'Lost' pictures of ancient copies of the Quran may be found

[gorski]

I had no idea you're such a petit bourgeois... All that Western decadence corrupted you, I see... Never mind, then...

 

[Andy the Don]

Proof that evolution is incorrect & the correct answer is creationism..

The proof is a jar of peanut butter..

 

[Aldebaran]

I had no idea you're such a petit bourgeois... All that Western decadence corrupted you, I see... Never mind, then...

You already lost your "challenge" and you also lost my challenge to show a shred of intellectual capacity. (By the way, I'm not exactly "bourgeois" and "Western decadence" can hardly "corrupt" me.)

salaam.

 

[gorski]

So, show me some of that greatness of yours... If you dare!!!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I undertook the study to see what was reasonable to believe about it.

This sentence encapsulates quite well the difference between those who follow a religion and those who don't, a difference that often prevents meaningful discussion between the two.

Regarding what it is reasonable to believe, I say this:

It is unreasonable to believe that anything written in any book should be the last word on any particular subject.

 

[gorski]

Now you're being unreasonably challenging and offensive, not to mention impolite. A lecture may follow.

Sadly, no answers or principles, methodology, ideas etc.

See Augustine or Aquinas!

Same principle issue!

 

[Aldebaran]

This sentence encapsulates quite well the difference between those who follow a religion and those who don't, a difference that often prevents meaningful discussion between the two.

Not necessarily. I am religious, if you didn't notice that until now

Regarding what it is reasonable to believe, I say this:

It is unreasonable to believe that anything written in any book should be the last word on any particular subject.

Correct.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

So, then some of the essential issues, if you please:

1) Are the status and rights of Human Beings as such in Islam defensible today?

[A reminder: one has no Human Rights as a Human Being in Islam - everything is mediated by "the word of God"!!! (and someone has to interpret it)!!!]

2) Is the status of women in Islam defensible today?

3) Is the status of "unbelievers" in Islam defensible today?

4) Is secularisation of those societies necessary, in your opinion?

5) Is the secualrisation process inseparable from the critical unravelling of the very basis of Muslim Faith itself!

 

[Aldebaran]

1) Are the status and rights of Human Beings as such in Islam defensible today?

Why would they not? Because of your weird sounding totally invented "reminder"? Not even worth a smile I'm afraid.

2) Is the status of women in Islam defensible today?

Since all humans are created equally, why would women would be more or lesser created than men? Do you want to attempt ot rewrite Islam or what are you on about?

3) Is the status of "unbelievers" in Islam defensible today?

What "status". If you aren not muslim, you aren't. You chose for that or you don't.

4) Is secularisation of those societies necessary, in your opinion?

Which "societies"? Do you have any idea what you speak of? (A: nothing that I can detect)

5) Is the secualrisation process inseparable from the critical unravelling of the very basis of Muslim Faith itself!

What "critical unravelling" would you be able to refer to, with your utterly inadequate view (not to speak of knowledge) of what you attempt to talk about?

salaam.

 

[gorski]

As a serious debater I'm afraid you are a fraud, sir, ergo you're not worthy of another line... Sorry I wasted your and my time!

 

[Aldebaran]

Cause of your dissappointment is clear enough: You have nothing to debate. You can't even formulate a question that makes sense.
I warned you if you want to "challenge" me you need to stand on firm ground, to begin with.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

Indeed. To you it makes no sense, as you can't even perceive it, as you can't see any of it as worthy of critical attention - and that makes you a fraud, yes!

Au revoir!

 

[Aldebaran]

gorski, you can make an endless list of posts like this, it shall not get you one step further.
Better spend your time on actually doing some serious study on Islam and then maybe in the end you are able to post a question that makes sense.
A good and very easy begin would be searching for my posts in Islam. Only a click of your mouse button away.


salaam.

 

[gorski]

I seriously studied Human Rights and alike. Now, go away, please...

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, me too. As part of my study International Law. So what?

salaam.

 

[gorski]

So, everything:

you're either uniformed and ignorant on the issues, which makes you intellectually incompetent

or

you're ignoring those issues which makes you morally incompetent

or

you're agreeing with all that which would make you a dogmatic and worse!

 

[Aldebaran]

No, the whole point is that you can't even formulate a decent question worth the name. Caused by your ignorant blinding prejudice (about me too, for example) which makes you invent non-existing things you then mention as if they are fact.
Etc.. etc..

Try again when you are ready to debate instead of merely post to fill up blank spaces.

salaam.

 

[gorski]

Bullshit!

You have a number of serious and rather difficult Qs that the best brains are trying to unravel and grapple with. I didn't exactly make them. And this really makes you look worse and worse by the post! Also, weaker and weaker! Morally and intellectually!

Grow up!

 

[Aldebaran]

Bullshit!

You have a number of serious and rather difficult Qs that the best brains are trying to unravel and grapple with. I didn't exactly make them. And this really makes you look worse and worse by the post! Also, weaker and weaker! Morally and intellectually!

Grow up!

Oh please... Which one of your "questions" would take less than a second to be brushed away as uninformed, prejudiced nonsense, exactly?

salaam.

 

[gorski]

You are beginning to irritate me, sir...

It has been suggested that alternative
rights and traditions tend to stress the group over the individual.
For instance, the Singapore School see rights as part of a broader
theory of organic community, where the interests of the individual
are subordinate to those of good government and a stable, ordered
society. Islamic rights, in making a distinction between the ‘rights of
Allah’ and human rights, entail a similar conclusion. If the ‘rights of
Allah’ are co-ordinated with the preservation of Islamic faith as a
whole, and with the observance of certain religious and social
duties, then the rights of the individual will be secondary to
measures that are meant to either further Islamic faith or to protect
the state.

Particularistic approaches to those are well documented and "out there" for anyone with an open mid to freely inform themselves critically!

Islamic particularism is associated with arguments about the
centrality of Shariah law. Certain provisions of Shariah are in
opposition to rights in the UDHR. This could be understood as both
a ‘clash’ between different traditions and an assertion of Shariah
law as a symbol of political identity.

Moreover:

Commentators have drawn particular attention to this section of
the Declaration (Tan, 1997, p.112). Islamic human rights are based
not on the being of the individual, but on a foundation of religious
faith: the status of the person as ‘God’s vicegerent in this world’.
Rights are acknowledged in Islam as measures that allow the
individual Muslim to better serve Allah. As we have seen in
Jamaluddin Al-‘Atiyyah’s argument, this then allows an argument
that posits a society in which the individual has duties towards
others. Tan then stresses the importance of the Shariah. Thus, it is
possible to appreciate the coherence of this articulation of rights
and the centrality of Shariah law to its realisation.

Deal with this:

Shariah is a system of civil and criminal law; but it is also, more
broadly, a code for living. It is founded on the Qur’an, the Sunna
and the work of Muslim scholars in the first two centuries of Islam.

Although Shariah law addresses Muslims, its rules can also apply to
non-Muslims.

What are the consequences?

None of the Articles of the CDHRI are in themselves discriminatory
[But] the entire declaration has to be interpreted in the light of the
Shariah, and can be restricted on the basis of the Shariah, there are
no restrictions on the Shariah rules that discriminate against women.
(Brems, 2001, p.264)

Certain areas can be highlighted:

Choice of a husband: Most schools of Islamic law do not allow a
woman to marry without the consent of a male guardian, who has
the right to determine the suitability of the husband. In most cases,
the consent of the woman herself is necessary, yet sometimes it is
accepted that the guardian can force a girl into marriage.
Polygamy: Authorised by the Koran, yet limited to four wives. It is
accepted in most Muslim countries.

Authority of the husband: The Shariah establishes the
authority of the husband over his wife. Marriage is a contract with
asymmetric obligations. The husband owes his wife maintenance,
and the wife owes her husband sexual access and obedience. This
includes the right of the husband to chastise his wife if she is
disobedient. The wife’s duty of obedience is enforced in most
contemporary Islamic legislation.

Divorce: In Islamic law is it easier for a man to obtain a divorce
than it is for a woman. A man can divorce his wife simply by
pronouncing a formula of repudiation, without having to establish a
particular ground for divorce. A woman can obtain a divorce only
though the intervention of a judge, before whom she must establish
one of a limited number of acceptable bases for divorce. Some
schools of law accept the possibility for a woman to stipulate her
right to divorce in a marriage contract.

Custody: In most interpretations, Shariah gives the right to
custody of small children to the divorced mother, under the
supervision of the divorced father. At a certain age, which varies
according to the school of law, the custody is transferred to the
father. In addition, when the mother remarries to another man, she
loses custody of her children, regardless of age. This arrangement is
the subject of criticism from the perspective of women’s rights. The
fact that a woman whose children have reached a certain age is
certain to lose them in case of divorce, makes divorce an extremely
hard option, in those limited cases where the woman has access to
it. Moreover, the custodial consequences of divorce make the
(threat of) unilateral divorce a cruel weapon in the hands of the
husband.

Maintenance: In many interpretations of the Shari’ah , divorced
women do not enjoy a right to maintenance from their former
husbands beyond a three month period following the divorce.
Inheritance: In almost all cases, Islamic law prescribes that a
man’s share of the inheritance is double that of a woman in the
same relation to the deceased. This is the case where children
inherit from their parents. Also, when a widow inherits from her
deceased husband, her share is half that which he would have
inherited had she died first.

Testimony: Women are precluded from testifying in certain
criminal cases, such as those relating to adultery (which require
four male witnesses). In other cases, such as monetary transactions,
the testimony of two women has the same worth as that of one
man. These rules are applied today mostly in relation to personal
status law.

That's not all:

The absence of a provision on freedom of religion is one of the most
remarkable features of the CDHRI. It puts a huge question mark
over any universal pretensions of the declaration.

In the traditional interpretation of the Shariah, there is freedom of
religion, in the sense that adherents of other monotheist religions
cannot be compelled to adopt Islam. Yet this is a one way freedom
because Muslims are not free to abandon Islam. Apostasy is a crime
for which Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for males and
imprisonment for females.

There are also civil consequences of apostasy:

...the apostate is not allowed to marry, and when a married person
becomes an apostate, the marriage is dissolved. Other rights that are
denied to the apostate are the exercise of custody over his children
and the right to inheritance. Also, the apostate’s rights to dispose of
his property are in abeyance and the legal effect of his acts are
suspended. (Brems, 2001, p.255)

Shariah criminal law distinguishes between different types of crime.
One of these is the set of crimes known as ‘hadud’ crimes. These are
six crimes that the Qur’an considers particularly serious and for
which a particular kind of punishment is prescribed, either in the
Qur’an or in another Shariah source, entailing the infliction of pain,
including, for example, theft – amputation of a hand; adultery –
flagellation or stoning. Article 5 of the UDHR forbids punishments
that are cruel, inhuman or degrading, which suggests that there are
incompatibilities between the concept of rights in Islam, and under
the UDHR.

One could go on. Particularistic "notions" of HR are anything but to be ignored. They hide much more than they reveal and protect a certain dogma much more than they aim to protect a Human Being as such!

However, one needs not only a [even average] mind to investigate all this but an open one at that. Alas, sir, this is something you might have a problem with, it seems to me...

 

[Aldebaran]

What is the purpose of all this?
Posting p&c (and of writings of unknown origin/author at that) is not formulating questions. It is posting p&c. That's all.
I'm more than tired of looking at your nonsense, I knew on forehand getting involved with you would lead to less than nothing (except of you posting more attempts to "insult" which are on their own a bit curious, but that is all there is to your posts).

salaam.

 

[gorski]

P&C? Hehe...

You're worse than a troll! You have nothing in the head and nothing in your heart! Empty, twisted shell!

For a "scholar" not knowing what argumentum ad hominem is.... is.... errrmmm.... utterly ridiculously incompetent at all levels, in all directions!!!

 

[Badger Kitten]

It should be pretty clear that Aldebaran is not a troll, and Fattboy is.

It looks to me like you are just chucking insults and aggressive, abusive questions at him, without listening to his individual answers, because you have some kind of point to make about his religion; a point you have decided you'll prove before you've even listened to him.

That is hardly fair, and looks like personal abuse to me, bordering on trolling. Whatever you think about religion, it should be possible to manage your own feelings about it without behaving in a way that's intolerant, narrow-minded, vitriolic and prejudiced - otherwise, you're hardly in a position to criticise religious people for being dogmatic and closed minded, are you?

How can you criticise religious people for being intolerant when you steam in like this?

 

[butchersapron]

It should be pretty clear that Aldebaran is not a troll, and Fattboy is.

Not to me it's not.

And no, he has every right to ask those questions. They are not abuse or trolling.

 

[gorski]

He has no intention of answering any Qs, which is why I threw it at him.

I know he can do better.

But he'd also reveal a bit more than he wants...

Ach, never mind, it will be fruitless...

And initially it wasn't abuse but a really hard challenge. For a reason. But as he is a very slippery fish it escalated a bit more, since he was smug and "abusive" in his own way... And I find it all very wanting! In every respect.

Night-night.

 

[Lock&Light]

It is posting p&c. That's all.

Islamists are not the only one who think that what they say has importance, while the scattering of words of others is but like confetti in the wind.

 

[Lock&Light]

It should be pretty clear that Aldebaran is not a troll, and Fattboy is.

I disagree. It's just that one of them is the more obvious troll.

 

[gorski]

Islamists are not the only one who think that what they say has importance, while the scattering of words of others is but like confetti in the wind.

Hmmm... Important - sure, we all are. But "superior" - that is the Q, here. Of the "We have God on our side" kind... That's somewhat ridiculous and scary at the same time! And most of the time it's about power, influence and all that comes with it, rather than anything to do with thinking and believing!

When the Europeans were killing the "native Americans" it was done with the same "rhetoric": "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!" Even the good number of priests/clergy did it or at least it was done with their consent. In recent years we had similar "involvement" of clergy in the Balkans.

Now, let's get to the bottom of this, I say...

The "Europeans" went on with the processes of individualisation, secularisation, edicts of "religious tolerance" etc. etc.

Later on we were doing away with nationalism/racism - and of course it's work in progress but with something to show for "our" efforts [see EU, for instance]!

So, what with Islamic movement/countries/clergy/faith itself?!? What with the "thinking", i.e. "ideology" and "world-view" behind it?

The "West" constantly openly, critically examines and re-examines itself in every respect and keeps "renegotiating the deal", as it were. Nothing is "sacred" and beyond reproach!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what with the movements/countries/belief systems/ideologies/world-views where that is not open for discussion?!?