Islam & Women's Rights (With Quotes)

[Atticus]

Are you daft?


Good gracious man, do you even think before you post? What you have just posted makes no sense at all... but since you know next to nothing about religion, I am not surprised.

And, not even going to respond to Formy's seriously vague, judgmental, and ignorant reply...

Moderator Action: This kind of speech got to stop. That goes for anybody else too, if it has occurred (didn't read so thoroughly).

 

[kochman]

What? You aren't going to provide "quotes and facts" instead of "emotion and nonsense", as we contune to do with abrogation and every other silly allegation you have made in this thread?

I already have, repeatedly in this thread. Try looking at what was already posted.

I've repeatedly asked you for your sources, you haven't provided them. You provided one source for something that isn't even vaguely related, unless you are trying to say that men are forcing women to get abortions in America, unlike in the Muslim world.

So, again, until there are some sources, please... give it a rest.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have continually provided sources to corroborate my opinions as I always do, frequently without even being asked. And I have done so repeatedly in this thread. OTOH you have rarely done so.

So, in this particular instance, where are your "quotes and facts" which show "enough people within the faith interpret it in a scary way that it repeatedly manifests itself in the terrorist murdering sprees"? Again, as I have repeatedly documented, these acts are expressly forbidden by their own religion. That only a very small number of Muslims think these passages in the Koran which specifically forbid these acts have somehow been "abrogated", which you finally even admitted.

Terrorism really has little to do with religion. If it did, the acts of terror done by the allies and Germany against civlilians in WWII and other wars in the past would make Christianity just as guilty. It is unfortunate that a few Muslim fanatics now try to rationalize these acts by deliberately contravening their own religious scriptures. But it certainly doesn't mean that Islam is somehow responsible. They are no more "true Muslims" than Anders Breivert is a "true Christian".

And I'm not saying anything of the sort about men forcing women to get abortions. I have no idea how you could have possibly insinuated that from my comments above. I am merely pointing out that Muslims in general have far fewer abortions than Christians do because their religion expressly forbids it, as I documented above.

 

[kochman]

I rarely do... Please look through this thread, and you will see them.


Still waiting specifically on the following sources:

More "sins" are committed by Christians than Muslims

And, an explanation of how a women's right to choice is a negative, and therefore the Muslims having less is significant...

Same goes for divorce... of course, it is easy to know why there is less divorce in the muslim world, because the women are generally considered property there, and property doesn't have that choice.

Organized military in war =/= terrorism... it can be wrong, what happens, sure, but it isn't the same as terrorism.

You really need specific sources of islamic terrorist attacks on civilians?
Ok, WTC 93
Mardid 03
9/11
Shoe bomber
UK bus bomb
Countless suicide bombers in Israel
Underwear bomber
Recruiting center massacre
Maj Hassan massacre (at least this mainly targeted military)
etc, etc, etc

Do you need specific sources to prove these things happened?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have already provided corroboration for my actual statements instead of what you think I stated.

And I need specific sources to prove that this terrorism activity has anything to do with Islam, much as similar acts didn't have anything to do with Christianity or any other religion. That merely because some fanatical Muslims falsely claim that these acts are rationalized by their religion doesn't mean it is true, as I have already documented in this thread and others.

The truth of the matter is that Muslim terrorist attacks in the US and in Europe are dwarfed by terrorist attacks by other groups, including religious ones. That even Jewish extremists have conducted more terrorist attacks in the US than Islamic extremists:

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t

CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

The FBI Terrorism Report shows…[that] the highest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. by region (90) took place in Puerto Rico.

Why Aren't There More Muslim Terrorists?

Immediately after last month's terror attacks in Norway, Islamic extremism shot to the top of almost every list of suspected culprits. Among the soothsayers of creeping Shariah, there was never any doubt who was responsible. Others' more rational, if hasty, assessments of Norway's threat matrix pointed to the same (wrong) conclusion. For all their differences, both lines of reasoning shared a common assumption: that the sheer volume of Muslim terrorists out there made their involvement likely. Or as Stephen Colbert skewered the media's rush to judgment: "If you're pulling a news report completely out of your ass, it is safer to go with Muslim. That's not prejudice. That's probability."

Charles Kurzman begs to differ. In his new book, The Missing Martyrs, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill sociology professor rejects that Muslims are especially prone to violent extremism. "If there are more than a billion Muslims in the world, many of whom supposedly hate the West and desire martyrdom," he asks, "why don't we see terrorist attacks everywhere, every day?"

In theory, we should. After all, there's any number of ways a terrorist committed to murdering civilians could attack (and our gun lobby certainly isn't making weapons harder to get a hold of). But we don't. No Islamist terrorist attack besides 9/11 has killed more than 400 people; only a dozen have killed more than 200.

As it turns out, there just aren't that many Muslims determined to kill us. Backed by a veritable army of fact, figures, and anecdotes, Kurzman makes a compelling case. He calculates, for example, that global Islamist terrorists have succeeded in recruiting fewer than 1 in 15,000 Muslims over the past 25 years, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 since 2001. And according to a top counterterrorism official, Al Qaeda originally planned to hit a West Coast target, too, on 9/11 but lacked the manpower to do so.

Yet even if only 1 in 100,000 Muslims is a terrorist, that still leaves something like 15,000 terrorists from a global population of around 1.5 billion Muslims. Surely that's enough to inflict serious damage? It could be—and Kurzman concedes that Islamist terrorism should be taken seriously—but in practice, several factors conspire against Al Qaeda and its allies' aspirations of regularly striking Western targets with spectacular attacks.

For one thing, Islamist terrorists are bitterly divided between globalist groups like Al Qaeda and localists like the Taliban and Hamas. The Taliban, for instance, opposed (and still opposes) Al Qaeda's international ambitions, so much so, Kurzman claims, that its foreign minister sent an envoy to warn American and UN officials in the summer of 2001 about a possible, albeit unspecified, attack. Meanwhile, rifts within the Muslim world about issues like democracy, liberalism, and the role of women have crippled support for global jihadists. Insistent that all streams of Islamic thought conform to their rigid doctrines (and willing to murder fellow Muslims to make the point), Al Qaeda and its affiliates have alienated millions of potential supporters, rendering themselves far easier targets for unsympathetic Middle Eastern regimes to go after.

There have obviously been a handful of terrorist attacks by a handful of Muslims. There is no doubt of that. But what is missing is any actual proof that it has anything at all to do with Islam, other than some of the terrorists trying to rationalize their acts in that manner. Or any proof of your latest allegation that terrorist acts during wars aren't really terrorism. You continue to make statements such as this without any actual "quotes and facts" to support them.

In fact, the few documents just divulged from OBL show that he condemned attacks on Muslim civilians. That he actually disapproved of their terrorist attacks in Yemen, Iraq, and Somalia but was effectively powerless to make them change:

Why Bin Laden disapproved of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Iraq, and Somalia

Bin Laden "was not, as many thought, the puppet master pulling the strings that set in motion jihadi groups around the world," an analysis by the center said. Bin Laden "was burdened by what he saw as their incompetence."

Bin Laden expressed concern about Muslims being killed in al Qaeda operations and wanted women and children kept away from danger.

"Bin Laden was bothered by the incompetence of al Qaeda's affiliates, such as their failure to win public support, their ill-advised media campaigns, and their poorly planned operations that led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Muslims," said Lieutenant Colonel Liam Collins, director of the Combating Terrorism Center and one of the report's authors.

In a letter dated April 26, 2011, a week before his death, bin Laden wrote about the "Arab Spring" revolutions that ousted leaders in the Middle East. He mentioned the need for "inciting the people who have not revolted yet, and encouraging them to get against the rulers and the methods."

A main conclusion of the West Point analysis is that bin Laden regarded many of al Qaeda's affiliated groups, including the ones feared by the West, with dismay bordering on contempt.

 

[kochman]

I really don't understand limiting global attacks to a nation with a VERY small percentage of muslims...
I guess number of victims isn't a consideration in the phenomenon we were discussing, suicide bombers, as long as it is only one incident of above 400 innocent victims at once...
Nor are martyr videos and the yelling out of Allah Akbar indicators a the link to Islam, that and some clerics' teachings. Nope, no link. I agree.
And of course OBL disapproved of attacking muslim civilians. That is never contradicted/abrogated in the Koran... BUT ANYHOW...

Anyhow, I'd really like to get this back to Islam & Women's Rights, in particular.

Create another thread if you wish to continue to discuss suicide bombing/terrorism.

 

[JollyRoger]

Conservative Muslims share GOP values on women's rights.

 

[BasketCase]

Do you demand examples of suicide bombing, or just any sort of bombing?

I did use the words "suicide bombers", didn't I?

So all you would seem to be left with is the claim that Islam degrades a person's sense of self-preservation to such an extent that they are more likely to commit a suicide attack

Aha! There's a plausible reason. Certainly not "the only one I'm left with", but definitely possible. And, at first glance, you would appear to be right. Religions (especially the ones that preach the bit about life after death) certainly do blunt a person's sense of self-preservation.

But on further examination, your theory runs into a problem. Why is it that other major religions currently don't seem to be blunting peoples' self-preservation to the same degree?


In any case, as far as I know, those other groups you listed (IRA, Shining Punks, etc) don't abuse womens' rights. The question of why Islam abuses womens' rights more than other major religions, is still unanswered.

Are you claiming that there was no violent resistance to Islamic conquest by part of Christians? If so, you're demonstrably wrong.

Of course there was. And it's still happening. Violent resistance by Christians against Islam's attempt to conquer the world is happening right now, this very minute.

The difference being, we Christians don't go trying to blow up bus stations and shopping malls using fashionable sweater vests made from C4. When one of our bombs lands on a civilian target, it's almost always an accident. And on the rare cases when an American soldier does intentionally target civilians, we throw him in prison. The Christian approach to Islamic colonialism is fundamentally different from Islam's approach to (alleged) Christian/white/American/non-Muslim colonialism.

Why the difference?

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is a long history of Christian terrorism, most notably the KKK in the US as well as Protestants and Catholics in the UK. They have killed far more people than Muslim terrorism has in those countries, and quite possibly in the world in general.

Christians used to also oppress women far more than they do now, even though it continues to this day in many ways. It could be argued that predominately Christian countries are typically a few decades ahead of many of the Muslim ones in in this regard. But it is really far more a cultural issue than a religious one. While Abrahamist religions teach that women should be subordinate to men, nobody really pays much attention to it these days other than the religious fanatics and those who live in countries with very authoritarian governments, many of which are allies of the US.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

There is a long history of Christian terrorism, most notably the KKK in the US as well as Protestants and Catholics in the UK. They have killed far more people than Muslim terrorism has.

Christians used to also oppress women far more than they do now, even though it continues to this day in many ways. It could be argued that they are a few decades ahead of some Muslims in this regard.

But don't you see, Form? It's not suicide bombing in particular, so it doesn't count!

 

[kochman]

At some point, perhaps we can get back on topic here... maybe...

 

[Silurian]

My highlight in your post below

You keep falling back to that...
There are muslims suicide bombers in muslim and non-muslim countries. There are no christian or jewish suicide bombers in muslim or non-muslim countries. See?
Why are there NO suicide bombers from the other groups is the point.
My point isn't that all Muslims are suicide bombers for flip's sake. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this obvious statement either.

My comment

There have been Christian Suicide Bombers in hot countries.

To which the reply was

Silurian, if you have an example of a rash of Christian suicide bombers, please, source me.

changing the goal posts from

kochman; no christian or jewish suicide bombers in muslim or non-muslim countries.

My post acknowledging your concession.

So you are conceding that there are Christian suicide bombers.

Are you daft?

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Formaldehyde]

At some point, perhaps we can get back on topic here... maybe...

It seems that violence was first mentioned way back on page 4. Then on page 6, you first alleged that peaceful Islam had been "abrogated" by violent Islam, and how they have supposedly been violent ever since:

Unfortunately, the later you go in the Koran, the more violent it becomes, in the correct ordering.
Would kind of have the opposite effect of the NT, especially since in the beginning the Koran specifies that whatever teaching comes later supercedes anything it contradicts from earlier on.

1) I am aware of this. It also is subject to a near constant state of war with Pakistan, which used to be India also, but the Muslims couldn't bare to live with non-Muslims... And, India gets attacked by Muslim terrorists regularly.
2) I would say the USA is. I will now use your point, to ask a question. Why are the overwhelming majority of the religious violence problems involving Muslims?
3) That's completely irrelevant.

No one ever said the Middle East was devoid of war before Islam.
Since the inception of Islam, the violence has been basically non-stop against non-Muslims... that's how it grew, mainly through conquest.

As Warpus stated in the second post in this thread, this is really much more a cultural issue than a religious one, which was reinforced on the same page by Shane's post:

Kochman, I think the answer is simply a matter of time. The "Christian" world only improved its treatment in the last 100-150 years or so, with the weight of that being in the last 50. To expect other cultures to all evolve at the same time/pace isn't realistic.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean its OK.

Also:

*Many "Christian" cultures around the world, still treat women poorly. I think the issue is more socio-economic than religious.
*Muslims in modern, western society do not seem any/better worse than their peers. I know they often get in the headlines more often but I think that is because of the topicality of anything Muslim since 9/11.

I don't think you can actually separate the two topics because such a drastic criticism of Islam based on women's rights is really just another means of vilifying their religion based on overly simplified notions of what they actually believe. As Shane pointed out, you don't see these aspects with Muslims in modern Western society.

I think it really is fallout from 9/11 as he suggested. If it hadn't been for that fateful day, most people would continue to be ignoring women's rights in Muslim countries, as they mostly continue to do with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and any other ally of the US.

Less developed countries are typically more reactionary and barbaric in all aspects of human rights. It really has little to do with their religion. This is even true with predominately Christian African countries. It is far more cultural, and it continues to change as they become more modern.

 

[kochman]

I don't think you can actually separate the two topics because such a drastic criticism of Islam based on women's rights is really just another means of vilifying their religion based on overly simplified notions of what they actually believe. As Shane pointed out, you don't see these aspects with Muslims in modern Western society.

You most certainly do... honor killings in the US and the UK happen...
I'll try to keep it on topic here.

Women, in the West, are often still treated as objects.
Fortunately, we do see more liberal treatment, in general, than in backwards places. I definitely acknowledge the culture plays a role. I'm not only saying that Koran is the only thing to blame. There are lots of reasons. However, the Koran is one of them... and I hope it is overcome at some point, as it still hasn't been. It seems the more archaic, even in more advanced muslim nations.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is the problem with any religious dogma based on the utterance of prophets and disciples from the distant past.

There seem to be very few fanatical fundamentalist Muslims in Western countries. And those who haven't recently fled are now typically harassed and and their businesses and mosques infiltrated by the authorities since 9/11.

But I would agree that honor killings should never occur under any circumstances. In this country, they are typically called "domestic violence":


Link to video.

How many women are murdered each year when their husbands suspect they have been unfaithful or want a divorce? How many children are beaten and even killed after suspected of having sex with their boyfriends? How many gays are killed by those who think it is a grievous sin? How many girls are killed for even dating the "wrong" person?

 

[Silurian]

I take it that everybody agrees that there are Christian Suicide Bombers

 

[Traitorfish]

So far we've had Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and atheist suicide bombers, and you also get Sikh ones now and then. The only major religions that don't seem to produce them is Judaism and Chinese folk religion.

 

[aronnax]

So far we've had Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and atheist suicide bombers, and you also get Sikh ones now and then. The only major religions that don't seem to produce them is Judaism and Chinese folk religion.

Judaism might be the only one where they have an army.

And ew. Chinese folk religion. What a bad term.

 

[emzie]

This atheist wishes to bomb this thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

And ew. Chinese folk religion. What a bad term.

Is there a better term? I didn't want to say "Taoism", because, y'know: not what that is, but I don't know any other names for it.