Support NeoGAF

[castle007]

This is actually an honest question, in polygamy as practiced by Muslims, does the first wife have any say in whether or not her husband takes on another wife? Cause I'm guessing no, and therefore that's IS a problem.

Polygamy isn't supposed to be practiced for the sake of sexual enjoyment.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm


If you have the time to read that page, please do so, because it will clear any misconceptions of Polygamy.

1 That polygamy is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted.
2 That the permission to practice polygamy is not associated with mere satisfaction of. Rather, it is associated with compassion towards widows and orphans, a matter that is confirmed by the atmosphere in which the verse was revealed.

3 That even in such a situation, the permission is far more restricted than the normal practice which existed among the Arabs and other peoples at that time when many married as many as ten or more wives.

4 That dealing justly with one’s wives is an obligation. This applies to housing, food, clothing, kind treatment…etc., for which the husband is fully responsible. If one is not sure of being able to deal justly with them, the Qur’an says: "then (marry) only one." (Qur’an 4:3)

This verse, when combined with another verse in the same chapter, shows some discouragement of such plural marriages. The other verse plainly states: "You are never able to be fair and just between women even if it is your ardent desire…" (Qur’an 4:129)

The requirement of justice rules out the fantasy that man can "own as many as he pleases." It also rules out the concept of a "secondary wife", for all wives have exactly the same status and are entitled to identical rights and claims over their husband. It also implies, according to the Islamic Law, that should the husband fail to provide enough support for any of his wives, she can go to court and ask for a divorce.

5 The verse says "marry," not kidnap, buy or seduce. What is "marriage" as understood in Islam? Marriage in Islam is a civil contract which is not valid unless both contracting parties consent to it. Thus, no wife can be forced or "given" to a husband who is already married.

It is thus a free choice of both parties. As to the first wife:

A She may be barren or ill and see in polygamy a better solution than divorce.

B She may divorce him (unilaterally) if he is married to a second wife provided that the nuptial contract gives her the right of unilateral divorce (ismah)

C She can go to court and ask for a divorce if there is evidence ofmistreatment or injustice inflicted upon her.

But if polygamy is discouraged and loaded with such constraints, could it have been better if the Qur’an simply forbade it? To answer this question, we may have to raise another one: Can Polygamy be a Better Solution in Some Cases?

Scholars in the past and at present, Muslims and Non-Muslims have consistently pointed out such cases. The following are a few examples, which are tied in with the general approach of Islam to individual and social problems.

A Individual Cases

1. A man who discovers that his wife is barren, and who at the same time instinctively aspires to have children and heir. In a situation as this, then man would either have to:

- Suffer the deprivation of fatherhood for life.

- Divorce his barren wife and get married to another women who is not barren.

In many cases, neither solution can be considered as the best alternative. Polygamy would have the advantage of preserving the marital relationship without depriving the man of fathering children of his own.

2. A man whose wife becomes chronically ill would have one of possible alternatives:

- He may suppress his instinctive sexual needs for the rest of his life.

- He may divorce his sick wife at a time when she needs his compassion most, and get married to another woman, thus legally satisfying his instinctive needs.

- Or he could compromise by keeping his sick wife, and secretly take for himself one or more illicit sex partners.

Let us discuss these alternatives from the point of view of the Islamic Teaching. The first solution is against human nature. Islam recognises sex and sexual needs and provides legitimate means for their satisfaction. The second solution is clearly less compassionate; especially where there is love between two parties. Furthermore, divorce is described by the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the "permitted thing that is hated most by God". The last solution is plainly against the Islamic teaching which forbids illicit sexual relationships in any form.

To sum up, Islam being against immorality, hypocritical pretence of morality, and against divorce unless no better solution is available, provides for a better alternative which is consistent with human nature and with the preservation of pure and legitimate sex relationships. In a situation like this, it is doubtful that any solution would be better than polygamy, which is, after all, and optional solution.

B Social Cases

1. Anthropologists tell us that among various tribes and societies, polygamy

is a social and economic necessity. In some very poor areas, the infant mortality is very high. Children on the other hand, are a source of additional labour for the earning capacity of the family. To have more children under such circumstances would require the practice of polygamy. It is by this very reason that Christian missionaries in some African regions justified their permission to local people to practice polygamy without being excommunicated from the church. One researcher has even found, through his studies that women in such societies not only accept polygamy, but some of them even prefer this.

2. Aside from cases where womenoutnumber men, devastating wars, in the past and at present, have taken their toll mainly among men. The result is not simply more women who cannot find husbands, but even more widows who may aspire to a respectable family life. In such a situation, if polygamy is bad, the limitation on polygamy is even far worse.

Both unmarried women and widows are human beings. Unless their instinctive needs are legitimately satisfied, the

temptation is great for corruption and immorality. But aside from the moral question these women are also exploited. They are used as tools for men’s pleasures, yet have no guarantees, no rights or security, financial or emotional. Should they become pregnant, it is their burden alone. But even if such women are ready to pay the price for this personally, society also suffers seriously from such situations. The increasing number of illegitimate children born today under conditions such as these provides a potential base for tomorrow’s maladjusted and criminals. Furthermore it is inhuman, humiliating for those children to grow p without knowing who their fathers were and without enjoying a clean and normal family life.

One question remains:

Why Not Polyandry (plurality of husbands for the same women?)

It is evident that the nature of women is physiologically and psychologically different from that of men. Psychologically speaking, the woman is monogamous by her very nature. Furthermore, in all cultures, new and old, the headship of the family is normally man’s. One can imagine what would happen if the family had two or more heads. Furthermore, if the woman was married to more than one husband, which would be the father of her children?

 

[Azih]

The rate seems to vary based on income, education level, etc, not based on how Islamic a country is. If you have other stats on polygamy rates that show polygamists are an insignificant fraction of the overall Muslim world I'd be happy to look at them.

Other than I grew up in Pakistan and it pretty much never happens or in India I really can't. And looking at the wiki page on polygamy the countries where it is mentioned are in certain regions. You have it very prevalent in poor Senegal and then a noticeable percentage in some very rich bits of the Middle East. It's driven by culture and allowed by the religion. Once again it's like Slavery. Slavery is allowed in the Quran but it's complete anathema everywhere in the muslim world except for Sudan. There's something weird about Sudan in this case.

 

[Kabouter]

Actually I was showing that any idealogy taken to an extreme leads to violence.

Pacifism?

 

[speculawyer]

Completely unsupported claim especially in the case of America.

Oh come on. Do we allow parents to kill their kids if they talk back to them? Do we kill people that work on the Sabbath? Do we kill people that worship other Gods? Do we kill people for adultery?

There are zillion rules in the Bible that are NOT in our laws at all. And most American Christians would not support the creation of such laws. There is a way-out-there group of extremist Christians known as 'dominionists' that do want America to have laws that allow the stoning of gay people . . . but they are a tiny tiny minority.

 

[Azih]

This is actually an honest question, in polygamy as practiced by Muslims, does the first wife have any say in whether or not her husband takes on another wife? Cause I'm guessing no, and therefore that's IS a problem.

The condition is that the husband has to treat all of the wives in an equivalent manner. If he can't then the wife always has the legal option of divorce.

 

[Azih]

Pacifism?

Touche.

 

[BocoDragon]

I would like 4 wives.

 

[Mandark]

I wouldn't say that any ideology can lead to violence when taken to its extremes, since I don't think it's really the ideology causing it.

I'd say that almost all belief systems can be used by people to justify violence, though. It's all about retconning God's word to validate what you were going to do anyway.

 

[Azih]

the West is so scared of Islam that it caves in to any show of outrage because extremist Muslims more than Jews or Christians have shown that they will answer any slight with brutal actions.

And that is something that I *agree* with. But there is just so much crap in that article that doesn't advance that point and is just pure slander that needs to be debunked that I can't even *get to it*.

Which actually is a fairly important point now that I think about it. Moderate muslims can't really agree with the sentence "There is too much kowtowing to muslims that riot and threaten to behead people and also muslims are pedophile wife beaters"

 

[Karakand]

Right, right, I should have said "moral problem." I don't see the moral problem with it. I understand the social issues. But those can also be solved.

I am inclined to agree with you but unfortunately I think it will probably take some global cataclysm for people to really even explore the idea of a society like that.

 

[Cooter]

I've got my hands full with one wife. Having something like 4 is suicide.

 

[effzee]

I've got my hands full with one wife. Having something like 4 is suicide.

ok the 4 wives is not a requirement nor is it encouraged. its more like saying its not a sin to marry more than 1 woman. it doesnt say you must.

and yes the first wife has to agree to it.

 

[speculawyer]

Short version of why it bugs me: It treats collective judgment and collective punishment as legitimate, and assumes that one culture (Muslim) depends on being in the good graces of another (mostly descended from Christian). Bad echoes of someone being considered a "credit to their race".

Well . . . we need to talk about things that are related but without unnecessarily offending people that don't subscribe to them. And to help fix the problems, we really need the people who are closer to the trouble-makers. And that is a point Sam brings up frequently.

There are problems of some Islamic sects that are horrid but not practiced by most Muslims. Now even though these are not practiced or endorsed by most Muslims, you can't discuss such problems without discussing their (perhaps twisted) Islamic rationalization. But to only limit the discussion to the tiny minority that commits bad actions is to ignore those that approve of the practice but don't do it, tacitly ignore the practice, or deny it ever happens.

So there is a good purpose of bringing up awful things committed by small slice of a group with the rest of that group. It allows you to address those with silent approval, those that ignore such practices, and those that deny them. And getting people from that group to condem such practices does far more good than having me condemn such practices. I'm not saying that all the people in a group are guilty, but it is nice to have them discuss condemn such practices. Just saying "Well I don't do that.", isn't good enough. Say that no person in your group should do it.

For example, you can say to me: "Hey Spec . . . Stalin kill tens of millions of people as an atheist." Now that hurts a bit and it is somewhat unfair since I do not condone Stalin's evil acts. However, Stalin's behavior is a true fact of history and bringing it up gives me a chance to denounce it . . . and I do completely denounce Stalin' actions.

(And try to explain it away. You can't commit an act in the name of a non belief . . . that doesn't make sense. He commit those acts in furtherance of his nutty political/economic ideology. Atheism was a part of that whacked-out political/economic ideology but not the central part. )

 

[Kapsama]

Oh come one. Do we allow parents to kill their kids if they talk back to them? Do we kill people that work on the Sabbath? Do we kill people that worship other Gods? Do we kill people for adultery?

There are zillion rules in the Bible that are NOT in our laws at all. And most American Christians would not support the creation of such laws. There is a way-out-there group of extremist Christians known as 'dominionists' that do want America to have laws that allow the stoning of gay people . . . but they are a tiny tiny minority.

The most prominent Christians nowadays (in America) are Born Agains/Evangelical Christians. If you can sit there and claim they do not support a literal interpretation of the Bible with a straight face, then there's is nothing more I can say.

And please, the Catholic leadership has all the potential to be equally as fucked up as Islamic fundamentalists. It's just that Western government are too strong to cave into the primitive demands of the Vatican.

Two civilizations are on a crash course and neither will compromise much. This century should be entertaining.

Yet with one of the civilizations having all the trump cards and a 100% domination over the other, nothing will come of it.

 

[gkryhewy]

and yes the first wife has to agree to it.

Really? Is that really how it works in reality? No threats involved of any kind? If the wife were to choose divorce, where would that leave her in terms of rights?

Is divorce a realistic option for someone who has no employment prospects and lives in a misogynist society? Further, given a climate of "husband's will controls my every breath," would divorce even cross such a woman's mind?

I'm speaking of the more backward muslin countries.

 

[Ela Hadrun]

I am inclined to agree with you but unfortunately I think it will probably take some global cataclysm for people to really even explore the idea of a society like that.

Yeah... Eyes on the prize!

 

[Guileless]

I am honestly baffled of how the west views ploygamy.

I am too. Postmodernists tilt at patriarchal windmills but also support polygamy, which is the most patriarchy-friendly policy ever devised. Now explain that one to me.

 

[dasein]

The one (Western world) thinks at the bottom the most important aspect of all life is to carry on the critical Enlightenment project, while the other (Eastern world) prizes a life of deep devotion to fundamentally rich, fulfilling, and sacred tradition. This is an oversimplification, but I hope it gets at my point.

Typical clash of civilizations...that's what comes to mind in Harris' article.

Give me something fruitful that can help us, edify us, and bring us to closer an understanding of ourselves, within the greater global community.

Does Sam Harris work towards this ideal?

No.

 

[Boogie]

You certainly make it seem like it is the only religion that does that. Most of your posts are about bashing Islam.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Very selective reading, castle. Phlegm constantly bashes Christianity too.

 

[effzee]

Really? Is that really how it works in reality? No threats involved of any kind? If the wife were to choose divorce, where would that leave her in terms of rights?

Is divorce a realistic option for someone who has no employment prospects and lives in a misogynist society? Further, given a climate of "husband's will controls my every breath," would divorce even cross such a woman's mind?

I'm speaking of the more backward muslin countries.

no of course it doesn't and i never said so. i was just answering the question asked about having a say.

lack of education is truly the major factor here. its disgusting how uneducated some of the countries are.

 

[Kinitari]

In between some of castle's craziness, he did link a good article to when it is encouraged to walk the path of polygamy, and to be honest, a lot of those reasons seem completely understandable. The whole... women shouldn't be the head of the households thing he bolded is bull, but well - I'm ignoring that. Still, I can see a lot of social problems arising from it, ESPECIALLY in the west, but in general it seems to be a pretty tame issue in some of the third world countries and is probably more helpful than harmful (rich man marries poor ladies, gets them off the streets and in the kitchen where they belong!).

In general, I think it is important that more Muslims voice their distaste for some of the more... distasteful things done in the name of Islam - it's hard though as Muslims as I know them are a very tightly knit/social people - I think this is the case with a lot of traditional heavy-on-religion families. And when that happens, it is really difficult to voice an opinion you're worried may conflict with the opinion of half+ of your family.

But I think the major issue (something that has been mentioned a few times in this thread) is the ideology of instilling our moral values on a -Religion-. Not a culture, but a living breathing religion - thats basically forced-converting. While I can completely understand the desire to stem certain practices (especially the violent ones), there are some things I feel objectively speaking, is none of the wests god-damned business, saying things like "this is how it SHOULD be" is bullshit, not every country wants to BE like the United States or Canada or the UK or whatever, and it shouldn't have to. Problem with THIS ideology of the moral gray area when it comes to slowing down/stopping violent acts in a lot of these countries with political systems based on Islam.

'In the name of preemptive self-defense', the apparent war cry of the US Army sounds a LOT like the stuff they are condemning.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

Yes...demonize and insult muslims....then say "I told you so" when they riot.

Mother Fuckers.

 

[castle007]

I am too. Postmodernists tilt at patriarchal windmills but also support polygamy, which is the most patriarchy-friendly policy ever devised. Now explain that one to me.

I have no idea what this post is about :lol

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I'm an equal opportunity offender (line lifted from Bill Maher).

And I still say that this planet would be much better off if no faith was taken anymore seriously then Hinduism. Hindi barely take that faith seriously.

The rest of the world could learn from that. They are teachings, moral guidance, and nothing more. You take them literally and you miss the point entirely.

 

[castle007]

In between some of castle's craziness, he did link a good article to when it is encouraged to walk the path of polygamy, and to be honest, a lot of those reasons seem completely understandable. The whole... women shouldn't be the head of the households thing he bolded is bull, but well - I'm ignoring that. Still, I can see a lot of social problems arising from it, ESPECIALLY in the west, but in general it seems to be a pretty tame issue in some of the third world countries and is probably more helpful than harmful (rich man marries poor ladies, gets them off the streets and in the kitchen where they belong!).

In general, I think it is important that more Muslims voice their distaste for some of the more... distasteful things done in the name of Islam - it's hard though as Muslims as I know them are a very tightly knit/social people - I think this is the case with a lot of traditional heavy-on-religion families. And when that happens, it is really difficult to voice an opinion you're worried may conflict with the opinion of half+ of your family.

But I think the major issue (something that has been mentioned a few times in this thread) is the ideology of instilling our moral values on a -Religion-. Not a culture, but a living breathing religion - thats basically forced-converting. While I can completely understand the desire to stem certain practices (especially the violent ones), there are some things I feel objectively speaking, is none of the wests god-damned business, saying things like "this is how it SHOULD be" is bullshit, not every country wants to BE like the United States or Canada or the UK or whatever, and it shouldn't have to. Problem with THIS ideology of the moral gray area when it comes to slowing down/stopping violent acts in a lot of these countries with political systems based on Islam.

'In the name of preemptive self-defense', the apparent war cry of the US Army sounds a LOT like the stuff they are condemning.

I am sick of people saying that. What crazy things did I mention in this thread?? Polygamy?? I just showed you the article and yourself said that a lot of parts in it made sense. So please, don't just throw out random insults. It actually hurts my feelings to be defending my religion and trying to teach people about it, only to be labeled as crazy.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I am sick of people saying that. What crazy things did I mention in this thread?? Polygamy?? I just showed you the article and yourself said that a lot of parts in it made sense. So please, don't just throw out random insults.

Don't take anything said on the internet seriously.

All it is is text displayed on a screen.

Find your own truths and hope they lay with God, Allah, Vishnu, or whatever deity you pray too. But never believe them outright, never take what is said at face value.

Knowledge is demonized by most western religions, but at the end of the day our quest for knowledge is what sets us apart from the other animals taking up refuge on this planet.

 

[speculawyer]

The most prominent Christians nowadays (in America) are Born Agains/Evangelical Christians. If you can sit there and claim they do not support a literal interpretation of the Bible with a straight face, then there's is nothing more I can say.

And please, the Catholic leadership has all the potential to be equally as fucked up as Islamic fundamentalists. It's just that Western government are too strong to cave into the primitive demands of the Vatican.

How did I get on the side of defending Christians? :lol

Anyway, my point really isn't whether they view the book as literally true . . . the point is whether the view it as THE word of God. Christians know the books of the Bible were written by various people such as various of Jesus's disciples. In Islam, the Quran is viewed more as the literal word of god as told through Mohammed.

Christians do a lot of picking choosing of what they will follow and what they won't follow in the Bible. They can do that since it isn't all viewed as the literal word of God. (They may take it literally, but as history.) And although the Bible has the ten commandments and other various rules, the Quran has a much fully defined set of Sharia rules.

So, there really is a reason why there is a conflict between Islam and the west. The two just don't reconcile easily. But we've dealt with this before . . . Mormonism has some hardore teachings (such as polygamy) that contradict western laws. And the main LDS eventually gave in. But as we've seen lately, there still are fundamentalist branches that refuse to work within our laws.

 

[Kinitari]

I am sick of people saying that. What crazy things did I mention in this thread?? Polygamy?? I just showed you the article and yourself said that a lot of parts in it made sense. So please, don't just throw out random insults. It actually hurts my feelings to be defending my religion and trying to teach people about it, only to be labeled as crazy.

By your craziness, I mean you randomly going on long rants and kind of flying off the handle - you getting a bit worked up. And another example of your craziness is your assuming what I meant by 'craziness' rather than JUST asking.

Oh and by the way, in the western world if a man is proven to be the father of the child(ren) then he is obligated, by law, to make support payments, so no, he's not off the hook so easy. And the way you worded some stuff, you make it sound like if a man REALLY wants to cheat on his wife, but feels too guilty to do it, he should just marry a second woman and his wife should deal with it, which sounds pretty uncool - but maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[Fusebox]

Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

... the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Spot on.

 

[castle007]

By your craziness, I mean you randomly going on long rants and kind of flying off the handle - you getting a bit worked up. And another example of your craziness is your assuming what I meant by 'craziness' rather than JUST asking.

Oh and by the way, in the western world if a man is proven to be the father of the child(ren) then he is obligated, by law, to make support payments, so no, he's not off the hook so easy. And the way you worded some stuff, you make it sound like if a man REALLY wants to cheat on his wife, but feels too guilty to do it, he should just marry a second woman and his wife should deal with it, which sounds pretty uncool - but maybe I misunderstood you.

sorry, I wasn't clear in my other posts. Marrying a second wife just for the sake of pleasure is highly discouraged and probably not allowed. I wasn't clear in my other posts because I also wasn't 100% confident about the information that I had until I did more research.

Also, that example you gave, isn't really an example of craziness.

 

[speculawyer]

I am honestly baffled of how the west views ploygamy.

Some of it is just tradition/religion. (Which doesn't really make sense since people in the Bible often had multiple wives, so why is it wrong now?)

But I'll defend it on social engineering grounds. You really don't want to have a lot of extra men with no companions and no prospects. It is just asking for crime, rape, situational homosexuality (think prison homosexual sex), etc.

 

[Kinitari]

sorry, I wasn't clear in my other posts. Marrying a second wife just for the sake of pleasure is highly discouraged and probably not allowed. I wasn't clear in my other posts because I also wasn't very 100% confident about the information that I had until I did more research.

That's cool, figured as much, just thought it should be clarified - the polygamy thing seems to be more encouraged because in a lot of countries men do get a lot more jobs/make more money/are more educated, and to 'help out' a woman in need, you marry her and take her under your roof.

 

[RiZ III]

It has, but not anymore, or at least not on a level that's even remotely comparable to Islam's.

Probably because the Christian world, the Jewish world, and to an extent the Hindu world are not full of uneducated people whose people have been bombed by the west and threatened.

No, most of my posts are about video games, anime, internet memes, etc. A big fraction of my posts are about faith and religion. Only a minority of those posts are about Islam.

O please man, you are nearly every thread about Islam where you do nothing but flame.

What you try to promote through your posts is that Islam has evil, intolerant teachings which lead all its believers to kill people. This is dumb, so is your assertion that Islam is the only religion with extremism, today or ever. Islam is close to 1500 years old which is practiced in a lot of nations by a lot of people with a wide array of cultures. I can't defend some of the stuff Muslim's have done and I don't agree with what is happening in a lot of Muslim countries when it comes to practicing religion, but I do know that the Quran when read as an entire book, an entire message, does not promote killing of non-Muslims, stoning, gay hate, suicide bombings, forcing others to believe, female circumcisions, honor killings, or any other extreme behavior.

People with such black and white views as yours are just as ignorant as the guy holding up the "behead those who say Islam is violent" sign. Go to a country like Pakistan and you'll very quickly realize that just like everyone else you have known, people over there are also like most people here. They aren't extremely religious, they're not extremely involved in politics, a danish cartoon strip isn't always on their minds, and they don't go protest every stupid thing someone half way across the world says. Most people in these Muslim countries have enough problems as it is, shitty leaders, poverty, and other day to day problems. The big difference is that there are a lot more unemployed people there who have nothing to do but gossip and have fun rioting and blaming all their problems on someone else (goverment, Jews, Shi'ites, the West, Indians, ... etc.) If they ever grow out of that, which I'm assuming they will with time, extremism will also go away. There isn't anything I or anyone else here can really do to speed up the process besides investing money in proper educational facilities in these countries. I find Muslims in the States who promote hatred in mosques and gathers to be sad despicable people, but I also find them extremely hard to come by. The media might make it seem that that is all you will hear in your local mosque, but the media would also like you to believe that there would be no school shootings if it wasn't for violent video games.

 

[Phoenix]

So what is your point? Are there large numbers of Muslims that completely reject and condemn any violence against the cartoonists? I think Sam is right. And the problem is that
1) Islam does have lots of explicit rules with not much wiggle room. (such as not mocking the faith & idolatry, etc.)
2) The Quran is viewed as the literal word of God. This differs sharply from the Bible that is viewed as allegorical, historical, prophet interpretation, etc. by most Christians. So, where as the vast majority of Christians do outright disagree and ignore much of the Bible, Muslims are much more likely to take everything Quran says very seriously.

It's a difficult situation and it is hard to find a solution for it. There are Muslim moderates but even the term 'moderate' means pretty darn theocratic in the Islamic world. There are very very few true liberal Muslims.

A large number != Islam. You can't take a stereotypical view and apply it to an entire people. Period.

1) So does Christianity if your Catholic
2) Prove that for me.

And there is nothing wrong with them being theocratic AT ALL.

 

[castle007]

Probably because the Christian world, the Jewish world, and to an extent the Hindu world are not full of uneducated people whose people have been bombed by the west and threatened.



O please man, you are nearly every thread about Islam where you do nothing but flame.

What you try to promote through your posts is that Islam has evil, intolerant teachings which lead all its believers to kill people. This is dumb, so is your assertion that Islam is the only religion with extremism, today or ever. Islam is close to 1500 years old which is practiced in a lot of nations by a lot of people with a wide array of cultures. I can't defend some of the stuff Muslim's have done and I don't agree with what is happening in a lot of Muslim countries when it comes to practicing religion, but I do know that the Quran when read as an entire book, an entire message, does not promote killing of non-Muslims, stoning, gay hate, suicide bombings, forcing others to believe, female circumcisions, honor killings, or any other extreme behavior.

People with such black and white views as yours are just as ignorant as the guy holding up the "behead those who say Islam is violent" sign. Go to a country like Pakistan and you'll very quickly realize that just like everyone else you have known, people over there are also like most people here. They aren't extremely religious, they're not extremely involved in politics, a danish cartoon strip isn't always on their minds, and they don't go protest every stupid thing someone half way across the world says. Most people in these Muslim countries have enough problems as it is, shitty leaders, poverty, and other day to day problems. The big difference is that there are a lot more unemployed people there who have nothing to do but gossip and have fun rioting and blaming all their problems on someone else (goverment, Jews, Shi'ites, the West, Indians, ... etc.) If they ever grow out of that, which I'm assuming they will with time, extremism will also go away. There isn't anything I or anyone else here can really do to speed up the process besides investing money in proper educational facilities in these countries. I find Muslims in the States who promote hatred in mosques and gathers to be sad despicable people, but I also find them extremely hard to come by. The media might make it seem that that is all you will hear in your local mosque, but the media would also like you to believe that there would be no school shootings if it wasn't for violent video games.

Wonderfully put together

 

[ElyrionX]

Basically, this thread is saying to me:

All religion is evil and if there was no religion in this world at all, a lot less people would have died.


Probably the only exception would be Buddhism since that's the only major religion that doesn't ever get mentioned when talking about violence incited by religion.

 

[Phoenix]

Basically, this thread is saying to me:

All religion is evil and if there was no religion in this world at all, a lot less people would have died.

Did you actually read the thread or just glance at a few select posts?

 

[WickedAngel]

Basically, this thread is saying to me:

All religion is evil and if there was no religion in this world at all, a lot less people would have died.


Probably the only exception would be Buddhism since that's the only major religion that doesn't ever get mentioned when talking about violence incited by religion.

I think the most famous modern acts of Buddhists came in the form of events such as Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation in protest of the restrictions set forth by the Diem regime. I don't think anyone who has read that story and seen the picture will ever forget it.

 

[speculawyer]

A large number != Islam. You can't take a stereotypical view and apply it to an entire people. Period..

There is a point for complaining about policies of a minority of a particular group to the larger group. See my posts above.

And there is nothing wrong with them being theocratic AT ALL.

Why do you hate freedom?

I think it is very wrong. Not everyone born in an Islamic in an Islamic country will believe in the policies and it sucks that they will be forced to live under them. But to some degree, I think it is fine . . . theocracies will eventually fall under their own incompetence and mismanagement. Like Iran might have if Bush didn't strengthen them.

 

[Azih]

It would be really nice if many more Muslims stepped forward and condemned criminal acts committed in the name of Islam instead of so often denying they happen or just saying that they are not following the 'real teachings'.

Firstly do you not realize that the greatest condemnation that one believing muslim can give to another is by stating that they are not following the real teachings of Islam?

Secondly and more importantly let me tell you what the repercussions of your expectation for muslims in the West is.

It is that we don't belong. That we can't just fit in, get along, and get on with life. That we have to prove ourselves by condemning people that we don't agree with, don't feel any kinship with and that if we don't do it often enough, or hard enough, or agree outright with any article that bashes them that we've failed some sort of test. That we aren't normal. We need to prove our loyalty in a manner that nobody else needs to.

And if we don't then well, hell, everybody knows that we're polygamist, child raping, wife beating, far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormons, forced marrying, honor killing, female circumcising, terror supporting, beheading video filming, genocidal anti-semitic barbarians who exalt suicide bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs".

Each one of these generalized slurs is taken verbatim from the OP article and *in response to THIS* you're posting "we need to talk about things that are related but without unnecessarily offending people that don't subscribe to them", without unecessarily offending? it is *this* article that you actually HAD TO ASK for examples when the muslims here condemned it for degrading stereotypes and slander?

And then when muslims DO respond to the violent extremists by accusing them of not being true muslims (which for some unknown reason you guys seem to think is a joke and not a deadly serious accusation) it is *mocked* by the atheist brigade as being an apologia for fairy tale LOL RELIGION and how these 'real teachings' (IN QUOTES HAHA 'Real Teachings' What nuts these religious people are huh?) are all deluded and the crazed suicide bombing justifiers are the REAL DEAL ISLAM because religions are Keraaazy and by the way if you muslims don't agree with this then you're NOT CONDEMNING THEM and everything Sam Harris said about you is TRUE you baby raping murdering bastards.

There is *no* discussion coming from the OP article. There is *no* attempt to understand the dynamics, divisions, and issues of the Islamic world, and heck *no* interest in going beyond the crassest and most insulting of stereotypes about the Islamic world that I have ever seen collected into one article. All of it aimed at a self satisified choir or an audience that is convinced it knows all it needs to about the barabaric and savage muslim world already.

And that is the third problem. These kind of attack jobs (defended so avidly on its generalised slurs by Phlegm) contribute to an already pervasive atmosphere where anybody muslim is viewed with suspicion, and people are willing to accept travesties of civil liberties like Guantanmo Bay to keep the savage barbabic misogynist muslims (as described by Sam Harris folks) at bay and under control. That leads to complete and utter crap like this to happen: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/410676 Eighteen people thrown in jail for years without charges kept in solitary confinement and a mother that tries to keep insisting above all else that hers is just another normal family.

Yeah.
Normal.

*sigh* Ah shit, you want nice speculawyer, here you go:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

[speculawyer]

the Quran when read as an entire book, an entire message, does not promote killing of non-Muslims, stoning, gay hate, suicide bombings, forcing others to believe, female circumcisions, honor killings, or any other extreme behavior.

Perhaps you should take your views on the road in the Islamic world because many of them apparently disagree with you.

 

[speculawyer]

1) So does Christianity if your Catholic
2) Prove that for me.

1) I agree . . . I like to harass the Catholic church too. I gotta give them props for accepting evolution though.

2) That is Islam 101. Ask the Muslims here for more details, I'm certainly no expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

 

[Mandark]

To speculawyer's 166:

Huge amounts of bad acts are committed every day, and silence is the default response.

Demanding that people denounce bad things that were committed by people of the same religion/nationality/ethnic group very strongly implies that they are somewhat responsible. In your words, they "tacitly ignore" the atrocities of those in their group.

That's a pretty insulting idea, and silly when applied to a group as huge and diverse as the global population of Muslims.

Of course, one of the results of this is it gives the impression of Muslims as not being a big, diverse group. Rather, they're a homogeneous community that could just stop all this if the Good Ones would cut out their winking approval and crack down on the Bad Ones.

 

[PS2 KID]

Two civilizations are on a crash course and neither will compromise much. This century should be entertaining.

Too bad they are both (all?) going to lose to the non-human entity Skynet. We better enjoy life now before the robots take over.

 

[speculawyer]

Firstly do you not realize that the greatest condemnation that one believing muslim can give to another is by stating that they are not following the real teachings of Islam?

No, I did not know that. Thanks for informing me. To me, it just sounds like a way of trying to ignore such Muslims and exclude them from the discussion.

Secondly and more importantly let me tell you what the repercussions of your expectation for muslims in the West is.

It is that we don't belong. That we can't just fit in, get along, and get on with life. That we have to prove ourselves by condemning people that we don't agree with, don't feel any kinship with and that if we don't do it often enough, or hard enough, or agree outright with any article that bashes them that we've failed some sort of test. That we aren't normal. We need to prove our loyalty in a manner that nobody else needs to.

It is probably not as bad as you might thing. I've had an Iranian law partner and I work with another Muslim right now.

And if we don't then well, hell, everybody knows that we're polygamist, child raping, wife beating, far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormons, forced marrying, honor killing, female circumcising, terror supporting, beheading video filming, genocidal anti-semitic barbarians who exalt suicide bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs".

Each one of these generalized slurs is taken verbatim from the OP article and *in response to THIS* you're posting "we need to talk about things that are related but without unnecessarily offending people that don't subscribe to them", without unecessarily offending? it is *this* article that you actually HAD TO ASK for examples when the muslims here condemned it for degrading stereotypes and slander?

Well guess what . . . you are not gonna get a lot of sympathy from me on all this . . . people are more likely to vote for a Muslim than an atheist in the usa! Things are always rough for minority and some things will never reconcile well. But the goal is to keep the dialogue open and going. And you do a great job with that.

are all deluded and the crazed suicide bombing justifiers are the REAL DEAL ISLAM because religions are Keraaazy and by the way if you muslims don't agree with this then you're NOT CONDEMNING THEM and everything Sam Harris said about you is TRUE you baby raping murdering bastards.

Take a look at the Reza & Sam debate mentioned. It is on youtube. I often found myself agreeing with of them . . . some of the things they said could actually be reconciled.

There is *no* discussion coming from the OP article. There is *no* attempt to understand the dynamics, divisions, and issues of the Islamic world, and heck *no* interest in going beyond the crassest and most insulting of stereotypes about the Islamic world that I have ever seen collected into one article. All of it aimed at a self satisified choir or an audience that is convinced it knows all it needs to about the barabaric and savage muslim world already.

As I said in an earlier post, I agree that Sam went too far and is generalizing. But he does have points. Of course, it is easy for me to see those points since I'm not a believer and I'd like religion out of all politics.

And that is the third problem. These kind of attack jobs (defended so avidly on its generalised slurs by Phlegm) contribute to an already pervasive atmosphere where anybody muslim is viewed with suspicion, and people are willing to accept travesties of civil liberties like Guantanmo Bay to keep the savage barbabic misogynist muslims (as described by Sam Harris folks) at bay and under control.

Sam is more nuanced in his complaining . . . I think his calling for speaking out is very different from the counter-productive speaking by the hardcore Christian-right that just say things like "Islam is Satanic."

 

[Mandark]

Also, having been on the receiving end of "What about TED RALL!?!? What about WARD CHURCHILL!?!?" more than once, I'm veeeeery skeptical that these demands are made in good faith or likely to lead to more cross-ideological understanding.

 

[pjberri]

The article in the OP is a crock of shit. It's not a question of being PC or not, it's a matter of accurately representing the source you're criticising. Islam may teach maiming and murder in every passage, but some hokey statistics acquired from followers doesn't prove that.

Basically, it's just idiotic fear-mongering from people who would never look at Christianity in the same light.

 

[Earthstrike]

but I do know that the Quran when read as an entire book, an entire message, does not promote killing of non-Muslims, stoning, gay hate, suicide bombings, forcing others to believe, female circumcisions, honor killings, or any other extreme behavior.

But the problem is that you know this just as much as ayatollah and others in the middle east know the exact opposite.

 

[avatar299]

Basically, it's just idiotic fear-mongering from people who would never look at Christianity in the same light.

Does the problems of one religion validate the problems of another?

Oh, and Speculawyer, all the apologizing crap earlier in the thread. Hilarious

 

[Tyrannical]

Remember to write your lawmakers and ask them to ban further immigration by muslims into your country.