Well, my view on it is that while domestic violence can be found in many places, it's pretty creepy when it's found in a supposedly holy text, and it's particularly dangerous for women when god issues instructions on how they're to be hit.
I think so too. There is a particular danger that people tend to go to religous advisers for advice, particularly when they are vulnerable such as being victims of domestic abuse.
When a book or body that claims to speak for morality encourages domestic abuse it is a particularly important issue becuase it (1) encourages abusers to think they are justified, (2) it can encourage adherents to blame the victim or ignore the issue and (3) it prevents many victims from even seeking help knowing that they will get little sympathy.
But even if the coercision doesn't rise to the label of abuse it encourages marital relations to be coercive and that isn't good either.
posting threads such as puzzlers yesterday comparing a muslim terrorist with a disabled soldier when there was NO comparison as most pointed out it could be seen for what it was another chance to bash muslims
No I wasn't using that thread to 'bash muslims', I was using it to bash our cowardly government who treat terrorists better than injured/disabled soldiers. :rolleyes: You can make things up all you like, NO ONE said I was using it as a chance to bash all muslims. Why can't you stick to the truth?
If thats not one huge bigoted generalisation I dont know what is,.
Are you so sure about that? You throw around accusations of racism and bigotry like confetti at a mass wedding. So let's analyse the above quote and try to see where your'e getting it from
'So many representaitives' refers to the large number of muslims that have been involved in terrorism in recent years, without having to dig up a list of islamic terror activity ( I can if you need to see it), it's safe to say their numbers have indeed been 'many'
'The actions of some' - not all, not every, but some. 'Some' once again referring to the muslims who have commited these crimes
And you must see that these terrorists have a common cause or 'jihad' - so once again it's fair to say they aren't commiting acts of terror and are coincidently all muslims. They are committing acts of terror because they share a belief which can be traced back to the koran. If they didn't read the koran and weren't muslim those acts of terror would never have happened. This statement applies to the terrorists (I refer to them as 'bad people') and not ALL muslims
I think the above is fair criticism of islam, because the events did actually happen, ie it's not a hyperthetical scenario. Yet you choose to label it 'one huge bigoted generalisation' when it's neither a generalisation nor indeed bigoted
I daresay anyone else you have accused of bigotry and racism would be able to explain their comments to you should they wish to do so. But on a debating forum such as this, it rather stifles debate if people have to keep explaining things to someone
And you must see that these terrorists have a common cause or 'jihad' - so once again it's fair to say they aren't commiting acts of terror and are coincidently all muslims. They are committing acts of terror because they share a belief which can be traced back to the koran. If they didn't read the koran and weren't muslim those acts of terror would never have happened. This statement applies to the terrorists (I refer to them as 'bad people') and not ALL muslims
....
It could also be argued that many Muslim (or Arab) acts of terrorism can be traced back to Jewish Zionism and western (Christian?) support for Zionism's systematic and admitted policy of making Palestine a Jewish State.
Hi 2+2 and thank you indeed for the compliment however I don’t think my post can even remotely be quoted in the context of a discussion about Muslims being treated unfairly on this forum. (I think it is fair to say that is the context but I am happy to be corrected).
For one it is no secret on here that although I totally believe in freedom of worship I am a severe critic of all religions and religious doctrines. Indeed I have been criticised by Christians for criticising Christianity more than Islam. I criticise any belief system, dogma, ideology etc etc for its content and reject most of them equally.
For two I see nothing in error in my post. I rather wish I had said ‘most Muslims do not beat their wives’ or some such rather than ‘Of course not all Muslims beat their wives’ but it makes little substantial difference both are just speculation. The Qur’an does of course permit the beating of wives and Mohammed did raise his hand to 'A'isha according to the Hadith Sahih Muslim 4:2127
I will continue to criticise all religions where I see fit and those individuals who cite their scriptures to justify injustice as I see it. I hope I do that with impartiality and without making any assumptions about what individual followers actually do.
I applaud Muslims and Christians etc who reject the barbaric and obsolete elements of their religions how they manage to reconcile the inevitable contradictions when faced with immutable texts is not my affair. I would of course recommend a different moral compass; one that is designed to be capable of some periodic adjustment.
Apologies Richard I was using your post to but not directly as proof of negativity towards Muslims. I didn't make that very clear. I consider you someone who is firm in their beliefs and genuinely wants to talk about these things and isn't going to reach out for the "colourful" language at the drop of a hat. I had intended to show your points encouraged thought and debate in terms of what you were saying. I didn't really get into that too much due to focusing on proving to van he was wrong.
Apologies Richard I was using your post to but not directly as proof of negativity towards Muslims. I didn't make that very clear. I consider you someone who is firm in their beliefs and genuinely wants to talk about these things and isn't going to reach out for the "colourful" language at the drop of a hat. I had intended to show your points encouraged thought and debate in terms of what you were saying. I didn't really get into that too much due to focusing on proving to van he was wrong.
Everytime there is a thread about a Muslm with extreme views, it seems customary to get the same defensive response from some Muslims:
"You can't say all muslims are like that". and "you can't tarnish a whole religion on the actions of a few".
And nobody is.
But a significant amount of Muslims have views that do not fit into a normal healthy society.
This is why there is so much criticism because its an awful lot of people (though still the minority).
We are all on the same page (I hope). We don't like extremist views.
eg:
13 percent of young British Muslims said they “admired” Al Qaeda.
13 percent is tens of thousands of people in the UK alone. That same percentage would run into millions worldwide.
It would be nice to sensibly debate why such a large amount of Muslims have extreme views that don't sit well for the average person (whatever religion).
"You can't say all muslims are like that". and "you can't tarnish a whole religion on the actions of a few".
These are comments we hear on these forums over and over. It makes you want to bang your head on the wall each time you read them
Some muslims (and some of their supporters) seemimgly have an inability to differentiate between words such as 'some' and 'all' and readily acuse others of tarnishing their religion.
When in fact the religion is being tarnished by fellow muslims who do bad things in the name of their god, and not by those of us who recognise the problems associated with islam and have the audacity to discuss them on a discussion forum
Comments
When a book or body that claims to speak for morality encourages domestic abuse it is a particularly important issue becuase it (1) encourages abusers to think they are justified, (2) it can encourage adherents to blame the victim or ignore the issue and (3) it prevents many victims from even seeking help knowing that they will get little sympathy.
But even if the coercision doesn't rise to the label of abuse it encourages marital relations to be coercive and that isn't good either.
Because people are actually still discussing it.
'So many representaitives' refers to the large number of muslims that have been involved in terrorism in recent years, without having to dig up a list of islamic terror activity ( I can if you need to see it), it's safe to say their numbers have indeed been 'many'
'The actions of some' - not all, not every, but some. 'Some' once again referring to the muslims who have commited these crimes
And you must see that these terrorists have a common cause or 'jihad' - so once again it's fair to say they aren't commiting acts of terror and are coincidently all muslims. They are committing acts of terror because they share a belief which can be traced back to the koran. If they didn't read the koran and weren't muslim those acts of terror would never have happened. This statement applies to the terrorists (I refer to them as 'bad people') and not ALL muslims
I think the above is fair criticism of islam, because the events did actually happen, ie it's not a hyperthetical scenario. Yet you choose to label it 'one huge bigoted generalisation' when it's neither a generalisation nor indeed bigoted
I daresay anyone else you have accused of bigotry and racism would be able to explain their comments to you should they wish to do so. But on a debating forum such as this, it rather stifles debate if people have to keep explaining things to someone
It could also be argued that many Muslim (or Arab) acts of terrorism can be traced back to Jewish Zionism and western (Christian?) support for Zionism's systematic and admitted policy of making Palestine a Jewish State.
Thanks SS - appreciate it*.
*The cheque for £100 is in the post
Apologies Richard I was using your post to but not directly as proof of negativity towards Muslims. I didn't make that very clear. I consider you someone who is firm in their beliefs and genuinely wants to talk about these things and isn't going to reach out for the "colourful" language at the drop of a hat. I had intended to show your points encouraged thought and debate in terms of what you were saying. I didn't really get into that too much due to focusing on proving to van he was wrong.
Thank you 5. Apology accepted of course.
"You can't say all muslims are like that". and "you can't tarnish a whole religion on the actions of a few".
And nobody is.
But a significant amount of Muslims have views that do not fit into a normal healthy society.
This is why there is so much criticism because its an awful lot of people (though still the minority).
We are all on the same page (I hope). We don't like extremist views.
eg:
13 percent of young British Muslims said they “admired” Al Qaeda.
13 percent is tens of thousands of people in the UK alone. That same percentage would run into millions worldwide.
It would be nice to sensibly debate why such a large amount of Muslims have extreme views that don't sit well for the average person (whatever religion).
source:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/
Some muslims (and some of their supporters) seemimgly have an inability to differentiate between words such as 'some' and 'all' and readily acuse others of tarnishing their religion.
When in fact the religion is being tarnished by fellow muslims who do bad things in the name of their god, and not by those of us who recognise the problems associated with islam and have the audacity to discuss them on a discussion forum