Turn on thread page Beta

Afghanistan: Deadly Kandahar protest at Koran burning watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Fundamentalism in general is "a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles." There are two main versions of the Koran, the Hafs and the Warsh, used by the overwhelming majority of all Muslims, and the differences are in the grammar not the content.

    So, various sects use basically the same text. They interpret it differently, but they all use a fundamental analysis in that they take what they see as the word of Allah (the Koran) literally.

    Finally, I would say it depends on how you define fundamentalists, but if you take a minute to look at the survey I provided you, and the many others that have been done in the UK, you will find some seriously worrying trends.

    For example, in addition to the fact mentioned above that 80% of UK Muslims support blasphemy laws, 40% want to implement total sharia law, and a third support killing in the name of Islam.

    Sources:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haria-law.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html

    NOTE: Yes, the Daily Mail is a biased source but the poll itself was done by the Centre for Social Cohesion.
    Those two links you have given are to the same poll - I don't see why you needed to post two but what ever makes you happy.

    80% of Muslims supporting blasphemy laws is stupid but not really problematic - I would also like to point out that the insignificantly small sample size means it is not representitive of the Muslim population as a whole. I support their right to voice/hold the opinion but disagree with it in the strongest possible terms as I feel it is a violation of freedom of speech. Something I have only recently come to understand the true value of with the recent pro-democracy rallies/revolutions currently sweeping the middle east. The next statistic on killing in the name of Islam is just about the most vague question you could ask. Killing 'Islamically' is something I fully support. Why? Because killing 'Islamically' would mean I was only permitted to kill in self-defence. Of course the Shariah law aspect would be worrying if it was more specific as to what laws the Muslims had in mind. Again there are many varying interpretations on what is 'shariah law' - some interpretations being very progressive and some being very barbaric and archaic. Finally I would like to draw your attention to the one figure you missed 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Those two links you have given are to the same poll - I don't see why you needed to post two but what ever makes you happy.

    80% of Muslims supporting blasphemy laws is stupid but not really problematic - I would also like to point out that the insignificantly small sample size means it is not representitive of the Muslim population as a whole. I support their right to voice/hold the opinion but disagree with it in the strongest possible terms as I feel it is a violation of freedom of speech. Something I have only recently come to understand the true value of with the recent pro-democracy rallies/revolutions currently sweeping the middle east. The next statistic on killing in the name of Islam is just about the most vague question you could ask. Killing 'Islamically' is something I fully support. Why? Because killing 'Islamically' would mean I was only permitted to kill in self-defence. Of course the Shariah law aspect would be worrying if it was more specific as to what laws the Muslims had in mind. Again there are many varying interpretations on what is 'shariah law' - some interpretations being very progressive and some being very barbaric and archaic. Finally I would like to draw your attention to the one figure you missed 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.
    Ok, a lot to sift through.

    Firstly, the sample size is completely adequate, and I can only assume you do not totally understand how statistics and opinion polling works. The results would be the same if 10,000 or 100,000 people were polled, because the distribution opinion generally follows a normal curve. A good example supporting would be presidential polling in the U.S., where similar numbers of people are used to poll the opinion of 100 million voters, and the results are roughly accurate.

    Secondly, my bad on the sources thing.

    Thirdly, in reference to Islamic law, the UK already has what is considered a "moderate" form of sharia law in the form of sharia councils, or civil courts. Unfortunately, because they are based on the Koran, a woman's testimony counts for half a man's, and, while a man can divorce a woman at will, a woman must provide witnesses supporting her request. The actual implementation of sharia law goes much further, as seen in every single country that follows it. In Saudi Arabia thieves have their hands chopped off, in Libya women are routinely killed because they were raped, in Pakistan Christians are sentenced to death for committing "blasphemy". Real life implementations of sharia law, then, have been nothing short of horrific.

    Lastly, that statistic is largely irrelevant to this debate. If you polled fundamentalist Christians you would find even higher percentages of loyalty, and yet they still remain a problem. That is because they, like the Muslims in the UK, and like myself, all support their country, and as such want what they perceive as best for their country. Sadly, for religious fundamentalists this means taking away the rights of others.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harvie_316)
    nope, might start though



    I seen enough debates on many forums on different topics, which go on for hours, I dont really want to disprove or challenge them, as I can be here for days. I already know what is true and what is not. I also see were you are coming from, because I was in that place a few years ago, not knowing any better.


    This thread started off very one sided, I wanted to show both sides of the coin. if only one person reads what I said and goes away to research the things I said and can see what is really happening. I'm happy. If they dont, i'm still happy, because life to short to be anything but happy
    Eugh. That is infuriating. You act like you knwo better. You're no more enlightened than me. Tell me, what oh so amazing sources are you using to base this on? Come on, give me some links, show me how enlightened you are oh so enlightened one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    You keep bringing up how the Taliban mutilate women, what exactly are you reffering to when you say this?

    Also please stop the We don't do this, We do that. No one is accusing you of anything and you have no connection to those who are being reffered to unless you are an agent of the British government.
    http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMor...der-Islam4.htm

    I know, I know, Islam-Watch. They are teh biased!!! But I also have anecdotal evidence from soldiers who have served there, and mainstream media has reported on it to.

    And I say we, because we are a country. And I do have affiliations with the Armed Forces. And I personally find it most disingenous, and down right disgusting to say they are anything like the Taliban.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Eugh. That is infuriating. You act like you knwo better. You're no more enlightened than me. Tell me, what oh so amazing sources are you using to base this on? Come on, give me some links, show me how enlightened you are oh so enlightened one.
    my writing style is that so it purposely causes a reaction, which hopefully the reader think and do some of this own research.

    You may be more enlightened then me, I may be more enlightened then you, it is hard to tell over just a few posts in a thread to make any real conclusion of that.

    I could post "lolsources" for this and that. But I dont believe anything I read anyway. Anything you read in any sort of media, you need to review it and make up your own mind. So for that reasons sources I dont have much time for.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harvie_316)
    my writing style is that so it purposely causes a reaction, which hopefully the reader think and do some of this own research.

    You may be more enlightened then me, I may be more enlightened then you, it is hard to tell over just a few posts in a thread to make any real conclusion of that.

    I could post "lolsources" for this and that. But I dont believe anything I read anyway. Anything you read in any sort of media, you need to review it and make up your own mind. So for that reasons sources I dont have much time for.
    Ahh I see. Hmm, don't ever try to study History or anything.

    There's a difference between considering bias and 'not trusting anything you read'.

    So if you don;t believe anything you read. And don;t have time for sources, how exactly do you know anything? Do you visit Afghanistan and have a look round every few days? Or is this skepticism directed purely at sources that don't support your viewpoint?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ahh I see. Hmm, don't ever try to study History or anything.

    There's a difference between considering bias and 'not trusting anything you read'.

    So if you don;t believe anything you read. And don;t have time for sources, how exactly do you know anything? Do you visit Afghanistan and have a look round every few days? Or is this skepticism directed purely at sources that don't support your viewpoint?
    Of all subjects I think history is the least irrelevant, because its the powers that be that control what we "think" his history. Who knows what really happened 100 or 200 years ago. We have been conditioned though schooling to believe everything they told us.

    I just woke up, so not really firing on all cylinders yet, what I mean to say is, I dont have time for sources, written as they are. I do read and watch various news shows, I read internet websites and newspapers.

    However anything information I get from these "sources" is most likely biased or manipulated in some way for some sort of financial gain most of the time. So all I do it take a step back, review it and do some research on the subject or with my current knowledge already on the subject I make what I think is the correct interpretation of events.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harvie_316)
    Of all subjects I think history is the least irrelevant, because its the powers that be that control what we "think" his history. Who knows what really happened 100 or 200 years ago. We have been conditioned though schooling to believe everything they told us.

    I just woke up, so not really firing on all cylinders yet, what I mean to say is, I dont have time for sources, written as they are. I do read and watch various news shows, I read internet websites and newspapers.

    However anything information I get from these "sources" is most likely biased or manipulated in some way for some sort of financial gain most of the time. So all I do it take a step back, review it and do some research on the subject or with my current knowledge already on the subject I make what I think is the correct interpretation of events.
    But you don't trust any sources? And there's no way you can check them? So you end up basing everything on sources. Is that not something you'd hate? Seeing as you trust nothing?

    As I said before, affirming legitimate bias is entirely removed from 'Not trusting anything!!!'

    But what do you research? Everything is written with bias. Every video taken from one side. Every photo merely 1 moment in a million, giving no context.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But you don't trust any sources? And there's no way you can check them? So you end up basing everything on sources. Is that not something you'd hate? Seeing as you trust nothing?

    As I said before, affirming legitimate bias is entirely removed from 'Not trusting anything!!!'

    But what do you research? Everything is written with bias. Every video taken from one side. Every photo merely 1 moment in a million, giving no context.
    What the point in debating these topics, it doesn't matter, ill do whatever research I deem necessary, the reason I refused to carry on a debate with somebody else in this thread because what's the point? were all pawns here, its pointless even wasting any sort of effect to discuss this topic like this to any great length. Especially on the Internet.

    There will be so much mis-information from all members involved (myself included). Not just on this topic, I mean take a look at this now, were debating about the legitimately sources. Who cares, what the point, I made my one comment and should of just left it at that. You can have your opinions I respect them, even though I disagree with some of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by White Beauty)
    Lies, lies, lies. Islam is a religion of peace.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Sorry, but that joke never gets old.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pleni)
    For the countless incumbent fools on this thread, I made an account on this forum just for you, especially that king nutcracker wucker "kid".

    You succeeded in wielding a natural expression of people's discontent over a ridiculous act by a defamatory and explicitly hateful bigotted act, into a medium for your far fetched agenda of spilling out your own hatred towards Islam. YOU IDIOTS, why don't you ask about the guy who burnt the QURAN in the first place that instigated this. They have foreigners leeching off their land to kill off a few crazy talibans, their entire country is in a mess, and now the only thing they have, their faiths, is being messed from their American tyrannical terrorists overlords.

    so what did you expect, them to add him on facebook and send angry smiley faces? That nut bigot who burnt it is the real criminal, no matter what you think about Muslims or Islam, the Quran is a religious book esteemed by a quarter of the world's population (just counting Muslims, not including the many neutral, sane accepting non-Muslims). Burning it is an act of vivid hatred, one which inevitably would result in disgruntled remarks from those that hold it dear, and understandably so.

    FROM '18' year-old kids like WUCKER, you readers on this page are getting an acutely narrow stream of extreme bias. Islam as a religion and its ideology is a most profound, intricate and heart-opening religion with emphasis on not only one's relationship with God (Allah, in Arabic) , but also relationships with your parents, neighbours, spouse and kids. Islam has had a profound impact on modern civilization, giving birth to the modern education system, countless fields in mathematics, science, astronomy and healthcare. True? check it 4urself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZDe9DCx7Wk&feature=relm fu

    Whatever your opinions may be, if you can't accept the difference and diversity just tolerate in others their RIGHT TO BELIEVE, AND STAND UP FOR THEIR FAITHS, just as you have your rights to do the same. Otherwise, just shut the crap and stop distorting facts and blatantly spilling your hatred on innocent forums the likes of this. PEACE



    ps. for all those truthful honest people out there who are willing to step beyond the hateful comments on this page, please just search up Islam on your own on youtube or something, and don't get an impression about Islam from a few super minoritiy of those that claim to follow it.

    REMEMBER, ISLAM IS THE LITERAL ARABIC WORD FOR PEACE, SO THOSE THAT AREN'T PEACEFULL, THEY AREN'T FOLLOWING ISLAM!

    OMg, that's a long post, first and last comment here. I don't like to argue with endlessly passionate bigots, just that I thought it was necessary to give the purposefully ignored view a glimpse.

    ..now, time to get back studying for IB exams!
    peace people, peace.
    "a natural expression of people's discontent"

    How dare you try and justify the brutal murder of UN aid workers. Shameful.

    I don't hate Islam. I hate sexism, ignorance, violence, cruelty, and authoritarianism. All of which Islam possesses in abundence.

    You call for tolerance and yet you tell me to shut up, you call Islam a religion of peace and yet you justify cold blooded murder in it's name. You sir, are a hypocrite, and a fool.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Ok, a lot to sift through.

    Firstly, the sample size is completely adequate, and I can only assume you do not totally understand how statistics and opinion polling works. The results would be the same if 10,000 or 100,000 people were polled, because the distribution opinion generally follows a normal curve. A good example supporting would be presidential polling in the U.S., where similar numbers of people are used to poll the opinion of 100 million voters, and the results are roughly accurate.

    Secondly, my bad on the sources thing.

    Thirdly, in reference to Islamic law, the UK already has what is considered a "moderate" form of sharia law in the form of sharia councils, or civil courts. Unfortunately, because they are based on the Koran, a woman's testimony counts for half a man's, and, while a man can divorce a woman at will, a woman must provide witnesses supporting her request. The actual implementation of sharia law goes much further, as seen in every single country that follows it. In Saudi Arabia thieves have their hands chopped off, in Libya women are routinely killed because they were raped, in Pakistan Christians are sentenced to death for committing "blasphemy". Real life implementations of sharia law, then, have been nothing short of horrific.

    Lastly, that statistic is largely irrelevant to this debate. If you polled fundamentalist Christians you would find even higher percentages of loyalty, and yet they still remain a problem. That is because they, like the Muslims in the UK, and like myself, all support their country, and as such want what they perceive as best for their country. Sadly, for religious fundamentalists this means taking away the rights of others.
    It isn't a moderate form of Shariah law. It is an arbitration tribunal which only deals with civil matter when both party's agree to it and even then a real court can void any decision made so it shouldn't bother anyone in the slightest. You will find this arguement is generally spewed by Islamophobes as they will not condemn the Jewish Beth sinn courts which have been operating in the UK for a much greater length of time.

    Oh and Pakistan is not run under Shariah law :facepalm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    It isn't a moderate form of Shariah law. It is an arbitration tribunal which only deals with civil matter when both party's agree to it and even then a real court can void any decision made so it shouldn't bother anyone in the slightest. You will find this arguement is generally spewed by Islamophobes as they will not condemn the Jewish Beth sinn courts which have been operating in the UK for a much greater length of time.

    Oh and Pakistan is not run under Shariah law :facepalm:
    You are technically correct that Pakistan is not entirely run under Sharia law, however the Swat valley has, since 2009, been run under Sharia law due to an agreement between the Taliban and the government. My point about blasphemy law still stands, as it is common throughout the Muslim world and, though non-binding, in the form of United Nations resolutions as well.

    I do not support Jewish courts any more than Muslims courts, nor do I support publicly funded religious schools of any sort. As for the whole "both party's agree" I think it is fair to question whether poor immigrant women from Pakistan really get to choose which court they use. It's existence merely provides legitimacy to the idea that divine law trumps British law.

    Also, you might be interested in reading about the prevalence of forced marriage in Muslim and other 3rd world immigrant communities.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/08/religion

    Although, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Muslim community feels that abuse of young women is acceptable. After all, Mohammed married a seven year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine, yes, nine (hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234). But thats religion for you ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    I don't hate Islam. I hate sexism, ignorance, violence, cruelty, and authoritarianism. All of which Islam possesses in abundence.
    And yet more women than men convert to Islam

    And yet Islamic civilization has spanned 1400 years and has influenced the world in all aspects

    And yet the West has perfected the art of genocide and holocaust

    And yet Islam brought the West out of the cruelty it slumbered in for centuries

    And yet authoritarianism, dictatorship, fascism etc all have been hallmarks of Western civilization


    hmmmmm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    You are technically correct that Pakistan is not entirely run under Sharia law, however the Swat valley has, since 2009, been run under Sharia law due to an agreement between the Taliban and the government. My point about blasphemy law still stands, as it is common throughout the Muslim world and, though non-binding, in the form of United Nations resolutions as well.
    I disagree with the Blasphemy law and find it abhorrent.

    (Original post by Wucker)
    I do not support Jewish courts any more than Muslims courts, nor do I support publicly funded religious schools of any sort. As for the whole "both party's agree" I think it is fair to question whether poor immigrant women from Pakistan really get to choose which court they use. It's existence merely provides legitimacy to the idea that divine law trumps British law.
    British law permits the use of arbitration tribunals so the use of them isn't an affront to the British legal system in anyway, in fact it is simply embracing it.

    (Original post by Wucker)
    Also, you might be interested in reading about the prevalence of forced marriage in Muslim and other 3rd world immigrant communities.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/08/religion
    I am aware of it's prevalence and you might be interested in reading about how Islam condemns forced marriages.

    Islam regards marriage as a right of the individual and therefore others cannot make the decision for them. If a woman/man is forced in marriage then the marriage would not be valid and would therefore need to be cancelled. Evidence:

    Khansa Bint Khidam said My father married me to his nephew, and I did not like this match, so I complained to the Messenger of Allah (May Allah bless him and grant him peace). I said I do not wish to accept what my father has arranged. He said "then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish."
    (Fathul Bari Sharah Al Bukhari 9/194, Ibn Majah Kitabun Nikah 1/602)
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Although, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Muslim community feels that abuse of young women is acceptable. After all, Mohammed married a seven year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine, yes, nine (hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234). But thats religion for you ...
    Aisha was 18-20 years old at the time of the marriage. Evidence below:

    According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah.

    According to a number of narratives, Aisha accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha's participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

    According to almost all the historians Asma, the elder sister of Aisha was ten years older than Aisha . It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha , if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    And yet more women than men convert to Islam

    And yet Islamic civilization has spanned 1400 years and has influenced the world in all aspects

    And yet the West has perfected the art of genocide and holocaust

    And yet Islam brought the West out of the cruelty it slumbered in for centuries

    And yet authoritarianism, dictatorship, fascism etc all have been hallmarks of Western civilization


    hmmmmm
    Women are, in general, more actively religious than men - so that isn't surprising.

    An old civilization isn't necessary a good one, and yes, it has influenced things - nobody can deny that.

    The west is guilty of many things, but genocide certainly isn't unique to it - just look to the genocide of Armenians in Turkey, the planned starvation of Ukrainians in Soviet Russia, the Cultural Revolution of Maoist China, the Dystopian society of late 70s Cambodia, and the 23 million people prison of North Korea.

    You are gonna have to explain this one...

    They have been hallmarks of all of humanity - the difference is that the West has found a way to move beyond them. That is something that Islamic societies have yet to do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    I disagree with the Blasphemy law and find it abhorrent.



    British law permits the use of arbitration tribunals so the use of them isn't an affront to the British legal system in anyway, in fact it is simply embracing it.



    I am aware of it's prevalence and you might be interested in reading about how Islam condemns forced marriages.

    Islam regards marriage as a right of the individual and therefore others cannot make the decision for them. If a woman/man is forced in marriage then the marriage would not be valid and would therefore need to be cancelled. Taken from a hadith:





    Aisha was 18-20 years old at the time of the marriage. Evidence below:

    According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah.

    According to a number of narratives, Aisha accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha's participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

    According to almost all the historians Asma, the elder sister of Aisha was ten years older than Aisha . It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha , if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
    The use of arbitration courts, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing, however, in my opinion, the use of religious arbitration courts is.

    Your "evidence" against the, as even your source says, "general consensus" is shaky at best. It is a matter, as always, of interpretation. And if, as most Muslims (and, funnily enough, the Austrian court that fined a politician for pointing this out, even while accepting it as canonical) do, you interpret it to mean that Mohammed married a child - then, of course, forced marriage is ok. Nobody would argue that a child could make that decision, after all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    The use of arbitration courts, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing, however, in my opinion, the use of religious arbitration courts is.

    Your "evidence" against the, as even your source says, "general consensus" is shaky at best. It is a matter, as always, of interpretation. And if, as most Muslims (and, funnily enough, the Austrian court that fined a politician for pointing this out, even while accepting it as canonical) do, you interpret it to mean that Mohammed married a child - then, of course, forced marriage is ok. Nobody would argue that a child could make that decision, after all.
    Where is your evidence that most Muslim interpret it to mean this? And even those who do interpret it in this way interpret it in a contextual manner in which it may have been permitted due to the circumstances of the time but it isn't any longer. Similarly to Christianity. Do you also conclude that Christianity accepts forced marriage because Mary was around 12 years old when she married a 90 yr old Joseph?

    "When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four s...ons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord'...s brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

    Source
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Where is your evidence that most Muslim interpret it to mean this? And even those who do interpret it in this way interpret it in a contextual manner in which it may have been permitted due to the circumstances of the time but it isn't any longer. Similarly to Christianity. Do you also conclude that Christianity accepts forced marriage because Mary was around 12 years old when she married a 90 yr old Joseph?

    "When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four s...ons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord'...s brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

    Source
    The Hadith that I draw my information from is one of six canonical texts in the Sunni Muslim faith. It is, by definition, then, the accepted interpretation.

    I am equally critical of Christianity, and its holy book contains, like the Koran, many horrible passages. The difference is that, in most of the Western world, Christianity has largely become secularized (the largest exception being the evangelical movement in the United States). You will never find Christians killing and rioting over something as silly as a burnt Bible. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Muslims.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Women are, in general, more actively religious than men - so that isn't surprising.
    Still doesn't explain your sexist remark nor are your claims even factual.

    An old civilization isn't necessary a good one, and yes, it has influenced things - nobody can deny that.
    1) that doesn't make sense nor does it have any relation to what I said
    2) good

    The west is guilty of many things, but genocide certainly isn't unique to it - just look to the genocide of Armenians in Turkey, the planned starvation of Ukrainians in Soviet Russia, the Cultural Revolution of Maoist China, the Dystopian society of late 70s Cambodia, and the 23 million people prison of North Korea.
    Overwhelmingly it has happened in the West and exported to other places.
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...page&q&f=false

    You are gonna have to explain this one...
    What is there to explain?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic...edieval_Europe

    They have been hallmarks of all of humanity - the difference is that the West has found a way to move beyond them. That is something that Islamic societies have yet to do.
    No they've all exclusively happened in Western enclaves, influenced by western ideals so don't attempt to universalise it, Islamic societies aren't fascistic you're the ones who coined and practiced the term, so to even suggest that Islamic societies live within fascism is evidently false.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 5, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.