|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
On January 26 2012 11:19 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 10:55 s4life wrote:On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE? Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions. There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without. Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on? Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers. That may be the main point of your discussion.
Whatever, but truly are you suggesting MGM is somehow 'better' than FGM.. that's a disgusting thought.
|
Just curious
Are you:
Poll: Are you circumcized or not?Not Circumcized (28) 72% Circumcized (11) 28% 39 total votes Your vote: Are you circumcized or not? (Vote): Circumcized
(Vote): Not Circumcized
|
On January 25 2012 18:44 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 16:43 cz wrote:On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote:
religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is.
woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west.
scnr;-) Religion is hugely important as it controls a lot of things in a society, including a lot of things you probably consider indexes of development. I also don't see why the past in the West matters - that's over and done. You can't just say "well, it's cool to flog women because, like, women were property once here too." We concluded that was wrong, and as such we conclude that this is wrong. Agreed. this is going to end up like that 3rd world poverty thread... i'm so tired.
please don't misunderstand me on purpose.
this way we won't get nowhere.
i was referring to religion not having any influence on laws on modern countries.
secularization.
thats what i was talking about.
perhaps christians have the same regulations regarding nudity and morale as the islam has, but you will find only a few (if any) countries where that matters, because these are not laws you have to obey and can get punished by authorities.
in developed countries religion has no real power,. and if you look at history (or compare a church to a democratic system), you surely know why.
|
On January 25 2012 16:42 cz wrote:
You're just going to get the same tired responses from Islamic apologists, along the lines of "this isn't true Islam," and "Islam respects women" and "we have to respect their culture/how dare you bash Islam, it's the religion of love/peace!!"
Bottom line is that in practice Islam, when allowed to rule, is a patriarchal religion. Whether that's what the book says or not doesn't matter, it's how it is. Anything else is just the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
I really hope you're not implying that any other Judeo-Christian religion is any better. Over the course of their histories, Islam does have the longest running respect for women of any of the three religions.
|
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran?
Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women.
Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded:
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it. -On the befriending non muslims: Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like) -He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AishaIf you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument. -http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert. -I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please. -Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this: Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)." I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy.
And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition.
And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora.
The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition.
Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
|
Demonizing does nothing. There are plenty of abhorrent parts of the bible as that nobody cares about. Because we're secular. Secularizing Islam is the only way change would probably happen.
|
Let me preface by saying I'm a devout atheist, the crusades where just as abhorrent as the Ghazi's murdering spree's (Google Timur if you think the Jihad is the Islamic form of a Crusade) and although the believers might be the same people, their beliefs are not.
I take it we can both agree that Buddhism is a less violent then Christianity or Judaism, purely based on the way their sacred texts are written and their implications, exactly the same thing can be said about Christianity or Judaism compared to Islam.
The Bible might have a couple of controversial statements, it's not even close to the Qu'ran, humor me and try reading a bit of the Qu'ran, the way of writing is just completely different, where the Bible is often stories about people doing questionable things the Qu'ran is mostly the prophet saying things, whereas a character in the Bible might murder out a tribe or such, it is not the prophet telling them it is a thing that should always be done.
Not to mention that most of questionable shit in the Bible is also included in the Qu'ran, as it's from the same Aramaic monotheistic roots, Jesus is just another prophet for Muslims.
|
More guys are uncircumcized.
Thats interesting.
|
On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
smokeyhoodoo: FGM is worse than male circumcision!!1 Think of the wimminz!!!
sunprince: Well yeah, but we're not talking about which one is worse. We're saying both are awful ways in which the bodily integrity of children are violated, and all because of religion.
smokeyhoodoo: But FGM is WORSE! Think of hte wimminz!!!
-_-
On January 26 2012 12:46 mcc wrote:And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
You fail logic forever. It's like you're incapable of understanding why male circumcision and FGM are intrinsically related, or that it makes sense to fight them at the same time.
|
Male and female circumcision might both be deplorable and related but this is mostly a matter of how badly it messes up lives.
Sexual harassment and rape might be related, but a lot more effort get's spent on preventing and persecuting rape.
As such spending more effort on getting the female circumcision point through is understandable and desireable, not to mention that the female circumcision part might not get taken seriously if it advocates the banning of male circumcision as well, which tends to be relevant to a lot more people.
|
On January 27 2012 01:32 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran?
Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women.
Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion. Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded: Show nested quote +I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it. -On the befriending non muslims: Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like) -He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AishaIf you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument. -http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert. -I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please. -Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this: Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)." I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion. Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition. Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
You take quotes completely out of context. The things you quote in the Quran are referencing particular events. The Quran has been translated MANY TIMES http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Quran-English-Translation?store=ALLPRODUCTS&keyword=Quran English Translation . The thing with Muslims is that they clarify the difference between a translation and an authentic copy because as anyone who knows more than one language knows, things get lost in translation. Islam has an official language, Arabic. The Quran is best expressed in its original language, Arabic. The Arabic Quran is seen by Muslims as the Word of God (not the creation of God), whereas translations are seen as man made. I have no idea where you got the idea that Arabic didnt exist. The original is sitting in the Topkapı Palace in Turkey: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html Google: Topkapı Palace, Quran. This is the first result. Muhammad may have not been able to write, but he could speak and he had friends that could write. It's why it's tradition among Muslims to memorize the Quran. They have competitions broadcast on TV for it.
I was born and raised in the USA. I have lived in the Middle East. I have studied Islam in school. The issues you have are just completely wrong. The fact that you think that Arabic didn't exist at origin of Islam shows that you know nothing of how the Quran was compiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
Every Quran I have opened around the world and read in Arabic is exactly the same. The issues of religion being practiced differently is completely cultural and political. In Islamic schools in the US, I was taught Evolution (Surprise we got there before the public school system). However, in certain Mideast countries, it's not taught in schools no matter if it's secular or religious. http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam_p2.html
The way you talk about Imams, you talk about them the same way a sainthood works in Christianity which doesn't exist in Sunni Islam.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
|
On January 27 2012 02:58 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
More guys are uncircumcized.
Thats interesting.
Concidering it's only the US and certain religious groups who practice circumcision it's actully quite obvious. Unless you thought this forum was 90% American, in which case I understand your surprise. I would be more interested in the US specific %.
|
On January 27 2012 10:37 LittleAtari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 01:32 Scootaloo wrote:On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran?
Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women.
Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion. Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded: I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it. -On the befriending non muslims: Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like) -He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AishaIf you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument. -http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert. -I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please. -Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this: Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)." I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion. Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition. Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer. You take quotes completely out of context. The things you quote in the Quran are referencing particular events. The Quran has been translated MANY TIMES http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Quran-English-Translation?store=ALLPRODUCTS&keyword=Quran English Translation . The thing with Muslims is that they clarify the difference between a translation and an authentic copy because as anyone who knows more than one language knows, things get lost in translation. Islam has an official language, Arabic. The Quran is best expressed in its original language, Arabic. The Arabic Quran is seen by Muslims as the Word of God (not the creation of God), whereas translations are seen as man made. I have no idea where you got the idea that Arabic didnt exist. The original is sitting in the Topkapı Palace in Turkey: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html Google: Topkapı Palace, Quran. This is the first result. Muhammad may have not been able to write, but he could speak and he had friends that could write. It's why it's tradition among Muslims to memorize the Quran. They have competitions broadcast on TV for it. I was born and raised in the USA. I have lived in the Middle East. I have studied Islam in school. The issues you have are just completely wrong. The fact that you think that Arabic didn't exist at origin of Islam shows that you know nothing of how the Quran was compiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabetEvery Quran I have opened around the world and read in Arabic is exactly the same. The issues of religion being practiced differently is completely cultural and political. In Islamic schools in the US, I was taught Evolution (Surprise we got there before the public school system). However, in certain Mideast countries, it's not taught in schools no matter if it's secular or religious. http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam_p2.htmlThe way you talk about Imams, you talk about them the same way a sainthood works in Christianity which doesn't exist in Sunni Islam. But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
How did I take the quotes out of context? Doing some quick reading around the 5:50 mark it seems to well in context, the rest of the text just being more rules about treating religious people and what one has to do to get on Allah's good side, my quoting of 5:51 was accurate.
I know the Qu'ran has been translated many times, I'm just using the most used and easily accessible varieties because we're having a discussion and I do not read Arabic, I've seen multiple translations of several passages and the changes are not that great, there are ofcourse the occasional hard to translate word because current Qu'ran scholars don't even know exactly what they mean, which is a language problem from when it was first translated, but I'll get to that later, most of the Qu'ran is pretty easily understood and the translations don't differ that much, if you want to present different translations to my chosen verses, well, I don't understand why you havn't already.
If your a Qu'ran scholar you probably know of the 'weird' words pop up in the Qu'ran occasionaly, and the missing of vowels in old versions of the text? (From what I read these spelling changes are considered known and not a problem)
What other language do you know of that lacks vowels? And what was the Lingua Franca of the Mecca area? Syro-Aramaic, the Qu'ran was passed on orally in Syro-Aramaic and most likely written down by people native to that language or written down in Syro-Aramaic itself, have a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran
Not to mention that the Topkapi version is not even the oldest, in your own country even specimens have survived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts
The reason why you won't hear anything about it is because it has some rather nasty implications for the Qu'ran.
Did you ever wonder why the Qu'ran is so segmented and like the Bible or the Tora is divided into clear segments, different styles of writing, occasionaly holds contradictory statements and has numbers to index the entire thing?
What we know from the creation of the Tora and the Bible is that they where collections of stories going around during those days, in the case of the Bible this has been recorded because the Romans where pretty cool guys, in the Tora's case it was a certain king who used it as a way to keep his people together when they where being shipped off to different parts of the world by the Babylonians.
And in the same fashion the Qu'ran was created, from a ton of versions going around at that time, compiled to fit the purpose of creating the religion that the people who survived after the prophet wanted it to be.
And Arabic did not properly exist when the Qu'ran was created, apart from the fact that Muhammads people did not speak it because it was not native to their region, the only versions of arabic that existed where in proto-form and native to the region your nametag says your from, classic Arabic was created specifically for writing down the Qu'ran, most likely when Muhammad was already dead.
In Islam it's a lot easier to become a saint then in Christianity, for all intents and purposes it is more useful to refer to a Imam as an equivelant of a Catholic Priest, as they perform roughly the same functions, and I don't think I ever alluded to Imams as Saints.
Mind you my problem with Hijabs and such is not as much how it looks as it's implications, the relevant part of the Qu'ran states that women must cover themselves to avoid men losing control of themselves and because they are shameless whores otherwise, equaling humans to beasts that lack any form of self control, and nowhere in the Qu'ran does it state anything similar for men, just women, who, according to the Qu'ran are PROPERTY of the man.
And I'm an atheist remember? Unlike a muslim I will take your opinion just as seriously as I would that of a man.
|
On January 27 2012 03:40 Scootaloo wrote:
Male and female circumcision might both be deplorable and related but this is mostly a matter of how badly it messes up lives.
Sexual harassment and rape might be related, but a lot more effort get's spent on preventing and persecuting rape.
As such spending more effort on getting the female circumcision point through is understandable and desireable, not to mention that the female circumcision part might not get taken seriously if it advocates the banning of male circumcision as well, which tends to be relevant to a lot more people.
+1
I think your 'sexual harrassment and rape' analogy so far is much better than the Starcraft and disease analogies other people have tried.
I'm opposed to male circumcision, too. But FGM is a subject more people can agree on, so to get things done quickly and effectively, I find it best to focus on that first before tackling the issues of male circumcision. I do hope that it will be next, though.
|
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
I have no idea where that came from. But there's nothing sexist about what he's been saying, so I'm rather confused. Why would he disregard you because you are a woman that wears a certain type of clothing? It's rather insulting that you would say that to him.
Even the Ten Commandments are written in a rather sexist way. The commandment of Coveting specifically describes a wife as property. These are just basic facts about religion. Of course, almost no religious person uses them like that, because while the religion might be detestable, religious people are trying to decent just like everyone else. To make the claim that any of these religions isn't sexist is just factually inaccurate. Everyone knows that they are. Priests, rabbis, and imams will all admit to the sexism of these religions.
Due to these religions, which are essentially just obsolete ideologies, it trends more conservative thought. It prevents necessary social change to cultures. There is literal scripture against treating women equally, meaning that there will always been fundamentalists and people in power that will resist such things. To claim that religion is innocent is blatant fallacy. I don't think demonizing Islam in particular does anyone any good, but that's a strategy comment. Secularization is the way to go. When you come out directly opposed to someone's religious beliefs, then people tend to shut down and refuse to listen to anything you say. We want actual change, we don't just want people to get angry.
|
On January 27 2012 14:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.' I have no idea where that came from. But there's nothing sexist about what he's been saying, so I'm rather confused. Why would he disregard you because you are a woman that wears a certain type of clothing? It's rather insulting that you would say that to him. Even the Ten Commandments are written in a rather sexist way. The commandment of Coveting specifically describes a wife as property. These are just basic facts about religion. Of course, almost no religious person uses them like that, because while the religion might be detestable, religious people are trying to decent just like everyone else. To make the claim that any of these religions isn't sexist is just factually inaccurate. Everyone knows that they are. Priests, rabbis, and imams will all admit to the sexism of these religions. Due to these religions, which are essentially just obsolete ideologies, it trends more conservative thought. It prevents necessary social change to cultures. There is literal scripture against treating women equally, meaning that there will always been fundamentalists and people in power that will resist such things. To claim that religion is innocent is blatant fallacy. I don't think demonizing Islam in particular does anyone any good, but that's a strategy comment. Secularization is the way to go. When you come out directly opposed to someone's religious beliefs, then people tend to shut down and refuse to listen to anything you say. We want actual change, we don't just want people to get angry.
I can't comment on Islam, as I know very little about it but I can say:
The Ten Commandments are not at all sexist. They specifically mention honoring thine father AND thine mother. As for the coveting you just mentioned:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
— Exodus 20:17 (NIV)
Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property. You should not covet your neighbors wife because she is a great partner to him, not a posession. After that, who are you to say religion is obsolete ideology? Forgiveness and loving your fellow man is obsolete? Should we just forget everything Jesus preached? Stop taking scripture so literally, stop denouncing the lifestyle of billions, and maybe instead of playing the blame game with regards to issues you can do something about it aside from further your own anti-religion agenda.
|
I think what's kind of sexist about that Bible quote is mostly that it warns against coveting your neighbor's wife, but not a neighboring woman's husband.
It kind of sounds like the Bible is written only with men in mind, and like the author only expected for men to read it -- or forgot about female readers entirely. Because I'm sure he did not mean that it was okay for women to covet a neighbor's husband by omitting the 'husband' here.
All that said, that quote wouldn't get my panties in a twist. There's a whole lot of Bible quotes I've read that were a lot more blatant than this one.
|
On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
— Exodus 20:17 (NIV)
Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property.
Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property).
|
On January 27 2012 14:47 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
— Exodus 20:17 (NIV)
Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property. Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property).
The scripture gets across a point and uses a wife as an example of coveting a relationship. It would be no different if it said husband, son, daughter, or father. Wife here is simply the relationship stated.
|
On January 27 2012 14:49 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 14:47 Yurie wrote:On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
— Exodus 20:17 (NIV)
Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property. Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property). The scripture gets across a point and uses a wife as an example of coveting a relationship. It would be no different if it said husband, son, daughter, or father. Wife here is simply the relationship stated.
Yeah, but what's odd here is that the author went thr extra mile to distinguish between manservants and maidservants, and yet doesn't bother to mention a husband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
