Two Important Things about Islam

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

richrf
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:29 am
@xris,
Whereas there has been tension between the Christian world and Islam world since the Crusades (everybody wanted the trade routes), I do remember reading about great traditions of Islam in arts, philosophy, science, etc. I hope that we may introduce these ideas into this thread or some other thread. This is something I know very little about and would like to learn more about.

Rich
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:29 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;88718 wrote:

Because Islam is the topic being discussed.

Well I don't know much about it but my over all point was treatment of the guilty. I think we have grown up enough to realize that harsh punishments like cutting off hands and feet is overly harsh. I realize that there are some states in the US that still support capitol punishment, but that doesn't mean that I or all other Americans support it. I don't agree with killing the killer. It does not work as a deterrent for crime.


i know there are large numbers of americans who are against capital punishment, and it is hard to say how many muslims believe shariah law is too harsh.its origin was in tribal areas where there was basically no law or societal punishment, only revenge killings that were all out of proportion. i believe it will be amended in time, just as i believe the death penalty will be abolished in america in time.

but for now, this type of punishment is a deterrent in islamic countries. you can leave a sack of any amount of money or valuable goods in a public place and return the next day and be sure to find it still there untouched. it does not work as a deterrent in america because there is a totally different psychology to criminals in different countries. eventually (god bless globalization) it will cease to be a deterrent in states where shariah law is in place, and they will be forced to look at it carefully. it will be revised i am sure.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;88718 wrote:
Because Islam is the topic being discussed.
Couldn't have known that based on how you approached modesty, as if it's somehow ridiculous in Islam but fine in our own culture.

Krumple;88718 wrote:
Well I don't know much about it but my over all point was treatment of the guilty.
You don't need to know much about the Spanish Inquisition... burning people alive without trial? Mass expulsions? Forced conversions? That only happened after the Christian reconquest of Spain, it was decidedly NOT the case under the Umayyads (in which there were even celebrated public debates between Muslims, Jews, and Christians).

Krumple;88718 wrote:
I think we have grown up enough to realize that harsh punishments like cutting off hands and feet is overly harsh.
How many countries in the world does this happen in? I've worked for extended periods in Gambia and Senegal, which are nearly exclusively Muslim countries, and these penalties are not practiced there. Not even in every place with Sharia are such punishments practiced.

---------- Post added 09-07-2009 at 11:57 AM ----------

richrf;88729 wrote:
I hope that we may introduce these ideas into this thread or some other thread. This is something I know very little about and would like to learn more about.
Do a search for posts of mine about Muslim astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, and medicine. I've talked about it quite a bit in other threads here. Calculus and various components of it were developed in Muslim lands more than 500 years before Leibniz and Newton, and learning from Muslim lands had long been incorporated into European teaching by the time of the Renaissance and early Enlightenment.
 
step314 phil
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@peter74,
I don't think the burqa/veil issue should be considered a religious one. What one should wear is basically not a spiritual question. To decide whether females should be allowed to dress thus, one must look at the consequences.

People too often fail to distinguish the consequences to a particular female in wearing skimpy clothing from the consequences to females in general in wearing skimpy clothing. Probably when a female wears skimpy clothing, she does put herself in greater risk of being sexually assaulted, but she doesn't put females in general at greater risk; in fact she makes other girls safer an amount that cancels the amount she puts herself at greater risk. If a girl were to wear a bikini top and skimpy shorts to school, that would probably put her at greater risk of being sexually assaulted, but if most girls standardly wore bikini tops and skimpy shorts to school, they would be in no more danger than they are at present. Dangerwise, it's how girls dress relative to other girls that matters. When a girl dresses with excess modesty, she puts other girls at greater risk of being raped.

The worst consequences to females dressing with excess modesty are on the males. How are young males supposed to figure out their natural feelings toward females if they aren't very much allowed to see females? Also, how can males go about choosing a mate very well if they are not allowed to look at them before mating? Higher moral traits tend to arise from sexual selection, which can only work at best half way if males can't look at females before dating or mating with them. If females aren't inferior in such a society, they will quickly evolve to become inferior, because males can't very well use sexual selection to select for desirable female traits if they can't see females before promising to love them. True, perhaps males can judge females more by conversation, but considering judging by appearances as evil should be seen for what it is, namely as mostly something cooked up by snobby rich people who have greater social connections and wish to keep it that way by making it impossible for people outside their circle to easily form connections with their own circle. Fashion and personal visual self-expression in a society are keys to reducing class snobbery and cliquishness, and should never be trivialized. Of course, there is the argument that females should be free to wear whatever they want if it doesn't hurt others, but like I said, females do hurt others by dressing too modestly--they put other females at danger.

Most western schools presumably already have dress codes against excessively immodest clothing, and so dress codes against excessively modest clothing would be a reasonable symmetric counterpart. Muslims can't have it both ways and argue it's not a religious issue when they don't want others to mock their religion (such mocking of their religion would be well deserved if in fact that be a part of their religion) but then argue it's a religious issue when they want to send their daughters to school dressed obnoxiously.

Not that there isn't a point to dress codes the other way. People going to school naked might be a health issue if nothing else. And if people went around naked, that would make rape a non-neglible amount easier, there being no clothes to take off beforehand. And females tend to like to de-emphasize the "hole" nature of their sexuality, that being the sort of thing that might appeal to "woot! hole!" males, yeah, who more tend to be pro-sodomy (and thus disgusting) than males more enthusiastic about other aspects of female sexuality. Similarly, I don't have a problem with schools having rules that shorts must cover completely one's hindquarters, though I do remember thinking maybe it a little much some school taking rulers to girls' shorts trying to decide if they were sufficiently below the hip line. Mostly, true modesty (the good kind) is about expressing clean sexuality as opposed to little sexuality. A girl dressing like she finds sex very interesting or wants great sex is innocuous and is different from a girl dressing like she loves sex with scads of males or like she loves what is disgusting, and females in skimpy clothes usually probably is more about the first. Nay, females tend to most importantly love with sex, and so to deride sexuality in females or the expression of such is to deride females for their most unselfish traits or their expressions of such--it is a wicked thing to do.
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 11:12 am
@peter74,
Please also remember that if a muslim acts "bad" it does not automatically mean he was acting according to the faith.

So for example if non muslims in spain were treated badly ( i have no idea if this is true) it would be wrong from an islamic perspective.

Just as the crusades are probably deemed wrong from a Christian perspective.

There is no point digging up the past and pointing out how many bad people there were, as we all know that there are plenty of all faiths and non faiths.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 11:56 am
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;88762 wrote:
Please also remember that if a muslim acts "bad" it does not automatically mean he was acting according to the faith.

So for example if non muslims in spain were treated badly ( i have no idea if this is true) it would be wrong from an islamic perspective.

Just as the crusades are probably deemed wrong from a Christian perspective.

There is no point digging up the past and pointing out how many bad people there were, as we all know that there are plenty of all faiths and non faiths.
I have no love of religion or its historical horror stories, it just appears many muslims still use the allowances islam gives them. Slavery in africa is carried out with authority and such countries as Iran still stone adulterers by sharia administrations. Communist China, catholics dogma, I have many complaints, its not reserved for islamic extremism.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 01:52 pm
@xris,
But that's the thing, Xris - judging an entire faith tradition based upon the extremists is inherently biased, it's an inherently slanted misrepresentation of the larger tradition.

How many times have we had this conversation? How many times must I point out the same old logical fallacy that you use to justify your unnecessary abuse of massive, worldwide populations?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 03:51 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;88796 wrote:
But that's the thing, Xris - judging an entire faith tradition based upon the extremists is inherently biased, it's an inherently slanted misrepresentation of the larger tradition.

How many times have we had this conversation? How many times must I point out the same old logical fallacy that you use to justify your unnecessary abuse of massive, worldwide populations?
When we have the largest amount of slaves in living history and muslims are responsible, dont tell me who is abusing who. Should i be quiet about it for the sake of those who dont object. Don't gag me for talking the truth, question my authority, but not my right. Its easy sitting in the comfort of your abode and ignoring these questions. All faiths have their devils and there destructive dogma, I wont stop pointing out these failings.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 04:29 pm
@peter74,
Why are the Laws of Islam applied so differently from place to place and country to country?

S. Arabia has harsh religious laws but I must credit that country with almost elimination crime in the process, but at what cost to the freedom of the individual
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 04:32 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;88852 wrote:
Why are the Laws of Islam applied so differently from place to place and country to country?

S. Arabia has harsh religious laws but I must credit that country with almost elimination crime in the process, but at what cost to the freedom of the individual


My guess is that they water it down so that it will be accepted, and plan to increase the severity or over time.

A lot of fundamentalist Muslims make claims about converting the entire world into Islam and one really good method of doing that is by converting law systems to adopt sharia law in any way possible, then ratifying it later. All you need to do is get your foot in the door, then you can wedge it open without too much trouble. American politicians use this method to get laws enacted.
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 04:49 pm
@peter74,
xris,

You keep commenting about slavery, as if Islam encourages it. Freeing slaves is all that is mentioned in islam. Infact some its most prominent figures are freed slaves.

002.177
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the freeing of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.



It makes more sense to back up your comments with some kind of evidence, so we can all understand how you have reached these views. After all perhaps you are right and we are all wrong, but we would require more evidence to reach that conclusion.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 05:03 pm
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;88857 wrote:
It makes more sense to back up your comments with some kind of evidence, so we can all understand how you have reached these views. After all perhaps you are right and we are all wrong, but we would require more evidence to reach that conclusion.

Showing how someone has gotten to their current thought is important for sure, but as far as showing evidence itself to prove a point...isn't that less philisophical and better suited for a courtroom?
Opinions aren't going to be proven right or wrong, regardless of the topic. If you insist on evidence to prove an opinion, you'll be beating your head against a wall for a long time getting it. :brickwall:

Xris, doing a bit more research before posting "facts" is very important. Please try to be cautious regarding this in the future.

Thanks guys, bacl to the topic now. :a-ok:
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 05:41 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;88853 wrote:
My guess is that they water it down so that it will be accepted, and plan to increase the severity or over time.

A lot of fundamentalist Muslims make claims about converting the entire world into Islam and one really good method of doing that is by converting law systems to adopt sharia law in any way possible, then ratifying it later. All you need to do is get your foot in the door, then you can wedge it open without too much trouble. American politicians use this method to get laws enacted.


They say they are a religion of peace, but if you disagree on that point they might kill you. :perplexed:

Of course the record of Christianity "IN THE PAST" was no better
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 05:41 pm
@xris,
xris;88770 wrote:
I have no love of religion or its historical horror stories, it just appears many muslims still use the allowances islam gives them. Slavery in africa is carried out with authority and such countries as Iran still stone adulterers by sharia administrations. Communist China, catholics dogma, I have many complaints, its not reserved for islamic extremism.


on your first issue: too many people mistake tribal issues for islam.

there is nothing in islam that condones slavery. slavery was common in the time of the prophet and yet in the qur'an it is repeatedly mentioned that a good deed was to buy the freedom fo a slave. this was setting a precedent for the abolition of slavery at a time when no one thought it was wrong. slaves then were basically the result of captives of war, and rather than put them to death they became servants whose care was an obligation of the people to whom they were awarded.

as for your second issue with sharia: that is the law in iran by choice, it is not imposed on people against their will. to their understanding it is justice. this is not even an issue for human rights when the answer is simple-dont break the law. the laws themselves are not unjust.

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 05:14 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;88852 wrote:
Why are the Laws of Islam applied so differently from place to place and country to country?

S. Arabia has harsh religious laws but I must credit that country with almost elimination crime in the process, but at what cost to the freedom of the individual


alan, exactly which freedoms to the individual do not exist in saudi arabia?

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 05:16 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;88872 wrote:
They say they are a religion of peace, but if you disagree on that point they might kill you. :perplexed:

Of course the record of Christianity "IN THE PAST" was no better


alan you are talking about two different groups of people here.

'they' understand islam who say it is a religion of peace.

'they' whom you claim might kill you for disagreeing with what they say do not know their religion no matter what it is, whether it is christianity or islam or anything else.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 05:58 pm
@salima,
salima,

Like Christianity Islam is a colossal topic to cover in one thread, but we should nevertheless try. Below are a few more points for debate

Cause & Effect - Islam or Tyranny? - Reader comments at Daniel Pipes

There is no truly free and stable Muslim democracy in the world comparable to a Western democracy, could cause and effect be the reverse of prevailing wisdom? In other words, are regimes ranging from Saddam Hussein (at the worst end of the scale) to Turkey (at the best end of the scale, but slipping rapidly) the only way to govern Muslim nations? Can individual freedom and democracy ever co-exist with Muslim values? Are Muslims backwards because of their tyrannical rulers, or do they have tyrannical rulers because they are Muslim?

Given an opportunity for individual freedom and democracy, it is now evident how that opportunity has been perverted by Iraqis and Palestinians into yet another mechanism to maintain their barbarism.

Yet there is Turkey, in which a once brutal visionary leader, Kemal Ataturk, did create a civilized Muslim state. There are the Kurds who seem to have aspirations beyond the rage and blood lust of their fellow Iraqis. And there are Morocco and Indonesia, both tenuously democratic. Will the exceptions become the rule, or are they transient aberrations that will yield to a Muslim world governed by tyranny because only tyranny can rule Muslims?

This question has serious implications for Muslim immigration into the West. If around the world, the successful governance of Muslims requires some degree of tyranny an brutality, then how can such values co-exist with the Western ideal of individual liberty? Clearly, co-existence has reached the breaking point in Denmark, France, Britain, Spain, Thailand and the Philippines. None of these democracies has found the magic bullet for peaceful co-existence with Muslims.?
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 06:07 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;88881 wrote:
salima,

Like Christianity Islam is a colossal topic to cover in one thread, but we should nevertheless try. Below are a few more points for debate

Cause & Effect - Islam or Tyranny? - Reader comments at Daniel Pipes

There is no truly free and stable Muslim democracy in the world comparable to a Western democracy, could cause and effect be the reverse of prevailing wisdom? In other words, are regimes ranging from Saddam Hussein (at the worst end of the scale) to Turkey (at the best end of the scale, but slipping rapidly) the only way to govern Muslim nations? Can individual freedom and democracy ever co-exist with Muslim values? Are Muslims backwards because of their tyrannical rulers, or do they have tyrannical rulers because they are Muslim?

Given an opportunity for individual freedom and democracy, it is now evident how that opportunity has been perverted by Iraqis and Palestinians into yet another mechanism to maintain their barbarism.

Yet there is Turkey, in which a once brutal visionary leader, Kemal Ataturk, did create a civilized Muslim state. There are the Kurds who seem to have aspirations beyond the rage and blood lust of their fellow Iraqis. And there are Morocco and Indonesia, both tenuously democratic. Will the exceptions become the rule, or are they transient aberrations that will yield to a Muslim world governed by tyranny because only tyranny can rule Muslims?

This question has serious implications for Muslim immigration into the West. If around the world, the successful governance of Muslims requires some degree of tyranny an brutality, then how can such values co-exist with the Western ideal of individual liberty? Clearly, co-existence has reached the breaking point in Denmark, France, Britain, Spain, Thailand and the Philippines. None of these democracies has found the magic bullet for peaceful co-existence with Muslims.?


alan, i notice you did not answer my questions.

concerning what you have written above, i can comment on what i am familiar with, which is that iraq was a secular nation and did not have shariah law. and yes, islamic values can most definitely co-exist with democracy.

maybe the reason muslim immigrants are having such a difficult time in the countries which you list above (which i might add is nowhere near complete) is because of people who have opinions like the ones you have outlined here; opinions that are founded on misinformation.

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 05:56 AM ----------

ok alan, i checked out the danielpipes website and i must say you have made a poor choice for reference. you need to be more discriminating and aware of the sources of material you read on the internet.

when i want to learn about things i choose websites that are factual and represent all sides of an issue. hate-mongering sites are off limits as far as i am concerned because if you are enraged with hatred and anger against any person or group you will never recognize the truth.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 06:27 pm
@xris,
xris;88770 wrote:
Slavery in africa is carried out with authority.
There are roughly 50 countries in Africa. Which one has legal slavery based on Islamic law? The last one to abolish it was Mauritania.

That's not to deny that slavery happens illegally in Africa, but some of the more famous current examples include Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone which are NOT Muslim countries.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:10 pm
@Aedes,
In regard to how Islam appears: isn't it true that the Muslim world has experienced a huge amount of change in the last century? And that this pervasive upheaval and the efforts of Muslims to cope with it shapes what we see?

And just a comment on stereotyping: Huckleberry Finn didn't discover that all black people are saints. He just discovered that he could think for himself.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:14 pm
@Aedes,
salima,

Below is a paragraph from an Islamic website, I am not trying to put down Islam but to understand this great faith better

In Muslim-majority nations, people are forced to confess Islamic faith and behave in one voice in religion; but they forget that the rulers cannot fill the heart with genuine faith. I believe that faith chosen freely at the individual level without coercion and without forced conformity is the genuine faith.

In a world where the hearts with freely chosen faith, not by forced compliance, pervade, the true religious spirit comes alive to establish an ideal society by free choice of the people. This is proven by Muslim history in the first 6 centuries.

Muslims helped Jews to create their Golden Age and liberate Christians from tyranny of Roman church. Muslims philosophy and science promoted the Enlightenment and Renaissance of the Europe. We also created the experimental science. In those days, we educated anyone who came our way without force-feeding our faith. Now we have governments that have taken control of our body claiming to send our "meat and blood" to God while Muslims have to beg from non-Muslim societies for their daily bread to keep their body alive.


Prophet Mohammed struggled to establish a free society. Similarly, Muslims must struggle hard peacefully to establish a free society where no totalitarian government, no Imams, no predominant group control us or decide for us. Everyone is equal. If any one wants to be a believer, let him/her be. If anyone wants to be an apostate let him/her be safe to live the life of an apostate.

So-called Islamic government is myth created by power-hungry people to control Muslim mind and body. There was no such thing as Islamic government. Government is only a means to execute the will of people. The individual members of the government can have Islamic values and faith. Prophet Mohammed ruled as a democratically elected ruler following the invitation by the people of Medina.

He never forced a decision upon his community even when he believed that majority decision on a particular secular matter was a mistake as happened in the case of the disaster of Uhud war. A minority including him wanted to fortify the Medina and fight the Meccan forces. But he agreed to go along with the wishes of the majority to fight the Koreish in the open instead of from fortified Medina even though the strategy of the majority was wrong in his opinion. So, Islam demands Democracy, not tyranny by ullamahs, kings, self-appointed presidents, and military
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:54 pm
@peter74,
Alan, even Wikipedia does a better job than that. You're reading anti-Muslim propaganda and pro-Muslim propaganda without reading any basic scholarship or well-referenced summary material.

And this statement, by the way, is a historical FACT (except for the Roman Church part):

Quote:
Muslims helped Jews to create their Golden Age and liberate Christians from tyranny of Roman church. Muslims philosophy and science promoted the Enlightenment and Renaissance of the Europe. We also created the experimental science. In those days, we educated anyone who came our way without force-feeding our faith.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:03:36