Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

kanelli wrote:But doesn't the class system permeate all of Indian society, no matter what religion?

No (Edit - let me say instead, not necessarily - it is a prominent feature in all of India yes.. but).. The caste system is a particular feature of Hinduism. In fact, many Dalits (untouchables) were attracted to Christianity because it freed them of the caste stigma. There isn't a caste system amongst the Indian Muslims (especially the Muslim elite which either came from abroad, or like to believe they did). However, there are still echoes of the caste stigma in India amongst the ex-Hindu communities.

kanelli wrote:Shaf, do you get hassled by family or friends for your school choice or how you are raising your kids, especially your daughters. (Hi to the ladies! They must be so big now!)

No - quite the contrary. Here the Muslim girls actually prefer to send the girls to Catholic schools for their moral stance, and they all compete to get into the best academic schools.

Don't get me wrong, our girls (and young lady) also go to religious classes at the mosque 4 days a week - it's part of the culture here - and did so also in the UK (but fewer nights a week).

The point is that the education system is secular and the religious education is done in free time.

kanelli wrote:Personally, I think moderation is good in every aspect of life, especially religion.

This is actually a central tenet of Islam too! Everything in moderation. I'll look up the actual saying of Prophet (about the middle way).


Good luck on your assignment.

Cheers,
Shafique

See thats where people like Hirsi are wrong. What people like Hirsi are talking about are extreme deviant societies like the taliban would like to have. This is not proper Islam or Islamic society but they want you to believe that it is and anything other than that is not true.

And if you look deep into these societies its mostly cultural and not Islamic. Like the white kandoora/dishdasha men wear here or the black abayas women wear. No wear in Islam does it say women have to dress like black potato sacks or men have to wear white robes and turbans.

No where does it say women can be forcefully married against there will. In fact quite the opposite. A bride is asked three times to make 100% sure she agrees. Yes many are coerced into accepting by family, peers, society etc etc. But dont blame Islam on it.

The people to be blamed are the people who enforce this kind of ignorant thinking under the guise of Islam. Like I always give the example Dr Zakir Naik gives and is quite fitting. If you give a top performance car to an incompetent driver and he keeps crashing the car. Who is to blame. The car or the driver ?

-- Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:05 pm --

shafique wrote:
This is actually a central tenet of Islam too! Everything in moderation. I'll look up the actual saying of Prophet (about the middle way).

There are a several Hadith from Sahih Bukhari. I wont qoute any from the top of my head for fear of getting them wrong. Infact moderation is a recurring key and theme in many many of them is all aspects of life. It discourages people from becoming too engrossed in religon and forgeting to enjoy this life aswell.

I checked out the web link and the site presents Islam in a very good light, but some of the info they give there seems to differ to what the Quranic verses say. According to the Quran, women are said to be worth less than a man etc. but instead the website says men and women are two parts of a whole. (A clever way to hide if a woman is 1/4 and man is 3/4? )

If you read Infidel you can see that Hirsi Ali never experienced Islam how it is presented on that website. (In fact, she had her skull fractured by her Quran teacher and his partner when they came to beat her and her sister for criticizing the way he was teaching.) Hirsi Ali was a translator in the Netherlands dealing with Somali immigrants all the time and most of those women did not experience Islam that way either. Maybe the bigger issue is how Islam is practiced in certain countries? Have they interpreted the Quran incorrectly, or are they imposing cultural views onto their practice of Islam? Are Muslims integrated into the West imposing cultural views onto their practice of Islam? Each side would accuse each other - who is right? Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Islam, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a woman living there. I would be expecting Saudi Arabia to be on forefront of women's rights if they living closest to the beliefs and laws in the Quran as stated on the British website, but as we can see, Saudi Arabia is one of the worst places for women.

So really, the issue I struggle with (and maybe Hirsi Ali should be considering too) is how much is culture and how much is religion? When dealing with immigrants who need to integrate, what do you do if they say you are imposing on their religious beliefs as they have a right to beat their wife and children if they misbehave, and they have a right to keep their women indoors, covered, under educated, and married off young without their consent etc. Can you tell them they are misrepresenting their own religion? These same problems exist to a smaller extent with some home-grown radical Christian communities in parts of the US and Canada, e.g. in Utah and Alberta. The governments have a hard time dealing with these groups because of Western laws about religious and personal freedom, and women and children suffer for it.

kanelli - you're close to putting your finger on the core of the issue.

Firstly, if you read what the Quran says about women vs men, you should be able to judge between the various presentations of Islam ('inspired by Muhammad' vs Ali's experiences as a child). Women do inherit half of a man's share - and there are reasons for this related to responsibilities (women have a right over man's wealth and income, men have no right over women's income and wealth for one), but a woman's testimony is equal to a man's. The Quran does not say that the testimony of two women equals one man (refer to the verse in the Quran to check). In all matters spiritual, men and women are completely equal.

The problem is that there are indeed misogynists who misuse Islam. There are those who insist on cultural practices being followed in the name of shariah. Female circumcision, preventing women from working/studying etc etc.

Inspiring Muhammad presents women practicing Islam and being devout in their practice. And yet we have a lawyer (a Barrister) who is explaining how she experiences and practices Islam.

The question therefore becomes - which particular presentation of Islam more represents the religion taught by Muhammad, pbuh. The presentation by practicing Muslims backed up by references from Quran and hadith or that of Ms Ali or others who may have suffered at the hands of Mullahs etc?

Cheers,
Shafique

Thankfully some Muslims are able to choose to ignore the more misogynist teachings of Islam in British society - not the case where Islamic law is fully enforced.

But it's interesting that you are saying that the Koran does not say that there needs to be two women if one man is not available to provide testimony.

But hey, we've already gone done that beaten path.

What is interesting is that Danios agrees with my interpretation - he manages to squirm out by quoting scholars who say that this practice should not be followed for all times.

Hey, I agree with him.

Just like wife beating (which should never be allowed in any time), statutory rape (ditto), polygamy, and viewing women as 'things' or unclean during their period, this misogynist worldview belongs in the trashcan of history.

(Oh, and hasn't it become the standard line to blame all problems within Islam on cultural pracices, as if religion were not a part of culture...?)

But again, I am glad that Muslims choose to ignore the clearly misogynistic elements within Islam. My only problem is when Muslims white wash these (or hide/deny/deflect) unpalatable teachings, such as the hadith I posted earlier about Muhammad and company taking female prisoners-of-war as 'companions' during their conquests against other tribes.

Shaf, A good question I will look around for more of Hirsi Ali's interviews to see if she discusses whether the version of Islam she was taught and lived under may be tainting her view of the faith as a whole. She is certainly brave for speaking her mind. Her intentions seem good - to improve the situation for Muslim women and children, but I can see that she may also be creating anti-Islamic sentiments that don't help non-Muslims be tolerant of the population of people practicing Islam which does not involve inequality and abuse of women and children. She certainly has people thinking...

to eh - Yawn.

You seem to be a bit schizophrenic my young friend. Sometimes you are pontificating that you know more about Islam than Muslims, other times you are joining in with the loon crazee wing and quoting fictional accounts of 'scholars' endorsing rapes of non-Muslims.

Fascinating to see you try and justify loon ideology when faced with real Muslim women telling you how it really is.

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli - Muslim women need to be at the fore-front of over turning misogynistic practices found in many Muslim cultures - and where Ali brings out injustices that have been carried out 'in the name of Islam' then this is indeed a valuable service.

There are many women's rights groups who do have the womens' welfare at heart and who choose to work with Muslim women and Muslims in general to eradicate the real abuses that go on. It is the loons that I object to - where abuse of women by some Muslims is used to discredit a religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, Danios explains it himself:

It is argued that the women of pre-Islamic Arabia were generally unaware of the intricacies of the business world. Tahir Haddad, an Islamic thinker of the early twentieth century, writes:

The fact that woman lagged behind man in all aspects of life [in the pre-Islamic times] made her less proficient in intellectual and mathematical tasks, especially since at that time she did not get her share of education and culture to prepare her for that…[which was taken into] account when it was decided that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man…[in] issue[s]…such as debts. [3]

The lack of business acumen that women of that particular time generally possessed was the reason that a woman’s singular testimony about a contract of debt might be rejected by the common man, resulting in conflicts. The intent of the Quranic verse was after all to prevent infighting between Muslims, as was often the case between creditors and debtors. Therefore, argue these contemporary Muslims, witnesses had to be produced who would be accepted by the common man as being authoritative.

Some contemporary Muslims even argue that such a restriction (i.e. the requirement of two women as witnesses instead of one) would not be applicable if the cause for the restriction (i.e. the lack of business acumen on the part of the woman) was not present. The Islamic cleric Muzammil Siddiqi [4] issued the following fatwa (religious edict):

Another self delivered pwnage....

As I said, read the Quranic verse - and then compare with the above. (Danios - or in this case the 'thinker he quotes' - is not infallible - but Danios still wipes the floor with Spencer though)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon, as Shaf already linked before, there are plenty of passages from the Bible that describe women in a similar way, and modern Christians like to brush those off too. In fact, I think it is welcome to ignore those passages, because it will improve the status and treatment of women in that religion to more closely reflect the current civilized, more egalitarian society than what was found in Biblical times. If one wants to keep female members in the flock, they had better change with the times...

Shaf, you are so right. And I have to be careful about this with my own thinking. The outrageous stories infuriate me, but then I have to realize that I have Muslim friends who do not live or behave like that. It would be a mistake to be so biased about a religion that is practiced in so many ways, as are other religions. Well, I guess on the whole I am biased to some extent about religion anyway, so there you go.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Didn't read the book. But guess what, she had to leave the country because of death threats. She took them serious after the killing of Theo van Gogh (with whom she produced a short movie critizising Islam) by a Muslim who took the words of Muhammed literal. Obviously Muslims got their way, almost nobody dares to crtitzise Islam anymore in Holland. They managed to change the country (and not for the best IMO).

Obviously Muslims got their way, almost nobody dares to crtitzise Islam anymore in Holland.



we muslims are taking over europe.there is even a shari'a court.what a blessing from ALLAH.alhamdulilah!the jews are traveling back to israel because there bussines collapse long time ago in antwerp diamont sector.That's not new!



Natuurlijk Mr. flying dutchman anders was zij de volgende slachtoffer en de nederlandse overheid kon haar niet langer beschermen.Durf jij eens onze profeet mohammed te bekritiseren in een moslimland? ik denk ook dat jij eraan zult gaan zoals Theo Van Gogh moest je de islam bekritiseren of dacht je dat jij de enige hollander bent op deze forum die de islam haat en toch in een moslimland leeft? Voel je de onderdrukking nu dat je tussen de moslims moet leven! zo voelen wij ons in europa.!maar niet lang meer.we mogen nu mee stemmen en we genieten van de europese rechten en wetten.what tchu think about that !!!!!

HIRSI ALI SCHREEF KORANTEXTEN OP HAAR LICHAAM !!!! EN DIT NOEMEN JULLIE KUNST!!!!! NATUURLIJK IS ZIJ OP DE DODENLIJST VOOR DE MOSLIMS!!!

For the UK-USA peaple here please use translator machine.

An exemplary Dutch speaking Moroccan.

* slams door in his face *

Kudos Mr Belgium Morrocan - whist I don't know what you wrote, you managed to elicit an enlightening response from our Dutch friend.

What he wrote and didn't write is very interesting on many levels.

But seriously FD - what did the guy say that you are slamming the door in his face. (Can't be arsed to Google translate)

Cheers,
Shafique

Babelfish translation - raw.

"Natural Mr. flying dutchman differently was they the next victim and the Dutch government could its no longer protect. Do dare do you once our prophet criticise mohammed in a Moslem country? I think also that you criticise go such as Theo van Gogh will have you Islam or thought you that you are the only Dutchman on these forum which hates Islam and nevertheless in a Moslem country lives? Oppression now feels you that you must live between the Moslems! thus we feel ourselves in Europe.! but not long meer.we can vote now and we enjoy think about that the European laws and wetten.what tchu!!!!! HIRSI WROTE ALI KORANTEXTEN ON ITS BODY!!!! AND THIS CALLS YOU ART!!!!! OF COURSE SHE IS ON THE DEAD LIST FOR THE MOSLEMS!!! "

Is FlyingDutchman actually living in the UAE?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh should never have been threatened with death. It is called free speech, a very important value in Western society. If you are going to live in the West then you need to get used to the right to free speech. It should be used responsibly, but sometimes it isn't. In any case, one certainly DOES NOT KILL to retaliate for free speech that they don't like.

Submission was inspired by Ali's own experiences living in Africa and Saudi Arabia and doing translating work in the Netherlands. Let's take the story in Submission of the Muslim woman who was raped several times by her own uncle and was pregnant. If some fanatical Muslims with death on their lips had that uncle standing in front of them and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who would they kill? Guaranteed it would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They'd say it was that girls own fault that she let her uncle rape her, and it should be kept quiet so as not to dishonour her family's name. In fact, let's bump her off in an honour killing to remove the problem completely. She was the evil one who tempted her own uncle into sin! Prove me wrong, show me all the examples of how male family members are murdered for abusing women and children in their families. No, no, of course it is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is the problem, not how some are practicing Islam! Fanatics can choose to get worked up into a bloodthirst over symbolic images of verses of the Quran written on an actresses body, but I think the women and children who are being abused falsely under the name of Islam deserve the attention. That is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali was trying to expose. Think how painful it is for her to lose her faith because of her negative experiences.

Thanks for the translation kanelli. I agree with you that death threats are not excusable - let alone actual violence against Ali and Gogh.

I'm not familiar with the submission story, and would be abhored if the rape victim was indeed the one who would be punished in the example you gave.

However, let's be clear - there are fanatics who misuse religion to their ends. Your example is actually quite close to a real-life example from the US where a Church forced a young rape victim who got pregnant to apologise to the congregation for getting pregnant, and then hushed up the crime and protected the rapist:

dubai-politics-talk/raped-girl-forced-apologise-for-pregnancy-t42132.html

Nutters exist in all communities.

Cheers,
Shafique

Exactly. Ultra-conservative patriarchal religious folk of all denominations have done pretty heinous things to women in children in the name of their religion.

Thank you for your views, kanelli.

It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

For, even at the time before Rome became officially Christian and the emperors were mostly Christian and after Rome officially became Christian, abortion was still legally allowed in the empire.

Church fathers during that time espoused ideals which endorsed a separation between Church and State.

Unfortunately, this separation between religion and government is not as apparent in Islam, where religion is a way of life (deen).

Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions. Even Orthodox Judaism is not interested in imposing religious laws (such as prohibiting or restricting pork) on non-Jews.

The differences between Islam and Christianity are countless. But what is important is that Christians throughout history have taken a largely non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Moreover, the Bible is seen as a living book, one where interpretation is welcome. Literal interpretation of the Bible actually began in earnest during and after the Western scientific revolution - where people began to treat the Bible as if it were a science or math book.

Islam has unfortunately shut the gates of interpretation many centuries ago. And even more worryingly, Orthodox Muslim theologians were often flat-footed literalists.

So, proof-texting a bunch of verses in the Bible and exclaiming 'Ah huh! This is what Christians really believe!' is a pretty asinine method to understanding Christianity.

I'm sure our resident Biblical scholar would like to voice his opinion, but let's keep in mind that he doesn't even know who the authors are of the epistles he quotes from. (Actually, he was caught lifting his arguments and Bible verses from a Qadiani missionary website, but that's another story)

And I'm still waiting for our resident Rhodes Scholar to explain the differences in belief and practice between the followers of Stephen and the Christian Pharisees. I'm sure you'll find an answer on google...somewhere.

LoL.

event horizon wrote:It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

It's argued (with reason) that the worst atrocities and human rights violations committed by Europeans took place when there wasn't this separation between Church and State. Even taking the two secular world wars into account, the genocides committed when Christians thought they were following the Bible are enormous. Not just the Crusades, but the inquisition, pogroms and killings of Christians who did not believe whichever version of Christianity was politically strong at the time (i.e. how heretics were dealt with).

Therefore, the separation of Church and State is indeed not 'new' - but it was necessary to curb the violence that occured when it wasn't separated.

Just read 'A letter to a Christian Nation'.

event horizon wrote:Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions.

Loon beliefs surface again - note that Christianity and Judaism are characterised by the 'moderate' wing of each religion, whereas Islam is characterised as not having a moderate wing (despite the empirical fact that he majority aren't extremists). Some call this hypocrisy, others point out that this is the only way loons can make their beliefs credible to themselves.

event horizon wrote: But what is important is that Christians throughout history have taken a largely non-literal interpretation of the Bible.

And many didn't. To this day.

This is also down to the fact that many verses of the Bible have to be rejected as false today. Many verses are acknowledged to be later insertions by 'forgers' (to use a label eh quoted).

But also, throughout Christian history most Christians weren't able to read the Bible. Even today, about 70% of the Bible is effectively censored in the Church - in that these verses aren't read in Church or taught in Sunday school etc. They just sit there in the hope that no one notices, or they are dismissed when pointed out that 'we don't follow these verses any more'.

event horizon wrote: Moreover, the Bible is seen as a living book, one where interpretation is welcome.

By some, yes. By others no. How many of eh's countrymen literally believe that the universe is a few thousands of years old - because the Bible says so?

event horizon wrote:Islam has unfortunately shut the gates of interpretation many centuries ago.

Only in the Loon version of history. They are mistaking the fact that the Quranic verses aren't challenged as forgeries with the notion that metaphorical verses don't exist in the Quran and aren't subject to interpretation.

The loon contingent are aware of what God says in the Quran on this point, but choose to spin their view of interpretation of the Quran for their purposes. God's quite clear: 3v7
He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic (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 God. 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

event horizon wrote:So, proof-texting a bunch of verses in the Bible and exclaiming 'Ah huh! This is what Christians really believe!' is a pretty asinine method to understanding Christianity.

Except this is a strawman. No one here has ever said that the verses of the Bible that Christians rightly ignore are what Jesus taught. On the contrary, it's always been argued that these contradictions and extreme verses are proofs that the Bible is indeed a 'living document' (i.e. changes over time) and should indeed not be taken literally.

eh (and loons in general) routinely construct false arguments and project these on others. Hence the frequency of the term 'Straw man' in replies to them.


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

It's argued (with reason) that the worst atrocities and human rights violations committed by Europeans took place when there wasn't this separation between Church and State. Even taking the two secular world wars into account, the genocides committed when Christians thought they were following the Bible are enormous. Not just the Crusades, but the inquisition, pogroms and killings of Christians who did not believe whichever version of Christianity was politically strong at the time (i.e. how heretics were dealt with).

Therefore, the separation of Church and State is indeed not 'new' - but it was necessary to curb the violence that occured when it wasn't separated.
[Mod Edit - snipped - no need to quote the whole post again]

Our expert never fails to disappoint!

(Oh, and you typed out the exact same paragraph twice - weird)
[Mod - also deleted the duplicate bits of the post above, thanks for pointing this out.]

Well, I am a big fan of separation of church and government for several reasons, a) Laws can be based on human rights for everyone no matter which groups (religious or otherwise) they can be categorized into b) It prevents violence which can occur if people of other groups are forced to conform to one group's belief systems, c) Religion is essentially a private matter between people and their Gods, so communal government laws should logically remain separate from that.

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, this separation between religion and government is not as apparent in Islam, where religion is a way of life (deen).

Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions. Even Orthodox Judaism is not interested in imposing religious laws (such as prohibiting or restricting pork) on non-Jews.

This is an interesting comment and very relevant when talking about the ability for Muslims from Islamic countries to assimilate into non-Islamic countries.

For any Muslims who have lived in non-Islamic countries, was/is it hard to be Muslim there when all the laws are not Islamic laws?

Do you think that Sharia law should be allowed to run parallel to secular legal systems in non-Muslim countries?