1-Islam Women And Sex (2nd Edition)

[rvg]

Thoughts?

Remove kebab before kebab removes you.

[Fragony]

Nice in your face docu
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

[Empire*Of*Media]

OK, so it seems like everybody in this thread agrees that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran would cause a lot of violence and oppression towards women in a given society.

To try and rescue the discussion here, how about this - we consider how far the Islamic world is still driven by the Koran, and whether or not it is possible for it to free itself from the shackles of the Koran.

Personally I think that right now the Islamic world is going through something of a Protestant Reformation. Ease of travel and communication has allowed for a sense of global Islamic brotherhood to replace the old tribalism and local ethnic squabbles that previously defined politics in the region. Hence why there are so any international Muhijadeen in Syria, Somalia and the like. The mass spreading of literacy and education has fostered a generation able to read the Koran and the Hadiths for themselves (you could say the internet is their printing press), without the ability to contextualise it in the way that dedicated scholars could. Hence why so many of al-Qaeda types are middle-class university graduates. Discontent with both the secular and religious establishment has fostered a sort of grassroots radicalism that has naturally thrived in the turmoil of recent revolutions and civil wars. All these trends tend towards a particularly fundamentalist and populist vision of Islam - hence why women are increasingly faring poorly in much of the Islamic world.

Thoughts?

most of yours is right but

i see you all looking to Islam as your westerns culture (except Fragony)
i dont think we have PROTESTANT islam! PROTESTANT in christian happened because martin luther did not want to blindly believe those catholic priests,with the archbishops and cardinal's corruption, and they made laws which was not in Christ mind! so PROTESTANTISM happened because people too were tired of them!

but Islam is different in islam there is no edition in the shariah and Quran what has said and written its the unlimited perfect truth and came from Allah (i dont call it god) so you cant change Islam or even Update it!

those things you said its because some are not fundamentalists are just Normal Muslims and are not fundamentalist for YOU not their FAMILY!!

we must not look Islam & Judaism as this softness !!

[Ironside]

most of yours is right but

i see you all looking to Islam as your westerns culture (except Fragony)
i dont think we have PROTESTANT islam! PROTESTANT in christian happened because martin luther did not want to blindly believe those catholic priests,with the archbishops and cardinal's corruption, and they made laws which was not in Christ mind! so PROTESTANTISM happened because people too were tired of them!

but Islam is different in islam there is no edition in the shariah and Quran what has said and written its the unlimited perfect truth and came from Allah (i dont call it god) so you cant change Islam or even Update it!

those things you said its because some are not fundamentalists are just Normal Muslims and are not fundamentalist for YOU not their FAMILY!!

we must not look Islam & Judaism as this softness !!

It's interesting that you give the recent fundamentalist stance as a core value in Islam.

To give an example. The Talibans blew up some huge Buddhist statues in 2001 because of idolism. That's kind of a good example of the intolerance of the Talibans.
Thing is, that they were the first muslims in about 1300 years that came to that conclusion and idolism has always been seen as bad according to the Koran. Are you going to claim that it took them 1300 years to discover that obvious core value?

You can compare with the fundamentalist movements of Christianity in the US (I'm sure there's other places that has them as well, the US ones are simply more publically known). Snake handling and not dying from it is proof that you're in God's grace for example (thanks to a literal interpretation of one passage in the whole Bible).
Also, there's passages like the second ammendment, from the US constitution "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It's even intended to be red literally, but even there, there's alot up for interpretation (a minor one is to determine what arms means. A bazooka? A tank? A LMG is a "small arm". We had the nuclear arms race during the cold war. There's suitcase nukes that you can bear).

And at the very least, new technologies needs to be interpretated through the Koran. Ergo, eveyone dealing with this with a tempered mind will realise that even a literal interpretation isn't the unlimited perfect truth and anyone stating that has an agenda. And by some mysterious reason, most fundamentalists are prone to the strict interpretation that gives them power, rather than a generous interpretation. It's almost like the have an agenda and is driven by self interest.

Rhyfelwyr, something to add. The origin of funtamentalistic Islam was about 1900 iirc. Basically the Arab world came to the conclusion that they were backwater places at the time and tried to decide why that was. One group went secular (Islam is holding us back) and the other group fundmentalistic (we have fallen from the true path). The secular group won (mostly) and established secular dictorships. The fundamentalist groups remained in the opposition, so when the secular dictorships weakened/fell they were already in place to take power.

[Hax]

I started typing a reply to Rhyfelwyr's post yesterday evening, but I didn't get the chance to finish it. I haven't read the other responses yet.

I agree with most of what you outlined in your post, but I think your approach is a bit flawed here and there.

Muhijadeen

Mujahideen(from Cl. Arabic مجاهدین; mujâhidîn)

The mass spreading of literacy and education has fostered a generation able to read the Koran and the Hadiths for themselves

I disagree. Quranic schools have been around for ages, so male literacy in the Arab-Muslim world has always been pretty high (as learning was not restricted to just to clerics) and the Quran was more accessible to Arabic-speaking Muslims than the Bible was to European Christians (seeing how Classical Arabic continued to influence the spoken variants of Arabic throughout the centuries).

To try and rescue the discussion here, how about this - we consider how far the Islamic world is still driven by the Koran, and whether or not it is possible for it to free itself from the shackles of the Koran.

I think this is this most important issue right now. We are pretty much all aware of the different legislative interpretations of the Quran and their respective jurisprudential schools (cf. madhhab), but what I think is lacking in most Islamic studies departments is a more sociological-anthropological approach to actual Muslim belief: recording and analysing statements made by religious scholars is definitely useful and interesting, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what Muslims actually believe​.

Ease of travel and communication has allowed for a sense of global Islamic brotherhood to replace the old tribalism and local ethnic squabbles that previously defined politics in the region.

Hmm, I think you're only half-right here. A sense of global community and brotherhood has always existed in the Islamic world; and although it is true that with modern methods of transportation globalisation has increased, but it had always been a part of Islamic culture (e.g., the pilgrimage to Mecca). When reading travelogues from medieval Muslim travelers, it's very evident that people were already moving from place to place.

Make no mistake, tribal allegiances still play an incredibly important role. Also, ethnic struggles didn't really play that big a role until the 19th century.

Hence why so many of al-Qaeda types are middle-class university graduates. Discontent with both the secular and religious establishment has fostered a sort of grassroots radicalism that has naturally thrived in the turmoil of recent revolutions and civil wars.

This.

But in all, I think it's not entirely correct to compare recent evolutions in Islam with the Protestant Reformation. There may be some similarities, but I feel that it would be more fruitful to analyse these evolutions in their own context.

[Fragony]

And what's the purpose of the muhajideen Hax. There are various degrees of being a mujahideen, those who spread islam by word and those who spread it with violence. But the purpose is the same. Violence takes presedence as the the importance of verses and the hadith are reversed chronologcally in importance. So a later verse oudoes an older one.

[Empire*Of*Media]

i agree with Fragony!

beside i clearly want you hax and ironside. in a simple word you agree with islam (not muslims islam itself in quran and hadiths) or not or something else?!


(ah god thanks here is better at least! in twcenter they only focused on WHY i have BOLDED some words!! and after sometime they closed the thread!! this is Democracy & freedom of speech!!)

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Hax: good points, I was just throwing things out as an idea; you are better placed to know than me.

Rhyfelwyr, something to add. The origin of funtamentalistic Islam was about 1900 iirc. Basically the Arab world came to the conclusion that they were backwater places at the time and tried to decide why that was. One group went secular (Islam is holding us back) and the other group fundmentalistic (we have fallen from the true path). The secular group won (mostly) and established secular dictorships. The fundamentalist groups remained in the opposition, so when the secular dictorships weakened/fell they were already in place to take power.

I don't think it is true that fundamentalist Islam emerged only in 1900 AD. Fundamentalism has ebbed and flowed continually throughout Islam's history. Muhammad himself was a puritanical warrior-prophet, and well... the earliest Muslims were obviously fundamentalists since they followed the fundamental principles Muhammad set down. When the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads a large part of their justification was on returning to some sort of golden age of Islamic morality. The Murabitun of the medieval period were notoriously fundamentalist and banned music, imposed strict Islamic dress and segregation and trashed much of the vibrant culture that existed in Ghana and Andalusia prior to their excursions. Certain Fatimid rulers were also strongly opposed to idolatry (most notably this guy) and trashed Christian and Jewish places of worship in Jerusalem and forced Jews to wear decorative calves to remind them of Aaron's idolatry.

If you are talking about modern fundamentalism, then yes that emerged with the Wahhabi movement, but that is only a small part of the fundamentalist story in Islamic history.

[Sarmatian]

what say you HoreTore do you accept a challenge ?!!

I have another challenge for you two. I will send you and Fragony to a mostly Christian country, in purely Christian neighbourhood and tell everyone you're gay. How about that?

[Ironside]

i agree with Fragony!

beside i clearly want you hax and ironside. in a simple word you agree with islam (not muslims islam itself in quran and hadiths) or not or something else?!

Let see now. Do I believe in Mohammed and Allah? No.
Do I consider fundamentalistic Islam to be incompattable with western humanistic values? Yes.
Do I consider moderate Islam to be incompatitable with western humanistic values? No.
Do I consider fundamentalistic Islam as a sort of natural Islam? No.
Do I consider claiming that fundamentalistic Islam is a sort of natural Islam to be stupid? Yes.

Well I wouldn't consider it stupid if I was named the Joker and wanted to watch the world burn. If you got a bunch of fanatics claiming to represent true Islam, then it's quite stupid to say "hey muslims, those guys you call fanatics are representing true Islam. Wanna join our non muslim club instead?".

If you are talking about modern fundamentalism, then yes that emerged with the Wahhabi movement, but that is only a small part of the fundamentalist story in Islamic history.

I was more pointing out that modern fundamentalism has older roots to draw on. But you seem to have known this already. Going fundamentalist isn't a new phenomena (Sweden was most fundamentalist about 1600-1700 legal wise for example), but to counteract what KurdishSpartakus is saying, there's no obvious red thread of fundamentalism to follow.

[Fragony]

I have another challenge for you two. I will send you and Fragony to a mostly Christian country, in purely Christian neighbourhood and tell everyone you're gay. How about that?

Dude I was raised in the Dutch biblebelt, hardcore thoushaltnot protestants. Our neighbours were gay.

[Sarmatian]

Dude I was raised in the Dutch biblebelt, hardcore thoushaltnot protestants. Our neighbours were gay.

Do you really believe Netherlands is what I had in mind?

[HoreTore]

nvm.

[Fragony]

Do you really believe Netherlands is what I had in mind?

Would be if you knew what the Dutch biblebelt is like. It's still better to be gay in the Dutch biblebelt than let's say, Amsterdam, much less people with culture who are an enrichment.

Bad idea anyhow, when our Kurdish friend is back in Iran he will be hanged.

[Empire*Of*Media]

I have another challenge for you two. I will send you and Fragony to a mostly Christian country, in purely Christian neighbourhood and tell everyone you're gay. How about that?

in moderate Catholicism they will hate us and despise in Orthodox they will warn you you must leave there or they will beat you! in Protestantism they watch you as sick person but still dont hate you as evil!
in jewish they will Stone you! in ISLAM they will first hit you with 100 lashes and then they stone you or mostly will cut of your head! and your estate & property not to our family but for Bayt Ol Mal !! (i dont say by myself, this is in the Sharia) and will give it to sheikhs and mullahs!!

Let see now. Do I believe in Mohammed and Allah? No.
Do I consider moderate Islam to be incompatitable with western humanistic values? No.
Do I consider fundamentalistic Islam as a sort of natural Islam? No.

I was more pointing out that modern fundamentalism has older roots to draw on. But you seem to have known this already. Going fundamentalist isn't a new phenomena (Sweden was most fundamentalist about 1600-1700 legal wise for example), but to counteract what KurdishSpartakus is saying, there's no obvious red thread of fundamentalism to follow.

you deny your words with your own words?! denying Muhammad & Allah while you do believe Moderate Islam in nature is Good?!!!

beside that Rhyfelwyr answered you that from the very beggining Islam raised as fundamentalism, i add it that it was the one of so called prophet that converted its religion with campaigns and moving his army like the jewish malefactor prophets! unlike Zarathushtra, Jesus Christ, Buddha & ....
i cant really believe we have peoples in west believes Islam itself is not evil!! oh my God am i seeing right?!

i dont know why your hatred against the poor and the wretched Christianity will make you do whatever against jesus!! Damn this Roman Religions (Catholicism) that corrupted and made a false name of Jesus! jesus is not like what you think! you know the medieval Europe with the corrupt cardinals and bishops as the sign of Christianity! but this is wrong! jesus came with peace to Reform the corrupt jews not to create another religion!

at all, anything good that went to west were corrupted! not only Christianity, that Romans adopted it as influenced their Bull shit pagan religions in it! look Ancient & Modern Armenia! then you know Christianity not Roman Vatican's Religion!

even MITHRAYISM that was the most ancient religion on earth even much more before judaism, was the Religion of Kindness Love, Friendship and the Blessing and the the Light!! but as soon as gone to west it became the god of war & soldiers and killings! Romans sacrificed for Mithra Romans Killed for Mithra Romans Abused for Mithra Romans Raped for Mithra! while in ancient Mesopotamia & Iran in times of both Mithrayism & Zoroastrianism, sacrificing was banned as an abuse to "Nature" and insulting (the Only) God and making humanity as barbarian, kindness to families including specially to Parents & Wife, to forgive, to love even with your enemy and .......... anything that represents the goodness peace and love and the way of light!

so i think your siding and support of so called "Moderate Islam" is just came from hatred against Poor Christianity and Jesus not more than that!

so for looking to a religion dont only look to its people, but mostly and deeply look to its roots!

Look to Mithrayism, in the peace lands, Mesopotamia (Ancient Kurdistan) and West and North-East North & North West of Ancient Iranian Plateau! but what Westerns & Romans did?! they corrupted it

Look Christianity, look to Armenia (Not Israel! that cursed land was for jews) but what now is Christianity?! a Roman Religion Corrupted it AGAIN because was based on their past religion's beliefs and customs and the Cruel Roman malefactor & criminal Emperors! it was they that showed you Europeans Christianity not the Peaceful Armenians or even not the Jesus himself!

Look To Islam!! the Always Tribal War Land and the extreme super Hot dry waterless lands of SAUDI ARABIA's Deserts that will influence the wildery and the culture like Mongols & Turks in steppe that had to rape and invade and abuse to provide subsistence and do livelihood or they die from hunger because simply had not CIVLIZATION to improve their living qualities !

[Ironside]

ok....

Let see now. Do I believe in Jesus and God? No.
Do I consider fundamentalistic Christianity to be incompattable with western humanistic values? Yes.
Do I consider moderate Christianity to be incompatitable with western humanistic values? No.
Do I consider fundamentalistic Christianity as a sort of natural Christianity? No.
Do I consider claiming that fundamentalistic Christianity is a sort of natural Christianity to be stupid? Yes.

So who do I hate now, KurdishSpartakus?

I do not consider any religion a as force of good. They do have good aspects though. And many people want and has spiritual needs. And it's part of a cultural baggage. I consider it quite stupid to try to force someone who goes once in a while to the church because of traditions to denounce Christianity, even if they're only technically Christians and they stopping to be Christians would mean nothing in their life.

The rest of your post can be summarised as this:
A:It's proof of that it's impossible to define a natural state.
B: Whatever thing that mythological natural state was, it has only a minor influence on what will happen with it in the future.
I mean, compare what Paul wrote and Jesus is presumed to have said (he didn't write it himself after all). Corruption of the Bible started before it was even written down the first time. No need to blame the Romans. The Romans in turn has dominated on how Christianity looks like, even today.

And you say I should ignore how Christianity has looked liked for the last 2000 years, because that haven't been true Christianity. At least it's consistant with that I should ignore how Islam has looked like since its origin (varied that is).

[The Lurker Below]

in moderate Catholicism they will hate us and despise in Orthodox they will warn you you must leave there or they will beat you! in Protestantism they watch you as sick person but still dont hate you as evil!
in jewish they will Stone you! in ISLAM they will first hit you with 100 lashes and then they stone you or mostly will cut of your head! and your estate & property not to our family but for Bayt Ol Mal !! (i dont say by myself, this is in the Sharia) and will give it to sheikhs and mullahs!!

Sad and confused now. What religion does a KurdishSpartikus support? I thought I had some notion before, now I am lost. Protestant? I don't mean to be personal, but information is best received if the context from which it is presented is known. Also, you were aware that in the west Sparticus is an icon of the gay community?

[Beskar]

Also, you were aware that in the west Sparticus is an icon of the gay community?

Actually, in the West, this is what Spartacus means.



Lesser known only after google searching is that there is some drama involving a gay Spartacus and a travel guide, but they are rather obscure.

[The Lurker Below]

Actually, in the West, this is what Spartacus means.

Exactly! A bunch of scantily clad hot men shouting. That is Spartacus! For even more fun watch Starz presentation of "Spartacus."

[Hax]

and what's the purpose of the muhajideen Hax. There are various degrees of being a mujahideen, those who spread islam by word and those who spread it with violence. But the purpose is the same. Violence takes presedence as the the importance of verses and the hadith are reversed chronologcally in importance. So a later verse oudoes an older one.

mujahideen. It was in the same post, perkele.

I think your post is stupid, for several reasons. If you don't know the Arabic term for "verse", then don't replace it by something else; hadith has several meanings, including "story". A verse is called âya, (ar. آیة, pl. آیات, âyât). Sorry, but it just makes you look pretentious, rather than anything else.

The notion of abrogation of verses is something that is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, and there are Muslims who tend to focus more on one verse and less on another. An argument I've often heard is that the verses pertaining to "killing non-believers" only apply to wartime, so you can't just randomly start hacking/shooting away at people. Whether that is or isn't what the Quran says doesn't really matter​.

Muhammad himself was a puritanical warrior-prophet, and well... the earliest Muslims were obviously fundamentalists since they followed the fundamental principles Muhammad set down. When the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads a large part of their justification was on returning to some sort of golden age of Islamic morality. The Murabitun of the medieval period were notoriously fundamentalist and banned music, imposed strict Islamic dress and segregation and trashed much of the vibrant culture that existed in Ghana and Andalusia prior to their excursions. Certain Fatimid rulers were also strongly opposed to idolatry (most notably this guy) and trashed Christian and Jewish places of worship in Jerusalem and forced Jews to wear decorative calves to remind them of Aaron's idolatry.

A few points here: almost all the information we have about Muhammad come from the collection of hadith, meaning that outside of the Islamic tradition, there is virtually no information over him. While it is indeniable that he was most likely a good strategist and tactician, it also means that we don't really know that much about his personality. Hadith tell us much more about the environment in which they were collected than about Muhammad.

I'm also seriously in doubt on whether these "earliest Muslims" were such puritanical figures. Interestingly, the Umayyad caliphate didn't really approve of the conversion of non-Arabs to Islam (Islam was in its earliest days perceived as an Arabic religion for Arabs (much more similar to Judaism)) and in order to convert to Islam, a person would also have to become an "honorary Arab", meaning that he or she had to align himself with an Arab tribe.

Additionally, there is an interesting amount of evidence that suggests that "mainstream" Sunnism (as defined by these four schools of jurisprudence (ar. madhhab, pl. madhâhib) came as a reaction to the increasing influence and popularity of Shi'ite ideas (which itself, was incredibly ill-defined until the 10th/11th centuries), which also means that there wasn't really a central religious authority (which still doesn't really exist in Islam).

As for the Abbasids, while I am not one to argue against the idea that they used the idea of increasing moral decay to justify their rebellion, but at the end of the day, they didn't really change that much.

The Murabitun of the medieval period were notoriously fundamentalist and banned music, imposed strict Islamic dress and segregation and trashed much of the vibrant culture that existed in Ghana and Andalusia prior to their excursions.

I don't know too much about them, sadly, but this is the idea that I got too.

ertain Fatimid rulers were also strongly opposed to idolatry (most notably this guy) and trashed Christian and Jewish places of worship in Jerusalem and forced Jews to wear decorative calves to remind them of Aaron's idolatry.

Actually, almost everything we know about al-Hakim stems from later (Sunni) sources, that tried to denigrate him for several reasons. Most contemporary sources point to him as a wise and egalitarian ruler, who was loved by almost all of his subjects. Interestingly, he gave equal rights to both Shi'ites and Sunnites, forbidding the Shi'a mosques to curse the name of Umar during the prayer, but at the same time, he sought to solidify the rule of his dynasty and so he removed many Sunnites from positions of power and replaced them with Jewish and Christian officials. Although the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was definitely destroyed during his rule, the exact reasons are a bit unclear. If memory serves me well, I think it had something to do with more general anti-Christian sentiment.

[QUOTE]beside i clearly want you hax and ironside. in a simple word you agree with islam (not muslims islam itself in quran and hadiths) or not or something else?/QUOTE]

I don't think Islam = Quran and Hadiths (Shi'ites reject the Sahih al-Bukhari, for example) but to answer your question, no, I do not agree with it because I don't believe in God. There you go.

As for the rest of your posts, I can't even read them without using painkillers. I'll wait for other people to process them.

[Fragony]

Hadith is wat we would call 'overleveringen', indeed has nothing to do with verses, where did I say it did. There is the Mohammed mecca, which is all unicorn and rainbows, and there is the Mohammed of medina, which is all bloodshed and opression. Since the latter is more recent these verses overrule the former.

[Hax]

The term verses don't apply to hadith at all.

Also, if you're telling me that your interpretation of Islam is the correct one, then by that logic, we would now all be dead.

[Fragony]

The term verses don't apply to hadith at all.

Also, if you're telling me that your interpretation of Islam is the correct one, then by that logic, we would now all be dead.

I never said it did. I know that.

And we would all be dead? lolliepop at that, they may be very good at killing, and much better at enjoying killing, but they aren't very good at fighting it seems.

[Empire*Of*Media]

[QUOTE=Hax;2053579907]

beside i clearly want you hax and ironside. in a simple word you agree with islam (not muslims islam itself in quran and hadiths) or not or something else?/QUOTE]

I don't think Islam = Quran and Hadiths (Shi'ites reject the Sahih al-Bukhari, for example) but to answer your question, no, I do not agree with it because I don't believe in God. There you go.

As for the rest of your posts, I can't even read them without using painkillers. I'll wait for other people to process them.

i said you agree or not! not to believe or not! but i guess your reply is yes......

hadith maybe, but well its a great surprise say that Islam is not Quran! in islam & Quran says that like Moses's miracle was to speak with god! and Jesus's Marvel was to heal and raise the dead, Muhammad and & Islam's miracle is that Muhammad went to moon and the moon was cut to two pieaces, then its Quran as no one can not bring as it and nor can edit it because all will change!!
i dont know where you have brought that say?!!

Hadith is wat we would call 'overleveringen', indeed has nothing to do with verses, where did I say it did. There is the Mohammed mecca, which is all unicorn and rainbows, and there is the Mohammed of medina, which is all bloodshed and opression. Since the latter is more recent these verses overrule the former.

indeed yes. Bravo! thats all im telling!

and i dont know which sources these pals read that they see "Islam not bad but chrisianity as bad!! the jews......oh shut up you racist anti Semitic they are the perfect oppressed!!!! but after all "we are atheists"!!!"

strange idea!!...............

[Empire*Of*Media]

This is a very good Logical Website for The English Speakers with Videos and Trusted References & Sources>>>>http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

[HoreTore]

lolwhat?

Trusted site? It's a site run by a crazy evangelical organization with the aim of converting muslims to christianity. There's nothing "trusted" about it.




(...and that they explain issues with videos is a negative, not a positive)

[Fragony]

Horrie is right on this one, they are known to pick out what they can use, often leaving out all context or using only half a quote.

[Empire*Of*Media]

```

[Empire*Of*Media]

Really?! can you be more on details about negative?!

maybe not Trusted so much and i dont know about aiming for conversion but they bring sources in inside Islamic references.

am i wrong?!

[HoreTore]

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/dearborn.html