Islamic Thread

A forum for the respectful exchange of views on thought-provoking topics, whether sexuality-related or otherwise; please read the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

Islamic Thread

Unread postby Cxurujeto » 25th April, 2017, 5:05 pm

A very hot topic is Islam. It has been widely discussed on GTF, and perhaps a thread already exists with this exact topic but I will start one anyway.

Sidenote: If someone is curious, I do see value in Islam and I have nothing against Muslims and hijabis at all. Pure Islamic ideology on the other hand, is what I have issue with, also the governments that operate by it (I'm looking at you Islamic Republic of Iran). The Ideology is easily used in militant ways, against women's rights, against gays (explicitly called abominations to be punished in the Quraan, Hadith and Sira further this by stating that they must be killed, though the method of killing is disputed. Also an overwhelming majority of muslims are homophobic), against non-muslims, etc. Islam (and the Quraan) have beautiful things about them, but there are also ugly things, and here I will be talking about controversy regarding the bad things in Islamic Ideology.

Islam, as we know, is regarded as a religion. There are people of the school of thought that insist on understanding all cultures and religions is necessary, i.e., all cultures are equally "valid" (forgive my use of this word which has truly lost its meaning in recent years). Then there are people that argue that it is ok to condemn any practice they deem incorrect.

Before discussing anything further, I will snuff out some typical straw-man arguments: I have not ever thought or said that all muslims do x, believe x, practice x in y manner. Nor have I said that there are not ways to practice Islam in perfectly moral and just ways. I am not talking about Muslims, and I am not anti-muslim, I am here discussing Islamic ideology and history. And I have not and will not indicate anything of the likes of "all muslims are terrorists" and related tomfoolery. Before you reply to this thread, think, Is what I want to say one of the straw-mans?, and if so, don't write it. It is a waste of time and it derails the topic at hand. It is also now irrelevant.


With that out of the way, I continue: (feel free to skip this section if you are not interested)
[Reveal] Spoiler: A little background on some major things that have contributed to my understanding of Islamic law, the Quraan, Islamic culture, and culture of the Middle East.
I am currently in the process of reading the Holy Quraan cover to cover (in a version including the arabic with several famous and popular english translations)
I have taken classes in comparing Islamic scriptures with Jewish scriptures as well as comparing laws outlined in the hadiths with talmudic law.
I am an Arabic minor, meaning I am in a university advanced level Arabic course which in addition to language, covers a lot of history, culture, music, and films.
I work for an archival foundation for preserving the history of Jews in the Middle East and North Africa
I have been to the Middle East: Qatar, Israel, and Judea & Samaria (the West Bank).


A few basics:
Islam is mostly based on two scriptures: The Quraan and the Hadiths. Islam started in the early 7th century.

A lot of the controversy with Islam is that many people argue that it is a frequently violent ideology, while defenders of Islam as a whole argue that the violence and extremism is "unislamic" or just a minority.
Also, the West has many concerns over Sharia law, which is Islamic law based primarily on the Quraan and Hadiths.

So is Islam a violent religion? That I can't personally answer because the topic is so complex. I try to base my judgement of Islam on its practices, scriptures, and history. Pretty much, facts.

Mohammed is considered the founder of the religion, he is believed to be the prophet of god. The Quraan is believed by muslims to be the direct word of god. People argue that islam is a dangerous ideology and others claim such fear of islam is unfounded, but why?

Firstly I'd like to throw in some direct lines from the Quraan that are crystal clear and show that groups considered "un-islamic" seem to follow quite a few things from the Quraan directly.

A verse promoting violence against nonbelievers
[8:12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: “I am with you. So, make firm the feet of those who believe. I shall cast awe into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So, strike at the necks, and strike at every finger-joint of theirs.”
[2:191] And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
[2:216] Fighting is enjoined upon you, while it is hard on you. It could be that you dislike something, when it is good for you; and it could be that you like something when it is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.
[3:151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

There are a lot more advocating violence. Some will say that well other religions have texts regarding violence. I don't think other texts reiterate going out of one's way to kill or force nonbelievers to convert for the sole reason of them being nonbelievers. Either way, we do not see such large numbers of Christians or Jewish people per se killing people in the name of their god for the reason of them being nonbelievers. Someone will inevitably mention the Crusades as a counterexample, but the issue with using the crusades to justify their point is 1. that is not modern day, and 2 more importantly the crusades were RETALIATORY. The Ottoman empire was invading more and more land, they sacked Constantinople, the capital of Eastern Christianity, and were moving further into Europe. Hopes of reuniting Eastern and Western Christianity were now crushed. The destruction of the Eastern capital was a major impetus for the Crusades to be carried out, in retaliation, as Christians began to think that they would be eliminated.

The retaliatory nature was not taught to me at all when I learned about the Crusades, yet even on wikipedia it is mentioned on the page for the First Crusade in the second paragraph
[Reveal] Spoiler:
It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, requested that western aid to help repel the invading Seljuk Turks from Anatolia. An additional goal soon became the principal objective—the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Muslim rule.

Many many people were slaughtered in the Crusades yes, I do not condone that of course. I am simply saying that the Crusades were not primarily carried out to kill infidels and convert people. Also regarding the people's crusades in Europe whereby Christians carried out massive massacres of Jewish people, the pope (Pope Urban II) was very vocal in condemning the violence against the Jews.

If all religions are violent, the time period then must be looked at. Christianity and Judaism have had a number of reforms and are far less violent that Islam in modern times. That would mean that Islam is in dire need of a reformation, but as the situation currently stands, they are violent and their violence is fully justified by their holy text, so no, they are not "unislamic". If anything they are stricter adherents to Islam.

Mohammed was a warlord. The Quran specifically mentions Jewish people a number of times in extremely negative ways, and the Hadiths as well. Mohammed, at Banu Qurayza, killed/beheaded all the Jewish men (unless they had converted) and enslaved the children and women. This incident is well known. No wonder there are 0 Jews in Saudi Arabia, even though before the advent of Islam and before the Arab conquests, Jewish people inhabited all countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and in great numbers. Yes, before the Muslims lived there.

One thing I learned from my work at the archive was that there is this 1 Jewish site that is preserved by the Saudi Government called Khaybar. It is the site of a Jewish village/city that Mohammed's army besieged. The site is preserved as a symbol of pride against Jews, and it is summed up in this extremely anti-semitic battle cry that many muslims still chant "خيبر خيبر يا يهود جيش محمد سوف يعود" which literally means "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, Mohammed's army will return"
I read on Jpost that this was chanted on the 2010 Gaza flotilla, and it is often chanted at Anti-Israel demonstrations.

About women, the Quraan allows polygamy up to 4 wives for men. Women cannot have more than one husband. Mohammed's wife Aisha (one of them) was 7 when she was married off, and then it was consummated when she was 9 and he was 53. It is documented that yes Aisha was still prepubescent at that age.

The Quraan dictates that women must cover themselves in order to be differentiated as wives of the husband from sex slaves of the husband, also so that they are not ______. [33:59] "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful." The reason I left a blank is because the word yudhayna is translated in various ways, the most literal translation may be simply "harmed" but I have seen it as abused and as molested.
The Quraan states womens' testimonies are less valuable in court than a man's [2:282], and that a woman's inheritance is equal to half a man's [2:176].
Keep in mind that there are likely many more verses that reiterate these ideas, I am only listing some I've encountered.

The Quraan gives men the right to beat their wives [38:44] [4:34]

I saw a video traveling around of an Australian Muslim woman saying that Sharia law is not what the West has made it out to be, and that women have rights in Islam, that it is the most Feminist religion. I'd love to believe this and I wish it were true, but it is so far from the truth. And Sharia law is as bad, if not worse than how the West makes it out to be.

I may continue to add content to this post, or I might just make new ones on the thread.

Please, I invite discussion and encourage disagreements too, I just ask that as per forum rules people remain civilized and refrain from personal attacks against each other. Respectful disagreements.

"Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own."
Image


ImageImageImage
User avatar
Cxurujeto
Русский
 
First name: Benn(ett)
Posts: 450
Likes received: 55
Joined: 14th May, 2011, 1:20 am
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby scottnesss » 25th April, 2017, 5:08 pm

#InBeforePity
Image Image

Image
User avatar
scottnesss
I feel my User Title no longer defines me; please change xo
 
Posts: 602
Likes received: 105
Joined: 28th August, 2012, 4:14 pm
Location: Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Pity » 25th April, 2017, 5:29 pm

As you mentioned, I too believe that there are beautiful aspects of Islam, especially architectural and art. Like other religions, including Christianity, it has had the opportunity to evolve from a religion of slaughter and horror, but it fails to do so. Unfortunately, Muslims do have incredibly high rates of those who believe in capital punishments for being gay or an adulterer, among other hideous things; thus, I view it as dangerous.

السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ
Image
User avatar
Pity
hotty & disgraced member
 
First name: Marcus
Posts: 3080
Likes received: 485
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Apex, NC
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Cxurujeto » 25th April, 2017, 6:01 pm

I just learned that Medina, one of the holiest cities of the Islamic faith, was founded by Jewish tribes, originally called Yathrib and Mohammed came with his army and killed and enslaved the inhabitants. It was mentioned by Sandra Solomon, a Saudi woman from a Palestinian family that fled the country, in one of her videos about Islam, and lo and behold I looked into it and it is true. If men didn't convert he had them beheaded, women and children were enslaved. The root for the word Islam is the same as Muslim - the three letters s-l-m, meaning submission/surrender. it is the same root as the word for peace, salaam, however most scholars (muslims included) agree that it means submission/surrender. At Medina, Mohammed took Rayhana bint Zayd, a newly enslaved Medinan Jewish woman, as his sex slave/concubine.
Image


ImageImageImage
User avatar
Cxurujeto
Русский
 
First name: Benn(ett)
Posts: 450
Likes received: 55
Joined: 14th May, 2011, 1:20 am
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby ConnorM » 25th April, 2017, 6:06 pm

Cxurujeto wrote:There are a lot more advocating violence. Some will say that well other religions have texts regarding violence. I don't think other texts reiterate going out of one's way to kill or force nonbelievers to convert for the sole reason of them being nonbelievers. Either way, we do not see such large numbers of Christians or Jewish people per se killing people in the name of their god for the reason of them being nonbelievers. Someone will inevitably mention the Crusades as a counterexample, but the issue with using the crusades to justify their point is 1. that is not modern day, and 2 more importantly the crusades were RETALIATORY. The Ottoman empire was invading more and more land, they sacked Constantinople, the capital of Eastern Christianity, and were moving further into Europe. Hopes of reuniting Eastern and Western Christianity were now crushed. The destruction of the Eastern capital was a major impetus for the Crusades to be carried out, in retaliation, as Christians began to think that they would be eliminated.

The Crusades were not carried out after the Sack of Constantinople. Further, the Sack of Constantinople was carried out not by the Turks (The Ottoman Empire was established two centuries after the First Crusade) but instead by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade, who established the Latin Empire, and did more to weaken the Byzantines than anything else. (The Byzantines managed to recapture all of the little "splinter" empires by 1261 under the Palaiologos dynasty.) The Turks did not conquer Constantinople until 1453, well after the period of the Crusades in the Levant, and even after the Albigensian Crusade and the Teutonic Wars.
The Crusades were the direct result of the Battle of Manzikert, where the Byzantine army was decisively crushed by the Turkish tribes due to sheer incompetence on behalf of the Byzantine high command. The Byzantine Emperor had no choice but to ask for help from the Catholic Church, and this was well after the Aryan Heresy and the Great Schism were fully and completely set in stone. Any hope of re-uniting the churches was simply a pipe dream by that point.

European Christianity was twice under threat by Islam. The first, during the Umayyad conquest of Iberia, which was defeated by Charles Martel at Tours, and the second, during the Ottoman expansion under Suleiman the Magnificent during the 1500's, and his successors, fighting such battles as Lepanto and the First Siege of Vienna, culminating in the Great Siege of Vienna in 1683, when the Ottoman forces were decisively defeated by a combined Austro-Polish army. The Ottoman Empire declined thereafter, got thrashed by France a few times, and finally collapsed after a miserable showing in the First World War, where it was famously known as the "sick old man of Europe".
Image
User avatar
ConnorM
Sir Conor the Incompetent
 
Posts: 422
Likes received: 90
Joined: 14th December, 2013, 11:21 pm
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 25th April, 2017, 6:56 pm

I pretty much agree with you.

It seems that most religions are so fundamentally contradictory (in their calls to both violence and peace) that what matters is how society chooses to interpret and practice them. This is based less on the scripture and more on the nature of the society at the time, alongside the social pressures on it. Christian societies have changed in such a way that the illiberal, conservative and harsh practice of religion generally no longer fits with our values and beliefs; this is not the case in most Islamic societies. In addition to this, the various stresses and strains on the Middle East throughout the 20th Century and beyond must have provoked radicalism.

I'm inclined to believe Islamic scripture is more conductive to violence and extremism than Christianity (particularly with the comparably 'soft' New Testament) but I'm not sure this really matters, because religions are so open to various interpretations that it's kind of futile to compare them in their most extreme forms. The fact that many Western Muslims are more hedonistic than some Christians and atheists is testiment to the fact that doctrine, however extreme, can be overcome by exposure to society.

As for 'reformation,' I wouldn't overlook the reformative ability of modern technology and cultural globalisation: it's very hard to maintain such a strict version of religion when your subjects are constantly exposed to 'liberal' society on their phones. Similarly, the Arab Spring (which it's led to a horrible extremist reaction) was anti-authoritarian and, I think, is promising. You only have to do a little bit of reading about Rojava to see this, and while it's a small movement in a massive region, for me it is evidence that Islamic countries do have a revolutionary potential, and that many are willing to confront religion. It's easy to get bogged down in terrorism and dictatorship without standing back and looking at broader trends, I think.

Incidentally, the Qu'ran is on my Summer reading list and I'm actually quite looking forward to it. Some of what I'm saying might seem a bit generalised due to lack of knowledge, but hopefully I'll get around to changing that!

Pity wrote:Like other religions, including Christianity, it has had the opportunity to evolve from a religion of slaughter and horror, but it fails to do so.


For the reasons stated above, I think this is a pretty naive and cynical view of history. There are many unique conditions which have existed in the West and which have contributed towards the onslaught of democracy and liberalism which, need I remind you, occurred really rather recently. The region is in the process of changing for the better, and I'm not sure you can blame their faith for the failure to do this sooner.

I'm yet to read the book, but "The Islamic Enlightenment" by Christopher De Bellaigue (which has only just come out this year) would seem to discredit your idea. I can't comment on the evidence the book cites, but it seems to have attracted a lot of praise. I'll post a bit of the book's description and you can look further into it if you want to- I certainly will.

Beginning his account in 1798, de Bellaigue demonstrates how Middle Eastern heartlands have long welcomed modern ideals and practices, including the adoption of modern medicine, the emergence of women from seclusion, and the development of democracy. With trenchant political and historical insight, de Bellaigue further shows how the violence of an infinitesimally small minority is in fact the tragic blowback from these modernizing processes.

Structuring his groundbreaking history around Istanbul, Cairo, and Tehran, the three main loci of Islamic culture, de Bellaigue directly challenges ossified perceptions of a supposedly benighted Muslim world through the forgotten, and inspiring, stories of philosophers, anti-clerics, journalists, and feminists who opened up their societies to political and intellectual emancipation. His sweeping and vivid account includes remarkable men and women from across the Muslim world, including Ibrahim Sinasi, who brought newspapers to Istanbul; Mirza Saleh Shirzi, whose Persian memoirs describe how the Turkish harems were finally shuttered; and Qurrat al-Ayn, an Iranian noble woman, who defied her husband to become a charismatic prophet.

What makes The Islamic Enlightenment particularly germane is that non-Muslim pundits in the post-9/11 era have repeatedly called for Islam to subject itself to the transformations that the West has already achieved since the Enlightenment--the absurd implication being that if Muslims do not stop reading or following the tenets of the Qur'an and other holy books, they will never emerge from a benighted state of backwardness. The Islamic Enlightenment, with its revolutionary argument, completely refutes this view and, in the process, reveals the folly of Westerners demanding modernity from those whose lives are already drenched in it.
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 4877
Likes received: 393
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby T33Bone » 25th April, 2017, 9:37 pm

Important thing to note with the vast majority of verses that are often deemed as "violent" are heavily time specific in the context of war, proof of this, all of the verses cited by OP were revealed in Medina (more on this later). The Quran, in the context of the seerah (historical biography of Muhammad pbuh) can be split between Madani verses and Meccan verses (The seerah can also be split in these two periods, but to avoid going on a tangent, explanation in the spoiler)

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The Makki period constituted the first 13 years of Muhammad's (pbuh) career as a prophet, when he was living and preaching in his home town of Mecca. The Madani period constituted the last 10 years of his life, when he fled with his followers to the city of Medina (known as Yathrib at the time)
[/spoiler]

For the entirety of the Meccan period, not a single command was sent down calling to violence or military force. Not even violent retaliation if in self defense was allowed. To the early Muslims of the period, the response to persecution was simply to turn the other cheek. And persecution of the early Muslims was extremely harsh. For example the first matyr of Islam, Sumayyah bint Khayyat was killed after being impaled through the genitalia, all while her husband Yasir and her son Ammar were forced to watch.

Further more, the near entirety of the Meccan verses that coincided with the period was concerned with theology and doctrine. No laws, no penal system, and no call to military action. Not only do Meccan verses constituted 80% but the Meccan period constitutes the majority of Muhammad (pbuh) ministry as a prophet. Despite that, in this period, as stated previously, absolutely NO military action was taken place, NO wars declared. However, what you did have was over a decade of some of the harshest religious persecution. The death of Sumayyah was only touching the surface.

Understanding this context is heavily important to understanding the context of all the verses that tend to be deemed as "endorsing terrorism". As the early Muslims were not at war helpless with helpless, peaceful victims. They were going against a populace that had for over a decade at this point, tortured the muslims, persecuted them, killed members of their own families, and even stealing the property of the Muhajjirun and sending it away to trade. The verse in chapter 8 (Surah Anfal) that OP referenced to was specifically speaking of the Battle of Badr, a battle which was primarily a result of self defence.

It is the binding consensus to all Islamic schools law that violence against women, children and any non-combatant civilians is wholly prohibited.

OP references to Quran 2:191, once more, to emephasise the important of context, here is the verse that comes literally right before
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."

This verse according to Ibn Abbas ( a companion of Muhammad pbuh), comments "do not attack the women, children or elderly-"

It's interesting really when I see various pundits and polemics use these verses in the Quran because they are always the same handful of Madani surahs that have been taken out of context. The narrative of Muhammad (pbuh) being a warmongering, bloodthirsty conquerer is seriously undermined by that fact that in his near 65 year lifetime, he engaged in no actual warfare until the last 10 years, and that was strongly in response to having lived under nearly 13 years of persecution.

tl;dr: Context matters I guess
[i]"Deadass on the field, deadass in my heart, Amen"[/i]

-Ethan on the meaning of life
[size=200]
User avatar
T33Bone
Token Black Guy
 
First name: Isa
Posts: 40
Likes received: 9
Joined: 21st April, 2017, 8:26 pm
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 25th April, 2017, 9:40 pm

*backs away slowly*
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2858
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Cxurujeto » 26th April, 2017, 1:21 am

In response to T33Bone,
T33Bone wrote:Important thing to note with the vast majority of verses that are often deemed as "violent" are heavily time specific in the context of war, proof of this, all of the verses cited by OP were revealed in Medina (more on this later).

For the entirety of the Meccan period, not a single command was sent down calling to violence or military force. Not even violent retaliation if in self defense was allowed.

Further more, the near entirety of the Meccan verses that coincided with the period was concerned with theology and doctrine. No laws, no penal system, and no call to military action.


I can supply some Meccan verses that also speak of violence
[17:16] For the entirety of the Meccan period, not a single command was sent down calling to violence or military force. Not even violent retaliation if in self defense was allowed.

In Surah El-Kehf, there is a story of Moses meeting some man named Al-Khidhr with knowledge. They go on a journey and during it the man commits questionable actions, one of which I will bring up [18:74] So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khidh r killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing." and after each action, Al Khidr says that Moses is lacking patience and doesn't give a reason for his action. After a bit more, Al-Khidhr reveals his justification for his actions. His justification, which serves as a lesson for Moses and one of the lessons of this Surah is [18:80] And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. This is an example of Honor Killing, in this case, the child was predicted to eventually turn away from Islam, and so his abandonment of Islam doesn't shame the family in the future, Al-Khidhr killed him.

Talking about nonbelieviers [21:42-43] Or do they have gods to defend them other than Us? They are unable [even] to help themselves, nor can they be protected from Us. / But We have given benefits to these and their fathers until life was prolonged for them. So do they not see that We are coming to the land narrowing it down from all its sides? Then, are they the ones to prevail? this verse is not violent, but it does mention conquest of land which I think may indicate use of military force?

Again this next verse is also heavily reliant on interpretation [25:52] So, (O Prophet,) do not obey the infidels, and strive against them with it (the Qur’ān), in utmost endeavor. It can be read as nonviolent striving.
--

T33Bone wrote:It is the binding consensus to all Islamic schools law that violence against women, children and any non-combatant civilians is wholly prohibited.

This verse according to Ibn Abbas ( a companion of Muhammad pbuh), comments "do not attack the women, children or elderly-"


Quraan [4:34] Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Regarding what Islamic schools decree about it, I can say that Ayatollah Khomeini condones it and he was a high ranking muslim cleric, but then again he also condones raping children and animals in his book titled Tahrir al Wasilah/Book of Sayinds/ The Little Green Book in English, which is a collection of Fatawahs. Some insane direct quotations from it are as follows

[Reveal] Spoiler:
"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is
strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man.
In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold.

If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their
urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may
no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as guickly as
possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who
sodomized it. "

"If a man - Allah protect him from it! - fornicates with an animal and
ejaculates, ablution is necessary. " ablution being a ritual washing

Even worse is I have seen the following floating around but i have seen it being a topic of heavy controversy if it is legitimate or not, so I put it here as not yet confirmed. Unfortunately the original book is in Persian, and although I would love to study the language, it is not taught where I study.
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister." - Khomeini in his book "Tozih-ol-Masael"
Image


ImageImageImage
User avatar
Cxurujeto
Русский
 
First name: Benn(ett)
Posts: 450
Likes received: 55
Joined: 14th May, 2011, 1:20 am
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Dmitzi » 26th April, 2017, 5:56 am

Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.
What happened 100s of years ago doesn't really matter. What's happening now does.
Even in Britain, where the Muslims are comparatively liberal (to those in Islamic countries), 52% of them believe that homosexuality should be illegal (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... sharia-law ). One just needs to read the news and to see the hundreds and hundreds of atrocities carried out by Islam's followers.
I don't understand the need for a big intellectual debate on something that is so clear cut.
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 129
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 26th April, 2017, 7:02 am

Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2858
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby boiii » 26th April, 2017, 7:58 am

TheBrunswickian wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.


nobody was pretending it is only islam and you are right. It does seem to be a much bigger problem in islamic countries however.
Image Image

ImageImage

Winner of the best friendship award together with Kaspar ^.^ and also that other one we don't talk about.
User avatar
boiii
oh shit waddup
 
First name: Kamiel
Posts: 1166
Likes received: 195
Joined: 27th November, 2016, 10:48 am
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Erebos » 26th April, 2017, 11:05 am

boiii wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.


nobody was pretending it is only islam and you are right. It does seem to be a much bigger problem in islamic countries however.


That may be true, but it is clear that all religions do this. I think that the fact that Islam is worse with it right now is more a consequense of the time we live in. Most countries with Muslims are doing pretty bad right now. When things were going bad in Ireland gays were also being prossecuted for religious reasons while in the golden age of Islam most moslims were more tolerant. In Spain muslim rule was way more tolerant then Christian rule. Holy books can be interpreted in plenty of ways and how people interpret them has to do with their history and where they live. So I don't think Islam is inferior to Christianity or that it is inherently bad, I think all religions are so vague you can get out of them whatever you want.
Bring me a shrubbbery!
Erebos
New Member
 
Posts: 26
Likes received: 6
Joined: 11th April, 2017, 4:34 pm
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 26th April, 2017, 11:33 am

boiii wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.


nobody was pretending it is only islam and you are right. It does seem to be a much bigger problem in islamic countries however.

Homosexuality was decriminalised in its final jurisdiction in Australia in 1996. The "gay panic" defence was only just abolished in Queensland. It's still active in South Australia. New anti-gay laws have been enacted in Belarus, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana - I could go on. It is not more prevalent in Muslim countries, its just more spoken about because they are not Christians.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2858
Likes received: 346
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Kaspar » 26th April, 2017, 12:43 pm

As Kamiel and Jesse above mentioned, Islam is not an exception to being a homophobic, arrogant, backwards religion. Honestly, Islam doesn't really differentiate from other big mainstream religions and if you are a gay Christian for example, you are technically not doing your religion well, according to the holy books at least. The fact that the vast majority of rules and scripts are man-made and have little to no original values is a topic for another thread though.
Dmitzi wrote:Even in Britain, where the Muslims are comparatively liberal (to those in Islamic countries), 52% of them believe that homosexuality should be illegal

Giving an argument for my claim, about the same percentage of Poles (if not even more) think homosexuality is bad, gays are I'll, not acceptable, should be expelled from the society etc. About 90 % of Poles are Catholic.
Proudly, the Captain of team Spirited Away
House Cup 2017

mattyk wrote:You are indeed all-round 100% certified awesome!



ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
Kaspar
The Kind Moderator / Lochlan's cat enthusiast
 
First name: Kacper
Posts: 1447
Likes received: 346
Joined: 18th January, 2017, 5:50 pm
Location: Northern Poland, almost by the sea ey
Country: Poland (pl)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Cxurujeto » 26th April, 2017, 2:54 pm

TheBrunswickian wrote:
boiii wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.


nobody was pretending it is only islam and you are right. It does seem to be a much bigger problem in islamic countries however.

Homosexuality was decriminalised in its final jurisdiction in Australia in 1996. The "gay panic" defence was only just abolished in Queensland. It's still active in South Australia. New anti-gay laws have been enacted in Belarus, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana - I could go on. It is not more prevalent in Muslim countries, its just more spoken about because they are not Christians.


I do think it is fair to say homophobia is more prevalent in Islamic countries. The only country I can think of as being at least mildly tolerant of gay people is Turkey, but they still have a lot of problems. They have a pride parade in some cities but discrimination and violence are still widespread. All the others are homophobic. Whereas for Christian countries, the ratio is not as homophobic, it is a bit more balanced. The one Jewish country is very tolerant. Buddhist country ratios are probably somewhere in between Christian and Islamic. I know that Homosexuality in Sri Lanka, a Buddhist country with minorities of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, is not mainstream and is not talked about, but I also know that the homophobia in Sri Lanka is more culturally linked than religiously linked. Sikhism, from India, is generally homophobic. Nepal, Japan, and Taiwan are the most progressive countries in Eastern Asia with regards to homosexuality. Nepal is mostly Buddhist and they are perhaps more progressive for trans people that a lot of western countries, Japan I'm not sure but I know that there are a lot of Buddists there and it is part of a lot of the culture. Taiwan I'm not sure about religion-wise. Vietnam is said to be making a lot of progress. India suffers from prevalent homophobia, but I read that homosexuality was not as much of an issue before the 18th c. there.
On the countries you mention, I can provide some numbers, and I contest you mentioning Nigeria:
Belarus is Orthodox Christian, but only 43% of the population say they adhere to it as of 2011
Uganda is 85% Christian, mostly Catholics
Kenya is 83% Christian, 10% Muslim
Ghana is 69% Christian and 16% Muslim
Nigeria which is regarded as extremely homophobic, is not a Christian country. 58% of the population is Christian, and while that is a majority, it is 41% Muslim, so I think that the two percentages are too close for it to be considered one or the other.

It is definitely fair to say Islam tends to be more homophobic in practice.
Image


ImageImageImage
User avatar
Cxurujeto
Русский
 
First name: Benn(ett)
Posts: 450
Likes received: 55
Joined: 14th May, 2011, 1:20 am
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby KrisCross » 26th April, 2017, 3:12 pm

Cxurujeto wrote:I do think it is fair to say homophobia is more prevalent in Islamic countries. The only country I can think of as being at least mildly tolerant of gay people is Turkey, but they still have a lot of problems. They have a pride parade in some cities but discrimination and violence are still widespread. All the others are homophobic. Whereas for Christian countries, the ratio is not as homophobic, it is a bit more balanced. The one Jewish country is very tolerant. Buddhist country ratios are probably somewhere in between Christian and Islamic. I know that Homosexuality in Sri Lanka, a Buddhist country with minorities of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, is not mainstream and is not talked about, but I also know that the homophobia in Sri Lanka is more culturally linked than religiously linked. Sikhism, from India, is generally homophobic. Nepal, Japan, and Taiwan are the most progressive countries in Eastern Asia with regards to homosexuality. Nepal is mostly Buddhist and they are perhaps more progressive for trans people that a lot of western countries, Japan I'm not sure but I know that there are a lot of Buddists there and it is part of a lot of the culture. Taiwan I'm not sure about religion-wise. Vietnam is said to be making a lot of progress. India suffers from prevalent homophobia, but I read that homosexuality was not as much of an issue before the 18th c. there.
On the countries you mention, I can provide some numbers, and I contest you mentioning Nigeria:
Belarus is Orthodox Christian, but only 43% of the population say they adhere to it as of 2011
Uganda is 85% Christian, mostly Catholics
Kenya is 83% Christian, 10% Muslim
Ghana is 69% Christian and 16% Muslim
Nigeria which is regarded as extremely homophobic, is not a Christian country. 58% of the population is Christian, and while that is a majority, it is 41% Muslim, so I think that the two percentages are too close for it to be considered one or the other.

It is definitely fair to say Islam tends to be more homophobic in practice.


It's not all that fair to say Islam is more homophobic than a religion like Christianity based on ratios of homophobia in countries, seeing as a lot of western countries might be technically 'christian', but the majority doesn't actually practice it.

It's hard to make conclusions by comparing a devout muslim to someone who is only christian when asked.
User avatar
KrisCross
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 6756
Likes received: 231
Joined: 15th February, 2011, 6:04 pm
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby Erebos » 26th April, 2017, 3:37 pm

Cxurujeto wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
boiii wrote:
TheBrunswickian wrote:
Dmitzi wrote:Islam is a violent, backwards, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.

Literally the same can be Christianity depending on where you look. Its degrading and frankly arrogant to pretend like the issues faced in the Islamic community are not experienced inside other religious groups.


nobody was pretending it is only islam and you are right. It does seem to be a much bigger problem in islamic countries however.

Homosexuality was decriminalised in its final jurisdiction in Australia in 1996. The "gay panic" defence was only just abolished in Queensland. It's still active in South Australia. New anti-gay laws have been enacted in Belarus, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana - I could go on. It is not more prevalent in Muslim countries, its just more spoken about because they are not Christians.


I do think it is fair to say homophobia is more prevalent in Islamic countries. The only country I can think of as being at least mildly tolerant of gay people is Turkey, but they still have a lot of problems. They have a pride parade in some cities but discrimination and violence are still widespread. All the others are homophobic. Whereas for Christian countries, the ratio is not as homophobic, it is a bit more balanced. The one Jewish country is very tolerant. Buddhist country ratios are probably somewhere in between Christian and Islamic. I know that Homosexuality in Sri Lanka, a Buddhist country with minorities of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, is not mainstream and is not talked about, but I also know that the homophobia in Sri Lanka is more culturally linked than religiously linked. Sikhism, from India, is generally homophobic. Nepal, Japan, and Taiwan are the most progressive countries in Eastern Asia with regards to homosexuality. Nepal is mostly Buddhist and they are perhaps more progressive for trans people that a lot of western countries, Japan I'm not sure but I know that there are a lot of Buddists there and it is part of a lot of the culture. Taiwan I'm not sure about religion-wise. Vietnam is said to be making a lot of progress. India suffers from prevalent homophobia, but I read that homosexuality was not as much of an issue before the 18th c. there.
On the countries you mention, I can provide some numbers, and I contest you mentioning Nigeria:
Belarus is Orthodox Christian, but only 43% of the population say they adhere to it as of 2011
Uganda is 85% Christian, mostly Catholics
Kenya is 83% Christian, 10% Muslim
Ghana is 69% Christian and 16% Muslim
Nigeria which is regarded as extremely homophobic, is not a Christian country. 58% of the population is Christian, and while that is a majority, it is 41% Muslim, so I think that the two percentages are too close for it to be considered one or the other.

It is definitely fair to say Islam tends to be more homophobic in practice.


What you say is true, but for one you decide it is culturally linked and for another it is religious while not actually saying why. A bit weird. Also if you really follow the bible, homossxuality is also a sin. So real religious Christians should also be as accepting as Muslims. They arent because not that many people are devout Christians. So your point is a bit flawed.
Bring me a shrubbbery!
Erebos
New Member
 
Posts: 26
Likes received: 6
Joined: 11th April, 2017, 4:34 pm
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Islamic Thread

Unread postby boiii » 26th April, 2017, 4:00 pm

Let's not forget that this is a thread about Islam.
Though it was fair to say that it isn't only islam, it is just the topic now.
Image Image

ImageImage

Winner of the best friendship award together with Kaspar ^.^ and also that other one we don't talk about.
User avatar
boiii
oh shit waddup
 
First name: Kamiel
Posts: 1166
Likes received: 195
Joined: 27th November, 2016, 10:48 am
Country: Belgium (be)

PostThis post was deleted by Anonymous Boy on 29th April, 2017, 10:55 am.
Reason: Spam

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Linkdex [Bot] and 16 guests