For noetician questions on Islam-

That’s funny…I didn’t even notice the “guests” part. I need to learn to stop reading things through so quickly.

I don’t think one should generalize Muslims as “guests” here simply because some are not citizens. The majority of Muslims in America are citizens and contribute a great deal to American society. This includes your dentist (and mine! oy, you reminded me I have a dentist appointment today :astonished: ). There is no need to alienate Muslims as guests on the basis of the ones that are. Most of us are here fair and square, and should not be regarded differently from any other American.

Yes, if a Muslim lives in the US, where polygamy is prohibited, he should not practice it. Polygamy is not a requirement in Islam; it is not even recommended, so there is no reason for a Muslim to break the law based on something he merely desires to do, just because it is permitted (under very strict conditions! i will explain below) in his religion.

Islam absolutely permits a woman to divorce her husband for physical/verbal abuse.

“If a woman fears ill-treatment or desertion on the part of the husband, it shall be no offense to seek mutual agreement (to separate); for agreement is better (than strife).” 4:128

The general grounds of divorce in the Qur’an is failure of a spouse in carrying out his/her marital duties and treating one another with kindness, respect and compassion. Islamic jurists have developed causes which may be accepted as grounds for divorce, e.g: long absence of husband without a valid reason, long imprisonment, refusal to provide for wife, impotence, abuse, etc.

Thanks! Glad I could help. Thank you for being kind and open-minded in your responses.

It’s different for people who religiously adhere to a religion. I’m sure that if your son were a devout Catholic, for example, he would likely want to choose a woman with the same religious inclinations.

Of course a couple may decide amongst themselves what is better for them & their family. If they decide that the husband is best suited to stay at home and the wife is best suited to be in the workplace, then by all means they may follow this agreement. Also, if they decide that they should both work then they may do this as well. Islam does not require the wife to stay home while the husband makes the money. A woman does indeed have all the opportunities that a man has, and a man is required to be a good father, not just a breadwinner. The difference is that men (in the absence of an agreement otherwise) are required to provide for their families, and women have a choice. If the woman wants to stay at home while the man works, he must abide. On the other hand, the man may not force the woman to work. She may leave the house and work, or she may stay at home.

Regardless of this, Islam demands a great deal of respect for mothers. Both parents are to be respected, as is explained in various verses of the Qur’an. But mothers have a special place in Islam. “And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning takes two years. Give thanks to Me and to your parents; unto Me is the final destination” (31:14). Also: “We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth. The carrying of the (child) to his weaning is (a period of) thirty months. At length, when he reaches the age of full strength and attains forty years, he says, "O my Lord! Grant me that I may be grateful for the favor which you have bestowed upon me and upon both my parents, and that I may do righteous good deeds that please You, and make my off-spring good. (46:15).

So even if a mother decides to work, Islam still emphasizes her importance because of her pains to deliver her children and tend to them in ways only she can (e.g. breastfeeding).

Apostates are those who abandon the faith of Islam. No one is an apostate unless he/she renounces the religion. Even the biggest Muslim sinner can still be a “Muslim” by name unless he/she outright renounces the religion. However, those who “dis” their wives are sinning, yes, because the Qur’an requires men to be good to their wives. “O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and God brings through it a great deal of good” (4:19).

As for your discussion with AD, in his defense, I don’t think he was directing the guidelines to you. He just copied & pasted the whole caption from his discussion with Adler.

Adulterous males are to be punished as well. Like AD stated, four witnesses are required, which is really really hard. But an ultimate death sentence is simply the rule in Islam. As I explained in the War on Terror thread, Islamic society is based on the sanctity of marriage and the family. Modesty is regarded very highly in Islam, and sins such as adultery are not to be taken lightly. Although in today’s society, sex is seen as something very free and ordinary, Islamic law (as I presume Christian and Jewish law) considers chastity and faithfulness as integral to family life and societal stability. This may sound primitive to you 1400 yrs later, in a world that takes sex and adultery a lot more lightly than they were taken over a century ago. However, Islamic society still puts a lot of emphasis on the family and the sanctity of marriage. It’s a huge deal, as is the imposition of a death sentence for some murders in the United States. Those are justified in the eye-for-eye sense. This is justified in the sense that one stupid adulterous act can severely damage the family, and cumulatively, such acts have a great negative impact on society.

As for changing like Christian and Jewish laws, Islamic laws never change. The Qur’an is believed to be the ultimate word of God and Muslims believe they do not have the authority to tamper with it.

As for polygamy, a man can’t just go off and marry a bunch of women while his wife sits at home. I explained the issue in the “catholocism and women” thead, so I will copy & paste from there (this is in reference to the verse which allows men to marry more than one):

Totally un-Islamic ruling. I see that as misogynistic as well.

Calling the ideas “erroneous” and “incorrect” is quite presumptuous. The concept of emotional stability was my perspective and is not outlined in the Quran. I explained the witness deal as a commercial thing, as women were not literate in finance back then. And what did we say about sexual function that you found to be “erroneous”? That a woman can’t have sex while she’s menstruating? How do you know what is and is not ultimately healthy for one’s body? How can you call this erroneous? I explained that during the rest of the month, a couple can have as much sex as they want and it is not at all considered taboo or wrong for her to enjoy it. Also, what ideas about women do you claim are “incorrect” and “erroneous”? Islam provides women with great amounts of freedom, liberation, and rights; rights that women in the West did not have until much later. During the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions. On the other hand, as I stated earlier, way back in the seventh century Islam allowed women to inherit, to become involved in politics, to vote, etc. The Qur’an declared that that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Men and women were created to be equal parts of a pair (51:49). The Qur’an describes the relationship between a man and a woman as one of “love and mercy” (30:21). Men and woman are to serve as one another’s garment (protection, security) (2:187), and are to be like “members of one another" (3:195).

Unlearn human rights? Islam is all about human rights. Please specify what you are talking about. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the religion.

Then everyone (with the exception of native Americans) is a guest here. What do you mean from other cultures? Do you think anyone here, besides the native Americans, does not come from another culture?

First of all, not all Muslims in America moved here. But anyway, I agree that people living here should accept the USA as their country, and if they prefer living somewhere else then they should just live there. Now, a great deal of Muslims do this. They live here as good, law-abiding American citizens and still abide by Islamic rulings. I don’t see any problem with that. It’s why we have freedom of religion.

Aspacia,

I should clarify. Many of the particularly misogynist Ahadith were introduced into the so-called “Official Corpus” in the fifth/eleventh century, at least a full hundred years after its alleged closure. (I hope that helps explain it a little more).

And I’m so happy someone here has read The Awakening and “The Story of an Hour”; I love Chopin. And yes, you are right; Gilman did commit suicide after she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1935.
(I always appreciate a fellow reader of literature) :wink:

scythekain,

Funny about crying in the movies. I usually pretend that I am scratching around my eyes in order to wipe away tears. That’s my strategy and know one knows it!

On similar note, I had to see War of The Worlds Twice, because a good friend wanted to see it with me and did not know that I had already seen the thing. So, the first time I cried seeing the people get killed and I figured that the second time would have no effect. Nope! Still cried a little.

Anyway, it’s wacky but I’m glad that stuff like that still gets me even after all of the strange situations and stories that I’m heard.

  1. Unlearn human rights? Islam is all about human rights. Please specify what you are talking about. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the religion.

All of the stuff about women being respected and whatnot is pure nonsense. The religion goes a little like this: do everything that is expected of you by us and you won’t get hurt.

It like a controlling man saying to his wife I expect this, that, and the other thing and that is my definition of a good wife. It might not sound unreasonable, but it is because he is setting the rules and definitions not her.

So, Islam (which was created by men not a god) lays out all of the guidelines for being a respectable woman. Thus, it is literally prejudiced as the very word implies pre-judgment.

Just imagine if white people proposed what defines a good Blackman. It’s the same concept.

  1. Then everyone (with the exception of native Americans) is a guest here. What do you mean from other cultures? Do you think anyone here, besides the native Americans, does not come from another culture?

This is more bullshit. There is and has been an American culture going on for hundreds of years. If the population was moved to the moon it would still be American culture. Your ideas are hypocritical because if I moved to an Islamic country you can believe that I would have to adhere to the cultural dictates or else I would be in trouble. Muslims are like parasites that move to a new country and try to take it over with their insane beliefs.

I have said it before you are a liar.

If Islam became a major way of thinking in the US then the US could not exist as it is at odds with the principles of the American government. So, Islamic individuals are inherently endorsing anti-democratic ideals simply by being a member of their religion.

Even the most innocent are guilty of this. You can’t belong to a Nazi Chess Club and not be tainted by the stain of Nazism.

Monsieur Zenith,

  1. Yesterday we discovered ideas about women as witnesses, emotional stability, and today it’s sexual function. All of these concepts are totally erroneous.

I think that I understand what you mean here. Firstly, I can find no evidence be it anecdotal or scientific that women are necessarily worse off in judgment than a man and I have not heard of any wombs backing up with menstrual blood from sexual contact. It’s just a bunch of craziness brought to you by the world’s currently most crazy religion.

I agree that it simply cannot last.

TheAdlerian wrote:

Dungeon Master says: "The ‘God of Rationality,’ (who you have created) comes down and smites your hinny for passing off a series of logical fallacies as an argument.

Smite #1 for a fallacy of relevance: 1. Appeal to ignorance. The God of Rationality puts you in a head-lock, tightens his grip, and shakes.

Smite #2 for a fallacy of inadequate evidence: 1. Hasty generalization. The God of Rationality makes you simultaneously lead a roving band of religious zealots, an aggregation of agnostics, and a troupe de force of atheists.

Smite #3 for a whopping fallacy of illegitimate assumption: 1. False Dilemma (False Alternatives). The God of Rationality makes you eat either your own foot or your other foot.

Smite #4 for another fallacy of illegitimate assumption: 1. False analogy. The God of Rationality turns you into a newt, no wait; you were already exactly like that, never mind.

Smite #5 for the fallacy of criticism: 1. Loaded words. The God of Rationality stamps “illogical tenant” on your forehead. Hey, “The pun is mightier than the sword” or at least the God of Rationality and James Joyce think so.

Smite #6 for yet another fallacy of illegitimate assumption: 1. Petitio Principii (circular arguing). The God of Rationality makes you worship him.

Total damage:

  • 10 to Intelligence
  • 8 to Wisdom
  • 7 to Charisma.

Just joking… (mostly) I couldn’t resist.

It is no fallacy that you are a fool.

When someone has an interest in a given thing how can they analyze it? That’s called a conflict of interest.

The used car salesman is only going to tell you the positive attributes of his cars, however, he might give you the lowdown on the cars being sold down the street.

This is common sense.

If you want to read something close to the truth then read what has been written by an objective source.

I have a BA in Political Science and I recall that the ethics involved not belonging to any political party or political movement, as one cannot objectively analyze and study what one belongs to. If one does belong to such a movement then that are using objective ideas to promote a subjective cause and that is unethical, and possibly evil. It’s like Nazis using the language of science to “prove” and Jews were subhuman.

Adler,

There’s no need to spew venom in here for no reason. If you have a legitimate criticism of the religion, state it with clear and logical evidence so that it may be addressed. We are engaging in a peaceful discussion. Don’t turn it bitter.

Peace, bro

PS—For the record, I did not say women are worse off in judgment than men (because they are not), nor did I say anything about wombs backing up (I didn’t even mention wombs).

By using ad hominem you lose your argument. This is what ticked me off with AD. Remember, she is speaking the truth as she knows it and is not a liar.

:confused: No, she said that all Muslims should abide by the law of the land as long as the law does not violate religious tenets. If the law violates the tenets, she said religious Muslims should leave the land.

Please carefully read her words before pouncing, and when you pounce try to avoid insults. Remember, I only insult after I have been insulted.

Sorry, false analogy. How can you compare the misuse of Islamic theology with the misuse of science?

A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. The recipient of my comment knows who he is.

She is right, try to control your emotions, hum, noetician, I think he just made my case regarding emotions and gender, no?

You fear Islam, as I fear Sharia law, or perhaps should say the misuse of Sharia law. I fear the fact that Canadian Muslims tried to legalize Sharia law in their communities. The point is I realize I am fearful, as I am of all religious faiths, and try to maintain objectivity, at least until I am insulted. Realize you have cultural biases, as all do, and try to step-out of these biases to obtain an objective stance.

Hum, actually you did and this is why it takes two women to equal one man’s testimony because women’s emotions effect their judgement. Again, I have read too many studies that refute this to accept your claim. But you are entitled to your opinion, just be clear that it is your opinion, and I believe you did this, and not a tenet of Islam.

TheAdlerian wrote:

Fallacy #7 Ad Hominem. When you can’t touch the actual argument, you go after the writer of the opposing view. Not too impressive as a rhetorical strategy.

TheAdlerian wrote:

According to this statement Adlerian, you could not logically trust your own opinion, nor could you make a reasonable argument for it to anyone else. You are obviously invested in your point-of-view and are therefore, not objective. (No one is ever entirely outside his or her own subjectivity). My earlier response was trying to (playfully) address the point that you are just as invested in your anti-religious perspective as advocates of religion are in their pro-religious views. While I agreed with you a long time ago that skepticism can be healthy, there is just no way you can fairly apply (the above) line of reason to others but not yourself.

Finally, I’m not trying to fight with you, but engage you in debate.

Hum, okay, they should, but do they assimilate, I have not seen much evidence of this on campus. Also, I have a problem with allowing Muslims to leave the K-12 classroom for prayer. Legally, a credentialed person is to supervise students at all times. Additionally, many nonMuslim students resent this.

Are you sure? I have read it is much more difficult for a woman to divorce her husband than vice-versa. Also, if a husband is disabled, and a woman has to provide for the family by using her dowry or working, then divorces the man, she is not eligible for alimony or child support because she should not have used her money to support the family.

Again, it is more difficult for the woman than the man to divorce.

What if the man is disabled and cannot fulfull his duties?

Insightful, how many Muslim husbands do you know who help with the children and housework?

Even if undeserved? My mother has often been a walking nightmare. Do not misunderstand, the house was and is clean (she has a maid), she cooked a meal every night, often sewed new clothes for me as she enjoys the creative bit, but she is manipulative, clever, judgemental and demanding.

Not all deserve this place.

Doesn’t a mother have to submit to her son’s wishes if she is widowed or abandoned?

Yes, birth is a major pain, hence I have one child. Oy, after 28 hours of labor, 14 of which were hard labor, ick, never again.

Hum, isn’t there a verse condoning the murder of Muslims who choose another faith?

But not if living in the secular West?

No, I am monogamous and would leave if I ever found my other half was cheating. If unattached, I have dated as many as three guys in one weekend. Once committed, I am a loyal old dog. :wink:

Again, my cultural bias notes that Muslim men can have four wives and also concubines. To me this is cheating. Also, AIDS is on the rise in the Muslim world because of this. Yes, I know it is on the rise everywhere, but a Medical Journal discussed this as men give it and give it to their wives. Also, many with more than one wife and who has concubines often will not wear a condom.

Again, to me, the man can legally cheat in Islam, but not the woman, as he can have more than one wife.

Hence, there may be a problem unless a universal code is adopted. If reform is not instituted, then Islam will remain static and not evolve into a secularly tolerant faith. Stonings, maiming, disenfranchisement of women and nonMuslims will continue. This is a shame.

Yes, you explained it as men must treat all their wives and concubines well. Again, this to me legalizes cheating, especially if a woman can support herself. A man does not have to ask permission to marry or divorce, a woman does. Yes, women were treated as chattel prior to Islam, but remember many still are

In Western secular society it is not presumptuous to come to this conclusion. I find it outdated and erroneous as I make more than my other half, am accepted as an equal in our courts, and most educated individuals know that women are not any more emotional than men. I am free to do as I please and God help any man who tries to tell me what to do.

But women are as well educated as men, if not more so in many cases and can make decisions. Hence, this law regarding two women needed to equal one man is, in my opinion outdated.

Gynocologists will disagree with this and I will trust a gynacologist over a theologian any day.

Yes, and this was justified by the Bible. Thankfully, women are now considered equal. We have only had the vote for near 100 years, but we are making progress.

Then why is voting, political postions, driving, etc. such hot button issues in the Middle-East?

Yes, I am egalitarian too, but this is often not the case in Muslim households. I mean, does your mother have equal say in the household finances and what she will or will not do. Or does your father dictate?

The laws are Sharia, no? Did you not say that God’s law supercedes secular law? You have to pray five times daily. Many claim that democracy contradicts Qur’anic law?

Actually, no. The founders created the current U.S. society after erradicating the Native Americans. The current culture, a mismash to be sure, is founded on Locke’s treastise which Jefferson plagarized, and the Ten Commandments. Hence, the current culture is U.S. not Native American and they have to abide by our laws. Yes, we were really rotten to them. We welcome all legal immigrants as long as they abide by our laws and assimilate. We respect all faiths as long as the faith does not infridge our secular laws.

Yes, as long as they abide by our laws. Remember, many Muslims have claimed they will use our democracy to destroy us. They will use demographics to sink our democracy and change our secularism. That is, when enough Muslims are in the land, they will vote the Sharia law into the Constitutional Amendments.

I do not want this to occur, and believe that those who spout this should be deported or incarcerated for treason.

Noos

  1. Fallacy #7 Ad Hominem. When you can’t touch the actual argument, you go after the writer of the opposing view. Not too impressive as a rhetorical strategy.

This is entertaining in light of your “joke” post which was nothing more that a poor attempt at insult. Stop looking at the fallacy website and start thinking.

I have on a regular basis provided quotes from various religious texts that were fairly clear in mean as a way to speculate on the effects that those ideas would have on the human mind and behavior. This is not unlike the way one would write a scholarly paper. You provide quotes and then draw conclusions from them. That’s not a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, have you never heard of the term “conflict of interest” before? I did not make it up over breakfast. Look it up and then you will see what I mean. I am not going to play “Daddy” and lay every little detail out for you. Review my used car salesman example and search the concept on google or something.

Daddy—out!

Muslim women and divorce.

I am curious about the multiple cases that made headlines here in the states regarding such divorces. In each case the woman was trapped here in the States and the man had custody of the children. If the woman returned to the old country it seemed that she faced some harsh treatment. Perhaps it is the case that women can get divorced, but what is their status afterwards?

Yes, there are many, but noetian has explained that this is not really Islam, that those who do this, similar to those who abused Christianity and Judaism were not really follow the tenets of their faiths. I also know more regarding Christianity than many Christians and I am not a Christian.

The point is, that there are many nasty Christians who do not follow the tenets of the faith. There are many nasty Islamic governments and religious leaders who do not follow the tenets of Islam.

Islam is no more violent or misogynistic than the Torah or New Testament, and yes the Prince of Peace did say I have come to bring the sword not peace.

Currently, there is much division in Islam, similar to Christianity and Judaism. The difference is that thousands (sorry Muslims, but this is in the thousands) purport violence and the submission of all to Allah.

Ald, remember that Pat Buchanan, Falwell, Bakkers, (sp) Graham Jr., are very nasty too, they do not resort to violence, but make many violent remarks.

That is, generally most fundamentalists are not well educated as the main stream theologians.

Noetician is taking the time to explain to the audience what Islamic laws and Islamic scholarly interpretations currently are. You have insulted and attacked her. Why? Because you disagree? This is a free, secular land and we can agree to disagree.

Tomorrow my students are presenting regarding an argument and any issue, including abortion, illegal immigration, etc., are fair game. The rules are, you may disagree and ask questions, but if you are rude or belligerant I will drop you from the class and there are only two weeks to go. :evilfun:

This is one of the tenets of the USA that is wonderful.

Hey, we can agree to disagree.

:confused: But you are attacking the person, not addressing the issue. Take a moment to reflect.

:smiley:

Take care Adlerian.

Adlerian wrote:

 Bye!  

Have fun!

aspacia,

I think that the whole Jews and Christians are like that is a big smoke screen. We have already gone over the fact that there are no governments run by Jews or Christians that adhere to old practices. It is unfair to refer to what one’s father did when referring to the son.

Meanwhile, the Islamic governments in question contain hundreds of millions of people that are subject to this nonsense. Pakistan has I think 50 to 70 million and I just heard that Iran has 70 million people in it. America has only about 300 million people. So, well over the population of America is subject to the same laws that were current about 1500 years ago. There is no comparison to what is happening now in those places and what happened with say Christianity during some bygone century.

Additionally, Pat Robertson, or any such American, is merely a rhetorician. They have very little power beyond influence over those unfortunate enough to uncritically accept them. Meanwhile, an Islamic woman may need two male relative signatures just to take a trip.

The whole Islamic bondage experience for women is something that is foisted on them by an accident of birth and geography. They did not ask to be born into such a society and have almost no choice regarding any kind of self determination. Anything other notion is propaganda.