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.
Your choice. The facts are there if you seek them and Google is your friend. Surely the new/old nature of the innovations has no bearing on the effect it had on the society at the time?
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?
Good question and good point. Why do you think? These states call themselves Islamic, in some cases are propped up by the West, and supress their people. You are extracting the wrong point from your observations.
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.
1.3 billion and counting doesn't suggest something has gone wrong. Its
still the largest growing religion in the US, in fact the fastest growing by conversions, not birth. So what exactly are you talking about?
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.
Lol, if you spent so much time in Muslim discussion forums, you would know that the Torah and the Gospel are considered holy texts in Islam. So not too surprising is it?
"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.
I am not sure how you can classify all these countries as First World, save for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Which human rights abuses are you referring to? Who is the one funding these opressive regimes? And if we are accusing countries of this and that, can we classify the Iraq war as a war crime and therefore human rights abuse?
These problems are exhibited by countries that still have to evolve in terms of welath distribution. Show me one Third World country that does not have these problems. Your contention that its somehow related to is Islam is mistaken in my opinion.
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.
Fine.
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 all that knowledge leads you to Islam = Corruption and messed up countries. Geo-politics wise, take a look at the political reality faced by the Middle East after WW1 and tell me that the West has not had a major part to play in the state of the place today.
And yes, your point still stands - did you notice that I actually agreed with it? We have no argument there.
Good.
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.
Good for you. And I have explained my position in my last post.
Now's your chance to correct me. Please list six different Islamic states in which Islam is practised in a way as to respects life, permits open debate, and grants equal status to men and women.
Thankyou.
I will not. I have already stated that I disagree with the actions of these States. Moreover what gives you the right to say which standards should be adhered to above others? Please list me one Islamic state that is engaged in Imperialism and Neo-colonialism through the mass murder of innocents.
OK, though I fail to see the relevance to charitable donations.
