Doubts On Islam

[salman]

Hey,

Firstly, I don't want to spend too much time on this because from my experience I already know where this will head to. Secondly, I am quite busy now days.

Just as an example, when speaking of Heaven, the Koran mentions "beautiful virgin women" as a reward for men, but why does it never mention "beautiful virgin men" as a reward for women? Even in Heaven (assuming that such a place exists) women are treated like second class citizens...

We answer similar questions to Muslims in Islamic world by saying that let's first worry about getting to heaven. If we know that we will get there whatever we want and it is place of eternal happiness and joy then there is no such thing as 'second class citizens' because everyone will get according to what he did in this world.

The problem is more than just talking about equality of men and women etc. which I really want to get into instead of discussing and arguing about certain laws. By default, it is understood that men and women are two different beings with different needs and nature. Equating them in everything not only defies simple common sense but it is also a form of oppression. In prophetic world, justice and freedom are defined as putting things into their right place. Hence, justice is not to equate apples with oranges rather justice is to treat them according to their nature. So generally speaking, would a woman want many men doing with her? And it is not freedom to let people do whatever they want rather there should be some restrictions and limit of tolerance level. Do your secular laws treat women as second class citizens when they don't allow them to walk without tops in public while men are allowed to do that? Would you like your women folks (wife, daughter, mother etc.) to walk without tops in public or even in home?

Secondly, what a person should get and why he is getting that is not dictated by deficient human intellect. Neither humans have come up with a standard/universal set of code to say "a is fine but b is wrong, for example. Hence, for you to say that women are treated as second class citizens in Islam is simply your perception and understanding, which is flawed due many different reasons.

Lastly, you seem intelligent and a nice person. Hence, we expect people like you to be fair in your criticism. It is well known in the Shari'ah (Islam) that a woman in heaven will have handsome/beautiful virgin husband. The reward is not pulral for women because 1) this is the Law of the Creator and 2) the potential wisdom behind it is that because it is not from their nature to have multiple partners. Really, everything boils down to whether you believe that there is a God. And if there is a God and He is the most Wise and Just then it is rational to submit to His laws because He is a perfect being unlike us. And He knows what is best for His creation.

Again I would've hoped to see a proof of that, i.e. an explanation on how you generally proceed to hold a certain idea as true, and another as false...

To a large extent, proofs are very much subjective. Some proofs may be sufficient for some people to believe in certain thing while they may not be for others. So a question to you is, what kind of proof you are looking for you which will be sufficient for you? We, as Muslims, have a standard criteria to believe that a certain idea is wrong or right. In other words, our moral values and belief system come from the Creator and rational reason to believe in His set of commands are already mentioned above.

How do you know what is wrong or right?

First, it seems you have taken only one of two cases: there are those who convert to Islam from another religion/ideology indeed, but also those who were raised Muslim and decided at some point of their lives that Islam wasn't suitable for them.

1 - We believe that everyone is born as a Muslim but their parents misguide them; the Arabic term for this is fitrah (natural belief). It is also part of our belief that before we were born, we made a covenant with God: He gathered us all and asked us "Am I not your Lord?" and we all said "Yes, you are our Lord". So everyone was born equally on their fitrah. This is the reason why we all agree on certain moral values (i.e., killing an innocent person, raping, stealing, cheating, lying, deceiving, etc.). Hence, God sent His Prophets (peace be upon them) to remind us to stick to our fitrah and remember the covenant that we made with Him; this was due to His Mercy and Justice.

2 - Those who are born as Muslims don't have a choice in choosing a religion. This is what has been decreed for them. It is a duty of parents to raise their children according to Islamic teachings and educate them and block all means which will lead them to apostasy.

If Islam believes itself to be the absolute truth, then why is it afraid to let some "ignorant" and "foolish" apostates express themselves? Why wouldn't it try to "reason" with them and convince them of its "righteousness" rather than kill them?

your questions are based upon number of misunderstandings and lack of knowledge.

1 - Who told you that the laws of apostasy is because we are afraid of what people would say about Islam? If this was the case then we would have hidden all these "problematic" Islamic laws and we wouldn't be even discussing this issue right now. Allah says in the Qur'an: "Truth has come and Batil (falsehood) has vanished. Surely! Batil is ever bound to vanish" [Surah al-Isra (17): 82 - interpretation of the meaning]. Hence, we have nothing to hide or afraid of people's criticism. Islam is what it is; if people like it good for them and if they don't then it is their choice and their loss.

2 - Islam is not some spiritual religion like all the religions out there; it is a complete way of life. Because of this misunderstanding many people don't understand the reasons behind certain Islamic laws.

3 - Law of apostasy is based upon the order of God. It is synonym to treason because by default a Muslim has an allegiance with an Islamic state and a covenant is made. So if one wants to argue against it then he will also have to argue against treason law in many secular countries. To single out Islam is pretty biased and subjective. In addition, as I have mentioned before, if we agree that there is a God then this is not only rational evidence for this but also it is the only rational way to go about it because God is perfect and we are not. Lastly, the punishment for apostasy is carried out after certain conditions have been met, which are followings:

a) The apostate is living in an Islamic state and judgment & penalty is issued by an Islamic court
b) His apostasy becomes apparent to public
c) He is given time to repent and called back to Islam by clarifying his doubts.
​

I wanted to respond to few other points but I have to go now.

@derfel

Irony of people like you is that one side you complain about how religions are intolerant of other views and barbaric etc., but on other side you want to eradicate them and their followers.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

It sounds as if some posters don't believe in religious freedom.

There is no way to prove or disprove anyone's religious beliefs. I say let them believe as they will.

When people of any faith -- whether the radical Islamists who murdered 3,000 on September 11, 2001, or the radical Christian who shot an abortion doctor to death in his church -- engage in violent actions, then they should be incarcerated or exterminated.

 

[Hezam]

When people of any faith -- whether the radical Islamists who murdered 3,000 on September 11, 2001, or the radical Christian who shot an abortion doctor to death in his church -- engage in violent actions, then they should be incarcerated or exterminated.

A doctor ? one person ? 3,000 are not compared to millions,right ?
USA governemt is a radical Christian who killed millions of people here.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The problem is more than just talking about equality of men and women etc. which I really want to get into instead of discussing and arguing about certain laws. By default, it is understood that men and women are two different beings with different needs and nature. Equating them in everything not only defies simple common sense but it is also a form of oppression.

Whilst I agree with you that men and women are different, I disagree as to the extent of that difference. You are making assumptions about those differences for which you offer no evidence of a factual basis.

So generally speaking, would a woman want many men doing with her? And it is not freedom to let people do whatever they want rather there should be some restrictions and limit of tolerance level.

I agree that there should be restrictions on people's freedoms in so far as the expression of those freedoms impinges on the freedoms of others. But your use of the phrase "generally speaking" betrays the fact that you are generalising. On what do you base your claim that women are not sexually promiscuous?

Do your secular laws treat women as second class citizens when they don't allow them to walk without tops in public while men are allowed to do that? Would you like your women folks (wife, daughter, mother etc.) to walk without tops in public or even in home?

I can't speak for any other country, but in the UK it's certainly not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts. In fact, nudity is not illegal for either men or women. We have indecent exposure laws, and we have a duty to keep the peace. But if someone is arrested for indecent exposure or for a breach of the peace, each case is examined on its own merits. If it's not in the public interest to proceed, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will throw the case out.

A couple of examples might help. There was a case a couple of years back in which two girls exposed their breasts to a security camera on a deserted beach. Although they were arrested, the CPS did not proceed with the case; no-one witnessed the act, so it could not be considered a breach of the peace.

On the other hand, if one of my male colleagues was to remove his shirt in a sexually suggestive manner, I would most likely be successful in sueing him for sexual harrassment. If his behaviour caused a general disturbance he might even be arrested for a breach of the peace.

So our laws are not based on some arbitrary differentiation between what behaviour is acceptable for a man or for a woman. They are based on the intent and consequences of those actions and the gender of the individuals concerned is irrelevant.

So a question to you is, what kind of proof you are looking for you which will be sufficient for you?

Let's take just one of your assertions, that women are not sexually promiscuous. There are many sources I would accept as evidence of this: scientific studies by psychiatrists, neurologists or gynaecologists, so long as they are published in a peer-reviewed journal; large surveys, so long as they include a good cross section of participants and are conducted by a reputable statistical researcher; academic papers by sociologists, psychologists or therapists, so long as they are well-referenced and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The kind of "evidence" I wouldn't accept would be quotes from scripture or personal anecdotes.

In other words, our moral values and belief system come from the Creator and rational reason to believe in His set of commands are already mentioned above.

It depends on the sense in which you use the word "rational". If you're using it in the social science sense, then I guess there could be an argument that your beliefs are rational, if they optimise your performance as an individual. However, if you are using it in the philosophical sense, then your belief is certainly not rational. For your belief to be rational in this sense, it must be strictly objective and logical. If your belief is influenced in any way by personal emotion or culturally specific moral codes then it is inherently irrational (in the philosophical sense). To use your own terminology, if you admit that the proofs you accept are subjective then they cannot be (philosophically) rational.

For more on this see the Wikipedia article on Rationality.

How do you know what is wrong or right?

I don't. But I somewhat reluctantly trust our lawmakers and our justice system to determine right and wrong on a case-by-case basis in the public arena. And in my personal life I make a more-or-less rational judgement based on past experience and inference, all the while admitting a margin of error.

2 - Those who are born as Muslims don't have a choice in choosing a religion. This is what has been decreed for them. It is a duty of parents to raise their children according to Islamic teachings and educate them and block all means which will lead them to apostasy.

This is a perfect example of oppression. You are basically saying that no matter how much emotional damage and intellectual dishonesty is involved, a Muslim must always be so, regardless of what experience has led them to believe. What could be more oppressive than denying a person the right to be reconciled with their own thoughts?

Truth has come and Batil (falsehood) has vanished. Surely! Batil is ever bound to vanish

Lacking the context you could use that quote to justify anything, even Atheism.

Islam is not some spiritual religion like all the religions out there; it is a complete way of life.

Yes, a way of life that by the standards of Western society oppresses women to some extent.

Law of apostasy is based upon the order of God. It is synonym to treason because by default a Muslim has an allegiance with an Islamic state and a covenant is made. So if one wants to argue against it then he will also have to argue against treason law in many secular countries.

Although I admit to knowing next to nothing about politics, I don't think your analogy follows. The UK is a Christian country. The Treaty of Union ensures a protestant succession to the throne; there is a link between church and state; monarchs are crowned in a Christian ceremony; our coat of arms has the motto "God and my right"; it is mandatory for all British students to be given a broadly Christian education: clearly a Christian state. However, it does not follow that all citizens must therefore be Christian and we have the right to freedom of religion, even if we were brought up as Christians, as I was.

Lastly, the punishment for apostasy is carried out after certain conditions have been met, which are followings:
a) The apostate is living in an Islamic state and judgment & penalty is issued by an Islamic court
b) His apostasy becomes apparent to public
c) He is given time to repent and called back to Islam by clarifying his doubts.

Nice choice. Lie to yourself or suffer a penalty

In all honesty, what purpose does it serve the individual or the state to deny the right to apostasy? I guess it ensures the continued existence of the state, regardless of the welfare of its citizens

 

[Mycernius]

We answer similar questions to Muslims in Islamic world by saying that let's first worry about getting to heaven. If we know that we will get there whatever we want and it is place of eternal happiness and joy then there is no such thing as 'second class citizens' because everyone will get according to what he did in this world.

So you start on an assertion and expand on it, despite lack of evidence for the assertion. Nice.

By default, it is understood that men and women are two different beings with different needs and nature. Equating them in everything not only defies simple common sense but it is also a form of oppression.

Could you cite the scientific papers that show that men and women are two different beings, or I will just dismiss this as the load of bollocks that it is?
For your information all embryos are female in the first six weeks of development, that is why men have nipples. You and I were both female before the Y chromosone kicked in. Religious assertions and teaching cannot change that fact.

In prophetic world, justice and freedom are defined as putting things into their right place. Hence, justice is not to equate apples with oranges rather justice is to treat them according to their nature.

Once more you have made and assertion, which is not backed by fact, and expand on that assertion.

Do your secular laws treat women as second class citizens when they don't allow them to walk without tops in public while men are allowed to do that? Would you like your women folks (wife, daughter, mother etc.) to walk without tops in public or even in home?

Because society sexualise the breasts then many associate it with sex, but there are many countries that showing of breasts is not illegal. In fact many beaches will have topless women on them. You'll have a tendancy to find that highly religious societies have a major problem with sex and anything associated with it.

Secondly, what a person should get and why he is getting that is not dictated by deficient human intellect. Neither humans have come up with a standard/universal set of code to say "a is fine but b is wrong, for example. Hence, for you to say that women are treated as second class citizens in Islam is simply your perception and understanding, which is flawed due many different reasons.

Bollocks. How many men are killed by their parents because they won't marry the right woman? Honour killings are very prevelant in Islamic societies.

It is well known in the Shari'ah (Islam) that a woman in heaven will have handsome/beautiful virgin husband.

Assertion from woo.

The reward is not pulral for women because 1) this is the Law of the Creator

Assertion from woo. Plus you have contradicted yourself

If we know that we will get there whatever we want and it is place of eternal happiness and joy then there is no such thing as 'second class citizens' because everyone will get according to what he did in this world.

So if a woman wants more than one husband, tough, despite being what she wants. Clearly a case of sexual inequality, in heaven.

and 2) the potential wisdom behind it is that because it is not from their nature to have multiple partners.

Please cite relative papers.

Really, everything boils down to whether you believe that there is a God. And if there is a God and He is the most Wise and Just then it is rational to submit to His laws because He is a perfect being unlike us. And He knows what is best for His creation.

No, you have even managed to contradict your own god in your own post. Shows it is not particularly wise. Plus how come it is a he? I thought that god was supposed to be asexual.
But then you don't really know the history behind Allah do you.

To a large extent, proofs are very much subjective. Some proofs may be sufficient for some people to believe in certain thing while they may not be for others. So a question to you is, what kind of proof you are looking for you which will be sufficient for you?

Proof is either the strength of an alocholic drink or something you find in mathematics. What I require is evidence.

We, as Muslims, have a standard criteria to believe that a certain idea is wrong or right. In other words, our moral values and belief system come from the Creator and rational reason to believe in His set of commands are already mentioned above.

Great, your morals are based on writtings and actions of 7th century desert nomads.

1 - We believe that everyone is born as a Muslim but their parents misguide them;

Blind assertion.

the Arabic term for this is fitrah (natural belief). It is also part of our belief that before we were born, we made a covenant with God: He gathered us all and asked us "Am I not your Lord?" and we all said "Yes, you are our Lord". So everyone was born equally on their fitrah. This is the reason why we all agree on certain moral values (i.e., killing an innocent person, raping, stealing, cheating, lying, deceiving, etc.). Hence, God sent His Prophets (peace be upon them) to remind us to stick to our fitrah and remember the covenant that we made with Him; this was due to His Mercy and Justice.

Complete wibble.

2 - Those who are born as Muslims don't have a choice in choosing a religion.

You know christians use that pathetic argument as well.

This is what has been decreed for them. It is a duty of parents to raise their children according to Islamic teachings and educate them and block all means which will lead them to apostasy.

In other words you will not allow freedom of will.

your questions are based upon number of misunderstandings and lack of knowledge.

And yours are based on years of indoctrination to a system you dare not question

Hence, we have nothing to hide or afraid of people's criticism. Islam is what it is; if people like it good for them and if they don't then it is their choice and their loss.

Yeah, beacsue eveyone knows that muslims can handle criticism of their religion. A few examples on how muslims react to criticism
http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02062006.html
http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/06/345-muslim-outrage.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/black-legacy/Muslim-protests-cartoon.bmp
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/islamDM2803_468x330.jpg

3 - Law of apostasy is based upon the order of God. It is synonym to treason because by default a Muslim has an allegiance with an Islamic state and a covenant is made. So if one wants to argue against it then he will also have to argue against treason law in many secular countries.

We don't execute people for treason in the UK, or anywhere in the EU. Are you advocating death for people who exercise freewill? Then your god is a tyrant and a dictator who is afraid of people. Surely your so called diety can protect itself from such people, after all you have a special place for them to go when they die, but no, that isn't good enough for you. You have to help them on their way because your blood mad god demands it.

To single out Islam is pretty biased and subjective.

Not really, Off the top of my head I cannot think of another world religion that advocates death for apostasy.

In addition, as I have mentioned before, if we agree that there is a God then this is not only rational evidence for this but also it is the only rational way to go about it because God is perfect and we are not.

Another blind assertion.

@derfel

Irony of people like you is that one side you complain about how religions are intolerant of other views and barbaric etc., but on other side you want to eradicate them and their followers.

He might, but he is not about to go out and kill people because they are religious. You don't get atheist suicide bombers. The best way to eradicate religion is through education.

 

[Mycernius]

A doctor ? one person ? 3,000 are not compared to millions,right ?
USA governemt is a radical Christian who killed millions of people here.

A government is not a religion. the US is a secular country, regardless of its head. Plus you live in Saudi, which supports the US government and in which the US has not killed anyone and even supplies the weapons to their army.

 

[mohamed]

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (59) surat al-ahzab
this is from quran and i think this is a good proof that the hejab from quran and if you need other proof's
i have

and thanx for you

 

[Tsuyoiko]

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (59) surat al-ahzab
this is from quran and i think this is a good proof that the hejab from quran and if you need other proof's
i have
and thanx for you

The kind of "evidence" I wouldn't accept would be quotes from scripture or personal anecdotes.

Please try harder

 

[Mycernius]

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (59) surat al-ahzab
this is from quran and i think this is a good proof that the hejab from quran and if you need other proof's
i have
and thanx for you

Scripture and circular reasoning are not evidence.
You lose, thank you for playing.

 

[mohamed]

every one Acknowledge that we have agod
so we have to see what god tell us in his book
we have to listen to his words
There is evidence that the Koran is the word of God and that the right

 

[Mycernius]

I'm an atheist, I do not believe in your god. Your god is an invention by man, your book is written by a man, not inspired by a fictional deity. Your god was even hijacked a pantheon of pre-islamic gods. I don't have to acknowledge your god or anyone elses. I have read your fairy book and I am not impressed with it, no more than I was with the bible.

Circular reasoning, that you are using, is a logical fallacy. Please try again, this time without the circular reasoning and the blind assertions that you have come up with so far.

 

[Hezam]

Discussing religions/faith is something very difficult and don't expect people will agree with your/my religion.
If you/me agree or disagree then it's a personal opinion.
On Top of that,make it in a polite way of my talk,No offince.

I don't know why some members started an offensive method.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

You mean offensive (and untruthful) statements like this one?

"USA governemt is a radical Christian who killed millions of people here."

 

[Yukiko chan]

We would be better off if we brought the whole lie-machine down. Religious tolerance is a bunch of nonsense.

That's quite worrisome. I think we should leave each person to their beliefs. If someone told me that they believed the Universe was supported by 4 elephants, a snake and a tortoise, I would just smile, express my opinion, and leave it at that. It's a very ridiculous belief, but ridiculous does not imply false or scientifically inadequate. And like RolandtheHeadless pointed out, there's no way to disprove a belief system completely. You can weaken it by showing that it has no supporting evidence, and/or that it contradicts current scientific theories and observations, but as religious texts are subject to many possible interpretations and new stronger scientific theories contradicting the earlier ones can emerge, the argument around a particular system of beliefs can be almost useless as long as people hold strong belief in the veracity of the text.
Strangely, it is much easier to corner a fundamentalist believer, with their literalistic approach to their hol(e)y text, than a moderate or liberal believer with their interpretative evasive approach. Though again I don't see any problem with people holding a belief in something as long as a/ they don't engage in any terrorist activities, b/ they respect other people's freedom of belief/unbelief (including their children).

And I second Tsuyoiko's remark concerning your use of the word "lie". I don't think there are many religious leaders who don't believe in their own religious statements. One known exception is that of Jean Meslier, a Catholic priest who is believed by some to be the first atheist, in the modern conception of the term.

Jean Meslier (15 January 1664 – 1729) was a French Catholic priest who was discovered, upon his death, to have written a book-length philosophical essay promoting atheism. Described by the author as his "testament" to his parishioners, the text denounces all religion.

I think the correct understanding of the issue would be that Islam is putting forward lies. If this does not invite criticism, suspicion and doubt, there is something amiss, as Emoni has pointed it out before me.

Imagine someone who has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble, wherein the tenets, symbols, texts, you name it, of a particular religion are depicted very positively (true, good, perfect, beautiful, etc...) and considered as the absolute reference, whereas all else (i.e. everything outside that bubble) is regarded with suspicion until it is proven that it conforms with the rules of said bubble, or that it doesn't, in which case it is rejected as false, evil, hideous, etc... that's how many people live. They don't see any imperfection in their religion and much less a contradiction. They don't know what freedom of thought really means, and in fact they were told as children that there were questions you must never ask. The only counter-arguments to their beliefs they have seen, are probably variants of the straw-man argument, which their religious leaders can easily disprove, and hence "show" how powerful and consistent their system is.

I advocate a more aggressive stance in defense of all the people who must suffer under such an oppressive belief system.

I'm totally against any form of oppression purported by religious systems (or any other system). But I don't think an aggressive stance would solve anything. It would most probably make people even more aggressive in defending their religion, and sensitive to any form of criticism. That's what I think.

You cannot evaluate practices in a vacuum. Whether it is justified is a very important aspect of any practice.

At a certain level, it doesn't matter to me whether their beliefs are scientifically adequate or not. I'm just trying to understand how a religious mind functions, and so I try to view it from a systemic approach, i.e. as a set of components linked with a set of relationships...

 

[Hezam]

You mean offensive (and untruthful) statements like this one?

"USA governemt is a radical Christian who killed millions of people here."

Correct please :
"USA governemt is a radical Zionist who killed millions of people here."

 

[mohamed]

thanx for responding

I'm an atheist, I do not believe in your god. Your god is an invention by man, your book is written by a man, not inspired by a fictional deity. Your god was even hijacked a pantheon of pre-islamic gods. I don't have to acknowledge your god or anyone elses. I have read your fairy book and I am not impressed with it, no more than I was with the bible.
Circular reasoning, that you are using, is a logical fallacy. Please try again, this time without the circular reasoning and the blind assertions that you have come up with so far.

well i need proof that my god invention by man, and my book is written by a man
so please tell me am wrong maybe i be atheist with you

 

[mohamed]

thanx for responding

That's quite worrisome. I think we should leave each person to their beliefs. If someone told me that they believed the Universe was supported by 4 elephants, a snake and a tortoise, I would just smile, express my opinion, and leave it at that. It's a very ridiculous belief, but ridiculous does not imply false or scientifically inadequate. And like RolandtheHeadless pointed out, there's no way to disprove a belief system completely. You can weaken it by showing that it has no supporting evidence, and/or that it contradicts current scientific theories and observations, but as religious texts are subject to many possible interpretations and new stronger scientific theories contradicting the earlier ones can emerge, the argument around a particular system of beliefs can be almost useless as long as people hold strong belief in the veracity of the text.
Strangely, it is much easier to corner a fundamentalist believer, with their literalistic approach to their hol(e)y text, than a moderate or liberal believer with their interpretative evasive approach. Though again I don't see any problem with people holding a belief in something as long as a/ they don't engage in any terrorist activities, b/ they respect other people's freedom of belief/unbelief (including their children).
And I second Tsuyoiko's remark concerning your use of the word "lie". I don't think there are many religious leaders who don't believe in their own religious statements. One known exception is that of Meslier[/URL], a Catholic priest who is believed by some to be the first atheist, in the modern conception of the term.
Imagine someone who has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble, wherein the tenets, symbols, texts, you name it, of a particular religion are depicted very positively (true, good, perfect, beautiful, etc...) and considered as the absolute reference, whereas all else (i.e. everything outside that bubble) is regarded with suspicion until it is proven that it conforms with the rules of said bubble, or that it doesn't, in which case it is rejected as false, evil, hideous, etc... that's how many people live. They don't see any imperfection in their religion and much less a contradiction. They don't know what freedom of thought really means, and in fact they were told as children that there were questions you must never ask. The only counter-arguments to their beliefs they have seen, are probably variants of the straw-man argument, which their religious leaders can easily disprove, and hence "show" how powerful and consistent their system is.
I'm totally against any form of oppression purported by religious systems (or any other system). But I don't think an aggressive stance would solve anything. It would most probably make people even more aggressive in defending their religion, and sensitive to any form of criticism. That's what I think.
At a certain level, it doesn't matter to me whether their beliefs are scientifically adequate or not. I'm just trying to understand how a religious mind functions, and so I try to view it from a systemic approach, i.e. as a set of components linked with a set of relationships...

please don't say any thing about islam without proof .

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

But it's okay for Hezam to say things about Christians or "Zionists" without proof?

By the way, Hezam, are you sure you've got that statement right this time?

 

[mohamed]

But it's okay for Hezam to say things about Christians or "Zionists" without proof?

By the way, Hezam, are you sure you've got that statement right this time?

am sorry but im even don't know hazem and am still newst
am entered today only . so please Rush
In the end we are all human beings and we wish each other a better life and I thank
you for your understanding

 

[Hezam]

But it's okay for Hezam to say things about Christians or "Zionists" without proof?

By the way, Hezam, are you sure you've got that statement right this time?

I already got it,And it's not offensive though ! it's a fact.

 

[Mycernius]

I already got it,And it's not offensive though ! it's a fact.

If it's a fact provide sources.
As I pointed iout in an earlier post your media is heavily censored, both printed and the internet. I sincerly doubt that you have as much access to the truth or facts as I, or anyone outside the Islamic middle east, has.

 

[Mycernius]

well i need proof that my god invention by man, and my book is written by a man
so please tell me am wrong maybe i be atheist with you

1: That requires a seperate thread. If you wish to start one then go ahead. I don't have to prove a thing BTW, you do, you are making the claim of a fictional deity as real. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
2. I doubt very much that if you leave your religion in Egypt that society will be very accepting of your choice. Apostasy can land you in court in Egypt.
3. Zoon van Ijs was making a comment of religion in general, not just Islam.

 

[Hezam]

If it's a fact provide sources.
As I pointed iout in an earlier post your media is heavily censored, both printed and the internet. I sincerly doubt that you have as much access to the truth or facts as I, or anyone outside the Islamic middle east, has.

Zionism - Wikipedia

 

[Hime]

Sorry for the late reply, my time is very limited recently.

Firstly, I'm not defending myself. It is only something I have mentioned by the way. Now, I didn't want to you misunderstand and think I'm trying to threaten you or anything. Also, you should have understood what I implied: that 'scary' is relative. A person of a more stoical disposition, or indeed with any stoicism, would not find me scary in the least.

Depends on how much you do on your look, Don't you find changing the one look by surgeries and such is something extreme? I really don't want to change the topic to emos and goth.

And may I also add, I don't look like an emo or goth haha.

lol, then good for you.

You have very little privacy. Whether you feel it is violated or not is of no relevance.

good for you!!! you know how I feel without even telling you???

Also, you are not being protected as there is nothing to be protected from, so you're merely acting in accordance with whatever bollocks you are acting in accordance with. It was imposed upon you.

Seriously??
Its really funny how you like to assume things and judge how people live when you have no idea about them and their life style. If you think or "assume" that my privacy is violated then that's up to you. As for the me "the one who is concerned" I don't think that there will be any other system in the face of earth where I can be treated better and preserve my own dignity.

Really? So if you don't want to, you'll not die while attempts are made at stoning you to death (in your view unsuccessfully) because you've violated some ridiculous nonsensical teaching of a religion possessive of the same qualities?

Each system has to protect its own laws from being violated, I don't see anything wrong in punishing whoever violate a law. I think salman's post did already clarified that

How does that constitute relevant answer?

You are continuously judging others and how they live their life, don't you find this funny? How do you want me to answer you when you are assuming and supposing many things in my way of life when you know nothing about me??

Oh my, drama is upon is. Suppose that I enter a room reserved for women in a radical Islamic country in an advanced state of undress. I'd probably be put to death or something, whereas the guy in the example expressed his desire to go and kill people when the time comes and had nothing done to him.

What a comparison lol.

Just take a look at this article. Tell you what, my mates from Bahrain think that fundamentalist people together form a huge ******* joke. What can I say, your fellow Muslims facepalm at your sight.

I don't agree with such acts, and as I said before you should not generalize all Muslims by the act of some extremist of them. As for the link you provided, they have the right to protest against those who are insulting Islam but that is a wrong way to do it.
One more thing I would really suggest everyone here to keep in mind:
"Islam" is not what some Muslims do. It is what all Muslims are "supposed" to do. There are many Muslims who invent some weird acts that has nothing to do with the right way of Islam like what so called "honor killing"....this is something forbidden in Islam and the killer go no where but to hell.

Yeah, I probably have bad manners.

Thanks for admitting that!

The rest of the sane people in this thread are trying to reason with you and I will readily admit that they're much, much kinder than I am. In fact, they're kind. However, let that not fool you into believing that they're taking whatever you say seriously. Kindness and patience does not indicate accord.

I am not trying to brainwash anyone here, its up to them whether they wanna take what I am saying or not. Its a discussion not a battle. At least they are discussed things politely with good manners unlike you.
Is that you way of discussion when you are against someone?
You can disagree with someone but you gotta keep having a good manners man!!

Teenage pregnancy? Tough. As Tsuyoiko pointed it out before me, Mycernious already dispatched that claim.

Then see my replies to their posts as I dont have the time to repeat myself.

Your look is an incidence of your personality. Plus I'm sure you don't want to play the marital slot machine and end up with some hideous abomination Quasimodo would pale in comparison to.

You can meet the most beautiful woman in the world but she can be the dumbest one too. As for the marriage thingy, in Islam to-be-couples need to know each other before marriage through a proper Islamic way. Its not just pick and chose and that's it.

Is that some 'approved' Islamic psychology with the libidinous haraam bits cut out?

No, but a something experienced by females kinda many if not majority of them.

You really can't go alone? I hope that is a 'can't' as to others' approval rather than a 'can't' to your own capacity, because if it's the latter, you've presented yet another bunch of bollocks.

Depend on the place I am going to, like traveling from a country to another, I wont feel ease if I did that alone.
Lastly Derfel, I was trying to be very patient with all your insults here. If you can't talk politely then I wont be bothered replying to any further posts of yours as my time is too precious to be to be wasted in fooling around with someone like you. Please show some respect to others' beliefs. If you don't agree with anything that doesn't mean that you can blasphemy others' religion.

I did not say that all Muslims were terrorists, or that every person wearing burqa is a suicide bomber. If some person wore a mask for, say, a festival, and were asked by a security agent to remove it they would most certainly answer "sure, no problem"; but when it's a person dressed in burqa, the situation gets complicated because, while being a necessity for security reasons, removing the dress, even partially, would be contrary to that persons right to practice their religion. Thus for such a dilemma to be avoided, it would be best if there were no burqa wearing people in the first place. The situation would've been critical if there were a direct order in your book stating "thou shalt only come out to street from head to toes in black bedight", or the like

I don't see it as a problem, actually even here in UAE there are places were I have to take off my burqa like in airports, banks and such, but when its the time to check identities I just enter a special room for checking where a female officer checked my identity with the passport and then leave.
The same thing happened when I was in Heathrow airport, I asked them to get a female officer to check on me and they brought one and everything went cool. There is a solution for everything.

Fortunately for Muslims it isn't the case: there's no Koranic verse that gives the exact form of the veil, and even some liberal thinkers have argued that the practice was endemic to some particular historical circumstances that are no longer present now. In other words, a Muslim woman has the choice not to wear a veil, to wear it and show her face and hands, or to cover everything, following which interpretation she "wishes" to follow.

Some Muslim scholars support burqa some others are not. We are taking that verdict from the a Hadeeth of the wife of the prophet who said that they were covering their faces whenever they passed by men. Quran and Hadeeth are the two main sources of Shari'ah laws. Hadeeth or Sunnah is always coming to explain and detailed what the Quran stated.
And thanks a lot for your effort to translate that quote from wikipedia.

As Derfel said, this is not about you personally. If a man or woman feels insecure and wants to be accompanied, I see no harm in that. But here we're not speaking of some particular circumstances, or some person with paranoid tendencies. This is about a systematic and organized denial of a basic freedom to a category of people (women), purported by a strongly influential authority.

If we think about it, why do men don't need protection? why its only women who need that?
Men and women are not equal in strength and nature. women is the one who always need protection and want to be a accompanied. And as I said, I can go by myself to many places without any of my family men. Its only depend on the place I am going to. Why people are generalizing this?

No, that's not what I saw in the media, it was just a hypothesis, based on my readings on Islamic societies. In any society, a number of choices are given to the individual implicitly concerning almost any aspect of their life (clothing, culinary taste, etc...) which constitute norms. Anything beyond them would be considered abnormal, and depending on situations, the individual would be punished (by being ridiculed for example) for disregarding those norms. The freer the individual is, the greater the space for his creativity and talents to emancipate becomes; though at some point, freedom could turn into anarchy... my remark concerning Islamic societies (generally speaking) is that they put too many restrictions on individual freedom, and even when the government is relatively liberal, society plays the watchman role.

Even among Islamic societies you will find them differ from one another to the degree they "apply" Islamic laws. Take UAE as an example. Many many women are not wearing the face veil here and there is nothing wrong with them, you can find one family where some daughters wear the burqa while others don't.
It differs from country to another and from society to another. I know some girls who are not allowed to wear the head scarf but they wear it behind their families' back, can you believe that

Just as an example, when speaking of Heaven, the Koran mentions "beautiful virgin women" as a reward for men, but why does it never mention "beautiful virgin men" as a reward for women? Even in Heaven (assuming that such a place exists) women are treated like second class citizens...

I see this was answered by salman but here is more about it:
What will women get in paradise

Don't know if you get the meaning of visual pollution...

Yeah I knew it.

I did not decide, I simply suggested following a reasoning. I would've hoped to see your counter argument on that matter...

Its a symbol that represent the mosque. Take for example the cross in the design of the church, it is an important symbol in any church or even in its outside appearance "look at the outside design of a church, you can tell its a church without reading any board says that it is". So for Muslims to give up such thing is something not easy.

I'm not much of a TV person; I get most of the news from the Internet. But again I only objected to your use of the word "careful". How do you know that they are "careful" to "attack" Islam? In fact, with the attention your religion sparked, mainly caused by the extremist side of Islam, your can only expect it to be one of the main subjects of discussion nowadays. But this doesn't mean that:

The most accurate example I can recall now is last year when they were publishing Gazza attacks on media. I was following the events through more than one channel. BBC world was only showing only what was going on in Israel and keep repeating the same views about the injured soldiers, and when it comes to Palestinians they were only showing the ruins of houses and some very few scenes of minor injured people there. They were trying to show the world that the loses in Israel side was much sever than the other side. That was a clear injustice to be that biased, at least there should some honesty in reporting news.

2/ That those who discuss your religion would necessarily echo your preconceived idea about it. In fact, I think you should expect more criticism (and sometimes insults) than eulogy, from people belonging to alternative cultures. I know that many Muslims believe that the message of their religion is universal, but I think there are many elements suggesting the contrary, i.e. that Islam favors some cultural perspectives over other possibilities, without any clear justification...

Mind to explain more the part in bold please? or maybe offer any examples.

Again I would've hoped to see a proof of that, i.e. an explanation on how you generally proceed to hold a certain idea as true, and another as false...

Simple! Studying Quran and Sunnah and logic. I find them all complementing each other, what can be true for you can be false for me!

Any web sources?

Its something common to face problems with your family and people especially if they are strong adherents to their belief. There are many I read through my life, I cant go and pick all what I read in years but here is one I just found:
We Choose ISLAM
see the user called "Noora"

There is another site here but you will find some good and bad experiences with new converts.
Another example is an American female convert who is a close friend of mine, she had to hide her conversion from her family for some time before confronting them with reality. She still forced by her family to go with them every Sunday to church even though they know that she is not Christian anymore.

I do my best...

Thanks.
I see that the apostasy question was already answered by another member here.


@ Mycernius

I am sure you misunderstood this part of all human are born Muslims.

First, in Arabic when we say Muslim, this is not a word only for a person who is following Islam. (Muslim, Islam) are words derived from the verb "Yuslim" or "Sa-la-ma" which means to submit.
So the word Muslim literally means the one who submit. Islam as a noun means submission. So, when we say I am a Muslim in a religious term of use that means I am submitting to God who is one and only. And when we say that all the humanity are born Muslims that means that they are all submitting to one God because God created them with that instinct of believing in the oneness of God who is the creator of the heavens and the earth.
I see many people don't know that these word "Islam, Muslim, Yuslim" is a word that only express a religion. That's why we sometimes called those who convert to Islam as Reverts because they didn't really convert rather than return back to their original instinct that Allah created them upon.

Hope that helped

 

[mohamed]

1: That requires a seperate thread. If you wish to start one then go ahead. I don't have to prove a thing BTW, you do, you are making the claim of a fictional deity as real. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
2. I doubt very much that if you leave your religion in Egypt that society will be very accepting of your choice. Apostasy can land you in court in Egypt.
3. Zoon van Ijs was making a comment of religion in general, not just Islam.

Dear brother
I'm both ends of the death and I want to tell the truth, and you did not tell me anything to substantiate your words so please understand me well
I do not want sharp debate I want to talk we are located and wish the best for each other.
-and if our society wan't to Apostasy . i think we was will see that even in the internet
and web site and there's many way's to do wan't you wan't