Tell the truth about Islam!

Post Reply New Topic

no, whether it is sanctioned is frankly irrelevant if the results are the same.

the results are the same. an institution is easier to target but both examples should be fought equally. it seems as though people find it uncomfortable to confront the wrongs that exist within our greater society.

Islam is overtly regressive toward women. I'm not sure you want to be defending that aspect of it. There is even a bit where it requires two women in court to equal the word of one man. Because women are forgetful and need help from each other to sort things out.

A muslim will say, and ive had this discussion many times, that it's not unequal treatment, it's simply equal in different ways. Or they'll say that it's equality within the context that god put man in charge and each have specific roles. It's word salad tbh.

Of course some muslims, like christians, will just ignore passages they don't like. There is a debate over whether the physical correction of a woman amounts to a light symbolic tap to say, "im in charge here", or whether it's a slap, or whether it's a beating.

Last edited by simon_says on 20 Mar 2012, 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The trouble is that its very hard to "fight" and confront individuals. In another thread it was spoken about the fact that people tend to get a more negative view of a woman who negotiates roughly than a man that does the same. This view was shared amongst both women and men, how does one confront this? If the law said that this should be the case or it was mandated in the policy of a company it would be much easier to confront.

Furthermore, there is much more room for something being misconstrued in interaction between individuals than in the case of an institution.

On a non discussion related comment, I always found it funny that the same women who often want equality, won't sleep with a guy who doesn't pay on dates. This is not a scientific claim, just an observation.

Deleted.

Last edited by smudge on 20 Mar 2012, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Far left says socialism/communism in the political spectrum, neither of which encourage religious people

I agree with this statement

TM, there are ways we are working to fight non-institutionalised sexism and violence against women, but interestingly many of the people who are o-so-concerned for Islamic women have no support at all for the movement that is working to change these things for women in their own backyard. very ironic.

There is a difference between socialism/communism and the far left. I'm on the far left socially but I'm also quite a fan of capitalism. I'm not the only one like that. There is also the fact that multiple Socialist countries have state churches. How is having everyone in the country pay a church tax not encouraging religious people? Denmark is fairly socialist, they also have a blasphemy law, so does Greece which has been run by the socialist party more or less since the Colonels were dethroned. There are countless examples to draw from here.

None of those places really classify as "far left". My views are probably similar to yours but I do not consider myself far left. North Korea is pretty far left. So are a lot of militant organizations.

In my case, the lack of support stems from a disillusion with the broad feminist movement. I still support gender equality, within a freedom principle. Meaning that everyone should have access to the same opportunities regardless of gender and be able to chose between them freely. It means that the best qualified person should get the job and that the couple themselves should be allowed to decide how to handle things like maternity leave meaning that they can freely divide the majority of it between them as they desire. It means that a persons pay should be based on that persons value to the company regardless of gender and quite a few other things.

I don't classify just left-right. I classify authoritarian and liberal as well, so Stalin is left wing authoritarian, whereas Denmark is left wing liberal.

I wouldn't watch too much Pat Condell if I were you. Like all polemicists, he is a very lazy thinker, and he is an expert at using rhetoric to make you think that he has avoided a problem with his worldview when in fact he hasn't. Also, he's not really a humanist, he's just a shill for Israel.

It's true that there is a big correlation between holding regressive views and being Muslim. But it's nonsensical to say that Islam causes these regressive views. As Condell says in the video, Christianity used to be just as terrible. Well then, did Christianity "cause" regressive views, whereas now Christianity "causes" less regressive views? Nope, it's because the attitudes of Christians changed for other reasons, and then Christianity was forced to change along with it.

Religion is not nearly as causal as people think. Notice how people nearly always think that God has the same opinions that they have? It's because, even in Islam, people just do whatever feels right to them and reinvent the religion to suit their own prejudices.

Can you imagine a world in which the places of Christianity and Islam are reversed, where Muslims constantly refer to the nice verses in the Koran and ignore the terrible ones, and where Christians constantly refer to the terrible verses in the Bible and ignore the nice ones? I can. If you can too, then Condell is clearly talking nonsense.

That's because in the vast majority of christian countries there is separation of church and state.

http://www.thenationalstudent.com/Features/2012-03-14/ive_met_some_very_aggressive_Christian_evangelicals.html

The same religion can be used to support positive actions for the group as a whole, or to support the natural tendencies of a human being to exercise reproductive control. Religion can be used as a tool to motivate most any human behavior, but it is not the root cause of the battle between the sexes for reproductive control.

The difference in Muslim countries and countries like the US, is there is an attempt to separate church from state, and there are laws that support egalitarianism and legal rights of women to reproductive control.

The egalitarian ways of life in the west, are a threat to the reproductive control practiced by the patriarchal countries of the middle east.

Per the link above the Qur' an by itelf does not promote the injustices suffered by women in the countries by those whom practice the religion.

There is an underlying biological battle between the sexes for reproductive control that is evidenced in primates, as well as the rest of the animal kingdom.

Humans aren't immune to this biological battle. Religion, culture, and laws are used as tools to enforce the power for reproductive control.

Physicality is no longer as dominant a force as it once was among human beings.


The Qur' an does not provide the laws for violence against women in the middle east. The laws as established, and promoted in those countries in the name of religion do this. If an individual does this type of thing in the US, in the name of their religion, they face the consequences of a different set of laws, in a different civilization.

The tool of religion is not as effective without the tool of legal enforcement.

There are those in the US in Arizona and Kansas that want to take away a women's right to prenatal testing, to limit their reproductive control. While separation of Church and state is part of our legal system, religion in the US still plays a huge part as a tool in support of the ongoing battle between the sexes for reproductive control.

The tool of religion could be the ultimate deciding factor in this political/legal decision, regardless of separation of church and state.

As long as human beings are animals, that fight for reproductive control is always going to exist, regardless of religion, culture, or the laws of civilization. It is powerful enough to fuel a nuclear terrorist attack.

Most all elaborate conventions of religion/culture/civilization have the same common elements; tools used to control resources whether they are related to subsistence, territory, or reproduction. Religion is one of these tools, but it is evident that it is not the root cause for any of this.


Close to 140 million women are subjected to Female Genital Mutilation; it serves the same ultimate purpose; reproductive control.

It is practiced among those that practice many different religions, but the practice is not necessarily specific to religious requirements, in fact it has evolved into a process that is controlled by women in some cultures and respected as a tradition that places a women in a higher place of authority, and also not considered as a violent act against women, in those cultures.

But regardless of the cultural or religious reasons that have been developed to justify the practice, the underlying cause for the practice is the human animal nature that struggles for reproductive control, whether it is the battle between the sexes, or a method to control population when resources are scarce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Thats how it shoiuld be in every country