Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequ

Page 1 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

06 Nov 2015, 11:49 am

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Pickthall4:34
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,

Every moral legal system I know of in the West and most of the non-Islamic world begins with equality for all.

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Check the value of a Muslim woman, according to some Muslim men, at the 8 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbTATkLntBU

Regards
DL



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

07 Nov 2015, 5:56 am

I don't think that anyone should be made to accept anyone's views.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

07 Nov 2015, 7:44 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
I don't think that anyone should be made to accept anyone's views.


So you think that all Muslims in your country should be allowed to use Sharia law and not the law of your land.

Do I have that right?

Regards
DL



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

07 Nov 2015, 8:18 pm

Folks in Finland speak Finnish. Therefore the whole world should adopt the Finnish language.

Is that your logic?

You're saying that "Islam dictates X", and then you ask "should the rest of the World adopt X?"

But you skipped over the part where you explain what the fact that Islam dictates X has to do with whether, or not we adopt X.

So Muslims practice X. So what?



MonsterCrack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Age: 25
Posts: 735
Location: John's Creek, Georgia

07 Nov 2015, 8:29 pm

Islam was actually very unusually liberal in the rights of women, for its time. Compare it to Judaism for instance.... Judaism said a woman can not get an inheritance if she has brothers, whereas Islam says a woman gets the half inheritance but does not have to share a single penny, whereas a man has to share it equally among his family members. Sure, a woman's testimony was half of a man's, but that is FAR better than no testimony.... Woman also have the right to divorce in Islam, and the right to be active in the community... contrary to popular belief, in the early history of Islam, including in the Prophet (AS)'s time, women were active in the community, and the veil was a pre-Islamic custom which was only enforced later..... But the headscarf, yes, that was always required. Woman also have the right to choose their marriage partners, to drive (contrary to what the saudis think, women rode camels back in Muhammad's day, as shown by stories of his wife A'isha riding a camel), to work, etc.



MonsterCrack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Age: 25
Posts: 735
Location: John's Creek, Georgia

07 Nov 2015, 8:30 pm

and until the 1920s, women did not even have the right to vote in the USA, and were withheld many other rights for much longer, so I'd hardly say the Western legal system "starts" with "freedom and equality for all"



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

08 Nov 2015, 12:00 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
I don't think that anyone should be made to accept anyone's views.


So you think that all Muslims in your country should be allowed to use Sharia law and not the law of your land.

Do I have that right?

Regards
DL


GB where did I say that? Seriously WTF?

You can only have one law of the land.

Also the principle rights is one person's rights cannot supersede another's. I have made whole posts on the principle of rights and why there are few fundamental rights for that very reason and explained the differnce between fundamental, derivative and non-fundamental/pseudo-rights.

So completely the opposite of what you are saying. My statement stands: nobody should be made to believe anything, it is very straightforward. This has nothing to do with quasi-judicial courts..



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,459

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

08 Nov 2015, 12:36 pm

MonsterCrack wrote:
and until the 1920s, women did not even have the right to vote in the USA, and were withheld many other rights for much longer, so I'd hardly say the Western legal system "starts" with "freedom and equality for all"


Which is all the more reason not to want something more backwards than that. Again there has to actually be mechanism for improvement, Sharia lacks this.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 8:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Folks in Finland speak Finnish. Therefore the whole world should adopt the Finnish language.

Is that your logic?

You're saying that "Islam dictates X", and then you ask "should the rest of the World adopt X?"

But you skipped over the part where you explain what the fact that Islam dictates X has to do with whether, or not we adopt X.

So Muslims practice X. So what?


No. No. Reverse everything you said and you will be closer.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 9:00 pm

MonsterCrack wrote:
Islam was actually very unusually liberal in the rights of women, for its time. Compare it to Judaism for instance.... Judaism said a woman can not get an inheritance if she has brothers, whereas Islam says a woman gets the half inheritance but does not have to share a single penny, whereas a man has to share it equally among his family members. Sure, a woman's testimony was half of a man's, but that is FAR better than no testimony.... Woman also have the right to divorce in Islam, and the right to be active in the community... contrary to popular belief, in the early history of Islam, including in the Prophet (AS)'s time, women were active in the community, and the veil was a pre-Islamic custom which was only enforced later..... But the headscarf, yes, that was always required. Woman also have the right to choose their marriage partners, to drive (contrary to what the saudis think, women rode camels back in Muhammad's day, as shown by stories of his wife A'isha riding a camel), to work, etc.


What they were is still around in some of the sects but not enough of them.

I am not sure why you spoke of Jewish law that no longer applies.

They moved on and so should Shari.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 9:04 pm

MonsterCrack wrote:
and until the 1920s, women did not even have the right to vote in the USA, and were withheld many other rights for much longer, so I'd hardly say the Western legal system "starts" with "freedom and equality for all"


You are kind of young to live in the past.

Sure, the West is not perfect yet but compared to Sharia, our laws are a thing of beauty.

Note how immigration is East to West and how few go West to East.

Law is why.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 9:11 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
I don't think that anyone should be made to accept anyone's views.


So you think that all Muslims in your country should be allowed to use Sharia law and not the law of your land.

Do I have that right?

Regards
DL


GB where did I say that? Seriously WTF?

You can only have one law of the land.

Also the principle rights is one person's rights cannot supersede another's. I have made whole posts on the principle of rights and why there are few fundamental rights for that very reason and explained the differnce between fundamental, derivative and non-fundamental/pseudo-rights.

So completely the opposite of what you are saying. My statement stands: nobody should be made to believe anything, it is very straightforward. This has nothing to do with quasi-judicial courts..


You have a mind block.

Note.

"I don't think that anyone should be made to accept anyone's views."

Translates to.

I don't think that anyone, Muslims in this case, should be made to accept anyone's views, like the laws of the host country.

You are saying that the no go zones that Muslims are creating in some countries should be allowed.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 9:14 pm

traven wrote:


Just what do you think we are supposed to get from that garbage?

Regards
DL



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

08 Nov 2015, 9:24 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Folks in Finland speak Finnish. Therefore the whole world should adopt the Finnish language.

Is that your logic?

You're saying that "Islam dictates X", and then you ask "should the rest of the World adopt X?"

But you skipped over the part where you explain what the fact that Islam dictates X has to do with whether, or not we adopt X.

So Muslims practice X. So what?


I had already tried it that way."We dont practice X, and the Muslims do. So therefore the Muslims should adopt our habit of not practicing X, and conform to our way of doing stuff." Why should either group adopt the culture trait of the other? You give no reason to run the equation either way.

No. No. Reverse everything you said and you will be closer.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

08 Nov 2015, 10:08 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Folks in Finland speak Finnish. Therefore the whole world should adopt the Finnish language.

Is that your logic?

You're saying that "Islam dictates X", and then you ask "should the rest of the World adopt X?"

But you skipped over the part where you explain what the fact that Islam dictates X has to do with whether, or not we adopt X.

So Muslims practice X. So what?


I had already tried it that way."We dont practice X, and the Muslims do. So therefore the Muslims should adopt our habit of not practicing X, and conform to our way of doing stuff." Why should either group adopt the culture trait of the other? You give no reason to run the equation either way.

No. No. Reverse everything you said and you will be closer.

Regards
DL


I guess that x is just wrong.

Regards
DL