Reply to: Those Peace Loving, Tolerant, Pluralistic Muslims in Action

[xoggoth]

Why do people keep saying Islam is fine because Christianity did the same thing hundreds of years ago? Seems a bit of an odd argument to me.

I do agree that this thing about women being second class citizens under Islam generally is often overstated though. Taliban maybe, but Pakistan had a female leader years ago and there are female government ministers in Iran.

However when there are such extreme versions of the religion (Wabbinism I believe) and they are not such a very tiny minority one cannot blame people too much for being reluctant to trust they are necessarily going to get the moderate sort in Western society.

[Dalek Supreme]

Which is precisley the interpretation put on Christianity 500 years ago. Does that make the Christian Church dangerous backwards and medievil? What would have happened if it had been strongly resisted then? As for Islam declaring that women are in any way second class, that is just wrong.

DaveB, you're in denial here. Islam condones the treatment of women like tulip and many (if not most) muslims see nothing wrong with that. Funnily enough, 500 years ago Christianity was medievel but that doesn't make it right for other religions now. Or we saying that because Christianity thought it was okay to torture and execute heretics then, it's okay for other religions to do so now, on the grounds that it's only "fair"?

[DaveB]

At the end of the day, Islam says that women are not the equal to men and requires its adherents to treat women as second class citizens. This alone makes it a dangerous, backwards, medievel religion that should be strongly resisted and has no place in a modern democracy (no laughing at the back there) such as Britain.

Which is precisley the interpretation put on Christianity 500 years ago. Does that make the Christian Church dangerous backwards and medievil? What would have happened if it had been strongly resisted then? As for Islam declaring that women are in any way second class, that is just wrong.

In Islam the bridal couple are united as husband and wife in the presence of witnesses seeking Allah's blessings to increase in mutual love and compassion and agreeing to care for each other in sickness and adversity.

This fundamental principle of Islamic marriage, understood and observed by the spouses, is the basis of the institution of Muslim marriage. In the family, the man is charged with the duty of being the leader of the family and the woman is assigned the duty of looking after the household. Even if the man has more responsibility than the woman and thereby has a degree over her, it does not make a husband inherently better than his wife. The Qur'an contains a verse which says:

And in no wise covet those things in which Allah has bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than others: to men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn... (4:32)

As for the rights to divorce and polygamy that many detractors highlight as being a failing of Islam:

The wife may not legally object to the husband's right to take another wife or to exercise his right of divorce. The marital contract establishes her implicit consent to these rights. However, if she wishes to restrict his freedom in this regard or to have similar rights, she is legally allowed to do so. She may stipulate in the marital agreement that she too will have the right to divorce or that she will keep the marriage bond only so long as she remains the only wife. Should he take a second wife, she will have the right to seek a divorce in accordance with the marriage agreement.

This more or less mirrors the vow to Obey her husband that a woman makes in the traditional Christian wedding ceremony, yet today the woman has the choice not to make that vow, a choice only available in relatively recent times.

[The Lone Gunman]

Now you really are stretching the point, there are an awfull lot of very large assumptions inherant in those statements. Quite frankly it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see on the front page of the Daily Mail or the Express.

At less than 3% of the total population of the UK Muslims have a long way to go before they make up a majority of any kind. Even if they eventually did there is no reason to belive that they would all hold the same political beliefs and vote in the same way. Thats like saying all British voters are Christian so they will all vote Conservative.

Just because it comes from the express or the mail doesnt mean its wrong.

I know there arent enough of them, but when an Islamic party runs for election then Muslims will vote for it. A number may hold out due to the secret nature of the ballot but this would become apparent to the community.

I expect that by the time the UK is bothered by this I will be a long time dead but it is coming.

[ladymuck]

Thats like saying all British voters are Christian so they will all vote Conservative.

If only that were true, Labour would never have got in. Ah, maybe all the muslims voted Labour?

[chock]

Muslims do generally have the same political beliefs don't they? - Islam

[DaveB]

and that is where my point comes in.
If an Imam or two convinced enough Muslims that we were no longer innocents then all Muslims would have to join in or admit they are apostates.

It becomes a whole different ball game if Muslims become the electoral majority.

Now you really are stretching the point, there are an awfull lot of very large assumptions inherant in those statements. Quite frankly it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see on the front page of the Daily Mail or the Express.

At less than 3% of the total population of the UK Muslims have a long way to go before they make up a majority of any kind. Even if they eventually did there is no reason to belive that they would all hold the same political beliefs and vote in the same way. Thats like saying all British voters are Christian so they will all vote Conservative.

[Dalek Supreme]

At the end of the day, Islam says that women are not the equal to men and requires its adherents to treat women as second class citizens. This alone makes it a dangerous, backwards, medievel religion that should be strongly resisted and has no place in a modern democracy (no laughing at the back there) such as Britain.

[The Lone Gunman]

In the same way that most Christians do not support the view of the Christian extreemists who belive that bombing clinics that carry out abortions, or murdering the doctors who work there, is acceptable.

No religion is fundamentally "evil". It is the interpretation put on them by extreemist minorities on all sides that produces the problems we have today.

Christianity has a long tradition of persecution and genocide all of it own. Wind the clock back 500 years and you can easily replace Islaam with Christianity and have broadly the same situation. Jihads and Fatwahs become Crusades and Papal Edicts.

The real problem is mankinds inability to learn. It's all just history repeating itself and it's really very depressing when you stop and think about it.

and that is where my point comes in.
If an Imam or two convinced enough Muslims that we were no longer innocents then all Muslims would have to join in or admit they are apostates.

It becomes a whole different ball game if Muslims become the electoral majority.

[DaveB]

That is where Snaws argument comes in.
Most Muslims would not support that view.
If they did they would have to accept that the actions of one British Muslim represented all British Muslims which puts all kinds of Koranic obligations on them too.

In the same way that most Christians do not support the view of the Christian extreemists who belive that bombing clinics that carry out abortions, or murdering the doctors who work there, is acceptable.

No religion is fundamentally "evil". It is the interpretation put on them by extreemist minorities on all sides that produces the problems we have today.

Christianity has a long tradition of persecution and genocide all of it own. Wind the clock back 500 years and you can easily replace Islaam with Christianity and have broadly the same situation. Jihads and Fatwahs become Crusades and Papal Edicts.

The real problem is mankinds inability to learn. It's all just history repeating itself and it's really very depressing when you stop and think about it.

[The Lone Gunman]

As someone pointed out the other day, this restriction is neatly by-passed by saying that the victims of Islamic terrorism aren't "innocent".

That is where Snaws argument comes in.
Most Muslims would not support that view.
If they did they would have to accept that the actions of one British Muslim represented all British Muslims which puts all kinds of Koranic obligations on them too.

[Dalek Supreme]

Yes it does. It preaches tolerance and peace mostly. A Muslim must not spill the blood of an innocent nor a Muslim alike.

As someone pointed out the other day, this restriction is neatly by-passed by saying that the victims of Islamic terrorism aren't "innocent".

[DimPrawn]

One stops being innocent when one attacks Islam in any way.

Which includes any form of blasphemy, criticism or free speech.

[The Lone Gunman]

What do you mean by "mostly"?

And what do you mean by "innocent and muslim alike"? Does that include jews and other infidels?

I dont have the time for this, I cant do an Islam 101 and as snaw has pointed out I may be wrong.

I say mostly because there are chapter which preach retribution and of course self defence.

One stops being innocent when one attacks Islam in any way.

Go read the books. Most of it is online and there are plenty of Islamic sites that give you the nice side of Islam.

[wendigo100]

Yes it does. It preaches tolerance and peace mostly. A Muslim must not spill the blood of an innocent nor a Muslim alike.

What do you mean by "mostly"?

And what do you mean by "innocent and muslim alike"? Does that include jews and other infidels?