Islam - What's your view on it?

[FoRiZon]

You know which countries in Europe have the same warning level as Morocco at the moment? France and Belgium.

View attachment 789685

Would you be scared to travel to France at the moment? Would you belittle anyone who chose to take that risk?

Funny you bring the France up. It is most likely because of the Yellow Vest Riots there. Belgium also took inspiration of said riots though not as chaotic as France.

Heard people canceling trips to France because of it. Looking at the live footage its really chaotic.

 

[Imari]

Funny you bring the France up. It is most likely because of the Yellow Vest Riots there. Belgium also took inspiration of said riots though not as chaotic as France.

Heard people canceling trips to France because of it. Looking at the live footage its really chaotic.

Yep, and I certainly wouldn't blame people for deciding not to go. On the other hand, it's France, not the middle of Yemen. I wouldn't be saying "what made them think it was safe to go to France?" Keep your eyes open, don't cause trouble, maybe give Paris a miss, you'll be fine.

Still, something like ten people have died so there's reasonable evidence for it being more dangerous than Morocco I guess.

 

[zzz_pt]

Firstly, thank you for that. Here is the interesting part from what I know (and I have attempted to point this out a number of times on this thread I believe, but as with all debate sometimes points need to be remade as they get lost). And again, I will point out I am no perfect Muslim and I do not have every single answer to every single thing about faith.

- Those people who want 'Sharia' law more than likely have no idea what Sharia law actually is. It is astounding how many Muslims fail to understand what Sharia law means. The conditions for Sharia law do not even exist today in any country (yes, that includes the Arab nations). Why do I (and also scholars) say this? Because simply put there is no nation that has the basic rules or government in place that could fairly execute this rule of law. I'll talk more about my personal opinion on this (particularly places like Saudi, Qatar (sp?) et al) later in this post. But the basis of Sharia (or Shariah) is essentially most of the practises of English common law. In fact, many laws (both in a country and international) are derived from Sharia itself. Where does it differ? Well, we could say in writing a will. Or the marriage ceremony. Or divorce. Those who want Sharia implemented have no idea that Sharia is actually present and available for them right there. In fact, Sharia itself is truly between God and a Muslim, nobody else. In addition to that, those that say they want Sharia have missed a KEY point. Sharia only applies to Muslims, and Muslims alone. No other person is bound by these rules whatsoever, and that in itself is part of Sharia. Furthermore, Sharia has a stipulation that the rule of the land must be followed in addition to any rules of Sharia. So, if the rule of the land for murder is a life sentence, then that is the law to be followed. That becomes Sharia. This brings me on to point two nicely...

- Jews to be wiped out. Any Muslim who says this has a serious problem with themselves, their understanding of faith, humanity, morals and justice. If the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) had an agreement drawn up to protect the lives, property and the freedom of expressing the faith of Jews, Christians and Fire Worshippers, what right does ANY Muslim have in wanting anybody dead due to their faith. The politics of Israel aside, I would not, and no self reflecting Muslim would not, wish harm upon any other person, no matter what. To such an extent that the Prophet made two things clear during the draft of this particular agreement:

1) The religious leaders of the respective faiths were to be treated with the respect they commanded from their communities from the Muslims, and by the Prophet himself. He had the utmost respect for these people, despite them being of a totally different belief system.
2) Those Muslims who were to intentionally cause harm to these communities they lived with would never see paradise.

If that is not the prime example on how important every single person is, I do not know what is. Lastly, on the respect for other faiths - a Muslim should, upon seeing a funeral of any person, show some form of respect. The Prophet once was resting by a tree with his companions when a funeral passed by of a random person (Christian I believe). The Prophet stood up and stood still as it passed in respect. And when questioned why he did so, his response was that that person was a human being at the end of the day, and at the very least deserved that basic respect. So, any Muslim saying anybody else should be wiped out? Bit of a problem there.

- Women treated like cattle. This is by far the biggest problem in current times I have seen predominantly from Muslim communities. And it is just as appalling as the second one. How can any Muslim say this. This is a pure culture problem that has nothing to do with Islam in itself. Islam makes mention of how special a woman is numerous times, and how important their rights are, as well as the rights of everything. Nowhere in Islam does it say women are slaves of men. Nowhere does it say that women cannot work or learn or be successful in their own right. The first Muslim woman (Khadijah) was an extremely successful and rich businesswoman. Upon becoming a Muslim she did not have to give any of that up at all. It was her work, her rights, her choice. Women are even mentioned to be a gift from God, in the sense that if a lady is mistreated by her mate, her mate will answer directly to God for this. The sexism present in Muslim communities goes against the teachings of Islam, and it is sad to see how women are treated. I will not disagree that some of the worst treatment stories of women come from Muslim communities. But I will disagree that this is what Islam teaches.

- Critics should be killed. Again, such a ridiculous notion but it happens and people believe this. It is my firm belief that if a person is criticising a faith or a person, it is just an opportunity to open a dialogue and to learn. You cannot learn without debate and dialogue. If you are going to shut down that aspect you will become ignorant, isolated and that in turn means you will not be able to contribute to a community - something a Muslim should be doing. Those who think this probably have not stopped for a second to think 'Okay, so my faith is subject to criticism. Wait a minute. I am an ambassador for my faith. So maybe I am doing something wrong that leads people to think this. Let me find out why they think this and take a long look at myself to see what I am messing up as a human and a Muslim'. If their thoughts immediately go towards 'kill', then there is something once again fundamentally wrong with their belief and understanding of Islam.

The points you bring up are totally valid and make complete sense, and I am glad you point them out. I see these myself, but from the inside, I know where a Muslim is differing from what Islam teaches. This brings me to the Arab countries. I am not going to go too in depth with this, but a conversation I had with a friend-an atheist- last week led to this same topic. Muslims and Arabia are shown to go hand in hand. If you think Muslim, you will think Saudi. If you think Saudi you will think Muslim. So naturally you will have a tendency (as I do) to look at these arab countries and take their rules and examples as the closest you can get to the pure teachings of Islam. Sadly, that is far from the truth. These countries are ruled by people who think mostly for themselves. If a rule does not suit them, they change it. Slaves (forbidden in Islam) are used. Women are treated like objects (also forbidden). Corruption is everywhere (also forbidden). No wonder people have such a poor opinion of this faith. On one side you have ISIS claiming to be Muslim and killing everybody-exactly the opposite of what they should do; On the other side you have Muslim countries implementing 'Shariah' law but also going against it and ignoring the core aspects. Western countries have more liberties that follow Shariah than most, if not all, Muslim countries. I would put a closing statement here, but I have none. Nor do I have a picture of a minion to put up for a laugh. So, I'll just keep reading this debate!

Thank you for sharing your opinion as a muslim. I don't know if you follow Imam Tawhidi's work and ideas but you made me thing of him. I'm not expert on the subject but the impression I get is that the Quran and the Hadiths (as the Bible, Torah and any holy book really) have a large margin of interpretation, and unfortunately a substancial number of mulsims believe the most extreme interpretations of those texts to be correct. I'm not familiar with the sufi muslims but they seem to be more in line with what you're talking about.

You should look at what I quoted.

That quote contains the phrase "majority muslim countries" and doesn't not contain the word "extremists".

It's a fact though. Point being, Islam (and a more extreme interpretation of its texts) is the thing in common among those 13 countries - some are poor, some are rich, some are in Africa, some are in the Middle East, some are at war, some aren't, some have good eonomies, some are chaotic, etc.

I also said in the post just before that one that I believe most muslims are peaceful and most victims of extremists are those peaceful muslims. Including in those 13 countries.

There may have been earlier posts where you talked about extremists, but I responded specifically to one about 13 countries that impose the death penalty on atheists being exclusively Muslim.

Why do you think those specific countries have the penalty for atheists then, if not for Islam, and an extreme interpretation of it's texts?

And I left out some other countries who put atheists in prison. It's not a death penalty, but is still appaling.

It's not so much a strawman as me reading between the lines. You bring up that countries where atheists are subject to the death penalty are exclusively Muslim. I see that as being "they're the only ones" in pretty plain language. And yes, as far as killing atheists they are indeed the only ones, or at least the only ones who codify it into law and occasionally practise it.

Because of a more extreme interpreation of Islam.

I would be happy if all majority muslim countries were like Bosnia, where you can be free to believe whatever you want and the people who rule the country are actually elected. It's not the "majority muslim" that's the problem. The interpretation of the religious texts is the problem imo. Because that's what rules the culture and the law.

All religions seem to demonise atheism to some extent or another, for fairly obvious reasons, but it's becoming less common for countries to even have the death penalty and rarer to apply it to "religious" crimes.

But persecution can take many forms, and there's many groups out there other than atheists. That there are 13 Muslim majority countries that still use the death penalty for apostasy is interesting, but surely not the whole story with regards to blindly following one's faith, would you not agree?

I'd agree with that 100%, yes. But I don't think other religions have an issue with apostosy so glaring as Islam at this moment in History. I mean, sure, in the USA there are some families that disown their children if they come out as atheists or gay. But that's not as common or life threatning as what happens in some countries in the middle east and africa where people are killed (sometiems by their own family) for being who they are, thinking what they think or loving who they love. There are ONGs whose sole purpose is to rescue these people from their own countries.

My experience is that Islam when taken as a whole is not really that different to Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, all of which seem to have extremist groups. Wahhabism/Salafism seems to have been quite effective at capturing a certain radical minority of Islam. I think the West has been rather more effective at capturing and diverting the equivalent sort of radical Christians into things like military service such that their energies are directed against enemies of the state rather than against the state itself.

If by "The west" you mean the USA, I'd give some credit to that idea, for sure. Most western countries are not like the USA though, and it's hard to draw the line between the motivations of the soldiers, when the idea of going to de military and be a patriot is so entrenched into the US's culture. I think those christian lunatics would be happy to join the military just as other lunatics who have the gun "fetiche", for instance. Often they're the same, I know.

But I do believe that the exact same sort of people exist in Christianity and Hinduism as well; you can see the same sort of extremist views espoused and they're not exactly hard to find. See the President of the United States of America. Nominally it's a non-religious post, realistically everyone is aware that being an atheist politician in the US is career suicide.

That's an issue in the USA, for sure. A great deal of that stigma comes from the post 2WW, where atheism was seen as an intrinsic part of communism. That stigma will probably disappear in the next few generations but I think it's more related to politics than to christianity per se. It's quite wierd the situation in the USA, where there's a clear separation between church and state in the consitution while at the same time, atheists have no problem to declare their non belief but somehow in some states, they can't run for office.

So he's a Christian leader of a very powerful nation, who would like to see the death penalty for drug traffickers. That's a crime, sure, but there's a solid debate over whether it should be. Adults being free to do what they like with their own bodies and all, you know.

A lot like apostates. Apostasy is a crime in those 13 countries, sure, but there's a solid debate over whether it should be. Adults being allowed to express their views and all, you know.

I don't see how not believing in gods can be compared to drug trafficking. I can understand the libertarian view that all drugs should be legal, but I don't see how trafficking drugs (especially the "bad" ones, which wouldn't probably be so popular if drugs were legal in the first place) is on the same level as a non-belief.

Killing someone for what they think is simply absurd imo. Killing a drug dealer who's quite possibly ruining other people's lifes by taking advantage of their social, financial, physiological instability for example, is entirely different. A consumer is not the same as a trafficker either.

You see how when you take a step back and broaden you view just a touch, you start to see the same patterns everywhere, regardless of the specific religion? There are easy examples of both Christian and Muslim governments wanting to kill people for crimes that probably don't deserve it. I suspect I could find the same for Hinduism without looking too hard, but it's the one I'm least familiar with.

If you step back too far all you'll see is a blurry image. I think it's good to focus on specifics sometimes, otherwise we can just step back to the max and say: we all die in the end anyway.

I'm sure there are huge problems with Hinduism too. But like you, I'm not very familiar with it. So, I hope whoever is more familiar with it, doesn't step back from the problems just because other problems happen elsewhere and this is just human nature.

I get the feeling that you've decided that Islam is the worst of the worst (or bought into the media hype) and therefore you're seeing things that confirm what you believe.

.

I didn't decide Islam is the worst of the worst. In my opinion, it is the worst of the religions at the moment. In the last 2 decades, I've seen Islam giving rise to fatwas or the killings of cartoonists, writters, film makers, journalists. I've seen how women are treated, first hand, when I visited Egypt (and the difference to Israel just on the other side of the border). I've seen terrorist attacks in Europe, in places where I have close friends. I've got phonecalls from girl friends at night asking me if I could go with them to the train station because they were afraid of being groped or worse - sometimes they wouldn't go out at nigh as they used to do (in Hamburg, the central train station is very close to a muslim neighborhood and lots of women were being groped and stalked after 2015). I had gay and lesbian friends worried about going to Dubai and other countries in the ME (even if they wanted to visit those countries, they would end up opting for some other place). These are just some examples.

I know problems existed before that but I can only speak for the time I've been able to watch them occurring during my life.

But try taking a little more of a neutral stance and look more broadly and you'll see that the current "upswelling" of Muslim violence is little more than random variation, confirmation bias and media amplification.

So, what should be done about it?

You're pretty sensitive about this, considering it was neither a deflection nor a strawman. I think you're wrong, and I hope what I've said above explains why.

I'm not sensitive about this. I just find it intellectually dishonest to bring the christians to the same level of lunacy. IMO it is a strawman and a deflection. It wouldn't be 50 years ago, but it is today. Also, we're in the Islam thread. If we want to discuss christian lunacy, we can go somewhere else. But I doubt we'll be talking about fatwas, death penalty for atheists or gays, death penalty by stoning for adulterers, flogging, beheadings or the imposing threat to free speech - especially in Europe. If christians, somewhere, are practicing and pushing for those things without being ridiculed immediately, I'd like to know about it.

____________

France, just as Germany, UK, Netherlands, Italy, Spain and others, have warning level (2) due to the "thread of terrorism", not because of the yellow vests. Antartica has a level 2 warning due to "environmental hazards posed by extreme and unpredictable weather". Guinea has the same level 2 warning but due to "civil unrest".

 

[UKMikey]

Why do you think those specific countries have the penalty for atheists then, if not for Islam, and an extreme interpretation of it's texts?

Theocracy. Separate church and state and people will be free to believe what they like as in other majority Muslim countries like Bosnia or The Gambia.

 

[mustafur]

I Wonder where Islam and even the World would be without the Mongol invasions.

 

[Betty blue]

In my opinion and as a Muslim. I think Islam is the most misunderstood and misrepresented religion by its believers. The extreme ideologies and behaviors of some Muslims are far from what it is and often comes from uncivilized cultures or brain washed people. To be honest, I don't blame Christians or any others for thinking what they think about Islam because of those ideologies.

 

[Imari]

It's a fact though. Point being, Islam (and a more extreme interpretation of its texts) is the thing in common among those 13 countries - some are poor, some are rich, some are in Africa, some are in the Middle East, some are at war, some aren't, some have good eonomies, some are chaotic, etc.

It's a fact that they're all Muslim majority, but it's not a fact that it's the only thing that they have in common.

Why do you think those specific countries have the penalty for atheists then, if not for Islam, and an extreme interpretation of it's texts?

National culture. Islam does not proscribe death for atheists. Those specific cultures have decided to do so. They may use Islam as a justification, but it's a false one. If they used the Harry Potter books to justify death to all Muggles, that wouldn't be the fault of Harry Potter.

And I left out some other countries who put atheists in prison. It's not a death penalty, but is still appaling.

OK, let's be clear about this because you're misusing words to make it sound worse than it is. People are arrested or sentenced to death for apostasy or expressing atheist views, not just being atheists. It may seem like a minor difference to you, but it's actually not. It's about expressions of speech, so actually what is being limited in these countries is expression of speech, not belief. You can believe whatever you like, you just can't necessarily talk about it.

Many atheists travel to those 13 countries every year, and come back perfectly fine because they don't engage in prohibited speech or activities. Many atheists probably live there in perfect safety, because they don't engage in prohibited speech or activities.

I don't agree that it's appalling, countries can make their own laws around freedom of speech as they choose. I do think it's distasteful and would not be my choice if I were writing laws. Western countries tend to have laws against inciting violence and hatred, and given that the major negative effects of apostasy are similar I think that those would suffice.

While we're at it, I find the death sentence in general to be appalling regardless of what it's for, so the fact that some countries choose to hand it out for something ridiculous perhaps has less impact on me that on someone who thinks that there are actual legitimate applications for the death penalty.

Because of a more extreme interpreation of Islam.

See above for why I disagree. Islam doesn't say that. If we're going to blame whatever people choose to use as inspiration, I can just go out and murder people and say I was inspired by your posts on GTPlanet.
Would holding you responsible be right or just, when the actions were carried out by me?
Would holding you responsible be right or just, when it's my faulty interpretation that sees your posts as advocating murder?
Should you have any responsibility at all for my actions, simply because I claimed that they were based on your posts?

If by "The west" you mean the USA, I'd give some credit to that idea, for sure. Most western countries are not like the USA though, and it's hard to draw the line between the motivations of the soldiers, when the idea of going to de military and be a patriot is so entrenched into the US's culture. I think those christian lunatics would be happy to join the military just as other lunatics who have the gun "fetiche", for instance. Often they're the same, I know.

No, I meant the west in general. People with strong ideologies make excellent employees of the state, and are generally ingrained from a young age to accept the power structures and obedience that is expected. It is very easy to tie service to a god to service to a state or ruler. It's why monarchs, dictators and other absolute rulers often style themselves as divinely inspired; to serve them is to serve God.

Patriots exist in other countries outside of the US, it's very common for people to have a strong sense of protectiveness and duty to their native land. After all, it is their natural home. If you think that people from countries other than the US do not have a strong attachment to their country, you're mistaken.

That's an issue in the USA, for sure. A great deal of that stigma comes from the post 2WW, where atheism was seen as an intrinsic part of communism. That stigma will probably disappear in the next few generations but I think it's more related to politics than to christianity per se. It's quite wierd the situation in the USA, where there's a clear separation between church and state in the consitution while at the same time, atheists have no problem to declare their non belief but somehow in some states, they can't run for office.

Americans would rather have a Muslim or a homosexual for President than an atheist.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists

I don't see how not believing in gods can be compared to drug trafficking. I can understand the libertarian view that all drugs should be legal, but I don't see how trafficking drugs (especially the "bad" ones, which wouldn't probably be so popular if drugs were legal in the first place) is on the same level as a non-belief.

I didn't say it was. I was using it as an example of irrational use of the death penalty. I guess if you think it's rational to kill people for trafficking drugs then it's not a very good example.

Killing someone for what they think is simply absurd imo. Killing a drug dealer who's quite possibly ruining other people's lifes by taking advantage of their social, financial, physiological instability for example, is entirely different. A consumer is not the same as a trafficker either.

A drug dealer is just selling a product. They're allowing other people to ruin their own lives, that's called personal responsibility. But OK, you're clearly on board with killing drug traffickers so it's a poor example.

How do you feel about the death penalty for homosexuality?

If you step back too far all you'll see is a blurry image. I think it's good to focus on specifics sometimes, otherwise we can just step back to the max and say: we all die in the end anyway.

Granted, but do you agree that there's a sensible middle ground? Step back too far and you're right, nothing matters. Zoom in too much and it becomes impossible to see the surrounding facts that also contribute to a complex system. I mean, if politics and human social interaction was so simplistic that it could be determined by a single statement like "that's an Islamic country" then all the world's problems would have been solved years ago, right?

I didn't decide Islam is the worst of the worst. In my opinion, it is the worst of the religions at the moment. In the last 2 decades, I've seen Islam giving rise to fatwas or the killings of cartoonists, writters, film makers, journalists. I've seen how women are treated, first hand, when I visited Egypt (and the difference to Israel just on the other side of the border). I've seen terrorist attacks in Europe, in places where I have close friends. I've got phonecalls from girl friends at night asking me if I could go with them to the train station because they were afraid of being groped or worse - sometimes they wouldn't go out at nigh as they used to do (in Hamburg, the central train station is very close to a muslim neighborhood and lots of women were being groped and stalked after 2015). I had gay and lesbian friends worried about going to Dubai and other countries in the ME (even if they wanted to visit those countries, they would end up opting for some other place). These are just some examples.

I know problems existed before that but I can only speak for the time I've been able to watch them occurring during my life.

I don't know how old you are, but I feel like you may have only just missed out on the age of the IRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, white power/white supremacy, pro-life/pro-choice stuff, the worst of the Israeli conflicts, and so on. There's plenty of non-Muslim "terrorism" out there when you look, it's just that it tends not to be called terrorism. And once it become historical, there tends to be a fair amount of revisionism that goes on to justify whoever ended up winning.

A lot of the stuff in the Middle East is essentially caused by Western political and military interference over the last 50+ years, and so I tend to give some of that a pass as stuff that NATO/the UN/the US/the British Empire has done just coming back to bite them in the arse. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine/Israel, you name a conflict in the Middle East and there's high odds that one of the major Western powers was involved, even if only as how poorly some of the British colonial areas were transitioned into self-rule.

So while there's a lot of Muslims involved in these conflicts and they may claim that they're religiously motivated, I mostly don't buy it. It's political instability and civil unrest that happens to involve a lot of Muslims. Humans being humans, they use whatever is readily at hand to justify their true desires. If their true desire is to go to war with the munchkins on the other side of the river, they'll use their religion to do that if they can.

The same applies to law within "peaceful" countries like your 13. If the powers that be want to justify the death penalty for speaking out against the established religion (which they've made sure supports their continued power to rule) then they absolutely will use their religion to do that. It's simply ruling with an iron fist, and a lot of Muslim countries have been destabilised to the point that nothing other than ruling through fear and violence is actually viable.

Perhaps you start to see how I might view there as being very little purely religiously motivated violence from Islam, and there being an awful lot of politically motivated violence cloaked in a sham of religious fervour.

So, what should be done about it?

This is sort of why I tend to pick on posts that suggest that Islam alone is a problem. I don't think anything should be done about Islamic violence. I think stuff should be done about all terrorism, as I don't see Islamic terrorism as being fundamentally any different to any other type. I don't see Islamic oppressive regimes as particularly different to other oppressive regimes, be they Christian, communist, purely dictatorial or whatever.

The trappings that these things are disguised in are a distraction. What is more important is to see beneath the story that you're told, to the true driving forces that are behind these things. ISIS didn't arise out of nowhere, there are understandable reasons why it came into being and why it took the form that it did. Wahhabism/Salafism and other Islamic extremism finds such success amongst Muslims at the moment for good, understandable reasons that have very little to do with the specifics of Islam and everything to do with their current humanitarian situation.

I'm not sensitive about this. I just find it intellectually dishonest to bring the christians to the same level of lunacy. IMO it is a strawman and a deflection. It wouldn't be 50 years ago, but it is today.

It's neither a strawman nor a deflection, it's an attempt to get you to see the similarities between Islam and another religion that you're probably familiar with. And yeah, it's just as applicable today as 50 years ago. But if you don't want to see it, I can't make you. I'll keep it to Islam and non-Christian examples in future posts unless you bring up Christianity first.

Also, we're in the Islam thread. If we want to discuss christian lunacy, we can go somewhere else.

I guess, but I thought there was value in comparing Islamic lunacy to Christian lunacy, as to understand one is to largely understand the other. And generally, Westerners (who make up most of the population on this board by virtue of it being English language) tend to be more familiar with Christianity.

Also, they tend to get all defensive about Christianity. But hey-ho.

But I doubt we'll be talking about fatwas, death penalty for atheists or gays, death penalty by stoning for adulterers, flogging, beheadings or the imposing threat to free speech - especially in Europe. If christians, somewhere, are practicing and pushing for those things without being ridiculed immediately, I'd like to know about it.

*cough*Uganda*cough*

Don't get me wrong, the rest of the world thinks that they're totally backwards because of it. But the same is true of the 13 countries you mentioned. In fact, if you want to see Christian majority countries doing medieval ridiculous stuff, look around Africa. They've got a bunch. I don't blame Christianity (despite the fact that it actually advocates explicitly for some of the medieval ridiculous stuff) so much as I blame the morons in power in those countries.

 

[SestoScudo]

To be honest Sunni vs Shia actually what is today due to the Ottoman Empire vs the Safavid Dynasty the Ottomans were Sunnis and the Safavids were Shias. Both empires used their religion for their own gain to rile people up for war not to mention the geopolitics behind it.

This legacy now carries onto Saudi Arabia and Iran as they are today engaging in their own proxy war with each other by using secratarianism.

Sunni vs Shia is a very complex issue I dont believe it is a 1400 year old struggle like the Decepticons vs the Autobots.

It has always been political and religious was always secondary. There has been times where Sunni and Shias lived together even cooperated with each other numerous times.

When it comes to Maronites vs the Druze the Ottoman Empire im saying this as an Australian of Turkish descent. This war between them was our fault the Maronites and Druze were long having tensions with each other but the Ottomans allowed the conflict to happen so both groups can be weakened. Ottoman Empire in the 1800s was going through a tough time with its various ethnic groups rebelling and breaking off the Ottomans did not want other ethnic groups in the Middle East to follow.

Ottomans, British, French even the Americans have all stoked a form of secratarian tensions in the countries they meddled with.

 

[zzz_pt]

Theocracy. Separate church and state and people will be free to believe what they like as in other majority Muslim countries like Bosnia or The Gambia.

If the Jains had a theocracy it would be very different. Different religions and interpretations of those religions would give rise to different types of theocracies. The muslims from Bosnia have a different view of Islam than those of most other mulsim countries. It's not a coincidence they're closer to Europe and traditionally western values. Good for them and for everyone else. Still, they do have, in the case of Bosnia, some worries with the growing religious influence of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

It's a fact that they're all Muslim majority, but it's not a fact that it's the only thing that they have in common.

National culture. Islam does not proscribe death for atheists. Those specific cultures have decided to do so. They may use Islam as a justification, but it's a false one. If they used the Harry Potter books to justify death to all Muggles, that wouldn't be the fault of Harry Potter.

I think you're mistaking the Islam for the Quran? Because the Quran is not clear on what to do about apostates but Islam is not only about the Quran, as far as I'm aware. Sharia (based of the Quran and the Hadith) is an itegral part of Islam and proscribes capital punishment for apostates. I'm not familiar with HP so I don't get the reference. Not all muslims give the same credit to those texts but they do exist.

OK, let's be clear about this because you're misusing words to make it sound worse than it is. People are arrested or sentenced to death for apostasy or expressing atheist views, not just being atheists. It may seem like a minor difference to you, but it's actually not. It's about expressions of speech, so actually what is being limited in these countries is expression of speech, not belief. You can believe whatever you like, you just can't necessarily talk about it.

Yes, there's a different. Now imagine you live in a family where you're the only atheist (or apostate). I bet you'll be living a perfect decent life, under contant threat, unless you spend all your life faking you're a muslim. You don't even need to speak. Some of the people who are rescued have to disappear without their own family knowing about it because they can't behave differently (such as, not taking part in the religious rituals, prayers, etc).

Many atheists travel to those 13 countries every year, and come back perfectly fine because they don't engage in prohibited speech or activities. Many atheists probably live there in perfect safety, because they don't engage in prohibited speech or activities.

I didn't say those people don't exist. They do. You're focusing on the non-problem again...

I don't agree that it's appalling, countries can make their own laws around freedom of speech as they choose. I do think it's distasteful and would not be my choice if I were writing laws. Western countries tend to have laws against inciting violence and hatred, and given that the major negative effects of apostasy are similar I think that those would suffice.

While we're at it, I find the death sentence in general to be appalling regardless of what it's for, so the fact that some countries choose to hand it out for something ridiculous perhaps has less impact on me that on someone who thinks that there are actual legitimate applications for the death penalty.

Strawman. I didn't say there are legitimate applications for the death penalty. I expressed how ridiculous it is to compare someone who says "I don't believe something" to someone who says "I actively sell drugs to other people". The former doesn't impact anyone else, while the latter does.

Pointing this fact doesn't mean I'm OK with the death penalty. Your comparison sounded to me like this: Why is it wrong to give the same death sentence to someone who steals an apple to eat and someone who kills another person? Then I point out how the comparison makes no sense and you claim I'm OK with the sentence for muderer. It doesn't work that way and you know that.

See above for why I disagree. Islam doesn't say that. If we're going to blame whatever people choose to use as inspiration, I can just go out and murder people and say I was inspired by your posts on GTPlanet.
Would holding you responsible be right or just, when the actions were carried out by me?
Would holding you responsible be right or just, when it's my faulty interpretation that sees your posts as advocating murder?
Should you have any responsibility at all for my actions, simply because I claimed that they were based on your posts?

No you wouldn't because I never said such thing or anything close to it. False equivalence. As I pointed out, Sharia (based on the Quran and other religous texts) contains specific sentences for pitty "crimes".

No, I meant the west in general. People with strong ideologies make excellent employees of the state, and are generally ingrained from a young age to accept the power structures and obedience that is expected. It is very easy to tie service to a god to service to a state or ruler. It's why monarchs, dictators and other absolute rulers often style themselves as divinely inspired; to serve them is to serve God.

I agree, but I think Europe is the place where's less common. I guess two of the reasons are secularism and the higher number of non religious people.

Patriots exist in other countries outside of the US, it's very common for people to have a strong sense of protectiveness and duty to their native land. After all, it is their natural home. If you think that people from countries other than the US do not have a strong attachment to their country, you're mistaken.

I think everyone has different degrees of attachment to the places they're familiar with, yes. I just think more people have a higher degree of attachment in the USA. I might be wrong, but that's my impression, looking from the outside.

Americans would rather have a Muslim or a homosexual for President than an atheist.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists

That's 4 years older than the one I linked, but yes, some people still think that. I wrote "in the next few generations" though.

I didn't say it was. I was using it as an example of irrational use of the death penalty. I guess if you think it's rational to kill people for trafficking drugs then it's not a very good example.

A drug dealer is just selling a product. They're allowing other people to ruin their own lives, that's called personal responsibility. But OK, you're clearly on board with killing drug traffickers so it's a poor example.[/QUOTE]

Already answered that. You're strawmaning.

How do you feel about the death penalty for homosexuality?

The same as you, I think.

Granted, but do you agree that there's a sensible middle ground? Step back too far and you're right, nothing matters. Zoom in too much and it becomes impossible to see the surrounding facts that also contribute to a complex system. I mean, if politics and human social interaction was so simplistic that it could be determined by a single statement like "that's an Islamic country" then all the world's problems would have been solved years ago, right?

How do you justify the growing number of Europeans turning into jihadists and the push for Sharia in some parts of Europe, by some european muslim citizens who never lived outside a western country?

I don't know how old you are, but I feel like you may have only just missed out on the age of the IRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, white power/white supremacy, pro-life/pro-choice stuff, the worst of the Israeli conflicts, and so on. There's plenty of non-Muslim "terrorism" out there when you look, it's just that it tends not to be called terrorism. And once it become historical, there tends to be a fair amount of revisionism that goes on to justify whoever ended up winning.

I'm 32, so I know about those, but I don't see them being a problem today (maybe the white supremacy or identitarian movement, but it hasn't caused anything significant and is ridiculed and criticized by everyone). And I guess the people who were active at the time, didn't think, lets step back and not address this issues because it's common and happens everywhere. Probably they criticized the ideologies used by the people enganged in those "wars".

A lot of the stuff in the Middle East is essentially caused by Western political and military interference over the last 50+ years, and so I tend to give some of that a pass as stuff that NATO/the UN/the US/the British Empire has done just coming back to bite them in the arse. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine/Israel, you name a conflict in the Middle East and there's high odds that one of the major Western powers was involved, even if only as how poorly some of the British colonial areas were transitioned into self-rule.

I don't deny that. But the western political and military interference has impacted pretty much every piece of land on earth and we don't see the same issues everywhere. My guess is that the religion and the tribalism inherent to the several different interpretations of that religion has something to do with it.

Different muslim sects have been in conflict on and off throughout centuries.

So while there's a lot of Muslims involved in these conflicts and they may claim that they're religiously motivated, I mostly don't buy it.

You don't buy it even when they say it and when you have religious texts to support it?

I wonder what do you think of muslim reformists, then. Because they're muslim and they're aware of those passages/texts (whatever you want to call it) and don't think the conflicts have zero basis in religion.

It's political instability and civil unrest that happens to involve a lot of Muslims. Humans being humans, they use whatever is readily at hand to justify their true desires. If their true desire is to go to war with the munchkins on the other side of the river, they'll use their religion to do that if they can.

Yeah, but they will act differently if they have different religious beliefs. If their religion justifies war to implement a caliphate instead of apealing to non-violence (like Jainism), they will probably be more inclined to go to war with the munchkins. Not all, but for sure some of them.

The same applies to law within "peaceful" countries like your 13. If the powers that be want to justify the death penalty for speaking out against the established religion (which they've made sure supports their continued power to rule) then they absolutely will use their religion to do that. It's simply ruling with an iron fist, and a lot of Muslim countries have been destabilised to the point that nothing other than ruling through fear and violence is actually viable.

Perhaps you start to see how I might view there as being very little purely religiously motivated violence from Islam, and there being an awful lot of politically motivated violence cloaked in a sham of religious fervour.

I agree in part with that. But not everything is cloaked in a sham of religious fervour. If you don't really believe what the extremists believe, you don't blow yourself up in a church, you don't kill cartoonists or Muhammad, kill innocent children or people from other religions for no reason. If that's not religious motivated, I don't know what it.

This is sort of why I tend to pick on posts that suggest that Islam alone is a problem. I don't think anything should be done about Islamic violence. I think stuff should be done about all terrorism, as I don't see Islamic terrorism as being fundamentally any different to any other type. I don't see Islamic oppressive regimes as particularly different to other oppressive regimes, be they Christian, communist, purely dictatorial or whatever.

The problem to me is that religion has a pass when criticized. And Islam in particular can't be criticized as we criticize other religions or ideologies.

An Austrian woman accused of defaming the Prophet Muhammad is not protected by the right to freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In principle, I agree with you that all oppressive regimes are more or less the same. In practice, though, I see people treating islamic regimes differently, as in, they're not really that bad and Islam has nothign to do with it, despite being at the center of their whole cultural and political structures.

[/QUOTE]The trappings that these things are disguised in are a distraction. What is more important is to see beneath the story that you're told, to the true driving forces that are behind these things. ISIS didn't arise out of nowhere, there are understandable reasons why it came into being and why it took the form that it did. Wahhabism/Salafism and other Islamic extremism finds such success amongst Muslims at the moment for good, understandable reasons that have very little to do with the specifics of Islam and everything to do with their current humanitarian situation.[/QUOTE]

What humanitarian situation are the Saudis going through, specifically? What drove the wars and conflicts between shia and sunni muslims? It boils down to interpretations of religious texts, as far as I know. Like the Protestants and the Catholics.

It's neither a strawman nor a deflection, it's an attempt to get you to see the similarities between Islam and another religion that you're probably familiar with. And yeah, it's just as applicable today as 50 years ago. But if you don't want to see it, I can't make you. I'll keep it to Islam and non-Christian examples in future posts unless you bring up Christianity first.

Fair enough. I just thought they were poor examples.

I guess, but I thought there was value in comparing Islamic lunacy to Christian lunacy, as to understand one is to largely understand the other. And generally, Westerners (who make up most of the population on this board by virtue of it being English language) tend to be more familiar with Christianity.

Also, they tend to get all defensive about Christianity. But hey-ho.

Christianity has just as many problems as Islam. I just think the impact they have is not the same. I mean, the Torah is probably the worse amalgamation of religious texts ever written and jewish people are not a problem, because they don't care about the BS, for the most part.

*cough*

Uganda*cough*

Don't get me wrong, the rest of the world thinks that they're totally backwards because of it. But the same is true of the 13 countries you mentioned. In fact, if you want to see Christian majority countries doing medieval ridiculous stuff, look around Africa. They've got a bunch. I don't blame Christianity (despite the fact that it actually advocates explicitly for some of the medieval ridiculous stuff) so much as I blame the morons in power in those countries.

I agree. There's christian based lunacy as well in some parts of the world and it's a problem. I'm also aware of the fact we don't hear about it so often because we live in majority christian countries who don't give quite a damn about what's happening in africa when it's christianity based lunacy that's involved.

I still doubt the scale and severity of the problems is comparable to the ones coming from Islamic extremists and jihadists.

All in all in agree with you that these topics are multi layered and complex. I'm not an expert either. I'm just a guy with an opinion.

 

[UKMikey]

If the Jains had a theocracy it would be very different. Different religions and interpretations of those religions would give rise to different types of theocracies. The muslims from Bosnia have a different view of Islam than those of most other mulsim countries. It's not a coincidence they're closer to Europe and traditionally western values. Good for them and for everyone else. Still, they do have, in the case of Bosnia, some worries with the growing religious influence of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

It sounds like national culture plays as much of a part as Islam. However it doesn't apply to the Gambian example I provided.

 

[zzz_pt]

It sounds like national culture plays as much of a part as Islam. However it doesn't apply to the Gambian example I provided.

Yes, culture is a big part of it, and tribalism. I think the catalist though is the religion, because most religious people I know put their religion above everything else (culture and politics included).

Gambia is, unfortunately, the exception to the rule though. The country was also a British colony for centuries and part of the Comonwealth after its independence, and sufi islam is also very influencial in the country, according to the wiki. It's a shame it's one of the poorest countries on earth, because it has taken steps pretty much every other muslim majority country is reluctant to take.

 

[ECGadget]

Thank you for sharing your opinion as a muslim. I don't know if you follow Imam Tawhidi's work and ideas but you made me thing of him. I'm not expert on the subject but the impression I get is that the Quran and the Hadiths (as the Bible, Torah and any holy book really) have a large margin of interpretation, and unfortunately a substancial number of mulsims believe the most extreme interpretations of those texts to be correct. I'm not familiar with the sufi muslims but they seem to be more in line with what you're talking about.

You are very welcome; I am happy to do my part in engaging in healthy debate! I do not follow his work at all no, but in all honesty this is just basic common sense and basic humanity. Which is what baffles me about organisations like ISIS. With regards to the Qur'an and Hadith, it goes like this in general (Again, forgive my incomplete explanations as I am not a Islamic Scholar):

The Qur'an is the word of God. It is split into three parts, one part is akin to the Bible, one part the Tablets, and one part is new. It contains promises of the riches of paradise, warnings of the punishments of hell; it has stories (lots of them) of previous nations and prophets (Noah, Adam, Joseph, Moses, Jesus etc (peace be upon them all) as well as instructions and reminders in the overall context of faith and also specific incidents that happened as the Qur'an was being revealed (over a couple of decades). The Qur'an itself is not easy to understand at points which is why, as you say, it is subject to interpretation somewhat. But the only people who are allowed to give these interpretations are those who are beyond well versed in Islam as a whole. They know the Hadith back to front, the know all the forms of Arabic, they know history, etc. One of the reasons being that as a whole, the Qur'an is poetry. And anybody who has read poetry knows that it requires some thought to understand it. That aside, the Hadith are the recorded actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). These are further broken into the 'sunnah', which are the mannerisms and actions of the Prophet that Muslims try to follow. So as an example, one well known Hadith states that 'The strong man is not the one who is strong in wrestling, but the one who controls himself in anger'. This highlights the importance of being level headed when angry, and how important that is in Islam. There are thousands more, of which I have quoted a few before, such as the one about a Muslim being a person that others are safe around. And things like 'A Smile Is A Charity'.

When you put all this together, you get the religion of Islam as a whole. Now, going into the extreme interpretations. I will not deny, and cannot deny, that war, killing and death is not mentioned in the Qur'an. I will not deny that the most commonly used argument for Islam being a violent religion is the verse 'And kill them where they stand'. That verse exists, and it means exactly what it says. This is one of a few (and I do mean just a few) that ISIS use as their argument for killing everybody too. However, the context around it means everything. The verses before and after it clarify everything. Let me use a Harry Potter analogy: From the Chamber of Secrets, 'hit forty-five times with a blunt axe'. On it's own, it could be referring to anything. Is it an instruction for murder? A really rubbish way to cut down a tree, as written by a failed woodcutter? Or the sad musings of a ghost who wanted to join the headless hunt but cannot because he is only nearly headless. Without the line before it, it has no context and could mean anything at all. This is the same with the Qur'an. Without a whole passage, the meaning is lost. And this is what both ISIS, and those who want to call Islam out as the most violent religion on Earth do. Which is the exact opposite of what any logical, sane person would do. And this is the problem we have sadly.

Where was I going with this? No idea... HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

[UKMikey]

Gambia is, unfortunately, the exception to the rule though. The country was also a British colony for centuries and part of the Comonwealth after its independence, and sufi islam is also very influencial in the country, according to the wiki. It's a shame it's one of the poorest countries on earth, because it has taken steps pretty much every other muslim majority country is reluctant to take.

The country was ruled by Dawda Jawara for a long time who accepted millions in aid while doing nothing to help the country. Under Yawya Jammeh it's accepted aid from Saudi Arabia and has now sorted out the broken roads and constantly interrupted electricity to some extent. But it doesn't help when pair trawling vessels from other countries clear out their fishing stock before they can get to it.

Just because they're poor doesn't mean the Gambians are doing the democracy thing wrongly though. It shows to me that Islam and separation of church and state aren't incompatible and it doesn't require European culture to override it. The only religious people I've heard of who put their religion above their culture and politics are fundamentalists to whom religion is their culture and politics.

It's hard to conclude that Islam is the root of the problem when there are multiple examples of Muslims and non-Muslims coexisting peacefully. "They're doing it wrong" doesn't really cut it as an explanation to me.

 

[zzz_pt]

You are very welcome; I am happy to do my part in engaging in healthy debate! I do not follow his work at all no, but in all honesty this is just basic common sense and basic humanity. Which is what baffles me about organisations like ISIS. With regards to the Qur'an and Hadith, it goes like this in general (Again, forgive my incomplete explanations as I am not a Islamic Scholar):

The Qur'an is the word of God. It is split into three parts, one part is akin to the Bible, one part the Tablets, and one part is new. It contains promises of the riches of paradise, warnings of the punishments of hell; it has stories (lots of them) of previous nations and prophets (Noah, Adam, Joseph, Moses, Jesus etc (peace be upon them all) as well as instructions and reminders in the overall context of faith and also specific incidents that happened as the Qur'an was being revealed (over a couple of decades). The Qur'an itself is not easy to understand at points which is why, as you say, it is subject to interpretation somewhat. But the only people who are allowed to give these interpretations are those who are beyond well versed in Islam as a whole. They know the Hadith back to front, the know all the forms of Arabic, they know history, etc. One of the reasons being that as a whole, the Qur'an is poetry. And anybody who has read poetry knows that it requires some thought to understand it. That aside, the Hadith are the recorded actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). These are further broken into the 'sunnah', which are the mannerisms and actions of the Prophet that Muslims try to follow. So as an example, one well known Hadith states that 'The strong man is not the one who is strong in wrestling, but the one who controls himself in anger'. This highlights the importance of being level headed when angry, and how important that is in Islam. There are thousands more, of which I have quoted a few before, such as the one about a Muslim being a person that others are safe around. And things like 'A Smile Is A Charity'.

When you put all this together, you get the religion of Islam as a whole. Now, going into the extreme interpretations. I will not deny, and cannot deny, that war, killing and death is not mentioned in the Qur'an. I will not deny that the most commonly used argument for Islam being a violent religion is the verse 'And kill them where they stand'. That verse exists, and it means exactly what it says. This is one of a few (and I do mean just a few) that ISIS use as their argument for killing everybody too. However, the context around it means everything. The verses before and after it clarify everything. Let me use a Harry Potter analogy: From the Chamber of Secrets, 'hit forty-five times with a blunt axe'. On it's own, it could be referring to anything. Is it an instruction for murder? A really rubbish way to cut down a tree, as written by a failed woodcutter? Or the sad musings of a ghost who wanted to join the headless hunt but cannot because he is only nearly headless. Without the line before it, it has no context and could mean anything at all. This is the same with the Qur'an. Without a whole passage, the meaning is lost. And this is what both ISIS, and those who want to call Islam out as the most violent religion on Earth do. Which is the exact opposite of what any logical, sane person would do. And this is the problem we have sadly.

Where was I going with this? No idea... HAPPY NEW YEAR!

That was the idea I had, yes. So, now I'm curious to know what do you think about the muslims who take Sharia more seriously or interpret it differently? Or the schoolars (with have millions of people who listen to and follow what they say) who defend some of the most extreme positions? Is it a matter of sects within Islam? What would you say they're doing wrong, in you perspective?

Classic points would be (I know you probably don't endorse these but they're considered part of Sharia by many mulsim people):

Women:
Honor killings, women's testemony being worth half of a man's, getting half the inheritance of male siblings, marriage contracts between women's male gardians and the husband, a man being allowed 4 wifes but not women, different standards for divorces, child custody being pre-set for the father, women who lose custody of children if they remarry, punishment by stoning for relashionships with someone from a non-muslim background or marriage

Children:
Child marriage (girls are elegible for marriage as soon as they have their first period), girls being tought they are lesse beings, and the impact of a close-minded education (a lot of schools throughout islamic countries don't teach Evolution, for example, or if they do, they also teach to reject it).

Homosexuals:
"death fall" or death by stoning, burning
- This source deffends it, this source doesn't but still recognizes:

"Yes, the main position in the Hanafi school of law for many centuries was that someone convicted of sodomy (which in all the schools required four witnesses to the act of penetration) was not executed but only given a milder punishment or perhaps only disciplined by a judge. But the other three Sunni schools of law did consider sodomy to be a death-penalty offense (at the very least for the active partner). This disagreement exists because of how different schools of thought in the Shariah weighed evidence from the Quran and the Prophet’s precedent and how they interpreted it."

(in some places the penalty is imprisonment)

Non-believers and atheists:
death, public flogging (in some places the penalty is imprisonment)


A lot of these ideas are also present in the Torah and the Bible, but only a couple of countries have some of those ideas in their law books (Uganda being one of them). And those are a problem, for sure. But why do so many muslim majority countries have most of the ones I mentioned above in the law books.

The popes are kind of a joke for someone who's not a christian, but at least their existence brings some objectivity, even if temporary, and order to the religion and a offers a guide to how christians should or shouldn't practice their religion.

In Islam there's no such thing and, for someone who's not a muslim, looking from the outside, to all the different interpretations from different muslim authorities and sholars who read the texts in completely different ways, it gets really muddy and hard to separate who's:

1) a good person and great muslim
2) a good person and a bad muslim
3) a bad person and a great muslim
4) a bad person and a bad muslim

Some people will say terrorists are 3) some will say they're 4). For example.
Some poeple will say normal muslims who want Sharia are 1), some will say they're 2), some will say they're 3), some will say they're 4). And everyone will be able to support their idea regarding who's right or wrong in interpretations of the islamic texts made by scholars or religious authorities.

The boundaries between who's a bad/wong orthodox jew and who isn't are pretty clear imo. The boundaries between who's a bad/wrong catholic are kinda clear too. But who's a wrong or a bad muslim aren't clear at all. By "bad" I don't mean bad person, I mean, bad practitioner of his/her religon.

I'm sorry for the long text, but it's hard to find people like you around who are willing to spend some time answering questions (I imagine you did it time and time again, and it can get boring).

Thanks in advance and happy new year!

The country was ruled by Dawda Jawara for a long time who accepted millions in aid while doing nothing to help the country. Under Yawya Jammeh it's accepted aid from Saudi Arabia and has now sorted out the broken roads and constantly interrupted electricity to some extent. But it doesn't help when pair trawling vessels from other countries clear out their fishing stock before they can get to it.

Just because they're poor doesn't mean the Gambians are doing the democracy thing wrongly though. It shows to me that Islam and separation of church and state aren't incompatible and it doesn't require European culture to override it. The only religious people I've heard of who put their religion above their culture and politics are fundamentalists to whom religion is their culture and politics.

It's hard to conclude that Islam is the root of the problem when there are multiple examples of Muslims and non-Muslims coexisting peacefully. "They're doing it wrong" doesn't really cut it as an explanation to me.

You got what I wrote completly backwards then, because I didn't say "they're doing it wrong" let alone because they're a poor country. Unfortunately they're a poor country, because if they weren't, maybe other muslim majority coutries in Aftrica would look up to them and their secular government as something positive who brings a better quality of life to everyone.

 

[UKMikey]

You got what I wrote completly backwards then, because I didn't say "they're doing it wrong" let alone because they're a poor country.

It's more of a general observation because I've seen the argument promoted many times on the web that the Qu'ran obligates Muslims to kill nonbelievers and therefore secular Muslims are disobeying their religion.

 

[zzz_pt]

It's just a general observation because I've seen the argument promoted many times on the web that the Qu'ran obligates Muslims to kill nonbelievers and therefore secular Muslims are disobeying their religion.

That's one of problems with contradictory interpretations of the islamic texts by scholars and religious authorities, yes. Who is to know what's the correct interpretation?

I don't care if muslims are following an incorrect interpretation if they're secular. I'd prefer if they left the religion all together, but if that's not possible, secularism is good enough.

I just read an article about a new Islamic Party of Ontario. Is their interpretation wrong? Is it right? Have fun reading through their view for Ontario and Canada and which laws and changes they propose, based of the Quran and the Sunnah, they claim.

The article is from a newspaper I don't know anything about, but the author is well known and someone I respect. He's also a muslim. I first came to know him though this video, where he addresses the Candian Senate on the issues of Islamic terrorism. I highly recommend everyone to watch it. Short version here. I mean, I'm not even religious, let alone muslim, and I admire this man, who's a muslim. Not because he's muslim, but bcause he's a secular muslim who denounces the muslim extremists.

PS: When you quote me, I get it as you're replying to my point, not making a general observation to something I never said.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's one of problems with contradictory interpretations of the islamic texts by scholars and religious authorities, yes. Who is to know what's the correct interpretation?

It's like any subsequent branch of however the original Judaism (unoriginal as it was) looked. Go down any fork to the present day and you'll find wildly varying interpretations. People pick the flavour they prefer.

I'd prefer if they left the religion all together

What's it got to do with us? As long as people aren't murderer-arseholes then why should anyone care what they believe?

...if that's not possible, secularism is good enough.

Because otherwise they'd impose their views on others in an unfair way?

 

[zzz_pt]

It's like any subsequent branch of however the original Judaism (unoriginal as it was) looked. Go down any fork to the present day and you'll find wildly varying interpretations. People pick the flavour they prefer.

We're not living in those times, are we? Or are you trying to deflect again from the problems Islam is going through atm, while lots of innocent people suffer because of those different interpretaions? If you're born in some countries, you don't get to pick the flavour of Islam you want to follow. That's just false. Tell that to the women in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Tell them there's a better flavour of Islam, where they could wear the clothes they wanted in public, or that they could marry someone they loved after finishing university.

But I'm sure they were just free to pick this flavour:

There are millions of girls and women living like this.

What's it got to do with us? As long as people aren't murderer-arseholes then why should anyone care what they believe?

You don't need to be a murderer-arsehole to have an impact on other people's lives. If you had read the rest of my post you'd see how that's possible (the Islamic Party of Ontario example, which is not unique). In theory, I don't care what people believe in private. In practice, it's possible for people to influence public life though. Or do you think gay marriage being made legal in the US only 2 years ago had nothing to do with the beliefs of the evangelical christians?

I mean, do you really think religious people don't have an impact on our society as a whole, even if they're not killing anyone? The way they raise their kids, the indoctrination, the lack of freedom to criticize their faith and dogmas, etc. I don't know your background but I've been raised in a very religious evangelical family of zero murderer-arseholes and I can tell you it has a palpable impact. Especially if you turn out to be an atheist.

So yeah, maybe you don't care. Good for you, I guess.

Because otherwise they'd impose their views on others in an unfair way?

Starting on their own children, yes.

Watch this to see how easy it is to teach children to hate other people, even if they're friends. Change the issue from racism to religon, from a teacher to an imam or pastor, add some god and some demons, a heaven and a hell, sins, punishments and you'll get the idea why I think it's unfair, 100%.


It looks like you don't give a damn about it, just don't come here suggesting it doesn't make sense because you happen to not care about it. It gets boring after a while.

If all religious people (muslims and christians included) were like most jews, who only hold the judaism as something cultural instead of a religion and who prioritize reason and science above faith and the supernatural, I think the world would be a better place.

 

[UKMikey]

What's it got to do with us? As long as people aren't murderer-arseholes then why should anyone care what they believe?

I'm not sure how people indoctrinating their kids with terrible opinions should lead to a worldwide ban on the religion they follow. Couldn't it lead to us trying to stop them indoctrinating their children with terrible opinions instead? As far as I can see, outlawing religion tends to entrench it in the minds of its believers who will worship in secret.

The majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims denouncing Wahhabism doesn't seem to stop some people identifying all Muslims with the sect.

 

[Imari]

It's like any subsequent branch of however the original Judaism (unoriginal as it was) looked. Go down any fork to the present day and you'll find wildly varying interpretations. People pick the flavour they prefer.

This. It's not about correct and incorrect. It's like a Rorschach test. There is not a correct answer. The interesting part is what particular people or groups of people choose to see.

Someone looking for "correct" and "incorrect" interpretations is looking for an excuse to write off the religion of 1.8 billion people instead of understanding the people themselves.

 

[zzz_pt]

@UKMikey I Never even suggested a ban on religion, or any other ideology for that matter.

Also, you don't need to be a salafi/wahabist to keep some of the ridiculous practices and beliefs. I added some numbers bellow. Most muslims in Europe are not wahabis or salafis, yet they hold the beliefs they hold and a significant number of them are perfectly happy in admitting they would act on those beliefs.

This. It's not about correct and incorrect. It's like a Rorschach test. There is not a correct answer. The interesting part is what particular people or groups of people choose to see.

Someone looking for "correct" and "incorrect" interpretations is looking for an excuse to write off the religion of 1.8 billion people instead of understanding the people themselves.

I write off all religions equally. Otherwise I'd be a religious person of some kind. But some religions have worse impacts in the world than others. That's why this thread exists in the first place and not threads to discuss Jainism or Buddhism.

Again, as I've said multiple times, I'm not concerned with the majority of muslim people. I'm mostly focused on the minority who are extremists (call it salafis or wahabis). The estimates for the number of muslims who follow those extreme interpretations is in >60 millions (>50 salafi and >10M Wahabi). And 60 millions is a very conservative number.

The correct/incorrect problem is only important because Imams, sholars and religious authorities from both sides have tremendous power and all of them, with a few exceptions, deem the reformists and secularists as apostates or kafir. You don't catholics calling for the death of people who leave the faith to join another sect or be an atheist. You don't see jewish people condemning and shaming jews who leave judaism (even if they turn out to be a muslim), etc.

_________________________

- Growing number of islamic parties in Europe (source)

- Germany - Federal Ministry for Family Affairs (2018) - 18.6% of Muslim students in Lower Saxony agree that "it is the plight of Muslims to battle non-believers and to spread Islam all over the world." 27.4% think "Sharia" is superior to German law. (source EN or DE)

- 7% of Turks living in Germany agree that violence is justified to spread Islam. The survey also found that labor migration is no longer the main reason why Turks immigrate to Germany: the most important reason is to marry a partner who lives there.

Spoiler: More and more data

Nearly half of the three million ethnic Turks living in Germany believe it is more important to follow Islamic Sharia law than German law if the two are in conflict, according to a new study.

One-third of those surveyed also yearn for German society to "return" to the way it was during the time of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, in the Arabia of the early seventh century.

The survey — which involves Turks who have been living in Germany for many years, often decades — refutes claims by German authorities that Muslims are well integrated into German society.

The 22-page study, "Integration and Religion from the Viewpoint of Ethnic Turks in Germany" (Integration und Religion aus der Sicht von Türkeistämmigen in Deutschland), was produced by the Religion and Politics department of the University of Münster. Key findings include:

• 47% of respondents agreed with the statement that "following the tenets of my religion is more important to me than the laws of the land in which I live." This view is held by 57% of first generation Turkish immigrants and 36% of second and third generation Turks. (The study defines first generation Turks as those who arrived in Germany as adults; second and third generation Turks are those who were born in Germany or who arrived in the country as children.)
• 32% of respondents agreed that "Muslims should strive to return to a societal order like that in the time of Mohammed." This view is held by 36% of the first generation and 27% of the second and third generation.
• 50% of respondents agreed that "there is only one true religion." This view is held by 54% of the first generation and 46% of the second and third generation.
• 36% of respondents agreed that "only Islam is able to solve the problems of our times." This view is held by 40% of the first generation and 33% of the second and third generation.
• 20% of respondents agreed that "the threat which the West poses to Islam justifies violence." This view is held by 25% of the first generation and 15% of the second and third generation.
• 7% of respondents agreed that "violence is justified to spread Islam." This view is held by 7% of the first generation and 6% of the second and third generation. Although these numbers may seem innocuous, 7% of the three million Turks living in Germany amounts to 210,000 people who believe that jihad is an acceptable method to propagate Islam.
• 23% of respondents agreed that "Muslims should not shake the hand of a member of the opposite sex." This view is held by 27% of the first generation and 18% of the second and third generation.
• 33% of respondents agreed that "Muslim women should wear a veil." This view is held by 39% of the first generation and 27% of the second and third generation.
• 31% of female respondents said that they wear a veil in public. This includes 41% of the first generation and 21% of the second and third generation.
• 73% of respondents agreed that "books and movies that attack religion and offend the feelings of deeply religious people should be banned by law."
• 83% of respondents agreed that "I get angry when Muslims are the first to be blamed whenever there is a terrorist attack."
• 61% of respondents agreed that "Islam fits perfectly in the Western world."
• 51% of respondents agreed that "as an ethnic Turk, I feel like a second class citizen."
• 54% of respondents agreed that "regardless of how hard I try, I am not accepted as a member of German society."

The study also found that Turks and native Germans hold radically different perceptions about Islam:

• While 57% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with human rights, only 6% of Germans do.
• While 56% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with tolerance, only 5% of Germans do.
• While 65% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with peace, only 7% of Germans do.

Based on the answers provided, the authors of the survey concluded that 13% of respondents are "religious fundamentalists" (18% of the first generation and 9% of the second and third generation). Although these numbers may appear insignificant, 13% of the three million Turks in Germany amounts to nearly 400,000 Islamic fundamentalists, many of whom believe that violence is an acceptable means to spread Islam.

The survey's findings mirror those of other studies, which show that Turkish migrants are poorly integrated into German society.

In 2012, the 103-page study, "German-Turkish Life and Values" (Deutsch-Türkische Lebens- und Wertewelten), found that only 15% of ethnic Turks living in Germany consider the country to be their home. Other key findings include:

• Nearly half (46%) of Turks agreed with the statement, "I hope that in the future there will be more Muslims than Christians living in Germany"; more than half (55%) said that Germany should build more mosques.
• 72% of respondents said that Islam is the only true religion; 18% said that Jews are inferior to Muslims and 10% said that Christians are inferior.
• 63% of Turks between the ages of 15 and 29 said they approve of a Salafist campaign to distribute a Koran to every household in Germany; 36% said they would be willing to support the campaign financially.
• 95% of respondents said it is absolutely necessary for them to preserve their Turkish identity; 87% said they believe that Germans should make a greater effort to be considerate of Turkish customs and traditions.
• 62% of respondents said they would rather be around Turks than Germans; only 39% of Turks said that Germans were trustworthy.

(source)

- There are 9% of muslims in the US who think ISIS has a correct view of Islam, 25% who think violence agains't american citizens would be justified as part of the global Jihad, 24% who support violence against cartoonists or Muhammad, 33% who value Sharia above the US Constitution, only 61% think it's unacceptable to use violence against people who inslut the religion . The sample is not large (600 people) but the % are not reassuring. (source)

- Only 51 to 57% of muslims would disapprove of Al Qaeda and the Taliban while 13% would support both groups (source)

- Support for Suicide bombings (source). And these numbers ignore a lot of other countries that weren't surveyed.

- Nearly 60% of men in Egypt agree with honor killing. 31% of men and 33% of women believe honor killers should not be punished. 34% of men in Morocco agree with honor killing. (source)

- University of Vienna (2017): Half of Afghan asylum seekers say that they have become more religious since arriving in Europe. 52% say that the 'supremacy of Islam' is undisputed. (source)

- Danish poll from 2015 showed that Muslims had become more religious since a similar poll taken in 2006: In 2006, 37% prayed five times a day, whereas the number had gone up to 50% in 2015. In 2006, 63% believed that the Koran should be followed to the letter; in 2015, it was 77%. (source)

- (2018) Integration Barometer: 27% of young migrants in Copenhagen say Islamic law should overide Danish law. (source)

- Dutch Government Report (2018): 2/3 of Muslims in the Netherlands are from Morocco or Turkey. Only 7% of Turkish Muslims and 2% of Moroccan Muslims are secular. The study shows Muslims becoming more religious over time. (source)

- Jewish Policy Research (2017): 55% of Muslims in the UK hold anti-Semitic attitudes (twice the average of all other groups). Religious Muslims are more likely to be anti-semitic than non-religious. Muslims are four times more likely to say that the Holocaust is a myth. (source page 11)

- National Centre for Scientific Research (2017): 32% of young Muslims in France adhere to 'fundamentalist views.' 33% believe violence for 'ideological' goals is acceptable. 24% of young Muslims do not condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and 21% do not condemn the Bataclan massacre.

- 35% of prisoners in Belgium are Muslim, compared with 6% of the general population. (source). Similar situation happens in most other european countries. (source)


Some data has a margin of error, some studies don't have huge samples and some links lead to biased reporting. In those cases, I suggest clicking the links to the studies themselves, since nowadays the quality and accuracy of information is only kept unbiased by a hanful of journalists and publications.
_______________________________

There are tons of poles, studies, news reports, articles, youtube videos, etc to attest this problems. I wouldn't need them because I've seen part of it first hand but it seems to me that some people in this thread are completely oblivious to them and like to point to the non problem (#notall). I wonder if we were living in the 30s, you'd also point to the non-nazi, peaceful germans when confronted with the growing nazi ideology and the proponents of its policies. Yes, I'm comparing the Islamic extremism and fundamentalism to Nazism. Both should be irradicated, for the sake of everyone, mostly peaceful muslims who just want to get along with their lifes, go to the mosque, pray and be good people.

 

[ECGadget]

That was the idea I had, yes. So, now I'm curious to know what do you think about the muslims who take Sharia more seriously or interpret it differently? Or the schoolars (with have millions of people who listen to and follow what they say) who defend some of the most extreme positions? Is it a matter of sects within Islam? What would you say they're doing wrong, in you perspective?

Classic points would be (I know you probably don't endorse these but they're considered part of Sharia by many mulsim people):

Women:
Honor killings, women's testemony being worth half of a man's, getting half the inheritance of male siblings, marriage contracts between women's male gardians and the husband, a man being allowed 4 wifes but not women, different standards for divorces, child custody being pre-set for the father, women who lose custody of children if they remarry, punishment by stoning for relashionships with someone from a non-muslim background or marriage

Children:
Child marriage (girls are elegible for marriage as soon as they have their first period), girls being tought they are lesse beings, and the impact of a close-minded education (a lot of schools throughout islamic countries don't teach Evolution, for example, or if they do, they also teach to reject it).

Homosexuals:
"death fall" or death by stoning, burning
- This source deffends it, this source doesn't but still recognizes:


(in some places the penalty is imprisonment)

Non-believers and atheists:
death, public flogging (in some places the penalty is imprisonment)


A lot of these ideas are also present in the Torah and the Bible, but only a couple of countries have some of those ideas in their law books (Uganda being one of them). And those are a problem, for sure. But why do so many muslim majority countries have most of the ones I mentioned above in the law books.

The popes are kind of a joke for someone who's not a christian, but at least their existence brings some objectivity, even if temporary, and order to the religion and a offers a guide to how christians should or shouldn't practice their religion.

In Islam there's no such thing and, for someone who's not a muslim, looking from the outside, to all the different interpretations from different muslim authorities and sholars who read the texts in completely different ways, it gets really muddy and hard to separate who's:

1) a good person and great muslim
2) a good person and a bad muslim
3) a bad person and a great muslim
4) a bad person and a bad muslim

Some people will say terrorists are 3) some will say they're 4). For example.
Some poeple will say normal muslims who want Sharia are 1), some will say they're 2), some will say they're 3), some will say they're 4). And everyone will be able to support their idea regarding who's right or wrong in interpretations of the islamic texts made by scholars or religious authorities.

The boundaries between who's a bad/wong orthodox jew and who isn't are pretty clear imo. The boundaries between who's a bad/wrong catholic are kinda clear too. But who's a wrong or a bad muslim aren't clear at all. By "bad" I don't mean bad person, I mean, bad practitioner of his/her religon.

I'm sorry for the long text, but it's hard to find people like you around who are willing to spend some time answering questions (I imagine you did it time and time again, and it can get boring).

Thanks in advance and happy new year!

Tough questions to ask somebody like myself, but I will do my best to answer them completely and with as much explanation as possible. I will break each one down as you asked them, and again ask that you forgive an incomplete explanation due to my lack of knowledge. Brace yourself: a wall of text is coming.


- Muslims who take Shariah more seriously/interpret differently


I believe this leads right back to understanding the core idea of Shariah and actually links very strongly towards your statements about a Pope. Without that core leadership (whether we agree that the pope is doing good or bad for the world) you cannot have the law or laws of that faith applied. In that sense, Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was the leader for Humanity from that time, in the eyes of Islam, and was the leader of the Muslims for certain. After him there was always ONE leader, often with council, many times chosen by a mix of succession and vote (yes, democracy in Islam does exist) who would provide that overall judgement if and when needed. Now, such leadership does not exist. In addition to that, the leadership that does exist in Islamic countries leaves much to be desired at times. The most we have are ranks of Mufti, who are the highest of the Islamic scholars, and who judge in groups of specialists, depending on situation. However, they only preside on matters that can be attended to, such as marriage, divorce, some financial matters, et cetera. The rest falls to the law of the land, and indeed the aforementioned topics also do often fall into that category too. But putting that aside for a moment, I'd like to put forward a few key points of Shariah being 'a way of life', and I'd like you to compare them to laws and culture you know and abide by.


1) Preservation of human rights - the right to faith, life, children, property, intellect.


2) Encouragement of work and trade


3) Protection of contracts (writing them down, fulfilment, concessions)


4) Acquisition of items to enhance/provide comfort in life




Now to take words directly quoted from the Qur'an, backed up by Hadith:


'And speak good words to all people.' - Qur'an, on treating everybody kindly.


'The servants of the Lord of Mercy are those who walk humbly on the Earth, and who, when the foolish address them, reply "peace"' - Qur'an, on being humbled by the world and about spreading peace, even when being addressed badly.


'God loves those who seek to purify themselves' - Qur'an, on self improvement and reflection.


'The believer does not defame, abuse, disparage nor vilify' - Hadith, on being unkind and unfair.


'The world is green and delightful and God has put you in charge of it and is watching how you behave' - Hadith, on caring for the environment and everything within the Earth.


'Make things easy on people and do not make them difficult, and cheer people up and do not put them off (by your behaviour)' - Hadith on being helpful in society.


I can go on for quite a long time on that. But I am sure you can agree that those sound pretty much the same as any other progressive country. Nothing really different at all. Shariah also includes rights of women, children, orphans, elderly, charity, animals etc.


If we start taking a look at it from this angle, then the 'Shariah' that people think - stoning, death penalties, flogging, whatever else - does not seem to exist. Why is this? Because this part is a tiny part of Shariah, and in actual fact there is so much more to even that and there are millions of people, Muslims and otherwise, who just do not understand this. Nor do they understand how progressive Shariah itself is, especially when it was first put in to place, centuries ahead of any law we now hold dear. Even the leaders who want 'Shariah' only go for the extremes. And that is just plain wrong.


- Scholars who defend the extreme positions


This has become a big problem as of late. I am thinking of people like that hook man (I cannot remember is name) and others like him. These people are, and I will be totally frank here, hiding their evil behind a cloth of faith. These are not good people. These are not helpful people. And if I were an outsider as many who are reading this are, I would look at these people and say, 'Yup, that's not a faith for me. That is just sick'. And rightly so! I do not look at these people, or ISIS, or the Taliban for a single second and say to myself that there may be some merit in what they are saying. Because if my faith has had such an emphasis on freedom, safety, protection, kindness, peace and love, how can it also have such an emphasis on killing people? The logic does not compute at all to me. So my view is that there is more going on in this than just sects. If one sect says 'Ramadhan Prayers have 20 measures', and another sect says 'Ramadhan prayers have 8 measures' I see no problem here. Both are saying there is prayer, and when asked for basis you will actually see valid reasons for both, backed up numerous times. Now if one sect says 'Live and let live', and another sect says 'Force people to live this one way, and that is it' then I see an issue. Ask the first sect why they say 'Live and let live' and you will see a plethora of evidence stacked for this argument, starting with the most simple of lines, 'There is no compulsion in religion' [Qur'an]. If you ask the second sect, they'll give you one or two skewed analogies and use that as the reasoning. This is fundamentally what they are doing wrong. They are cherry-picking certain parts and then skewing them further to reinforce and progress their more twisted ideologies.




- Women


This one is great simply because I am very strongly pro equity, understanding and the rights of women, AS a Muslim should be. Women's rights are complicated nowadays, but they really should not be, and in the early days of Islam (with Shariah as overseen by Muhammad (pbuh)) the rights were progressive, forward thinking and fair, without a doubt. Let me do my best to explain and maybe change your thoughts upon Islam. Honour killings - forbidden. I say this without a shadow of a doubt, but to help me explain my point I will quote Dr Jonathan Brown: 'Shariah law has a clear position on honor killing, drawing directly on rulings made by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: a husband who kills his wife and/or her lover has committed homicide like any other case, even if the husband caught the two in the act.' It's just wrong...


With regards to testimony, this is a very misunderstood subject (and I will admit I do not have a fully comprehensive understanding of it either, but I will try my best). The verse where the Qur'an states this is a verse referring to financial transactions. The verse does not state that a two women equal one man, because one man on his own cannot be a witness either. It has to be two men, too. This is where the misunderstanding comes starts. People say that if we remove one man, he is replaced by two women. But there was a logic to this, which has nothing to do with intelligence, integrity or anything. It was merely to do with the natural tendency, due to extra stress and strain that is present in a women (periods, pregnancy, child strain, other stress that men cannot even imagine) that may lead to a woman making a small mistake, or forgetting just for a moment. That is all. In fact, if a woman was to testify against ten men, in Shariah the testimony of those ten men can be thrown out immediately if the judge deems the woman is telling the truth. By that token, it means if one man and two women were witness to a transaction and it later went to court, it does not take BOTH the women to counter the man. One is enough. It also means that two women are not always required, and indeed when you look further into this there are many, many examples where the testimony of a single woman is more than enough, no matter how many men testify (as we know, men can lie pretty easily). The rights of a women is completely protected here, since the 1400s.


Inheritance. An interesting topic on its own, and I will agree that when taking it on face value it is very unfair. In fact, when studying women's rights this was one of the first things I looked at, because I had heard about it a few times. In learning about this, I found out that this in itself is a protection of the rights of a women, not because it gives half a share, but because that half a share is hers, and hers alone. What I mean by that is that anything a women inherits, or earns from work, or is gifted, belongs solely to her, unless she chooses otherwise. In Islam, during a time where women had no rights anywhere, a woman was deemed to be responsible for her own affairs and was her own person. A man, however, had more responsibilities to other people. This included every single person in his family, as well as others depending on circumstance. So the inheritance rule was such that the male received (and this is not always the case, as it is far more complex) twice as much as the female. The rule generally comes down to either the female receives half and the male half, or the female a bit less than half, or a lot less, depending on circumstance again. The difference however is that the male is then responsible for redistributing his share further with his obligations, whilst the female does not have any obligations to do this, except of her own free will for which she is rewarded. If a male then fails to fulfil his obligations, he is making grave errors. This is why it is the way it is, not to devalue a woman at all. If anything, the woman is reminded that everything she has is for herself, not anybody else and that is her right in Islam.


Marriage contracts not including the girl. Not true. Whilst it is true that the key part of the ceremony (which by the way only lasts a moment or two) usually does not have the woman present, it is not always the case. My cousin got married and she was present for those two moments as well. In fact, I was a witness (no idea how, I guess I just happened to be closest) to that myself. The woman has EVERY right to say no, has EVERY right to lay down as many conditions on the marriage she wants, and has EVERY right to choose the person she wants. However, to protect her rights (and this happens in all weddings actually), the girl is handed over by the father, or uncle, or whoever. Usually the person who gives the boy a very stern talking to and threatens to break every bone in their body should they find that the girl is ever mistreated. It is literally looking out for the girl. I have never heard of a marriage (except on the news) where the contract was between the man and the guardian of the girl, and the girl not involved. Not once. In fact, in Islam such a marriage would be regarded as forced and would be null and void. Speaking of contracts...


The four wives issue. This was a stipulation for the purpose of children, and having more people being born and raised to live in a better, larger and more diverse society. This does NOT mean a man can go around marrying four wives. There are very, VERY strict terms regarding this. And I mean EXTREMELY strict. The first condition is that the wife has to give permission. No permission? Not allowed at all. Secondly, even IF you have permission, you have to treat each wife with completely equality. Every single right must be fulfilled of the woman. If you are not capable of fulfilling just one of them, you are again not allowed. Beyond that it gets more and more complex. I would not for a second think of having more than a single wife... if I get married...


Divorces. Sadly something that happens more and more nowadays. If only people married with clear cut ideas of life and worked at it before calling it a day. The rules for divorce do not favour men, as it seems. It just seems to be something that has happened over the last couple of hundred years or so. In fact, during the time of the Prophet, a woman came up to him and asked whether she was allowed a divorce. The Prophet asked why, and she simply said that she cannot live with her husband and did not want to be married in the first place. The Prophet granted one immediately. That is it. No fuss, no hassle, no faffing around.


Custody of children. I do not know much about this at all, but as far as I know, the custody goes straight to the mother, not father by default.


The relationship issue. This is a whole different topic unto itself, but this applies both to male and female. It's incredibly complicated and also one I do not fully understand. What I do know is that the general idea is a Muslim should marry a Muslim. That being said, one of my aunts married an English Christian (who became Muslim) and he is a wise and sincere man. One of my cousins married an Italian Christian who became Muslim. And she is lovely and funny. Neither of them have a Muslim background, but they are accepted and loved just the same and we all get on really well. So it is not a background issue, or anything like that, but there are complexities. I may have to get back to you on that one.




- Children


Child marriage. I think I know exactly where this one comes from. To be clear, I do not believe Islam supports child marriage, nor does a first period and child go in the same sentence. In Islam (and in fact until the last century almost all law) a child can be married when they reach the age of adulthood. For a girl, this is when she starts experiencing regular periods. Note, not first. Regular. With that said, over the centuries this age has changed a lot. Centuries ago it could have been as young as 11-12. Now it may not be until 14-15, maybe 16. These girls were far more mature at a younger age than girls now, I am sure. This DOES NOT mean that the girl was to be married off, or asked to find a husband. It just meant that if they can bear a child, that part of them has reached maturity. The girl still has to be mentally mature, emotionally mature, basically needs to have grown up. Now I believe this stems from one Hadith saying that the Prophet married Aisha when she was six, and she moved in with him for the first time when she was nine. Now this presents a real problem, and I for one take issue with one or two scholars who openly argue that since this is in the Hadith it must be bang on correct. However, there are a couple of problems with this. The two quotes that are mentioned seemed to contradict other quotes that are also mentioned. Because this had nothing to do with law as such and was just academically interesting from a historical context, the same tests for authenticity may not have been applied. So scholars have been working on this since the 1920s to see what exactly was what. Was it six and nine? Or was it sixteen and nineteen? To do this, they have had to for years look at every historical incident involving Aisha to try and determine her age from all the things she has been quoted to have said, remembered or written down. Through all of this, it was worked out initially that Aisha must have been at least TEN when she was not married, but betrothed, and then around fifteen at the time of marriage. Which seems to make a little more sense. The marriage at least. Culture could have been to have a betrothal many years before, of that I am not sure. Beyond the 1930s yet more research has been conducted and they have placed estimates that Aisha was some five years older still, given other work and historical quotes. So that places her at maybe nineteen when she become the wife of the prophet, which is well outside of what anybody would deem a child now. But I think it is this incident, and this confusion (which I believe to this day is still being worked upon) that leads to people saying Islam supports child marriage. It does not. No child marriages. No forced marriages. No marriages without a girl or boy consenting.




Girls being told they are lesser beings. This is flat out wrong. Woman are protected in Islam. They have rights, liberties, freedoms. They are not lesser than men. Different? Sure. Anybody can accept that men and women are totally different. But they are not lesser. They have strengths men do not have. They have skills men will never have. They have talents exclusive to them. Without women, nothing could function and anybody who says they are second class citizens have missed the point of Islam completely.




Evolution. This is a massive discussion of itself. I have done a lot of study on the subject, keeping an open mind and I whilst I agree with some aspects of it, there are other aspects I personally find extremely flawed. Do I think that evolution has no place in any science and did not happen at all? Not at all. I am 100% certain that there are evolutionary aspects that took place and are well evidenced, well categorised and make total sense. Do I believe in the tree of life and that humans evolved from apes, or primate creatures? No, I do not. Aside from the Qur'an refuting this flat out - 'We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may come to know one another' - I have read numerous papers both for and against this concept and I am led to believe that there is a flaw in the logic that needs to be explored first. I also firmly believe that when the study of evolution is completed it will be something that will be different to what we see now and will be far more in depth too. But again, this is a whole different discussion that dives into science in a way that would be far too much for this post!




- Homosexuality/Belief in anything outside of Islam


In terms of Islam, the feelings of being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. The acts of it are however. Now this does not mean that people are stoned to death etc, or should be killed. Let me just post this from Mufti Menk, regarding the massacre in the gay nightclub in Orlando in 2016.





We may not agree with homosexuality, in the same way we do not agree with Judaism, Christianity, or whatever. BUT we DO NOT kill. That is not what a Muslim does. I will not discriminate against anybody, because a Muslim should not discriminate, no matter what. This Mufti hits the nail on the head. My best friend is a Christian. I know a few Athiests. One person I used to converse with often is gay. I never wish any harm upon any of them, only peace.




I hope that starts clarifying things, and again I ask you excuse any incomplete explanations, and of course God knows best in all things.


p.s. You think your message was long? Hah. This took me three hours to write!

 

[zzz_pt]

Tough questions to ask somebody like myself, but I will do my best to answer them completely and with as much explanation as possible. I will break each one down as you asked them, and again ask that you forgive an incomplete explanation due to my lack of knowledge. Brace yourself: a wall of text is coming.


- Muslims who take Shariah more seriously/interpret differently


I believe this leads right back to understanding the core idea of Shariah and actually links very strongly towards your statements about a Pope. Without that core leadership (whether we agree that the pope is doing good or bad for the world) you cannot have the law or laws of that faith applied. In that sense, Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was the leader for Humanity from that time, in the eyes of Islam, and was the leader of the Muslims for certain. After him there was always ONE leader, often with council, many times chosen by a mix of succession and vote (yes, democracy in Islam does exist) who would provide that overall judgement if and when needed. Now, such leadership does not exist. In addition to that, the leadership that does exist in Islamic countries leaves much to be desired at times. The most we have are ranks of Mufti, who are the highest of the Islamic scholars, and who judge in groups of specialists, depending on situation. However, they only preside on matters that can be attended to, such as marriage, divorce, some financial matters, et cetera. The rest falls to the law of the land, and indeed the aforementioned topics also do often fall into that category too. But putting that aside for a moment, I'd like to put forward a few key points of Shariah being 'a way of life', and I'd like you to compare them to laws and culture you know and abide by.


1) Preservation of human rights - the right to faith, life, children, property, intellect.


2) Encouragement of work and trade


3) Protection of contracts (writing them down, fulfilment, concessions)


4) Acquisition of items to enhance/provide comfort in life




Now to take words directly quoted from the Qur'an, backed up by Hadith:


'And speak good words to all people.' - Qur'an, on treating everybody kindly.


'The servants of the Lord of Mercy are those who walk humbly on the Earth, and who, when the foolish address them, reply "peace"' - Qur'an, on being humbled by the world and about spreading peace, even when being addressed badly.


'God loves those who seek to purify themselves' - Qur'an, on self improvement and reflection.


'The believer does not defame, abuse, disparage nor vilify' - Hadith, on being unkind and unfair.


'The world is green and delightful and God has put you in charge of it and is watching how you behave' - Hadith, on caring for the environment and everything within the Earth.


'Make things easy on people and do not make them difficult, and cheer people up and do not put them off (by your behaviour)' - Hadith on being helpful in society.


I can go on for quite a long time on that. But I am sure you can agree that those sound pretty much the same as any other progressive country. Nothing really different at all. Shariah also includes rights of women, children, orphans, elderly, charity, animals etc.


If we start taking a look at it from this angle, then the 'Shariah' that people think - stoning, death penalties, flogging, whatever else - does not seem to exist. Why is this? Because this part is a tiny part of Shariah, and in actual fact there is so much more to even that and there are millions of people, Muslims and otherwise, who just do not understand this. Nor do they understand how progressive Shariah itself is, especially when it was first put in to place, centuries ahead of any law we now hold dear. Even the leaders who want 'Shariah' only go for the extremes. And that is just plain wrong.


- Scholars who defend the extreme positions


This has become a big problem as of late. I am thinking of people like that hook man (I cannot remember is name) and others like him. These people are, and I will be totally frank here, hiding their evil behind a cloth of faith. These are not good people. These are not helpful people. And if I were an outsider as many who are reading this are, I would look at these people and say, 'Yup, that's not a faith for me. That is just sick'. And rightly so! I do not look at these people, or ISIS, or the Taliban for a single second and say to myself that there may be some merit in what they are saying. Because if my faith has had such an emphasis on freedom, safety, protection, kindness, peace and love, how can it also have such an emphasis on killing people? The logic does not compute at all to me. So my view is that there is more going on in this than just sects. If one sect says 'Ramadhan Prayers have 20 measures', and another sect says 'Ramadhan prayers have 8 measures' I see no problem here. Both are saying there is prayer, and when asked for basis you will actually see valid reasons for both, backed up numerous times. Now if one sect says 'Live and let live', and another sect says 'Force people to live this one way, and that is it' then I see an issue. Ask the first sect why they say 'Live and let live' and you will see a plethora of evidence stacked for this argument, starting with the most simple of lines, 'There is no compulsion in religion' [Qur'an]. If you ask the second sect, they'll give you one or two skewed analogies and use that as the reasoning. This is fundamentally what they are doing wrong. They are cherry-picking certain parts and then skewing them further to reinforce and progress their more twisted ideologies.




- Women


This one is great simply because I am very strongly pro equity, understanding and the rights of women, AS a Muslim should be. Women's rights are complicated nowadays, but they really should not be, and in the early days of Islam (with Shariah as overseen by Muhammad (pbuh)) the rights were progressive, forward thinking and fair, without a doubt. Let me do my best to explain and maybe change your thoughts upon Islam. Honour killings - forbidden. I say this without a shadow of a doubt, but to help me explain my point I will quote Dr Jonathan Brown: 'Shariah law has a clear position on honor killing, drawing directly on rulings made by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: a husband who kills his wife and/or her lover has committed homicide like any other case, even if the husband caught the two in the act.' It's just wrong...


With regards to testimony, this is a very misunderstood subject (and I will admit I do not have a fully comprehensive understanding of it either, but I will try my best). The verse where the Qur'an states this is a verse referring to financial transactions. The verse does not state that a two women equal one man, because one man on his own cannot be a witness either. It has to be two men, too. This is where the misunderstanding comes starts. People say that if we remove one man, he is replaced by two women. But there was a logic to this, which has nothing to do with intelligence, integrity or anything. It was merely to do with the natural tendency, due to extra stress and strain that is present in a women (periods, pregnancy, child strain, other stress that men cannot even imagine) that may lead to a woman making a small mistake, or forgetting just for a moment. That is all. In fact, if a woman was to testify against ten men, in Shariah the testimony of those ten men can be thrown out immediately if the judge deems the woman is telling the truth. By that token, it means if one man and two women were witness to a transaction and it later went to court, it does not take BOTH the women to counter the man. One is enough. It also means that two women are not always required, and indeed when you look further into this there are many, many examples where the testimony of a single woman is more than enough, no matter how many men testify (as we know, men can lie pretty easily). The rights of a women is completely protected here, since the 1400s.


Inheritance. An interesting topic on its own, and I will agree that when taking it on face value it is very unfair. In fact, when studying women's rights this was one of the first things I looked at, because I had heard about it a few times. In learning about this, I found out that this in itself is a protection of the rights of a women, not because it gives half a share, but because that half a share is hers, and hers alone. What I mean by that is that anything a women inherits, or earns from work, or is gifted, belongs solely to her, unless she chooses otherwise. In Islam, during a time where women had no rights anywhere, a woman was deemed to be responsible for her own affairs and was her own person. A man, however, had more responsibilities to other people. This included every single person in his family, as well as others depending on circumstance. So the inheritance rule was such that the male received (and this is not always the case, as it is far more complex) twice as much as the female. The rule generally comes down to either the female receives half and the male half, or the female a bit less than half, or a lot less, depending on circumstance again. The difference however is that the male is then responsible for redistributing his share further with his obligations, whilst the female does not have any obligations to do this, except of her own free will for which she is rewarded. If a male then fails to fulfil his obligations, he is making grave errors. This is why it is the way it is, not to devalue a woman at all. If anything, the woman is reminded that everything she has is for herself, not anybody else and that is her right in Islam.


Marriage contracts not including the girl. Not true. Whilst it is true that the key part of the ceremony (which by the way only lasts a moment or two) usually does not have the woman present, it is not always the case. My cousin got married and she was present for those two moments as well. In fact, I was a witness (no idea how, I guess I just happened to be closest) to that myself. The woman has EVERY right to say no, has EVERY right to lay down as many conditions on the marriage she wants, and has EVERY right to choose the person she wants. However, to protect her rights (and this happens in all weddings actually), the girl is handed over by the father, or uncle, or whoever. Usually the person who gives the boy a very stern talking to and threatens to break every bone in their body should they find that the girl is ever mistreated. It is literally looking out for the girl. I have never heard of a marriage (except on the news) where the contract was between the man and the guardian of the girl, and the girl not involved. Not once. In fact, in Islam such a marriage would be regarded as forced and would be null and void. Speaking of contracts...


The four wives issue. This was a stipulation for the purpose of children, and having more people being born and raised to live in a better, larger and more diverse society. This does NOT mean a man can go around marrying four wives. There are very, VERY strict terms regarding this. And I mean EXTREMELY strict. The first condition is that the wife has to give permission. No permission? Not allowed at all. Secondly, even IF you have permission, you have to treat each wife with completely equality. Every single right must be fulfilled of the woman. If you are not capable of fulfilling just one of them, you are again not allowed. Beyond that it gets more and more complex. I would not for a second think of having more than a single wife... if I get married...


Divorces. Sadly something that happens more and more nowadays. If only people married with clear cut ideas of life and worked at it before calling it a day. The rules for divorce do not favour men, as it seems. It just seems to be something that has happened over the last couple of hundred years or so. In fact, during the time of the Prophet, a woman came up to him and asked whether she was allowed a divorce. The Prophet asked why, and she simply said that she cannot live with her husband and did not want to be married in the first place. The Prophet granted one immediately. That is it. No fuss, no hassle, no faffing around.


Custody of children. I do not know much about this at all, but as far as I know, the custody goes straight to the mother, not father by default.


The relationship issue. This is a whole different topic unto itself, but this applies both to male and female. It's incredibly complicated and also one I do not fully understand. What I do know is that the general idea is a Muslim should marry a Muslim. That being said, one of my aunts married an English Christian (who became Muslim) and he is a wise and sincere man. One of my cousins married an Italian Christian who became Muslim. And she is lovely and funny. Neither of them have a Muslim background, but they are accepted and loved just the same and we all get on really well. So it is not a background issue, or anything like that, but there are complexities. I may have to get back to you on that one.




- Children


Child marriage. I think I know exactly where this one comes from. To be clear, I do not believe Islam supports child marriage, nor does a first period and child go in the same sentence. In Islam (and in fact until the last century almost all law) a child can be married when they reach the age of adulthood. For a girl, this is when she starts experiencing regular periods. Note, not first. Regular. With that said, over the centuries this age has changed a lot. Centuries ago it could have been as young as 11-12. Now it may not be until 14-15, maybe 16. These girls were far more mature at a younger age than girls now, I am sure. This DOES NOT mean that the girl was to be married off, or asked to find a husband. It just meant that if they can bear a child, that part of them has reached maturity. The girl still has to be mentally mature, emotionally mature, basically needs to have grown up. Now I believe this stems from one Hadith saying that the Prophet married Aisha when she was six, and she moved in with him for the first time when she was nine. Now this presents a real problem, and I for one take issue with one or two scholars who openly argue that since this is in the Hadith it must be bang on correct. However, there are a couple of problems with this. The two quotes that are mentioned seemed to contradict other quotes that are also mentioned. Because this had nothing to do with law as such and was just academically interesting from a historical context, the same tests for authenticity may not have been applied. So scholars have been working on this since the 1920s to see what exactly was what. Was it six and nine? Or was it sixteen and nineteen? To do this, they have had to for years look at every historical incident involving Aisha to try and determine her age from all the things she has been quoted to have said, remembered or written down. Through all of this, it was worked out initially that Aisha must have been at least TEN when she was not married, but betrothed, and then around fifteen at the time of marriage. Which seems to make a little more sense. The marriage at least. Culture could have been to have a betrothal many years before, of that I am not sure. Beyond the 1930s yet more research has been conducted and they have placed estimates that Aisha was some five years older still, given other work and historical quotes. So that places her at maybe nineteen when she become the wife of the prophet, which is well outside of what anybody would deem a child now. But I think it is this incident, and this confusion (which I believe to this day is still being worked upon) that leads to people saying Islam supports child marriage. It does not. No child marriages. No forced marriages. No marriages without a girl or boy consenting.




Girls being told they are lesser beings. This is flat out wrong. Woman are protected in Islam. They have rights, liberties, freedoms. They are not lesser than men. Different? Sure. Anybody can accept that men and women are totally different. But they are not lesser. They have strengths men do not have. They have skills men will never have. They have talents exclusive to them. Without women, nothing could function and anybody who says they are second class citizens have missed the point of Islam completely.




Evolution. This is a massive discussion of itself. I have done a lot of study on the subject, keeping an open mind and I whilst I agree with some aspects of it, there are other aspects I personally find extremely flawed. Do I think that evolution has no place in any science and did not happen at all? Not at all. I am 100% certain that there are evolutionary aspects that took place and are well evidenced, well categorised and make total sense. Do I believe in the tree of life and that humans evolved from apes, or primate creatures? No, I do not. Aside from the Qur'an refuting this flat out - 'We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may come to know one another' - I have read numerous papers both for and against this concept and I am led to believe that there is a flaw in the logic that needs to be explored first. I also firmly believe that when the study of evolution is completed it will be something that will be different to what we see now and will be far more in depth too. But again, this is a whole different discussion that dives into science in a way that would be far too much for this post!




- Homosexuality/Belief in anything outside of Islam


In terms of Islam, the feelings of being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. The acts of it are however. Now this does not mean that people are stoned to death etc, or should be killed. Let me just post this from Mufti Menk, regarding the massacre in the gay nightclub in Orlando in 2016.





We may not agree with homosexuality, in the same way we do not agree with Judaism, Christianity, or whatever. BUT we DO NOT kill. That is not what a Muslim does. I will not discriminate against anybody, because a Muslim should not discriminate, no matter what. This Mufti hits the nail on the head. My best friend is a Christian. I know a few Athiests. One person I used to converse with often is gay. I never wish any harm upon any of them, only peace.




I hope that starts clarifying things, and again I ask you excuse any incomplete explanations, and of course God knows best in all things.


p.s. You think your message was long? Hah. This took me three hours to write!

Oh, don't worry with long posts. I prefer those to twitter like remarks, especially when trying to navigate complex themes, such as these.

I was curious about what your views were specifically because otherwise I could make false assumptions about your beliefs. From everything you wrote, I only have some objections to a couple of points. In general, I think you said what I expect most muslims to say - which is positive.

I have to confess your explanation about the reasons behind the split differences for women and men in their inheritances, made me realize how poor my own memory is. ^^ I had not considered the social context of the time when it was written even though I knew it from my christian background. Women were basically homeless if their husbands or fathers would die. In fact, the book of Ruth used to be one of my favorites from the entire Bible precisely because of the bold decision Ruth made to help and take care of his mother-in-law instead of doing what she had told Ruth to do (leave her and marry another man), after the men had died. I can see how in thte Quran, back in 600CE, the split would make sense, given the fact that men had to take provide for everyone in their families and even emplyees and/or slaves.

The point of contention between scholars and the age of Aisha is not that important for me, as long as there aren't girls or women being forced into marriages. I know you don't defend that, but unfortunately it still happens in some ****ries. What popped out from your explanation was the implication that the Quran is not infallible. If some scholars don't think Aishas was 6, when the text clearly says she was 6 when first met the prophet and 9 when they married, then is the text wrong ?

On the issue of 4 wifes and 1 husband, you point out that the reason behind it was to live in a "better, larger more diverse society". Larger, yes, I can see that. But better? Do you think those women are better off sharing 1 husband than having one of their own, and their own children? Is it more diverse to have a particular portion of people having way higher reproduction rates than all the others? That only ends up in lack of diversity, I guess. Also, if 1 men is having kids with 4 women, you'll have less genetic variation and diversification than if 1 man only marries 1 women to have children.

On Evolution, I don't think it's even a debatable fact in science that we share a common ancestor with other apes and, down the timeline, with other creatures. It is only contested by different religious organizations and "researchers". We wouldn't even need fossils in order to prove it. DNA (genetic evidence) alone would be sufficient. Evolution is not dogma - it has open branches of constant investigation and room for improvement. But as a whole, it's a fact, supported by several fields of scientific research.

___

Mufti Menk is one of the people I've watched before and has a very optimist view of Islam and how muslims should conduct themselves and live in peace among people of other faiths / non believers (focus on what other people have that's good and positive and refuse to use energy through violence, verbal or physical).

 

[TenEightyOne]

The point of contention between scholars and the age of Aisha is not that important for me, as long as there aren't girls or women being forced into marriages. I know you don't defend that, but unfortunately it still happens in some ****ries. What popped out from your explanation was the implication that the Quran is not infallible. If some scholars don't think Aishas was 6, when the text clearly says she was 6 when first met the prophet and 9 when they married, then is the text wrong ?

The first Western country that springs to mind when thinking of child marriage is the USA. Personally I think it's wrong in modern times whether force is a factor or not. Obviously force is another level of crime in any case. Aisha was, in her words, matured as a women (read menarchal) when the marriage was consumated. Such things were normal at the time - by 9 years old one was conceivably a quarter of the way through one's life. Perhaps there's a remnant of honesty in the koran that's been scrubbed from other abrahamic texts by subsequent generations/castes of belief?

On the issue of 4 wifes and 1 husband, you point out that the reason behind it was to live in a "better, larger more diverse society". Larger, yes, I can see that. But better? Do you think those women are better off sharing 1 husband than having one of their own, and their own children? Is it more diverse to have a particular portion of people having way higher reproduction rates than all the others? That only ends up in lack of diversity, I guess. Also, if 1 men is having kids with 4 women, you'll have less genetic variation and diversification than if 1 man only marries 1 women to have children.

Polygamy is common throughout the history of the religion in its jewish, christian and muslim flavours. The main bar to polygamy (or specifically polygyny) is post Holy RE, although there are still christian countries that practice it with the support of their anglican ministeries. Often polygyny has negative effects in modern societies (and it was often the most visible symbol of patriarchy in rich societies) but it would be wrong to say that all wives in such situations find it a negative experience.

 

[ECGadget]

Oh, don't worry with long posts. I prefer those to twitter like remarks, especially when trying to navigate complex themes, such as these.

I was curious about what your views were specifically because otherwise I could make false assumptions about your beliefs. From everything you wrote, I only have some objections to a couple of points. In general, I think you said what I expect most muslims to say - which is positive.

I have to confess your explanation about the reasons behind the split differences for women and men in their inheritances, made me realize how poor my own memory is. ^^ I had not considered the social context of the time when it was written even though I knew it from my christian background. Women were basically homeless if their husbands or fathers would die. In fact, the book of Ruth used to be one of my favorites from the entire Bible precisely because of the bold decision Ruth made to help and take care of his mother-in-law instead of doing what she had told Ruth to do (leave her and marry another man), after the men had died. I can see how in thte Quran, back in 600CE, the split would make sense, given the fact that men had to take provide for everyone in their families and even emplyees and/or slaves.

The point of contention between scholars and the age of Aisha is not that important for me, as long as there aren't girls or women being forced into marriages. I know you don't defend that, but unfortunately it still happens in some ****ries. What popped out from your explanation was the implication that the Quran is not infallible. If some scholars don't think Aishas was 6, when the text clearly says she was 6 when first met the prophet and 9 when they married, then is the text wrong ?

On the issue of 4 wifes and 1 husband, you point out that the reason behind it was to live in a "better, larger more diverse society". Larger, yes, I can see that. But better? Do you think those women are better off sharing 1 husband than having one of their own, and their own children? Is it more diverse to have a particular portion of people having way higher reproduction rates than all the others? That only ends up in lack of diversity, I guess. Also, if 1 men is having kids with 4 women, you'll have less genetic variation and diversification than if 1 man only marries 1 women to have children.

On Evolution, I don't think it's even a debatable fact in science that we share a common ancestor with other apes and, down the timeline, with other creatures. It is only contested by different religious organizations and "researchers". We wouldn't even need fossils in order to prove it. DNA (genetic evidence) alone would be sufficient. Evolution is not dogma - it has open branches of constant investigation and room for improvement. But as a whole, it's a fact, supported by several fields of scientific research.

___

Mufti Menk is one of the people I've watched before and has a very optimist view of Islam and how muslims should conduct themselves and live in peace among people of other faiths / non believers (focus on what other people have that's good and positive and refuse to use energy through violence, verbal or physical).

Glad you enjoy the lengthy reply. My fingers certainly did not!
Just to clarify, the marriage of Aisha is not in the Qur'an, but in the Hadith. And there are, and have been in the past, mistakes made due to 'weak' hadith being put forward. That is to say Hadith that may not be entirely accurate, or may have been misquoted. Whilst rare, this does happen, and scholars constantly are on the lookout for them. I am not saying this one is weak or untrue, but I am saying that there is a lot of thought going into this one to see if indeed there is a mistake of 9 to nineteen. What is for certain is that she was young for modern standards (I mean even 19 is pretty young), and there was a four or five year period before she became the Prophets wife in his home.

As for the four to one, I will be honest, I was never that interested in that at all so I never looked at it in depth. I just know there are strict conditions and children were one reason. Maybe there were a lot more females than males in Arabia at that time too, I really do not know!

And with Evolution, I think we differ on opinion there (healthily of course), but I have nothing at all against science researching it more and more. It's almost like I feel we have but begun to research our origins in this modern age and there is so much to find. But I do believe there are fields of scientific research that disprove some aspects (not all, because as I said I do believe there is some evolution of creatures) of it. Even those who supported Evolution as late as the 1930s sometimes would accept there is no hard evidence, such as Theodosius Dobzhansky (sp?). I think the current focus is on the Cambrian period, because that holds a lot of the clues to the answers of missing links, incomplete records etc. And I think it is there where the answers will be found. Again, though I do not believe in the Darwinian theory of Evolution, I do not discourage looking for the links, because at the end of the day that is what we do as Humans: we explore. But as I also said, a different topic for a different time!

 

[zzz_pt]

The first Western country that springs to mind when thinking of child marriage is the USA. Personally I think it's wrong in modern times whether force is a factor or not. Obviously force is another level of crime in any case. Aisha was, in her words, matured as a women (read menarchal) when the marriage was consumated. Such things were normal at the time - by 9 years old one was conceivably a quarter of the way through one's life. Perhaps there's a remnant of honesty in the koran that's been scrubbed from other abrahamic texts by subsequent generations/castes of belief?

Yes, I agree with that 100%. It wouldn't be a problem at all if it wasn't so much common in some muslim countries where a significant minority of people still think that practice is OK, based on extremist and ultra-conservative views of the religion. I just read an article related to this topic where teenage girls who are forced into marriages and fly to the UK to seek protection. 82 in 2 years were able to get to the UK... those are only the ones who can run away to a single country.

How many forced marriages are there in the USA though? I mean, mu great grandmothers were probably teens when they got married, but my great grandfathers were working from the age of 12 or 14 too. No one was forced as far as I know and that was 100+ years ago. Times have changed quickly.

Polygamy is common throughout the history of the religion in its jewish, christian and muslim flavours. The main bar to polygamy (or specifically polygyny) is post Holy RE, although there are still christian countries that practice it with the support of their anglican ministeries. Often polygyny has negative effects in modern societies (and it was often the most visible symbol of patriarchy in rich societies) but it would be wrong to say that all wives in such situations find it a negative experience.

I didn't say "all" wives have a negative experience. I'm sure some women have no problems with it just as there are probably men who regret it. Ialso know polygany was very common in the past. A lot of bad things were common. However, is it even possible to give the same amount of attention, love to 4 different wives? Is it possible for 1 man to work, make 4 women just as happy as 1 if your time and resources are limited? That's hard to believe. Not to mention the children.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How many forced marriages are there in the USA though? I mean, mu great grandmothers were probably teens when they got married, but my great grandfathers were working from the age of 12 or 14 too. No one was forced as far as I know and that was 100+ years ago. Times have changed quickly.

Underage doesn't necessarily imply force. From 2000 to 2010 there were 200,000 child marriages in the US.

 

[SestoScudo]

It seems triple z pt is triggered by a piece of cloth by the way the picture you posted is the Burqa not the Niqab.

When it comes to hijab there is many different styles of covering including the niqab.

Covering ones face is still debatable as some say its obligatory while the others say it is optional or no need for it.

 

[zzz_pt]

Underage doesn't necessarily imply force. From 2000 to 2010 there were 200,000 child marriages in the US.

2000 and 2015

Not necessarily, but it's very hard to make the case that a 12 or even a 15yo is fully developed mentally to make a well informed decision about marriage, given what it entails from that moment onward.

Also, the USA is hardly an example I'd use for anything othe than its First Amendment. Regarding social issues, the USA is usually behind other parts of the world such as Europe or Japan. But that's a whole different topic. Death penaly, quality of life for minorities, health and education, etc. But I admit I had no idea about those numbers (Six 12 year olds, 51 13yo and 985 14yo) are still unexcusable for a rich country and a society that should know better. 67% were 17yo though, which makes it less horrible.

I'd be willing to bet 99.99% of those cases involved religiouly fanatic families. But still, at least in the USA the repulsive practice involves a judge who can (and should) deny those marriages. In the case of children who are rescued from the middle east (and africa in some places, as in eastern india), they are offered to men to marry them from the ages of 9-14. Those children have no protections at all once they get married. The ones who can run away or get rescued give reports of friends killing themselves, burning themsevels, drawning, being chained to walls inside their homes, raped, etc.

For comparison, Bangladesh has rougly 5 to 6 million women from the age of 20 to 24. 59% of them married underaged, 22% when they were >15. That's over 1.000.000 under 15 years old, roughly every 4 years, give or take. The USA has double the population and had 1.042 marriages under 15 years old in 15 years.


Top countries for child marriage

According to the 2017 UNICEF report, State of the World’s Children, the countries with the highest rates of child marriage before age 18 (counted among women now 20 to 24) are:

1. Niger — 76 % (99% muslim)
2. Central African Republic — 68 % (80% christian)
3. Chad — 67 % (55% muslim / 41% christian)
4. Bangladesh — 59 % (90% muslim)
5. Mali — 52 % (90% muslim)
6. South Sudan — 52 % (60% christian)
7. Burkina Faso — 52 % (60% muslim)
8. Guinea — 51 % (85% muslim)
9. Mozambique — 48 % (56% christian)
10. India — 47 % (80% hindu 14% muslim and a mixbag of others) - probably the worse country to be a young girl

These % are kinda misleading though, for several reasons:
- The problem is more related to poverty than to religion for the most part and the numbers are going down every year (with the exepction of Syrian girls due to the war).
- some countries don't have public figures about this. For example, Bahrain, UAE or Saudi Arabia, which are known to have child brides but the numbers are unknown. Also these are not dirt poor countries so they should have outlawed this practice already.
- all the majority christian countries in the top 10 amount to around ~70 million people total. Bangladesh alone has 160 million people.




The issue with Islam in particular, and this is only my opinion, is that allows some of its followers to interpret the life of the prophet as "perfect" and "ideal", which makes it harder to outlaw child marriages. In Yemen a proposal to raise the age of consent to 17 didn't pass because the backward thinking oposition blocked it ("If God didn't put a limit, we shouldn't change God's decision"). I think no other religion has that problem. Fortunately there are no texts claiming Jesus or Moses married an underaged girl.

 

[SestoScudo]

Those countries you listed have one of the worst mortality rates in the world hence why a lot of them get married young and try to have as much children as they can to ensure the survival of their generation.

Some parents have given their child up to due to poverty. In Turkey Syrian refugees are allowing their daughters to marry Gulf Arabs and local Turkish men.

It is no doubt sad but you sometimes got to understand how these countries are different from Developed countries