Debate a Muslim

[firedragon]

Question: if religion X would command their believers to rape their fist born, and Switzerland banned that, would it still be tyranny?

No.

 

[firedragon]

First, when a Muslim gentleman arrives in paradise and is presented with dozens of virgins for his pleasure ─

1. You know what? Where did you learn about "dozens of virgins"?
2. Did they say only men get?
3. What analysis have you done to be so sure since you said "when", not "do" or "if"?

Please show your knowledge on this. Unless of course you were only responding to someone who already said this to you.

 

[firedragon]

- Well, they are having sex. So, what are you doing here? Go fulfill your noble cause.

IN your analysis, do you theorise that in order to stop young children having sex (asthagfirullah), you should get them married off?

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for the information. One final thing; what about people that would not want to live with these sorts of rules; who would prefer a more egalitarian law in which men and women have the same duty to work out what responsibilities they're best at between themselves?

Thats a equality of final outcome you are proposing. I am interested to know how you think law can impose that type of final outcome.

E.g. Men and Women have the same duty to work.

We can discuss some information about that later.

 

[epronovost]

How often? What statistics? Is it as more frequent with me in comparison to women as pregnancy, menstruation and childbirth for example?

If you really really want to argue, you will come up with anything to argue.

Menstruation and pregnancy do not prevent women from signing documents, going to court or working what's wrong with you? These things are not and have never been obstacles. Childbirth would prevent it, but how many time in a life do you think a women will be giving birth. At most its going to be three dozen days of severe invalidity in her life. That's not a big problem.

If you want to talk about injuries and injury related deaths, here is a study that shows that men and boys are significantly more likely to injure themselves severely or die from injuries than women and girls.

Gender Disparities in Injury Mortality: Consistent, Persistent, and Larger Than You'd Think

 

[Meow Mix]

Thats a equality of final outcome you are proposing. I am interested to know how you think law can impose that type of final outcome.

E.g. Men and Women have the same duty to work.

We can discuss some information about that later.

I said "the same duty to work out what responsibilities they're best at between themselves," as in, they would talk to each other and say "ok, I'm good at doing this so I'll handle this duty, you're good at that so you'll handle that duty..."

 

[danieldemol]

- Again, I'm speaking from principle & you're speaking from hypothetical example. Islamic political theorists' (like al-Muwardi) position on apostasy is known, it relates to threats against the integrity of the state. In fact, there are no recoded incidents of individual apostates being executed for just being apostates in pre-colonial Islamic history. Abu Bakr Razi, the famous doctor, apostatized & wrote books criticizing the faith before he returned to it. Abu Alaa Maari, the famous poet, did the same. He wasn't even fired from his position... They all died peacefully in bed.

When you told me the above, you appear to have omitted the below;

To the political theorists, you're fine as long as you don't have followers, the moment you start having some, it's elimination –unless the state can use you otherwise.

I'd call that a pretty huge omission, it might simply mean that those apostates you described in the upper post where either having no following or not useful to the state. I think such an omission qualifies you for a marketing/apologetics award

 

[blü 2]

1. You know what? Where did you learn about "dozens of virgins"?
2. Did they say only men get?
3. What analysis have you done to be so sure since you said "when", not "do" or "if"?

Please show your knowledge on this. Unless of course you were only responding to someone who already said this to you.

I'm asking questions because I have no direct knowledge of it; but the idea has been freely abroad in press reports on, for example, jihadis.

Are you telling me there's no mention of any such thing in Islamic teaching? If so, please state that clearly.

If not, please inform me of what is said, and where.

 

[firedragon]

Menstruation and pregnancy do not prevent women from signing documents, going to court or working what's wrong with you?

Whats wrong with you is not a very good argument. Its just displaying your inability to accept some humility. Maybe you think you are a superior being of some sort.

Mate. You were talking about men having more accidents in comparison to women having biological differences to men. Maybe you forgot that for a little bit.

If you want to talk about injuries and injury related deaths, here is a study that shows that men and boys are significantly more likely to injure themselves severely or die from injuries than women and girls.

Gender Disparities in Injury Mortality: Consistent, Persistent, and Larger Than You'd Think

Whats the comparison between women getting pregnant and other biological differences between men and women? That was the question.

 

[firedragon]

I'm asking questions because I have no direct knowledge of it; but the idea has been freely abroad in press reports on, for example, jihadis.

Are you telling me there's no mention of any such thing in Islamic teaching? If so, please state that clearly.

If not, please inform me of what is said, and where.

I asked since you made the statement as I said "when" which mens you are 100% sure about it. So I though you would have at least done some analysis. But I didnt think your sources of knowledge will be press reports.

No worries. Take the Quran, and show me where it says men men would get dozens of virgins, only men anyway

 

[firedragon]

I said "the same duty to work out what responsibilities they're best at between themselves," as in, they would talk to each other and say "ok, I'm good at doing this so I'll handle this duty, you're good at that so you'll handle that duty..."

Why the same "duties"? If its a duty, its not like opportunity or rights. Its duty.

Have you made that distinction?

Haha. I will never forget. I had this same discussion with an atheist in this forum. I said that it is my duty to provide for my wife and family, but still my wife is very well paid and both of us are working equally. That is an outcome. But that does not mean it is not my duty to provide. This is the Islamic theology.

He said that my wife is a gold digger. And the tribalistic cavalry did the encore.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why the same "duties"? If its a duty, its not like opportunity or rights. Its duty.

Have you made that distinction?

Haha. I will never forget. I had this same discussion with an atheist in this forum. I said that it is my duty to provide for my wife and family, but still my wife is very well paid and both of us are working equally. That is an outcome. But that does not mean it is not my duty to provide. This is the Islamic theology.

He said that my wife is a gold digger. And the tribalistic cavalry did the encore.

There are some households where the man is effectively a househusband, doing the traditionally-assigned womanly chores like the dishes, keeping the house clean, rearing the children while the wife is at work (of course she helps when she's home, etc). These can be healthy households, it's just the way some couples work well together.

But if we believe the man has this duty to work, then we would be saying this household is not healthy. Isn't that a problem? Or are such exceptions allowable?

 

[Meow Mix]

Why the same "duties"? If its a duty, its not like opportunity or rights. Its duty.

Have you made that distinction?

Haha. I will never forget. I had this same discussion with an atheist in this forum. I said that it is my duty to provide for my wife and family, but still my wife is very well paid and both of us are working equally. That is an outcome. But that does not mean it is not my duty to provide. This is the Islamic theology.

He said that my wife is a gold digger. And the tribalistic cavalry did the encore.

Also consider people like me. I'll probably marry at some point -- to a woman. I almost did marry somebody after 7 years (we amicably drifted apart, though). We just split what needed to be done on a reasonable basis. Maybe I'd do the trash and dishes this week, she'd do them the next. Maybe I'd do the things that I'm good at and she'd do the things that she's good at, and we'd figure it out if the workload was uneven. Things like that. How is this accounted for?

 

[blü 2]

I asked since you made the statement as I said "when" which mens you are 100% sure about it. So I though you would have at least done some analysis. But I didnt think your sources of knowledge will be press reports.

Please answer my question: does Islamic teaching say anything about certain people having the services of virgins in the afterlife?

If so, what does it say, and where?

If you don't know, just say so.

 

[sayak83]

- Under an actual Islamic rule (like the past caliphate), you can expect the following:

• To Allah, that's shirk & its fate is Hell, unless you repent.
• To the sufis, you're lost & must be shown love to repent.
• To the theologians, you're wrong & must be proven wrong in public.
• To the jurists, you're fine if it's on your own in your pursuit of truth, you're not once you start building that temple.
• To the political theorists, you're fine as long as you don't have followers, the moment you start having some, it's elimination –unless the state can use you otherwise.

Great. I have my answer.
In Islam there is no freedom of religion and conscience.

 

[firedragon]

There are some households where the man is effectively a househusband, doing the traditionally-assigned womanly chores like the dishes, keeping the house clean, rearing the children while the wife is at work (of course she helps when she's home, etc). These can be healthy households, it's just the way some couples work well together.

Of course. Lol. Many.

But if we believe the man has this duty to work, then we would be saying this household is not healthy. Isn't that a problem? Or are such exceptions allowable?

How is that unhealthy? Is there any study on this to prove its socially unhealthy?

 

[epronovost]

You were talking about men having more accidents in comparison to women having biological differences to men. Maybe you forgot that for a little bit.

How is this biological difference of any interest for the purpose of testimony and financial decision? You might as well say you need two redhead for or one blonde to sign a contract. The fact that there are biological differences between men and women has no impact on the ability of either to sign contracts or present testimonies not anymore than the biological difference between blondes and redhead have any impact on their ability to do the sort of activity. That's what I'm calling you out for. Pregnancy and menstruation don't have any effect on the ability of women to sign contracts, present testimony or negotiate business deals of all sorts.

 

[firedragon]

Also consider people like me. I'll probably marry at some point -- to a woman. I almost did marry somebody after 7 years (we amicably drifted apart, though). We just split what needed to be done on a reasonable basis. Maybe I'd do the trash and dishes this week, she'd do them the next. Maybe I'd do the things that I'm good at and she'd do the things that she's good at, and we'd figure it out if the workload was uneven. Things like that. How is this accounted for?

See, every single situation cannot be accounted for in a scripture. Its impossible. This line of thought can go on forever.

As a principle in the early Islamic theology from the city of Medina we are taught of "Thaweel ul masaari" which means through the path of time or/and events, the implementation of understanding changes. But this is a historical teaching in theology. You can dismiss it if you want.

The teachings are only offered in general. There are many households where the woman is more qualified than the man and she makes more money. So what to do now? Should the man be the one to work? Nope. Thats absolutely not the position. I will say this again, there is no hard and fast rule that women can't work, men should work. It is the mans duty. This is universal, where ever you live.

You should try to empathise with the whole world if you are to apply anything to society. Not only think from your position. There is no law about a situational tyranny.

I hope you understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

Of course. Lol. Many.



How is that unhealthy? Is there any study on this to prove its socially unhealthy?

I didn't say it was unhealthy, I was saying that if we're saying a man has a duty to work (when there are working households where he is not), wouldn't that be unhealthy to say that their household (which is working) is somehow wrong (since he's supposedly shirking his duty to work)?

 

[firedragon]

How is this biological difference of any interest for the purpose of testimony and financial decision?

Well. There are many instances when a woman is unable to go somewhere, and the other woman can replace her for the purpose of providing witness for a financial dispute. Thats why.

See, when people think of "in my country we have very expensive technology, so women dont need to go anywhere", it is just being unsympathetic to the whole world. Or lack of empathy. Some people think the whole world revolves around them.

Anyway, if technology has improved so much, as in sanitisation for women, tampons, public toilets, etc etc, and also c sections, very high quality healthcare facilities as in some of the western and arabi countries, its well and good. A lot of things are more convenient. Especially in the 21st century.

Im just curious why you said "purpose of testimony and financial decision". Who said that??