Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:I wanna meet your old man kk, whats his story?

He was in the RAF in the 1950s and was stationed in all sorts of places such as Gibraltar, Egypt, Aden (now called the Yemen) and Ceylon (now called Sri Lanka).

He formed a low opinion of arabs based on his observations of their behaviour at that time.

SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?

No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?

dogma wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?

No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?

Why should we care about women's rights?

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?

No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?

Why should we care about women's rights?

I can't think of a single good reason why.

LordofHats wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As I've read in the Qur'an, it is less about equality and rights and more about, if read from a certain angle, a woman is less an object or property to be beaten and do all the gak jobs and more an object or property to be 'hidden away from the world in a guilded cage and told she's special as long as she doesn't answer back or demand or make any decisions, bless her...'

Either way is still unacceptable in a western democracy, just one way has (potentially) fewer bruises.

You obviously haven't read the Quran then

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them – except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary, live with them according to the norms [of the society]. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. ~ Qu'ran 4:19

Basically, you can't be mean to your wife even if you don't like her.

I stated I have read the Qur'an, an English interpretation thereof, in order to fully understand how I felt on matters pertaining to that faith as my rising dislike of the religion was, I felt at the time, at odds with my beliefs as a liberal and tolerant person. Admittedly that was about 7 years ago, but I was clear on what I read. Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.


Some counter quotes for you btw.

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

4:35 Surely it is better to remind the wife of her duty, or sulk for a while, or even strike her lightly, and then bring in arbiters who could, if all attempts at reconciliation fail, rule in favor of divorce

2:222 They ask you about menstruation: Say, it is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it... Your women are the bearers of your seed. Thus, you may enjoy this privilege however you like, so long as you maintain righteousness. You shall observe God, and know that you will meet Him. Give good news to the believers.

2:228 And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

2.223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will.

Amaya wrote:
Why should we care about women's rights?

Rights to do what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.

The funny thing about languages is that they rarely subject themselves to exact translations. This is especially true of English translations of Arabic.

For example, this is another translation of 4:34:

4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

...and another...

4:34: Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah requires them to guard (their husband’s property and their own honor). As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.

the sume of the collective translations is that women should be beaten when necessary, which is a rather subjective matter. After all, no one would deny that a woman should be beaten in the event that she is trying to kill another.

There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.

Also, I thought that four out of the five most populous Muslim countries in the world had elected Female heads of state?

I really don't buy into the whole "Islam will kill us all!" stuff. I have done research, and have come to my own conclusion that it really isn't bad at all. I think that a lot of the problems with it are more cultural than religious, and even then most of those have only happened in recent years.

I'm not saying that bad things have been done by Muslims, but I don't think that gives me the right to judge all of them for it.

People never criticize Buddhism because of violence that has been caused by some of it's members, even thought it has, unfortunately happened in the past. Seem like a double standard to me. Granted, Buddhists probably haven't killed as much people as Muslims have, but its the same basic concept. Their religion said to never kill, and they did anyway.

Mike Noble wrote:There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.

Also, I thought that four out of the five most populous Muslim countries in the world had elected Female heads of state?

I really don't buy into the whole "Islam will kill us all!" stuff. I have done research, and have come to my own conclusion that it really isn't bad at all. I think that a lot of the problems with it are more cultural than religious, and even then most of those have only happened in recent years. I'm not saying that bad things have been done by Muslims, but I don't think that gives me the right to judge all of them for it.

People never criticize Buddhism because of violence that has been caused by some of it's members, even thought it has, unfortunately happened in the past. Seem like a double standard to me. Granted, Buddhists probably haven't killed as much people as Muslims have, but its the same basic concept. Their religion said to never kill, and they did anyway.

That's the result of Islamism which has grown due to their percieved failure of Arab nationalism.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Why should we care about women's rights?

Rights to do what?

Whatever they chose to do in accordance with the nation's laws.

dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.

The funny thing about languages is that they rarely subject themselves to exact translations. This is especially true of English translations of Arabic.

For example, this is another translation of 4:34:

4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

...and another...

4:34: Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah requires them to guard (their husband’s property and their own honor). As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.

the sume of the collective translations is that women should be beaten when necessary, which is a rather subjective matter. After all, no one would deny that a woman should be beaten in the event that she is trying to kill another.

It's fairly likely, to a non-believer like me, that any book as old and as interpreted as the holy books of several of the major religions will have undergone several translations and that the likelihood of deviation from the original intended meaning, intentional or not, is highly likely.

I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.

If you can find the interpretation that says 'only beat up a woman when she's trying to take your face off with the hedge strimmer' and I'll relent...

Dogma brings up a good point. Translations issues abound in the Old Testament. Not surprising they may be present in Arabic. I hadn't considered that. I am not familiar enough with Islamic theology to really go into verse by verse examination, especially when Sunni and Shia have two different collections of Hadith that effect the outcome.

There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.

I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.

Amaya wrote:
Whatever they chose to do in accordance with the nation's laws.

So why is it a problem that certain nations do not, legally, allow their women to leave the house unaccompanied?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.

No, one of them speaks of scourging women, which doesn't necessarily mean "beat", or anything relating to physical harm at all.

In any case, modern, Western society still features a significant gap between the status of men and women, so I fail to see how there is a categorical gap. After all, the book in question is not being so specific as you claim. It tells men to, minimally, excoriate women when necessary, but doesn't really explain what brings about that necessity. You're inserting that meaning due to your own emotionally compromised status.

Either way, you might want men and women to be equal, but evidently your views are not reflected in the reality of the world; glass ceiling and all.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Whatever they chose to do in accordance with the nation's laws.

So why is it a problem that certain nations do not, legally, allow their women to leave the house unaccompanied?

Who said it was?

What's the point of calling it a court, if actually upholding its laws would be against the real Law? May as well call it a "Sharia Discussion Group" for all I care. If it cannot uphold ALL of its laws then it is not a law at all. You can't have a legal system where only SOME of the laws are enforcable.

Courts don't create laws, they pass judgements.

Your comment is meaningless.

Kilkrazy wrote:Courts don't create laws, they pass judgements.

Your comment is meaningless.

Okay fine, if the judgement they pass is unenforcable by the law. Better?
Your comment is nitpicky.

If you post nits, you must expect them to be picked.

If the judgement is unenforceable by the law, it will be unenforceable.

If it is enforceable by the law, then it will be enforceable.

You see how your comment only makes any sense if you have made the prejudicial decision that a Sharia court could not possibly come up with a sensible, enforceable judgement.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.

No, one of them speaks of scourging women, which doesn't necessarily mean "beat", or anything relating to physical harm at all.

But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.

dogma wrote:
In any case, modern, Western society still features a significant gap between the status of men and women, so I fail to see how there is a categorical gap. After all, the book in question is not being so specific as you claim. It tells men to, minimally, excoriate women when necessary, but doesn't really explain what brings about that necessity. You're inserting that meaning due to your own emotionally compromised status.

Either way, you might want men and women to be equal, but evidently your views are not reflected in the reality of the world; glass ceiling and all.

Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.

And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.

A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.

Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.

LordofHats wrote:Dogma brings up a good point. Translations issues abound in the Old Testament. Not surprising they may be present in Arabic. I hadn't considered that. I am not familiar enough with Islamic theology to really go into verse by verse examination, especially when Sunni and Shia have two different collections of Hadith that effect the outcome.

There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.

I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.

Well that makes sense then, I was really just pointing out that some posters here seem to be painting all Muslims with the same brush here.

As for translations, obviously that's the case, but their are two other things you need to remember. First of all, some of the quotes you see from religious texts are taken out of context, but more importantly, are often misinterpreted. Their are many parts in the Bible that seem to advocate violence, when really they do not.

Regardless, it would be wise to consider the lost in translations that may occur in them.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.

Thankfully the Koran has only been recently translated into English in any sort of mass, so recent versus archaic usages of words need not be a concern.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.

No, you recognize that as wrong. If Western society recognized (to the extent that a society can recognize anything) it as wrong, there would be no glass ceiling.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.

Diametric opposition requires a categorical conflict, and Western society (parts of it anyway) accepts violence when it is perpetrated in self-defense, so there is no categorical conflict.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.

Again, if that were true it wouldn't exist. The people that create the glass ceiling are still Western.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.

And your understanding of the Koran is juvenile. You want a certain conclusion where there does not exist evidence to derive one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
Who said it was?

You did by starting this thread.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.

Thankfully the Koran has only been recently translated into English in any sort of mass, so recent versus archaic usages of words need not be a concern.

Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.

No, you recognize that as wrong. If Western society recognized (to the extent that a society can recognize anything) it as wrong, there would be no glass ceiling.

It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.

Diametric opposition requires a categorical conflict, and Western society (parts of it anyway) accepts violence when it is perpetrated in self-defense, so there is no categorical conflict.

Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.

Again, if that were true it wouldn't exist. The people that create the glass ceiling are still Western.

Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.

And your understanding of the Koran is juvenile. You want a certain conclusion where there does not exist evidence to derive one.

It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...

That a man might beat his wife in the Western household is true, but it is a crime, whereas in Islam, it can be claimed to be the direct will and instruction of God. That is a fundamental disconnect with being able to hold a court on civil matters in a Western nation.

As to my reaching a conclusion, many millions of muslims have done the very same, perhaps their understanding is as juvenile as mine is, according to your judgement. Men are advised to beat their wives according to the word of God as written in the Qur'an by their holy men and religious teachers.

If something were 'clearly set out' in the book there wouldn't be different sects of Islam as well as different subsets within those sects. There would be no disagreement on anything.

Ahtman wrote:If something were 'clearly set out' in the book there wouldn't be different sects of Islam as well as different subsets within those sects. There would be no disagreement on anything.

I didn't claim everything was, only the bits on treating women as second class human beings.

I actually meant to phrase that as a question.

Oh, Dogma.

I don't give a flying feth what they do in their countries. The issue arises when they come into western countries and attempt to hold onto their radical idealogy.

Amaya wrote:I don't give a flying feth what they do in their countries.

But what they do in their countries leads to what they do in in your country. The same is true for the opposite of course.

Amaya wrote:It would help if you read the posts.

It would help if you would some effort to defend your line of argument, even in the loosest fashion.

So I'll ask again, what have people migrating legally to the UK got to do with invasions that happened centuries ago?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:IThe only real difference between a Cult and a Religion is a semantic one, but on the surface, the difference can be seen as bottom line membership numbers.

Nah, there's real and important differences. A cult will dominate the lives of its members, generally to an unsustainable or self-destructive level, generally under the leadership of a single person. That is to say, even if there's no more than a dozen members, if they live more or less healthy lives with decent levels of contact with society then it isn't really a cult. On the other hand, you can have 200,000 members but if they close themselves off, follow the directions of dear leader absolutely, and find the requirements of their faith spinning them to self destruction then it is a cult.

It's easy to say "well you can leave this culture if you want", but religion is brainwashing. ALL religions are brainwashing, whether they are benevolent or not.

Nah, brainwashing has a real and specific meaning, requiring the breaking down of a person entirely then rebuilding them with a new belief system. Under your definition above any effort to teach someone something would be brainwashing, and the word would cease to have any meaning.

The difference between sharia law and these cults is that it's already plainly and simply against the law of the land to do an honor killing, they don't hide the fact and not talk about it existing, like most wierdo groups in cults do in their inbred little isolated communities, its WRITTEN RIGHT THERE!

No, seriously, we're talking about Sharia courts in the UK, which have no means to rule on any criminal matter. Honour killings and the like are part of Islamic culture in some places, but really, really don't have a place in this conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.

I'm not sure that's really the case. Most Islamic migrants to Australia are coming from Indonesia and India and similar places, but the idea of Islam here is still dominated by what is, ultimately, a stereotypical Arabic image.

I don't really know why, at a guess I'd say that we've never really bothered to look at Islam in our media. But we had started forming an idea of what an Arab was, and one of the things we understood about them was they they were Islamic. So when Islam became a more important thing in the minds of people in the West, we took what we already knew, Arabs are Islamic, and turned that into Muslims are Arabs.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.

No we can't, and this made evident by the dozens, and there are dozens, of interpretations that state things like "hit without doing harm", or "spank".

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.

Maybe in the UK, and certainly in the United States, but in both places there is still an obvious glass ceiling. Clearly certain people don't agree with the legislation that's in place, otherwise women would all make just as much as equally qualified men, given this obvious disconnection that our society has absorbed I see no reason that we couldn't also absorb any disconnection that arises from a particular interpretation of the Koran.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.

That entirely depends on how its interpreted, just as in any other holy book. You're choosing to focus on the most negative interpretation, for whatever reason.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.

Again, as others have said, Islam cannot sanctify anything as it is not an agent. Its members can, however, act according to individual biases and prejudices just like those Western individuals that support the glass ceiling.

Its also important to remember that the passage of legislation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the will of the people, but the will of those people who exert the most influence over the legislatures. Simply because a law exists, or the media says something, does not indicate that the majority of people agree with it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...

No, I'm simply not passing judgment. I don't claim to know what is correct, I merely know what I prefer, and I make no attempt to extrapolate the former from the latter except where forced.

In any case, nothing is clearly set out in the Koran anymore than anything is clearly set out in the Bible. Indeed, for English speakers the Koran is probably far less reliable because of how difficult it is to translate Arabic to English.

Again, you're choosing to hinge your opinion on one particular reading of the Koran for reasons of which I'm not certain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Oh, Dogma.

I don't give a flying feth what they do in their countries. The issue arises when they come into western countries and attempt to hold onto their radical idealogy.

There you go with that us and them nonsense. They're not aliens you know.

Either way, why do you care about what happens in England? Why draw the line at Western, instead of at American, or Human?

And just why should I care what they do in their countries? How would exactly would that be enforced? You can't simply walk in there and change it overnight.

@Sebster: There's no point talking you when you're unable to accept that the problem is not essentialy Islam, but radical Muslims, who are predominately Arabic. The revived interest in establishing Sharia law both in Muslim nations is directly linked to Islamism. For whatever reason, the fact that there are radical Arab Muslims living in Europe escapes you. Yes, I dislike Islam, I dislike Christianity for that matter, and any religion or culture that actively seeks to convert and control others. As I've said again and again, Christianity and Judaism very rarely actively seek that, unlike Islamism.

I also think its wrong for Western nations to attempt to impose their ideals upon other nations. I think America interfers far too often in Middle Eastern affairs and I think invading Iraq was a mistake especially when we like to buddy up to dictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Muslims have lived in Europe for a long time and it is only in the last 20 years, primarily the last decade, that there has been an increased demand for Sharia law in certain areas.

Why do I care what happens in Europe? America considers Europe, particulary England and France, to be allies.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.

No we can't, and this made evident by the dozens, and there are dozens, of interpretations that state things like "hit without doing harm", or "spank".

That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.

Maybe in the UK, and certainly in the United States, but in both places there is still an obvious glass ceiling. Clearly certain people don't agree with the legislation that's in place, otherwise women would all make just as much as equally qualified men, given this obvious disconnection that our society has absorbed I see no reason that we couldn't also absorb any disconnection that arises from a particular interpretation of the Koran.

Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.

Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.

That entirely depends on how its interpreted, just as in any other holy book. You're choosing to focus on the most negative interpretation, for whatever reason.

Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.

Again, as others have said, Islam cannot sanctify anything as it is not an agent. Its members can, however, act according to individual biases and prejudices just like those Western individuals that support the glass ceiling.

Its also important to remember that the passage of legislation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the will of the people, but the will of those people who exert the most influence over the legislatures. Simply because a law exists, or the media says something, does not indicate that the majority of people agree with it.

No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...

No, I'm simply not passing judgment. I don't claim to know what is correct, I merely know what I prefer, and I make no attempt to extrapolate the former from the latter except where forced.

In any case, nothing is clearly set out in the Koran anymore than anything is clearly set out in the Bible. Indeed, for English speakers the Koran is probably far less reliable because of how difficult it is to translate Arabic to English.

So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?
Reports indicate not good, I've certainly encountered women on the run from these communities in the past from several sources. They do not paint a good picture of how the Qur'an is being interpreted and their injuries attest to how 'scourge' is viewed. Point of note, electrical cabling seems a favourite weapon but some husbands and fathers have learnt about the wisdom of cold wet towels not leaving a bruise.

I know what I prefer as well, I prefer to deal with anyone who wishes to promote peaceable and cultured exchange and do not subjugate half their population based on a gender prejudice.

dogma wrote:
Again, you're choosing to hinge your opinion on one particular reading of the Koran for reasons of which I'm not certain.

I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion. You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.

Yes, that exists as well. As I said, there are dozens of interpretations.

In any case, I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining to you that your opinion of the matter is based on a very simplistic understanding of Koranic text, and Islam as a whole.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.

Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.

No, you've been talking about how those supposed sanctions make Islam incompatible with your conception of Western values. My point is that there are lots of Western citizens whose values are also incompatible with the conception you have advanced. As you have said, we, currently and in most cases, will find and punish people that break the legal prohibitions that we have put in place to protect a certain class of citizens. There is no reason that we cannot do the same thing to Muslims that insist on practicing a "barbaric" form of Sharia. The fact that such people might be punished does not indicate that Islam is not compatible with your set of values, it simply indicates that there will be a conflict that the state must arbitrate, just like any other.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.

See, that's just wrong, and plainly illustrates why you're having a problem understanding Islam.

There is a massive amount of variance in the practice of Islam, possibly more than any other religion due to the geographic spread of the faith. What is considered good practice by a Saudi Arabian will have very little in common with the same normative conceptions of an Indonesian.

It is true that the practices you describe are practiced by many Muslims, but there are also many far more moderate Muslims that tend to be largely ignored by Western media because they don't make for good television.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.

You really do love your tautological descriptions, don't you?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?

Unfortunately that is not sufficient to indicate that Islam is the problematic variable. Note that many non-Islamic nations that are given to similar levels of development also feature poor treatment of women.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion.

See, that's another problem. You're not hinging your opinion on what is popular in the "Muslim world", you're hinging your opinion on what a large amount of Western media tells you is popular in the "Muslim world" where "Muslim world" is basically just code for "Middle East".

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not making a qualitative argument at all. I am, again, merely explaining to you what the words you're discussing actually mean outside your own judgment of the matter.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.

No, the issue is whether or not those women are worse off because of Islam, and if Islam is therefore something that cannot be integrated into Western culture. This is an argument that requires a careful regard for any sort of necessity that follows from the translation, and subsequent interpretation of Koranic text.