Interview with Leader of Hezbollah
- Thread starter Udo Erasmus
- Start date
RHOQ said:
The message of Islam as seen by historians indicates a clear and strong reaction to social injustice and is hence in its core as socialist as one can get. Centuries before anyone ever heard of Marxist ideas the Prophet Muhammed preached a form of socialism. (qualified to discuss)
A prophet like all the others before him and the last before Muhammed.
Not at all. What you propose here is a Western-born idea that has no connection with Islam at all. (I doubt even that "oridinary Muslims" ever heard about it.)
I don't see how Jesus offers such "boundary" as you propose. Your ideas on how Jesus is perceived in Islam are novel to me
So I'm afraid your theory floats on quicksand. salaam.
Tom A said:
Maybe you don't realize this but this typical Western denigrating mode of speach about Muslim women insults them every time again. Hint: They *do* have brains and *do* have a life and many *are* very happy. Same for the men. (And ocncerning the daily wife beatings... I'm far too lazy.)
An other stubborn myth. Sure, there is a lot of discrimination and in some countries they are indeed threatened and worse, but the average homosexual in Islamic nations plays the game smart enough to not "offend" outsiders. You are not going to tell me that in your country every homosexual is welcomed with open arms everywhere, nobody ever looks down on them, no incidents happen and the laws "permitting" them to be open about their sexual preferences are as old as your nation state or even only your local community? (not even speaking about religious jurisdiction which in the case of Islamic nations is often enough intertwined with or influencing secular jurisdiction.)
salaam.
Aldebaran said:I don't see how Jesus offers such "boundary" as you propose. Your ideas on how Jesus is perceived in Islam are novel to me
salaam.
You set up a thread about the Muslim conception of Jesus in theory/philosophy, and I'll discuss that with you.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Doesn't stop all sorts of nasty shite like forced marrages and honour killings from occuring though in Muslim countries, particularly in South Asia. Oh and yes, I know that is more down to "cultural tradition" than what is preached in the Koran, but I don't think many of the Islamists see it as such.RHOQ said:
Wanting a society when each gets what they need, and each works within their means, and where discrimination and prejudice are a thing of the past, and where anyone can reach their personal potential? I don't see that happening, I don't believe in utopias, but it's a goal of sorts...
Aldebaran said:
The 'West' has come a long way from the fifties.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
See post 35.Aldebaran said:
Cheers for acknowleging this.
Never was. I know only too well that homosexulality was illegal in the UK right until 1969, and homophobic incidents are still all too common here. However it is well doucmented that homosexuality is often brutally surpressed in many Muslim nations, particularly Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Egypt.
Now this should ring alarm bells with anyone who thinks that religion and state should be seperate entities, as myself and most socialists will argue for.
Tom A said:
Before i go into that I must ask you to describe what you what you see as "Islamists".
On the "honout killings... again such a myth. There are also "honour killings" in Europe and other nations founded in Christianity (often affecting men though) which has not in the least anything to do with "Muslims" and in fact not with Christianity either, although some would see it as such.
Same can be said about what you like to call "forced marriages".
Now that I think of it... I was then "forced married" too. Do you feel "outrage" about that too?
salaam.
Tom A said:
And where there are also known gay clubs and gay meetings and known meeting points too. (You always only hear one particular bit af the story.)
Maybe, but first of all :who are you to claim that Muslims must think like you?
Personally I see no reason (nor any evidence) to conclude that complete secularism and all the rest of the Western concepts of State and Society would be workable in nations outside the sphere where these ideas saw life.
There are historical reasons why Westerners have such irrational views and why they want to shove their ideas and life style down to other people's throats, at gun point if necessary, but that doesn't make the whole idea more realistic, let alone workable, does it?
salaam.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Now my criticisms of Islamists are because they would allow the same horrors I described in my previous posts, which have been know to occur when Islamic fundamentalism rears it ugly head and dominates society. Examples include Afghanistan, most famously during the reign of the Taliban but the same repression still continues after their demise outside of certain parts of Kabul. The same is also true of tribal parts of Pakistan. Honour killings are a matter of fact in these parts of the world, and have indeed happened among Muslim families in the UK. However I am not naive enough to say that such a practice is retricted to Islam, other religions have been used to justify nasty things being visited upon those who stray from the norm.Wiktionary said:
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Well I try and adopt a live and let live policy, if you want to live your life according to Sharia law, go and do it, if your contemporaries want to do likewise, then again, fine with me. I will only get pissed off when those who stray from what is seen as normal by the culture are burtally repressed as a result. In my books, you either beileve in freedom for all or freedom for none.Aldebaran said:
You give a very vague description to begin with (and there is no such thing as "fundamentalism" in Islam).
Do you even know that the Taliban are considered as complete nutcases?
Do you reallise that Pakistan is considered a completely failed nation to begin with and that feudal tribal habits are not Islam, but tend to influence local practice thereof (of course) especially in such patriarchal societies where not only the women often can't read.
salaam.
Do you even know that the Taliban are considered as complete nutcases?
Do you reallise that Pakistan is considered a completely failed nation to begin with and that feudal tribal habits are not Islam, but tend to influence local practice thereof (of course) especially in such patriarchal societies where not only the women often can't read.
salaam.
Aldebaran said:
I can't think of one occasion when 'Westerners' came galloping in to save a single Muslim homosexual from hanging.
Tom A said:
Can you explain "shari'a law" in all its details and concepts and applications please? If you can't, what on earth do you think you talk about?
What has "freedom" to do with it... Do you want to say "freedom" on *your* terms and interpretaiton thereof *only*?
salaam.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Any religion or belief can have complete fuckwits who take certain parts of the religion to extremes to justify their own prejudices (in other words, fundamentalism).[/quote]Aldebaran said:
Yes. I consider them complete nutcases! However there are quite a lot of these nutcases, and they tend to be very influential where people have been shat upon from outside.
As I said earlier on this very thread (post 35 to be exact), I am aware that the autocites that occur in tribal Pakistan are more down to "cultural tradition" than anything mentioned in the Koran.
I have nothing against Islam, just the people mentioned above (Taliban, local tribal practice, suicide bombers) whose interpretation of their religion has caused unnecessary suffering. In the same way I do not have anything against Christianity, only the people who say that abortion and contraception are a one-way ticket to the big firey place and those who were responsible for autrocites like the Spanish Inqusition and today's "War on/of Terror".
As I said earlier, live and let live. Maybe I would have been better saying that I reserve the right to condemn those who cause unnecessary suffering to their fellow human.
Tom A said:
Incorrect. Fundamentalist is a US invention to describe a certain group of Christians. To apply such a word to Muslims is completely incorrect. There is no such thing like "fundamentalism" in Islam. It is impossible.
They are not influential at all. They are considered heretics by many, especially among scholars too. I don't go that far, since I have no right to judge (only God can judge). If it were my doing I would re-educate them = I would teach them Islam.
The truth is that there is *nothing* of all that "mentioned" in Al Qur'an.
How do you think Muslims think about all that? Do you think we are happy with those lunatics? They don't "interprete" the religion, they simply create their own version. Inventing a sect is one thing, creating diversions that leads to lunatical behaviour is in my view an other.
Nobody can claim you can't do that. However, you came across as believing that "Muslims" don't do the same.
salaam.
Aldebaran: "It is impossible to apply 'fundamentalism' to Islam." what nonsense. fundamentalism simply means to engage in the bare bones of any ideology or dogma. since Islam is a belief system it most certainly is possible to apply that adjective to the religion. Curiously, how would you desribe the Taliban movement to Islam as a whole?
When you speak of "what is mentioned in the Qu'ran," what of Hadit? Shari'a? In the Qu'ran alone does it not permit one to beat one's wife? All religions have their good and negative points. It is up to the mainstream to sort it out and promote what is best for the bulk of adherents.
Sadly, mainstream Islam has done a terrible job o getting their message across.
When you speak of "what is mentioned in the Qu'ran," what of Hadit? Shari'a? In the Qu'ran alone does it not permit one to beat one's wife? All religions have their good and negative points. It is up to the mainstream to sort it out and promote what is best for the bulk of adherents.
Sadly, mainstream Islam has done a terrible job o getting their message across.
rachamim18 said:
I did some research after Bush kept citing the Taleban's treatment of women in the run up to Afghanstan (the first femminist war in history!), and the Qu'ran, I felt, reads like a constitution, with lots of checks and balances. I'll (boringly) list what I remember.
Yes, a husband is advised to "scourge" his wife, as a second option after banishing her from his bed, but a later sura gives her the right of divorce if she fears ill-treatment (patriarchical authority, therefore needs to be justified)
She is empowered with the means to realistically undertake a divorce. By right in a divorce she keeps her dowrie (marriage payment made by husband to her) and inherited wealth from her family.
In terms of inheritance daughters get proportionally less than sons (1/4 compared to 1/2 for example, depending on family size) but this is reasonable given that husbands pay marriage dowries to wives.
Men and women have an equal right to earn a living for themsleves.
Male and female adulterers are treated equally (marriage among themsleves I think). Both men and women are punished in the same way for "fornication" outside marriage (something harsh, I can't remember, probably a scourging).
The only stipulation on women's dress relates to a prohibtion on the bearing of breasts to people outside the extended family.
The provision for men to take more than one wife (up to 4) is only made in the context of taking care of orphans and widows at time of war, and only if all wives' rights are respected equally.
I could be wrong but its my understanding that elements of the "Hadith" and "Sunnah", (interpretations of other stuff that isn't in the Qu'ran made by a bunch of priests (mullahs) about a hundred years after Muhammed's time), put a harsher spin on things for women, and this fed into Shari'a law.
rachamim18 said:
Wrong. "fundamentalist" refers to (US) Chrsitians and has nothing to see with Islam or any other religion but that particular Christian setting.
Maybe you could read this
Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections
See thread under the link above.
Al Qur'an is what Muslims believe in. The traditions are stories told by humans.
What you and other non-Muslims like to call "Shar'ia" as if it is one single, static, uniform codification of Islamic Law, refers in reality to a broad spectrum of codification and practice, implementation and history thereof.
Would I claim that all juridical systems in Europe or "the West" in general are exactly the same because "Western" wouldn't you believe I am slightly retarded?
Ah, the famous what I call "weak point" of translations and in fact the verbform I dispute the most, because if you take this as meaning "and beat her" you are in complete opposition with all the rest Al Qur'an regarding the position of men and women.
Quite the opposite, but sadly, the West has a history of beating up whatever it can as "wrong" and "bad". What we see today in the media, focussing on "suicide bombers" etc.. as if *that* is Islam, is in fact almost nothing compared with the centuries of Western attacks on Islam and Muslims (verbal, in writing and otherwise).
salaam.
RHOQ said:
surat an-nisaa' (IV); 34
See above (and actually it is a third step towards an attempt to reconciliation). I propose an other reading (verb in second form instead of first) but even if you don't: If you read the text carefully, you shall come to the conclusion that arriving at the point where so many interprete as permission to slap her, so much time has gone by that the first anger is cooled.
Inheritance law is a complex issue (like it is in most systems) but mainly you have a good interpretation. It is however not only about a dowry. A husband is solely responsible for all the family income and whatever the needs may be. If a woman works outside the house she has no obligation to spend that income on anything else but herself.
There is no clear command in Al Qur'an for women to wear even a headscarf. Still, many (both genders) firmly believe there is such in surat an-nur; 31. (the verse you refer to)
It was also meant to impose legal marriage instead of other relationships. Since in reality it is impossible to treat women you married equally in all aspects, these conditions are also read as indicating the opposite of what the verse permits.
Sunna and hadieth should be treated with very much care and in context of the events described. They form after Al Qur'an and together with influences of local common laws the second and third source in developments of Islamic Law and jurisdiction.(the last of course also of constant developping influence on law study, -development and -practice)
salaam.
Interesting. I'm not a Muslim. So it appears that an objective reader, atleast with regard to the rights of women, can come away from the Qu'ran with a good understanding of its content. Some questions:
Taking this specific issue (womens rights), what does the Hadith and Sunnah add to the Qu'ran?
What is the motivation behind these additions (presumably a historically specific attempt to address perceived ambiguities in the Qu'ran)?
Would a Western observer regard these additions as more or less "liberal" with regard to women?
And is there a debate about whether these post Qu'ranic intrepetations are valid?
Taking this specific issue (womens rights), what does the Hadith and Sunnah add to the Qu'ran?
What is the motivation behind these additions (presumably a historically specific attempt to address perceived ambiguities in the Qu'ran)?
Would a Western observer regard these additions as more or less "liberal" with regard to women?
And is there a debate about whether these post Qu'ranic intrepetations are valid?
What a crock. Welcome, come fight and kill imperialists and Zionists with us , just leave your ideologies at the door. Typical "enemy of my enemy" Arab double talk.
RHOQ: You Are aware I hope that a husband is permitted, via the Qu'ran, to beat his wife with a stick "if she does not reason?" Also, female circumcision is proscribed in the hadit.
Similar threads
