Perhaps too brief...? Because it does nothing to prove that Mohammed's innovations were in any way new or revolutionary (though they may have been so
to that particular culture and time). He introduced no laws of equality which had not already existed before him, in other cultures and civilisations. The article briefly references English Common Law of the late 17th Century, but it fails to engage with other, superior examples which pre-dated Islam. Certainly, it does not prove that Mohammed was ushering in an age of unprecedented equality.
So I remain unimpressed by that article. It appears to have been written more for the believer, than the unbeliever; to confirm an existing view, rather than to persuade a skeptic.
Previous comments by myself have indicated that I do not regard the practices of the current crop of Islamic States Islamic. It is really not my job to defend their actions. If you think that simply because I am Muslim that I will, you are mistaken. In my view there is a huge disparity in practice and teaching but then thats (yet) another can of worms...
I appreciate that they are not
Islamic practices (insofar as they are not prescribed by your religion), but the fact remains that they are practised
despite the presence of Islam; indeed, they are
permitted by the Islamic state. So why is this? Why do these Islamic states permit such atrocities, if Islam is such a fair, decent and equitable religion?
Having spent several years on a Muslim discussion forum, I fully appreciate the difference between the attitudes of regular Muslims and the behaviour of Islamic states. I also understand that many Muslims do not consider them true Islamic states (which is laughable, but never mind). Still, with so many different versions of Islam flying around, and with so many different Islamic states all claiming that they follow Islamic practices, who are we to believe?
Will the real Muslims stand up?
And it does beg the question: if Islam is such a wildly succesfuly and revolutionary ideology, why does it never seem to work? Where is this dreamy Islamic state that your religion should have provided by now? You've had a good 1,400 years to do it. What's gone wrong?
Secular democracy is a pretty bad business at the best of times, but it works a hell of a lot better than anything else history has offered.
You can disagree with me all you like, but you can't change history. I suggest you take some time to study ancient civilisations and cultures. The Egyptians, Romans and Jews should be of particular interest, since their laws were just as equitable as Islam's (and in some cases far
more equitable), and they pre-dated your religion by some 3,000-6,000 years. (Did you know that ancient Egyptian women were treated equally by law? They could own property, borrow money, sign contracts, initiate divorce against their husbands, and appear in court as witnesses. Not bad, eh?)
Mohammed himself was clearly a student of the Jewish faith, since he lifted much of his material directly from Talmudic sources (such as
Midrash and
Mishnah), and common Jewish fables. This might help to explain why so much of Islam is virtually identical to the Law of Moses.
Welcome to the Third World my friend. Open your eyes a little. Maybe travel to Africa. You may learn a thing or two which I need not point out here.
"Welcome to the Third World"? But I am not talking about the Third World. I am talking about places like Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.
So I ask again: why is it that these places are always rife with corruption, nepotism and government collusion with routine illegality? Why is it that these places always have the most oppressive regimes? Why is it that these places always have the worst record for human rights abuses - particularly against women? Why is it that these places are often notorious for violence?
You can't simply say "That's the Third World", because all of these things are common features of First and Second World Islamic states.
Even obvious ****-stirring?
No true commentary consists of "obvious ****-stirring?". You would not find this in a legitimate commentary. You might find it in a newspaper editorial, but that's another thing entirely. I am not talking about op-ed pieces.
Ahh the classic 'I have muslim friends' which automatically grants you knowledge. Are any of your friends practicing Muslims? Either way, my point stands, irrespective of which friends you have.
Ah, the old chestnut! It's the "get them coming and going" trick, isn't it? I've seen this before.
If you ask me "Do you have any Muslim friends?" and I say "No", you will dismiss my opinions as uninformed and tell me to "Get to know some real Muslims who can put you straight". But now that I have truthfully informed you that I
do know some Muslims, you use the old "Oh, and I suppose that makes you informed, does it?" line. Which is rather childish, but not wholly unexpected.
Yes, my friends are practising Muslims; I wouldn't call them Muslims if they weren't. And my wife works at an inner city school were the majority of pupils come from Muslim families. No, this does not "automatically grant me knowledge"; what grants me knowledge of Islam is my university education, my personal experience, and my own reading on the subject.
And yes, your point still stands - did you notice that I actually
agreed with it? We have no argument there.
Once again, read my comments. I was talking about moral equivalence and if you choose the Western side then you pretty much agree to all the bad things that it equates to...
No, that's not true. Just because someone chooses the Western side, doesn't mean he endorses all that it brings. There are Christians (like myself) who object to the moral relativism of secular society; there are Buddhists who object to the West's penchant for violence; there are atheists who object to the West's last remaining vestiges of a Christian-dominated culture; there are political activists who object to the West's hypocritical attitude towards trade vs. human rights.
Just because I prefer to live under a Western democracy, doesn't mean I endorse the system as a whole. As I said in a previous post, it has many flaws. But it just happens to be least of the current evils available to us.
This is once again, not true. I am not saying that there are no issues that need addressing regarding Islam, but your clear bias to the Western point of view renders any discussion with you futile in the long run.
This was in response to my statement:
Evangelion said:
I have no problem with Islam per se, provided that it is practised in a manner which respects life, permits open debate, and grants equal status to men and women. Sadly, this is not often the case - except where it is practised in Western nations.
Isn't that odd?
Now's your chance to correct me. Please list six different Islamic states where Islam is practised in a way as to respect life, permit open debate, and grant equal status to men and women.
Thankyou.
