Fire at TN Mosque site: Islamophobia still not a problem according to some idiots

He could also be referring to the current prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, who is the daughter of one of the leaders of Bangladesh post-independence from Pakistan.

 

Again, not all Muslim beliefs are traced back to the Qur'an. Some may come from certain sources that only some sects consider to be valid.

 

[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another."

 

Please note that he said always, not generally:

(emphasis mine)

 

And there are men in the US who beat their wives regularly and get away with it.

The fact that a women was elected to the highest office in a Muslim dominated country indicates that oppression of women was not the law of the land.

 

State Department

Indonesian Women's Coalition sounds like a very credible source (sarcasm). After reading this report and everything in it being speculation. I think one issues is the inability to get any real data from such a private country. The article makes claims that the government ignores rapes of wives and daughters but has no proof.

 

Yes but the US government doesn't approve of wife beating. The Saudi government approves of not letting woman drive. The Iranian government approves of selling woman like cattle. You could go on with this list for hours.

 

Please do.

 

State Department

The second quote seems to follow pretty much directly with the quote from the Qur'an I cited earlier.

 

I think you hit the point right there, those are the particular governments, unfortunately religion in most politics is just used as a form unification or another way to exert authority, not necessarily bc they want to keep the essence of the religion. This is clearly true in these places where so the Quran, given in that context for the time it was given was incredibly progressive, society in general in pre-islamic arabia traded women like cattle, so that very much is a cultural historic viewpoint, where as when islam was introduced it stressed equality and equal rights in the quran over and over again. Much of it was written in the context of the time and you can see the general viewpoint, do not marry if you can not treat her just and fair. Realize muslim women were allowed to own land centuries before even great Britain allowed women to own land. In fact the prophet's first wife, was older than him, he worked under him, was a successful business women and land owner at the time. It is all portrayed, to see these uneducated and backward people want to manipulate phrases and ignore the others to support their agenda and viewpoints says something about the culture, but to just say its islamic is entirely inaccurate.

 

Here goes nothing....

a) the verse you quoted isnt necessarily translated poorly, its just not translated as accurately as it should. Protectors/maintainers is taken from the arabic word qawwamoon, the root of which is qaama, which means to establish something or stand for something. In other verses in the Quran it says to be Qawwaamin in fairness (qist), and in another instances, qawwamin for God. In this context, it is clearly referring to the need for men to protect women in society from being unduly taken advantage of- physically, economically, and emotionally. Traditionally, and in the majority of the world today, men have been the breadwinners in the household, and in response this verse commands men to spend from their means on women who often live in societies where they arent provided the same economic opportunities.

b) "because Allah has made one of them to excel the other" has one glaring mistake, that being the word one. It clearly says in the verse- 'ba'dahum ala ba'd', which means that some of them over others. It neither designates men as excelling over women or vice versa, and has always been understood to mean that there are domains within which men, by their nature, would excel, and other domains where women excel over men. Two obvious and glaring examples of this is that men are physiologically stronger than women (for the most part....there are many exceptions), whereas women are better caretakers as they possess the ability to give birth and breastfeed children in their formative stages.

c) I'm not sure you care about any of what I've written above, because as you said, you dont really know much about Islam, and you resent Islam on the whole. If it wasnt this verse, you'd find another Islamophobic website and quote another verse that is deliberately taken out of context or mistranslated to prove your point. Or you'd go for ATW's game which is to continually bring up honor killings or stonings as if they are daily occurances and standard practice in the majority of the Muslim world.

d) The patriarchal tradition in the Bible has been far more explicit in its treatment of women- Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
There are many such verses in the bible which, when read independent of context or explanation, would appear misogynystic.....and I dont pretend that any of those individual verses represents Christian theology as a whole because I've read the Bible (not simply verses on a website seeking to attack it). In fact, I have a lot of respect for Christians and have defended Christianity on this forum a number of times.

e) The crux of the matter in this entire debate is your sides (for lack of a better term) inability to discern between religious doctrine co-opted for political expediency, demagoguery, or simply legislation adopted by a particular nation versus religious prescriptions ordained by a organized religious establishment. The entire debate is in fact quite silly; Islam is a religion that has existed for over 1400 years, whereas terrorism in its modern manifestation really became rampant over the past two decades at most. To claim that Islam somehow supports or sanctions terrorism would require proof that centuries of Islam existed in producing terrorists and operated as a theocratically-run terrorist state; neither statement could be further from the truth.

There are a number of dynasties that operated loosely as what one could consider 'Islamic'; from them were the Abbasids, Umayyids, Fatimids, and most recently, the Ottomans whose dynasty was dissolved in the early 20th century. Like any polity, there were ups and downs, periods of decline and periods of growth, and most notably, a pluralistic society that encouraged sciences, the arts, and religious tolerance. I am not attempting to paint the entire reign of 1300+ years as rosy, nor am I saying there werent shortcomings within the Caliphate, but I am merely saying that when you refer to what an Islamic state operates like, few Muslims would ever look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Taliban and proclaim that they typify the Islamic political ideal, nor do any of those societies reflect the historic political infrastructure that the Caliphate instituted (neither in principle nor in process).

Historical Christendom experienced many of the same problems that you continue to rant against. The hand of the Christian empire was at times brutal; it excommunicated voices of dissent, was responsible for burning people at the stake, and instituted a patriarchal order that dehumanized women. William R. Jones, a professor of theology at Yale wrote a book entitled, "Is God a White Racist?" and pinned much of the blame for Blackamericans relenting to slavery for so long on flaws within the corpus of Christian theology. In a sense, many American freedoms were in direct response to the domination imposed by European Christendom, most notably the freedom of religion.

The whole point is that there are always generations within which theology is co-opted to serve a particular means; whether that means is economic, political, or social is subject to the action being taken. As a result, theology often times adapts to respond to those circumstances, and simply because you dont hear the voices or read the articles of religious scholars writing and speaking against religious excesses of places like Iran, rest assured there are many.

As for the nitpicking on certain legislature in Muslim majority countries, then realize that we all live in societies where we negotiate certain freedoms. In the US, we warrantless wiretap suspects, and have major human rights violations that have taken place in the past few years.

This is what makes your entire stance of "I resent Islam, but know nothing about it. I love Muslims, but I hate Islam because of freedoms restricted in Muslim countries" all the more rediculous. Chances are that deep down inside, you dont like Muslims either.

f) I'll end with this point. I think the reason that your side has to battle so vehemently on these fronts is because you know they are all losing battles. You may be able to block gay marriage through one election or another, but eventually the supreme court will grant homosexual couples the right to marry. There's simply no constitutional basis by which you can restrict it (even Glenn Beck's pro gay marriage).

You're eventually going to lose on illegal immigration. The purists have long called for a mass exodus of illegal immigrants in the US, and now are beginning to come to terms with the fact that there is probably going to be a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants in the US.

And you're going to lose the fight against mosques. You might win the ground zero mosque, but there'll be a mosque built somewhere else, and the number of Muslims in America is going to increase by way of high birth rates, immigration, and conversions. Chances are that your children will go to school with many Muslims (especially if you're in Houston), and some may even have a Muslim as their best friend, get married to a Muslim, or take classes with Muslim teachers.

You have the choice to remain scared of the future and hate Islam, or increase your own tolerance of Islam and realize that Muslims arent trying to transform America into an Islamic State. We just want to have places to pray.

 

You didn't seem to have anything to say about the quote from the Qur'an I cited earlier:

[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another."

 

I must correct you again. There is a common starting point (Quran).

If you consider for one second that over 75% of rules which you are aware of regarding Islam do NOT come from the Quran, you can then deduce that Islamic sects do not even share 50% of each others' beliefs.

To put it further in perspective, The Quran shares 50% of the Bible easily.

Men do not have more rights than women according to the Quran. What you are referring to is that men have more rights than women according to the Wahhabist and Salafist theology. To once again put things in perspective, Wahhabis are not a sect, and Salafis are a sect of a sect. It is a ridiculously small minority in the Muslim population which happens to have access to more money than anyone can imagine. What do they do with that money?

Well, you put your finger on it with...

The quote says they "excel each other".

First and foremost, the translations are 90%+ controlled by Wahhabists.

Secondly, all it says is that God made men responsible for the well-being of women. I.e. men are responsible for the equitable treatment of women because women's rights are lagging so far behind.

What the verse means by "excel each other" is that God created two genders and these two genders excel by complimenting each other.

I trust that's far more protective of women's rights and far more justified than any set of laws you can think of.

These governments are horrendous for sure but..

1) Iran does not approve such a thing.
2) The Saudi government are maniacs and they would not be able to bring their theology to America except through a full-scale invasion. This is logically impossible as Saudi owns nothing without America.
3) There are 100 million people in Saudi and Iran combined. Most Iranians have already showed that they do not approve of their government's actions. Most Saudis, including the royal family, are increadingly for ridding the country of Wahhabists. This is why they all study in the United States.

In contrast, Indonesia has more Muslims than Iran and Saudi combined. In fact, Saudis, Emaratis, Kuwaitis and Qataris form around 7% of all Muslims, and of those 7% you can safel assume between 50% and 90% are against Wahhabist ideology.


It's important that you know your enemy. Your enemy is the Wahhabi theology. It's not a sect. It's not a religion. It's a group of people who identify themselves as Muslims and have radically injected their own theology with pre-Islamic Arab culture - which is ironic because one of the main goals of Islam is to wipe out that culture. The founder is known as Abdul Wahhab.

The danger which I would worry about is their access to resources. Imagine for one second if the KKK owned 30% of the world's oil and were intent on spreading their ideology to starving and populous countries. How do you think that would work out?

If you are going to spend your life paranoid about every person who calls themselves Muslim, you will waste your life. Find the source, kill the source. The only problem you have is that the source is feeding you oil, and you (US government) are basically high on oil like a crackhead. Now you are all paranoid and delusional, you don't know who's a real enemy and who's not, everything freaks you out. Classic symptoms.

 

Thank you for taking the time to give a well thought out and insightful post.

 

"It's important that you know your enemy. Your enemy is the Wahhabi theology. It's not a sect. It's not a religion. It's a group of people who identify themselves as Muslims and have radically injected their own theology with pre-Islamic Arab culture - which is ironic because one of the main goals of Islam is to wipe out that culture. The founder is known as Abdul Wahhab.

The danger which I would worry about is their access to resources. Imagine for one second if the KKK owned 30% of the world's oil and were intent on spreading their ideology to starving and populous countries. How do you think that would work out?"

Certainly the key point in your post, and something that cannot be emphasized enough. If "The Kingdom" didn't have so much freakin' oil and "more money than God," can anyone doubt that the West would have crushed them long ago, saving the States and the world enormous grief? One of the best posts I've read here on the topic, Mathloom. Not anything I didn't already know, but I couldn't have put it nearly so well. Kudos!

This should be required reading for members interested in this issue. Read it and take it to the bank.

 

hmm not saying the actions of these idiots were right but you have to ask yourself why do Muslims have Chrtianphobia? or Jewishphobia? Or any religion other than theirs phobia???

You are going to get your extremist from either sides but especially in the Muslim faith. Burn down a Mosque or take down a building and kill 2000+ people..

I wonder who are the intolerable ones?

 

Gotta love the interwebz!! You can pull from half a dozen sources to pick your definition to suit your argument.

Reminds me much like religion/doctrines in which they pick and choose what scriptures to suit their cause.

 

Nice try, except that the definition I presented is the definition at every legitimate source out there - internet and not. Feel free to find a credible source that says otherwise. Until then, you're pretty much in the "I just make stuff up and hope it sticks" category.

 

This tallanvor is hysterical.

 

Gotta love the "gotta love the interwebz" argument. You don't know how to refute someone so you play this card.

This also reminds me of religion believe it or not.