The worst thing about Muslims

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) Their mistreatment of women
2) Their suicidal aggression
3) Their rejection of Jesus

the worse thing about christians...

what do you think...

1, their mistreatment of fact
2, their agression toward fact
3, their rejection of fact

Originally posted by eatmybishop
the worse thing about christians...

what do you think...

1, their mistreatment of fact
2, their agression toward fact
3, their rejection of fact

The rejection of fact is essentially the worst thing a rational being can do.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://www.yuricareport.com/Iraq/IraqiConstDraftSubjectsWomentoIslamicLaw.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would [b]cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.

The document's writers are also d ...[text shortened]... y by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence[/b].

...

[/b]

Sorry , I didn't get it,

What the Iraq constitution has to do with what we talk about?

I'm talking about Islam.

What is the mistreatment you see?

More important than that: What really matters is what you see, but what the muslim woman see?

OK,

Lets ask the question again: What mistreatment for woman you see?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Speaking of Islam...I read a fairly interesting book recently that devoted some time ot the question of Jihad and "suicidal aggression" here is a quote:

The End of Faith by Sam Harris

"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, i suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book - that of a single suicide bomber following rhe conse ...[text shortened]... in a kind of unbelief.

Paradise is in the shadow of swords."

Yikes!

TheSkipper

Ahosyney can probably respond better than I. Nevertheless, I’ll just make four quick points:

(1) Jihad does not always—or even mostly—refer to physical fighting. It simply means struggle. For a Christian, for example, monasticism would be a kind of jihad. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance was a form of jihad.

(2) Context is important. Though you cited hadith, I only say this because people have taken so many Quranic statements out of context, a context that sometimes refers only to a specific historical situation.

Let me throw in a few statements of Jesus, that any Christian would (rightfully) accuse me of wrenching out of context—not only textual, but in terms of the whole thrust of Jesus’ message:

Matthew 10: 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”

Or—Luke 14:26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Or—Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.”

(3) I am far more skeptical about hadith than perhaps most Muslims are. Any given hadith needs to be evaluated both according to its isnad (the chronological chain that indicates whether or not a given person could have related the hadith to someone else), and content—e.g., does it conflict with other ahadith or the Qur’an.

I am always suspicious of folks who simply start to quote lists of ahadith to make their point.

(4) Different groups of Muslims probably argue with one another about who the “true” Muslims are as do Christians or Jews or anyone else. The Wahhabis, for example, think that anyone that does not toe the line to their severe strictures and “fundamentalistic” interpretations is an infidel. I don’t think it behooves people outside Islam to imply that the likes of Fatima Mernissi or Abou ibn El Fadl—both of whom struggle against extremist positions—that they are not “true” Muslims. (And, Skipper, I’m certainly not implying that that’s what you’re doing—I respect your voice of reason on here, and take your post as simply asking the question....)

Originally posted by ahosyney
Sorry , I didn't get it,

What the Iraq constitution has to do with what we talk about?

I'm talking about Islam.

What is the mistreatment you see?

More important than that: What really matters is what you see, but what the muslim woman see?

OK,

Lets ask the question again: What mistreatment for woman you see?

You as a muslim should not even have to ask that question. Women are treated as chattle in most muslim countries as well you know.
Try Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to have DRIVERS LICENSE's for instance. Where in the Qu'ran does it say that women are second class and should be treated as baby machines and not much else? There is a hidden cost to this treatment: In countries where there Muslims have been in power forever, there is a big problem in that the subjugation of women deprives that culture of a vast supply of intellect, since these countries feel only men can think and therefore only men will make the major decisions, its like working on a problem with only half your people who COULD work on some problem and therefore be more likely to come up with a solution. I am speaking only in the most general terms here but I think MAYBE you get my point. You miss out on half the brains of the human race. Of course most Muslim men would reject that argument out of hand much to their disadvantage. Mind you, I am not advocating a culture where women are in charge, just a lot more equal. For instance, in the UK the tennis tourny Wimbleton has just made the prize fund for women the same as men. How many Muslim countries even allow ANY opportunity for women to play tennis professionally? So there goes another avenue of a country to have tax paying citizens achieve far above the national average, since statistically, since muslims are say, 1/3 of the human race, therefore there are many muslim women who would be more than able to compete in tennis but why are they not allowed? Because backwards muslim men don't have enough self control to be able to view any part of a woman's body, apparently driving them insane. That is the men's problem not the woman's.
The same thing happened in early america and britain but they were able to work through those issues. Mind you, I am not talking about strippers slipping up and down a pole, just giving women the same clothing rights as a man, who can be seen in shorts and t shirt anywhere in the muslim world and if frowned upon, won't be subject to stoning or other barbaric practices. It's time for Muslim men to grow up sexually and allow their women to compete on the world market in sports and business and science so muslims can have the use of half of their brainpower which is so stilted now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You as a muslim should not even have to ask that question. Women are treated as chattle in most muslim countries as well you know.
Try Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to have DRIVERS LICENSE's for instance. Where in the Qu'ran does it say that women are second class and should be treated as baby machines and not much else? There is a hidden ...[text shortened]... science so muslims can have the use of half of their brainpower which is so stilted now.

I ask you the question:

Where in Quran it say that the woman is a second class?

All what you said has nothing to do with Islamic law. Islamic law is not applied any where. Some countries apply part of it, and some apply their own thinking. But not Quran or Hadith or any Islamic source say that the woman is a second class citizen:

Any way I'm tired of that. Every one say Islam mistreat woman. When I say give me an example of an Islamic law that Mistreat woman, you tell me Sudia Arebia don't give a woman a driver licence. Does this make any sense.

I will not answer any of that. Either you give me an Islamic law, not human interpretation. Or you are free to think what you want.

Regards

Originally posted by vistesd
Ahosyney can probably respond better than I. Nevertheless, I’ll just make four quick points:

(1) Jihad does not always—or even mostly—refer to physical fighting. It simply means struggle. For a Christian, for example, monasticism would be a kind of jihad. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance was a form of jihad.

(2) Context is important. Though ...[text shortened]... respect your voice of reason on here, and take your post as simply asking the question....)

Thank you for your answer, I don't think I can add to what you said.

The word Jihad is very miss interpreted. And with a few study of Islamic doctrains one will find that fact. But no one wants to.

Regards

Originally posted by ahosyney
Thank you for your answer, I don't think I can add to what you said.

The word Jihad is very miss interpreted. And with a few study of Islamic doctrains one will find that fact. But no one wants to.

Regards

I guess it is as much of a struggle for Muslims to be true to their faith in their "own" countries as it is anywhere else. I recall the debate as to whether state power and Islam could possibly coincide is centuries old.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You as a muslim should not even have to ask that question. Women are treated as chattle in most muslim countries as well you know.
Try Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to have DRIVERS LICENSE's for instance. Where in the Qu'ran does it say that women are second class and should be treated as baby machines and not much else? There is a hidden science so muslims can have the use of half of their brainpower which is so stilted now.

Interesting side note since you mentioned women not being allowed to obtain a drivers license in saudi Arabia. I quote again from The End of Faith by Sam Harris: (i read it recently and it is still bouncing around in my mind...sorry for all the quotes from the same book...I have read many other and from differing points of view, i promise!)

"The Saudi prince Abdullah, for instance - a man who by no means has distinguished himself as a liberal - recently proposed that women shouldbe permitted to drive automobiles in his country. As it turns out, his greatly oppressed people would not stand for this degree of spiritual oppression, and the prince was forced to back down. At this point in thier history, give most Muslims the freedom to vote, and they will freely vote to tear out their political freedoms by the root."

This revelation above all else in the book scared me the most becaue it shows just how impossible it is to deal with a group of people who willingly cling to irrational belief. I think it is dangerous.

EDIT - I, of course, include adherants of other faiths not just Muslims in this belief.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Christians taught Muslims all about aggression in the Crusades so don't even go there, Muslims are just doing what Christians taught them. Take a peek at Saladin during the Crusades, he was very tolerant of ofther religions even though Christians attacked him. Muslims need another Saladin now for sure. Just because Muslims are a thousand years 'behind' chr ...[text shortened]... ianity in certain respect, they will tone down the rhetoric eventually just like Cristianity.

No, let's go there.

Christians taught Muslims all about aggression in the Crusades

Really? Was it Christians who invaded the Holy Land? Was it Christians who started razing down holy sites of the Muslims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Middle_Eastern_situation

Take a peek at Saladin during the Crusades, he was very tolerant of ofther religions even though Christians attacked him.

Really? Would this be the same Saladin who said "I think that when God grants me victory over the rest of Palestine I shall divide my territories, make a will stating my wishes, then set sail on this sea for their far-off lands and pursue the Franks there, so as to free the earth of anyone who does not believe in God, or die in the attempt"? The same Saladin who ordered the beheading of all POWs from the Battle of Hattin? The same Saladin who refused to allow the peaceful surrender of Jerusalem until Balian threatened to execute all the Muslims living within?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#Fighting_the_Crusaders


Seriously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, let's go there.

Sonhouse's comment is very silly. Christians and Muslims alike showed themselves capable of wholesale slaughter well before the Crusades.

Originally posted by vistesd
Ahosyney can probably respond better than I. Nevertheless, I’ll just make four quick points:

(1) Jihad does not always—or even mostly—refer to physical fighting. It simply means struggle. For a Christian, for example, monasticism would be a kind of jihad. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance was a form of jihad.

(2) Context is important. Though respect your voice of reason on here, and take your post as simply asking the question....)

vistesd,

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and i will assure you that i have far more questions to ask when it comes to Islam than I have statements to make.

However, I cannot deny that which I have observed for myself and I will say that Islam, at this moment in history, is being used (and quite successfully) to promote huge amounts of violence and hatred. From what i can see it need not be perverted much, if at all, to accomplish this goal. I do not pull any punches in my criticism of the Christian Crusades nor will I pull punches in my criticism of Muslim Terrorism; I think you can agree this is reasonable.

Now, I have read the Koran and when one considers that most Christians have not even read the Bible (I'm not a Christian, myself, anymore but I once was in the not so distant past) i consider myself to be at least somewhat ahead of the curve when it comes to my awareness of the two faiths. What I noticed about the Koran is that I could hardly get through a single page without being instructed to despise non-believers or a passage which clearly prepares the ground for religious conflict. I do not consider this an indictment of Islam alone but merely an example of the dangers of devoutly held irrational belief. Ultimately, there is not enough context in all the world to completely discount every call to violence and expressed desire to conquer the entire world for Allah.

I can only guess that those responsible for the crusades were equally convinced that their actions were entirely consistent with their religious doctrines and it is for this reason, chief among others that I do not condemn a specific religion...I condemn them all.

I understand you are more skeptical of hadith than most Muslims but then again it is not you who I worry is going to blow himself up in front of a market place. Your skepticism is what saves you and it is the lack of that same skepticism in some (many? who knows) Muslims (and people of many other faiths) that ultimately condemns them.

Again, I recognize your skepticism of hadith but when one considers that hadith is often used as the lens through which to interpret the Koran, many Muslim jurists consider it an even greater authority on the parctice of Islam. A Muslim friend of mine once described reading the Koran without hadith would be akin to me attempting to read the Bible without a translation.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by sonhouse
You as a muslim should not even have to ask that question. Women are treated as chattle in most muslim countries as well you know.
Try Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to have DRIVERS LICENSE's for instance. Where in the Qu'ran does it say that women are second class and should be treated as baby machines and not much else? There is a hidden ...[text shortened]... science so muslims can have the use of half of their brainpower which is so stilted now.

I’m not disagreeing with you, sonhouse. But let me see if I can construct an analogy from a religion that I have studied far more than Islam, to make the single point I want to make here—

Jewish texts and traditions permit a husband to divorce his wife, but do not permit a wife to divorce her husband. Among the major Jewish expressions, there are three responses to this (assuming in all cases whatever “proper grounds” might be, which I don’t know):

Orthodox: In cases where the rabbis conclude that a divorce ought to be permitted, but the husband refuses, the community tries to persuade or even coerce the husband into giving the wife the divorce. If they fail, they fail; text and tradition cannot be violated.

Conservative: Following traditions of rabbinical inventiveness, the rabbis simply write into the marriage contract that the husband will grant the divorce requested by the wife.

Reform: Equal rights of women, as a matter of justice, trump the tradition. No problem.

(Note: Both Conservative and Reform Jews ordain women as rabbis.)

Now, my only point, is that all three groups think of themselves as religious Jews, true to their understanding of Judaism. Reform Jews do not think they are less Jewish (in the religious sense) because they ordain women and allow women equal rights. And I think it would be improper for a non-Jew to assert that only the Orthodox are “true” Jews, or that reform Jews are somehow hypocritical with regard to their religion.

And that kind of problem crops up whenever we say things like “Christians believe...,” or “Buddhism teaches...”—as if these are static and monolithic religions. Except in the case of a limited number of core beliefs—and these are often subject to broad interpretation—such generalities are bound to be inaccurate. (I am guilty of it too sometimes, when I am trying to cut down on keystrokes....)

Again, I think you have been careful here to avoid that kind of confusion, so this post is not really in response to you; it just triggered this attempt at clarifying my basic point. People who find their religious faith to be enriching, but also see injustice being perpetrated in the name of their religion, should not have to assume that they must necessarily relinquish the former in order to combat the latter. (It might turn out that they do, but that is another matter.)

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I'm not a Christian, myself, anymore but I once was in the not so distant past

Holy smokes! I think this is the first documented conversion in the Spirituality forum. Congratulations.

Atheists: +1
Christians: -1

Originally posted by TheSkipper
vistesd,

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and i will assure you that i have far more questions to ask when it comes to Islam than I have statements to make.

However, I cannot deny that which I have observed for myself and I will say that Islam, at this moment in history, is being used (and quite successfully) to promote huge amounts ut hadith would be akin to me attempting to read the Bible without a translation.

TheSkipper

I have a simple question to you and to every body else:

I think there almost 1600 million Muslims today. May be less may be more.

How many of them are terrorists in your eyes.

What is the ratio of Muslim who have the willing to bomb themselves as you said?

Are all terrorists Muslims?

-----------------------------

I don't excpect anything from that. It is just a simple question!!!