1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Innocent until proven Muslim

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by zoomee, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602


    So, let me rephrase that..... 'even if some muslims readily accept certain absurdities of their religion (which they don't find absurd), those things are still wrong (according to Zethor's standard) and they are victims of their own culture according to the Zethor standard.'
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2013
  2. Zethor

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2013

    Posts: 4,294

    With all due respect my friend, the fact that some of you guys need Imam al-Haskafi, Imam al-Mawsuli etc. to tell you what the cooking obligations are in a family, shows the sheer craziness we're dealing with here. Why does that analysis even exist? Here's an idea: replace all fatwas, al-Hindiyya, al-whatever with the rule "don't be an a-hole" and guess what? Bam! , all questions are answered. But the ones who perpetuate the craziness don't want that, they don't want people to think for themselves, no sir, they are the only ones who can decide. The only ones with the connection to the Old Man and you better listen, or else.

    Women haven't risen up because of their biological disadvantage (they would get their rear ends kicked if they did). As seen in the western society, women became empowered only after violence was taken out of the picture and it's threat was greatly decreased. In fact, this has already happened for muslim women in some parts of the world, such as the eastern european country where i live. Here, the only difference between muslims and christians is they go to slightly different looking worship buildings and in different days of the year. Both have men of clergy but they don't have much power, they don't decide what's acceptable and what's not and they most definitely don't form courts. They preach, some people listen to every word they hear but most, not so much. And they always, always need money.

    In other words, there's nothing special about Islam, it's only a matter of time before it takes the route of Christianity, loses it's relevance and it's grip on it's people. Only then will you see what women really think about the fact they don't have an "obligation to cook".
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2013
  3. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    Alas, Zethor, you got my post before I decided to remove it because, if you read my earlier posts, I expressed my intention to extricate myself from this thread. Anyways, to be polite, I will respond here.

    You may know islam better than I if you are referencing things like 'al-Hindiyya' that I am ignorant of.

    You are correct though, it's only a matter of time before Islam will lose it's relevance, and that will signal the day of reckoning ....haha, according to Islamic literature.

    Thankfully, we have the freedom of will, and to that end people can choose to believe what they want. They can practice what they want as long as the Law of the Land allows it.

    I am not going to fuel this discussion anymore, only to say that most of it is really a smokescreen to the real question as I see it. The test of faith we all face on this earth is to recognise the Creator as He chooses to be recognised. Religious belief is a personal journey, and I am not suggesting any beliefs on anyone. But all too often, discussions like these attempt to buttress atheistic views - when, according to our Abrahamic beliefs, the whole of eternity is at stake.

    Sorry to go off topic, but I'm closing here .... I may dip in from time to time ....
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2013
  4. Raz

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 18, 2003

    Posts: 4,393

    Location: Helix Nebula

    Some things are wrong in a definite sense (eg killing babies) and can never be justified. Other things are a bit more tricky - you might say that getting married at 13 is wrong, whereas someone else may say that having sex outside marriage is wrong. How exactly do you impose right and wrong on people?
     
  5. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,209

    You could use an objective measure such as "harm done" rather than a subjective measure of "my god thinks it is a good or bad idea but hasn't really given clear instructions on how it should apply to the 21st Century in a developed nation rather than the 7th Century in Medieval Arabia"?

    From that, marrying at 13 is wrong because we know that the majority of children at that age are neither physically or mentally developed enough to be married and having children, that relationships with older men at that age tend to be somewhat abusive and that they should really be focusing on more useful things like education rather than marital duties.

    We can also say that sex outside of marriage is not wrong because we have masses of evidence of long lasting unmarried couples going on to have long and productive family lives. We can also use modern contraceptive and sexual health education to reduce any risks from sex outside of marriage.
     
  6. Raz

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 18, 2003

    Posts: 4,393

    Location: Helix Nebula

    Sure, so what's the harm in polygamy?

    And how about a 13 year old marrying a 14 year old?

    This comes down to picking and choosing 'logic' and 'evidence' that supports a particular view. What's the evidence to say that necrophilia is wrong? It's repulsive, immoral, and an extreme example perhaps but why is it wrong?
     
  7. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,209

    If it is both ways (i.e. both men and women can have multiple partners) then I have no real issue with it. Though it would require some legal changes around next of kin rights and inheritance.

    Still falls under "the majority of children at that age are neither physically or mentally developed enough to be married and having children, ... that they should really be focusing on more useful things like education rather than marital duties" not to mention that teenagers aren't generally financially able to support having children.


    Didn't take all that long to go from "reasonable and sensible scenarios" to "choosing the most out there scenario I can think of" did it? If you can come up with "logic" and "evidence" that doesn't support the idea of premarital sex being OK I am all ears.

    As for why necrophilia is wrong, corpses can't consent (and we consider consent really important when it comes to sex)and there are significant health problems associated with having dead bodies hanging around.
     
  8. Frightful Boar

    Hitman

    Joined: Jun 14, 2013

    Posts: 558

    A corpse can't consent?

    I find that incredibly weird how that's part of the reason that necrophilia is wrong.
     
  9. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales

    tax avoidance.

    pretty much the only reason against it.
     
  10. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    You're going to have to explain how you get to tax avoidance...
     
  11. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 6,349

    I presume he means the tax breaks for married couples that were around a few years ago.
     
  12. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    Inheritance law too. Spouses have certain rights which don't quite work if there's more than one. In fact marriage is historically more about securing property rights than being any sort of religious or spiritual institution.
     
  13. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    Which are basically long since defunct...