Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Islam and human rights!

Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just a few human rights laws from Quran:

    Men are created one step higher than women.
    Good women should be obedient to their husbands.
    Men should beat their wives if they are not obedient to them.
    Women life values are half of men.
    Women inherit half of what a man inherits.
    Witness of 2 women equals Witness of 1 man
    Non-Muslims are unclean.
    Slavery is accepted and slave life value is not equal to a Muslim

    If you believe it is a lie and you need the exact verses and links to their translations in Islamic websites owned by Muslims, please let me know. I will be more than happy to show them.

    For science and Quran see here:
    http://www.freewebs.com/islamfaq/
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Women have only had the same rights as men in the West in the last 100 years or less. Some other cultures have yet to catch up.

    We are not talking about cultures!

    We are talking about the book of God!!!! which is written for all generations, all times and all locations by his true messenger!

    Muslims know what I say!!
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I'm not bothered about books of God but I am bothered about cultures.
    Sorry for that, but book of God formed and still forms the culture and law of Islamic countries.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Although legally most Western countries women have the same rights as men, sometimes the cultures of these countries suggest a different reality. Women in the West are still very much subordinate to men in the workplace, the home and society in general. They are paid less than men, they are still seen, patronisingly, by society as 'homemakers' and the majority subscribe to this label, and furthermore employers still discriminate against women because they are biologically capable of giving birth.

    Although this is of course nothing compared to the abuse of womens rights in countries such as Iran, to describe the West as the perfect example of sexual equality would be untruthful. Western society is still stuck in a traditional rut.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It could be said that women are more suited to a homemaking role, though. And in some cases, it may be justified in giving higher pay to men in sales jobs, for example, where a ruthless streak is needed that some women seem to lack.

    I believe that pay should be awarded on how well you do the job, though, not on your gender.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will)
    It could be said that women are more suited to a homemaking role, though. And in some cases, it may be justified in giving higher pay to men in sales jobs, for example, where a ruthless streak is needed that some women seem to lack.

    I believe that pay should be awarded on how well you do the job, though, not on your gender.
    I agree, give everyone a fair chance, but don't give anyone an unfair advantage because they complain about discrimination. I'm anti-affirmitive action, give the job to the best person for the job, no race/gender considerations.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Are you expecting instant change overnight? We're talking about a culture that's largely unchanged in over a 1000 years in some places.
    How long do you wait for change? Another 1000 years? 10000 years?
    If this was practiced in a country it took several months to get to, it might be none of our business. If it is someone wholives down the road and thinks they have the duty and right of enforcing their absurd behaviour on everyone else, it is another matter.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Actually I don't think it is any of our business. People are just wanting to interfere in other people's business because they feel they are morally superior.
    So they should not be here asking us to convert to their stupid religion and we also did a wrong thing by condemning racism in South Africa becasue it was none of our business as "Religious Apartheid"!!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    You've mentioned South Africa before. We interfered in that indirectly yes, to good effect, but we are very selective about who we choose to interfere with; Zimbabwe for example.
    We have always been selective about which nations business we interfere in. Turkey has a terrible human rights record. It has oppressed Kurdish people in the East in the most horrific ways imaginable.

    Why does the West not intervene? Well, why should the West intervene? American/Western influence in Turkey is vital to our Middle-Eastern domination plan - thus we conveniently ignore one of the ugliest human rights records in the world.

    There has never been a correlation between American military intervention and human rights abuses. There has, however, been a correleation between American military intervention and American politico-economic interests.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    We have always been selective about which nations business we interfere in. Turkey has a terrible human rights record. It has oppressed Kurdish people in the East in the most horrific ways imaginable.

    Why does the West not intervene? Well, why should the West intervene? American/Western influence in Turkey is vital to our Middle-Eastern domination plan - thus we conveniently ignore one of the ugliest human rights records in the world.

    There has never been a correlation between American military intervention and human rights abuses. There has, however, been a correleation between American military intervention and American politico-economic interests.
    Exacltly!!
    And they also did genocide of Armenians. But who cares?

    Let them kill more, who cares? It's none of our business. We need oil. That's our busineess. And don't bother me !! It's too boring, Let me watch my cheap movie!!

    And for piginapoke information, they killed Armeninans after a Fatwa (Islamic order) that there is no problem of killing of Non-Muslims (Armeninans) and the Turk soldires did it happily based on their Islamic culture!!! and all of them are now in paradise too busy shagging 72 white skinned virgins (Houries)!! (As promised, you know!!)
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Yes. Now, back to the point. Why should we intervene in regimes/societies/cultures that a) we have nothing to do with and b) we would gain nothing out of it? We shouldn't as its not our business, it doesn't affect us. We are not the police of the world.
    Yeah, you are right. See what this mad man ALBERT LUTULI did 50 years ago by Asking BRITISH PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT SOUTH AFRICA, we did it right (but between ourselves it was wrong! becasue it was none of our business).

    We are not police of world, we only need oil, we need a stable brutal regime who supply us cheap oil, that's all, and please shut up! do not tell us what they are doing to their people, they are our business partners and we are happy with them and that's the main point!!! We will buy more oil, we make them richer and we DO NOT CARE!!
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Well, yes. Why would we jeopardise our own economic interests? It will be interesting to see what happens when either the oil runs out or we find a better source of fuel.
    Perfect. And f*** all of those stupid organizations like I'm nasty international, UN human writes, UNHCR, Nobel piss prize, etc etc

    We should get rid of all of them. When there are many people like us who do not belive in such nonsense as human rights, there is no need for these shows!!

    And for others we will make better shows. This time we will bring someone with BIGGER boobs than Janet, so nobody will ever think killing people is a BIGGER issue.

    Cheers.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Well, yes. Why would we jeopardise our own economic interests? It will be interesting to see what happens when either the oil runs out or we find a better source of fuel.
    I think it'll be more interesting to see what happens when the worlds water sources run scarce due to global warming. Will we see the Americans trying to capture the great Wesh resevoirs?!? Will US military intervention be justified by claims of Welsh WMD?

    The scariest thing about the scenario Ive outlined above is that I could actually see it happening!!!!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Women have only had the same rights as men in the West in the last 100 years or less. Some other cultures have yet to catch up.
    im sorry women in the west still dont have the same rights as men...so who's running ahead?!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Why should we intervene in regimes/societies/cultures that a) we have nothing to do with and b) we would gain nothing out of it? We shouldn't as its not our business, it doesn't affect us. We are not the police of the world.
    The problem is that muslims, like all religions, do think they have a duty and a right to arrange the rest of the world according to their moral standards. They think they are the police of the world. They may be boring and inconvenient at best, but at worst they are dangerous, and it's worth putting a little effort into making sure they don't becomemore dangerous.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    The problem is that muslims, like all religions, do think they have a duty and a right to arrange the rest of the world according to their moral standards. They think they are the police of the world. They may be boring and inconvenient at best, but at worst they are dangerous, and it's worth putting a little effort into making sure they don't becomemore dangerous.
    Where does the assumption that religious followers are all homogenous, uniform people come from? I know many muslims who dont feel they have a right or duty to arrange the rest of the world according to their moral standards. Some have never once even mentioned religion to me, and are infact quiet reserved people.

    There are groups/individuals from all corners of life that wish to fashion the entire world to their own beliefs - conservatives, socialists, liberals, communists, capitalists, environmentalists, facists, feminists.......not just the religous.

    Why dont you try looking at the outside your own narrow life experiences before attempting to analyse the entire world in such a bigoted fashion?

    Im also quite interested to hear Weejimmie's idea;s on how to make 'sure they dont become more dangerous'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Where does the assumption that religious followers are all homogenous, uniform people come from?
    From the nature of religion and especially the koran. The jewish and christian "holy books" are recognised as being produced by human beings and recognised- even by believers- as not completely reliable. The koran is supposed to be the exact words of god, the last revelation, needing no further amendment.
    I know many muslims who dont feel they have a right or duty to arrange the rest of the world according to their moral standards. Some have never once even mentioned religion to me, and are infact quiet reserved people.
    Then they have quietly dumped quite a few of the koran's injunctions- most notably be injunction to bring dawah to non-muslims and spread the muslim ummah to the whole world- and are effectively no longer muslims.

    There are groups/individuals from all corners of life that wish to fashion the entire world to their own beliefs - conservatives, socialists, liberals, communists, capitalists, environmentalists, facists, feminists.......not just the religous.
    The word beliefs is the key here. If people believe, then they are in possession of the truth and know what is best for the world. Of the list you give there, most are not believers: they can learn from observation and experience and alter their behaviour and thoughts accordingly. Fascists and communists are the ones who usually believe as most muslims do and as christians once did: that they know the rules of the way the world and universe works and must impose their wisdom for the benefit of everyone.

    Why dont you try looking at the outside your own narrow life experiences before attempting to analyse the entire world in such a bigoted fashion?
    Tu quoque, kingslaw. This is not bigotry: it is anti-bigotry. I am pointing out that if someone decides part of the koran is not the word of god or is no longer relevant, then they must apply the same principle to the whole system of belief.

    Im also quite interested to hear Weejimmie's idea;s on how to make 'sure they dont become more dangerous'.
    Begin by getting "muslims" who are no longer believers to recognise and acknowledge it. The dangerous muslims, the unthinking and certain believers, assume that these people are true muslims who are weak but on their side. One of the most important things which damaged christian hegemony was the recognition that people could come from a christian background and reject the more repellent aspects of the religion while still being part of the culture they grew up in. When it is possible for someone to come from and be influenced by an islamic culture without being a muslim, or other muslims assumiing you are a muslim the dangers of islam will be much less.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    im sorry women in the west still dont have the same rights as men...so who's running ahead?!
    Don't they?

    Can you give me some examples of legal rights that men have but women don't have in the UK for example?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Men are created one step higher than women.
    Good women should be obedient to their husbands.
    Men should beat their wives if they are not obedient to them.
    Women life values are half of men.
    Women inherit half of what a man inherits.
    Witness of 2 women equals Witness of 1 man
    Non-Muslims are unclean.
    Slavery is accepted and slave life value is not equal to a Muslim
    Interesting that you can substite "Christian" for "Muslim" in any of those and there is almost guaranteed to be a Bible verse that backs it up.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shahin10205)
    We are not talking about cultures!

    We are talking about the book of God!!!! which is written for all generations, all times and all locations by his true messenger!

    Muslims know what I say!!
    there are phrases like that in the bible as well. these books were written thousands of years ago in very patriarchal societys, and many of the tenets in them do not apply today.
Updated: March 12, 2004
New on TSR

Vote for your favourite Christmas film

Win a bundle of Xmas DVDs

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.