Printable View
Not necessarily, but they are finding what West took from them by converting to Islam at an increasing rate.Quote:
And of course we all know that women all over the world are desperate to flee their appalling oppression by the child-abusing, drunken, lascivious, misogynistic West by emigrating to Muslim countries.
Enough! My goodness cant we ever have an nice intelligent discusion about religon with out mud sliging.
No where and no religon is perfectpeople should choses there own judgment. I will admit that the West as far as I can see is much easier place on a woman alone. I will also admit that I personally know of cases where so called muslim men have this thing about abusing women.
But I will not say that they are muslim there is an ayah that says
And I havent figured out how to use online quarnic searches even though I know exactly where it is so bare with me . Parphrased it says : And would you follow part of the Book and disrgiard another at whim, have you no brains.?
ok it doesnt put it quite like that its in surat 2.
so my point is if you dont choose to follow everything including respecting women, refusing slavery and prostityuion than can you truly be called a muslim? or in fact a follower of any religon that states has these things.
As for the Muslim countries you can live there your entire life and never come in contact with this side of life like anywhgere else there are good people and bad and the bad are just more obvious, I think personally its a case of hanged for sheep as well as lamb.
Bu maybe its not a case of religon at all or even a case of culture. maybe ts a human thing as a whole I mean looking at it historically the abuse of women seems to be a constant and unwavering theme everywhere always. from way back when they got dragged about by their hair. ( i relise this is probably somthing invented by the media but still)
Thats about it :D Also personally I think we covered this topic basically the answer was no, there is no referance to a 24 year orgasm in the Koran.
Nightshade,
The only way we will have an intelligent discussion is if we are allowed to scrutinise what is said. Just a few posts into this thread someone asked a perfectly legitimate, if perhaps only half serious, question about what women can expect in Paradise. You yourself posted long comments about the issue of the treatment of women under Islam. I am all in favour of allowing people to make their own judgments but in order for any of us to make informed judgments we need to be aware of the issue – and not just in some abstract sense, according to a text considered sacrosanct, but in the sense of how that text translates into daily life. I posted what my experiences have been and I do think there is an extremely important issue to be discussed here. The idea of heavenly paradise is expressed very much with the assumption that the audience is male. I would be happy to deconstruct any religious text and demonstrate how it positions gender identities. This is a Literature Forum and I think religious texts should be subjected to the same scrutiny as literary ones. People have no difficulty in looking at a text by Hemingway and revealing what is seen as racist assumptions so why should we not look at a holy text and carry out exactly the same sort of analysis? Then we might be treating the text as Literature. If Elizabethan attitudes to women and ideas about the construction of gender can be explored by studying Shakespeare’s texts, then why not from studying holy texts? All ideologies should be scrutinised and to me, Islam is an ideology the same as any other. Or perhaps it’s not like that many others – I can’t think of many that promote this view of males at the beginning of the twenty first century:
“He can have more than one wife simply by wanting to have her. That is a reason enough, and God gave him that choice.”
Of course they are. :lol: :D :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Unnamble that wasnt what I was objecting too Im all for that kind of discussions its the heated attitudes every one takes where they personalse everything that is said.
Also Arguing east Vs west has really little to do with the subject matter. Countries and religons are not the same. neither are culture and religons.
If we are looking at religon as a text then why cant we all be objective an just forget your personal opions as to the behaviour ofpeople apparntly following the religon and look at the text it self?
Thats all I meant
:D
Strange topic,...
can you tell us about the writer ??
his background at least ??
~~~"
if he claims something, and cannot provide proof from those two sources, than he is not credible and whatever he may say is simply his own opinion; nothing more, nothing less. Same thing with those who cite alleged Tariq Ali's comments; if they cannot bring proof from the Qur'an and the hadith, then their claims have no weight in a real theological discussion, but serve as a way to degrade and ridicule others and their beliefs. Of course, some people are content with that kind of "discussion" and believe it to be enough to form their opinions, but I am sure most of us expect more than "he said, she said", statements before accepting something as a true or false claim."
~~~~
i gree with that...
if anyone tells me anything i will simply look for a proof..
wasn't that the core of the scientific method ? :D
FM
I am an Atheist. My ‘God’ cannot be understood by human beings; it is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. It cannot be reduced to things like proof, which only makes sense in human terms. It’s a fact, that’s all. Some can see it and some can’t. Please respect my faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
That's perfectly fine for your god, but we are not discussing him. :D We are discussing Islam, and the holy Qur'an, and hadith, and all of those are available to your disposal, so if you say that Islam promotes something, you can bring proof of that from the Qur'an by simply looking it up here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ . :nod:Quote:
My ‘God’ cannot be understood by human beings; it is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. It cannot be reduced to things like proof, which only makes sense in human terms. It’s a fact, that’s all. Some can see it and some can’t. Please respect my faith.
My point about the way power structures are embedded within language is made perfectly here. While I was careful not to ascribe any gender to my God, you refer to it as ‘him’. You could argue that language is an insufficient tool with which to discuss such things (although I don’t see the same problem bothering you when you attempt to explain Islam to others) and that ‘him’ is just a form of shorthand that avoids having to go into the non-gender explanation each time. But this time you were referring to my God, which I clearly referred to in a non gender specific way. I think that the ideological apparatuses of state, religion, society and culture provide a better explanation for why you make the assumption that my God must be male.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Your use of ‘him’ demonstrates your naturalised and internalised assumption that any god must be male. From where do such assumptions come and why is it that females accept authority figures as being male even while this helps confine their own roles? I believe it’s because our very identity is constructed out of the ideological positions available to us through language.
You believe such ideas as are found in the Qur'an are objective reality; I believe they are a construct of language and no more representative of truth than the text on a tin of beans. If I try to argue rationally and treat a holy text as a literary text, you will sooner or later point out that your holy text has a quality no other text can claim – it is truth; it has an objective and universal validity that transcends any attempts to treat it as a text like any other. That’s quite a privilege.
The point of my above post was that there is little point in analysing texts with someone who insists that particular texts cannot be treated as mere texts. Why shouldn’t the Qu’ran be deconstructed on a Literature Forum? That would be treating it as Literature or is discussion of it limited to using it to proselytise?
That there are gender biases in every society is a fact of life, but they are prevelant in atheist societies just as well as any other. The root of this problem can be found in many areas, and if you want to discuss those, than I guess you could open up a topic, and we can see why women have been treated differently throught the history, and how that has led to gender differences in every society. My point is only that when you discuss something, you have to bring some kind of support for your argument, and in this case the support has to come from the source itself, because that is what we are discussing. If you speak of any literary book, you will have to support your arguments referring back to the work itself. Is your interpretation going to be the same as from someone else? Probably not. But, if you a a literary critic who by profession has been trained for such undertakings, wouldn't your observations be considered of greater accuracy than that of a 17year old highschool student? I would hope so. It is the same with the holy Qur'an. We have the literary meaning of things, that many abuse by not understanding the whole concept, and than we have scholars who try to derive the meaning of everything by studying it within the concept, comparing to other sources, studying the history in which the revelation happened, the time, people, and the reasons for each surah. Because of that, their analysis will always be of greater validity, and will be something we refer to. That is why many non-muslims, whose intentions are to fault Islam, bring forth accusations that cannot be supported with anything, simply because they have heard or read one ayat, and thinking that that is enough to prove their point, they took it without ever knowing what it actually means. This kind of discussion would not be accepted in any literary circle, let alone undertaking such a challenge as to understand God's word.
When it comes to assigning gender to God, we can see how the practice differs from the source. Allah in itself does not have a gender, nor can it be pluralized, but people have assigned it the male gender for some reason. Why is that? It surely cannot be something embedded in the religion, since as I said there is nothing to hint that Allah is male, nor that He is anyhing like we have ever seen or known, so a human nature is out of the question. Gender assignment can be blamed on limitations of language, or simply the perception that since males are the leaders of the community/family/society, it naturally follows that God's gender should be closer to them. WE have to understand that Islam came in a time when pagans ruled in that region, and women were treated in the most inhumane ways. Female children were burried alive because they were considered a burden for the family, and shameful to the men. Gender differences have been present in the world from the beginning on, and are still there, in a lesser form. WE don't even have to look back 100, or 200 years ago in the western culture, to see that women were treated as second class citizens, and that they were not given most of the rights the men possessed. It is something every society has struggled with, and it is very unfortunate, but if you say that Islam promotes gender biases, and your argument is that it is embedded in the religion because we, falsly, refer to Allah as a male, does your argument go so far as to include all other religions in this, since Christianity does the same (their God was in person a white male, so it is a racist religion as well?), Judisam is the same, Budhisam also, and others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil
It is no secret that Bibles had to be smuggled in at risk of death under the U.S.S.R. Some old Christians throughout that communist realm treasured a single portion of a page of the Bible! Rasputin was called a Klast, and helped infiltrate society so as to destroy the Christian fabric of it. Those that carried out the Russian revolution - this affected Ukraine too - treated those they gave government positions to as needing to be in psyche wards if they expressed belief in Christianity or GOD period. This form of communism was very atheistic to the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil
I just gave the true reason for something occurring where Christianity once was common. Anti-christian communism, not Christianity, had a recent long run over all Soviet countries of the now defuct U.S.S.R. Those prostituting themselves are not claiming to be involved in Christianity - contrary to what you tried to say, tit for tat, against the fact of how women have been treated by others elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Certain European countries once Catholic, became protestant, then loosened their system of moral accountability, then ultimately became atheistic in general. These include Sweden and Holland, which are the bigger homes to European indecency. This was not mere agnosticism, but people forsaking beliefs to avoid moral accountability. I am not pointing at decent hearted agnostics who do not stand ready to accept what they are unsure of the validity of. Those that avoid Religion to excuse their immorality are a different matter - and these I distinguish from agnostics, as those that choose to push GOD aside, whether HE be real or not to them. With agnosticism, there is no set of principles, due to no set teaching. The only thing that fits agnostics into a single classification is uncertainty, not morals. Some, like Unnamable, have morals consonant with CHRIST's, but are still undecided as to the facts about GOD personally. Atheistic governments, though, in my use of the term, are focused on a society that is united in rejecting GOD. Even the U.S. has this contending with Christian absolutism, as well as with pseudo-christian ideas that also claim to be absolutely correct.
The prostitution of Holland, etc., belongs to the same train of thought that tries to cast doubt on Christianity, to end its Witness to praiseworthy standards. The lack of Faith in prostitutes is very relevant, in that it shows the result of broken-heartedness in young girls, in that women submit, in brokenness, to things they would not if they were psychologically healthy. A woman that doesn't feel whole or know her worth will agree to treatment of women and children that all the rest of the world calls "abuse". Where Christians are numerous but without political influence, the irreligion cannot be identified as specifically a Christian problem, thus your counterargument was not parallel to the original one that sparked your response that there is major prostitution in a "Christian nation" (Ukraine). Are you a Christian because you are in the U.S.? Does a Christian presence there make the nation Christian? What's the difference in the case of Ukraine? What aggitated you was mention of muslims mistreating women. The references made by a number of posters were to countries where islam holds a real political grip, and is not under a different system's government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil
There is nothing to laugh out loud about here. You have taken words I used and cut and pasted them to other of my statements. No Christian secretly wants to be a commi, nor did I ever say anything remotely close. I gave some communists the benefit of the doubt that they might not have anti-Christian sentiments concealed in their hearts. But, in the U.S.S.R., the reason one would have to keep the desire to be Christian secret, is because it could have proved dangerous to him to even be suspected of thinking like that. Some communists gave up the allowances of the government for them to live in peace, and threw off their communistic offices in accepting CHRIST. But the communistic movement was deadset against this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
The girls being misused in Ukraine might come from lines once steeped in Christianity, but they are broken individuals where Christianity has suffered generations of abuse, who don't know what they believe, and make no bones about it. I know a lot of Ukrainians, and have been investigating the matter for years. This means that these girls are not Christian - not even if they occasionally find strength in their broken hearts to consider painful religious questions.
Those I said do not like Christianity are all those you wrongly presume to be Christian because of race, location, or simply their not being muslims or Jews.
Christians are not hypocrites for having a set Teaching that can never agree with Muhammad or the quran, nor are those that say they are Christian but act as hypocrites really Christian, secretly or otherwise. Christianity cannot agree with Muhammad's view of women and children and gentlemen.
Mililalil ,
Everything you said in your post can be applied to Islam as well, and that was my main point. In order to be considered a muslim, a person has to practice the religion in his or her life. No one is a believer by default, just because he or she was born into the religion. That was my point. If you say someone who commits adultery, or engages in trafficking of women, is not a true Christian, than that person cannot be a true Muslim either. You could only make these claims if the religion, or ideology itself promotes these things, and those who practice them do so BECAUSE they follow that particular religion. You cannot attribute a teaching to a particular religion because of actions of those WHO DO NOT practice it.
As are those that embrace religion to excuse their acts of violence or oppression (no current politics, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as a choice example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mililalil XXIV
There are hypocrites to be found in all camps my friend. I have no qualms with those that quietly practice their faiths without interfering with my right not to; I would expect nothing less from them.
I suppose that what I'm saying is that morality is not the sole preserve of the religious, nor immorality, that of the non-believer. I hope that we can all agree on that at least. Although such a consensus might be too much of a culture shock for those steeped in the more fiery and confrontational aspects of this particular sub-forum. :D
My point was that you were pointing at non-Christians - often people completely outside of the Church sphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra