firedragon
Veteran Member
Same thing. So dont keep repeating it. Its shameless. 4 times repetition already.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would Western countries allow Muslims to have their own judiciary system?
Same thing. So dont keep repeating it. Its shameless. 4 times repetition already.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh I know him very well.
Doesnt answer the question I asked.
You think Stephen Blanton is right? On what basis? Whats the analysis you have made?
I mean is he your God? Dont you give blind worship only to God?
didn't know that in Eritrea, also some professing Christians commit FGM.
I was honest all the time.
that wasn't shameless.
If you cry scandal, I am entitled to defend myself.
In your opinion should western countries grant religious arbitration? That's what we're discussing. We are talking about granting an excessive and special gift to the religions which are confusingly political in nature. I've posted two sources in support. Are you opposed?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Theory and practise. When was the last time that a witch was killed by a Christian stating the Law?
And when was the last time a woman was killed or hurt for not following medieval clothing rules or equally outdated "decency laws"?
I don't have to look at what ancient books say, I just have to see how those adhering to those books behave.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You should say you made a wish that "just made a presumption" just like you would.
Mate. Dont think everyone is like you.
If you want to understand FGM, do some reading about some studies in FGM. Not some anti islamic, unfounded, uneducated, unscholarly websites.
Ill give you an example.
Read lets say "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Statistics - UNICEF Data". Its at least something.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats a respectable discussion. I am not an expert in politics and human behavioural analytics to make a prediction based on a legal framework that one would adopt in the near future. So I am not gonna make an uneducated guess.
I dont what source you are talking about. But the source I responded to with you was an absurd, pseudo scholar who has blatant lies about a religion. So its invalid to me.
But I would like to see if you have some good sources with some real data.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I should have been more clear: the exception for ritual male circumcision is a stain in the German law.
No opposition from me for circumcision done by a surgeon, in a sterile environment, for medical reasons.
Without these factors male and female circumcision are genital mutilation and should be illegal.
Maybe, as long as there is only spiritual enforcement.
Sorry I am unable to differentiate what he is lying about or telling the truth about. It is somewhat opaque. All I know is he agrees with religious freedom in spite of his objections to Islam, or he says he does. I doubt Christianity Today wants to see a lot more of Islam, either; but their article supports religious freedom and religious arbitration either in support of that or in addition to it.
This is getting personal, stop it, please.
I would have considered your allegation a presumption, yes. There is nothing wrong with it.
I demand sources. As always.
Now, you came up with the example of Eritrea where professing Christians also do it. ok.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I don't care about that. As usual you are missing key words in what I am saying. Notice I said "in the context that you (he) is used it". Where did I ever agree that that what he says is what Islam teaches?
just for your information, that's what Quran actually says: see post #52.
That's from an Islamic site and they happened to state the same exact thing as the source I used in the other post you referred to.
So, in this case, you can happily agree with me here, Israel.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
What is the law? So, if you say, "there's no reason to kill apostates" and I say, "there's a very good reason. It's the law." Do you find that a satisfactory answer? No. That is because there is no logic in it. Don't bow to a law just because it exists.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Compulsory school attendance. We have that in Germany. Don't respect the law, get your child taken away. Don't want to respect German law? Don't live in Germany.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
just for your information, that's what Quran actually says: see post #52.
That's from an Islamic site and they happened to state the same exact thing as the source I used in the other post you referred to.
So, in this case, you can happily agree with me here, Israel.
Unfortunately I am not that invested in the topic to care about the points themselves. I was just intrigues by your veil comment. But I am also, as usual, observing how people of the faith you are critiquing are reacting to what you said.
There are two possible things happening here:
1) You are actually quoting from an anti-Islam website (which isn't actually a problem as long as you look at actual muslim websites as well to compare. Being an ex-JW I know all too well the value of sites opposing the faith, especially if they are ex-muslims in this case.) and are taking the verses out of context to suit your anti Islam agenda.
0r
2) You are actually quoting a muslim website and are conveying the truth about the religion. Now there are interesting similarities between the reactions you might be getting and JW's:
- The automatic claim that you are quoting sites that are against the religion. This is to discredit your information.
- Instead of defending the religions text by countering your arguments with their text themselves, they are throwing Red Herrings and criticizing your religious texts, which even if they are true wouldn't discredit your points about Islam. This is to imply that you are a hypocrite, which is to discredit your character.
- Aren't giving you direct counter points from a textual analysis position. Questions are being asked instead which creates the illusion that they know what they are talking about but actually provides no evidence that they do. This might be because they cannot actually counter your points which reveals a lot.
- Accuse you of a strawman when instead they are hopping all over the place with points which is to disorient you. That is why you might think that you answered their point but then bring about some other point and say that you created a strawman. You might feel that you are conversing with a slippery individual.
- Also, pay attention to what points of yours ARE NOT being responded to because therein lies their weakness.
And pay attention that you aren't engaging in point 2.
But also don't proof text verses because, as you know being a christian, that is a form of cherry picking and can and will mislead your understanding of the verse. If you want to speak about the verse you quoted, then please explain to me what the context of the Surah is that the verse is in and how that verse fits in the Surah's context. Then that would give you more credibility.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Let me give you an example.
This is something he says.
Does Islam teach life after death?
ANSWER: Islam teaches that all people will spend an eternity in Paradise or Hell, depending on how well they treat Muslims and how well they obey the rules of Islam.
Absolutely untrue. There is no teaching whatsoever in any of the Madhabs of Islam, even if you take the more dogmatic teachings that has anything about how well "they" treat Muslims. Where does he get this from?
Look at this statement he makes.
"Only Muslim men may enter Paradise, where they will sit on thrones arranged in ranks and be attended by young boys serving delicious foods. There will be gardens beneath which pure waters flow. Muslim men will be entertained by beautiful virgins of like age for their eternal sexual pleasure. (The Qur’an is silent on the fate of females after death. No non-Muslims will enter Paradise; all non-Muslims will spend eternity being tormented in the “Lake of Fire.”)"
Haha. What a lie my friend? You want me to expand theologically on this? One could easily open a new thread to understand this further.
This is typical bogus scholarship. Maybe he is learning from some terrorists somewhere.
So tell me if you wish to understand this further.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not from yourself. Thats the problem.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt say you agreed.
I just told you to do some research. I said this is what he is quoting.
this seems to me to be very wise. As if someone with a long standing experience in these discussions is speaking to me.
one little point I'd like to discuss though...
there are some texts that cannot be set straight with a mild context.
This is one of these texts, as I see it. There is no context whatsoever that could possibly undo the potential for victim blaming in that Surah, I think.
Which context could possibly reconcile "tell them to carry a veil. [...] That is more likely that they may thus be recognised and not molested. " with the right to choose with whom, when and how to have sex....?
There is no such context. This passage is simply off.
----
Nevertheless, I do think there is too much hate against Islam going on these days. So I really try to be careful.
Heck, I got this FGM thing wrong at the beginning of the thread and learned today that even some groups in Eritrea professing to be Christians do the same!
So next time, I'll be more careful indeed when it comes to Islam and Quran.
EDITED the quote