. One of your chief gripes with the West appears to be pornography. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this is a major problem.

Please explain how reducing women's legal status to half the status of men's, as Islam does, would help solve this problem. Or, if it would do nothing to solve the problem, please explain what purpose is served by treating women, legally, as "half a man."

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.

That's no better than claiming "Jews don't value honesty, otherwise they would be Muslims" or someother such nonsensical and hateful generalization

It's apparent now why you are so caught-up in calling everyone else a bigot; you are one yourself.

[Nowhere357]

NonContradiction
I can't help but notice that you are posting from Saudia Arabia. Surely, you have an idea about what the Quran says about women's dress.
Just like we would expect someone posting from America to have a clue about freedom.

Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.
lol. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Just like we would expect someone posting from America to have a clue about freedom.

What you call sexual freedom, I call oppression. What is the difference between a dog and a human being that doesn't have modesty? Ah yes...the counter-culture of the 60's has now become the dominant culture.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
One more question, getting back to a topic raised much earlier in this thread. One of your chief gripes with the West appears to be pornography. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this is a major problem.

The broader issue is modesty. For some reason, the liberals have a difficult time grasping the concept.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
NC, let me try to follow your logic.
I think that is going to be difficult for you.

Me : You can wear whatever you want, you just can't force your dress code on others.

Would you mind supporting that statement? Why are you right and the people who value modesty wrong? Should we all just defer to you as being right because you said so?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The broader issue is modesty. For some reason, the liberals have a difficult time grasping the concept.

You have trouble grasping the concept. Don't like how people dress? Don't look at them.

I think that is going to be difficult for you.

You're the blind man leading us along. Too bad we can see.

Would you mind supporting that statement? Why are you right and the people who value modesty wrong? Should we all just defer to you as being right because you said so?

You don't value modesty. You value conformity.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The broader issue is modesty. For some reason, the liberals have a difficult time grasping the concept. Like if any part of a woman's body is exposed, she is shamelessly exposing herself?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.

Dr. RickThat's no better than claiming "Jews don't value honesty, otherwise they would be Muslims" or someother such nonsensical and hateful generalization.

I would never say something like that because I don't want Jews to find me offensive. I don't care if liberals find me offensive or not. I find them offensive.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
You have trouble grasping the concept. Don't like how people dress? Don't look at them.

If you don't like me sticking my bum in your face, then don't look? Is that what you are saying?

You don't value modesty. You value conformity.

If I valued conformity, keeping in mind that I live in America, then I wouldn't be a Muslim. I am as non-conformist as they come. If you are a liberal, then you are a conformist.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


If you don't like me sticking my but in your face, then don't look? Is that what you are saying? [/B]

Since when do women shove their naked bodies in your face? Or is an uncovered face too offensive for you? :boohoo:

If I valued conformity, keeping in mind that I live in America, then I wouldn't be a Muslim.

Sure you would. :rolleyes:

I am as non-conformist as they come.

Pull the other one.

If you are a liberal, then you are a conformist.

Attention WinAce! Attention WinAce! Your attention is required for FSTDT.

[Nowhere357]

Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.
This one gets my vote. :notworthy

[winstonjen]

Noncon, may I please direct you to the Taliban Women's Revolt (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=37558)

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
Never thought I'd hear the government of Turkey referred to as "liberal."

Yes, the liberals were determined to liberate Turkey from what they believed to be the ignorance and superstition of religion, by force, if necessary. Hijab wasn't the only thing that they banned. I guess you could say that they were the Taliban of the Left.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I've heard that as the LIBERALS took power from Islamic rule, they outlawed wearing of fez by men.
True.
Anyway, I guess there are all sorts of LIBERALS.
Yes, and some of them are a lot like fundamentalists. Call them the Taliban of the Left.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be Muslims.

Originally posted by Nowhere357
This one gets my vote.

I was going to say, "Liberals don't value modesty, otherwise they would be conservatives," but I can't picture liberals becoming Christian conservatives.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If that is what Chechnya wants to do, then that is their business. Who made you the police of the world? If women don't like it there, then they should be allowed to leave.

Isn't this the whole point, NonCon? Many women in Islamic nations CAN'T leave. They can't leave their country, they can't leave their religion, they can't even leave their homes, they can't leave their husband's domination, they can't leave their burda. That's what much of this thread has been arguing about: many Islamic women have NO CHOICE.

This is why the so-called "liberals" have been sticking their noses in where you claim they don't belong - they view these people primarily as human beings (and feel compassion for them on those grounds alone). You seem to view them primarily as Muslim women, thereby subject to the laws of the Koran (or rather, your particular interpretation of the Koran) DESPITE the fact that they had NO CHOICE in these laws that dictate their lives.

This objection applies to just about any religion, of course.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
K Y jelly works just fine.

I bet your wife just loves it when you do that.

(I thought it was the evil liberal West who used women as sexual objects?)

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
Isn't this the whole point, NonCon? Many women in Islamic nations CAN'T leave. They can't leave their country, they can't leave their religion, they can't even leave their homes, they can't leave their husband's domination, they can't leave their burda. That's what much of this thread has been arguing about: many Islamic women have NO CHOICE.

Should they have a choice to leave? Yes. Should they have a choice to amend the religion? No. Muslims have a right to practise their religion, as it has been practised for the last 1400 years, and people - men and women - should have a right to leave if they so desire.

This is why the so-called "liberals" have been sticking their noses in where you claim they don't belong - they view these people primarily as human beings (and feel compassion for them on those grounds alone).

Is that why the Taliban of the Left in Turkey forced women to take their hijab off whether they wanted to or not?

You seem to view them primarily as Muslim women, thereby subject to the laws of the Koran (or rather, your particular interpretation of the Koran) DESPITE the fact that they had NO CHOICE in these laws that dictate their lives.

The issue isn't whether or not Muslim men and women should have a choice in the laws that dictate their lives. Islam is a religion that is over 1400 years old and it should be left the way it is. The issue is whether or not people should have the right to stay or leave if they so desire.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people...the subject is really liberalism vs. Islam...Remember, the issue here isn't clothes, anyway...It's about politics as much as it is about clothes...The issue isn't about clothes. It's about whether or not Islam is oppressive towards women...The issue is whether or not people should have the right to stay or leave if they so desire...The issue is whether or not ISLAM is oppressive towards women...You really have a tough time focusing on the issue here.

The right to travel freely, like the right to dress as one chooses, is one denied to many Muslim women. It's all part of the same "issue:" the oppression of women by Islam.

Should they have a choice to leave? Yes. Should they have a choice to amend the religion? No. Muslims have a right to practise their religion, as it has been practised for the last 1400 years, and people - men and women - should have a right to leave if they so desire.

Freedom of religion means allowing people to chose what they believe, even if that choice is a type of Islam different from yours. Furthermore, the type of Islam followed by many Muslims for the last 1400 years denies women "the right to leave if they desire."

What makes you the final arbitrator of what a person may believe and the one to decide how someone else's religious beliefs are to be practiced?

The issue isn't whether or not Muslim men and women should have a choice in the laws that dictate their lives. Islam is a religion that is over 1400 years old and it should be left the way it is. The issue is whether or not people should have the right to stay or leave if they so desire.

It is not practical to suggest that a woman who doesn't like the oppression she may experience in a place such as Iran should just walk-out of her home.

You've also contradicted yourself, again; simultaneously asserting that Islam is to be practiced in the way you prescribe with its 1400 year-old traditions prohibits a woman from leaving without her husband's permission or travelling far without a male accompanying her.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The right to travel freely, like the right to dress as one chooses, is one denied to many Muslim women. It's all part of the same "issue:" the oppression of women by Islam.

According to you Islam is oppressive, but who appointed you as the one who determines what is just and unjust for all of humanity? As I said, people, not just women, should be allowed to freely leave Islam if they so desire, and that is what I advocate. I don't believe that you, or anybody else, has a right to force your views upon Muslims who want to practise Islam. You have no right to amend Islam or bend the rules simply because you don't like them. If someone doesn't like the rules, then he/she should be allowed to leave freely and I will fight for them to have the right to leave. If they decide to stay, then I will argue against them if they decide to change the rules.

Freedom of religion means allowing people to chose what they believe, even if that choice is a type of Islam different from yours.

I support people's right to be free to leave. If a Muslim wants to become a Christian and leave the Muslims, I am not going to stop him/her. If a Muslim wants to become a liberal and leave the Muslims, I am not going to stop him/her. Similarly, I don't believe that anyone should be prevented from leaving liberalism or Christianity and becoming a Muslim.

Furthermore, the type of Islam followed by many Muslims for the last 1400 years denies women "the right to leave if they desire."

I think that is very wrong. I know that I wouldn't want to be married to a woman who didn't want to be married to me. If I was married to a woman who wanted to be liberated, she would just make my life hell if I forced her to stay. If I give her the freedom to leave, but she decides to stay and make my life hell, then I will force her to leave. I don't need the aggravation.

What makes you the final arbitrator of what a person may believe and the one to decide how someone else's religious beliefs are to be practiced?

I never said that I was the final arbitrator. The Quran is the final arbitrator. There may be disagreement about some issues among Muslims, but on the main issues, there is no disagreement. For example, no Muslim would ever advocate that adultery isn't forbidden. Moreover, Muslims don't have the same theological differences that Christians do.

It is not practical to suggest that a woman who doesn't like the oppression she may experience in a place such as Iran should just walk-out of her home.

Actually, Iran has become much more liberal than it used to be under the Ayatollah Khomeini. Of course, it's not as liberal as the West, but it certainly isn't like it used to be. Women do leave Iran, but that isn't the point. The point is I can't be blamed for whatever Iran does or does not do. I can only tell you what my position is, and I think it's a fair position. Everybody should be free to stay or leave as they wish.

You've also contradicted yourself, again; simultaneously asserting that Islam is to be practiced in the way you prescribe with its 1400 year-old traditions prohibits a woman from leaving without her husband's permission or travelling far without a male accompanying her.

No, it's not a contradiction. If a woman wants to live with me, then she isn't going to be as free as she was when she was single. The number one reason why men don't get married is because they don't want commitment. The number one reason why women don't get married is because they don't want to lose their independence and freedom. If a woman wants to leave Islam and travel by herself, wherever she wants to go, whenever she wants to go, then I think that she be given that freedom. If she wants to be married to a Muslim man, then she shouldn't complain about the rules of Islam that have been in effect for the last 1400 years. If you don't like vanilla ice cream, then don't eat it. But don't eat it, and then complain about how bad it is.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You have no right to amend Islam or bend the rules simply because you don't like them.

..and yet that is exactly what you are advocating when you post*:

As I said, people, not just women, should be allowed to freely leave Islam if they so desire, and that is what I advocate. I don't believe that you, or anybody else, has a right to force your views upon Muslims who want to practise Islam...If someone doesn't like the rules, then he/she should be allowed to leave freely and I will fight for them to have the right to leave.

You are advocating not bending the rules of Islam as you advocate bending the rules of Islam.

Your position is nonsenscical: you are arguing that one can't bend the rules in Islam, and then advocating bending them. The latter position is not allowed in Islam:

4:150, 151: "Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment."

You've contradicted yourself and Islam when you claim that you are in favor of allowing apostasy; many former Muslims live in fear and have changed their names while going into hiding to escape the clerical rulings when they leave Islam:

From http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1591020689.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

"..In Islam, apostasy is a flagrant sin and guilt for which certain punishments have been specified in Shari'a (Islamic law). Apostasy means, to renounce the religion or a religious principle after accepting it. In other words, one's departure from Islam to atheism is called apostasy. A person who abandons Islam and adopts atheism is called an apostate . . . Apostasy is the escape from the pattern of creation and nature and that is why the word "voluntary" has been adopted for such an apostate. Can the penalty of escaping from the path and pattern of nature and creation be anything other than annihilation? This is the same thing that has been crystallized in the penal code of Islam. The anti-apostasy punishments of Islam are proper laws to rescue mankind from falling into the cesspool of treason, betrayal, and disloyalty and to remind the human being of his ideological commitments." - Kayhan International, March 1986 (Tehran, Iran).

"I have kept my (true) name secret for obvious reasons...it is difficult for Muslims to think of leaving Islam, which prescribes the death sentence to people who leave it . . . they (apostates) are the ones most dangerous to Islam, because they have seen the dark alleys, and they know it inside out." - 'Sheraz Malik' (an ex-Muslim "apostate"), 2001.

"Shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous "fatwa" (decree) sentencing Salman Rushdie to death for the novel The Satanic Verses, in March 1989, London's Observer newspaper published a letter from a Pakistani Muslim. The writer, who remained anonymous, stated that "Salman Rushdie speaks for me," saying:. . . mine is a voice that has not yet found expression in newspaper columns. It is the voice of those who are born Muslims but wish to recant in adulthood, yet are not permitted to on pain of death. Someone who does not live in an Islamic society cannot imagine the sanctions, both self-imposed and external, that militate against expressing religious disbelief. "I don't believe in God" is an impossible public utterance even among family and friends . . . So we hold our tongues, those of us who doubt."

I never said that I was the final arbitrator. The Quran is the final arbitrator.

*We do have the right to bend the rules of Islam just because we don't like them or for any reason that we choose; you cannot dictate what religious rules others must follow. You can decide for yourself if you want to bend the rules, and even make hypocritical pronouncements about them as you do, but you may not decide for others what religious teachings they must follow. I have every right to amend, bend, ignore, praise, and/or condemn Islamic teachings as I see fit. ...'who appointed you as the one who determines what is just and unjust for all of humanity' and what we can and cannot do with religious beliefs?

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Should they have a choice to leave? Yes. Should they have a choice to amend the religion? No. Muslims have a right to practise their religion, as it has been practised for the last 1400 years, and people - men and women - should have a right to leave if they so desire.

After reading your last two posts it's become clear to me what's going on here. You absolutely have your head stuck in the sand. You admit that oppression is going on in other Muslim cultures and you've denounced it (forced wearing of the burda etc), but because *you* would never do that to your wife, your conscience is clear.

At the same time, you declare that no one else here has the right to denounce those things because they're not Muslim.

You fail to see people as people. You see them as Muslims primarily, whether or not they CHOSE to be Muslims and live under those laws. The oppressed people by definition do NOT have freedom of religion, and that's the whole point...

The issue isn't whether or not Muslim men and women should have a choice in the laws that dictate their lives. Islam is a religion that is over 1400 years old and it should be left the way it is. The issue is whether or not people should have the right to stay or leave if they so desire.

...yet you seem to feel that no one else should be expressing concerns that people do NOT have the right to stay or leave in many parts of the world. You think liberals should keep their noses out of it. Are YOU going to do anything about it? Save and free in the United States... why should you worry?

[greyline]

That would be: "Safe and free".

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Your position is nonsenscical: you are arguing that one can't bend the rules in Islam, and then advocating bending them. The latter position is not allowed in Islam:

4:150, 151: "Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment."

You've contradicted yourself and Islam when you claim that you are in favor of allowing apostasy; many former Muslims live in fear and have changed their names while going into hiding to escape the clerical rulings when they leave Islam:

I haven't contradicted myself. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah is sufficient evidence that any Muslims who wanted to return to the polytheists were allowed to do so.



Any person who deserted the Muslims and sought refuge with the Quraish was not to be returned, but any person who escaped from the Quraish to the Muslims was to be returned to the Quraish.

The verse that you posted has nothing to do with apostasy, so I don't know why you posted it. The verse, according to the majority of the commentators, is referring to the Jews, not the apsotates. The painful punishment that is referred to here in this verse refers to the hereafter since Jews and Christians have freedom of religion under Islam.

Let me state for the record once again. I BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE ISLAM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO, as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah stated. Whoever wants to stay let him/her stay, and anyone who wants to leave, let him/her leave.

I believe that the liberals are looking for any reason to attack Islam and undermine it. What better way to do that than from within. I don't believe that the liberals can leave Islam alone.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


I haven't contradicted myself. The Treaty of Hudaibiyah is sufficient evidence that any Muslims who wanted to return to the polytheists were allowed to do so.

Treaty of Hudaibiyah (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/04_uthman_bin_ghani.htm)

The verse that you posted has nothing to do with apostasy, so I don't know why you posted it. The verse, according to the majority of the commentators, is referring to the Jews, not the apsotates. The painful punishment that is referred to here in this verse refers to the hereafter since Jews and Christians have freedom of religion under Islam.

Let me state for the record once again. I BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE ISLAM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO, as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah stated. Whoever wants to stay let him/her stay, and anyone who wants to leave, let him/her leave.

I believe that the liberals are looking for any reason to attack Islam and undermine it. What better way to do that than from within. I don't believe that the liberals can leave Islam alone. [/B]

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The verse that you posted has nothing to do with apostasy, so I don't know why you posted it.

The verses address your contradictory attempts to "amend" or "bend" Islam even as you claim others shouldn't do it:

4:150, 151: "Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment."

The verses make you the equivalent of an unbeliever if you do what you claim to do: accept some of Islam, such as perpectuating the inequality of the sexes, but reject other parts, such as believing "...THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE ISLAM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO" even though Islam forbids it.

A practicing Muslim is not supposed to pick and choose which parts of Islam he will practice and which he will ignore or oppose, You've said as much, and then done the exact opposite, stating for yourself what parts of Islam you believe and which you do not follow.

The painful punishment that is referred to here in this verse refers to the hereafter since Jews and Christians have freedom of religion under Islam.

The painful punishment referred to includes those that are equally unbelieving as the Jews and Christians, such as Muslims that reject the Islamic prohibition against apostasy

Let me state for the record once again. I BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE ISLAM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO, as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah stated. Whoever wants to stay let him/her stay, and anyone who wants to leave, let him/her leave.

The treaty was a temporary political accord between the Quraish and the Muslims, not an eternal acceptance of apostasy. Your beliefs regarding apostasy are not consistent with Islam and probably don't matter to those that live in fear and hiding from the clerical edicts that have condemned them:

"...it is difficult for Muslims to think of leaving Islam, which prescribes the death sentence to people who leave it . . . they (apostates) are the ones most dangerous to Islam, because they have seen the dark alleys, and they know it inside out." - 'Sheraz Malik' (an ex-Muslim "apostate"), 2001."

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The verses address your contradictory attempts to "amend" or "bend" Islam even as you claim others shouldn't do it:

4:150, 151: "Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His apostles, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,- They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment."

The verses make you the equivalent of an unbeliever if you do what you claim to do.

Well, if you want to call me an apostate, then go right ahead. Interesting, some liberals are calling me an apostate.


A practicing Muslim is not supposed to pick and choose which parts of Islam he will practice and which he will ignore or oppose, You've said as much, and then done the exact opposite, stating for yourself what parts of Islam you believe and which you do not follow.

The treaty was a temporary political accord between the Quraish and the Muslims, not an eternal acceptance of apostasy.

Yes, it was temporary, but according to your logic, Muhammad was an apostate for having agreed to such a treaty.


Your beliefs regarding apostasy are not consistent with Islam

My beliefs are not consistent with YOUR understanding of Islam. Furthermore, you have failed to convince me that you understand Islam very well at all.


"...it is difficult for Muslims to think of leaving Islam, which prescribes the death sentence to people who leave it . . . they (apostates) are the ones most dangerous to Islam, because they have seen the dark alleys, and they know it inside out." - 'Sheraz Malik' (an ex-Muslim "apostate"), 2001."

The only thing that was accomplished by Khomeini issuing a bounty on Salman Rushdie's head was that he was made into a martyr. He has become the poster child for the liberals throughout the world. Believe me, I think that it was a big mistake for Muslims to have paid so much attention to him. They should have ignored his "Islam-baiting", but instead, they made him larger than real life.

As far as apostates being dangerous to Islam is concerned, I think that they give themselves far too much importance, which is all the more reason to ignore them rather than making them larger than life martyrs.

[NonContradiction]

Double post

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
You admit that oppression is going on in other Muslim cultures and you've denounced it (forced wearing of the burda etc), but because *you* would never do that to your wife, your conscience is clear.

My conscience is clear because I know that the oppressive behavior of some Muslims towards women has nothing to do with Islam.

At the same time, you declare that no one else here has the right to denounce those things because they're not Muslim.

The liberals have no right to condemn anybody else until they clean up their own act.

You fail to see people as people. You see them as Muslims primarily, whether or not they CHOSE to be Muslims and live under those laws.

On the contrary, I do see people as people. For that reason, I don't defend Muslims whether they are right or wrong. If I believe that a Jew is right and a Muslim is wrong, I will go against the Muslim.

The oppressed people by definition do NOT have freedom of religion, and that's the whole point...

Who decides who is oppressed and who isn't? When you can tell me who I should pay homage to, then we can forward. One man's liberation is another man's oppression, and one man's oppression is another man's liberation.

...yet you seem to feel that no one else should be expressing concerns that people do NOT have the right to stay or leave in many parts of the world. You think liberals should keep their noses out of it.

Where were you when the liberals of Turkey, the Taliban of the Left, were FORCING all Muslim women to take off their hijabs because they wanted to free Turkey from the ignorance and superstition of religion? Liberals have no right to condemn anybody else.

Are YOU going to do anything about it?

I am doing something about it. It all begins with education.

Safe and free in the United States... why should you worry?

In case you didn't know, the US isn't a very safe place for Muslims. We are being arrested and incarcerated without knowing what the charges are. Our property is being seized without a court trial and our religion is being bashed by bigots on the Right and the Left. I have a lot to worry about. What do you have to worry about?

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
My conscience is clear because I know that the oppressive behavior of some Muslims towards women has nothing to do with Islam.

You are doing exactly what you accuse others of: who are you to say what is and is not "Islam"? The people doing this are just as convinced that they are doing what is right by Islam as you are convinced that they are not. That's the trouble with religion - you can find justification for *anything*.


Who decides who is oppressed and who isn't? When you can tell me who I should pay homage to, then we can forward. One man's liberation is another man's oppression, and one man's oppression is another man's liberation.

It should be clear from what I've written that "oppressed" refers to people being forced to behave in certain ways, specifically wearing the burda or not being allowed to leave their religion. In fact, we seem to agree on that point so I don't see the problem. The difference is that you say they're not doing it because of their religion, when both I and they believe that they are.


Where were you when the liberals of Turkey, the Taliban of the Left, were FORCING all Muslim women to take off their hijabs because they wanted to free Turkey from the ignorance and superstition of religion? Liberals have no right to condemn anybody else.

Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
You are doing exactly what you accuse others of: who are you to say what is and is not "Islam"?

I am not setting myself up as an authority on Islam. However, I do know some basic things about Islam, certainly enough to argue with the people here. Let me give you an example. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do know that the Patriot Act, enacted by the Congress of the US, has nothing to do with the Constitution. In fact, it goes against the Constitution. Similarly, I know that forcing the burqa upon women is non-Islamic.

The people doing this are just as convinced that they are doing what is right by Islam as you are convinced that they are not. That's the trouble with religion - you can find justification for *anything*.

So, therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater because you can't distinguish between the baby and the bathwater? Of course, people will rationalize anything. That would hold true even if there was no religion.

Don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

I don't think that you are. I have never met a liberal who hated polytheism in the same manner that they hate the patriarchal Abrahamic religions.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
[B]I am not setting myself up as an authority on Islam. However, I do know some basic things about Islam, certainly enough to argue with the people here. Let me give you an example. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do know that the Patriot Act, enacted by the Congress of the US, has nothing to do with the Constitution. In fact, it goes against the Constitution. Similarly, I know that forcing the burqa upon women is non-Islamic.

Do you seriously think those who believe otherwise don't have doctrinal justification for their beliefs?


So, therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater because you can't distinguish between the baby and the bathwater? Of course, people will rationalize anything. That would hold true even if there was no religion.

But at least without religion, people have the chance to base their rationalisations on rational thought, rather than doctrine. Without religion, people would be hard-pressed to come up with a logical justification for bashing gays or driving jet planes into buildings.


I don't think that you are. I have never met a liberal who hated polytheism in the same manner that they hate the patriarchal Abrahamic religions.

These two statements cannot possibly follow logically.

Regardless: the Abrahamic religions have historically had the most power, and therefore do the most damage - they are therefore the easiest to "bash" in terms of my own humanist viewpoint. I actually have far less *respect* for non-Abrahamic religions and beliefs but they are mostly so silly and ineffectual (at least on a societal level - they still do great personal damage) that there's not much worth worrying about.

[Timberline]

So what? Who forced her to go to Thailand? Do you think that the whole world should accomodate the liberals wherever they go? Here is a simple solution to the problem: stay out of Thailand if you don't like their customs. Why do [liberals] think that they have a right to tell everybody in the world how to live their lives, yet nobody can tell the liberals anything?

Thailand is not a traditionally Muslim country. Nonetheless, Islam has made inroads, and now in certain locations every woman--even if they're not Muslim, even if they're returning to their own ancestral home--is forced to obey Muslim customs, like it or not. Face it, NC, Muslims are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse "liberals" of doing. Why is okay for Muslims to influence non-Muslim countries, but not okay for non-Muslims to influence Muslim countries?

The broader issue is modesty. For some reason, the liberals have a difficult time grasping the concept.

So, to sum up: You’re not satisfied with the right to worship as you please, dress as you please, follow customs as you please. You also want to be able to impose your customs and dress code on others around you. And if “liberals” interfere with you forcing an impractical, activity-limiting dress code on unwilling women, you're the one being oppressed? Unbelievable.

What is the difference between a dog and a human being that doesn't have modesty?

Standards of modesty vary widely, even among Muslims. That's why a policy of "live and let live" makes the most sense, in my opinion.

To you, and to many of your co-religionists, “modesty” appears to mean cumbersome, activity-limiting clothes for women, but not for men. If your “modesty” was not so extreme, so burdensome and discriminatory, there’d be no fuss about it.

The terrible irony of societies obsessed with “modesty” is that they end up obsessing about sex more, not less. Every conversation like this one, and every visit to an Islamic forum reinforces that suspicion. Sexually repressed and gender segregated people, from Victorian England to modern Iran, will see a woman outdoors in short sleeves and think "sex immodesty sex," while everyone else just sees an ordinary person engaged in ordinary activities, and thinks "no big deal."

[Dr Rick]

"The verses make you the equivalent of an unbeliever if you do what you claim to do." answered by NonContradiction with Well, if you want to call me an apostate, then go right ahead. Interesting, some liberals are calling me an apostate.

Strawman; it is the verse that makes you the equivalent of an unbeliever. There's another, much more accurate label than either apostate or unbeliever for those that preach one thing and do the opposite.

It is clear that your explicit support of would-be apostates, as well as being nothing more than an impractical rationalization for allowing continued Islamic oppression, goes against what you said earlier about not "amending" Islam.


Yes, it was temporary, but according to your logic, Muhammad was an apostate for having agreed to such a treaty.

And another strawman: Muhammad preaching one thing and doing another doesn't make him an apostate according to my reasoning.

My beliefs are not consistent with YOUR understanding of Islam. Furthermore, you have failed to convince me that you understand Islam very well at all.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
Similarly, I know that forcing the burqa upon women is non-Islamic.

Tell that to the Saudi "religious police" and other such self-styled Islamic-law enforcers. They will claim that it's a matter of enforcing feminine modesty, a cause that you claim to believe in.

And if there is no Islamic justification for forcing women to wear burqas, then why aren't the forcers ever put on trial for un-Muslim activities? Like, say, bringing a pig into a mosque.

So, therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater because you can't distinguish between the baby and the bathwater?

Someone who never tries to make a distiction on his own initiative ought never to complain about others not doing so.

I have never met a liberal who hated polytheism in the same manner that they hate the patriarchal Abrahamic religions.

First, what's a "liberal"?

And hasn't it ever occurred to you that a way to avoid being hated is to not act like a jerk?

[stilus]

Not making my post an ad hominem is becoming more and more difficult. But let’s try:

First of all, Islam has not, never, not for a single year, been the same. Claiming Islam hasn’t changed in 1400 years is saying Muslims’ views on the world today are interchangeable with the views of some poor cobbler in Mecca in 615 B.C. One persons belief will change with time, one persons belief will differ from others. Maybe, just maybe (I’m sorry, I’m an historian, doubting literary sources is second nature) the Quran has not changed in 1400 years. But Islam has. It's a tool, a power-tool to be exact. And like all used tools it is showing wear and tear (If you ask me mainly from improper use, but you will probably not be asking me...).

Secondly, as a “liberal” (I never thought I would call myself that, the only “liberals” I know of over here (the Netherlands) are by and large money-greedy, shortsighted, err.... dipsticks) I would like to answer your question:

Originally posted by NonContradiction

In case you didn't know, the US isn't a very safe place for Muslims. We are being arrested and incarcerated without knowing what the charges are. Our property is being seized without a court trial and our religion is being bashed by bigots on the Right and the Left. I have a lot to worry about. What do you have to worry about?

Well, that about sums up what I worry about. No matter how convinced Americans are they are fighting for Freedom, Liberty and Democracy, they are killing it, or letting it be killed, one day at a time. Seeing how they are the number one fighting power in our little world, I would like them to be democratic. Keeping about 680 prisoners locked up without charge or trail because they are fighting “a war on terror” almost makes me want to cry, and it is not democratic. I keep hearing stories of Muslims that had to report to the local policestation for no reason other then being Muslim, that's not democratic either. And then there is the PATRIOT ACT, which should be spelled TYRANNY. Something really has to happen soon, or I'm striking the USA of my list of democracies (I actually already have, but hey, I study Romans so I have probably gotten a litle paranoid about what Empire-building does to democracies).

I have to wonder though: shouldn't Muslims be starting “support your local free-thinker” groups, so they would have some more independently thinking people on the streets, who do not care for Bible, Quran, Constitution or some other Text, but do care for other human beings and are disgusted by the injustice and the lies?


On a more personal note: now is the time to say hello to you NonContradiction. You have just met (be it virtual) at least one "liberal" who hates the guts of the first medicine-man/woman ever to start all the mumbo-jumbo and all that followed. A “liberal” (could someone please suggest another word for it?) who can’t stand polytheism, who thinks Zeus, God, Yaweh and Allah are up there fighting for first place among the thousands of “Most Dangerous Things Ever Invented”, with New Age having a good shot at the “Amazingly Stupid” bonus price. Why this sudden confession?

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't think that you are. I have never met a liberal who hated polytheism in the same manner that they hate the patriarchal Abrahamic religions.

For me it works like this: I do not want any religious/spiritual person to be arrested, incarcerated, bullied or threatened. I want them to “be left alone”. I would also like them to leave other people alone and keep their religion to themselves, as well as their scarfs and their burqa's and ideas about men and women, thank you very much.

And in the mean time, by their Gods/Holy-What-Ever, whenever they whip out one of their Faiths and start putting it in my face, I will laugh at them, make fun of them and pity them as well.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
Do you seriously think those who believe otherwise don't have doctrinal justification for their beliefs?

Do you seriously think that those who believe that the Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution don't have doctrinal justification for their beliefs? No, they don't, in both scenarios.

I can make distictions without any problem, so I have to really wonder why you cannot. John Ashcroft and company were sworn in to uphold and the defend the Constitution, and in their eyes, they are doing exactly that. I can make a distinction between John Ashcroft and the Constitution, so why do you have such a hard time distinguishing between what some Muslims say and what Islam says?

But at least without religion, people have the chance to base their rationalisations on rational thought, rather than doctrine.

Oh please....People can rationalize anything and be just as dogmatic in their rationalizations as any religious fundamentalist can be. The French Revolution is proof enough.


Without religion, people would be hard-pressed to come up with a logical justification for bashing gays or driving jet planes into buildings.

Are you really that naive? People will ALWAYS rationalize whatever they do, with or without religion. What is up with the simplistic thinking of so many liberals? So many of them think that if they could only rid the world of religion - the greatest evil in the world in their eyes - that everything would be beautiful. In order to rid the world of all evil, you are going to have to destroy all of the human beings in it. There will ALWAYS be evil in the world as long as human beings exist, with or without religion.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Are you really that naive? People will ALWAYS rationalize whatever they do, with or without religion.

Without religion, harm must be proved. Actual and potential harm. Without religion, it would become bloody difficult to do so.

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I can make a distinction between John Ashcroft and the Constitution, so why do you have such a hard time distinguishing between what some Muslims say and what Islam says?

You mean: distinguishing between what some Muslims say and what YOU say.

Oh please....People can rationalize anything and be just as dogmatic in their rationalizations as any religious fundamentalist can be. The French Revolution is proof enough.

Yes they can - that's why I said people have the CHANCE to be rational. It doesn't always work, but with doctrine it almost never works, because doctrine isn't rational.

Are you really that naive? People will ALWAYS rationalize whatever they do, with or without religion.

But with religion, where are the checks and balances? There are Koran verses rallying believers to kill infidels. Your quoting opposing verses doesn't change that fact. So Muslims pick and choose whichever they want to justify their actions. Ditto for Christian fundies. There is no rational thought going on.

Humanism has a much better chance when doctrine is removed from the equation, when people debate the best course of action instead.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Without religion, harm must be proved. Actual and potential harm. Without religion, it would become bloody difficult to do so.

Hmmm...interesting point. Although we need to remember that rationalisation comes in many flavours, not just the religious kind.

The problem with religious rationalisations for behaviour is that they are, in general, sanctioned forms of rationalisation. Not necessarily acceptable, or warranted, or justified, of course...but religious rationalisations have accumulated a certain legitimacy and authority within the confines of religious discourses. In comparison, non-religious rationalisations aren't always granted automatic sanction...as you point out, it's bloody difficult to rationalise behaviour without religion.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Without religion, harm must be proved. Actual and potential harm. Without religion, it would become bloody difficult to do so.

That's absolutely false. Didn't I mention the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror in the name of REASON?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
That's absolutely false. Didn't I mention the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror in the name of REASON?

At least the French Revolution had some good in it. What is the reign of terror? You mean the period of Islamic rule in the Middle East? :p

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline

So, to sum up: You’re not satisfied with the right to worship as you please, dress as you please, follow customs as you please. You also want to be able to impose your customs and dress code on others around you.


Why don't you learn how to read? How many times have I said that I don't believe that people should be forced to stay if they want to leave? When you learn how to read, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.


And if “liberals” interfere with you forcing an impractical, activity-limiting dress code on unwilling women, you're the one being oppressed? Unbelievable.

No, you are the one who is unbelievable in your inability to grasp what I am saying to you. Again, I BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO STAY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO, AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO. Did you get it now? I am not going to make "larger than life martyrs" out of disgruntled Muslims who want to leave Islam, assuming that they were Muslims to begin with. Liberals have a history of trying to undermine their opponents from within, as well as from without.

Standards of modesty vary widely, even among Muslims. That's why a policy of "live and let live" makes the most sense, in my opinion.

So when are you going to let Muslims live in peace? Why don't you practise your "live and let live" policy?

To you, and to many of your co-religionists, “modesty” appears to mean cumbersome, activity-limiting clothes for women, but not for men. If your “modesty” was not so extreme, so burdensome and discriminatory, there’d be no fuss about it.

As long as women are free to leave, which is what I advocate, then you don't have an argument.


The terrible irony of societies obsessed with “modesty” is that they end up obsessing about sex more, not less.

Have you not seen how obsessed your own liberal society is with sex? You really are deaf, dumb, and blind to what is going on around you.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by lpetrich
And hasn't it ever occurred to you that a way to avoid being hated is to not act like a jerk?

Your problem is that hatred is what is motivating you. The French Revolutiion proved that a mob motivated by hatred is a very dangerous thing. The funny thing is that they thought that they were being rational, just like you think you are rational.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why don't you learn how to read? How many times have I said that I don't believe that people should be forced to stay if they want to leave? When you learn how to read, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.

Why don't you stop the ad homs? When you stop the ad homs, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.

NonCon, perhaps it is you who is not speaking clearly.

So when are you going to let Muslims live in peace? Why don't you practise your "live and let live" policy?

Because they won't let others 'live and let live.' You seem to want them to torture, murder and let torture and murder.

As long as women are free to leave, which is what I advocate, then you don't have an argument.

Too bad you want to stop the liberals who are trying to allow just that.

Have you not seen how obsessed your own liberal society is with sex? You really are deaf, dumb, and blind to what is going on around you.

We're used to it, so what?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Because they won't let others 'live and let live.' You seem to want them to torture, murder and let torture and murder.
I don't speak for all Muslims, nor do I speak for the Quran. I speak for myself. If you want to criticize my understanding of Islam, then fire away. I don't speak for the Ayatollah, nor does he call me on the phone to get my opinion about the important issues of the day. I am not a Wahhabi, nor am I a member of the Taliban, nor a follower of Usama bin Laden. I haven't mutilated the genitals of my daughters, nor have I killed any of them because they have violated the honor of my family. I've never raped my wife, and I have never beaten her. If you want to criticize the Muslims in the Arab world, then I suggest that you go over there and do so. If you want to criticize my understanding of Islam, then put up or shut up.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If you want to criticize my understanding of Islam, then put up or shut up.

I believe Dr. Rick's already done this. Numerous times.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by stilus
Not making my post an ad hominem is becoming more and more difficult. But let’s try:

Welcome to the world.

First of all, Islam has not, never, not for a single year, been the same. Claiming Islam hasn’t changed in 1400 years is saying Muslims’ views on the world today are interchangeable with the views of some poor cobbler in Mecca in 615 B.C. One persons belief will change with time, one persons belief will differ from others. Maybe, just maybe (I’m sorry, I’m an historian, doubting literary sources is second nature) the Quran has not changed in 1400 years. But Islam has. It's a tool, a power-tool to be exact. And like all used tools it is showing wear and tear (If you ask me mainly from improper use, but you will probably not be asking me...).

Islam can be used or abused. Unfortunately, many people are abusing Islam, but I think that can change with proper education on how it should be used.


I have to wonder though: shouldn't Muslims be starting “support your local free-thinker” groups, so they would have some more independently thinking people on the streets, who do not care for Bible, Quran, Constitution or some other Text, but do care for other human beings and are disgusted by the injustice and the lies?

What would be the point of being a Muslim if one doesn't care about the Quran? It makes no sense.

What you are saying sounds great in theory, but in practise, it will never work. Whenever people get together, there will be disagreements. If one party cannot run roughshod over the other, then there will be a negotiated settlement. That negotiated settlement then becomes "The Text". It's impossible for people to come together to work towards a common goal and not have a negotiated, or non-negotiated, text among themselves.

In the case of the Quran, as a text, there is no negotiated settlement among people. Either people accept it or they don't, and they are free to do so, but it's not a negotiated text as is the case with the Constitution. Muslims may differ on interpretation of the text, but the point is that the content of the text was not arrived at by the negotiation process.

For me it works like this: I do not want any religious/spiritual person to be arrested, incarcerated, bullied or threatened. I want them to “be left alone”. I would also like them to leave other people alone and keep their religion to themselves, as well as their scarfs and their burqa's and ideas about men and women, thank you very much.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. Unfortunately, many liberals feel that, since they believe that the Abrahamic religions are oppressive, they have every right to destroy these religions from within and without.

And in the mean time, by their Gods/Holy-What-Ever, whenever they whip out one of their Faiths and start putting it in my face, I will laugh at them, make fun of them and pity them as well.

I don't need your pity, and I don't understand why you feel the need to make fun of them.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Muslims may differ on interpretation of the text, but the point is that the content of the text was not arrived at by the negotiation process.


Which is the problem. The Quran was written for a theocracy, not a democracy.

[Timberline]

As long as women are free to leave, which is what I advocate, then you don't have an argument.

As others already have pointed out, "leave if you don't like it” sounds good but is impractical. Few if any nations allow unlimited immigration. A poor woman in Bangladesh can’t just decide one day to become a permanent resident of the United States. Nor is she likely to have the funds, nor is uprooting oneself from one’s native home and family easy or pleasant.

As for the example we were talking about, the Muslim section of Thailand, what about non-Muslim women who were born and raised there? Apparently you expect them to leave their own hometown because of a historically recent Islamic influx to a traditionally non-Muslim country. I’ll ask again, since you ignored this before: Why is okay for Muslims to influence non-Muslim countries (like Thailand), but not okay for non-Muslims to influence Muslim countries? You seem to want to have it both ways.

So when are you going to let Muslims live in peace? Why don't you practise your "live and let live" policy?

I’ve said, and you’ve even quoted me in one of your replies, “If a Muslim woman wants to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that’s her right.” So how am I not letting Muslims live in peace?

Don’t worry, “liberals” like me (and like the ACLU, defending the Muslim woman in Florida recently) will continue to support and defend your right to worship as you please and dress as you please. It’s a shame you’re not willing to extend the same courtesy to the non-Muslims around you.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
As others already have pointed out, "leave if you don't like it” sounds good but is impractical. Few if any nations allow unlimited immigration. A poor woman in Bangladesh can’t just decide one day to become a permanent resident of the United States. Nor is she likely to have the funds, nor is uprooting oneself from one’s native home and family easy or pleasant.

I don't know anything about Thailand or Bangladesh, much less the Muslim community over there. As I said before, I speak for myself. I don't speak for the Wahhabi's, the Thailand Muslims, the Afghanis, the Iranians, etc. I am not responsible for what they do, nor are they responsible for what I do.

Every side has its extremists, including YOURS. The Christian conservatives have their abortion clinic bombers and neo-Nazis. The Muslims have their Usama bin Ladens and Wahhabis, and you, as a member of the Left, have YOUR extremists also. Why do you ignore the example of Turkey which you, yourself, brought up? Why do you ignore the Reign of Terror in the name of REASON? Every side has had its extremists, so get off of your high horse, will you? If you don't want me to blame you for what the liberals did in Turkey, then stop bringing up examples of Muslim extremists, will you? I am not responsible for what Muslim extremists do anymore than you are responsible for what Leftist radicals do.

As for the example we were talking about, the Muslim section of Thailand, what about non-Muslim women who were born and raised there?

I am not a spokesperson for Muslims in Thailand. You are asking the wrong person.

Apparently you expect them to leave their own hometown because of a historically recent Islamic influx to a traditionally non-Muslim country. I’ll ask again, since you ignored this before: Why is okay for Muslims to influence non-Muslim countries (like Thailand), but not okay for non-Muslims to influence Muslim countries? You seem to want to have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways. I want to be able to live in peace in the US without being bothered by non-Muslims. I don't want the Christian conservatives telling me that polygamy is wrong, and I don't want the Left accusing me of raping my wife. I don't bother non-Muslims and tell them how they should run their lives and I don't want them telling me how I should run my life. Shall we stop trying to influence each other and leave each other alone?

I’ve said, and you’ve even quoted me in one of your replies, “If a Muslim woman wants to dress head-to-toe in black on a hot July day, that’s her right.” So how am I not letting Muslims live in peace?

As it has been said many times in this thread, it's not about clothing. It's about human rights. If you are going to dictate to Muslims what is and is not rape, then you are not letting them live in peace. Muslims will not be free to practise their religion under the liberals anymore than they are free to practise their religion under the Christian conservatives. The Christian conservatives and the liberals are not going to let Muslims live in peace.

Don’t worry, “liberals” like me (and like the ACLU, defending the Muslim woman in Florida recently) will continue to support and defend your right to worship as you please and dress as you please. It’s a shame you’re not willing to extend the same courtesy to the non-Muslims around you.

I am glad that you brought this point up. The ACLU hates Islam as much as they hate Nazism. However, just as they would go to court to have neo-Nazis march in Skokie, they will go to court for Muslims. The ACLU isn't defending Muslims against the Christian conservatives out of love for Muslims, particularly after 9/11, anymore than they love the neo-Nazis that they defend.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't want the Christian conservatives telling me that polygamy is wrong,
No, that's the law of the land. Work to change it.

and I don't want the Left accusing me of raping my wife.
No, that would be the raped wife doing the accusing.

You really overdo the misuse of labels. Your complaints are incredibly unfocused.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
No, that's the law of the land. Work to change it.

I don't want to change their law from within their system. If they want to forbid polygamy, then that is their business. I just want them to leave the Muslims alone. Each religious community should be allowed to follow its own religious laws governing marriage, etc.

Work to change the law? In other words, you are telling the Muslims that they should become politically active in this country within the system. Since the Muslims don't carry any political weight in the US like the liberals do, we would have to ally ourselves with liberals against the Christian conservatives. The problem is that the liberals, although they may support us on some issues of common interest, for the most part, they hate Islam as much as the Christian conservatives do.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Which is the problem. The Quran was written for a theocracy, not a democracy.

Islam isn't a theocracy.

[NonContradiction]

For the last two hundred years, Muslims have had to live with Western stereotypes about themselves, particularly the Arab Muslims. Arab Muslims have been constantly portrayed as a bunch of backward camel jockeys living in the desert with their ancient outdated religion. Now they are being portrayed as fanatical religious fundamentalists who want to kill all of the infidels.

To a large degree, the liberals have been responsible for these stereotypes. The liberals have portrayed themselves as being rational, open-minded free-thinkers, while at the same time they have portrayed Muslims as being irrational, closed-minded dogmatists.

By nature, Muslims are skeptics. We are skeptical of many of the liberal ideas in the West, especially when we can see very clearly the destructiveness of these ideas. Karl Marx is a good case in point. He attacked Islam as being the opiate of the Muslims, but when we look at the track record of the Marxist liberators, we see clearly that they had their own opiate. Since practically all of the liberation movements since Karl Marx have had a Marxist flavor to them, one can say the same thing about the women's liberation movement and other similar movements. There is a constant, recurring pattern of behavior among liberals - they are, generally, what they accuse others of being. They are every bit as irrational and closed-minded as their opponents are.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Islam isn't a theocracy.

No, but Fundamentalist Islamic societies are.

By nature, Muslims are skeptics. We are skeptical of many of the liberal ideas in the West, especially when we can see very clearly the destructiveness of these ideas.

But you're not skeptical of your own religion, especially when they lead to 9/11 and oppression. That's another problem with Islam.

:boohoo:

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Timberline
Don’t worry, “liberals” like me (and like the ACLU, defending the Muslim woman in Florida recently) will continue to support and defend your right to worship as you please and dress as you please.

I don't need the ACLU to defend me. By the way, I don't think that the ACLU should have wasted its time on the Muslim woman in Florida. If she wants a drivers license, then she should have to show her face so that people can identify who she is. This is common sense.

It’s a shame you’re not willing to extend the same courtesy to the non-Muslims around you.

As long as the liberals leave Islam and Muslims alone, then there won't be any trouble. There won't be anything to fight about. If past experience is any indicator of future performance, the liberals are not going to leave Islam and Muslims alone.

[The Other Michael]

It appears that a reminder that everyone should strive to play nicely together is due, so please take heed of this reminder.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
Islam isn't a theocracy. Originally posted by winstonjen
No, but Fundamentalist Islamic societies are.I am not responsible for what fundamentalist Islamic societies do, nor are they responsible for what I do, nor are you responsible for what they do. However, you are responsible for yourself, so I suggest that you start worrying about yourself. That should keep you busy for a long time.
Originally posted by NonCon
By nature, Muslims are skeptics. We are skeptical of many of the liberal ideas in the West, especially when we can see very clearly the destructiveness of these ideas.Originally posted by winstonjen
But you're not skeptical of your own religion, especially when they lead to 9/11 and oppression. That's another problem with Islam.
How do you know that I was never skeptical of Islam? You don't know anything about me, except for what little bit I have said about myself here in this forum.

[Mendeh]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't want to change their law from within their system. If they want to forbid polygamy, then that is their business. I just want them to leave the Muslims alone. Each religious community should be allowed to follow its own religious laws governing marriage, etc.

You can't expect a country that trys to use law to protect its citizens from harm to pass something as abuse-inviting that. You'd have absolutely no way to protect vulnerable people in a religious community from exploitation.

What if a religious community wanted to marry off girls of six years old into arranged marriages?

Or saw it as the husband's god-given right to beat/assault/command his wife?

Should religious communities be allowed to try adulterers in courts which require less substantial evidence than the national judicial system to convict?

Should religious communities be allowed to murder people in some suitably barbaric way for, say, adultery, apostacy or heresy?

Should religious communities be allowed to punish children by torture who transgress religious law?

Personally, I'd rather live in a country where my rights didn't fluctuate based on what road I was currently walking down.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
You can't expect a country that trys to use law to protect its citizens from harm to pass something as abuse-inviting that. You'd have absolutely no way to protect vulnerable people in a religious community from exploitation.

Assuming that the liberals would be the sole arbiters in the society since all of the religious people are too stupid to know what is good for them. Where would we be without the rational liberals to tell us what is right and wrong?

What if a religious community wanted to marry off girls of six years old into arranged marriages?

Where would the world be without liberals to set things right? Where would the world be without the liberals to protect all of the women and children from being abused.

Or saw it as the husband's god-given right to beat/assault/command his wife?

Thank God for the rational liberals to protect the world from the irrational, stupid, ignorant, superstitous religious people.

Should religious communities be allowed to try adulterers in courts which require less substantial evidence than the national judicial system to convict?

God forbid! They should be tried in liberal courts since the liberals are the upholders of all that is good and pure.

Should religious communities be allowed to murder people in some suitably barbaric way for, say, adultery, apostacy or heresy?

No way! The liberals will have nothing of the sort, not on their watch. Never mind that millions of people have died at the hands of liberals in the name of liberation.

Should religious communities be allowed to punish children by torture who transgress religious law?

For heavens sake! That's outrageous. Thank God for all of the liberals to protect us and make sure that children are not tortured by ignorant superstituous religious people.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Allow me to get back to the issue. I was talking about polygamy and monogamy. If Muslims want to practice polygamy according to their religion, they should be allowed to do so. If the Christians want to forbid polygamy for their followers, they should be allowed to do so. We have states that make different laws, as long as they are all in accordance with federal law, so why can't we have the same thing for religious communities? I don't want to force my morality upon Christian conservatives, and I don't want them forcing their morality upon me. Do you get it now or do I need to draw a diagram for you?

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am not responsible for what fundamentalist Islamic societies do, nor are they responsible for what I do, nor are you responsible for what they do. However, you are responsible for yourself, so I suggest that you start worrying about yourself. That should keep you busy for a long time.
[/B]

This gets back to what I was saying earlier: humanists view people as fellow humans, first and foremost. That's why we get upset about women being oppressed. It has nothing to do with Islam per se. It's about the fact that they are human beings being oppressed.

As for the definition of "oppressed" - again, that comes from basic human rights about individual freedom, not religious doctrine.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
This gets back to what I was saying earlier: humanists view people as fellow humans, first and foremost. That's why we get upset about women being oppressed. It has nothing to do with Islam per se. It's about the fact that they are human beings being oppressed.

As for the definition of "oppressed" - again, that comes from basic human rights about individual freedom, not religious doctrine.

Yes, everything does hinge upon the definition of oppressed. What makes the definition that comes from basic human rights and individual freedom better than religious doctrine?

[Mendeh]

The point I was trying to justify is why religious communities should not, as NonContradiction put it, "be allowed to follow [their] own religious laws governing marriage, etc." when those customs conflict with the protection of rights that the country grants its inhabitants.

For example in the UK it is illegal for a person not yet 16 years old to marry, and partners can prosecute domestic abuse in court. I believe that vulnerable people should be protected from abuse, and legal safety nets like these are one way of doing it.

Now if these laws became void for particular communities, this legal safety-net would not exist for those born into such communities, or members of those communities who, for religious reasons are treated as inferior - in fundamentalist Muslim communities, that is women.

"I don't want to change their law from within their system. If they want to forbid polygamy, then that is their business. I just want them to leave the Muslims alone."

Why should religious belief allow someone exemption from prosecution should they commit a crime?
Muslims (or any minority) are just as much citizens of a country as everybody else, and therefore subject to the same laws and possessing of the same rights, as anybody else. A Muslim community (or any minority) is not some special little group who, by virtue of their beliefs, should expect special dispensation to commit illegal acts.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If Muslims want to practice polygamy according to their religion, they should be allowed to do so. If the Christians want to forbid polygamy for their followers, they should be allowed to do so. We have states that make different laws, as long as they are all in accordance with federal law, so why can't we have the same thing for religious communities? I don't want to force my morality upon Christian conservatives, and I don't want them forcing their morality upon me. Do you get it now or do I need to draw a diagram for you?

Modified from earlier advice provided on this thread by NonContradiction; consequently, none of what follows necessarily represents my opinion:
"Why don't you leave the liberals alone? Who forced you to go to the US? Do you think that the whole world should accomodate you wherever you go? Here is a simple solution to the problem: stay out of the US if you don't like their customs. Why are you so dense about these issues? Why do they think that you have a right to tell everybody in the world how to live their lives, yet nobody can tell them anything? Freedom is okay for them, but it's not okay for anyone else. How convenient. Your hypocrisy is obvious to all, except to you. Who made you the police of the world? If you don't like it in the US, then you should be allowed to leave."

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, everything does hinge upon the definition of oppressed. What makes the definition that comes from basic human rights and individual freedom better than religious doctrine?

It's called "separation of church and state".

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
. A Muslim community (or any minority) is not some special little group who, by virtue of their beliefs, should expect special dispensation to commit illegal acts.

You haven't successfully argued that you, and the rest of the liberals, should be the ones to dictate to everybody else what is legal and illegal.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
Yes, everything does hinge upon the definition of oppressed. What makes the definition that comes from basic human rights and individual freedom better than religious doctrine?

It's called "separation of church and state".

You didn't answer the question. Why are liberal doctrines better than Islamic doctrines? Liberals make basic assumptions, which they expect everybody else to accept without questioning, much the same way religious people expect others to accept their doctrines without questioning.

Liberals have separated between church and state to protect us from the church, but who is going to protect us from the liberal state? The truth is that the liberators, more often than not, become the new oppressors.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why are liberal doctrines better than Islamic doctrines?

In what sense is liberalism a 'doctrine'?

Liberals make basic assumptions, which they expect everybody else to accept without questioning, much the same way religious people expect others to accept their doctrines without questioning.

But aren't the basic assumptions of liberalism more tolerant than those of many religious systems?

Liberals have separated between church and state to protect us from the church, but who is going to protect us from the liberal state?

Why do we need 'protection' from liberalism in the first place? What is it about liberalism that would necessitate 'protection'? What would this 'protection' from 'the liberal state' consist of?

The truth is that the liberators, more often than not, become the new oppressors.

How is liberalism oppressive?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
In what sense is liberalism a 'doctrine'?

I asked, why are liberal doctrines better than Islamic doctrines? For example, separation of church and state is a liberal doctrine.

Originally posted by Luiseach
But aren't the basic assumptions of liberalism more tolerant than those of many religious systems?

Liberals are tolerant of all religions as long as no religion challenges liberalism.

[Mendeh]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You haven't successfully argued that you, and the rest of the liberals, should be the ones to dictate to everybody else what is legal and illegal.

Though I am in fact liberal, I'd rather not be stuffed into pigeonholes like this.

Personally, and this is not necessarily a view shared by all or most liberals, I believe that people should be free to do whatever they like except impinge upon the freedom of another being to make free choices for themself. That's hardly a diktat; it's an invitation for individuals to be free protagonists.

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You haven't successfully argued that you, and the rest of the liberals, should be the ones to dictate to everybody else what is legal and illegal.

Two points:
1. "moral/immoral" is not the same as "legal/illegal". Illegal behaviour is behaviour that will result in a penalty being imposed by a court. Immoral behaviour is what is wrong. What is illegal may also be immoral, but as the fish that is both red and short-sighted will tell you, the two qualities are not the same.

2. Every country in the entire world dictates how they want those living within them to behave. Such commands, I believe, are generally known as laws. Now not everyone is subject to the law to the same degree. In Britain, a child of ten cannot be tried for murder, and a mentally handicapped person bears a reduced responsibility for their behaviour. A person's mental state and age influence the degree to which the law applies.

The real question is whether a person's religion or moral world-view should dictate whether they can be prosecuted or not for behaviour that it says is perfectly acceptable, but which the law regards as a crime.

Now I think it's pretty damn obvious that a person's moral world-view is about the worst reason it's possible to come up with for exempting them from laws, as the sad case of Mr. Smith, who brutally cheese-sliced his great aunt Gladiola to death, proves. After all, in Mr. Smith's moral world-view, it's perfectly all right to murder great aunts...

[greyline]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You didn't answer the question. Why are liberal doctrines better than Islamic doctrines? Liberals make basic assumptions, which they expect everybody else to accept without questioning, much the same way religious people expect others to accept their doctrines without questioning.


You do seem to value this term "liberal", which has now lost all meaning in this discussion.

I am not advocating liberal doctrines. I'm advocating humanism: all people are equal regardless of gender, religion, nationality. Anything consenting adults wish to do, they may, provided others are not harmed.

The laws that stem from this in order to make society function are debated in communities and in parliament and change with the times. Religious doctrine is subjected to debate to a certain extent (in that not all Muslims agree on Allah's word, and not all Christians agree on Jehovah's word) but there is a limit on how far that debate can go when it's based on an unchanging text written centuries ago that by its very nature fails to address some relevant issues at all.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
Though I am in fact liberal, I'd rather not be stuffed into pigeonholes like this.

If you are liberal, then that is what you are. Since I am a Muslim, it's implied that I am more conservative than you are. You are what you are, and I am what I am.

Personally, and this is not necessarily a view shared by all or most liberals, I believe that people should be free to do whatever they like except impinge upon the freedom of another being to make free choices for themself. That's hardly a diktat; it's an invitation for individuals to be free protagonists.

The "carrot of freedom" the liberals dangle in front of people often becomes a big stick. The idea of freedom sounds great, but the truth is nobody is born free. We are only free to choose our masters, and some people don't even have that choice.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
We are only free to choose our masters.

Spoken like a true theist...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by greyline
You do seem to value this term "liberal", which has now lost all meaning in this discussion.If you believe in a liberal state, then you are a liberal. It's not very complicated.I am not advocating liberal doctrines.If you believe in separation of church and state, and I assuming that you do, then you are advocating a liberal doctrine.

I don't want to stray too far off of the topic here, so let me bring women's dress back into the discussion and relate it to the liberal state. If we look at the history of America, we see that early American society, for the most part, dressed very conservatively. I will never forget a picture of a woman being arrested for indecent exposure on the beach of Lake Michigan. If any woman were to wear the same bathing suit today, she would be laughed off of the beach.

The point is society was, for the most part, conservative, even though a liberal state had been established. In the beginning, perhaps one could even argue that the liberal state and conservative society balanced each other out. That argument can no longer be made. The liberal state has gradually, over time, liberalized society so much so that what was once unacceptable is now acceptable.

It's my belief that people should be able to choose between a liberal state and a conservative state. It appears as though we have lost that choice, and as a result, we have lost a degree of freedom. What good is freedom if we only have one choice?

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
What good is freedom if we only have one choice?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask an Islamic woman who only has the one "choice" of being stripped of her freedom to choose and she'll probably give you a good answer, being as how she is more familiar with being stripped of choices than you are.

(Sigh) 19 pages and NonContradiction still doesn't see a difference between choosing a "conservative" life and having one thrust upon you without the freedom to exit it as is the case with the poor women we have been discussing?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by cheetah
(Sigh) 19 pages and NonContradiction still doesn't see a difference between choosing a "conservative" life and having one thrust upon you without the freedom to exit it as is the case with the poor women we have been discussing?

19 pages of me clearly stating that I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay and you still don't get it.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Liberals are tolerant of all religions as long as no religion challenges liberalism.

Is this aspect of liberalism a good or a bad thing, in your view?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
19 pages of me clearly stating that I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay and you still don't get it.

Does the fact that you think every Muslim should be 'free to leave or stay' mean that every Muslim is free to make this choice?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NonCon
Liberals are tolerant of all religions as long as no religion challenges liberalism.Originally posted by Luiseach
Is this aspect of liberalism a good or a bad thing, in your view?

I think it's bad. Why do you ask?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I think it's bad.
Why is it bad?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
19 pages of me clearly stating that I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay and you still don't get it.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see the contradiction in his contradictory claims. He simultaneously asserts that the beliefs which he holds are not to be amended, and then he amends them to assert his belief that apostasy, a crime in Islam punishable by death, should be freely practiced.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't get that what he "clearly states" doesn't justify the plight of many Muslims bound to their lifestyle by the threat of murder.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see how forcing women to wear burgas and only travel with male relatives is unacceptable to some people.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see how many of us reject seperating humanity into disperate groups with different rights.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still believes that only Muslims should be practicing their beliefs freely wherever they are; everyone else should just be "free to leave."

NonContradiction has shown us in these 19 pages how horrible an immutable egocentric belief system can be; how it twists and distorts perception so that everything and everyone else is inferior. In that way, this thread has been useful, not to NonContradiction, but to those that can still see and learn.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Does the fact that you think every Muslim should be 'free to leave or stay' mean that every Muslim is free to make this choice?
Of course not. I don't deny that some Muslims are oppressive, but that is clearly not the spirit of Islam.
Surah (2,256) There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.surah (11,28) He (Noah)said: O my people! Bethink you, if I rely on a clear proof from my Lord and there hath come unto me a mercy from His presence, and it hath been made obscure to you, can we compel you to accept it when ye are averse thereto?

[Mendeh]

"The "carrot of freedom" the liberals dangle in front of people often becomes a big stick. The idea of freedom sounds great, but the truth is nobody is born free. We are only free to choose our masters, and some people don't even have that choice."

I honestly don't understand this quote. Freedom is a lack of something, not the presence of something (even if it's carrot-shaped). Freedom is lack of constraint.

Nobody is born completely free, since there are always things you cannot do without something bad happening (pulling Constable Harrington's trousers down necessitates being dragged through the courts; cutting your own head off will kill you). But Shadrach, who is born in a society which makes fewer constraints on him, is freer than Meshach, who was born in a society where you can't do anything without the written consent of the Queen; and Meshach is freer than Abendigo, who is at present dead.

"It's my belief that people should be able to choose between a liberal state and a conservative state. It appears as though we have lost that choice, and as a result, we have lost a degree of freedom. What good is freedom if we only have one choice?"

Are you saying that in being brought up in a freer society, people lose the freedom to choose to live under a more constraining regime? I guess so, but anyone can accomplish the same end by simply not allowing themselves to do things they could not in a conservative state. Most Muslims I know do not drink alcohol, even though no law stops them in Britain. I don't eat meat, though there's no law stopping me from doing so, either.

Another point I've just thought of: in free(ish) societies, like the USA or most of Europe, you don't lose the freedom to live under a more conservative regime, because you can emigrate to a country that better fits your tastes.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
19 pages of me clearly stating that I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay and you still don't get it.
19 pages of people trying to get it through your head that you saying that freedom should be there and you saying that people should follow Islam as it has been for 1400 years is a, uhm, contradiction, and you still don't get it.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Of course not. I don't deny that some Muslims are oppressive, but that is clearly not the spirit of Islam.
[/i] Actually dress codes are not necessarily in the spirit of Islam, or against the spirit of Islam. This is a matter of judgment and who has the authority to judge. Islamic Mullah’s say Western Dress Codes fundamentally undermine their freedom of religion. Since dress codes are employed around the world in every culture I don’t see where Westerns get off telling Islamic people how to dress. I am not free to walk into a 5 star French Restaurant in my underwear, or go to work in my bed wear. I’m sure most non-Western people view the torturous and dangerous cosmetic surgeries Western women wear in place of cloths abhorrent.

[The Other Michael]

That argument can no longer be made. The liberal state has gradually, over time, liberalized society so much so that what was once unacceptable is now acceptable.

If you don't find something acceptable, you may wish to refrain from doing that. But your finding something unacceptable for you doesn't mean it is unacceptable for others.

If you wish to live under a severely limited amount of freedom, feel free to circumscribe your personal freedoms.

cheers,
Michael

[cheetah]

Originally posted by dk
Actually dress codes are not necessarily in the spirit of Islam, or against the spirit of Islam. This is a matter of judgment and who has the authority to judge. Islamic Mullah’s say Western Dress Codes fundamentally undermine their freedom of religion. Since dress codes are employed around the world in every culture I don’t see where Westerns get off telling Islamic people how to dress. I am not free to walk into a 5 star French Restaurant in my underwear, or go to work in my bed wear. I’m sure most non-Western people view the torturous and dangerous cosmetic surgeries Western women wear in place of cloths abhorrent.

The examples you use are of private establishments exercising their right to choose how they want to run their business. If you don't like it, you eat elsewhere, or work elsewhere. But, what should Islamic women do, when the dress code is enforced 24/7 no matter where in the world they are, and they aren't allowed to leave?

In this discussion, westerners aren't telling Muslims how to dress, we are saying that they should not be forced to dress that way. It has been said time and time again that if a woman chooses to dress that way, that is more than fine. We can never know about the women in those countries, though, because they have never been given the choice. You don't see us talking about how horrible those women in America that dress that way are, right? No, because they either chose to dress that way or, at least, chose not to divorce the man that is forcing them to dress that way, which I guess is implicit choice in dress. In fact, I am happy for those women that live in free countries and continue to dress that way because I can feel more confident that they are doing it for their own reasons.

And with plastic surgery, well I cannot deny that society sucks for making women feel like they should do dangerous things to make themselves "prettier" but ultimately, the decision rests with the individual woman and she wasn't forced to do it.

The ENTIRE difference here is that westerners/liberals/whatever you want to call us aren't forcing anything on anybody except to NOT force other, independent, sentient, adult human females to give up all their freedoms. That's the only "freedom" I would like to take away from these patriarchal societies: the freedom to take away women's freedoms unilaterally. Now, if it was truly a system where a woman could opt out, then they could continue to run their religion the same way, as the women left in it CHOSE not to exercise their freedom to opt out.

[truelies]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see the contradiction in his contradictory claims. He simultaneously asserts that the beliefs which he holds are not to be amended, and then he amends them to assert his belief that apostasy, a crime in Islam punishable by death, should be freely practiced.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't get that what he "clearly states" doesn't justify the plight of many Muslims bound to their lifestyle by the threat of murder.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see how forcing women to wear burgas and only travel with male relatives is unacceptable to some people.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still doesn't see how many of us reject seperating humanity into disperate groups with different rights.

19 pages, and NonContradiction still believes that only Muslims should be practicing their beliefs freely wherever they are; everyone else should just be "free to leave."

NonContradiction has shown us in these 19 pages how horrible an immutable egocentric belief system can be; how it twists and distorts perception so that everything and everyone else is inferior. In that way, this thread has been useful, not to NonContradiction, but to those that can still see and learn.

From what I can see after wading thtough this thread NonC is no more dogmatic than his freethinker opponents- he prefers that univerally the norms of islamic should rule and the freethinkers feel the 'freedom' as THEY define it should be the State imposed norm.

Pluralism seems to be a concept that neither dogma can get its arms around. islam punishes those who desert the faith with death when it has the power to do so. The Liberal(freethinker) State destroys its enemies with Court Actions and Taxes when it gets the chance. The scheme seems to be that suppose a Community of 50000 has put a creche in the snow in front of its city building with the approval of the entire community using the community's funds. Along comes a free thinker from a 1000 miles away who simply cannot bear the thought of a creche anywhere in the known universe. The Liberal State will step in to keep that one passing though freethinker happy and smug at the expense of an entire community.

The thing that the Liberal(freethinker) is utterly unable to accept is that for true pluralism to work people must be willing to adhere to the will of the majority in the community in which they live to within very broad limits. If unable to do so the right thing is to tear up stakes and move to a more pleasing social climate. This endless attempt by one segment of the population (here I speak of the USA) to presume that compelling every local custom, tradition and ordinance to pass its muster is somehow a 'defense' of freedom is at best an abuse of the the language and perhaps an indication that will use the concept of freedom to destroy the reality.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
If you don't find something acceptable, you may wish to refrain from doing that. But your finding something unacceptable for you doesn't mean it is unacceptable for others.

Absolutely, I agree with you. I am not trying to impose anything upon anybody, and I couldn't even if I wanted to. I am calling for Muslims to leave liberals alone and liberals to leave Muslims alone.

If one reads the Quran, one finds that the liberal pagan majority could not leave the Muslims alone. In surah 85, the liberal pagan majority threw the believers in a pit of fire they had constructed. In surah 18, The Cave, the believers had to take refuge in a cave from the liberal pagan majority. Moses asked Pharaoh to let his people go, but Pharaoh refused to let them leave in peace. Also in the Quran: Surah (7,88)The chieftains of his people, who were scornful, said: Surely we will drive thee out, O Shu'eyb, and those who believe with thee, from our township, unless ye return to our religion. He said: Even though we hate it?
Also, Jesus was persecuted by a liberal pagan Roman majority and so were his followers after him. The same thing happened to Muhammad in Mecca.

The Quran portrays a very clear picture here. The history of mankind has been a history of a liberal pagan majority oppressing the Prophets and Messengers of the One True Abrahamic God. Abraham, himself, had to flee Iraq because of persecution by the liberal pagan majority there. If past history is any indicator of future performance, Muslims can expect more of the same in the West.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by truelies
From what I can see after wading thtough this thread NonC is no more dogmatic than his freethinker opponents- he prefers that univerally the norms of islamic should rule and the freethinkers feel the 'freedom' as THEY define it should be the State imposed norm.

One cannot "impose" freedom.

This fundamentally flawed comparison between freedom and tyranny is illustrative of how some Muslims aren't the only theists that can't grasp the tremendous difference between forcing others versus allowing others to follow religious fiat.

Insisting that women wear the burqa is different from allowing women to wear the burqa. Freethinking liberals don't want to force worship of Allah or Jesus or none of the above; they want to allow worship of Allah or Jesus or none of the above.

Pluralism seems to be a concept that neither dogma can get its arms around. islam punishes those who desert the faith with death when it has the power to do so. The Liberal(freethinker) State destroys its enemies with Court Actions and Taxes when it gets the chance. The scheme seems to be that suppose a Community of 50000 has put a creche in the snow in front of its city building with the approval of the entire community using the community's funds. Along comes a free thinker from a 1000 miles away who simply cannot bear the thought of a creche anywhere in the known universe. The Liberal State will step in to keep that one passing though freethinker happy and smug at the expense of an entire community.

The poster argues against pluralism as he complains that others don't embrace it.

Nothing above is a complaint in favor of pluralism; it is a tirade against religious freedom made even weaker with a nonsensical analogy. There is no valid comparison drawn by the poster between the killing of someone for unbelief to nonlethally protecting unbelief.

In a free society, a person or organization can not only put up a creche, but also a church, a temple, or a mosque, but no one should be forced to help put any of those up through the compulsory collection of state funds. The state, when it acts properly, will allow the private erection of religious idols even if a minority doesn't like them, but that same proper state will protect an individual from the smug majority that would force support of its cherished religion upon everyone in its reach with the compulsory collection of tax money.

That is true freedom and pluralism; building a creche in front of a state-funded city hall is not.

The thing that the Liberal(freethinker) is utterly unable to accept is that for true pluralism to work people must be willing to adhere to the will of the majority in the community in which they live to within very broad limits. If unable to do so the right thing is to tear up stakes and move to a more pleasing social climate.

Here is the same tired argument cited by oppressors and would-be oppressors alike: the oppressed should just leave or be oppressed rather than fight the oppression. It doesn't appear any more palatable or practical when argued by a Christian instead of a Muslim, and it definitely is not pluralism nor freedom. The will of a majority has limits in a society that values individual rights. If majority rule always trumps the rights of the individual, then there is no such thing as individual rights.

Tyranny can be effected by majority rule. The right thing to do is to stand-up for and support liberty and justice and make the community one that is free.

This endless attempt by one segment of the population (here I speak of the USA) to presume that compelling every local custom, tradition and ordinance to pass its muster is somehow a 'defense' of freedom is at best an abuse of the the language and perhaps an indication that will use the concept of freedom to destroy the reality.

There is really no such thing as half-tyranny; a society is either free or it is not. A free society respects everyones freedom, and not just the freedom of the majority. Allowing some selective tyranny is an attack upon freedom.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I think it's bad.

Okay. You think it's bad because liberalism is tolerant of all religions, except those which challenge liberalism itself.

Why is this bad? In other words, which aspect of liberalism do you think is bad? The tolerance bit or the exception bit?

Anyway, where's the evidence that liberalism doesn't tolerate religions which challenge liberalism?

Don't you think it's more the case that liberalism doesn't tolerate certain aspects of certain religions/ideologies, and for good reasons?

Why do you ask?

Why not? :)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't deny that some Muslims are oppressive, but that is clearly not the spirit of Islam.

What on earth does 'the spirit of Islam' mean, I wonder.

That aside, however, you seem to agree that Islam can be oppressive, depending upon how it is interpreted and practised.

At the same time, you think there's something bad about liberalism (as yet unspecified).

I countered your argument with the suggestion that liberalism doesn't tolerate certain aspects of certain religions/ideologies that undermine liberalism (given that one of the central characteristics of liberalism is tolerance itself).

After all, there is no evidence that liberalism doesn't tolerate Islam in general, is there? Freedom of religion and all that.

What liberalism is concerned about are aspects of Islam (or any other religion/ideology) which are oppressive; aspects of Islam (or any other religion/ideology) which undermine one of the central tenets of liberalism, which is tolerance.

Since 'oppressiveness' is not conducive to 'tolerance,' then those aspects of any ideology (religious or otherwise) shouldn't be accommodated.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
19 pages of me clearly stating that I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay and you still don't get it.

26 years of clearly Zionist control over Jerusaleum, every Muslim man and women free to leave or stay, and you still don't get it.

:rolleyes:

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
What on earth does 'the spirit of Islam' mean, I wonder.

That aside, however, you seem to agree that Islam can be oppressive, depending upon how it is interpreted and practised.

I have never said that Islam can be oppressive, nor would I ever say such a thing. What is the problem with liberals, seriously? These are the same people who cannot distinguish between the baby and the bathwater. The Quran is absolutely right on the money when it calls liberals deaf, dumb, and blind.

At the same time, you think there's something bad about liberalism (as yet unspecified).

How can you read this thread and not come away with an idea about what I think is wrong with liberalism? Anyway, you should be smart enough to look around you in the society and figure out for yourself what is wrong with liberalism. I can't see it for you. What do you think is wrong with liberalism or do you think it's perfect?

I countered your argument with the suggestion that liberalism doesn't tolerate certain aspects of certain religions/ideologies that undermine liberalism (given that one of the central characteristics of liberalism is tolerance itself).

Liberals are not going to tolerate Islam because they know what it means for them if they do. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, even after 9/11, and it shows no sign of slowing down, despite all of the bigotry against it from the Christian Right and the liberal Left. I would love to see liberals leave Muslims alone and not bother them, but they are not going to do that because they hate Islam and Muslims.

George Bush states publicly that his war on terrorism isn't a war on Islam, yet at the same time he has surrounded himself with Christian bigots, like Billy Grahm's son, for example, who routinely attack Islam and Muslims. We don't believe the bigots on the Left, who are telling us that they are tolerant, anymore than we believe what George Bush says. You can lie all you want. Nobody is going to believe you once they understand the truth.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I would love to see liberals leave Muslims alone and not bother them, but they are not going to do that because they hate Islam and Muslims.

It was NC that also posted:

I believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay...

..and he "still don't get" the hypocrisy. He complains how he perceives the "liberals" (ie just about everyone that is not a Muslim) oppress Muslims in the country he stays as he advises those that are oppressed by Islamic governments to leave, and all the time ignoring how much easier it is for him to leave the "liberal" USA than for most apostates or unbelievers to either leave or continue to live-in many Islamic-dominated countries.

There's another lesson to be learned here about tolerance; few if any liberals would tell a Muslim complaining of oppression that they "believe that every Muslim, man or woman, should be free to leave or stay" as the answer. Muslims should of course be free to leave or stay, but stay or go, they should be able to do either without being oppressed. That's why we "liberals" support laws that prohibit religious discrimination and have laws that protect a woman that choses to wear a burqa. That's why we liberals materially support the ACLU in its fight against the 9-11 backlash directed at Muslims. Ironic, isn't it; how an intolerant Muslim rails against the very group of people that he would like to oppress as they fight for his freedom?

NonContradictions only real complaint is that he is not free to oppress women and non-Muslims in the USA and impose Islamic rules upon us all. His idea of not oppressing Islam is freedom of Islam to oppress everyone else.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
That's why we "liberals" support laws that prohibit religious discrimination and have laws that protect a woman that choses to wear a burqa. That's why we liberals materially support the ACLU in its fight against the 9-11 backlash directed at Muslims. Ironic, isn't it; how an intolerant Muslim rails against the very group of people that he would like to oppress as they fight for his freedom?

You insult Muhammad and slander his character and then expect us to appreciate your support after 9/11? We don't need you to fight for our freedom. We don't need your support. My what big teeth you have grandma! My what big eyes you have grandma! The liberals are wolves in sheep's clothing. They talk about tolerance, but they don't walk the talk, and they never will because they know what it means if they tolerate Islam. Liberals are not the true friends and supporters of Muslims, and they never will be.

[truelies]

It strikes me that those of a hardcore Secularist bend are much like islam in an inability to tolerate. It would appear that the intent given the power is to reduce all who disagree to what can only be called a state of 'Dhimmitude'

It has been expressly stated here that the desire of an entire community to place a creche lets say on the steps of their townhall is to be utterly trumped by the distaste of one freethinker who happens to be passing though town. Social peace is almost impossible when one segement of the population raises their preferred position on all issues to an absolute where the very nature of 'freedom' is defined as their side being allowed to win every contest.

[Mendeh]

NonContradiction, not one of the examples you give from the Quaran depicts protagonists you could begin to call liberal:

In surah 85, the liberal pagan majority threw the believers in a pit of fire they had constructed.
Surah 85 depicts a mob of match-happy religious fundamentalists. (Rather like, dare I say it, certain ayatollahs that could be mentioned...) I don't reeeely think you can call them "liberals".

In surah 18, The Cave, the believers had to take refuge in a cave from the liberal pagan majority.
Ditto.

Moses asked Pharaoh to let his people go, but Pharaoh refused to let them leave in peace.
Oh, so now Pharaoh (at least as he was depicted in the Exodus and writings influenced by it) is now a stunning example of liberal philosophies, is he? Last time I checked Exodus...

1. He was the head of a nation for whom the Jewish nation worked as slaves
2. He had half-heartedly attempted genocide by killing all Jewish new-born males.

He's not exactly a liberal, is he? On the other hand, his assessment of the Jewish race bears a remarkable resemblence to that of the Nazi party.

Also, Jesus was persecuted by a liberal pagan Roman majority and so were his followers after him.

LIBERAL ROMAN MAJORITY? Last time I checked, the Romans were about as illiberal as you could possibly get. And if I remember my Bible correctly, Jesus lived in Palestine, an area where Romans were vastly outnumbered by the Jewish population to which Jesus belonged. Get your history right.

The same thing happened to Muhammad in Mecca.
Muhammed wasn't exactly a shining example of mutual religious tolerance himself.

The history of mankind has been a history of a liberal pagan majority oppressing the Prophets and Messengers of the One True Abrahamic God.
Ah, I see you're not exactly a shining example of mutual religious tolerance, either.

Abraham, himself, had to flee Iraq because of persecution by the liberal pagan majority there.
But that's okay because the Israelites got their own back later on with a little casual genocide of their own, wiping out various tribes that they came across. The Prophets and Messengers of the One True God did their fair share of slaughtering, maiming, raping, pillaging, conquering, oppressing and then justifying it all in the name of progress, too.

If past history is any indicator of future performance, Muslims can expect more of the same in the West.
Erm, the Israelites were JEWISH...
Please explain why ancient middle-eastern history should predict the future of modern European and American countries.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Mendeh
Please explain why ancient middle-eastern history should predict the future of modern European and American countries.

Let me spell it out for you so it's clear. Abrahamic monotheism is conservative. Polytheism is liberal. Because of their liberal attitudes, ancient polytheists had no trouble borrowing gods from other pantheons and incorporating them into their own pantheons. Also, they tended to share the same liberal sexual attitudes. Moreover, they tended to share the same hatred, enmity, and intolerance towards Abrahamic monotheism.

Modern liberalism is nothing more than ancient paganism dressed up without the gods of the past. Modern liberalism is the same wolf of the ancient world, even though he now looks like a sheep.

[Mendeh]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Let me spell it out for you so it's clear.

Thankyou.

Abrahamic monotheism is conservative.
Correction: Conservative Abrahamic monotheism is conservative. The Church of England, and Reform Judaism, is quite, dare I say it, liberal.

Polytheism is liberal.

Wrong. The Egyptians listed homosexuality as one of the sins worthy of having your soul destroyed. The Romans hardly behaved like liberals; they went out and killed people until they agreed to do what the Romans told them to. The Athenians kept their women in the home almost all the time, kept slaves, and only adult male citizens could vote. The Spartans kept a Helot underclass controlled by treating them about as savagely as possible. The Aztec civilization was extremely authoritarian, and was very fond of human sacrifice. Don't even get me started on ancient China.

Polytheism liberal? Don't make me laugh.

Because of their liberal attitudes, ancient polytheists had no trouble borrowing gods from other pantheons and incorporating them into their own pantheons.

Wrong. In the small area of what big, powerful people with spidey-sense polytheist societies thought lived up in the sky, they weren't their usual reactionary selves. This was because it made good sense not to anger any gods that may be up there by not worshipping them.

Also, they tended to share the same liberal sexual attitudes.

Wrong. Please see Ancient Egypt, pre-Imperial Rome, ancient Athens, etc. None of these societies had liberal sexual attitudes. Quite the reverse. Egypt I've already spoken of; virginity was especially prized in Greece and Rome, and in Athens married women were barely let out the house, let alone allowed to cavort with men who weren't their husband. You've been watching too many crappy Hollywood movies about the ancient world.

And I might point out that the Greeks and Romans might have thought Mohammed marrying four different women, one of them actually pre-pubescant, smacks of a rather liberal sexual attitude, too.

Moreover, they tended to share the same hatred, enmity, and intolerance towards Abrahamic monotheism.

The Romans didn't just persecute Jews and Christians. They persecuted a lot of other cults, too; for example the Isis cult. They persecuted them because their teachings didn't fall in line with Roman thinking. I ask you, what does this have more in common with: Pakistan's blasphemy law, or, say, freedom of speech in the USA?

The Greeks actually adopted a lot of Jewish thought and hellenized it; they did the same with Christianity.

There is no historical record at all of the Egyptians persecuting the Israelites for their religion; in fact there is a very good historical record of immigration into Egypt from the area around Palestine.

The Aztecs were persecuted by the Christians; ditto for countless other polytheistic religions that Christianity managed to destroy; the Roman gods, the Celtic gods, the Aboriginal gods, etc. etc.

And of course, Islam managed to wipe out polytheism in the area under its control, too.

In short, Abrahamic monotheism has shown rather more intolerance of ancient polytheism than ancient polytheism has of Abrahamic monotheism. Just look at which is the victor in the world today. I don't see that many people worshipping Baal, Heracles or Isis; do you?

Modern liberalism is nothing more than ancient paganism dressed up without the gods of the past.
Absolute rot. Being a liberal does not suppose anything about one's belief in a god or gods, or lack of belief in a god or gods.

Now I think what you may mean by liberalism is "things that intolerant reactionaries, like conservative Muslims, don't like". Unfortunately for you, that's not really anybody else's definition of the term.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
26 years of clearly Zionist control over Jerusaleum, every Muslim man and women free to leave or stay, and you still don't get it.

No, we get it loud and clear. Muslims are not stupid people. We see the games that people play. British liberals went to Palestine and promised the Arabs one thing, while at the same time they promised Zionist liberals something else. A liberal state, America, full of Jewish liberals in the government, from Roosevelt's New Deal to Johnsons Great Society, have been peddling their influence in American politics to support Israel right or wrong. When Reagon became president, many Jewish liberals became Reagonite neo-conservatives in order that Israel would get a big chunk of Reagon's defense budget for having helped him in his war on the Communists. Israel even did intelligence work for Reagon. In other words, Jewish liberals played both sides of the liberal/conservative fence. What's ironic is that Zionism is now supported by right wing Christians, as well as the neo-conservative/Jewish liberals on the Right, while Christian liberals oppose Zionism. It's all dirty politics. No, we get it loud and clear.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
No, we get it loud and clear...

The insane rant shows that he doesn't. For anyone else that may be so clueless, I would never seriously suggest that the Muslims leave Jerusaleum as a solution to the problems there.

You insult Muhammad and slander his character and then expect us to appreciate your support after 9/11?

Nor does he get why liberals support the freedom of Muslims without expecting anything from some of them but their continued animus. The tolerance of a liberal isn't affected by NC's desire to oppress us at the first chance he gets; true tolerance means tolerating even those who hate you. NC is right about one thing; we are not supporters of Islam; we are supporters of the freedom to believe Islam if that is one's wish.

Tolerance does not rule-out the need for vigilance as NC has shown us. Vigilance means not letting tolerance become complacency or being lulled into a false sense of security by promises of peaceful intentions.

NC claims that he just wants liberals to leave Muslims alone and Muslims to leave liberals alone, but look how riled up he gets just over someone speaking his point of view. He doesn't just disagree with what I and almost every religious scholar believes is true about Muhammad screwing a little girl; NC is almost apoplectic over it. Given the chance, NC and those like him would silence any criticism of his favorite religious figure and ultimately oppress all those with whom he disagrees, including even the Christians:

Originally posted by truelies
It has been expressly stated here that the desire of an entire community to place a creche lets say on the steps of their townhall is to be utterly trumped by the distaste of one freethinker who happens to be passing though town.

Where has that been expressly stated here?

[edited because my Hornitos margaritta was going to my head when I wrote "aninimity" and various other spelling errors]

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Nor does he get why liberals support the freedom of Muslims without either expecting anything from some of them but their continued aninimity.

What do you mean by aninimity? Did you mean anonymity?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

What do you mean by aninimity? Did you mean anonymity?

Actually, I'm fairly sure he meant "animousity". or even "enmity".

However, in your case, possibly "inanity" would also fit.

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Actually, I'm fairly sure he meant "animousity"........
As in Mickey Mouse? ;)

Chris

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
[edited because my Hornitos margaritta was going to my head when I wrote "aninimity" and various other spelling errors]

And you still tore his arguments to shreds. Well done.

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
You insult Muhammad and slander his character and then expect us to appreciate your support after 9/11?

How are we insulting Islam's founder and slandering his character? Do you expect us to prostrate ourselves before him and worship him as if he was a god? The negative evaluations of him are worked out using his chroniclers, so either (1) the negative evaluations of him are correct or (2) his chroniclers are unreliable.

We don't need you to fight for our freedom. We don't need your support.

I wonder what strategy NonContradiction would prefer. Fighting a holy war? :)

[dk]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
If you don't find something acceptable, you may wish to refrain from doing that. But your finding something unacceptable for you doesn't mean it is unacceptable for others.

If you wish to live under a severely limited amount of freedom, feel free to circumscribe your personal freedoms.

cheers,
Michael I cherish the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, above my freedom from dress codes. I'm not the only one, as the First of Ten Amendments to the US Constitution atest. Can you please tell me where dress codes are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It seems dress codes rights are only visable to near sighted supreme court judges by virtue of second vision, but hide like a wisp behind the sacred texts when others try to catch a glimpse.

[dk]

dk: Actually dress codes are not necessarily in the spirit of Islam, or against the spirit of Islam. This is a matter of judgment and who has the authority to judge. Islamic Mullah’s say Western Dress Codes fundamentally undermine their freedom of religion. Since dress codes are employed around the world in every culture I don’t see where Westerns get off telling Islamic people how to dress. I am not free to walk into a 5 star French Restaurant in my underwear, or go to work in my bed wear. I’m sure most non-Western people view the torturous and dangerous cosmetic surgeries Western women wear in place of cloths abhorrent.
cheetah: The examples you use are of private establishments exercising their right to choose how they want to run their business. If you don't like it, you eat elsewhere, or work elsewhere. But, what should Islamic women do, when the dress code is enforced 24/7 no matter where in the world they are, and they aren't allowed to leave?
dk: I wasn’t aware judicial robes, police uniforms, military uniforms,,,, were dress codes enforced by private enterprise, my mistake.


cheetah: In this discussion, westerners aren't telling Muslims how to dress, we are saying that they should not be forced to dress that way. It has been said time and time again that if a woman chooses to dress that way, that is more than fine. We can never know about the women in those countries, though, because they have never been given the choice. You don't see us talking about how horrible those women in America that dress that way are, right? No, because they either chose to dress that way or, at least, chose not to divorce the man that is forcing them to dress that way, which I guess is implicit choice in dress. In fact, I am happy for those women that live in free countries and continue to dress that way because I can feel more confident that they are doing it for their own reasons.
dk: Oh, now I understand. Westerners don’t enforce dress codes, they free people to dress like us, buy our cloths, and do what we know is best for them, from the goodness of our hearts…again my mistake. How dare anyone have the presence of mind to refuse to dress like us! What we need to do is humiliate, denigrate, and dehumanize all Islamic people as fanatics, then wage a century of war, and divvy up the spoils amongst the victors. Oh, we already do that? Well, after all the time and effort we’ve spent trying to civilize these religious fanatics what else can we do if they still don’t like us…nuke em!


cheetah: And with plastic surgery, well I cannot deny that society sucks for making women feel like they should do dangerous things to make themselves "prettier" but ultimately, the decision rests with the individual woman and she wasn't forced to do it.
dk: True, Western woman consent, pay and even prostitute themselves to be slit open, stuffed and poisoned. Those Islamic fanatics that deprive women of torture simply don’t know what women really want. Again my mistake.


cheetah: The ENTIRE difference here is that westerners/liberals/whatever you want to call us aren't forcing anything on anybody except to NOT force other, independent, sentient, adult human females to give up all their freedoms. That's the only "freedom" I would like to take away from these patriarchal societies: the freedom to take away women's freedoms unilaterally. Now, if it was truly a system where a woman could opt out, then they could continue to run their religion the same way, as the women left in it CHOSE not to exercise their freedom to opt out.
dk: Europe has run rough shod over Islamic nations for 2 centuries. The Western educated secular reformers of ISLAM, the Young Turks, committed genocide against the Armenians. North Africa and the Middle East became the spoils of WW I and WW II. North Africa and the Middle East were used and abused by both sides in the Cold War. Arab nations have seen how Westerns freed the nations of Sub Saharan Africa. They remember the millions of defective unsterilized Dalkon Shields, untested baby formulas, sterilizations quotas, and other human rights violations the Western world has forgotten. To be perfectly honest, If I lived in Africa I wouldn’t trust the West to market toilet paper for fear it had been treated with some new experimental hormone… Especially the “liberals” that hide eugenics, population control and environmental agendas under the mask of “Freedom of Cloths”, women’s rights and child rights.

[dk]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Let me spell it out for you so it's clear. Abrahamic monotheism is conservative. Polytheism is liberal. Because of their liberal attitudes, ancient polytheists had no trouble borrowing gods from other pantheons and incorporating them into their own pantheons. Also, they tended to share the same liberal sexual attitudes. Moreover, they tended to share the same hatred, enmity, and intolerance towards Abrahamic monotheism.


Modern liberalism is nothing more than ancient paganism dressed up without the gods of the past. Modern liberalism is the same wolf of the ancient world, even though he now looks like a sheep. That's a very astute observation, and I think based on solid historical footing. Yet, in a more strict sense all the Abrahamic prophets are measured by history as reformers, builders, and ultimately peace makers, therefore rightfully critized by polytheists for war, injustices and corruption. How do you respond to the criticism made by polytheist liberals, that dress codes are the mask of injustice?

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction's uses the word "liberal" to mean almost anything he doesn't like, which is how Rush Limbaugh uses the word.