Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

Exactly. Everyone acting like those two femens showed up those rotten radical preachers and gave them a dose of freedom tits without any thought or clue on what the event was about or who the imams are or what they were trying to say. We have turned into a fucking reddit circlejerk.

Obviously they should have let the Imams finish cause the crowd didn't get the anti-violence message. :-/

 

[gutter_trash]

Why topless?

it's about absolute equality

Religion should never ever trump equality

 

[RustyNails]

Obviously they should have let the Imams finish cause the crowd didn't get the anti-violence message. :-/

The crowd? It was one fucking guy.

 

[marrec]

The crowd? It was one fucking guy.

It was at least half a dozen people.

But you're right, it wasn't the entire crowd, my bad. 6 people kicking a protester on the ground is a perfectly normal reaction.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

Ok, so two counterpoints

1. Are you saying the world would be better of if religious folk like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu etc etc. were never around? Since you know religion =bad.

2. What Damerman should be wishing for isn't a religion-free world but apparently some specific kind of religion-free world because obviously we have examples of religion free societies that are horrific. The question that comes is what that specific kind of religion free world is that Damerman should be wishing for.

Yes I am saying the world would be better without religion. Religion has done far more harm than good. MLK, Nelson Mandela, these people were persecuted by people that professed the very religions that they did (I’m not familiar with Desmond Tutu.) The history of religion is a litany of xenophobia, biases, genocide, and a plethora of atrocities that have been done, because a peoples’ religion allows them to view themselves as chosen, and ‘others’ as basically subhuman; at the extremes warranting even death. Islam receives the most attention now, but it is not like everything was great before the rise of the Islamic extremist. You have mass genocides taking place by the loving Abrahamic god in the Torah and etc.

You call out Mao, and Stalin, but the god’s of the Abrahamic religions were far more sadistic in their unending crimes across the globe. I realize there are far more religions in the world, and many are pretty chill (such as Sikh for example.) I’m not saying ‘being spiritual’ is wrong, but organized religion tends to lead to a myopia that instills division amongst the members of our species. It also tends to create a sense that this brief amount of time we have amongst our star is trivial, because there is something greater awaiting us in death – which also leads to people making irrational and sometimes harmful decisions. Obviously no one can outright ban religion from the world, but I do think religious indoctrination of children is child abuse, and that children should learn about various religions from both a historical and comparative perspective. If you’re looking for religious free societies, some of the most religious free enjoy the highest qualities of life – Scandinavia for example. Would I say these countries have such a great standard of living just because they tend to be non-religious? That might be a bit of a stretch as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. I would say that they do place a higher value on individual life, which correlates with non-religious views. This may seem oxymoronic, but it seems to me that those of organized religion profess the value of human life, but then behave in anything but. People tend to value the books of their indoctrination, over the independent thoughts of another human, and that to me is the greatest crime of this great noose we still have not let go of.

 

[RustyNails]

It was at least half a dozen people.

But you're right, it wasn't the entire crowd, my bad. 6 people kicking a protester on the ground is a perfectly normal reaction.

How much more can you lie? First it was the crowd, then 6 people, then 2? I saw one guy kicking her but he got pulled aside by others. 6 people weren't kicking the protestor. Cripes.

 

[ginger ninja]

I think I have found the perfect analogy. This is like protesting a pedophile defense convention by exposing yourself. Sure it might piss off the pedophiles, but in the end it makes both of you look mentally disturbed to the general public.

P.S not implying we Muslims are pedophiles

 

[Business]

I would've smashed that skinny toothpick fuck for kicking a woman while she's down and wtf at the lax security.

Yeah I was grinning until I saw that.

 

[injurai]

Exactly. Everyone acting like those two femens showed up those rotten radical preachers and gave them a dose of freedom tits without any thought or clue on what the event was about or who the imams are or what they were trying to say. We have turned into a fucking reddit circlejerk.

According to Femen spokeswoman Inna Shevchenko, the pair interrupted “two imams discussing whether or not it is OK to beat your wife”, although a recording of the conference has speaker Medhi Kabir asking Muslims to "follow the example of the prophet" in the way they deal with their wives.

4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Then we have conferences that carry on like this. I'm sure you remember the thread.

The Imams do nothing to teach against beating one's wife, instead the defer to Muhammad, Allah and the Quran where people can find explicit justification. It's allowed to propagate, and leaders will claim that they neither okayed it or dissented. But if it was according to allah than it is true. This is the mentality that exist. It is a free ticket, that people can run with. Unless things like domestic abuse are explicitly denounced, this approach of deferral opts to not see abuse as a problem. Instead wishing to see the acts as justified through the will of Allah. A suspension of one's owns morals and ethics under the notion that humans are incapable of lifting themselves up to guide themselves.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Edit2: A link

http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/isabel...isogynie-a-lhonneur-a-pontoise_b_8115202.html

Please use google translator if you don't understand french, I'm at work.

Wow, that's some seriously disgusting stuff right there.

Exactly. Everyone acting like those two femens showed up those rotten radical preachers and gave them a dose of freedom tits without any thought or clue on what the event was about or who the imams are or what they were trying to say. We have turned into a fucking reddit circlejerk.

It seems like you don't know what these imams were all about either. Maybe they think wife-beating is bad, but they sure are fine with treating women as property (see the other post I quoted).

 

[RustyNails]

Wow, that's some seriously disgusting stuff right there.



It seems like you don't know what these imams were all about either. Maybe they think wife-beating is bad, but they sure are fine with treating women as property (see the other post I quoted).

I do. I heard the audio clips. It is nothing like what's being posted above.

 

[marrec]

How much more can you lie? First it was the crowd, then 6 people, then 2? I saw one guy kicking her but he got pulled aside by others. 6 people weren't kicking the protestor. Cripes.

Who said anything about 2?

Just telling you what I saw man. Video doesn't lie. Why are you trying to throw a blanket on this?

 

[Mass_Pincup]

4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Then we have conferences that carry on like this. I'm sure you remember the thread.

The Imams do nothing to teach against beating one's wife, instead the defer to Muhammad, Allah and the Quran where people can find explicit justification. It's allowed to propagate, and leaders will claim that they neither okayed it or dissented. But if it was according to allah than it is true. This is the mentality that exist. It is a free ticket, that people can run with. Unless things like domestic abuse are explicitly denounced, this approach of deferral opts to not see abuse as a problem. Instead wishing to see the acts as justified through the will of Allah. A suspension of one's owns morals and ethics under the notion that humans are incapable of lifting themselves up to guide themselves.

Here is an short part of their discours in the conference where we can hear them saying that an husband should treat their wives with beneficence and not treat them like a cooking machine.

https://soundcloud.com/dperrotin/di...an?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=wtshare

 

[Milksheikhs]

4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Then we have conferences that carry on like this. I'm sure you remember the thread.

The Imams do nothing to teach against beating one's wife, instead the defer to Muhammad, Allah and the Quran where people can find explicit justification. It's allowed to propagate, and leaders will claim that they neither okayed it or dissented. But if it was according to allah than it is true. This is the mentality that exist. It is a free ticket, that people can run with. Unless things like domestic abuse are explicitly denounced, this approach of deferral opts to not see abuse as a problem. Instead wishing to see the acts as justified through the will of Allah. A suspension of one's owns morals and ethics under the notion that humans are incapable of lifting themselves up to guide themselves.

Firstly, you're simply quoting the Qur'an in an English translation (which does nothing for context you have to look into the tafsir for that) and also English doesn't do Arabic justice. In arabic words are much more nuanced and meanings are lost in translation. I'm not saying you can't get a general idea of something from a translation, but a lot of times things are mistranslated or translated poorly and again without the nuances that the original language carries.

Secondly, what are you talking about no imams teach against beating your wife? Like honestly just do a youtube search. Are there extremist imams out there? Yes. But like honestly let's stop with all this absolutist language.

 

[Ganzlinger]

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Azih]

The history of religion is a litany of xenophobia, biases, genocide, and a plethora of atrocities that have been done, because a peoples’ religion allows them to view themselves as chosen, and ‘others’ as basically subhuman; at the extremes warranting even death.

But tribalism (Hutus vs Tutsis) and nationalism (World War I and World War II) and racism do the same thing and don't need religion to exist. Neither does conflict between different classes (the bloody rise of communism which was a revolt of the poor against the rich) Hell differences of opinion on economic theory was the cause of the Cold War and all the horrible things that happened there and that has nothing to do with religion either. It seems to me that you're laying at the doorstep of 'religion' what you should be laying at the doorstep of the human propensity to be suspicious of and fear the 'different' and the 'other'.

I’m not saying ‘being spiritual’ is wrong, but organized religion tends to lead to a myopia that instills division amongst the members of our species.

Organized anything leads to division amongst the members of our species. Should team sports be outlawed because of hooliganism? Again it seems to me you're applying general human behaviour to religion.

Where is the line between the alright 'being spiritual' and the problematic 'being religious'?

It also tends to create a sense that this brief amount of time we have amongst our star is trivial, because there is something greater awaiting us in death

I'm a religious person and that is not my sense at all. I would argue that you're engaging in mind reading for countless billions of people and that's not very reasonable.

Edit: And injurai, google the word 'daraba'.

 

[RustyNails]

Who said anything about 2?

Just telling you what I saw man. Video doesn't lie. Why are you trying to throw a blanket on this?

I'm not throwing a blanket lol. I'm trying to correct the hyperbole which is rampant here. Neither the crowd, nor a dozen, nor half a dozen people kicked her. It was one douchebag, and he was pulled aside. I am not downplaying anything. I hope he ends up in jail for his actions, and anyone who may have physically assaulted the protestors. Fuck em. However this idea of a salafist radical extreme mullah ayatollah conference on how to whip your wife being disrupted by freedom women, who were then beaten up by the crowd is gross misrepresentation. Shits out of control.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

That skinny guy has been waiting to do that his whole life.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

WhiteBoobsMatter

Don't do this.

Allboobsmatter.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

I do. I heard the audio clips. It is nothing like what's being posted above.

How else would you interpreted gems such as "women without honour shouldn't be surprise if they're abused by men" and stuff about how women must have sex with their husbands and can't leave the house without their permission?

 

[Oberon]

I hope these women are still allright, and those guys got the jail time the deserve.

Religion of peace my friend.

Careful there, someone got banned for the exaclty same comment on the first page.

 

[RustyNails]

How else would you interpreted gems such as "women without honour shouldn't be surprise if they're abused by men" and stuff about how women must have sex with their husbands and can't leave the house without their permission?

Where's this from? From the same conference?

 

[Subpar Spatula]

What dangerous ideas are these that were absent from Stalin and Mao societies or current North Korean society?

Not a whole lot but those were dictatorships. Similar. You're not going to be convincing if you think Stalin, Mao, and North Korea resemble free countries. Which is what you're doing.

My issue here is that there are what... five and a half billion religious people in the world. And far more than that throughout history How are you generalizing this huge mass of diverse humanity to one aspect of possible human thought? My religion is not the same as the religion of the Dalai Llama whose religion is not the same as that of some random ISIS member whose religion is the not the same as that of Malala Yousafai whose religion is etc etc etc. How are you making that generalization?

Of course no religion is the same, but religion has shown time and time again they are slow to adapt to changing times. This has made them backwards on women, homosexuality, marriage, crime, etc. One thought because this is how religion has sustained itself. There is a reason why religion is in decline in countries that are more open and offer more benefits, freedoms than countries without. This doesn't mean religion doesn't exist there but it's less powerful and controlling.

What is the overarching problem that you are referring to?

Indoctrination and control. Usually begins as a child. One could argue all upbringings are indoctrination but we can clearly tell the difference (for the most part) which is bad and good.

I wouldn't care if people believed in God or whatever if the principles were evolving to better accommodate society but they don't. If they do, it's usually a very time step and it's still a 1 KM behind secular law.

 

[Principate]

Religion is an attempt to explain away the world we live in. To explain what couldn't be justified rationally against what we empirically knew to be true. It was used to justify behaving in certain ways in relation to a world view. In tried to explain away our complex social behaviors, and why different types of tragedy and suffering would befall humanity.

It is a fundamentally flawed world view. It is more than an extension of humanity's problems, it is a harm in and of itself. Anti-theism identifies this. Religion has a profound effect on how we structure our societies and governments. I don't think I've ever heard an atheist or anti-theist claim it to be a panacea. The notion argued for by these people is one against indoctrination, it's instead one of education. Showing how things are discovered and learned. How imperialism works and can be corroborated.

What we know to be empirically true has altered throughout the entire lifetime of humanity. It's easy for you now to say now with thousands of years human discovery (most of which I doubt you had any part in) to have a rough idea of how the universe works. But even 100 years ago it wasn't quite so clear let alone 200, 300 plus, where common rationality likely would have led you to believe in some sort of religion. So yes you go on moaning about how people lived their lives from a privileged point of.

Religion has been a part of most of modern humanities existence for a damn good reason. It's how billions past and present have dedicated their lives in hope finding some sort of purpose or meaning to this life that they don't already have. But yes let's demean and mock their struggles because of how super enlightened we are, because that's how the world works (hint humanity or universe isn't "rational" at all, as rationality is depend entirely within a certain frame of view point, which like every changes to it's environment.). Even everyone in the world assumes religion is bullcrap it doesn't actually change anything, we'll still all die in hundred years time, humanity will come to an end and ultimately all achievements will be worthless since there's nothing after death, and we'll still have a thousand other issues to deal some, which will completely fill up religions place, because religions place has managed to persist for all these thousand of years for a reason, .

How about we let people decided for themselves the purpose of their lives and how to live it and leave it at that. You'll get the usual struggle of prevailing view points and consensus victory will determine what we consider to be right and what we determine to be wrong, like how humanity has always done it. The funny thing about that struggle is that no one ever truly wins, because in the Earth of 6 billion people there's 6 billion slightly different view points.

 

[Kinitari]

Ok, so two counterpoints

1. Are you saying the world would be better of if religious folk like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu etc etc. were never around? Since you know religion =bad.

2. What Damerman should be wishing for isn't a generic religion-free world but apparently some specific kind of religion-free world because obviously we have examples of religion free societies that are horrific. The question that comes is what that specific kind of religion free world is that Damerman should be wishing for.

Something else to consider is the religiosity of a country and the quality of life, human empathy and general wellness the people in that country experience. I imagine that trends pretty strongly in the "less religious, the better" category.

Basically, when a society is better, organically, the people become less religious.

 

[injurai]

Agreed. Okay. That's true for all human philosophy of course.

You're losing me here. What can't be justified rationally against what we empirically know to be true that religion, in generic, is attempting to explain... unsuccessfully I suppose?

I mean in daily life things are empirically true. Gravity, distance to different towns, the heat of a fire. But for things that we couldn't apply empiricism to we had to find other ways to justify. Like what is fire? why do I itch after sex? Why am I dying? I'm just bounding what religion tried to explain away. I wasn't clear, I agree.

Ok. Agreed. That's ethics.

Ok.. but isn't that what sociology does as well?

Yes, but sociology takes a very different approach. It quantifies things to first describe what's happening. Then it tries to look for justification or explanation in other scientific findings. Of course it can be imperfect, but the field is peer reviewed and seeks to correct itself. It's errors won't stand for 2000+ years.

Are you referring to biblical tales here?

I mean disease, whether, natural disasters, etc. Things that humans suffer from grounded in the natural world.

Again I don't see how you can generalize the world view of billions and billions of people alive today and throughout history. It just seems reductive in the extreme.

It's flawed because so much of it is based on faith claims. It asks people to live under assumptions which can't be shown to be true. People can take this to the extent of living under the assumption that true things are false as well. Like what science demonstrates to us. This is really all I was arguing here. I was saying this is a problem in and of itself, that is inseparable from religion. So I can take generally about that aspect.

In a society made up of religious people, of course. So does the U.S constitution as a secular counterpart.

The U.S. constitution was drafted by a handful of Agnostics, Atheist, and Secular believing deists and theists. But you're taking that argument out of context. I'm continue off of the notion that religion defers to faith to justify actions and law. We would be better off not doing that. Instead working to ever improve how we do structure our societies. There will still be mistakes.

Damerman wished for a religion free world as if that's all that's required. This discussion started when I pointed out real world examples of religion free socities that are not 'good' ones by our standards.

I think most atheist claims moving away from religion would be an improvement. Maybe they oversell that, but I still have never heard it sincerely suggested as a panacea to achieve a utopia. Also there has never been a religion free society, so I'm not getting your point there. But yes, taking a non religious approach to the world still requires us to be very careful with how we proceed.

And I honestly don't see how any of these are uniquely related to religion in the generic. Are you saying that religious people, by the inherent nature of their faith, can't be against indoctrination, can't be for education, can't show how things are discove

So I'm saying faith as a virtue is fundamental to religion. It's not unique to it, but it's there. Of course religions people with faith can be against indoctrination, of course they can learn empirically. But they will also act in accordance to faith based beliefs. They will spread the notion that faith based beliefs are valid true and virtuous. Some will even ignore or deny things that conflict with what the belief on faith. This as a generally way of cultivating thought is not good. Hence we would be better off without propagating faith as a virtue, and as faith is necessary for religion. We would be better off without religion. But obviously things wouldn't all of a sudden be perfect.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Where's this from? From the same conference?

It's from the French article that was posted.

 

[injurai]

Firstly, you're simply quoting the Qur'an in an English translation (which does nothing for context you have to look into the tafsir for that) and also English doesn't do Arabic justice. In arabic words are much more nuanced and meanings are lost in translation. I'm not saying you can't get a general idea of something from a translation, but a lot of times things are mistranslated or translated poorly and again without the nuances that the original language carries.

Secondly, what are you talking about no imams teach against beating your wife? Like honestly just do a youtube search. Are there extremist imams out there? Yes. But like honestly let's stop with all this absolutist language.

I've seen that argument time and time again. That it's the translation that is wrong. But you have to realize that the Quran was written by people after the death of Muhammad. It's a collection of accounts and canonized. All non-canon copies were attempted to be destroyed. It's not a perfect text, people act like the original version is somehow pure. Yet muslims disagree amongst themselves over the interpretation.

Also I never said no imams, I'm talking about the particular imams in the video. Who are an example of the types of interpretations of Islam that are upheld and propagated. When people are given the opportunity to defer to the Quran to interpret allah's mind over what is his will and not. Then you get people believer that stoning at times is justified. That death for apostasy can be justified. This is all I am saying.

 

[Azih]

Not a whole lot but those were dictatorships. Similar. You're not going to be convincing if you think Stalin, Mao, and North Korea resemble free countries. Which is what you're doing.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that non religious societies can have the same issues so it' makes no sense to say that these dangerous ideas 'stem' from religion (as you claimed). What they really 'stem' from a tendency in some people to want to control other people.

Of course no religion is the same, but religion has shown time and time again they are slow to adapt to changing times.

There are elements in every society that are slow to adapt to changing times. I think what you're looking at here is conservatism, not religion.

Indoctrination and control. Usually begins as a child. One could argue all upbringings are indoctrination but we can clearly tell the difference (for the most part) which is bad and good.

Ok let's say North Korean Indoctrination is bad and Swedish indoctrination is good. Let's also say that Malala Yousafai's indoctrination was good and Mel Gibson's indoctirnation wasn't.

Point being that 'raising your kids well' and 'raising your kids religious' are parallel factors. The religous part is irrelevant, the important part is to raise your kids 'well'. Did Malala Yousafai's parents do a good job raising her? Of course they did.

I wouldn't care if people believed in God or whatever if the principles were evolving to better accommodate society but they don't.

Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King believed in god and they were at the FOREFRONT of bettering their societies. Malala Yousafai is doing the same thing right now and she also believes in God.

Edit: Point being that maybe it's Certain kinds of religion that you should be focusing your criticism on, not "Religion" in the generic.

 

[nynt9]

Firstly, you're simply quoting the Qur'an in an English translation (which does nothing for context you have to look into the tafsir for that) and also English doesn't do Arabic justice. In arabic words are much more nuanced and meanings are lost in translation. I'm not saying you can't get a general idea of something from a translation, but a lot of times things are mistranslated or translated poorly and again without the nuances that the original language carries.

That is a cop out answer. You're saying "wait, you're taking it out of context! You're missing the nuance!", but you're not explaining what the nuance and context is here. The translation speaks for itself, since you're claiming it is being misread, the onus is on you to clarify and provide context.

 

[Azih]

That is a cop out answer. You're saying "wait, you're taking it out of context! You're missing the nuance!", but you're not explaining what the nuance and context is here. The translation speaks for itself, since you're claiming it is being misread, the onus is on you to clarify and provide context.

Google the word 'daraba' for the context.

 

[Mimosa97]

Exactly. Everyone acting like those two femens showed up those rotten radical preachers and gave them a dose of freedom tits without any thought or clue on what the event was about or who the imams are or what they were trying to say. We have turned into a fucking reddit circlejerk.

Oh please. Two of us already told you that this was all over the news. These are known salafi preachers which makes them radicals in the eyes of any decent human being. But I guess we have different definitions of what " radical " means and you must think that salafists aren't that bad if you're trying so hard to say that those preachers were some kind of moderate scholars.

Someone gave you some quotes in French but I guess you don't understand French and didn't take the time to use google translate. Here is a quick translation :

" Women shouldn't go out without a veil. Women who don't wear a veil have no honor and should be held accountable if they get abused by men. "

" A woman should go out only if she gets premission from her husband. A woman who goes out without permission will be cursed by angels. "

I'm too busy right now to find other quotes but again I guess it's a difference of perspective if you think this is totally fine and not a hard-line. Plus these preachers are self proclaimed salafists who follow the teachings of " ibn Tamiya " who's apparently a big source of inspiration both for " peaceful " salafists and ISIS militants. Who would have thought, huh ?

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Oh please. Two of us already told you that this was all over the news. These are known salafi preachers which makes them radicals in the eyes of any decent human being. But I guess we have different definitions of what " radical " means and you must think that salafists aren't that bad if you're trying so hard to say that those preachers were some kind of moderate scholars.

Someone gave you some quotes in French but I guess you don't understand French and didn't take the time to use google translate. Here is a quick translation :

" Women shouldn't go out without a veil. Women who don't wear a veil have no honor and should be held accountable if they get abused by men. "

" A woman should go out only if she gets premission from her husband. A woman who goes out without permission will be cursed by angels. "

I'm too busy right now to find other quotes but again I guess it's a difference of perspective if you think this is totally fine and not a hard-line. Plus these preachers are self proclaimed salafists who follow the teachings of " ibn Tamiya " who's apparently a big source of inspiration both for " peaceful " salafists and ISIS militants. Who would have thought, huh ?

And yet in the actual conference they said the opposite.

 

[Milksheikhs]

That is a cop out answer. You're saying "wait, you're taking it out of context! You're missing the nuance!", but you're not explaining what the nuance and context is here. The translation speaks for itself, since you're claiming it is being misread, the onus is on you to clarify and provide context.

Okay the nuance in this particle quote if you'd like it is that the controversial word being used in 4:34 of Qur'an is one that in English may translate to "beat/to strike", so without the correct translation one might think yeah it says right there you can beat your wife if all else fails. Not so. The word in Arabic is "daraba" which can have alternate meanings, and one of those meanings is to separate from. So a better translation would be that the final step is to seperate from your wife.

http://www.al-islam.org/hidden-trut...jtaba-musawi-lari/look-meaning-“daraba”-quran

I've seen that argument time and time again. That it's the translation that is wrong. But you have to realize that the Quran was written by people after the death of Muhammad. It's a collection of accounts and canonized. All non-canon copies were attempted to be destroyed. It's not a perfect text, people act like the original version is somehow pure. Yet muslims disagree amongst themselves over the interpretation.

The Qur'an was memorized orally during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. In western culture we tend not to value oral tradition as a valid, but in other cultures this can be a reliable source for information as everything was related orally. But not only was the Qur'an completed (Muslims believe that the complete revelation was sent to the Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime and before his death) and memorized while the Prophet Muhammad was alive..but there is also evidence to show that the Qur'an was written down within the same generation as his companions, etc.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

But tribalism (Hutus vs Tutsis) and nationalism (World War I and World War II) and racism do the same thing and don't need religion to exist. Neither does conflict between different classes (the bloody rise of communism which was a revolt of the poor against the rich) Hell differences of opinion on economic theory was the cause of the Cold War and all the horrible things that happened there and that has nothing to do with religion either. It seems to me that you're laying at the doorstep of 'religion' what you should be laying at the doorstep of the human propensity to be suspicious of and fear the 'different' and the 'other'.

Organized anything leads to division amongst the members of our species. Should team sports be outlawed because of hooliganism? Again it seems to me you're applying general human behaviour to religion.

Where is the line between the alright 'being spiritual' and the problematic 'being religious'?

I'm a religious person and that is not my sense at all. I would argue that you're engaging in mind reading for countless billions of people and that's not very reasonable.

Edit: And injurai, google the word 'daraba'.

(World War I and World War II) and racism do the same thing and don't need religion to exist. Neither does conflict between different classes (the bloody rise of communism which was a revolt of the poor against the rich) Hell differences of opinion on economic theory was the cause of the Cold War and all the horrible things that happened there and that has nothing to do with religion either. It seems to me that you're laying at the doorstep of 'religion' what you should be laying at the doorstep of the human propensity to be suspicious of and fear the 'different' and the 'other'.

Well yes, these things are all bad. Religion is just another one of these bad things; I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp.

Organized anything leads to division amongst the members of our species. Should team sports be outlawed because of hooliganism? Again it seems to me you're applying general human behaviour to religion.

I actually don't watch sports, and find the idea of adult sports to be rather silly. Organized 'everything' does not lead to division. I can organize a group to clean the local river, they are not going to go out and attack everyone that isn't cleaning.

Where is the line between the alright 'being spiritual' and the problematic 'being religious'?

I can’t say where that line is. If I had to take a stab at it; I would say that being spiritual is about trying to understand and appreciate while being religious is about being told and telling. I’m an atheist, but I’m ‘spiritual’ in the sense that I have awe at the nature of the universe and try to understand it; which has effects on my behavior.

I'm a religious person and that is not my sense at all. I would argue that you're engaging in mind reading for countless billions of people and that's not very reasonable.
Edit: And injurai, google the word 'daraba'

I already knew you were religious, and my opinions/views will obviously be influenced by my own life experiences/interactions and readings. That being said; there have been countless atrocities because of the promise of heaven.
I see a variety of conflicting articles on daraba; is there an impartial source that you can suggest?

 

[Maleficence]

What is "true" Islam

An oxymoron

 

[Azih]

I mean in daily life things are empirically true. Gravity, distance to different towns, the heat of a fire. But for things that we couldn't apply empiricism to we had to find other ways to justify. Like what is fire? why do I itch after sex? Why am I dying? I'm just bounding what religion tried to explain away. I wasn't clear, I agree.

Ah the God of the Gaps. Okay. I agree. That aspect of God has definitely become obsolete. It's not an integral part of most faiths. Certainly not mine.

I'm continue off of the notion that religion defers to faith to justify actions and law. We would be better off not doing that. Instead working to ever improve how we do structure our societies. There will still be mistakes.

That assumes that religous socities are static and don't do that. They do. Every human society changes and uptill, what maybe forty fifty years ago?, they were all religious in that they were made up of and led by religious people. Rev. Martin Luther King for example used his faith to justify his actions to CHANGE the law to improve the society he was a part of.

Also there has never been a religion free society, so I'm not getting your point there.

Stalinist Russia wasn't religion free? North Korea is pretty close.

But yes, taking a non religious approach to the world still requires us to be very careful with how we proceed.

My point is that we would need to proceed with care with both a religious and a non religious approach. The important thing isn't the 'religion' but that care with which we proceed.

So I'm saying faith as a virtue is fundamental to religion. It's not unique to it, but it's there. Of course religions people with faith can be against indoctrination, of course they can learn empirically.

Ok so here's what I'm getting at. Fascism is a (non theist) human philosophy that seems to me to be exactly what you abhor. If you had to choose between an atheist fascist and a theist person of the mold of Nelson Mandela... who would you rather support?

My point is that you're making a huge assumption about how people of 'faith' think. You're denying people of faith individuality by deciding before you even see or meet them how they do or do not think.

Maybe what you should be looking at is an individual's specific faith rather than the fact they're faithful.

 

[injurai]

What we know to be empirically true has altered throughout the entire lifetime of humanity. It's easy for you now to say now with thousands of years human discovery (most of which I doubt you had any part in) to have a rough idea of how the universe works. But even 100 years ago it wasn't quite so clear let alone 200, 300 plus, where common rationality likely would have led you to believe in some sort of religion. So yes you go on moaning about how people lived their lives from a privileged point of.

Religion has been a part of most of modern humanities existence for a damn good reason. It's how billions past and present have dedicated their lives in hope finding some sort of purpose or meaning to this life that they don't already have. But yes let's demean and mock their struggles because of how super enlightened we are, because that's how the world works (hint humanity or universe isn't "rational" at all, as rationality is depend entirely within a certain frame of view point, which like every changes to it's environment.). Even everyone in the world assumes religion is bullcrap it doesn't actually change anything, we'll still all die in hundred years time, humanity will come to an end and ultimately all achievements will be worthless since there's nothing after death, and we'll still have a thousand other issues to deal some, which will completely fill up religions place, because religions place has managed to persist for all these thousand of years for a reason, .

How about we let people decided for themselves the purpose of their lives and how to live it and leave it at that. You'll get the usual struggle of prevailing view points and consensus victory will determine what we consider to be right and what we determine to be wrong, like how humanity has always done it. The funny thing about that struggle is that no one ever truly wins, because in the Earth of 6 billion people there's 6 billion slightly different view points.

I agree with what you're saying and am well aware of it. At the end you act like I won't allow people decide for themselves, but that is exactly what I do though. I just happen to advocate for something else. You also act like it's all for not. But that very privileged position you are talking about is a result of people willing to progress and change their viewpoint of the world. Will to pursue new pursuits of justifying the world based on development and progress. Now that the progress has been made I think it's the burden of people to share and debate about it. Both sides free to think about how things relate to their current positions.

Also this comment below I think brings up a very good point. I think agnosticism increases with well off societies, but it's also true that agnosticism and atheism helped to promote secular societies. It's give an take both ways. I wouldn't patronize people to such an extent to think they can't bring benefits to their lives through agnosticism and atheism. People very much do need a spiritual aspect to their lives, but that doesn't translate into necessarily needing a particular flavor of religion. You patronize those that you defend.

Something else to consider is the religiosity of a country and the quality of life, human empathy and general wellness the people in that country experience. I imagine that trends pretty strongly in the "less religious, the better" category.

Basically, when a society is better, organically, the people become less religious.

 

[RustyNails]

Femen's topless condescension towards Muslim women only helps sexism

Islam doesn’t require women to love misogyny as a religious duty – not that Femen would know. Muslim women are capable of standing up for ourselves

In an old parable, some people gather in a dark room in which there’s an elephant. They’re asked to describe it. One, who can touch only the elephant’s trunk, argues the elephant is like a tree branch. The one who can only feel its tail claims the elephant is like a rope. The people begin to argue amongst themselves about what is correct, and the parable reveals its wisdom when someone lights a candle and all see the elephant – and their incomplete perception – for what it really was.

A gloriously crude topless 'jihad' from a Femen activist
Jonathan Jones
Read more
Such judgements, that are as adamant as they are ignorant, are nothing new to humanity. But they play out with startling frequency when discussing Muslim women.

The latest antics of Femen at a French Muslim conference allegedly discussing wife-beating and proper womanly pursuits are a case in point. Running on stage in front of the two shocked male speakers after tearing off the abayas they had worn as a disguise, they stripped to the waist with slogans such as “I am my own prophet” and “no one subjugates me” scrawled across their naked torsos. They then shouted at the crowd until they were forcibly removed by security.

What is most troubling about this event is not the outrageously condescending attitude of Femen, nor the reported appalling sexism of the some of the Muslims involved: it is that these two voices are once again propped up as the only two in the conversation. It is as if one can only be either a Muslim who loves misogyny as a religious duty, or an orientalist feminist who hates Islam. There is no other option.

Forcing the discourse into such a binary is not only myopic, but factually incorrect. I’ve researched the way Muslim women fight sexism within the Muslim community, and to the shock of many non-Muslims, my research showed that far from being a recent practice borrowed from the west, Muslim women had been standing up for themselves since the advent of Islam.

Aisha, the prophet’s wife, lacerated her male contemporaries with, “You make women worse than animals?!” for believing (wrongly) their prayers were nullified if a woman walked in front of them during worship. It was a woman who challenged, and beat, the second Caliph in a debate in the mosque about women’s financial rights in marriage. And today, lawyers like Asifa Qureshi use blisteringly strong sharia arguments to fight against rulings that punish rape victims in Pakistan and call for the stoning of women in Nigeria.

Far from seeing Islam as a barrier to liberation, a majority of the women in my investigations use Islam to help them in their fight against sexism and shockingly, many named Muslim men (husbands, fathers, teachers) as some of the biggest supporters of their endeavours.

When I’ve told non-Muslims about my findings, they were often baffled, even infuriated. The belief that women can pursue advancement and emancipation as Muslims will be dismissed by many as a kind of “false consciousness”, so certain are they that there is only one way to understand the issue.

But this is simply a function of people’s own fumbling in the dark over a small piece of elephant, all the while trumpeting their grasp of absolute truth.

Of course the scourge of sexism exists within Muslim communities and societies, just as it does in every community. The very fact that there are Muslim women fighting against it proves that we are not in denial. Yet Femen, for all its self-righteous stripping and screaming about women’s rights, is actually in the same ideological camp as the misogynist Muslims they rail against.

Both reinforce the idea of a “real” sexist Islam, an idea to which the broader public conversation so often unquestioningly gives support.

But the stories of Muslim women, in my research and beyond, show there is a third way, and there always has been. It’s a belief in an Islam that is egalitarian and empowering to women, and is strongly rooted in authentic, classical interpretations of the faith.

If Femen was set up by a man, where does that leave its topless protests?
Bim Adewunmi
Read more
It isn’t just the Islam of a lucky few women who grew up in the west in the last 50 years, but women and men through Islamic history in countless Muslim communities across the planet who firmly believed that gender justice was a divine mandate. And if people actually spoke to Muslim women, instead of about them, as the incident at the conference in France perfectly encapsulates, this would be known.

And so while the fable about the elephant raises an important point about opinions based on limited information, I have to wonder: what if instead of someone lighting a candle but still ultimately relying on their own opinions, the people asked the elephant: tell me who you are?

 

[Sami+]

People should distinguish between political Islamism and Cultural Islam.

Cultural Islam is being born into an ethnicity that is Muslim majority and through your life you are exposed to Islamic motifs and traditions here and there, even if your family isn't religious and whether you believe in God or not. I'm an Atheist and that's how it is for me. You can't be a Turk without some "Islam" in your life, whether it's just hanging up calligraphy in your home or going to pray with Grandad to keep him quiet (and then going out drinking later the same night in a club full of "Muslims" lol).

In other words that's exactly how Christianity is for most Europeans and European descended people.

However Political Islamism is the evil nugget. That's where people conciously have a "rebirth" of Islam within themselves or their family line and end up taking it too seriously and doing all the dogmatic bullshit and deferring to Islam where it clashes with the modern world (Cultural Muslims would defer to the Modern World). Ironically this "rebirth" is not the same Islam as practised by their ancestors in the village. Most ground level traditions of Islam were traditionally benign. But Political Islam is starting to brainwash people in places like Pakistan to think that Political Islam is a return to the roots of their ancestors etc. When it's nothing like the "Cultural" Islam of their ancestors.

Who agrees with me? Who disagrees? Who wants a fight?

Well if you wanna talk anecdotes I've got plenty of those. I'm a former Muslim, first generation Syrian American, spent a few summers in Syria, practically grew up with the Muslim/Arab community in Panama City, FL, and have a pretty conservative Muslim family. Just qualifying my perspective here.

You're oversimplifying things. There's no big divide between political and cultural Islam or whatever - there's people that follow the book and Hadith strictly, and people who don't. See Muslim women who don't wear the hijab. There's a lot of people who follow things strictly and always have, and there's a lot of people who consequently have really toxic beliefs.

Your implication this this "evil nugget" is a relatively new thing spreading across the Middle East like poison is false - the evil has been there for centuries. My parents and the rest of my family left the Middle East and came to America roughly... 30-40 years ago? Some of the people in the Islamic communities here even longer. They say and believe the same putrid trash you're referring to. The "evil nugget" zeitgeist didn't telepathically hit my parents when they forced my older sister into marriage when she was 17. It didn't magically travel across the ocean and tell my uncle it was A OK to beat his wife and kids. It didn't speak to the eight year old kid born and raised in Panama City who told me that he was conflicted about the Obama and Romney election, not knowing who he wanted to win, because "Romney hates Muslims but at least he doesn't like the gays", no doubt regurgitating toxic trash his parents taught him.

Muslims and Arabs as a whole need to stop with the "we're not like them" bullshit if they want to be a part of the western world. Both from the "we're not like Americans" perspective as well as the tired, almost lazy "no no no we're not like thoooose Muslims" defense.

I don't think the subject of Arab/Muslim difficulties adapting to the modern world will ever stop being an extremely depressing, frustrating one to me. Discussion on whether or not it's ok to beat your wife? Are you shitting me? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

 

[Fenderputty]

Femen's topless condescension towards Muslim women only helps sexism

Ohh geez.

Islam doesn�t require women to love misogyny as a religious duty � not that Femen would know. Muslim women are capable of standing up for ourselves

I guess the fact that these two FEMEN women protesting were from Muslim families doesn't count?

 

[Dude Abides]

And that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that we have real world examples of anti-theist/religion free socities and they prove that the absence of religion as Damerman wants so badly is not a panacea.

Actually it is the argument you made:

That the societies they created (religion free!) were also quite shit I would think should be enough of an indication that it isn't religion that's the problem.

Unless you meant that religion isn't the only problem, which is true but trivial.

 

[Sami+]

Ohh geez.



I guess the fact that these two FEMEN women protesting were from Muslim families doesn't count?

Don't you know? Those good, honorable Muslim women aren't like those godless trashy feminists. They're totally happy with their hijab and religion. Islam is totally a-ok and should be free from criticism.

 

[Azih]

Well yes, these things are all bad. Religion is just another one of these bad things; I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp.

You're saying we should eliminate all tribes? all nations? All economic divisions? All differences of opinion on economic theory? All concept of race?

The general point is this that it's not religion that's the problem. The problem is the inability to deal with differences between us. Religion is just one of those possible differences.

We cannot eliminate all the possible differences between one human to the next. We shouldn't even want to. Diversity is a grand thing. What we need is the ability to get along in spite of them no matter what our tribe, race, nationality, religion etc. And so the tribe, race, nation, or religion that starts acting intolerant of others is the problem not the whole generic concept. The common factor between all of these is tolerance of differences or the absence of the same.

I can organize a group to clean the local river, they are not going to go out and attack everyone that isn't cleaning.

You could be opposed by the union whose job it is to clean the river and you're making obsolete. That's happened.

while being religious is about being told and telling.

You realize you're speaking for billions and billions of religious people here right? And that people fall into the trap of 'being told and telling' without any need of religion (fascism and statism for example)? There's nothing unique about religion here.

I see a variety of conflicting articles on daraba; is there an impartial source that you can suggest?

There isn't any. You take a stance on this one way or the other and you're not impartial. It's a an argument over classical arabic semantics. I can only suggest looking up a few opposing viewpoints. Daraba=beat/strike isn't cut and dry for sure though.

 

[Bala]

Femen's topless condescension towards Muslim women only helps sexism

this article is really scary in that it exposes the degree of indoctrination in islam. the author clearly a muslim women barely mentions the violence inflicted upon the femen protestors.
this is a very biased article.

 

[Azih]

I guess the fact that these two FEMEN women protesting were from Muslim families doesn't count?

I think what counts for that article is if they're Muslim or not. Because the false dichotomy being raised, and the article is pointing out, is that you're either for FEMEN or you're for Salafist/Wahhabi Islam. The article is saying there are many muslim women in the middle ground that are being silenced by this false dichotomy.

Unless you meant that religion isn't the only problem, which is true but trivial.

Not trivial in the face of a guy wishing for a religion free world, which is where all this started.

Don't you know? Those good, honorable Muslim women aren't like those godless trashy feminists. They're totally happy with their hijab and religion. Islam is totally a-ok and should be free from criticism.

The point is that there are many different views of Islam and the dumb point of view where Islam is one monolithic thing is dangerous and destructive.

 

[Azih]

this article is really scary in that it exposes the degree of indoctrination in islam. the author clearly a muslim women barely mentions the violence inflicted upon the femen protestors.
this is a very biased article.

What? It's right there.

What is most troubling about this event is not the outrageously condescending attitude of Femen, nor the reported appalling sexism of the some of the Muslims involved: it is that these two voices are once again propped up as the only two in the conversation. It is as if one can only be either a Muslim who loves misogyny as a religious duty, or an orientalist feminist who hates Islam. There is no other option.

The bolded is what you're referring to. The italicized is the opinion of a lot of people that the authour wishes to focus on and refute. A point of view that seems hella common on GAF.

 

[UnObtainium17]

WhiteBoobsMatter

 

[Sami+]

I think what counts for that article is if they're Muslim or not. Because the false dichotomy being raised, and the article is pointing out, is that you're either for FEMEN or you're for Salafist/Wahhabi Islam. The article is saying there are many muslim women in the middle ground that are being silenced by this false dichotomy.

Not trivial in the face of a guy wishing for a religion free world, which is where all this started.


The point is that there are many different views of Islam and the dumb binary point of view where Islam is one monolithic thing is dangerous and destructive.

Many of those views, including that of the article, are dangerous and destructive in that they encourage stagnancy in the face of real problems that need to be solved.

"B-b-but there's a lot of Muslim women that are happy!" is a meaningless point to make when misogyny in Islam and the Middle East is such a prevalent issue that STILL hasn't been solved.

Let us once again reiterate that this is a conference discussing whether or not a man should be able to beat his wife. These should not be happening. Period. "But bad Islam isn't the same as good Islam" is such a waste of time non-argument when this shit is still happening.

 

[Ikael]

"Salafi conference about how to treat women"

"Neonazi conference about how to treat jews"

"Klansmen conference about how to treat blacks"

If the last two does make you rise an eyebrow, why is the first one even legal? Seriously, why are not every single salafi and wahabbi clerics declared persona non grata in the entire EU? Is religious extremism somehow less dangerous than political extremism?

The wide spread of salafism through Europe is fucking scary. These kind of conferences only started to show up a few years ago. Five years ago you would never see such a display of radical preachers casually talking about if you should beat your wife or not.

The far-right will keep gaining more and more voters I'm afraid ...

Far right wing is gaining more voters precisely because moderate parties refuse to even acknowdegle the problem posed by the surge of radical islam schools such as salafi and wahabbi in Europe. So rather than lamenting how this is giving votes to Le Pen and his acolytes, I would very much rather if the conventional parties would get their shit together and deal with this issue.

I'm a Muslim, and soon to be father of an amazingly cute little girl.

I just want to say, in the most polite way possible.... I absolutely despise salafists and I believe that most of North African men treat women (and often other Muslims) horrendously. I could be wrong, but it's my point of view from past experiences.

Also, anyone showing violence towards someone that disagrees with you is very low on my list of people to respect (that skinny f*ck in the video).

As an European and a Christian, I have absolutely zero fears and reticences towards welcoming muslims such as yourself into my country. It is Salafism and is retarded cousin wahabbism what must be stopped at any cost. Religious freedom means not only be free of practizing your religion, but also being free from fundamentalists taking over your own religion too.