A'Merka

[Metal Vendetta]

In fact, talking of the bahá'í, didn't they grow out of islam the same way that islam grew out of judaism? Thus negating all your "islam is forever" boasting above? No wonder islamic theocracies are so keen on trying to kill them all.

[Brendocon]

To get back on topic

Fascist.

[Jack Cade]

Yaya - but there is a world of difference between the hijab, which I have no problem with, and the burka, the purpose of which is to cover the face, as far as I can tell. The whole design of it seems to revolve around limiting expression and social interaction. And I have spoken with Muslim men (not women, I admit) who view the burka as compulsory and justify it on the basis that - and this is near enough a direct quote - other men won't ogle your wife or sister, and it will help prevent them getting raped (subtext: because rapists only go after women who are 'asking for it' by showing flesh). I was a little perturbed that their whole method of persuading me involved asking me how I feel about "your" wife or "your" mother or "your" sister.

They told me similar things about the establishment of women's rights, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid, it's all moot if you still believe one sex should cover their face in public! It's not as if the West has got it completely right yet (after centuries of getting it wrong) but the ideal of equality is firmly in place, and I'm not sure what section of the Muslim community is on board with that ideal.

It's not just Muslims that will have to make the choice. Legislators will ultimately have to decide where religious rights stop and other rights begin. This is nothing new - only recently we had to rule on Catholic adoption agencies versus gay rights. I just think there might be a lot more of that sort of thing forthcoming with Muslims becoming a more prominent community in the West.

[Metal Vendetta]

Fascist.

Racist.

[Yaya]

It's Ramadan, I'm fasting, and I don't feel like arguing with you.

You might want to have a word with the Taliban, then. Or Osama Bin Laden, or the Saudi Wahabists, or anyone else through history who has used islam for their own political ends. Bumblemus has already said up there that islam's not homogenous, yet you talk as if it's a unified entity. Seems like every islamic culture on the planet has its own ideas about which bits are important and which bits aren't. It's not immutable.

There is room for differences of opinion in Islam, on the minor issues. But you will not find differences in the major tenets, like praying five times a day, fasting, etc. Those areas where differences exist do not impact one's faith but only ones worship and are acceptable provided they have their foundation in the Quran and Sunnah (ways of the Prophet, PBUH).

Islam will not mold, but Muslims will. There is a difference. This has been the case since the time of Ali, the Prophet's (PBUH) nephew, where extremist factions developed to further their own selfish political ends, twisting and distorting words the way they saw fit. It's nothing new.

Problem for them was, they could never change or alter the Quran. It is divinely protected. So the 'damage' they could do was only limited before things were set aright.

But you are right, Muslims will change. The Prophet (PBUH) said that one of the signs of the end of time will be that there won't be any Muslims left who practice true Islam. So someday, that will happen. The Prophet (PBUH) also said there will come a time when a Muslim will perform 10 percent of what he is required to do and neglect 90% of it, and his deeds will be accepted favorably. Meaning, God will take into account one's circumstances when His decision comes. It could be the beer-drinking Muslim also prays, and that will be enough for him in God's sight. Who are we to know.

But Islam itself will not change. Truth does not change. Only people do.

It's a belief based on divine guidance, not popular opinion.

Haha, yeah, right. So the "popular opinion" of the Taliban has no effect on their religion, neither does the "popular opinion" of liberal muslims. Let's face it, just like the torah or the goddamn bible, the koran's so vague in places you can read pretty much anything you like into it, and if islam was so self-evident, why the need for all the imams and teachers?

The opinion of the Taliban is overwhelming unpopular throughout the Islamic world.

The Quran itself says that some of its verses are "hookimaat", meaning clear and without confusion, whilst others are "mutashaabihaat", meaning symbolic, whilst some the Quran says only God Himself knows the true meaning. The vagueness that you cite is purposeful when it occurs.

And I would request that, in a civil debate, you refrain from referring to the holy books of others as "Goddamn". I'm not Christian, but I find that offensive. We can differ respecitively and civilly, surely.

This has always been the way. Someone will have an idea that they feel should supercede all others and attack Islam for not fitting that contemporary mold. They will, like you, be frustrated and angry by their stubborness in assimilating.

Unless of course their idea is that we should oppress women more. Or kill all the non-believers, or eschew western technology (except for guns and bombs of course).

In which case, the majority of Muslims themselves would rise against them, as again, has happened in the past. History is a good teacher. It has happened over and over again, each time ultimately being quelched. Extremism cannot prevail. Ever. In anything.

Those kinds of ideas seem to find islam to be a fertile ground in which to breed. On the flipside, there are plenty of westernised muslims who consider alcohol to be compatible with islam, or allow their girls to wear what they like. I do hope you still have that No True Scotsman page open.

Islam is belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet (PBUH). That's all. You believe that, you are a Muslim, irrespective of what your actions are. Some are deeper in their faith than others. The Prophet (PBUH) spoke of women who were prostitutes, who when they died, went straight to heaven. How do you reckon that? The answer is, we don't. The ultimate fate of a person does not lie in anyone's hands.

I don't think you have a full grasp of my belief, despite what you might think. I would urge you to read the Quran and the hadith and learn them from Muslim scholars who know the context of these and can answer your questions. You will come to find the gross misrepresentations and misinterpretations that exist out there.

But they will live out their lives, they will die, and Islam will carry on.

My own prediction would be the Bahá'ís dominating much of what is now the islamic world within the next 1000 years.

Maybe. God only knows. But Islam will exist til the end of time in it's true form somewhere in the world.

The tolerance comments are ridiculous.

Of course, why would anyone think islam (or any religion for that matter) would be tolerant of different ideas? Intolerance is religion's bread and butter.

As Smooth was alluding to above, why do you take the worst that religion has to offer and set it against the best of Western ideology? This happens so commonly, and it's unfair. I mean, you just don't find people saying, "Hey, how about the millions of crimes religion has stymied because someone felt that if they did it, they might be held accountable for it?" Never hear that. It's always "how bout them Crusades".

If Islam and Muslims truly were the people you hope them to be, common sense should tell you one of two things would happen: 1) Either you'd be saying "Allahu Akbar!" right now, or 2) they would have gone extinct, as the world would not have allowed them to exist. They would have gone the way of the Nazi's, a radical group that was so ethnocentric that the world banded together to eliminate them. And for all intents and purposes, they did, save for the few in their hidey-holes.

you'd be hard-pressed to find a muslim man that doesn't drink beer, for example. Sooner or later, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the muslims from everyone else.

Again, you have paraphrased a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), so there will be no argument here. By your words it would seem, then, that it's the other way around, that Muslims are threatened by Western ideas, not the other way around.

I was speaking to the falsely attributed intolerance-wrap that Islam currently is labelled with that is somehow responsible for the violence that's going on in the world.

The ultimate expression of intolerance is war. I don't see many wars of the past century having as it's basis religious decree. Hell, the largest war with the most deaths, World War II, had nothing to do with religion.

[Yaya]

In fact, talking of the bahá'í, didn't they grow out of islam the same way that islam grew out of judaism? Thus negating all your "islam is forever" boasting above? No wonder islamic theocracies are so keen on trying to kill them all.

Islam didn't 'grow out" of Judaism. It was Judaism.

Once upon a time, Islam was just "believe in God" with the creation of Adam and Eve. It wasn't called "Islam", but it's still the same line of truth.

[Yaya]

Yaya - but there is a world of difference between the hijab, which I have no problem with, and the burka, the purpose of which is to cover the face, as far as I can tell. The whole design of it seems to revolve around limiting expression and social interaction. And I have spoken with Muslim men (not women, I admit) who view the burka as compulsory and justify it on the basis that - and this is near enough a direct quote - other men won't ogle your wife or sister, and it will help prevent them getting raped (subtext: because rapists only go after women who are 'asking for it' by showing flesh). I was a little perturbed that their whole method of persuading me involved asking me how I feel about "your" wife or "your" mother or "your" sister.

They told me similar things about the establishment of women's rights, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid, it's all moot if you still believe one sex should cover their face in public! It's not as if the West has got it completely right yet (after centuries of getting it wrong) but the ideal of equality is firmly in place, and I'm not sure what section of the Muslim community is on board with that ideal.

It's not just Muslims that will have to make the choice. Legislators will ultimately have to decide where religious rights stop and other rights begin. This is nothing new - only recently we had to rule on Catholic adoption agencies versus gay rights. I just think there might be a lot more of that sort of thing forthcoming with Muslims becoming a more prominent community in the West.

I agree with you on the burka.

I have been unable to locate any authentic reference, nor have I been able to extract one from someone who wears the burka, that it is obligatory on a Muslim women to wear one.

I don't push the point with these Muslims because, as I come to find out, most of the women who wear them are again doing so as a personal choice. Perhaps they know something I don't, but I have been unable to find any hadith by the Prophet (PBUH) indicating this must be done. Certainly, the Quran makes no mention of it.

Hence, the prevailing belief that the burka began as a cultural phenomenon.

[Metal Vendetta]

It's Ramadan, I'm fasting, and I don't feel like arguing with you.

I have a couple of friends fasting right now; out of respect I'll go esay on ya

There is room for differences of opinion in Islam, on the minor issues. But you will not find differences in the major tenets, like praying five times a day, fasting, etc. Those areas where differences exist do not impact one's faith but only ones worship and are acceptable provided they have their foundation in the Quran and Sunnah (ways of the Prophet, PBUH).

Wait, you just handwaved wholesale murder and the brutal supression of women as the "minor issues", while praying and fasting are more important? You obviously have a more delicately balanced moral compass than mine.

Problem for them was, they could never change or alter the Quran. It is divinely protected.

By the magic of...printing! Woo. Divine.

But you are right, Muslims will change. The Prophet (PBUH) said that one of the signs of the end of time will be that there won't be any Muslims left who practice true Islam.

The bible says something similar. It's a classic holy text trick: "In the end times, people will start to question this book." So any sign of people starting to question the book is taken as hastening the end times and severely discouraged. I didn't fall for that the first time round, I'm not going to believe it now.

The Prophet (PBUH) also said there will come a time when a Muslim will perform 10 percent of what he is required to do and neglect 90% of it, and his deeds will be accepted favorably.

Now this I find interesting. What does 10% entail, praying once every other day? How do you know this time hasn't arrived? If it's been prophesied, surely it would be okay because Mohammed himself foresaw it? If my boss told me I could take 90% of my time off for the same rewards, I have to say I'd be tempted by the offer.

But Islam itself will not change. Truth does not change. Only people do.

This is just semantics. The text of the book won't change, but islam as it is practised by people surely will. It depends on your definition of a religion. Mine would be "by the actions of its followers", I imagine yours is more idealistic and nebulous.

The opinion of the Taliban is overwhelming unpopular throughout the Islamic world.

I have my doubts about that but I'll admit I'm not up with prevailing islamic opinion so I'll take your word for it.

The Quran itself says that some of its verses are "hookimaat", meaning clear and without confusion, whilst others are "mutashaabihaat", meaning symbolic, whilst some the Quran says only God Himself knows the true meaning. The vagueness that you cite is purposeful when it occurs.

Haha, isn't that convenient?

And I would request that, in a civil debate, you refrain from referring to the holy books of others as "Goddamn". I'm not Christian, but I find that offensive. We can differ respecitively and civilly, surely.

Sorry, that's something I picked up from Penn Gillette.

In which case, the majority of Muslims themselves would rise against them, as again, has happened in the past. History is a good teacher. It has happened over and over again, each time ultimately being quelched. Extremism cannot prevail. Ever. In anything.

Any examples?

Islam is belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet (PBUH). That's all.

Hm. Okay, but what about the fasting and the praying and the treating of women as inferior beings? Those are "major tenets", after all.

You believe that, you are a Muslim, irrespective of what your actions are.

Nice get-out clause. Again, I've already heard it from the Nazarenes, as long as you accept Jesus as your saviour, that's all you need to do. The implication being that it's a get-out-of-hell-free card at the end of the day.

The Prophet (PBUH) spoke of women who were prostitutes, who when they died, went straight to heaven. How do you reckon that?

Uh, honestly? I think he was telling fairy tales, because heaven doesn't exist. That aside, I don't see anything morally wrong with prostitution as long as it's not coerced.

The answer is, we don't. The ultimate fate of a person does not lie in anyone's hands.

Except perhaps those who sentence gays to death by stoning because they live in an islamic theocracy? There are plenty of muslim judges out there.

I don't think you have a full grasp of my belief, despite what you might think.

Islam is belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet (PBUH). That's all.

I'd like to think I have a fair idea.

I would urge you to read the Quran and the hadith and learn them from Muslim scholars who know the context of these and can answer your questions.

Been there, done that.

You will come to find the gross misrepresentations and misinterpretations that exist out there.

And discover that some are every bit as bad as they seem. Oh, and that some are worse. And a couple I hadn't even heard about before.

Maybe. God only knows. But Islam will exist til the end of time in it's true form somewhere in the world.

The bahá'ís recognise Mohammed as a prophet, if that's all that counts?

As Smooth was alluding to above, why do you take the worst that religion has to offer and set it against the best of Western ideology? This happens so commonly, and it's unfair. I mean, you just don't find people saying, "Hey, how about the millions of crimes religion has stymied because someone felt that if they did it, they might be held accountable for it?" Never hear that. It's always "how bout them Crusades".

It's probably because I already know that I don't need a religion to stymie crimes. When I live my life, as I do, without any religious trappings whatsoever, and yet I find that I'm not a raping murdering thief with a crack habit, the rest of it seems extraneous. In fact it seems positively dangerous to suggest to people that as long as you believe in some mystical figure

irrespective of what your actions are

you will be rewarded. As for the rest of it, well, you can't have a crusade without a religion, can you?

Again, you have paraphrased a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), so there will be no argument here. By your words it would seem, then, that it's the other way around, that Muslims are threatened by Western ideas, not the other way around.

Well, if you mean that muslims will take on western ideas and become more liberal, then yeah, I've met them. Celebrate xmas and easter? They'll become atheists because islam is as self-evidently false as all the other religions? Yep, met them all too. I wouldn't say they're threatened, especially.

I was speaking to the falsely attributed intolerance-wrap that Islam currently is labelled with that is somehow responsible for the violence that's going on in the world.

Islam is responsible for some of the violence in the world. You can't contest that.

The ultimate expression of intolerance is war. I don't see many wars of the past century having as it's basis religious decree.

Funny, I was putting together an interfaith dialogue website this afternoon, mapping the nineteen religious conflicts currently occurring on the planet. I'll send you a link when it's done

Hell, the largest war with the most deaths, World War II, had nothing to do with religion.

Oh no you didn't.

[wideload]

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

Ha ha - what?? If it's anti-semite to say that Israel makes use of its far greater resources and relationship with the US in its ongoing conflict with Palestinians, then chalk me up as one too. I don't mind being called a racist as long as it's made clear that the only race I have a problem with are aggressively militarised governments and their apologists.

No, but I think oversimplification can lead to that conclusion. The Israeli people are a lot more diverse, and the conflict is a lot more complicated than that.

Whenever you oversimplify and generalize people it leads to racism. The same can be said for generalizations of the Palestinian people or muslim people as a whole.

[Shanti418]

Side note to Yaya: So given that you must say "Peace be unto him" after you say the prophet, and given that is must be a major tenet considering your strong devotion to the concept, was there some sort of official ruling by the Muslim Rules Committee that PBUH was OK for NetSpeak? Or is this some sort of grassroots alteration that was necessary given how the world communicates these days?

When it comes to women and Islam, to me it's like the Victorian Age. Sure, women were on a pedestal as delicate, fragile things. Sure, everyone highly appreciated their role in society, with the carework and domesticity and what not. But you can't call that equality. I certainly get the idea that women are not degraded in Islam. But I don't think they're subject to the same social mores and rules as men (hence why, when they ARE subject to the same mores, the Quaran makes it a point to say so), and I think the value they hold in some circles is more about women as valuable resources, not women as valuable, equal members of society.

But really, I don't even want to hate on Islam on that, because you'd find the same traditional ideas on gender in fundamentalist Christian communities or Mormon ones (my wife is making me watch Big Love). THE DIFFERENCE is that Western nations, due to the separation of church and state, have grown decidedly more secular so tradition (esp those based on nothing but religion) has given way to equality. If you want to argue that men and women aren't just interchangeable pieces and that there's some sort of social value in each of them have "roles" that are enforced, that's a whole 'nother thread. But in every Muslim country except for Turkey, it's basically a theocracy which is why hanging a "No Non-Muslims Allowedz!" sign on the front door of your city is cool there.

The irony to me is that the very same crazy religious people in America who rail against Islam would probably also have wet dreams about the US turning into a religious theocracy. It's like, "You can't make women wear things, Islam! But having abortions makes Baby Jesus cry. You can't stone someone because they're an adulterer, Islam! Oh, they're gay? Stone away!"

[bumblemusprime]

That sounds suspiciously like "It's not Islam's fault it's so intolerant, blame society!"

I want to take the long view for a moment and note that Islam in the Middle Ages was, comparatively, a liberal kick in the pants. For the time, the notion of free practice of religion with only some extra taxes, the notion of women's rights by a religious court of law, the encouragement of philosophy and the sciences and even the regulation of "unjust actions in war" was amazing.

What followed the Middle Ages was eight hundred years of dwindling water resources, increasing conservatism due to outside acts and inward factionalism, and in this last century, a lot of meddling with the development of countries and lands that would have taken a very different path without things like the forced coup in Iran, the weapons given to Saddam by the CIA, etc.

Not absolving any of the crazy fundies here. But given the current political climate in the Middle East, it's not surprising that Islam, centered in that region, is influenced by a conservative fundamentalist strain of imams.

Whereas without a bunch of dictators (emphasis on "dick") and a bunch of ayatollahs given voice by the government, the majority of Muslims will, like Yaya, begin to give voice to genuine ideas about the stupidity of the burka and the misinterpretation of sharia law.

But to come full circle, we live in Jesusland USA tm2010. So as long as crazy fundamentalist Christian pundits are bashing Muslims up and down, what Muslim is really going to want to be Westernized?

[Yaya]

Problem for them was, they could never change or alter the Quran. It is divinely protected.

By the magic of...printing! Woo. Divine.

Actually, there are millions of Muslims throughout the world, many who don't speak a word of Arabic, you know it from beginning to end by heart. It is one of the miracles of the Quran that this is possible.

The Prophet (PBUH) also said there will come a time when a Muslim will perform 10 percent of what he is required to do and neglect 90% of it, and his deeds will be accepted favorably.

Now this I find interesting. What does 10% entail, praying once every other day? How do you know this time hasn't arrived? If it's been prophesied, surely it would be okay because Mohammed himself foresaw it? If my boss told me I could take 90% of my time off for the same rewards, I have to say I'd be tempted by the offer.

Ah, but that's just it. You don't know what time that is, so you do your best regardless.

And I would request that, in a civil debate, you refrain from referring to the holy books of others as "Goddamn". I'm not Christian, but I find that offensive. We can differ respecitively and civilly, surely.

Sorry, that's something I picked up from Penn Gillette.

In which case, the majority of Muslims themselves would rise against them, as again, has happened in the past. History is a good teacher. It has happened over and over again, each time ultimately being quelched. Extremism cannot prevail. Ever. In anything.

Any examples?

During the time of Ali, just years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), there was a group of extremist who were known as the khawarij. They held to an extremist interpretation of Islam, and were the one's who murdered Ali, the nephew of the Prophet (PBUH).

Islam is belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet (PBUH). That's all.

Hm. Okay, but what about the fasting and the praying and the treating of women as inferior beings? Those are "major tenets", after all.

Not saying a Muslim wouldn't get punished. But he or she remains a Muslim nonetheless. A Muslim can be a drunk. A Muslim can be a murderer. And before you ask, yes, a Muslim can be gay. The only non-forgivable sin in Islam is shirk, the assocation of other gods with God or denying Him altogether.

And I wish you would stop talking about Islam and women like that. Instead, why don't you go take a survey from Muslim women themselves and ask them what they think about their religion. Maybe that will lend itself to a ceasing of your belittling comments.

You believe that, you are a Muslim, irrespective of what your actions are.

Nice get-out clause. Again, I've already heard it from the Nazarenes, as long as you accept Jesus as your saviour, that's all you need to do. The implication being that it's a get-out-of-hell-free card at the end of the day.

It's not a get-out clause. Muslims will end up in Hell too.( I seek refuge in the Mercy of my Creator.)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke of women who were prostitutes, who when they died, went straight to heaven. How do you reckon that?

Uh, honestly? I think he was telling fairy tales, because heaven doesn't exist. That aside, I don't see anything morally wrong with prostitution as long as it's not coerced.

Well, to understand the religion of Islam, it's a prerequisite to believe in God. Otherwise, discussion becomes pointless.

The answer is, we don't. The ultimate fate of a person does not lie in anyone's hands.

Except perhaps those who sentence gays to death by stoning because they live in an islamic theocracy? There are plenty of muslim judges out there.

By fate, I meant ultimate fate, as in, in the hereafter, which of course, you do not believe in, and will therefore, not understand where I'm coming from.

I don't think you have a full grasp of my belief, despite what you might think.

Islam is belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet (PBUH). That's all.

I'd like to think I have a fair idea.

I would urge you to read the Quran and the hadith and learn them from Muslim scholars who know the context of these and can answer your questions.

Been there, done that.

Maybe. God only knows. But Islam will exist til the end of time in it's true form somewhere in the world.

The bahá'ís recognise Mohammed as a prophet, if that's all that counts?

Final prophet. Has to be final.

As Smooth was alluding to above, why do you take the worst that religion has to offer and set it against the best of Western ideology? This happens so commonly, and it's unfair. I mean, you just don't find people saying, "Hey, how about the millions of crimes religion has stymied because someone felt that if they did it, they might be held accountable for it?" Never hear that. It's always "how bout them Crusades".

It's probably because I already know that I don't need a religion to stymie crimes. When I live my life, as I do, without any religious trappings whatsoever, and yet I find that I'm not a raping murdering thief with a crack habit, the rest of it seems extraneous. In fact it seems positively dangerous to suggest to people that as long as you believe in some mystical figure

You don't need religion to stymie crime. I'm speaking to the likely billions of human beings who have existed who did not commit crime because of God consciousness. How about them? Not important?

Again, you have paraphrased a hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so there will be no argument here. By your words it would seem, then, that it's the other way around, that Muslims are threatened by Western ideas, not the other way around.

Well, if you mean that muslims will take on western ideas and become more liberal, then yeah, I've met them. Celebrate xmas and easter? They'll become atheists because islam is as self-evidently false as all the other religions?

Guess we'll see, huh. For you your belief and for me mine.

I was speaking to the falsely attributed intolerance-wrap that Islam currently is labelled with that is somehow responsible for the violence that's going on in the world.

Islam is responsible for some of the violence in the world. You can't contest that.

Muslims are responsible for some of the unjust violence, yes. Islam never is, and never will be. Any violence that occurs from Islam will only be for just cause. In the Quran, this is explicitly mentioned. If Muslims, like any group, want to twist it's words, they can and become the means for unjustice violence, as they often are today with suicide bombings.

The ultimate expression of intolerance is war. I don't see many wars of the past century having as it's basis religious decree.

Funny, I was putting together an interfaith dialogue website this afternoon, mapping the nineteen religious conflicts currently occurring on the planet. I'll send you a link when it's done

And would you like me to send you about a million links on all the conflicts (civil wars, slavery, torture, wars for natural resources, hate crimes, spousal abuse, child abuse, pedophilia, etc.) on a personal and global level that occur because people are just assholes sometimes?

[Yaya]

Side note to Yaya: So given that you must say "Peace be unto him" after you say the prophet, and given that is must be a major tenet considering your strong devotion to the concept, was there some sort of official ruling by the Muslim Rules Committee that PBUH was OK for NetSpeak? Or is this some sort of grassroots alteration that was necessary given how the world communicates these days?

Actually, Shanti, you sound like my father. He says the same thing. "What is this PBUH? Can't you take the time to write out 'peace be upon him?" He's right.

When it comes to women and Islam, to me it's like the Victorian Age. Sure, women were on a pedestal as delicate, fragile things. Sure, everyone highly appreciated their role in society, with the carework and domesticity and what not. But you can't call that equality. I certainly get the idea that women are not degraded in Islam. But I don't think they're subject to the same social mores and rules as men (hence why, when they ARE subject to the same mores, the Quaran makes it a point to say so).

Well, it's the whole 'gender roles' vs. 'equality' debate. If you define equality as being that women can do anything a man can do as competently and vice versa, then Islam does not support this idea. They are equal in station, equal in status, but not similar, physiologically, in the role they play as productive members of society. In terms of gender, Islam is largely based on gender roles. If one wants to define that as unequal, so be it.

This is not to say that women cannot be breadwinners. In fact, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a businesswomen under whom he worked as an employee. He worked for her, yet she was his wife.

But the accepted doctrine of Islam is that motherhood and the rearing of family comes before working to be a breadwinner. It is the responsibility of the man to support his wife and children. If a women wants to work, she can, provided she does not shirk these other responsibilites. When a women does in fact earn, the husband has zero right to her income. But the women has every right to be supported by her husband.

This happened to me. I supported my ex-wife, taking on all the expenses, while she worked as a pharmacist making a six figure salary and me never seeing any of it. It didn't bother me, as I took it to be my Islamic responsibility. As long as she was a supportive wife, I didn't care. But as things usually go, trouble in paradise happened. What did bother me was that when we got divorced, she went the Western way and wanted half of what I earned, despite the fact that she earned her way to almost millionairehood, of which I never saw a penny. But things have a way of working out, as she actually ended up being 'worth more' than me without knowing it because of the small fortune she amassed under our marriage, so I actually would have gained money from her had she chosen to go by the U.S. divorce law route. When she found that out, boy, she quickly decided to just go the Islamic route and accept the dowry we agreed upon before marriage, which is the Islamic way. Good riddance. Anyhoo...

But really, I don't even want to hate on Islam on that, because you'd find the same traditional ideas on gender in fundamentalist Christian communities or Mormon ones (my wife is making me watch Big Love). THE DIFFERENCE is that Western nations, due to the separation of church and state, have grown decidedly more secular so tradition (esp those based on nothing but religion) has given way to equality. If you want to argue that men and women aren't just interchangeable pieces and that there's some sort of social value in each of them have "roles" that are enforced, that's a whole 'nother thread.

Yep.

The irony to me is that the very same crazy religious people in America who rail against Islam would probably also have wet dreams about the US turning into a religious theocracy. It's like, "You can't make women wear things, Islam! But having abortions makes Baby Jesus cry. You can't stone someone because they're an adulterer, Islam! Oh, they're gay? Stone away!"

I think this kind of goes back to what Jack was saying. What exactly is America? Is it a Christian nation? Is it a nation that allows some religious freedoms but not others? America is at a crossroads, as Jack said above. It's a critical time in the history of this country for many reasons and it will soon further define itself.

For me, the main issue is not one of religious controversy, but ethnic controversy. Just when I thought America had progressed beyond racism, it shows itself in full force with this whole immigration debate and with this whole Glenn Beck rally. It's sad, but it really is more about white vs. black again. The 'Islam rising" issue almost takes a backseat to this, it seems. Or sometimes, they combine the two by claiming Obama is a Muslim. Almost 25% of the nation believe this! Seriously, 25%??

[Best First]

**** me what year is this? 2001?

No, but I think oversimplification can lead to that conclusion. The Israeli people are a lot more diverse, and the conflict is a lot more complicated than that.

Whenever you oversimplify and generalize people it leads to racism. The same can be said for generalizations of the Palestinian people or muslim people as a whole.

Right - so people can comment on Israel as long as they write an essay that you personally judge to be of a level of complexity that suits you.

Otherwise you'll be on hand to pop up and accuse them of racism.

My how convenient.

[Metal Vendetta]

Actually, there are millions of Muslims throughout the world, many who don't speak a word of Arabic, you know it from beginning to end by heart. It is one of the miracles of the Quran that this is possible.

Huh, who'd have thought it? The children of muslims born into muslim communities in muslim countries get sent to muslim schools and taken to the local mosque and despite not reading arabic they know about the koran? It's a miracle I've been wrong all these years allah must be real etc etc etc.

Ah, but that's just it. You don't know what time that is, so you do your best regardless.

I think that's entirely the wrong attitude to have, but there you go.

During the time of Ali, just years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), there was a group of extremist who were known as the khawarij. They held to an extremist interpretation of Islam, and were the one's who murdered Ali, the nephew of the Prophet (PBUH).

Right. Any more pertinent or recent examples, where a muslim community has, you know, become more secular and tolerant and given its women more rights instead of less?

Not saying a Muslim wouldn't get punished. But he or she remains a Muslim nonetheless. A Muslim can be a drunk. A Muslim can be a murderer. And before you ask, yes, a Muslim can be gay. The only non-forgivable sin in Islam is shirk, the assocation of other gods with God or denying Him altogether.

Again, the Nazarenes totally beat you to that. The only unforgivable sin in the whole bible is to deny the holy spirit. Yay, thanks Jesus. It's still a complete cop-out.

And I wish you would stop talking about Islam and women like that. Instead, why don't you go take a survey from Muslim women themselves and ask them what they think about their religion.

Interesting. I went out on the streets of Bethnal Green last night (a highly muslim area) and asked a few.

This lady said:

"Mmmph mph mmmph mmmph mmmmph mmph mmmph mmmmmph."

This lady said:

"Mmmmph mmmph mmph mmmph mmmmph mph mph."
(it's funny, they talk like Kenny from off of South Park)

Maybe that will lend itself to a ceasing of your belittling comments.

I think you're the one who's belittling the issue here. I helped set up a support group for muslim women in this country who are not allowed the slightest control over their lives, their finances - their husbands don't even let them learn English so they can participate in society. They're scarcely allowed to leave the house, so we set it up as a "child-care" class and that way the women can empower themselves right under their husbands' noses. You see while you talk of the high and mighty ideals of islam, you're handwaving everything its followers do in the name of islam. You say islam isn't responsible for such things, I say it is directly.

It's not a get-out clause. Muslims will end up in Hell too.( I seek refuge in the Mercy of my Creator.)

You needn't worry. Hell is fictional too.

Well, to understand the religion of Islam, it's a prerequisite to believe in God. Otherwise, discussion becomes pointless.

Oh, but where's the fun in that?

By fate, I meant ultimate fate, as in, in the hereafter, which of course, you do not believe in, and will therefore, not understand where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I think I do, it's the same stuff the xtians believe. Being punished in the next life and so on...I'd watch Bill Maher's Religulous as a gooid antidote to this sort of nonsense. It's central message: "Whoever tells you they know what happens to you after you die is talking crap."

Maybe. God only knows. But Islam will exist til the end of time in it's true form somewhere in the world.

The bahá'ís recognise Mohammed as a prophet, if that's all that counts?

Final prophet. Has to be final.

Now you're just being closed-minded. How do you know that old Yahweh didn't think to himself: "They seem to have gotten the wrong idea entirely. All these people who follow Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are basically just being dicks to each other. I know, I'd better send down Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as well to make sure they get the message."

Because as religions go, the bahá'í faith is actually pretty cool and groovy - it's like islam's much nicer younger hippy brother with a lot more emphasis on *real* equality between the sexes, a fair whack of hedonism and a lot of personal growth. You can still believe in allah and mohammed, but you don't have to be a dick all the time. What's not to like?

You don't need religion to stymie crime. I'm speaking to the likely billions of human beings who have existed who did not commit crime because of God consciousness. How about them? Not important?

Much as I would like to believe that I have superpowers that grant me an evolved sense of morality over you lesser apes, I really don't think that's the case. Besides, religion doesn't make you a better person, there are just as many religious criminals (proportionately more, if you look at the US prison figures) so I'd have to question its value in the first place. Plus, you know, Crusades.

Guess we'll see, huh. For you your belief and for me mine.

That's not a "belief". I was stating that I'd met some westernised, secular muslims. I don't have to believe in them, I know they exist.

Muslims are responsible for some of the unjust violence, yes. Islam never is, and never will be.

Again, islam is what muslims do. There may be an ideal of "islam" but the reality is that it's what people make of it that counts. If they read in the koran:

When thy Lord revealed to the angels, saying, 'I am with you; so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Smite them above their necks, and smite off all finger-tips. That is because they have opposed ALLAH and HIS Messenger. And whoso opposes ALLAH and HIS Messenger, Then ALLAH is surely Severe in retribution.'

That seems like a pretty clear instruction to kill non-believers. If someone read that, and killed because of it, then that is the fault of the koran and ultimately islam. We're getting back to the No True Scotsman fallacy again here, but the truth is that religion makes people do wacky things, including genocide and murder. And I'm not laying the blame entirely at islam's feet; the nazarenes and the jews have done their fair share of slaughtering too, but I think I'd have a tiny bit of respect for you if you could admit - if only to yourself - that islam has caused bad things as well as good.

Any violence that occurs from Islam will only be for just cause.

I can't believe you actually typed that. Any violence that stems from islam will never be in a just cause.

In the Quran, this is explicitly mentioned.

Again, how extremely convenient.

And would you like me to send you about a million links on all the conflicts (civil wars, slavery, torture, wars for natural resources, hate crimes, spousal abuse, child abuse, pedophilia, etc.) on a personal and global level that occur because people are just assholes sometimes?

Sure, as long as you can *explicitly* rule out religion as a contributing factor. But how's about this, see if you can actually convince me that religion has a part to play in this world that is actually beneficial to society? Because while religious people are generally held to be "better" people than their atheist counterparts, all I see is bad people committing crimes and then using their religion to absolve themselves of blame. It's the oldest trick in the book, ever since the church came up with the idea of selling pardons.

[Brendocon]

Fascist.

Racist.

Semite.

Wait, I mean anti-semite.

Wait... which one's the bad one?

[Metal Vendetta]

Semite.

Wait, I mean anti-semite.

Wait... which one's the bad one?

Just don't let the two touch, it'll destroy the universe!

[Jack Cade]

No, but I think oversimplification can lead to that conclusion.

We're talking about the Israeli government and its policies/agendas, not the whole of the Israeli people/Jewish culture. That's what people mean, as far as I'm concerned, when they talk about 'Israel', and in that case I don't think what's been said is oversimplifying.

[Jack Cade]

Yaya - Just to point out, I live in England and was talking about British legislators above. I don't know what the situation is in America - but I live down the road from a mosque in an area of London where the Muslim community is very strong and active, so I occasionally get into conversations with them about it.

If you define equality as being that women can do anything a man can do as competently and vice versa, then Islam does not support this idea. They are equal in station, equal in status, but not similar, physiologically, in the role they play as productive members of society. In terms of gender, Islam is largely based on gender roles. If one wants to define that as unequal, so be it.

I, for one, do have a problem with this. It's not that all men and all women are equally competent in every area, ignoring physical and psychological attributes - but that they should not be confined to any role based on generalisations. If most women are physically weaker than men, fine, they won't be allowed into, say, the fire brigade because of that physical weakness. But if there are those that pass whatever physical strength test there is, then they shouldn't be barred from entering because it's not their 'role'.

That's the nature of the principle of 'equality' or equal opportunities - it isn't to make everyone equal regardless of ability but to not erect and maintain barriers based on prejudgments as to their abilities. Women do not have a 'place' any more than Muslims have a 'place' running our cornershops or Afro-Carribeans have a 'place' working in the cotton fields. If the individuals within a section of society are better suited or predisposed towards a particular set of functions, fine, most of them will settle into that - but any one should be able to break away from it any time they want without feeling like they're breaking any rules.

If the idea that women have a predefined 'role' in society is one you say is central or important to Islamic belief, then there will definitely be clashes over this in the future. Because the liberal section of the West doesn't believe people should be brought up being told they're expected to perform any particular social function based on their gender, race or sexuality. Individuals should be free to find the role that suits them best - and as a society, we have to try to enforce that right, especially in the cases of people who might feel pressured into something they don't want to do by their family or community. Anything less is not supporting or respecting women's real human rights, in my opinion.

Interestingly, the rest of the discussion (to generalise!) feels to me exactly like the kind of discussions atheists have with Christians. There are the same conflicts here - moderate religious people believe that their religion is ill-served and misrepresented by those that interpret it more radically than them, and the atheist is essentially left asking: "But how do you *know* your version is right? All you have is your faith, while the radical has his faith and insists his version is right - and believes his acts of violence are justified by the same logic by which you say 'all violence conducted for Islam/Christianity is just'. Where is the possibility for communication and resolving of the differences here?"

I think the reason atheists find religion people scary is because the unjust violence of secular or rationalist governments is that much easier to challenge on its own terms. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq - there aren't. You're a liar and an aggressor." Religious aggressors, with their internal world of faith justifying faith, are terrifying in that there is no way to prove them wrong or incoherent within their own logic. They tell themselves they believe they must do it because their god has commanded it, and any lost to that cause cannot be won back through reason. Whereas we still hold out the *hope* that Blair and Bush will have to face the true nature of their atrocities.

[Yaya]

Damn. Typed up a huge response Jack, but then the board timed out and I lost it.

Anyway, the gist of it was, in a truly male-dominated society, are we more likely to find women wearing more clothes or less? I would think less.

[Kaylee]

Damn. Typed up a huge response Jack, but then the board timed out and I lost it.

Anyway, the gist of it was, in a truly male-dominated society, are we more likely to find women wearing more clothes or less? I would think less.

Sexual inequality == wrapping up warm?

[Yaya]

And with that, I officially bow out.


I bid you all........adieu.

[Kaylee]

Karl do bad?

[Brendocon]

Anyway, the gist of it was, in a truly male-dominated society, are we more likely to find women wearing more clothes or less? I would think less.

Depends on if the women in question are objectified as posessions or not.

[bumblemusprime]

Damn. Typed up a huge response Jack, but then the board timed out and I lost it.

Anyway, the gist of it was, in a truly male-dominated society, are we more likely to find women wearing more clothes or less? I would think less.

Eh...

Modesty should be choice, not a cultural imperative. If a chick wants to show some cleavage, she's not responsible for the way men react to it. We just like to make a big ******* deal about human bodies.

[Metal Vendetta]

In my experience, women dress how they damn well please.

[Jack Cade]

Yaya's point has legs (pun intended) - it's not good enough that women 'choose' to wear less if the reason they make that choice is because they think society expects it of them, if they think it's their place to show flesh. And Western society is no model of equality yet. But it's still important that the ideal is in place - that we mostly agree in the *theory* that women should be wearing what they damn well please. That's an important distinction that, to my mind, puts us well ahead of any region or country that expects women to be 'modest'.

I've been wrestling recently with the Germaine Greer notion that being attractive - being 'looked at' - is actually to hold power, not to be degraded. My current thinking is this: if men want to look at women - but know it's a bit naughty - and some women dress to be looked at, that is power in the hands of women. If men think they have every right to ogle, and women feel that *not* being looked at makes them unattractive or worthless, that is power in the hands of men. We need to be aiming for the first of these scenarios, because if you swap the genders around, it's clear which one is the situation for men in nearly every society.

[Yaya]

Modesty should be choice, not a cultural imperative.

Most people, whether they believe in God or not, are self-inclined towards modesty. It is innate. Pull somebody's pants down, and they will hide behind the nearest tree. Why? Because modesty is natural. We were created with an inherent modesty and shame.

Why, sprunkabeemusus, is the stripping away of this modesty acceptable, but re-inenforcing it is considered extremism and an infringement of one's individual rights? Why do many Christians also say it is extreme, yet when the manger scene of Jesus' birth is placed in the front yard, Mary and the other women are all wearing Islamic dress?

Are we progressing? Or regressing?

You say, "well, there should be a choice and it should not be forced", but the vast majority of Muslim women who wear hijab choose to wear it. And those women who do so in the West that I have met? They have a strength of character and purpose unlike any women I know, a dedication that makes me bow my head in shame, making me reflect on the weakness of my own faith. They are constantly the target of hate and ridicule because they have become symbols of the faith they represent, yet they go to work and carry on with their life knowing their fate depends on a greater Power than any human being.

In Islam, modesty is a command by God, the choice being whether to obey or not.

I think it very hard for some to understand the concept of doing something for the love of God vs. love of self. For example, right now, I'm fasting for the sake of my Creator. You would not believe me if I told you the level of peace and strength I feel right now. It is unlike any peace I feel the rest of the year, knowing that my Lord is pleased with me for giving up something I love to do in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed me to do so. That strength comes from the pleasure of God.

And it is that same strength that makes a Muslim women cover her head. Again, I've said it so many times before. Don't ask me why women cover up. I encourage all of you to ask a Muslim women who chooses to wear hijab directly why she does it. Except for MV. He has no respect for those kind of women, obviously, or he wouldn't post condescending comments about them as picture captions. Go to the source. Why ask a man like myself about this? Ask a women. I can guarantee you she will give a much different answer that what you were expecting.

[bumblemusprime]

YaShwav, I wouldn't ever diss a woman for wearing a hijab. I was raised in a religion that has specific types of underwear for their members.

We're talking about the burka (not the headscarf) as an outward symbol of the way women are treated, and the "modesty" arguments as a way to reinforce the notion that women need to sit down, shut up and hold the baby.

But I'm supposed to be working. I'll be back to you later, soon-to-be Tomb of Relics thread.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Pull somebody's pants down, and they will hide behind the nearest tree.

Hi. My name is Joey. I have no shame. Please refer to another thread where I mention the wife and I having a go with internet pr0n.
(btw still looking for that emvee)