Sorry if I missed this but:
Do you then view Muslims as bigots? A simple yes or no will do.
No.
As has been pointed out, only those adhering to bigoted religious tenets are bigots.
Sorry if I missed this but:
Do you then view Muslims as bigots? A simple yes or no will do.
You're the one shifting the discussion away from religious tenets.
This is not about individual choice as you seem to want to change the discussion into, it's the doctrinal basis that we're discussing here, namely the prohibition of Islamic women marrying non-muslims. I even underlined and put it in bold. The very post I responded to beginning this line of discussion is in direct reference to the doctrinal nonsense you posted justifying bigotry, so you are, on an evidential basis, the one veering the discussion away to 'choice'.
That tenet and anyone holding that tenet is a bigot. If a persons believes that as a matter of religious doctrine that Islamic women should not marry non-Muslims then they are a bigot, and yes, if a person chooses not to marry someone on the basis of that doctrine then they are bigoted. People can choose all they want based on desires but to follow a bigoted doctrine solely because it is doctrine makes that person a bigot.
If we changed the word non-Muslim to Black or Chinese, then the bigotry would be readily apparent.
You've weasel-worded 'devout' to qualify and cover for the practice of these atrocious beliefs as being a matter of true or correct faith. You introduced that qualifier and have stuck with it this far, defending bigoted actions as being those of 'devout' believers.
I'll ask you directly then, my mother married a Christian. Is she a devout Muslim? Do devout Muslim women marry non-Muslims?
If you truly believe that devotion is Islam is and should be based on such bigotry and discrimination, then people of like-minded nature only serve to undermine and potentially doom your religion. If you do not integrate into society then you can only become isolated and swept aside.
I'll also point out that your repeated attempts to quantify why and categorize my assaults on your beliefs only serve to undermine your position. I've assailed religious opinions of every stripe and seeing that this is an Islamic thread, it's on Islam and seeing that the topic at hand turned to something of personal interest, I jumped in.
The topic is not about your suspicions of me, why I am assailing your position, or your baseless accusations. If it's too much for you to stay on topic then by all means scamper away.
Straight up charges themselves are hollow and by the nature of the accusation is itself evidence of bigotry.
The reason women in Islam were disallowed to marry people of the book was chiefly because of this idea that the god in the Quran gave express permission to men to marry people of the book. And that's pretty much the bulk of their case.
oh yeah, I'm sorry, I stated that wrong. The god in the Quran *only* gave express permission to men to marry people of the book.
The reasoning if it needs to be stated is -whether you agree or disagree - is this. If men needed to be given express permission to marry outside of the Muslim faith, women needed to be given express permission as well.
I mean its possible that God X gave permission to woman as well, but it didn't say anything about it, did it now?
They have to interpret its silence in the only way they know how.
As was pointed out before, those who have interpretations that aren't discriminatory are fine. Who would have a problem with them?
Ah... there's the rub because some people don't interpret it in the non-discriminatory manner and instead go with 'the only way they know how' and rationalize discrimination as being the best path, or as I'm being told, the path of the 'devout' Muslim to use their qualification.
Here the sense of arrogance and pride makes some believers defend their faith at all costs, instead of letting them potentially evolve beliefs into something that is more sociable and all-inclusive.
Instead of a "If it is wrong then we will change it" that we get from the Dalai Lama and his religion, we get a "It's never wrong! You're wrong! Your society must accept it!". Modern society isn't so accepting of it and in the Western sphere of influence, the power of religion is at historic lows and is continually being diminished. Being a source for antagonism in such a climate will not be a successful tactic.
Don't you see how you are completely undermining your own strategy?
I mean I know you see what I'm doing with my post above. It is a criticism of the reasoning that was used to craft the law. Cite argument with argument.
And the use of so much rhetoric only works in your favour when you are amongst supporters of your rhetoric. There are better ways to argue in the Islam thread.
I'm not following you. If you're trying to make it a discussion about rationalizing a holy text, I don't actually care.
This is not an issue of how to interpret and I certainly don't care what sort of method a believer holds onto in accepting a non-discriminatory interpretation and would hope that someone would eventually pull a Thomas Jefferson and take a razor to it.
The fact of the matter is that the discriminatory interpretation cannot be accepted, period.
If people feel they can only obey Gods rules like lemmings and on that basis feel that they need to discriminate because of that, then the beliefs of those people cannot be tolerated.
They should be sued into bankruptcy and sentenced for discrimination.
What a political strategy! I suppose simply having laws in place hasn't accelerated the amount of woman in boardrooms or government office. It's much harder to tackle an invisible cultural ethos.
I should say, that marriage in the Islamic faith is somewhat different to marriage in the secular society. Like OS for example, he and his wife live their life to please Allah. Their married life isn't unique in this.
The only thing lacking is political will and this itself is growing.
Saying Islamic marriage is different from other types of marriages is just a bunch of arrogant self-aggrandizing nonsense. I've seen Islamic marriages first hand, which would make sense considering half of my family is Muslim and they're basically no different than any other. Since the other half is Christian, I can directly make comparisons and see nothing altogether different between them (controlling for education).
So wait in your example, a part of marriage would be pleasing the Muslim god? That makes no sense me.
I ain't saying all Muslims are like this, but its kind of like you ignored my point...
Er... no. I inferred from my example that in practice they are no different from each other, the various religions or beliefs would obviously use their own substitute to Allah or even God.
You also said Islamic marriage, which was a universal qualifier.
The point being expressed was that married life itself is an act of worship to some Muslims, and the preferred outlook, a lot of scholars would say I think.
An act of worship itself something that separates it to say an atheistic marriage.
It's inculcated into the religion just the same as the act of marriage in any other religious tradition. While people are free to add a whole lot of additional requirements and expectations onto it, which you're right, a secular marriage likely may not have (although it could easily choose to), I'm saying that in practice it is observably no different from any other marriage.
You may put a lot of weight on religious this or that, but I can only value observable outcomes.
I guess I went on a personal tangent there, and I know this thread really shouldn't be a 'vs' thread now that we have an actual vs thread, I just occasionally read to see what the Muslims are up to, and honestly the last few pages reminded me of another reason why I am so glad I left the religion - it's so hard. Just so hard trying to be happy and a Muslim, at least it would be for me.
Straight up charges themselves are hollow and by the nature of the accusation is itself evidence of bigotry.
The reason women in Islam were disallowed to marry people of the book was chiefly because of this idea that the god in the Quran gave express permission to men to marry people of the book. And that's pretty much the bulk of their case.
oh yeah, I'm sorry, I stated that wrong. The god in the Quran *only* gave express permission to men to marry people of the book.*
The reasoning if it needs to be stated is -whether you agree or disagree - is this. If men needed to be given express permission to marry outside of the Muslim faith, women needed to be given express permission as well.
I mean its possible that God X gave permission to women as well, but it didn't say anything about it, did it now?
They have to interpret its silence in the only way they know how.
*don't ask me whether the word *only or something similar is used. Its the interpreters game sir. Let a man speak. Allow a person to cite their case.
edit: and what if one of you guys were to marry a jewish or christian woman, would you expect her to become muslim eventually?
I know this thread really shouldn't be a 'vs' thread now that we have an actual vs thread, I just occasionally read to see what the Muslims are up to, and honestly the last few pages reminded me of another reason why I am so glad I left the religion - it's so hard. Just so hard trying to be happy and a Muslim, at least it would be for me.
Well then observe that one's outlook may be that of nun to her lord, and another's of failing to go church. But to call the two the same is not to account the truth.
How can an atheist marriage be an act of worship to er anything... unless you want to play mental gymnastics, and say well, they married as a worship of their err, love.. no it's close to nonsense.
Oh I see you used secular marriage. I suppose... Os is more fit to cite his own example..
Ok let us start again.
Marriage is a liberty afforded to an individual.* for clarity, let us stay on the topic of gender and the legality of Islamic marriages. The word legality implies that some people sat down and wrote it into law. So one is talking about woman's rights to choose who she marries, specifically in regards to her having equal access to a man's rights.
You want the state to forbid Shariah law that is discriminatory. Right? You basically want to push the non-discriminatory aspects of Shariah law [and for that to happen you have to allow that such a position actually exists]. You can't be arguing that the act of interpretation itself be culled, (althought going by your tone... never mind) because that is undermining the freedom to speech.
It is the shariah law version 2.450* that is the problem... right so far?
random number*
1, I used secular marriage because Atheism is not a religion, there are no defined traditions or cultures attached to it. An Atheist marriage would merely be a secular marriage and I framed it as such because to continue to reference it as an Atheist marriage makes it sound like a specific act shared by Atheists.
2, As for Sharia, I don't have to allow or agree that such a positions exists in Sharia at all. I only have to expect the advancement and enforcement of certain criteria (namely our current laws against discrimination) on a universal basis and if a compatible position exists within Sharia it will show itself. If such a position is impossible, which I doubt due to the longstanding ability of believers to rationalize dogma, then it is impossible. Either way, secular laws should stand unmoved.
3, You might see it as something that attacks Sharia but the logic underlying this is indifferent as to what ideology is used. From my perspective it doesn't single out any specific religion nor should it. If Islam and Christianity fell tomorrow and were replaced by something else, that something else should also be bound to the same expectations of conduct.
1, I wasn't implying that atheism was a religion, however its strange that you don't seem to allow that athiests are united in their non-belief of god/non-position/irreligiousness, so regardless of whatever kind of atheist you are, all atheistic marriages [Athiests who marry] would be united in their act of non-worship.
2, I only said shariah for the purpose of the argument. and for there to be a counter-position, a counter-position must exist. the rest of the rhetoric is irrelevant.
3, attack the shariah or not is irrelevent, when taking a critical look, a better critical look examines the positions they are bunching up together.
If your position is that secular law should be above shariah/or muslim law, then what of places that do not have secular law? and anyway, this is such a long drawn out affair, I wonder whether I'm bothered to tackled it with you...
Thanks.. I think.This isn't an insult or a dig at OS, honestly this is the highest praise I can give, I can't do anything but respect that argumentative skill.
1. How would you differentiate between an Agnostic marriage and an Atheistic marriage? As I mentioned before, secular is the more appropriate term. Atheism is a qualifier for religious belief and as such doesn't have a uniquely different practice than a secular marriage.
2. Just because I push for a non-discriminatory position does not mean that I am validating such a position exists. These are two different points. While I suspect such a position can exist, it may very well not. This is for the religious zeitgeist to decide. I'm not going to rationalize for religious adherents because if I had to do that, my rationalization wouldn't involve the existence of that religion to begin with. I would also think that such rationalizations would appear to be more convincing if the believers came up with it themselves.
3. I'm not referencing areas without secular laws but my suggestion to those regions would be to move toward secular laws that provide far more equity and stability than whatever travesty they're currently employing.
In relation to Atrus saying that were it that Muslims were not allowed to marry black people, then it would be bigotry, then I would agree. Except that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is a marriage occurring across to vastly different legal systems.
And I'm confused as to the second part. A Muslim woman can *legally* marry anyone they choose in most secular societies. Heck, can you think of a secular society they can't do this in?
What is being discussed is the doctrinal discrimination on other grounds. That you agree discrimination on one ground is bigoted while discrimination on another logically equivalent ground is not, is a serious problem.
Yes they can thanks to secular laws, however it doesn't change that there is a drumbeat of discrimination from certain adherents or schools of belief. This is what needs to be curtailed. This isn't limited to marriage mind you but other discriminatory practices and the accommodations should exceed any particular belief of the religion.
If there can be gay Christians then I fully expect there to be gay Muslims, or to at least allow the participation of those identified as such, without being discriminated against.
I think the evident problem is with complexity. You seem unable to distinguish between discrimination (the negative differential treatment of individuals) and differences that equate for complexity in the law.
There being differences between the treatment of different groups does not automatically mean that discrimination is at work, indeed the law can treat different groups differently in order to effectively target injustices or differences that exist, in order to rectify them. Is giving food aid to a Kenyan refugee camp instead of a street of mansions in Beverly Hills 'discrimination'?
I'm trying hard to see where this relates to my core point.You're talking about discrimination based on preference while I talk about discrimination enshrined in religious dogma. Individuals may preference out of choice but no institution should ingrain fiat discrimination that impinges on the rights and identity of others.
Once again, the focus here is not on choice but on religious tenets.
Let's say I had a sports centre and had a rule that as a condition of employment, no staff member could marry a Hindu.
How long do you think that would last on a legal challenge? Your religious institution is no different.
Just recently a man in Canada went to court to claim that allotting tax credits to people who sent their children to religious training was discriminatory and that he should be allowed tax credits for sending his children to swim classes.
The court denied his appeal because the law did not allow for it, however it also opined, which courts do not have to, on the fact that the separation of secular and religious benefits was a violation of the charter of rights. There should have been no advantage given to a religious activity over a secular activity since doing so creates inequality.
There are many more similar types of reasoning in the courts, and I'm sure similar cases can be found to varying degrees in other jurisdictions because it rests on the logic underpinning it. Religious institutions should be treated no differently than a secular institution enforcing the same.
I'm trying hard to see where this relates to my core point.
Not seeing it.
A few points: marrying a non-Muslim does not take one out of the 'Sport's Club' of Islam.
You assume that discrimination on religious grounds is automatically banned in secular states. I can't speak to other states specifically, but the fact that only some Australian states have such laws shows me that this is clearly not the case. So you talking about 'reasoning in the courts' comes off as rather peculiar, which courts specifically? Indeed what is the relevancy anyway?
I am not talking about the ruling in the context of a secular state, I am talking about the Sha'riah in its entirety. Marriage is managed in a different way within a secular system.
People who believe Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-muslims? Bigots.
If you dislike this term, stop your prejudiced practices. It is that simple.
You also never did answer my question. Since my mother married a Christian, is she a devout Muslim? After all, I find it only fitting that the party who brought this qualification up be made to explain himself.
You call him a bigot; he calls you a bigot..
Sounds like the Bill Donahue position.
This is not a case of equal but different. This is a case of socially inhibiting discrimination versus not. Being intolerant of intolerance does not make you intolerant, but being tolerant of intolerance does.
This is absurd with regards to freedom of speech. And then of course you said something about opinion and practise.
I was not referencing free speech nor was anyone discussing it. You just re-framed it as such and so I'm wondering how I address a point that I didn't make.
As I mentioned before, this is not an issue of personal choice it is an issue of established religious proscriptions.
Can you not see where your argument fails as per the scale of tolerance of intolerance, intolerance of intolerance etc...?
You introduced a subject with a large scope that I didn't even bring up. Freedom of speech is not absolute and protected speech does not include incitement or commands that precipitate discrimination.
I brought it up to show you where it fails; so that you see that your claimed intolerance of intolerance angle is partial to failure. It ought not to be a rule; or one that is fully justified, but that is for you to decide.
What happens to nuns orders in your new world order by the way? A school of thought that says you cannot marry anybody at all!
So that school in your perfect world would be abolished?
1You didn't demonstrate such. Hate speech laws still prohibit people from propagating prejudice, with a major exception being that of the United States which has the broadest scope of I think all countries.
Under the Canadian standard, fostering and accommodating hate speech makes one legally liable barring exceptions like opinion which is why I wasn't discussing opinion.
2. As for the discrimination in your example, I believe you are missing the adverse discrimination aspect of discrimination laws. Nobody is being adversely discriminated against in that case.
3, Is it all really so dense a concept you cannot really understand?
If the government of Malaysia finds out my parents are married, they annul the marriage even after 3 decades. This is why my father's name on my birth certificate isn't his real name and why my IC card specifically states Islam as the official religion.
My father goes to jail for fraud, being the only way to marry my mother legitimately, and I have a hefty court appearance to convince the authorities that my apostasy is legitimate.
Why? All because of the prejudices of religious sycophants and their discriminatory beliefs. No, such practices have no place to exist.
I really don't know where I am spiritually anymore. I was pretty much faithless for a longtime until I met my fiancee.
She got me back into Islam. I read everything I could and went to as many seminars and meetings as I could.. Sociological perspectives, Political perspectives etc... I just devoured information like mad. Helped alot when it came to debates, allowing for a conversation to go beyond verse throwing. Having regained my faith, my religious family actually grew closer to me. But the "germs" in me from my faithless period remained in the form of my opinions and ideas.
My fiancee is a hijabi. Not one of those hijabis that wear it because it's fashionable to do so in the community but because she truly believes in it. The first thing she said to me when we began our relationship was that God comes first, then her mum and me last. At the time I felt alright with it, don't expect to be number 1 everywhere.
Throughout our relationship, my ideas and opinions always remained controversial. She worried that any kids we'd have would grow up faithless if I had my way and would end up doing the same things I did. I was involved in hard drugs during my late teens and was the personification of the angry internet atheist. I trolled like mad and grew extremely notorious for it in my hometown. Ended up couch-surfing for a couple months because my family wanted nothing to do with me.
She fell in love with me during my periods of sobriety and helped me clean-up. Stuck with me through the depression afterwards and made sure that I came out of it as healthy as I could.
Fast-forward a couple years and the "lazy" attitude I have towards our faith has ruined our relationship and we're taking a break from each other, to think about what we want from life.
I am not the most public of Muslims. I prefer to pray privately and I like to study my faith in seclusion as well. I don't go about making a big show of my faith. People in our local community have interpreted that as a "lack of faith" and you can imagine the gossip that's has spawned from it. The things people say are so virulent that my fiancee's faith in me has been shaken.
My faith itself is nearly gone. I feel this emptiness inside me and I really don't know how to fix it. I don't like being without faith but I can't force myself to believe in something that I have started to vehemently oppose. I cannot stand the sight of a hijab, a congregation or the mosque anymore. I've alienated nearly all my Muslim friends and most of my family refuses to talk to me anymore.
I really don't know what to do anymore. I've started up on the drugs again and I've added alcohol to the mix. Sobriety is far and apart now and I think I've committed every major sin there is. 99% of the time, I end up regaining consciousness in someone else's house.
I think I've screwed up really badly.
I really don't know where I am spiritually anymore. I was pretty much faithless for a longtime until I met my fiancee.
I think I've screwed up really badly.
Qatar, as diplomats say, likes to "punch above its weight." This arid peninsula in the Persian Gulf is smaller than Connecticut but played a leading role in helping Libyan rebels oust Moammar Gadhafi and has been at the heart of Arab League sanctions against Syria. It's now facilitating talks on the Afghan conflict by allowing the Taliban to open a liaison office in its capital, Doha.
Politically speaking, I think it has something to do with the rise of Islamic movements coupled with the decline of Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) movement. Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) movement used to be very popular in 1960's with the use anti-colonialist and anti-western slogan, however the nationalist (Ba'athist) gradually became corrupt dictatorship and in some cases turned away from the anti-colonialist slogan then converted into close western ally which they previously despise. Inevitably, these resulted fracturing among Arab countries with nationalist flavour: Egypt had brief war with Libya on mid 1970's, Syria (which were still close to USSR) viewed Egypt with suspicion after peace agreement with Israel, Iran was assisted by Syria on the war against Iraq in the 1980's while other Arab countries helped Iraq, then of course there's also civil war in Yemen and Algeria, and ultimately the issue of Palestine. It's not rare for Arab nationalist (Ba'athist) leaders to use popular issue like Palestine as a rally and tool of oppression while they themselves couldn't care less about Palestine (anyone remember Mubarak government calling the Egyptian protesters being incited by Israeli/Zionist agents?)Thought this might be interesting to discuss...an interesting article about the role that Qatar has created for itself in the complex "game" of Middle East politics. I figure the people in the Islamic Thread will have a better grasp of Middle Eastern politics than any other group on GAF.
Really interesting how Qatar has seized some level of "moral authority" in the region by backing Libyan and Egyptian protestors and threatening to do the same in Syria and pull economic support for Syria if the Syrian government doesn't give in to the demands of the people.
The article is specifically about how Qatar is hosting talks between the Taliban and the United States.
LINK HERE