How Christians would be treated under Sharia!

reply to post by maes2


My apologies. I didn't mean to short you. or ignore this post, but it is a long, involved, complex post that I will have to consider a while before making a response to it. I'll get to it after some more thought.

Originally posted by logical7

giving the right to a woman to divorce like a man makes me picture a divorce every PMS!!
Not saying a man cant be emotionally unstable and do that too. Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a judge and demand it with a good reason for it.
Equality doesnt always mean similarity. Men and Women are equal, but not similar, neither physically, emotionally, psychologically nor spiritually. And a law which doesnt acknowledge that is being unjust to either one or both.

edit on 7-12-2012 by logical7 because: (no reason given)

I just wanted to revisit this reply briefly during a review of the discussion.

I'm told that in Islam, a woman's right to divorce must be specified in the marriage contract, or it doesn't exist. let's assume for the sake of the argument that I am a Christian male, and further that I am married to a Muslim woman. Also, for the sake of the discussion, let's assume that she failed to ask for the right of divorce in the contract, either intentionally or negligently.

Now, if I'm a man who likes to have peace in his own life, and she were to become dissatisfied and unhappy, would it be in my best interest to hold her to the contract, and live out my days in misery with an unhappy wife? Of course not. In a case like that, I would apply for the divorce myself if she couldn't, set her free and send her off with her mahr to live happily ever after. Life is too short to stay in miserable relationships. Trust me on that - I stayed in too many of them for far too long, since Christianity doesn't allow for divorce at all, either by the man OR the woman, except in cases of infidelity.

I decided Christianity was the problem there. I wouldn't force my wife to reach that decision concerning Islam. It would be a breach of the contract on my part, failing to support her in her religious observations, and forcing her to stay in an unhappy situation. That would make MY life a living hell, and I'm not about to do that again!

Originally posted by maes2

Islam says women and men are equal because of their humanity but they are different because they have special roles as a woman and a man in the scope of family. so family is the most important part of a society in Islam.

And family is the most important, most basic building block of society in Christianity as well. Don't mistake the cultural differences (ex.: women working outside the home) in western society for religious differences.

Feminism says men and women are similar. and even worse because of patriarchal experiences in the west and or east (which I do not ignore that) they think that men are superior so women should be like men to be superior ! and there is always a conflict between two genders.
however evidences show that feminism itself occurred in a patriarchal context. so that the industrial revolution could benefit from cheap workers from females.

Feminism is a support structure for western bankers and industrialists. It's not a religious more, and indeed is not tolerated well by many Christians. Feminists don't actually believe men are superior, that's just an impression they foster in order to gain more converts to support their industrialist masters.

when bedouin arabs were buring their girls alive just because of their gender and women were just toys in the Medieval and in many countries. Islam came to recognize women rights of education, inheritance, economic independence.

Education? Like the girl recently shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting to get an education? You see, even in Islam some people will forsake their religion in order to enforce a "morality" contrary to it, a social custom having nothing to do with the religion. Even worse, they will try to mask that it IS only a social/cultural custom by trying to hide it behind their religion. No religion is immune to that when greedy and power-hungry people grab the reins.

Christianity is no different - it gives rights to women which the cultural environment and people who seek after power will try to take away. For an example of the rights and responsibilities the religion itself gives to women, see the description of "The Virtuous Wife" found in Proverbs chapter 31 of the Bible. Anything less than that is not of the religion, it's of the cultural environment.

God gave the prophet of Islam a girl (Fatima) who was respected by him a lot. and she would participate in social issues but with coordinates of Sharia law. even Islam gave a right to women for some sort of voting what arabs would call it homage. so no one can believe that Islam is patriarchal.

ALL of the Abrahamic religions are seen as patriarchal, because of the patriarchal culture they stem from, even though the religions themselves are not. People are failing to make the distinction between culture and religion.

Sharia law is a pack. people can not pick out a small part and judge about that. Islam is an improved ideology which it should consider all the people in the world from centuries ago to now. so there are some general laws based on default assumptions. however as a religion it is far more than just some laws. and it is coincident with the realities of this limited world.

I'm not entirely a stranger to Sharia law, but I AM usually confused by it. There are so many different rulings and opinions, sometimes contrary to one another, that it can be a real mess to navigate, and the degree of micromanagement is beyond belief. Seriously -the size and shape of the body of water to be drawn from for purifiaction? Is not the purification itself the important part?

Because of that conflict, confusion, micromanagement, and the fact that one can find nearly any opinion he likes if he just searches long enough and for the right jurist to give the opinion he wants, I have to confess to being thoroughly confused when delving into Sharia.

for example one may say why men can marry four women but women can not !?

Basic biology - one man can impregnate several women concurrently, but one woman can only be pregnant by one man at a time. if large families are desired to lighten the workload, it makes biological sense.

HOWEVER - I have always maintained personally, and still believe, that any man who thinks he can handle more than one woman at a time is an idiot. Get several women all under the same roof, and it's like trying to herd cats. Yes, I have, and no, I never will again. I'm older and wiser now!

... and females have no duty regarding the economy of the family. and even regarding housekeeping or even nursing the child ! however they have financial independence and they can spend their money anyhow they want.

Not too dissimilar for Christians, other than that women DO have an obligation regarding the economy of the family in Christianity - it's just a different obligation than men have. See the above mentioned Proverbs 31 for explanation. Property ownership and personal money are also rights of women under Christianity - although I've been recently told (by a Muslim) that they aren't...

one may say why muslim women can not marry non_muslims but the men can. however there is a little difference between sects but that is because Islam considers family a society and every society needs a leader by default men are considered the leader of families in Islam.

But until the marriage is made, there IS no family to lead! It's the making of the marriage itself, how that comes about and what is "allowed", that I believe needs some serious review.

this is for religious individuals so if one really wants to marry non_muslims she can convert.

That's true enough, but then it's Islam itself failing to guard her religion, rather than her chosen husband who might otherwise have guarded her religion with his very life. Do you not see the problem there? Then there is also that pesky problem of taking the chance of being under the threat of death for leaving Islam. Don't even try to tell me that doesn't happen, or quote the Qur'an about how there is "no compulsion in religion". I've seen it myself, first hand. the threat is real, and does exist.

and it is said that minorities are dhimmitudes in Iran. no world has changed. nowadays nationality is an identity so they are not dhimmitudes, they are Iranians. all of them should participate in wars and defense and governing issues so they should not pay Jazya.

That is very forward thinking, and I commend you for it!

Originally posted by nenothtu
And family is the most important, most basic building block of society in Christianity as well. Don't mistake the cultural differences (ex.: women working outside the home) in western society for religious differences.

surely I did not mean that Christianity or Judaism themselves were or are the problems. none of them can be cruel or patriarchal because all of them are emanated from one source. by Medieval I meant the culture of that time not the manner of Jesus or Moses. but we know that the concept of women rights in the renaissance lasts about one century or so while Islam declared it long time ago. I think still Islam is an unknown world even among muslims !

Education? Like the girl recently shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting to get an education? You see, even in Islam some people will forsake their religion in order to enforce a "morality" contrary to it, a social custom having nothing to do with the religion. Even worse, they will try to mask that it IS only a social/cultural custom by trying to hide it behind their religion. No religion is immune to that when greedy and power-hungry people grab the reins.

yes that is sad. those blinded radicals have been living among nations throughout history they have been the toy of their bosses. radicalism is unnaturally spreading throughout the world and especially in the middle east.
one of the role of islamists radicals is to show wrong Islam or to pretend that there are war between sects.
we have experienced such games a lot.

I'm not entirely a stranger to Sharia law, but I AM usually confused by it.

yes unfortunately this is true.
for example the fact that female judges can not pass the final sentence in Iran is because of their own preference because they are not sure about Sharia. some jurists say it is allowed others say it is not allowed !
there are many false narrations in the muslim books and there are some obscured verses in the Quran so a person should be a expert to find out the truth. I think this is why those blinded radicals are deceived very easily because they always trust the corrupted jurists those who translate and comment about Koran upside down.
they do not pay attention that what they are doing is contrary to the soul of religions so how can a religion has a law contrary to it's aim !

Not too dissimilar for Christians, other than that women DO have an obligation regarding the economy of the family in Christianity

well may be this is why they think that Islam recognizes a right for men without any duty for them. but it is logical that rights and duties lead to a division of labor fairly but in practice man and woman do it consensually within the family and they are free to do it. for example women are allowed to work outside because society needs them but this is the governments which should pass laws to help women be better mothers so that family remains firm.

you mentioned that a muslim woman can not marry a non muslim man well this is a truth and it seems that it has no solution unless conversion. who knows maybe this is a trap to make men who fall in love with a religious muslim woman to convert to Islam because the religious muslim girl would not convert to Christianity and usually men fall in love with women .anyhow many people do not care about religions.
moreover it is a little odd because people with the same ideology have many problems when they marry each other let alone when they have different ideologies. however as Islam assumes that men are the leader of the family by default so they permit that however there are some Shia jurists who thinks forbidden for men as well.

and about conversion I am sure there is a big difference between an apostate and a person who really wants to convert.
yes some radical muslims simply kill people because of conversion or simply stone people because of adultery but again they do not pay attention that these are contrary to the soul of monotheistic religions.
I have not forgotten how Khomeini sentenced Rushdi to death because of being an apostate but conversion is not impossible according to laws in Iran. but it is a long process. moreover you should tolerate people who will be starring at you and they are surprised and preaching you not to do that !

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Moslems revere Jesus/Isa the true prophet of the God Most High.
Jews hunted down and killed Christ and His Apostles, later perverting His message by grafting early Christianity onto Judaic beliefs between the 2nd to 4th centuries A.D.

Jesus is God, not just some prophet. I have been vilified online for stating that, by almost every Muslim that responded. Not all - ONE did not. Most, though, were quite rude.

Jesus was also Jewish. And, no, the Jews didn't kill Him. I did that; my sin is what He died for. He chose to die, that we could live, because He loves us that much. The first Christians were Jewish, so there was no "grafting" of beliefs, save grafting us non-Jewish believers onto His blessing.

I do understand how you believe He was a prophet. You have the right to believe as you wish, too. Simply stating what I believe, and that my belief will never change. I know my Savior. Can't deny Him.

All of our stated beliefs, though, don't address the violence in the link I posted. Yes, I do understand that not all Muslims support that. My husband, while deployed, worked with many very peaceful people, that were as appalled as we are by the violence of some. Perhaps more peaceful Muslims can speak up, and stand against the radical ones? They do no one any good.

It goes both ways, though.

What have you done to combat christian extremism, exactly?

All religion, it seems, has its mega-crazies, and it doesn't seem like anyone is doing enough to defend the sanctity of their religion rather than simply justifying their own beliefs socially in an attempt to validate themselves rather than the public impression of their entire belief system. It's definitely not a Muslim-specific problem.

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Moslems revere Jesus/Isa the true prophet of the God Most High.
Jews hunted down and killed Christ and His Apostles, later perverting His message by grafting early Christianity onto Judaic beliefs between the 2nd to 4th centuries A.D.

Jesus is God, not just some prophet. I have been vilified online for stating that, by almost every Muslim that responded. Not all - ONE did not. Most, though, were quite rude.

Jesus was also Jewish. And, no, the Jews didn't kill Him. I did that; my sin is what He died for. He chose to die, that we could live, because He loves us that much. The first Christians were Jewish, so there was no "grafting" of beliefs, save grafting us non-Jewish believers onto His blessing.

I do understand how you believe He was a prophet. You have the right to believe as you wish, too. Simply stating what I believe, and that my belief will never change. I know my Savior. Can't deny Him.

All of our stated beliefs, though, don't address the violence in the link I posted. Yes, I do understand that not all Muslims support that. My husband, while deployed, worked with many very peaceful people, that were as appalled as we are by the violence of some. Perhaps more peaceful Muslims can speak up, and stand against the radical ones? They do no one any good.

It goes both ways, though.

What have you done to combat christian extremism, exactly?

All religion, it seems, has its mega-crazies, and it doesn't seem like anyone is doing enough to defend the sanctity of their religion rather than simply justifying their own beliefs socially in an attempt to validate themselves rather than the public impression of their entire belief system. It's definitely not a Muslim-specific problem.

What "Christian extremism" is that, exactly? I don't know of any. I know of a cult (NOT Christian, and certainly NOT Baptist, though they claim that title) who do really stupid things, and I have denounced them and their actions at every turn. That's basically a single, extended family, though. I certainly don't see Christians running around burning down homes, or killing other people, or calling for the death of all non-Christians, or flying planes into buildings, attacking embassies, schools, nightclubs, subways, etc. If I saw those things, I would condemn them.

Merry Christmas muslims.. Praying for ya that you find Jesus our saviour

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
What "Christian extremism" is that, exactly? I don't know of any. I know of a cult (NOT Christian, and certainly NOT Baptist, though they claim that title) who do really stupid things, and I have denounced them and their actions at every turn. That's basically a single, extended family, though.

You can call it a cult, but it is most certainly a form of Christianity whether you reject the reality of the semantics or not. Many Muslims would also refer to HAMAS or The Taliban as "cults" of sorts. Yet, here you reference them under the general structure of the entire religion?

I believe my question was "HOW", not "ARE YOU", in any fashion.

I certainly don't see Christians running around burning down homes

If scripture had suggested it was was of the faith, it would be heard of a lot more. Mohammed was a conqueror, and some Muslim people interpret that as something that they should be doing. Again, it's not Islam's fault, it's religion in general and its capacity to make people commit ridiculous acts of violence and hatred. Remember, for the overwhelming majority it is an ideology that they inherit from their parents and their culture.

or killing other people

.......Wow. Okay.

Christians burning people alive

The Holocaust

Uganda

Rwanda Genocide

or flying planes into buildings

That depends on who you believe was responsible for 9/11, now, doesn't it?

If I saw those things, I would condemn them.

If you were really looking, you might find more.

Also, would I be correct to assume that this condemnation would be either personally or on a certain online conspiracy forum to farm stars for social currency from people who already agree with you?

Originally posted by rigel4
Merry Christmas muslims.. Praying for ya that you find Jesus our saviour

Islam has it's own Jesus - Muslims are not allowed to have "yours"... they wouldn't be Muslims if they did, now would they?

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

I certainly don't see Christians running around burning down homes

If scripture had suggested it was was of the faith, it would be heard of a lot more.

Yeah, what he said!

Wait... WHAT?

"IF scripture suggested it was of the faith"? Isn't that a bit like saying "IF frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground", since in both cases you make a an argument based upon something that is not, and does not exist, simply by inserting a 'what if...' ?

There is a name for an argument of that nature, but that name escapes me at the moment...

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

I certainly don't see Christians running around burning down homes

If scripture had suggested it was was of the faith, it would be heard of a lot more.

Yeah, what he said!

Wait... WHAT?

"IF scripture suggested it was of the faith"? Isn't that a bit like saying "IF frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground", since in both cases you make a an argument based upon something that is not, and does not exist, simply by inserting a 'what if...' ?

There is a name for an argument of that nature, but that name escapes me at the moment...

The "What if" is crucial, though. As I said, most people are born into the religion that they subscribe to. If your parents were part of a religion that did suggest such things, you would be very likely to follow it as well.

You codemn the "what ifs" as if they're terrible things to think. As if perspective is a demon in my head. Come on, now.

It's not an argument in defense of Islam; Islam causes many people to do terrible things -- Christianity also causes many people to do terrible things.

It's not Islam's fault, and it's not Christianity's fault. It's humanity's fault for believing in them to an extent that they can use it as a justification to do horrible things when they can find any vague permit in their scriptures to do so. Being religious should be private and constructive; not public and destructive.

reply to post by LightOrange


But the problem is, The argument for what Christians MIGHT do is based on a faulty premise - it's entirely based upon a "what if" that isn't. Sure, they might do those things IF their Book taught them to, but it doesn't, so the point is moot.

I have no problem with arguments in defense of Islam, or against it. Likewise, I have no problems with arguments in defense of Christianity, or against it. I just prefer the arguments to be based upon sound premises. neither Islam nor Christianity "cause many people to do terrible things". Their own greed, and their own lust for power cause many people to do terrible things. Their religions do not. Problems arise when these greedy and power-mad people re-interpret their religions to mean what they want them to mean, in support of their own agendas, not what the religions themselves teach.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by LightOrange

 

neither Islam nor Christianity "cause many people to do terrible things". Their own greed, and their own lust for power cause many people to do terrible things. Their religions do not. Problems arise when these greedy and power-mad people re-interpret their religions to mean what they want them to mean, in support of their own agendas, not what the religions themselves teach.

I'm sorry but you're very wrong. Nobody without religion would think "I want to blow myself up to kill someone else"; why wouldn't they just kill the other person without taking their own life? Wouldn't that be more greedy or selfish? It is because the religion exists and makes it seem righteous or modest to them. Yes, people absolutely do use religion for their own interests, and that's obvious. The religions are not at fault because a man-made idea cannot be at fault. It's still the fault of the people, but if the religion was not there then these ridiculous thoughts and actions and indoctrinations would absolutely never have come to be in the first place.

Muslims are a very small minority population in North America and not much bigger in Europe. No one will be going under SHARIA. We'd be packing clubs and bearspray, walking in gangs and wearing whatever we wanted, and our police wage given to those we hand select if our governments try pulling a COUP.

reply to post by LightOrange

you think that if there were no religions world would be better. but there are many wars that religions have no roles in them. for example Hitler killed people because he claimed that there were still not evoluted monkeys among humanity according to Darwinism !!!!
so elites are solely after excuses and a way to justify their actions. however Capitalism, Humanism, Darwinism and ... are all religions.
Moses stood against corrupted Pharaohs and Jesus stood against corrupted leaders of the tribe Israel and ....
then I consider the real monotheistic religions a threat to elites.

reply to post by LightOrange


That's like saying that teeth cause you to overeat. Teeth don't cause it - they're just there. The individual's own greed is what causes it. The fault lies within the person doing the action, and not any other thing they want to blame it on to shunt responsibility away from themselves, where it properly belongs.

People may use their teeth - or their religion - to perform improper actions, but that is not the fault of the tools they use, and if those tools were not available, they would find another to replace them with, because their greed drives them. In other words, if religions were not there, you would be arguing against some other justification that people use to do evil, SSDD.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by LightOrange

 

That's like saying that teeth cause you to overeat. Teeth don't cause it - they're just there. The individual's own greed is what causes it. The fault lies within the person doing the action, and not any other thing they want to blame it on to shunt responsibility away from themselves, where it properly belongs.

People may use their teeth - or their religion - to perform improper actions, but that is not the fault of the tools they use, and if those tools were not available, they would find another to replace them with, because their greed drives them. In other words, if religions were not there, you would be arguing against some other justification that people use to do evil, SSDD.

edit on 2012/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

It's not really relative at all as I see it, and for a number of reasons.

Your teeth are natural and used by the body to help digest food. This is factual and provable.

Religion is not natural and the claims that it is are not factual or provable by any means.

If you wanted to make a good analogy with overeating, it would be more intelligent to compare it to a misleading advertisement that plays at every commercial break on every network that says "eating more meat renders more protein in your body which is necessary for muscle development". It would be comparable for me to say "if the ad was never there, people wouldn't be eating 25 cheeseburgers in one day".

If you wanted to make a good analogy concerning the teeth, you could say that if all of your teeth are infected, they should be removed. Some of the teeth are more infected than others, but they are all infected and eventually they are all going to cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by LightOrange

 

you think that if there were no religions world would be better. but there are many wars that religions have no roles in them. for example Hitler killed people because he claimed that there were still not evoluted monkeys among humanity according to Darwinism !!!!
so elites are solely after excuses and a way to justify their actions. however Capitalism, Humanism, Darwinism and ... are all religions.
Moses stood against corrupted Pharaohs and Jesus stood against corrupted leaders of the tribe Israel and ....
then I consider the real monotheistic religions a threat to elites.

Most wars in history have nothing to do with religion; more than 60% of them. However, modern wars -- those which have taken place in the past 20 years -- 80% of them are religious.

Your assertion that Hitler was somehow atheistic or secular is completely false. He was catholic. Here is the belt buckle worn by the Nazis:



The translation is "God With Us".

Prayers were said for Hitler every day on his birthday by order of The Church. I could go into more detail, but I feel like I should just "hitchslap" it:

Hitchens on Hitler

reply to post by LightOrange


Of course it's relevant. Religion exists. I can step outside and see a church. I can walk a couple miles and find several more. Religion happens in each and every one of them.

I have to walk a few more miles to find a mosque, but they are there.

In a way, you are correct in saying it's not verifiable, because nothing can be verified to those who reject the verification. However, if it cannot be verified, it cannot be proven to exist. How then can something which does not exist force people to do actions contrary to their own natures? For you to say "religion makes people do bad things" is not so very different from a Christian who says "the Devil made me do it". In both cases something that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of is being blamed for having performed and action and exerted an influence.

How does a non-existent entity make anyone do anything which they would not have done on their own?

Originally posted by nenothtu

How does a non-existent entity make anyone do anything which they would not have done on their own?

Dogma.

How else would any human being come to the belief that somehow blowing yourself up in an orphanage is a good thing? How else would any human being come to the belief that somehow sawing at an infant's genitalia with a rock to remove the foreskin is a good thing? How else any human being come to the belief that throwing acid on your daughter's face is an act of honor to your family?

Religion most certainly exists... but it's not verifiable, and therefore the means of the sometimes treacherous ends seem rather non-existent, yes. That doesn't mean the religion itself is non-existent, and that it creates problems in regards to not only ethics and moral standards, but human life in general and greater human intelligence as a whole.