Quote:
Originally Posted by paperfishies
I don't watch fox news nor are my views narrow minded. My views have been formed around world travel, college studies (classes I've taken, one class being a gender studies class that focused on females and the roles we play in religion), non bias sources that gather statistic, as well as speaking to people.
I will dig my Koran out of a box later and post actual passages but I believe in the book there is something about it being acceptable to rape female slaves.
One thing ALL organized religions have in common is, they were created by man to oppress and control certain groups. One of these groups being women. In Arabic, "Islam", means submission. It comes from a word with the root meaning "peace". The religious definition/context of the word means, complete and total submission to the will of G-d (Allah). The Koran, is the word of Allah...So, if you have people who are taking the Koran as 100% literal, their religion will be used to back up whatever extreme things they do. And who's to say they are practicing their religion wrong? This same concept goes for Christians. Each Christian interprets their holy book differently. They believe that what they do is what g-d wants them to do. Who's to say they're wrong?
With the majority of Muslim dominated countries the law of the land is based upon a set of religious beliefs, This is where the problems come in. Often, those in charge are extreme in their beliefs which leaves little to no wiggle room and the results are scary. You end up with countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On to female circumcision. Africa, is not the only place this is practiced and accepted. While the more progressive Muslim countries claim to condemn this horrific practice, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, with around 203 million Muslims. Female circumcision is an accepted practice there. In 2006 the government "banned" it but this ban is not enforced. In fact Many hospitals in Indonesia still offer female circumcision for newborn baby girls. The World Health Organization estimates that 140+ million women have been circumcised.
Shari'ah-Islamic law-has 5 categories that ones actions can fall into...Mandatory,permissible, commendable,detestable, and forbidden....Female circumcision falls into the permissible category...and many Muslims who support this act state they support it because of the prophet Muhammad's witnessing of a female circumcision. You'll have to look up the Hadith, I don't have any books in front of me and don't like relying on google searches for information...But basically, Muhammad gave direction on how to circumcise the female in this instance. Of course shia and sunni muslims will interpret this differently because they follow religious traditions differently. Who is right, who is wrong? Is anyone really wrong?
Here is a quote from a Muslim woman in Indonesia, she is speaking about the government banning female genital mutilation...“That is so sad, because Muslims have to be clean and we live under Islamic law. Even if it is forbidden we would always try to find some one to do it for us, because we have too".
In Indonesia, female circumcision is so widespread the government is trying to figure out how to make this a standard practice, in order to make it more safe for the female children who are forced to endure this. In order to do this, the ban would be lifted.
from: The Rise of Female Circumcision in Indonesia
I think everyone on here would agree that female circumcision is a ritual that only the most extreme take part in. Yet, this extreme ritual is widely accepted and even encouraged in a country that has the worlds highest Muslim population.
Pakistan...While women aren't forced to cover in Pakistan, take a look at their laws regarding women who are sexually assaulted. (Pakistan has around 174 million Muslims.) Let us not forget about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Bangladesh-While rape and spousal abuse are against the "law" in this country, the law favors men. When a woman says she is raped, she is put into "protective custody"...Protective custody often times means these women are held in prison where they are furthered raped and victimized. During time in "protective custody" women are not allowed to leave, even if they want to, they remain held against their will.
So basically the point I am making is when ANY country's laws rely heavily upon religious doctrine, a large number of the population in that country will be oppressed and treated unfairly. It will never be pretty and the people of the country will never truly be free while religious doctrine is used to back up law. Countries that rely heavily on religious doctrine for social laws, often have the most harsh punishments for seemingly victimless crimes. This is a problem.
I don't see Islam as an extreme religion, I do however see Islam as a religion that has very little give and like with any organized religion, I see it as a means to control and oppress the masses.
Under Islamic doctrine, how are homosexuals to be treated?
Under Islamic doctrine how are menstruating women treated?
I ask the question about menstruating women because I truly am curious. In my gender studies class there were several Muslim women. The majority of the Muslim women believed that women are unclean while they are on their period. So this means no touching the Koran, no praying 5 times a day, no sex with her husband, no fasting... and I can't remember what the other things were but I believe there were a few other restrictions.
More progressive Muslim women have taken this to be a very old school line of thought and do not follow this.
To summarize: MANY Muslim countries (not all) rely heavily upon religious doctrine when it comes to their legal system. The non-Muslim world sees this as an extreme and dangerous way of life. Especially those of us in the US, where church and state are supposed to be completely, 100% separate.
|
First of all, I’m intrigued by the religion that you follow. You write the expression ‘G-d’ and your posts have criticised Islam and Christianity (to a far lesser degree of course)...so do you mind sharing which religion you follow? Seems like you are Jewish right? So not impartial when considering the Israel context.
It does NOT say that you can rape female slaves in the Qu’ran. What a horrible manipulative lie. At the time of Islam’s revelation, slavery was the norm in the whole world. Islam did not introduce, institute or encourage slavery, but it tried to change attitudes towards slaves. It is true that men were allowed at that time to have sexual relations with female slaves if both parties wanted, but rape?! You cannot find a true, credible Islamic justification for that, no way. I’d love to see this quote of yours that you mention, is it a non-Muslim translation of the Qu’ran or a controversial translation? The most trusted English translation of the Qu’ran is by Marmaduke Pickthall and I have never seen such a thing written in there. Emancipation of a slave is seen as a really high act in Islam, thankfully this is not necessary anymore since slavery is not a problem like it used to be.
As for Indonesian female circumcision, I don't get it, but that's their culture and choice. It is possible for it to be done in a non-barbaric way, just like with male circumcision. If Indonesians are trying to standardise it then that means that they are aiming to remove the butchery element that some barbarians are fond of. Indonesians are very well educated and have a strong medical system, they will be able to do it justice I hope, for those people who insist on doing it to all their kids, whether they are boys or girls. The fact is, for women it’s is not encouraged in Islam, but only permitted, most Muslim women are not circumcised and most Muslims will agree with these assertions. It is not the norm and never has been no matter how much you try to spin it. The hadith that you mention is not considered to be authentic, here is a quote summarising the issue and the link for article from where it was taken, it’s a long article but explains the issue very well for people who are interested:
“Thus it is clear that in Islamic ruling, clitoridotomy is neither an obligation nor a sunna, with no evidence supporting either. Nor is it a sign of respect because all the hadith endorsing it are poor in authenticity. It is rather a custom, and as such it is not common in all Islamic countries; it is restricted to some. Besides, it is a custom that causes an absolute injury, the infliction of which on any person cannot be accepted without legitimate justification. It is an injury which, particularly in its psychological aspect, cannot be compensated for. If its practice and the injustice it involves, as it is practised in all its forms that are common in our country, causes a woman to lose her ability to enjoy sexual satisfaction, scholars rule that retribution or blood money is due.”
Islamset - Female Circumcision Neither a Sunna, nor a Sign of Respect: Male Circumcision, Chastity and modesty
Yes sodomy is considered a sin (and thus homosexuality) in Islam as in other religions and there are varying answers as to how homosexuals should be dealt with. I’m sure you’ll find all kinds of answers with some vile people suggesting murder, others suggesting ‘straightening them out’ and others that say just leave them be, their sins are between God and them. You’ll find these varying attitudes amongst Christians and Jews too, they are just as anti-gay. Obviously if you are gay that is no comfort but that is religion for you. You don’t have to follow it or like it. But don't make out like only Muslims are prejudiced against gays.
As for the menstruating issue, yes women do not fast, formally pray etc. when they have their period, it is not because women are dirty and nasty which is the simplistic inference that people make (and unfortunately some Muslims contribute to because of their lack of knowledge and their sexism) but because all blood is considered unclean. Not just the blood of the womb. Muslims are constantly making ritual purifications/ablutions in order to be in the state of cleanliness that Islam requires for prayer. Vomit, blood, bodily fluids, urine, excrement etc. are all considered to make you unclean and therefore you have to clean when any of them are on you or your clothes. Even farting requires you to perform ritual cleansing (wudhu) again for the purpose of praying. Therefore, it follows that if you have your period and there is a constant presence of blood from your vagina then you cannot perform prayers etc. It is a relief for some women to not have to fast/pray when they are on their period since some people feel really unwell during that time. Men and women can be amorous without having sex but sex is not allowed when on your period and this is believed to be because of health reasons (like male circumcision has been proven to be beneficial for men in scientific studies, maybe one day there will be a study that shows that having sex whilst on your period is bad for you, who knows?). I am sure there is some loser somewhere that locks his wife in a barn with the cows when she is on her period but this is not Islamically justifiable with the Qu’ran and I am sure that most Muslims do not act in this way, but there are of course a range of opinions about the finer details and people favour different things according to their regional cultures and age old ancestral traditions.
I doubt you’ve been to many Muslim countries at all never mind the ones that you specifically criticise. Bangladesh is really not that oppressive. I applaud them for having a ‘law’ – as you say – against spousal rape/abuse at all. That is a good step to start with. I’m sure you can find many news stories about particular cases that are horrifying, but you find these kinds of cases in your own non-Muslim country too. Bangladesh has been cited as the country in the world with the most happiest people in a study by the LSE (the well designed and esteemed World Happiness Survey), this despite it’s poverty, natural disasters and the fact that the people are *gasp* Muslim. Bangladesh is not the hellhole that you describe. Bangladesh is run on British common law and so is Pakistan (legacy of British invasion and empire). Sure, when some guys can’t get their way with British law they try to find a way to manipulate religion to get what they want and justify it. Nothing unusual there, happens everywhere and will change as people get more educated.
Pakistan is a very liberal country in some parts. Places like Karachi are very open and free because it’s an economic centre and a port city with educated people. The south of the country is filled with Sufis, mystics and magicians, they can’t be all that Islamic if they are into the dark arts and invoke the devil lol. The north is much more conservative because it is quite inaccessible and has always been resistant to change because of the threat of outsiders and invasion. Things were progressing there until the US government started drone-bombing the people. Now the people are reverting back to insularity and hostility to outsiders. Still, Pakistan is not the ghastly place that you and the media try to present. Every society has it’s social problems and as the Pakistani populace become more educated, which they are with a growing middle-class, things will change slowly, including attitudes towards women hopefully.
I had to laugh at your mention of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. That issue couldn’t be a poorer illustration of your argument, completely irrelevant! First of all, she was elected twice by the people (which are so horribly Muslim, sexist and vile apparently) of Pakistan. Very progressive for a nation that has been sovereign for about 50 years. She was a terrible corrupt leader and siphoned off a great deal of the public’s money to live a lavish lifestyle but that’s not a justification for her murder of course. Her two brothers were assassinated and most people point the finger at her husband (sadly now the leader of the country). Then she was assassinated. The whole Islamic extremists thing is BS and most people educated in Pakistan’s history know this. Fatima Bhutto, her niece, believes that Benazir’s husband Asif Zardari was responsible for her murder, and that is the prevailing belief amongst Pakistani people. He has benefitted tremendously from the deaths of her and her brothers. He is widely dubbed as ‘Mr 10 per cent’ and a gangster because that’s how he operates. The murder of his wife is not beyond him, believe me. The belief of outside political commentators is that her murder was committed by the internal secret services of the country because of a variety of political and strategic reasons. Again, the ‘Islamists killed her’ argument is widely discredited and usually peddled on morning news programmes in America. People should really read widely.
The ‘Taliban’ which are mainly Afghan and North Pakistani pashtuns (a particular tribe know for it’s warrior like traditional culture) have always existed. When it suited the US government, they armed and trained those very people to fight the Russians and now they are given the ‘bad guy’ title of Taliban. Taliban or no Taliban the people of Afghanistan are quite intolerant to education, outsiders and womens rights. With years of fighting off invaders, development and education has not happened at all. I feel bad for the Afghans though, their land is in a place that has always been coveted for economic and strategic reasons. Don’t believe the con that is the ‘war on terror’, it is a war for resources like all wars. Afghanistan and Pakistan were recently found to be extremely rich in minerals and natural gas, the Caspian Sea Gas Pipeline project is an old neo-con wet dream, it’s the real motivation for the wars there, but of course you won’t get that information from the TV or your government.
IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL!
Every country has a complex history, mix of cultures and religions. ‘A History of Islam’ is a good academic book written by a non-Muslim, Karen Armstrong, that describes how the Muslim world came to be and all the achievements of the Islamic civilisation of past. All countries need to go through a trajectory of development and education which many countries (some Muslim, some not) have not yet done so for a variety of reasons. You seem to be very arrogant about your part of the world, as if it is some kind of utopia. The US and Western Europe got to where they are today after countless gross injustices, theft, murder and destruction. It’s easy to be moral and smug after all the damage has been done and the world ravaged. You should really cut others a little slack. Let’s not forget that the US and European governments today are still proponents of murder and injustice though in a more sly way - divide and rule, supporting puppet regimes, exporting arms (oh this is a big big source of revenue for Western democracies who pretend to care about human rights) artificially fixing prices of grain so that the poor suffer and so on. Muslim and non-Western countries will improve with development and education and ultimately, time. The rise of the Eastern powers and their future dominance in the world will facilitate some of this too hopefully.
On a more general note, if Islam and Muslims were as intolerant and unbearable as you describe, I really doubt that there would be as many converts to Islam as there are in the world today. And there are so many, people are converting to Islam a lot, I know of so many converts in London alone. Would so many non-Muslims really become Muslim in this day and age if the things you say are true? People like Jermaine Jackson, Cat Stevens and such. Converts are usually very rigorous about studying the facts of Islam and the culture of Muslims before they convert. Muslims that are brought up with the title of Muslim are often way less informed about the religion and often do a fair amount of blind following.
I’ve written a mammoth essay here and I’m think I’m going to respectfully bow out of this thread now. I’m sure you will make many more wild statements based on poor evidence and prejudice and I can’t be bothered to argue with all of them, it’s not my job and life is too short to argue with ignorance. This thread was supposed to be about the ‘mosque’ (a word that was coined by Isabella & Ferdinand of the Crusades because they likened Muslims to mosquitoes, after all that the Moors had done for Spain) which by the way I don’t even support the building of (not safe really).
I shouldn't have let myself get lured to the 'Deep Thoughts' section
. Most ppl say extremists are the ppl who don't follow the book. I say they are the ones that take it literally. Refer to my post above
