Wonderful! Thanks so much for the info. I'm positive that your knowledge and any future contributions will be of great interest to a number of folks including myself and fairandbalancedfan (who I know is fascinated by all things politically and culturally South Asian and Middle Eastern). Also, if I may ask, what is your background in Islamic history and law? Do you have a personal investment in Islam, or are you a scholar of some sort?
You are most welcome
Well I am Muslim (Sunni) myself (and half Jewish, I like to see myself as both, as they are very similar). I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a scholar though, still too young lol. But I am a Political science student and I have studied Islamic history as much as possible, as well as Islamic jurisprudence. In terms of Mathhabs, I favor the Hanafi and Shafi'i the most (more inclined towards Hanafi). But I think all four are legitimate, valid and must be represented.
Wonderful! Thanks so much for the info. I'm positive that your knowledge and any future contributions will be of great interest to a number of folks including myself and fairandbalancedfan (who I know is fascinated by all things politically and culturally South Asian and Middle Eastern). Also, if I may ask, what is your background in Islamic history and law? Do you have a personal investment in Islam, or are you a scholar of some sort?
You are most welcome
Well I am Muslim (Sunni) myself (and half Jewish, I like to see myself as both, as they are very similar). I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a scholar though, still too young lol. But I am a Political science student and I have studied Islamic history as much as possible, as well as Islamic jurisprudence. In terms of Mathhabs, I favor the Hanafi and Shafi'i the most (more inclined towards Hanafi). But I think all four are legitimate, valid and must be represented.
For your own safety, NEVER EVER mention your religion if you intend to travel to any of the white trash regions of the country.(Deep south, plane states, and Mormon states like Utah).
Borschtbeet wrote... For your own safety, NEVER EVER mention your religion if you intend to travel to any of the white trash regions of the country.(Deep south, plane states, and Mormon states like Utah).
Sadly, they aren't the only ones. Many regions in the Islamic world would also regard others with contempt. Same in Israel as well.
@Knight: Very imformative! You've only reaffirmed my stance that what the Western powers did to many Middle Eastern (and East Asian/African) countries following WW2 (justified with "We're stopping the spread of communism!", no doubt) has done nothing but create feelings of hostility between historically Christian and Islamic nations.
I identify most with the agnostic and deist movements, but I am a staunch believer in one's freedom of worship. I find it deplorable that our politicians have always tried to use differing faiths to mobilize populations against one another.
A Poli science student, you say? I'd vote for you!
Borschtbeet wrote... For your own safety, NEVER EVER mention your religion if you intend to travel to any of the white trash regions of the country.(Deep south, plane states, and Mormon states like Utah).
Sadly, they aren't the only ones. Many regions in the Islamic world would also regard others with contempt. Same in Israel as well.
A real shame. But it wasn't always like this.
Wasn't it Mohamad's wife, in the seige of Medina, that gave the vanquished the option to "convert to Islam, or die'? It has been going on since the begining. Remember not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim. Sadly Islam has done mankind no favours. Little from Christianity either. Maybe it is because man has construed the words of wisdom to political ends, and perverted the message.
Sadly Islam has done mankind no favours. Little from Christianity either.
Pick up a history book sometime, okay? I'm no fan of organized religion, but shared faith has made people more open to societal cooperation. Societal cooperation leads to cultural and technological advancement.
How dreadful are the curses, which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)
I don't think everyone who is Muslim is a interprets the Koran literally. Is that hypocritical? Yes, but it's not as if Christians don't cherry pick which parts of the bible they wish to follow.
Judging from what I've read from Grog I am guessing he is either
A.a white nationalist
B.a Likudnik Israelite.
Those are the only types people I know who think it's appropriate to demonize a group which consists of 1.4 billion people based on the most extreme interpretations of the faith. Neocons do it as well but that can be ruled out judging from Grog's earlier comments on the Iraq war.
If even 1/4 of Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead.
Borschtbeet wrote... For your own safety, NEVER EVER mention your religion if you intend to travel to any of the white trash regions of the country.(Deep south, plane states, and Mormon states like Utah).
Sadly, they aren't the only ones. Many regions in the Islamic world would also regard others with contempt. Same in Israel as well.
A real shame. But it wasn't always like this.
Wasn't it Mohamad's wife, in the seige of Medina, that gave the vanquished the option to "convert to Islam, or die'? It has been going on since the begining.
Siege of Medina? There never was a siege of Medina done by the Muslims. It was the Meccans and their allies who besieged Medina. And no, Muslims never enforced anyone to convert there. The consitution of Medina gave rights and responabilities to all the people of Medina, regardless of faith.
NEVER, in the history of Islam, was there the ultimatum "convert or die". It was rather convert or pay the Jizya tax and be protected.
EDIT: And not to mention what the Qu'ran says on this matter: "There is no compulsion in religion".
Grog415 wrote...
Remember not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.
I like how you say "remember" as if it's a fact.
The first use of car bombs in Palestine was done by the Jewish militants of Irgun. The massacre of Sabra and Shatila was done by Christian militants, with the backing of Israel. The motto of Christiahn Philangists in Lebanon was : "It's the duty of very Lebanese to murder a Palestinian". The American strategy of "Shock and awe" is a nice word to replace the use of terror (always has been a military strategy). Israel used Phospherous weapons in the siege of Gaza, that was heavily critized by the UN. Not to mention the Basque seperatists (ETA) who are not Muslims. Or the Tamil tigers.
Grog415 wrote... Sadly Islam has done mankind no favours. Little from Christianity either. Maybe it is because man has construed the words of wisdom to political ends, and perverted the message.
The Islamic Civilisation was at the forefront of many scientific achievements and discoveries, that contributed to the rest of mankind. What about the Greek texts that we revived and preserved? What about the Rushdian enligthenment, the basis of the European Renaissance?
You should read the book: The genius of Arab civilsiation: the source of the Renaissance, By John Stothoff Badeau, John Richard Hayes
What about the Jewish Golden Age that only happened in Islamic Spain? As a half Jew, I think it's the duty of every Jew to admit and realise how much Muslims offered us, when the Christians were slaughtering us. EDIT: From Bernard Lewis' "The Arabs in History": "A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: "Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creator, blessed be he, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness (ie Byzantium). The Holy One, blessed be He..., will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them."
What about the golden age of the Assyrian Church, whose capital was also Islamic Baghdad?
Sorry to tell you my friend, but your knowledge is extremily limited.
EDIT: Churchill, a drunk, is hardly what I call a historical account of reality. No historian would take what he said seriously. Neither should I.
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 mars 2010 - 03:10 .
Grog415 wrote... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
I felt I am obliged to answer this nonsense.
Fact: - It wasn't until the 19th century in Europe that women had the right to have property, had the right to have her own money, had the right to work and had the right to inherit her parent's fortunes..
- In the 7th century AD, Muhammad gave women the right to own their own property, to work, to have their own money and the right to inherit their parent's fortune. Not to mention the right to divorce.
Many of the first Muslims were women. And the first matyr was a woman who died because of her faith. At the battle of Uhud, it was a woman, Nusaybah bint Ka'ab, who saved Prophet Muhammad's life and he said that he never saw any man fighting as well as her. And she was always by his side as an advisor. Muslim women worked as nurses and even fought at battles, like in Yarmouk with their men.
Not to mention how it was the Islamic world that had women employed in hospitals in sudch a large scale.
The first modern university was built in Fez Morocco, by a Muslim woman, Fatima Al Fihri, by the money she inherited by her father. Mariam Al Astralanbi was one of the most brilliant scientific minds in the Islamic Golden age and she is a woman. Wallada bint al-Mustakfi frequently taught woman in Al Andalus in her schools. The first public hair salons were in Muslims Spain. And modern fashion design was also in Islamic Spain, spreaheaded by Ziryab (the blackbird).
Umar Ibn Al Khattab, the 2nd Caliph, proposed a new law to the populace. A woman objected on the basis of the Qu'ran and Umar said: "A man made an error and a woman corrected him".
Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims to be good to their wives because they are their PARTNERS and not their property.
And I can go on and on. But none of that is useful if one is so prejudiced that he can't see reason.
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 mars 2010 - 02:40 .
Well my Polish ancestors (with a little help) kicked your ancestors butts outside of Vienna. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yaaaaaaaaaaaa SNAP INTO THAT SLIM JIM!!!!
Sorry I do not get to tout by Polish heritage much. Aside from being known as phenomenal morons (I wonder if that has to do with attacking the German tanks headon on horseback?? Going to have to look into that) and making better Vodka then the Russians.
No malice just a little drunk and happy to actually have a day off.
Godak wrote...
Do you want to know what us Europeans did to outstanding women? Meet Joan of Arc.
Joan of Arc was a bad ass and hot
Oh wait I am getting actress's and historical figures mixed up again...
Well my Polish ancestors (with a little help) kicked your ancestors butts outside of Vienna. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yaaaaaaaaaaaa SNAP INTO THAT SLIM JIM!!!!
Sorry I do not get to tout by Polish heritage much. Aside from being known as phenomenal morons (I wonder if that has to do with attacking the German tanks headon on horseback?? Going to have to look into that) and making better Vodka then the Russians.
No malice just a little drunk and happy to actually have a day off.
lol Yes well, we had our fair share of victories as well. Battle of Yarmouk. Hattin. Mantzikert.
But yea I respect what the Poles did at the battle.
Fact: - It wasn't until the 19th century in Europe that women had the right to have property, had the right to have her own money, had the right to work and had the right to inherit her parent's fortunes..
- In the 7th century AD, Muhammad gave women the right to own their own property, to work, to have their own money and the right to inherit their parent's fortune. Not to mention the right to divorce.
Many of the first Muslims were women. And the first matyr was a woman who died because of her faith. At the battle of Uhud, it was a woman, Nusaybah bint Ka'ab, who saved Prophet Muhammad's life and he said that he never saw any man fighting as well as her. And she was always by his side as an advisor. Muslim women worked as nurses and even fought at battles, like in Yarmouk with their men.
Not to mention how it was the Islamic world that had women employed in hospitals in sudch a large scale.
The first modern university was built in Fez Morocco, by a Muslim woman, Fatima Al Fihri, by the money she inherited by her father. Mariam Al Astralanbi was one of the most brilliant scientific minds in the Islamic Golden age and she is a woman. Wallada bint al-Mustakfi frequently taught woman in Al Andalus in her schools. The first public hair salons were in Muslims Spain. And modern fashion design was also in Islamic Spain, spreaheaded by Ziryab (the blackbird).
Umar Ibn Al Khattab, the 2nd Caliph, proposed a new law to the populace. A woman objected on the basis of the Qu'ran and Umar said: "A man made an error and a woman corrected him".
Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims to be good to their wives because they are their PARTNERS and not their property.
And I can go on and on. But none of that is useful if one is so prejudiced that he can't see reason.
Whilst there is a lot of good information in this, I have to highlight that you are cherry picking your examples. This leaves you open to easy criticism, so it might be best if you can remain constant in a relevant timeline.
Women had the rights you describe in many other religions and cultures, and comparing the buildup of 17th century Europe to 7th century Islam is not adequate given the historical context. Roman and pre-roman "Barbarian" women had all those rights as well. 2000 years before Islam even existed. The point is that women have had and lost rights on and off for the entirety of human history, and the context to each happening must be considered to establish cause and effect.
The fact is that currently Islamic Nations do propose women and female children as property and as inferior to males. I have been to Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi. I had to HIRE men to walk with me in business situations "for my own protection" (said the immigration officer) in Yemen. I paid them to call me their "property" so I would be safe from someone just claiming ownership of me. I had to submit paperwork explaining why the job I had to do there could not be done by a man when I went to Saudi. One needs no further than read news of women being slashed because of getting raped to see that, be it what Muhhamed intended or not, or be it that God wishes it or not, the prevalent Islam in self-described Islamic Nations is undoubtedly sexist and diminishing of women. A man can kill his daughter and not be legally punished in Saudi. He can also sell her for marriage at age 13, to a pedophile of course. He can also beat his wife to his heart's content as long as it is with a light rod to her arms and legs. And whilst she can divorce him, she would be a fool to do so as divorcees are hardly highly valued.
Does this mean Islam is evil? No. But it is true that it can be seen as a sexist religion, sexism that should be eradicated from modern society, as many muslims who escaped Sharia law will agree with.
Fexelea wrote... Women had the rights you describe in many other religions and cultures, and comparing the buildup of 17th century Europe to 7th century Islam is not adequate given the historical context. Roman and pre-roman "Barbarian" women had all those rights as well. 2000 years before Islam even existed. The point is that women have had and lost rights on and off for the entirety of human history, and the context to each happening must be considered to establish cause and effect.
The point was that it was only very late that European women had the same right as Muslim women. Of course before Islam, those rights existed. But to suggest that Europeans always had them, while Muslims women have always been oppressed, is a fallacy.
Fexelea wrote... The fact is that currently Islamic Nations do propose women and female children as property and as inferior to males. I have been to Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi. I had to HIRE men to walk with me in business situations "for my own protection" (said the immigration officer) in Yemen. I paid them to call me their "property" so I would be safe from someone just claiming ownership of me. I had to submit paperwork explaining why the job I had to do there could not be done by a man when I went to Saudi. One needs no further than read news of women being slashed because of getting raped to see that, be it what Muhhamed intended or not, or be it that God wishes it or not, the prevalent Islam in self-described Islamic Nations is undoubtedly sexist and diminishing of women. A man can kill his daughter and not be legally punished in Saudi. He can also sell her for marriage at age 13, to a pedophile of course. He can also beat his wife to his heart's content as long as it is with a light rod to her arms and legs. And whilst she can divorce him, she would be a fool to do so as divorcees are hardly highly valued.
Does this mean Islam is evil? No. But it is true that it can be seen as a sexist religion, sexism that should be eradicated from modern society, as many muslims who escaped Sharia law will agree with.
What the Saudis are doing is un-Islamic and a small minority see this as legitimate. The Saudi so called Sharia Law is being dictated by the Wahhabi sect, that exists only in Saudi Arabia (and influence the Taliban), and is part of a minority within a minority (Hanbali). Even other Salafi conservatives are highly critical of the Saudi question.
I never said that there is an ideal Islamic society today. And I never denied what some so called Islamic nations are doing. I find it abhorent. And it has no real basis in the faith proper.
Furthermore, not all Islamic nations do this today. Even other gulf nations, like the Emirates and Qatar reject this nonsense.
The point was that it was only very late that European women had the same right as Muslim women. Of course before Islam, those rights existed. But to suggest that Europeans always had them, while Muslims women have always been oppressed, is a fallacy.
Of course if would be fallacious to conveniently forget about the oppresion of women in Christian society when comparing it to islamic. However I am pointing out that in order to have a defendable stance you need to make a linear comparisson. Currently, Christianity is leaps and bounds ahead of Islam regarding sexism, which is why many people have notions of Islam always being what it is today and Christianity always being what it is today.
KnightofPhoenix wrote... What the Saudis are doing is un-Islamic and a small minority see this as legitimate.
The legitimacy attributed by outsiders is irrelevant to the impression this makes. That is the way this countries work, where clerics rule and impose law. This is the islam that the world sees backed up by Nation-Estates. Just as Catholics look to the Vatican, Saudi calls itself the Islamic Capital. If the Pope is blamed for aids in Africa because of his "no condoms" comments, then of course Islam is looked as sexist and backwards when 15 girls die in a burning building because the "decency police" didn't let them get out of the school because their faces where not covered.
KnightofPhoenix wrote... The Saudi so called Sharia Law is being dictated by the Wahhabi sect, that exists only in Saudi Arabia (and influence the Taliban), and is part of a minority within a minority (Hanbali). Even other Salafi conservatives are highly critical of the Saudi question.
Sharia Law has been used to deny women rights in Yemen, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and several countries in Africa. If I was Islamic I would consider this a cancer eating my religion and expanding rapidly and alarmingly. It is irrelevant if it is the Islam that you believe in or not, it is the Islam that is taking over governments.
KnightofPhoenix wrote... I never said that there is an ideal Islamic society today. And I never denied what some so called Islamic nations are doing. I find it abhorent. And it has no real basis in the faith proper.
All I am trying to explain is why people have this notions. These are real and important problems, and in order for you to defend the Islam that you believe in as not being part of the more publiziced one, then you need to provide those facts.
KnightofPhoenix wrote... Furthermore, not all Islamic nations do this today. Even other gulf nations, like the Emirates and Qatar reject this nonsense.
The Emirates... yes they aren't really what they are made up to be. A salient reason why my husband turned down an offer to move there last year. Dubai tried to do things the "western way" but reality is it was a front to keep investment coming and it is quickly showing to be much more sexist than anyone could tell from those pictures. Not two months ago a British woman who reported being raped got arrested for having premarital sex!
---
I am not attacking your beliefs. But the reality is this: Islam as it is proposed to the world by the Nations who claim devotion to it is a sexist proposition. This might not be what it is "supposed to" be. But it is what we see.
Fexelea wrote... I am not attacking your beliefs. But the reality is this: Islam as it is proposed to the world by the Nations who claim devotion to it is a sexist proposition. This might not be what it is "supposed to" be. But it is what we see.
I know, and I did not deny that.
What I said is that this has no basis in the Faith itself. And the majority of Muslims reject this. And we are trying to change.
But what some Muslims do =/= what Islam teaches. I know it's too much to ask from non-Muslims to actually do some research about our history or read the Qu'ran and what the scholars say about this. But in that position, yoiu can only judge the nation doing these atrocities itself and not the faith, which you (by you, I don't mean you specifically) don't know about.
I am not blaming the others though. I think we should start cleaning house and we are trying. And we are doing so with real basis from our Faith and not cultural traditions and whatever a minority sect decided was a good idea.
Oh and "Saudi Arabia as the capital of Islam". Other than Mecca and Medina being there, Saudi Arabia is not seen at all as the capital of Islam and least of all its leaders.
This might not be what it is "supposed to" be. But it is what we see.
Exactly what's wrong with people, if you ask me. Too many idiots who I've met claim to follow a religion, but only choose the bits and pieces that fit into their own close-minded mold.
Actually I have done my research on the subject and I have read the Qran (Albeit translated). I even speak some Arabic and kept up with Saudi newspapers. I understand more of Islam than your average Joe would.
Far from making me an expert of course, but the thing with religions, everywhere is that interpretation plays a big part. Was Muhammed a pedophile or was he protecting his wife? Does this means it is ok to given children to marriage with adults or was that an act of compassion of a Holy man? Points like this are to be interpreted and faith comes into play. This is why the divergence is there, and what you see as the "real" interpretation might not be real to a non-believer or to a believer with a different culture.
How do you know what the "mayority" of muslims agree with? Do you think those in Africa all agree with your more moderate stance? How about the ones in the Philipinnes and India? or Indonesia? Malaysia? Pakistan? Their actions do not show this. Sharia law as a means to oppress women is widespread and accepted as being justified by the Book.
@KnightofPhoenix Far from making me an expert of course, but the thing with religions, everywhere is that interpretation plays a big part. Was Muhammed a pedophile or was he protecting his wife? Does this means it is ok to given children to marriage with adults or was that an act of compassion of a Holy man? Points like this are to be interpreted and faith comes into play. This is why the divergence is there, and what you see as the "real" interpretation might not be real to a non-believer or to a believer with a different culture.
First off, key things to remember when talking about Aisha: In Arabia, mortality rates were very high, due to hugner, war, disease and what have you. Thus it was a necessity for women to marry very early and convieve as many children as possible, in order to sustain a high fertility rate. So women marrying very young was very normal and once they show the first signs of puberty, they were seen as elligible to marriage. So Prophet Muhammade's marriage to Aisha was considered normal and no one saw it as a problem. The problem is that taking a modern day law (that keeps changing BTW) and trying to judge a man who lived 1400 years before this law. Pedophilia, as a legal charge, varries from country to country. If we are to say that men who marry women who are less than 16 or 14 or what have you, regardless of the time and place of their birth, then you are condemning humanity for what it was doing for the past several millenia. It isn't a question of interpretation.
Yes, Aisha would be considered too young by our standards. By their standards, it wasn't at all.
Does this mean that today a Muslims should be allowed to do the same? No, because things have changed. It is no longer necessary for women to marry young to sustain a high fertility rate. Do some Muslim coutnries allow it? Yes. Not all agree with it.
2 sources of Sharia Law, Ijma' (consensus) and Qiyas (measurement) come into play here. Both of those can be used to alter the legal age of marriage for women. Which shows reform is possible within the faith itself.
Fexelea wrote... How do you know what the "mayority" of muslims agree with? Do you think those in Africa all agree with your more moderate stance? How about the ones in the Philipinnes and India? or Indonesia? Malaysia? Pakistan? Their actions do not show this. Sharia law as a means to oppress women is widespread and accepted as being justified by the Book.
From the 4 Mathhabs and how popular they are. The Hanafi school of law (the liberal one) has the majority of followers, both historically and today. Next comes the Shafi'i (centrists). Then comes the Maliki (traditionalists) Then comes the Hanbali, ultra conservatives, who have always been a minority, hsitorically and today.
In addition to me having lived in the Middle East, visisted most of the countries and met with many people, all of which reject this. In addition to going to many conferences, meetings, lecture...etc from ISlamic scholars who also reject this and provide their evidence from the book.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
