One American Muslim’s reflection on the 4th of July celebration

[Osomir]

Haha, an islamist would consider majority of the muslims in this country "heretics", just like how a devoted catholic would do so for the christian majority in this country. But that doesn't mean anybody who has a personal jesus have to come out and claim they are apostles, does it?

I have never been a proper muslim, but I had to look like one.

In an islam state, you have 2 options, either be a proper muslim, or act like one.

Take ahmadiyya muslims in Pakistan, their story is heart breaking and shows the whole world what happens to you if you are not a proper muslim in an islam state. They are not considered as citizens so they can not vote, they don't get passports so they can not run away either. And they get MURDERED from left and right and nobody cares. They asked Pakistani muslims, "who you like to have as a neighbor", and interestingly, Pakistani muslims apparently can tolerate christians and jews and buddhists, but not ahmadiyya muslims.

So the reason islam is not bothering you, because you have never been a part of it.

You didn't answer my question. If Islam has to be the way you claim it does then how can people who don't practice that way still consider themselves Muslims? If they were truly running away from ISLAM itself then why would they continue to practice their religion in their own way after making good on their escape?

There are shit load of Iranians in this country who put their sheets aside when they made it to the US. You can ask them, why they still muslim and they condemn the islamic regime because they were pushing the hijab, which is written in the koran that woman should be wearing. Or ask the wive(s) of Saudi sheiks putting their hijab aside as soon as they land on an airport in a western state.

This alone shows you islam is not just a religion but all together an institution with rules, and very brutal and strict ones too.

I am not a muslim (anymore) so I can not answer to this question you repeatedly asking.

My point, they should not call themselves muslims. But they do. This is what you don't want to realize, reality doesn't fit logic, because your logic extends as much as your knowledge does, in which is not too far in this subject.

So essentially your entire argument boils down to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Got it.

I suppose you also think Christians who wear clothing of two or more different fabric types aren't real Christians either.

 

[alpine]

You didn't answer my question. If Islam has to be the way you claim it does then how can people who don't practice that way still consider themselves Muslims? If they were truly running away from ISLAM itself then why would they continue to practice their religion in their own way after making good on their escape?

There are shit load of Iranians in this country who put their sheets aside when they made it to the US. You can ask them, why they still muslim and they condemn the islamic regime because they were pushing the hijab, which is written in the koran that woman should be wearing. Or ask the wive(s) of Saudi sheiks putting their hijab aside as soon as they land on an airport in a western state.

This alone shows you islam is not just a religion but all together an institution with rules, and very brutal and strict ones too.

I am not a muslim (anymore) so I can not answer to this question you repeatedly asking.

My point, they should not call themselves muslims. But they do. This is what you don't want to realize, reality doesn't fit logic, because your logic extends as much as your knowledge does, in which is not too far in this subject.

So essentially your entire argument boils down to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Got it.

I suppose you also think Christians who wear clothing of two or more different fabric types aren't real Christians either.

If it is written in a book that is considered as the words of the christian god(directly from him and him alone into text word by word) and if you are specifically told so and you are still going against that, yes, logically you should not name yourself a christian, just like many muslim women not wearing a hijab should not name themselves as muslims in the first place.

So when islamists call out for them not being proper muslims and at some point claim they are not muslims at all, and make the illiterate, uneductaed majority believe that this is heresy and they should vote for the proper muslims(the islamists), against those infidels(the secular and liberal and democratic minority, like your friends in Turkey), does and always will prevail.

So it comes to this point for the mid east, if you allow islam in the democratic arena, there is no way you can win against it. You can not show me any nation in the mid east that democratic procedures had and progress to civil liberties and social freedom. No single case has been reported so far.

And I don;t care about your Senegal. They are 92% sufis, they don't have any polarization what so ever, thanks to French colonial regime, you should not be surprised they are doing just fine so far if you are watching mid east close enough and can see the struggle they are in to.

 

[Osomir]

If it is written in a book that is considered as the words of the christian god(directly from him and him alone into text word by word) and if you are specifically told so and you are still going against that, yes, logically you should not name yourself a christian, just like many muslim women not wearing a hijab should not name themselves as muslims in the first place.

I think that's a fairly shallow way of looking at religion. some people may take the bible literally, others may not, some may strive to follow all commandments, many believe in the concept of the new covenant, some Christians don't even utilize the Bible that is popularized within our society (Ethiopia for example also utilizes the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilee). Religious text is open to interpretation and this has always been the case. Let's take your insistence that Muslim women have to wear the hijab as an example. You may consider going against that notion as strictly un-Islamic and many Muslims might agree with you, but many are going to disagree with you as well. The commandment within the Quran is one based around modesty in public and we are perfectly capable of realizing that our understanding of modesty changes with cultures and over time. We've seen that within our own society as well and within Christianity's own modesty requirements. Having differences of opinions when it comes to fulfilling the modesty requirement doesn't make one any more or less of a Muslim. There are notions of the spirit of a religious law over the time related interpretation of the spirit of that law when it was first codicized.

You can not show me any nation in the mid east that democratic procedures had and progress to civil liberties and social freedom. No single case has been reported so far.

There aren't an overwhelming number of countries like that in the world period. But i am curious as to why you constantly have such a hard on for the Middle East when a vast majority of the world's Islamic population doesn't live there.

And I don;t care about your Senegal. They are 92% sufis, they don't have any polarization what so ever, thanks to French colonial regime, you should not be surprised they are doing just fine so far if you are watching mid east close enough and can see the struggle they are in to.

If it was France's doing then why isn't Syria doing better? France was there too.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Some of the worst places in the world for women's rights are Christian majority countries, some are Muslim as well, and India also has a very poor rural track record 9the largest number of child brides in the world for example and heavy honor killing ratios and domestic abuse / rape).

Hands down, there is absolutely no comparison on the subject of women's rights, between governments that are predominantly Christian (I don't know of any Christian Theocracies), Muslim Theocracies, and Hindu Theocracies.

NO COMPARISON.

Take a poll and ask 1,000 women which government they would prefer to be ruled by. The only ones that would answer "Muslim," would be the brainwashed ones already living under Muslim rule.

Ask 1,000 women who liver under other governments and not one single one of them will answer "Muslim." For good reason.

 

[Osomir]

Hands down, there is absolutely no comparison on the subject of women's rights, between governments that are predominantly Christian (I don't know of any Christian Theocracies), Muslim Theocracies, and Hindu Theocracies.

NO COMPARISON.

Take a poll and ask 1,000 women which government they would prefer to be ruled by. The only ones that would answer "Muslim," would be the brainwashed ones already living under Muslim rule.

Ask 1,000 women who liver under other governments and not one single one of them will answer "Muslim." For good reason.

Malawi used to be run as a puritan state under Hastings Banda. But largely my point is that poor women's rights tend to be a side effect of low development and poor institutions and it doesn't really matter what the majority population is. The two rape capitals in the world for example are both christian majority countries. I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with Christianity, but the worst places in the world aren't dominated by Islamic countries.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Hands down, there is absolutely no comparison on the subject of women's rights, between governments that are predominantly Christian (I don't know of any Christian Theocracies), Muslim Theocracies, and Hindu Theocracies.

NO COMPARISON.

Take a poll and ask 1,000 women which government they would prefer to be ruled by. The only ones that would answer "Muslim," would be the brainwashed ones already living under Muslim rule.

Ask 1,000 women who liver under other governments and not one single one of them will answer "Muslim." For good reason.

Malawi used to be run as a puritan state under Hastings Banda. But largely my point is that poor women's rights tend to be a side effect of low development and poor institutions and it doesn't really matter what the majority population is. The two rape capitals in the world for example are both christian majority countries. I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with Christianity, but the worst places in the world aren't dominated by Islamic countries.

I will be the first to admit - Biblical teachings, even within the New Testament (Which is what Christians focus on) - do have rules regarding men, women, leadership positions, and other things. According to the Bible, the traditional roles we used to see where men were the "bread winners" and women nurtured the children and took care of the home, are the appropriate roles for the family. And those teachings can and should be challenged so that we apply them appropriately in today's new age of 2 family incomes and women's rights.

However -- the New Testament, even at its very worst -- is absolutely nothing when compared to the Koran, Sharia Law, and their rules on how women are to be treated. Again, there is just no comparison.

 

[Sunni Man]

During the Rwanda genocide both the Hutu's and Tutsi's were Christians.

Yet, the majority Hutu's went around hacking the minority to death with machetes.

But since this took place in Africa; christians seem to ignore the carnage of their brothers in Christ. ..

 

[Osomir]

Hands down, there is absolutely no comparison on the subject of women's rights, between governments that are predominantly Christian (I don't know of any Christian Theocracies), Muslim Theocracies, and Hindu Theocracies.

NO COMPARISON.

Take a poll and ask 1,000 women which government they would prefer to be ruled by. The only ones that would answer "Muslim," would be the brainwashed ones already living under Muslim rule.

Ask 1,000 women who liver under other governments and not one single one of them will answer "Muslim." For good reason.

Malawi used to be run as a puritan state under Hastings Banda. But largely my point is that poor women's rights tend to be a side effect of low development and poor institutions and it doesn't really matter what the majority population is. The two rape capitals in the world for example are both christian majority countries. I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with Christianity, but the worst places in the world aren't dominated by Islamic countries.

I will be the first to admit - Biblical teachings, even within the New Testament (Which is what Christians focus on) - do have rules regarding men, women, leadership positions, and other things. According to the Bible, the traditional roles we used to see where men were the "bread winners" and women nurtured the children and took care of the home, are the appropriate roles for the family. And those teachings can and should be challenged so that we apply them appropriately in today's new age of 2 family incomes and women's rights.

However -- the New Testament, even at its very worst -- is absolutely nothing when compared to the Koran, Sharia Law, and their rules on how women are to be treated. Again, there is just no comparison.

90% of sharia law has nothing to do with the Quran.

While the Quran, like the Bible, does promote historical patriarchal gender roles, it actually tends to be more progressive in the area of women's rights (such as women being allowed the ability to divorce, and inherit property, etc) which makes sense seeing as how it developed as a religion much later than Christianity.

Neither are perhaps an ideal basis for women's rights, but neither are incompatible with women's rights movements either. Muslim women (to generalize) will be the first to tell you that they want both equality and the right to practice their religion (Islam).

 

[MHunterB]

"While the Quran, like the Bible, does promote historical patriarchal gender roles, it actually tends to be more progressive in the area of women's rights (such as women being allowed the ability to divorce, and inherit property, etc) which makes sense seeing as how it developed as a religion much later than Christianity"

But women do not have the right in Islam to initiate marital sex: they do in Judaism. As to initiating divorce proceedings, Hillel the Elder (1st c BCE) affirmed our rights there by *requiring* a husband initiate divorce proceedings after the wife had cooked him 3 inedible meals in a row. Think about it....... Still technically the husband's 'initiative' - but in practice!

Not that any of that has such huge impact, we being a small group of only 14 million ....... but mentioned for the sake of accuracy.

 

[Sunni Man]

But women do not have the right in Islam to initiate marital sex: they do in Judaism.

Incorrect.


“It is also emphasized in Islam that a husband should not deny his wife’s physical needs. Both of them are related to each other, as Allah says in the Qur’an, “They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them…” (Al-Baqarah: 187)
A husband who without any genuine reason neglects his wife’s needs is as sinful as a wife who neglects her husband’s needs without any excuse. The husband and wife both should care for each other in all matters, whether they are moral and spiritual or financial and physical.
The relationship between the husband and wife should be based on what the Qur’an says, “love and compassion” (al-Rum: 21).” ( fatwa by Mufti Muzammil Siddiqi at Islamonline.com)

Women's Right for Sex with their Husbands.