Originally Posted by Redundant
If you want to discuss moral relativism and the question if there are objective standards by which a culture can be judged, make a new thread.
This thread is about Islam's morality, so stay with that.
So yeah, let's maybe keep to just Westerm values or at least not Sharia values since otherwise this discussion probably won't last long. Maybe focusing on moderate Islam rather than Sharia would balance the arguments a bit since this debate feels a little unbalanced especially if we use Western cultural morals to judge Islam.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Redundant
If you want to discuss moral relativism and the question if there are objective standards by which a culture can be judged, make a new thread.
This thread is about Islam's morality, so stay with that.
If you want this maybe you should ban all non-Americans from posting...
And all conservatives...
Probably the rich too...
Originally Posted by protonitron
I agree with most of this, but projecting a moral system onto another culture to judge it is not enforcing Western values on a country, it is just judging it with them. And since Western values are the moral systems the people in this discussion are likely to follow it makes sense that this is how we evaluate the topic of this debate. The problem it that your arguments are from a different moral perspective to almost everyone else here, so we either have to argue the morality of Islam from both perspectives separately or choose one perspective to all keep to.
Sorry for the careless manner with which this post is written, I am short of time.
-----
We should not resort to arguing which moral system is best, because that is pointless and off topic.
Sure, if the extent of the discussion is "I think Islam is bad" that's fine. But if the extent of the discussion is "I think Sharia needs to be overhauled etc" then you are advocating enforcement of western values.
I don't have a problem with people arguing from a western perspective so long as they acknowledge that it's not their place to try and screw with someone else's culture.
People do not hold the same morals even within a society. If you want to assert a certain set of morals by which we are to evaluate a subject, they need to be strictly codified first.
Originally Posted by ynvaser
That makes it sound like it happened at the same time. By the time they used black slaves, whites enslaving each other went out of fashion at least a thousand years ago. I'd like to read your source if whites were indeed used as slaves when blacks were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._British_Isles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ynvaser
When the people in your country don't really have internet access, do you really expect their oppressed wimminz to hop on their blog and write a few lines on how they got beaten today for not wearing their full-body towels properly?
Originally Posted by Hyde
"It's okay, those jews being forced to live in the ghettos are happy, they aren't oppressed!"
You are literally a nazi.
I will not reply in the manner of your culture because:
O ye who believe! Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they (are), not let women (deride) women who may be better than they are; neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith. And whoso turneth not in repentance, such are evil-doers. (11) Quran 49:11
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
The concept he conveyed was the same.
"It's okay, those women who are forced to ask permission to leave the house/cannot drive/must wear heavy, modest clothing are happy! they aren't oppressed!
Islam is a way of life, "way" here meaning method or path, when you follow a straight path to get to a certain destination, you do not leave it or follow a different windier path. We believe that God created us, and who else would know what's best for us other than God himself? (Whoever is reading this may not agree with this but bare with it as I'm trying to make a point.) That is why we follow God's rules and obey his commands, for there is signifcance to what He has commanded.
In this case, women have the right to be safe, and the husband's duty to protect the wife. If a women leaves the house alone, she is at risk to potential danger, having the consent of her husband would be a lot safer for herself. This is a signifcance behind it, and knowing that she has obeyed God as she pleases her husband, she gains inner-peace and happiness. On the other hand, men should go to a level of cruelty by never allowing a women to leave the house.
"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." Quran 4:19
The Prophet has also said:
“None but a noble man treats women in an honourable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully.”
Secondly, women not being allowed to drive is only a law in Saudi Arabia alone, no other country applies that law, it's not even a sharia law. Yes, it is kind of a lame law.
Muslim women clothing aren't heavy at all.
And it also goes back to what I said earlier, the primary reason to obey the command of God:
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." Quran 33:59
And the signifcance behind it is vaste. The first being modesty:
"Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..." Quran 24:30
Islam shows that women should not be judged on her appearance but rather her virtue.
Have a look at this social experiment, see how much respect strangers have for women covered
Lastly, let's look at the famous word of this thread, "oppression".
Or, it is not oppression, as Ele said, there is something called uninstutionalised oppression, which means even though the "victims" are happy with their current lifestyle, they are actually oppressed.
As I mentioned earlier, when you are subject to speed limits when driving, are you being oppressed? Why don't they call it speed oppression? Instead of speed limit?
Islam also has these limits, which you guys are interpreting it as "oppression", as I said in the beginning, Islam is a way of life, you can't say, "Ok, here is how you guys maintain peace: Do whatever you want." No, and these limits were made by God who created and knows what's best for us.
Yes, there are a lot of cases where women are oppressed, abused and rights taken away from them. As I said a few times, this is a result of human nature and not teachings of Islam.
Now I have a question, let's say the west somehow got rid of sharia and imposes their cultures and influences all muslims that Islam is oppression etc etc, isn't it oppression to stop muslims from following their beliefs? Ok, but they are happy with it. But then it is uninstitutionalised oppression.
In other words, I could say that, "Oh! That country allows alchoholism! Alcohol is bad for your health, family and social life! That country is oppressing them! Ok no! They are being uninstitutionally oppressed because there are other options like Islam which do not allow these barbaric acts! They should follow Islam!".
I'm not the best i putting words together so any erros you see just point it out. Thanks.
Oh and avoid insults as it's not professional.
-----------------------------
Some links to articles written by women about "oppression", oh, and a video.
http://www.islam-australia.net/pages/oppress.html
http://www.islamreligion.com/article...Wb11I.facebook
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laila-...b_3052001.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNyTDTElU8
Parkour like you've never seen before:
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423045
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If you want this maybe you should ban all non-Americans from posting...
And all conservatives...
Probably the rich too...
Don't sarcasm again please. Ironic backseat moderation backchat to moderators doesn't always end terribly well.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Sure, if the extent of the discussion is "I think Islam is bad" that's fine. But if the extent of the discussion is "I think Sharia needs to be overhauled etc" then you are advocating enforcement of western values.
I personally think we should move away from the issue of whether Sharia is bad since in the end it entirely depends on what you think "bad" means which as pig has demonstrated, causes problems. Other topics are easier to debate over even if both sides have the same view of the word bad (or it relevant parallel to whatever is being discussed). I personally think we should return to either talking about whether Islam is possible without some sort of Sharia like law developing in that area or to talking about whether moderate Islam is violent or oppressive in general (if these topics are too unspecific then perhaps extra restrictions will have to be added). I know I talked about how discussions should not require definitive definitions or boundaries but Sharia just seems less fun to talk about.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I don't have a problem with people arguing from a western perspective so long as they acknowledge that it's not their place to try and screw with someone else's culture.
I guess this is fair enough. But let's focus on the futile effort of working out if Islam is compatible with the general Western sense of right and wrong, because that is simply the easiest discussion to have.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
People do not hold the same morals even within a society. If you want to assert a certain set of morals by which we are to evaluate a subject, they need to be strictly codified first.
Yeah, I thought this might be a problem, thus me asking about your viewpoint if morality earlier, but unfortunately I think we are best to just accept that no discussion is perfect. Perhaps it would be best if we made sure we showed how something specifically fits with our personal view of what is right and wrong rather than just saying what we think with no context or hint at the thought process behind the conclusion. We can then argue as to whether each other's thought processes are logically correct as well as our own take on the subject of Islam. We don't need a complete psychoanalysis, just a "this thing is in my opinion wrong because it oppresses a minority which I am morally opposed to" or "this is bad because it causes more suffering than happiness".
Maybe this is too much to ask though.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._British_Isles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
Ok, you have made your point about Deprav's examples and historical knowledge, but it is mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant to the morality of Islam.
P.S. I am backseat moderating here to see if I am suitable to be an Lmod. I will not go into detail on the matter but I have been given permission to do this.
-----
Originally Posted by xlr84life
In other words, I could say that, "Oh! That country allows alchoholism! Alcohol is bad for your health, family and social life! That country is oppressing them! Ok no! They are being uninstitutionally oppressed because there are other options like Islam which do not allow these barbaric acts! They should follow Islam!".
I'm not the best i putting words together so any erros you see just point it out. Thanks.
This paragraph is rather unclear, so to avoid misinterpretation I would like to try to explain it in my own words, partially to prevent pointless arguments based on things people incorrectly thought you meant, and partially because I admire your religious conviction and feel sorry for you taking so much stick from everyone.
It is easy to say that Islam is oppressive when you view it from your own cultural perspective, but their are aspects of your own culture (Western culture) which could be seen as oppressive when viewed from a Muslim perspective. You would probably object to Muslims taking away these things if you were happier with them, and this us a perfectly justifiable response. Therefore you should not protest so much when xlr8life objects to you saying that aspects of Islam are oppressive and unacceptable.
This argument does not necessarily justify Sharia laws, so don't treat it as if it is trying to. What this argument attempts to demonstrate is that it is ok for xlr8life to argue against your Western objections to Islam from his own, Muslim perspective since you guys might do the same if the situation was reversed.
The point certainly has flaws and the example of alcohol is markedly weak, but if the assumptions (incorrect though most of them may be) he makes were taken to be true then his point is passably logical and correct. Obviously this does not mean his point is of any value whatsoever to the debate since the incorrect assumptions make it mostly useless, but the reasoning behind the point is not as weak as it might appear, so please , if you do insist on criticising the point, focus on the assumption made rather than whether he is stupid for making the point. There is no need to be roood just because you disagree with someone.
Last edited by Zelda; Jan 17, 2015 at 09:09 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
P.S. I am backseat moderating here to see if I am suitable to be an Lmod. I will not go into detail on the matter but I have been given permission to do this.
The detail on the matter is that backseat moderation is fine in discussion because it's part of the truth finding process and being capable of defending yourself against dishonesty is an important part of debates, as is critical thinking.
Anyone can backseat moderate as long as it stays within reason and does not derail the thread. I have seen pretty much every regular of discussion backseat moderate, and it is perfectly fine because that way a good understanding of conduct can be established. It's possible that a random smod may stumble upon your post and infract you for backseat moderating, so it can still be risky (and I could probably lose lmod if someone who actually cares knew I handle it this way). Up to you what you do. vOv
It's not you in particular who got the permission to backseat moderate, it's just that I saw you do it well which is why I complimented you.
Last edited by Redundant; Jan 17, 2015 at 09:11 PM.
