Originally Posted by xlr84life
" The CDHRI gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour, or nationality,*but not religion
. In addition, women are given "equal human dignity", "own rights to enjoy", "duties to perform", "own civil entity", "financial independence", and the "right to retain her name and lineage",*but not equal rights in general"
I don't see where it restricts women rights.
"The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration's sole source."
Do you understand what that means? That means that any assurance of rights or freedoms are filtered through Sharia law. You have the Sharia version of 'financial independence' which equates to 'women can't work without permission of their husbands'. If we're reading and quoting from wiki, then why don't we quote one of the introductory passages as well? "It guarantees many of the same rights as the UDHR (cf. liberal Islam), while at the same time reaffirming the inequalities inherent in Islamic law and tradition in terms of religion, gender, sexuality, political rights, and other aspects of contemporary society at odds with Islamic law and traditions."
Originally Posted by xlr84life
Men and women are equal. With different rights. Why don't you argue on the part where men is responsible for spending on the family? And that women don't have to? At the end the hardships of both genders equal up. You just don't want to know about it.
That's not how equality works. You don't get equality by balancing the lack of rights of women with the lack of rights of men.
Originally Posted by xlr84life
Now, find me solid proof where Islam says women are less valued than man. You can't. We are both equally important.
Off the topic of my head, under Sharia, women's accounts as witnesses are weighed half as much men - two female accounts = one male account.
I can also recall, earlier in this thread, or the other one, Moonshake posting from the Quran "Qur'an (2:228 ) - "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them".
Now, I also recall telling you the difference between intent and result. For the last time, it doesn't matter what the fuck Islam says it is, the reality is reflected in Sharia law.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Are you saying that mild inequality is actually equality?
I believe I'm saying that women not being able to leave the house without permission or being able to seek employment without permission is not mild.
Originally Posted by Gorman
You sure dodged that question lol.
So I'm guessing you are trying to say once again that women are not oppressed...
I believe I'm saying that women not being able to leave the house without permission or being able to seek employment without permission is not mild.
Originally Posted by Gorman
That's not true though, even the largest Muslim country in the world doesn't implement Sharia.
"The biggest Muslim country doesn't do it therefor you're lying". Link to application of Sharia law by country. All those Islamic countries in blue there have a system where they fully implement Sharia.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Also there's no such thing as a country with a large number of wahabists [sic], go check out their demographics mate.
Countries in the Arabic Penninsula have rates of wahhabists in the 40s. Besides, I wasn't the one who first used the term 'wahhabist countries' - that was you. I was using the term for your sake.
Originally Posted by Gorman
So are you trying to argue that when they /did/ accept the UDHR they weren't Islamic?
Nope. I'm arguing that most Muslim countries don't accept the UDHR. You said they did once. I said 'who the fuck cares, they don't now, and that's the point I'm making'. We're not having a discussion about Islam 20 years ago. We're having a discussion about Islam today.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Either Islam doesn't conflict the UDHR (which is why they accepted it initially), or it does conflict and they weren't Islamic at that time. It's pretty simple.
Mate, you're right, it is pretty simple. A quick fact check will show you that the reason they split was because the UDHR was too secular, and they wanted a system that recognised Sharia as legit.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM.
Another obscure long paragraph about logic.
Ele, I am skeptical about the relevance of your assumption that intent is less important than effect to this matter. Islam as a collection of scripture seems to be acceptable to you (not saying it is or it isn't, this point is entirely focussed on your ideas about intent and effect which should be the same regardless of whether Islam is good or not) but you have a problem with Islamic law (Sharia), however if Sharia is not completely essential to Islam then you can't argue that Islam is irrefutably inherently oppressive to women. From what I had time to read on good old Wikipedia it seems like Sharia is partially dependant on a lot of factors which are not Islamic (one of the many secondary sources for Sharia listed was 'logic' for example). However, I did not read all of the wiki page or understand all that I read, so your reasoning may be justifiable. The reason I mention this is because to me it seems unlikely that you have already read all the relevant parts of the wiki article to check the exact evolution or source of Sharia. It is subsequently likely (depending entirely on whether my aforementioned suspicions are correct) that you are treating an uninformed assumption as a fact which is not good practice if you intend to continue deciding what xlr8life "and a few others, also need to" do in this thread.
I completely accept the possibility that I entirely misjudged your capacity for background research on obscure aspects of your argument and that you have in fact read up on Sharia in detail, however, I felt like it would be worth me checking.
If anyone can see any fallacies in my reasoning (which there almost certainly will be) then feel free to tell me (via PM or the end of a post which is relevant to this discussion so that the discussion stays focussed on Islam rather than my poor attempts at logic).
I completely accept the possibility that I entirely misjudged your capacity for background research on obscure aspects of your argument and that you have in fact read up on Sharia in detail, however, I felt like it would be worth me checking.
If anyone can see any fallacies in my reasoning (which there almost certainly will be) then feel free to tell me (via PM or the end of a post which is relevant to this discussion so that the discussion stays focussed on Islam rather than my poor attempts at logic).
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
Ele, I am skeptical about the relevance of your assumption that intent is less important than effect to this matter.
Effect is always more important that intent, in any matter. If someone says they'll do something, but then ends up doing something entirely different, then it doesn't matter what they said, does it? What matters is the actual effect it's had. That's why quoting the Quran and saying it proves women have equal rights is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by protonitron
Islam as a collection of scripture seems to be acceptable to you (not saying it is or it isn't, this point is entirely focussed on your ideas about intent and effect which should be the same regardless of whether Islam is good or not)
Yeah no, it's not acceptable to me. Don't know where you got that from. I was saying 'even if Islam is all sunshine and roses, that doesn't matter when you look at the result'.
Originally Posted by protonitron
it seems like Sharia is partially dependant on a lot of factors which are not Islamic (one of the many secondary sources for Sharia listed was 'logic' for example).
If you're argument is 'how religious is Sharia, really?' then you've screwed yourself by posting that link in your next post. In its conclusion, it says "Finally, although Islamic law remains religious, as it has evolved in the modern era it has some characteristics that are not dissimilar to western codes."
Then there's the fact that the OIC countries all signed up to rule under the Cairo Declaration which enshrines Sharia. 'How religious is Sharia, really' doesn't matter when the OIC countries agree that all the rights in the Cairo Declaration are to be filtered through Sharia-lens. These Islamic countries are complicit in supporting Sharia, whether or not it's a primarily religious body of law (which, as your link suggested, it remains).
Dang it.
Originally Posted by Ele
Effect is always more important that intent, in any matter. If someone says they'll do something, but then ends up doing something entirely different, then it doesn't matter what they said, does it? What matters is the actual effect it's had. That's why quoting the Quran and saying it proves women have equal rights is ridiculous.
Yeah no, it's not acceptable to me. Don't know where you got that from. I was saying 'even if Islam is all sunshine and roses, that doesn't matter when you look at the result'.
If you're argument is 'how religious is Sharia, really?' then you've screwed yourself by posting that link in your next post. In its conclusion, it says "Finally, although Islamic law remains religious, as it has evolved in the modern era it has some characteristics that are not dissimilar to western codes."
Then there's the fact that the OIC countries all signed up to rule under the Cairo Declaration which enshrines Sharia. 'How religious is Sharia, really' doesn't matter when the OIC countries agree that all the rights in the Cairo Declaration are to be filtered through Sharia-lens. These Islamic countries are complicit in supporting Sharia, whether or not it's a primarily religious body of law (which, as your link suggested, it remains).
My point was that you were talking about Sharia as if it was a necessary result of Islam, I thought it was worth you checking whether it was by reading some pages on it before deciding that a sizeable proportion of all the arguments in this thread were irrelevant. (I now realise that most of the posts on this thread are not relevant to your sexism based argument since they focus on violence mainly). I found you stating that intent is completely irrelevant slightly questionable (attempted murder is punishable even if nobody is hurt because it means the offender might do it again with more success). In my opinion Islam doesn't always result in sexism and as a religion does not need to be avoided because of Sharia's oppression of woman. Whether Sharia is inspired by Islamic scripture does not necessarily make Islamic scripture of belief in Islam sexist, although I have no opinion on whether the scripture itself is oppressive and do not wish to argue about it currently.
I said that your point about intent and effect might not be relevant to this discussion. To be honest, if this thread was about whether Islam has lead to oppression and should have been avoided I would have fully accepted your point as relevant, but since the question is about Islam as a religion, rather than countries which worship Islam or about Islamic people and what the countries and people do (although discussions about these certainly are in part relevant to the question obviously), the nature of Islamic scripture is more important to the discussion than your point about intent and effect implies. I have nothing against not focussing entirely on the specifics of the question (as I mentioned in my post about why not to close the thread), but you were arguing that something extremely relevant to the discussion was irrelevant because of the assumption that intent is less important than effect in all matters regardless of context.
I have nothing against your side of the argument Ele, and I have not formed an opinion on how oppressive Islam is, but I believed your reasoning to be questionable (especially since you had not read very much about Sharia's evolution from Islam until I posted the link) and thought that it would be a good idea to question it.
Is that all understandable? I hope I didn't repeat myself too much.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Ele
I believe I'm saying that women not being able to leave the house without permission or being able to seek employment without permission is not mild.
Oh no, need permission! If having to ask permission isn't mild, I don't know what is - maybe having to leave a note?
For the record, I don't consider having to ask permission to get a job as "violent".
Originally Posted by Ele
"The biggest Muslim country doesn't do it therefor you're lying". Link to application of Sharia law by country. All those Islamic countries in blue there have a system where they fully implement Sharia.
That most certainly is NOT the majority.
Originally Posted by Ele
Countries in the Arabic Penninsula have rates of wahhabists in the 40s. Besides, I wasn't the one who first used the term 'wahhabist countries' - that was you. I was using the term for your sake.
Which isn't even the majority.
I was using it to refer to countries that are wahabist controlled, not that have a large number of wahabists. Check your statistics again, the numbers are lower than your estimates.
Originally Posted by Ele
Nope. I'm arguing that most Muslim countries don't accept the UDHR. You said they did once. I said 'who the fuck cares, they don't now, and that's the point I'm making'. We're not having a discussion about Islam 20 years ago. We're having a discussion about Islam today.
Mate, you're right, it is pretty simple. A quick fact check will show you that the reason they split was because the UDHR was too secular, and they wanted a system that recognised Sharia as legit.
Oh hey, you figured it out finally!
You really can lead a horse to water, but sometimes it takes a lot of encouragement to drink!
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
