Freedom of Speech.

[213374U]

Hmm. I really don't like to express opinions based on prejudice alone, but I find it difficult to find beauty in a religion that degrades women to the functional level of furniture or animals.

[julianw]

Well. It's certainly far from a perfect religion since it does not confirm the equality of rights between man and woman but neither did Christ mention it. Perhaps the reason behind these shortcomings are that the people and society have not yet progressed enough to be ready for such ideas at those times, but that's off the topic.

[Meow!]

Islam is primative and unprogressive.

 

Indeed.

[metadigital]

The patriarchial political portrayal of women is shared by all the Abrahamic religions.

[julianw]

The last thread was closed due to off-topicness. I guess I will risk it one more time and take full blame on this one.

 

Aren't all religions primative and unprogessive? When the religion's prophet dies, the religion dies with it. All that are left are books and ideas written down already. It's the people who will either choose to embrace new ideas over the foundations built by their religions or choose to fight them at all cost.

[metadigital]

Well, the Anglican Church in particular (and the Protestant communion in general) at least would disagree with you.

 

Anglicans are meant to take the three pillars of tradition, scripture and analysis together in equal weight to make all decisions. This is why the progressives are in favour of not discriminating against women and (openly) homosexual clergy (and the conservatives are dead against it because it means the end of white, middle aged hetrosexual male control of the religion; at least that is the view of Right Reverend Gene Robinson).

 

So, no (in theory) there is at lest the Anglican Church that is set to adapt to the times. Certainly the role of a Jewish Rabi is to interpret scripture for their liety, too, so it is not inconceivable that they may move with the times.

 

Similarly, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Sharia (شريعة) can incorporate progressive ideas. One of the most vital parts of Islam, afaik, is the healthy debate between leading Muslim scholars.

[julianw]

The way I see it, all of the above that you mentioned are still only progression of church and the human society and not the religion itself. Once the prophet is dead, the guidance of a religion is left in earthly hands and no divine revelation could come of it any more. Christ didn't sanction for any church. Neither did Muhammad authorize today's Islamic clergy to be the true interpreters of his religion.

[Atreides]

Christ didn't sanction for any church. Neither did Muhammad authorize today's Islamic clergy to be the true interpreters of his religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? I'm pretty sure Jesus wanted the apostles and others to continue to spread Christianity through the church which I think He said would have Peter as the rock the church would be built on.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Atreides

[julianw]

You shouldn't take that line out of the context. Christ first asked Peter: "Who do you believe Me to be?" And Peter answered: "Thou art the Son of the Living God." Then Christ said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." When asked the same question, others had answered to Christ that He was Elias, John the Baptist or one of the Prophets. Personally, I would like to think that when Christ said "upon this rock I will build my Church", he was confirming Peter's words that the belief that Christ is the Son of the God will be the foundation of His religion. Though you are certainly welcome to disagree.

 

Secondly, let's compare the lives of some of the Popes to Christ's teachings. They have killed innocent people and shed so much blood to merely retain power or for mere differences of opinion. There is little resemblance between the instructions of Christ and the manner of government of Popes. Thousands of men of science and learning, Protestants and other sinless souls died by the hands of the Papal government. Could Christ have ever sanctioned such a corrupt institution?

[Atreides]

That's a bit of a stretch, but I'll leave it to others that know more than I do to continue if they so wish.

 

Edit: I searched an online version of the NIV and here's the passage to give some context.

 

Matthew 16

Peter's Confession of Christ

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

 

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

 

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

 

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Atreides

[julianw]

That's a bit of a stretch

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct. These lines were written thousands of years ago. Words could be mistranslated, miscopied or misinterpreted. That's why the corruption of the church is stronger evidence that Christ would never leave his religion in the hands of the church and let the blind guide the blind. Even though Peter was a pious man and a fitting messenger of the faith, Christ would never let such a corrupt institution rule over his people for the years to come.

[Walsingham]

I think Meta is quite correct to point out that Christianity was right in their with its good boots on when dominating women is concerned. We did, after all invent the scold's bridle.

 

However, the point is that we are talking about today, and while other religions are moving forward Islam seems to have achieved less progress. Maybe because it has its roots in countries that have less advanced economies. But I have to ask if it could not be something in the religion itself. It would be insulting to assume that the faith itself has no effect on the behaviour of its adherents. Obedience, discipline, and defence of oneself are fine qualities, but obedience to whom? Whose discipline? Against what kind of attacks? *shrugs*

 

I suppose the central issue here is one of how we use humour culturally. Great Britain was the first country in the world to see a free press, and central to that press was the use of humour and caricature in picture and verse. The figure who could not take this roughhousing has become regarded as inferior. As a British leader or figure of note you are expected to bear the brunt of considerable fun-poking. 'Joshing' in conversation and even institutionalised theatrical 'Reviews' all do this. Indeed if one is a leader and does not get any jokes about you, or insulting nicknames, then you are 10 times more contemptible.

 

*thinks* Apologies for this being so unfocussed. Can anyone see a point here? :">

[Darth Launch]

Hmm. I really don't like to express opinions based on prejudice alone, but I find it difficult to find beauty in a religion that degrades women to the functional level of furniture or animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, from what I've read and know about Islam it seems that in some respects men have more "rights" yet in other respects (in fact, the majority of the cases) women do... there seems to be some sort of balance... plus, you've clearly never met or known a muslim woman before

[julianw]

Can anyone see a point here?  :">

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. You are probably moderating under the influence...

 

j/k. Though I will say that the Chinese are kind of dry in the humor department and easily gets offended. At least in my experience. :ph34r:

[Jediphile]

The last thread was closed due to off-topicness. I guess I will risk it one more time and take full blame on this one.

 

Aren't all religions primative and unprogessive? When the religion's prophet dies, the religion dies with it. All that are left are books and ideas written down already. It's the people who will either choose to embrace new ideas over the foundations built by their religions or choose to fight them at all cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would tend to agree with that, which is why I don't like the concept of religion altogether.

 

However, this does not prevent me from thinking that Jesus, or Mohammed, makes some very clever and wise observations.

 

The problem lies with those who interpret the texts once the originator is gone, which is usually priest. Now, if the text is just a text that has to justify its own worth like any other text, then it has no special connection with the divine to it. But that would also mean that the priest has only the lowly function of trying to inform others of the text, which does not give him much, or indeed, any authority. If he, on the other hand, can claim that the text is divine, then he becomes a representative of the higher being behind the text and so gains authority in his society. This has been the practice in many, if not most, religions throughout history, and is the reason why I don't like priests much, or at least the concept of the priest...

[Jack the Ripper]

Actually, from what I've read and know about Islam it seems that in some respects men have more "rights" yet in other respects (in fact, the majority of the cases) women do... there seems to be some sort of balance... plus, you've clearly never met or known a muslim woman before 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tabari IX:113

[Jediphile]

Btw, Newsweek has an interview with the editor, who made the decision to publish the danish caricatures.

 

His points go right to the core of freedom of speech, I think.

[Moose]

Hmm. I really don't like to express opinions you've clearly never met or known a muslim woman before 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have. She outright said it sucked and heavily critised the middle east and her own people for being utterly primitive.

[Walsingham]

Can anyone see a point here?  :">

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. You are probably moderating under the influence...

 

j/k. Though I will say that the Chinese are kind of dry in the humor department and easily gets offended. At least in my experience. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was not drunk!

 

I'm beginning to calm down a little, though. Interestingly I am falling back on a point of FAITH: that whatever my instincts and reasoning say to me today, all men of all creeds are essentially my brothers.

[Nick_i_am]

Yes, the same examples that pop up everytime. The difference is that those examples are part of the past. So distant a past, in fact, that nobody who participated in the crusades still lives. There are no Spanish Inquisitors still around. Those were other times, marked by different mindsets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just to clarify, yeah, this was my point. The RELIGION hasn't fundimentally changed since then, just the worshippers and the society around it.

[Darth Launch]

[snip]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, considering I've read the Qu'ran in the original language and context it was written, I think you'll find I'm well aware of what it says about women... it seems your source is incorrect... such a shame... nice try though

 

Hmm. I really don't like to express opinions you've clearly never met or known a muslim woman before 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have. She outright said it sucked and heavily critised the middle east and her own people for being utterly primitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ermm... thus proving my point?

 

If she was a repressed piece of furniture then I very much doubt she would've even thought such a thing nevermind said that

 

Oh... and just a little point here... middle eastern law does NOT equal Islamic law

[Nick_i_am]

Well, considering I've read the Qu'ran in the original language and context it was written, I think you'll find I'm well aware of what it says about women... it seems your source is incorrect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting, is there more than one version of the text or anything like that? What kind of things does it say about women in the 'original text'? and, from your view, is the above misinterpritation or just flat out lies? In fact, would you be able to give your own translation of any of the above passages to see how they match up?

 

Incidently, this isn't meant to be an attack, I am fundimentally ignorant of the details on this topic, hence the questions.

[Darth Launch]

Interesting, is there more than one version of the text or anything like that? What kind of things does it say about women in the 'original text'? and, from your view, is the above misinterpritation or just flat out lies? In fact, would you be able to give your own translation of any of the above passages to see how they match up?

 

Incidently, this isn't meant to be an attack, I am fundimentally ignorant of the details on this topic, hence the questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's only meant to be one "untouched" version of the text... which is meant to avoid any misinterpretations and such that come with translating text... especially ancient text

 

Unfortunately, since it is an ancient language, people's individual interpretations differ... so the way I've interpretted it may not necessarily be the "correct" way... but I believe it will be more correct than that of something obtained from a website called "Prophet of Doom"

 

In my interpretation, I've come to believe that women are actually somewhat "favoured" more so than men... in nearly every respect... of course, there's the seemingly repressive remark here and there... but such things occur for men too... I really think there is an overall balance in the Qu'ran though (like in most religious scriptures and such) and so does everyone else I know that's read it

 

About the translation... unfortunately, I don't actually own my own copy of the Qu'ran and so can't really refer to it... nor do I know the Qu'ran by heart making the whole process slightly more difficult

[Nick_i_am]

So what you're saying is that, to your interpritation (and I would agree, the website above is obviously flaunting an adgenda) woman are 'more than just property' even though things like 'one man is worth two women' are also said? (which from an evolutionary standpoint, based purely on 'use to the family' this does have some justification)

[Darth Launch]

So what you're saying is that, to your interpritation (and I would agree, the website above is obviously flaunting an adgenda) woman are 'more than just property' even though things like 'one man is worth two women' are also said? (which from an evolutionary standpoint, based purely on 'use to the family' this does have some justification)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're definitely more than property... I remember reading some "story" about how "the path to Heaven lies at your mother's feet"... and how women are entitled to a percentage of their husband's/father's estate, but anything owned by the women themselves remains their own... if that makes sense... but that's just a few things I really remember about the whole women in Islam issue