.

.

Good then. No mention of anything in context means the matter is settled (regardless of whether you change your opinion or not).

:)

You still have yet answer my question, according to the Quran in the correct context, what does it mean when it says:

1. A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
2. Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

I know that if you quote things out of context, it can mean entirely different. Then in your point of view, what is the correct meaning in the correct context?

Im off to game, try to research from valid Islamic sites (which you would consider as "Pro") about your misconceptions.

It will save me the time of replying the same.

Here are some links for some common misconceptions / questions by Non-Muslims about Islam:

http://www.institutealislam.com/womens-rights-in-islam-modernising-or-outdated-part-one-by-dr-zakir-naik/

http://www.institutealislam.com/answers-to-non-muslims-by-dr-zakir-naik/

http://www.institutealislam.com/quran-and-modern-science-conflict-or-conciliation-part-two-by-dr-zakir-naik/

There is one on women too.

Hmm .... So once again I am forced to ask a few questions.

1. I love discussions. However, going to tangents during a discussion serves no purpose and it reflects one (or more) of few things.
a. Deflection: This means a valid response is unknown OR the speaker does not wish to reveal their true response.

If you feel this is a good thing, then please do let me know according to which religion, way of life, moral code or scientific standard (using nothing but logic) is deflection a good thing.

b. Lack of focus.
If you feel this is a good thing, then please do let me know according to which religion, way of life, moral code or scientific standard (using nothing but logic) is lack of focus a good thing.

c. Arguing and NOT debating.
Yes there is a difference. A debate is a civilized discussion which sticks to the core topic at hand and does not divulge from the core subject.

If you feel this is a good thing, then please do let me know according to which religion, way of life, moral code or scientific standard (using nothing but logic) is arguing a good thing.

patriota_PL wrote:

Also why woman have to wear this thingies? You consider it respect? Because I do not.

2. When evaluating a way of life, an opinion, a speculation, a fact, a number or even a scientific formula. It needs to be considered from all perspectives. Pointing fingers is easy, however it would appear you (the reader) has not kept in mind the multiple factors involved.

3. @Patriota_PL: subpoints
a. In accordance with what I have said in point (2), Kindly give me ONE (JUST ONE) citation or example whereby Bikini's, skin exposure, or wearing spandex has 100% fruitful results. When, you have presented that citation, then and only then, do you have the factual basis for questioning the veil.

b. Preemptively, If you wish to argue for womens rights and womens liberties.

i. At what point, (exposure), is the line crossed between liberties and rights and indecent exposure? Nipples and vagina are the things which need to be hidden? So all women should be walking around wearing that?

ii. At what point is the line crossed between liberties and indecent exposure for men? Groin and Butt are all that need to be covered? So all men should be walking around like that?

c. In reference to (3.b), yes you have to consider the extremes if you are talking about a moral and social code. Humanity likes to go to extremes when it comes to anything and as such, in accordance with 2000+ years of logic and deductive reasoning, which are still used today, we need to consider such things.

DizordA wrote:

Now I totally disagree. If a muslim women really would be liberated would she be free to go in a bikini in your home country. Tell me what would really happened if that happened cause I really want to know. In Sweden they are allowed to wear both niqab, burqa and bikini if they wanted and thats what I call liberty for women. They can choose to wear what they want to and if they pick burqa or niqab thats their choice and everyone will have to accept that cause it her choice. Whats considered bad in this situation is not that they cover themselves the issue here is what would happen if they didnt want to cover themselves. Nobody consider it wrong to get covered to avoid looks from men but some consider it wrong when they cant do the opposite. And if the horny men are the problems it aint the woman. If a woman got raped it is because that man is f@cking stupid not because that woman didnt cover herself. Sure the women looks is also a part of it because that make the rapist chose her. Although now I know that in not all muslim countries women are forced to cover themselves. In Abu Dhabi for example there was an fighting event called UFC 112 were the ring girls were bikini. They could also walk around in the street not covering themselves.

4. @DizordA:
a. @ your first paragraph, kindly have a look at point (3) of this post.

b. @ your second paragraph: Good question, I sincerely like how you are thinking. And so, sub-points:
i. What is the primary cause for rape?
ii. What is the primary cause for masturbation?
iii. In the process of Masturbation, what happens to the sanctity and "liberties" of the women who are in the mind of the male? (or other way around)
iv. Again, what is the primary cause for rape?
v. What is the primary cause for AIDS spreading at the rate it is?

c. @Questions above in (4.b). Yes I know you already built that causality, but I had to reiterate it for a simple purpose.
i. Ever heard of women raping men? Yes it happens.
ii. Ever heard that men are also required to cover certain parts of their bodies according to Islamic guidelines?
iii. I'm certain that I must have cited the text "Lower your gaze and guard your modesty" from the Quran somewhere in these walls. This citation is for BOTH the genders.
iv. So, the guidelines are, dress properly, don't cover youself and hersheys or spandex and think you are "decent" you aren't, get dressed. If that wrong?

- If (4.c.iii) is wrong, then I demand my freedom to walk around naked!
- If (4.c.iii) is wrong, then I demand my freedom to undress every woman I want.

Before you laugh or agree thinking I am joking. I am not. I'm crazy to be serious right? I agree. At what point do these demands over-step the bounds of decency and respect?

v. The causality of "Womens rights" being a popular subject is simple. until 1967 (as I have mentioned in this thread earlier) women were not allowed to own property. Until the 20th century they were not allowed to vote. However, womens rights movements ensured that every woman thought for herself especially in the oppressive societies.

From that same perspective. Why hasn't there been a "women's rights" movement in Islam? First, answer that question before you decide to point a finger.

5. @ your third paragraph: You kinda said alot here and by alot I mean lots of good things. UAE follows a version of the Sharia law (as far as I know) that doesn't make it Islam.
In KSA a bottle of JD contains the largest percentage of alcohol and it follows a version of the Sharia. That doesn't make it Islam.
Pakistan makes and exports Beer, Vodka, and Whiskey to EU. A version of sharia law is also applicable here. That doesn't make this Islam.

One could use these examples to question Islam.

But, indecent exposure is wrong in Islam.
But, Alcohol is BANNED in Islam.

Yao wrote:

Covering oneself (external appearance) is a cultural difference, and it should be so. If religion is involved in forcing one to dress in certain way then it becomes devalued and nothing more than a culture. A culture is only limited to a region/area whereas a religion should be universal everywhere.

6. I agree. I believe someone in this thread has earlier already mentioned the behavior pattern of men and women (it could be you, I'm uncertain and it is rather late). From that same perspective.

a. I know you have heard for Freud. His research are still considered valid.

i. Are you saying, sex is not one of the primary urges of humanity? (both genders)
ii. If you are, then kindly explain the usage of sex appeal when it comes to advertising.
iii. If you can, then kindly explain why sex appeal is so often used?
iv. If you are saying it is no longer used, Do name a few brands, and/or give me a few brands you like. I assure you I will show you the sex appeal (or correlations with sex) in their ads.

b. I agree a religion, or way of life, should be universal. Then why are questions often asked in this thread with preconceptions. Was Aristotle incorrect in establishing the logical thinking processes? Was Socrates incorrect? Was Decartes incorrect? Was Newton incorrect? Was Albert incorrect? The first step in a scientific evaluation is to form an unbiased hypothesis. How come there are so many speculatively biased ones around these 4 pages?

patriota_PL wrote:

Oh greaaat. So if wife refuses having sex with her husband (or other way round) this is sin by rules of Islam? Than Islam IS supporting rape. C'mon admit you will not defend this matter.

7. Hi :) Have a look at point (1) and (2) of this post. THEN, look at the next point.

patriota_PL wrote:

Are they ANY love-based marriages in Sharia countries? I seriously doubt that. I bet that by rules of Islam it is impossible to rape prostitute right? Btw how the hell this woman survive this temperatures in full BLACK clothes:O

8. Sure you read (1) and (2) ? Ok, now the sub-points here.

a. Love based marriages. Off the top of my head I can give a few examples. But this requires a few lines of back story.

i. There was a family which has been Generals, Warriors, Phjysicians in the Muslim army and forces for slightly over 1000 years. Very Muslim right? Prone to extremism right? Fits the angel right? :) I agree it does.

ii. This family about 6 Generations ago, was in Zanzibar. About 8 Generations ago, in Turkey. 2 Generations ago, in India. 1 Generation ago, In Pakistan. This Generation. All over the world with key concentration in USA. Scared? They sound like terrorists right? I agree.

iii. 2 Generations ago. This person's Mother's Siblings, all Love marriages. This person's Father's siblings, all love marriages. Parents, also love marriage.

iv. Interestingly, all inter sect Marriages. Parents cousins, all love marriages.

v. This persons' siblings both love marriages.

vi. This person is single and has had 7 girlfriends (teenage life and later) and presently refuses to ever get married. The fucker is gonna blow himself up right?

vii. This person, is me. 1000+ years of Muslims. So many love marriages. 2 sisters, both followed the codes of decency in the past and still have, both love marriages.

viii. No I don't expect to blow myself up. That would not be useful to humanity. If you feel my death would be useful, feel free to kill me, I have no issues. I'm bored of cheating death now...

b. @Patriota: Oh sorry, you were, as you said "seriously doubtful" regarding this causality. Can you kindly share the basis and logical deduction (following either inductive or deductive reasoning) or such a claim??

:) No. Pun is NOT intended here.

Yao wrote:

I'm using this quote from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html because it has a reference and I assume that's a reference to the Quran text: "Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223", doesn't that imply that you can force your wife to have sex even if she doesn't want to?

9. @Yao: Thank you for quoting the site. :)
@Analyzer: This point will elaborate on what I mean when I say DO NOT cite internet references to the Quran or Islam.

a. subpoints.
i. The cite you are quoting has a domain name which is Skeptics Annotated Bible dot com. I'm certain you know what a Skeptic is. For those who don't, I'll quote my (much despised Wikipedia)"

[quote="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism]Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.
..................
Often skepticism is confused with agnosticism for the reason that the skeptic usually is also an agnostic.
..................
[/quote]

So you know these people are doubtful about anything that is said to them.

b. In accordance with what I have stated in (9.a.i) We know that these people are doubtful about everything unless it is supported by evidence. On that same note, I would seriously like to know which translation this website quotes. Yes, there are many however, none have the ability to turn a rather long sentence into 8-10 words.

i. According to Marmaduke Pickthall's translation (Christian when he published this translation, I have the original copy dating back roughly 100 years) 2:223 says "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers. (O Muhammad).

So that statement, which you quoted, removes all aspects of context from the citation. This sentence is a sentence talking about a situation, particularly in reference to the non-believers, and when you read the sentences before and after it, you realize that this is basically saying, don't marry your women off to those who don't believe.

ii. I do find it odd, however, the statement immediately above this in the page you cite says "Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women." (2:222) Same principle applies. Context has been removed, and so the meaning is destroyed. The purpose of this phrase is, don't F*** women when they are having their periods. Because explaining the biological aspects of this at that time was of little benefit, the statement was simplified and generalized so as to convey the meaning to the idiot who don't know biology as well as to the doctor who does.

patriota_PL wrote:

Memory is more dependant on person and also have you ever heard this quotation? "Man will not forgive but he will forget, woman will forgive but she will never forget"

10. To ensure that this citation of yours is valid. I did a google search for it. This is what I got.


In accordance with what Analyzer said, Kindly provide the citation.

a. However, there was an idiot who called himself Xs who often said, "I might forget, but I will never forget". His psychologist friend told him an attitude like that would make him more prone to ulcers, heart trouble, stress issues, and the inability to let go of mistakes of others. The shirnk was right. That idiot Xs doesn't let go or love or hate. Sadly, he is perpetually stressed out.

b. But I still gotta ask, who said women don't let go. Is Xs really a woman???? *grabs crotch to check*

Quote:

About dressing now. You know what is the result of this dressing policy? Increased rape rate eg in Egypt. Boys are isolated from girls in same age and they do not know what to do when they got near one.

11. You are perfectly right!!!

a. Trouble in the bedroom is indeed not the #1 cause of divorce in America.

b. Gang rape video's coming from USA are fakes made in enemies of America called Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and Middle East. I even heard Osama bin laden was in a few Sex videos with background music of the song "Satisfaction".

c. Adult Video Network awards are not western at all, and that is pure female liberation.

d. Womens rights activists demand that men open the door for them, even though this was historically done because women were considered weak.

e. Same sex marriage is totally cool mate! After all, California legalizing it along with Hong Kong is superbly awesome. All men should be gay, that way I can get the attention of all the women!

f. Wait a minute, didn't I give this speech already in these forums?

g. Yes I did. READ (1) AND (2) of THIS post again!

Quote:

Why your religion prevents boys from knowing girls?

12. Err. Try not to use "your" when talking about the religion. That is personalizing it. If you wish, I can personalize it too, I believe I have refrained from doing so thus far. I believe it is polite and socially and politically correct to.

a. However, if you wish to still engage, :) ok I make it personal. :)

i. Scroll up and then read (.

theanalyzer wrote:

Quote: Btw how the hell this woman survive this temperatures in full BLACK clothes:O Contrary to popular belief in your part of the world. It is possible to survive in black clothing. I can assure you that. Top to bottom.

13. No I'm not skipping it.
a. @Pat: If memory serves, he's quoting you.

i. Is a woman supposed to wear only black? Where is that written? Give me the citation. THEN, we talk. Until then, you are simply proving that you are subject to hysterical paranoia.

ii. How the hell are navy people supposed to survive in full white?

iii. Also, in sync with what Analyzer said.

--- Did you know that when a person (male or female) is walking in the desert what is the first mistake they are likely to make?
--------- The first mistake they are likely to make is to take their shirt off.

I'd recommend acquainting yourself with the claims you make first, and THEN reading a little about the "modern" and "enlightened" philosophy you seem to like, and THEN talk about it.

patriota_PL wrote:

No analyzer you are wrong. Marriage system is not screwed up, social is. Men cheat their wives because they are jerks/wives are no longer attractive/have no time for their husbands(this is purely social) If you say that western male's are so bad towards their wives than I would like to see domestical violence statistics for muslim countries...

14. subs
a. What are the domestic violence statistics (which you seem to know) for these muslim contries you refer to?
b. What are the domestic violence statistics (which you seem to know) for USA, UK, Poland, Russia, Uganda, Somalia, Phillipenes, Germany and Vietnam?

c. Thank you in advance for providing these statistics, with credible citations. Also please give us the following:
i. Countries where divorce is not allowed at all.
ii. Physiological reasoning as to why men cheat on women.
iii. The socioeconomic or sociocultural index you are referring to for your claims, which year it was formed, by whom, and for what country?

d. Yes, I would appreciate credible citations for all these statistics.

e. Nope, I'm not doing defection. I'm using something that has already been accepted in this thread as "credible line of thinking", i.e skepticism. Without evidence, what you say is a;sjlhfe;lashfd;lasjdhf;alsjdhf;alsjdhf;alsjdfh;lasjdhf;alsjdhf;alsjdhf;alsjdhfkasljdlskdgvjhnxcliusadhcv;sncv 7p94fhsdavnusahfosauf rf840wyfhsdvlk;sadjfhv a4 8fsidyhflsjkd v

Feel free to try to decipher that. Then let me know what it means too.

patriota_PL wrote:

Islam is covering all aspects? Uppsss that is a disadvantage. Religion is not for being guidelines for life. I consider getting into somebodys bed/dining room/bookcase as an attack on privacy (so yes... Catholicism goes way too far...). So most religions are getting too far... but not all religions have countries living by rules of this religions.

15. Are you saying that a god, if he or she or it exists. Does not have the right to guidance?

If you are saying that, kindly, as per the sociocultural index and socioeconomic index (of your choice), clarify your opinion regarding difference between a King, a President, a Dictator, and god.

Is Obama the god of the americans? Does the american god change every 5 years?

WHAT THE HELL!

Was Hitler a god to the Germans???

:)

patriota_PL wrote:

In Poland there is no problem in co-educational schools I assure you. Have you ever read reports on overall degrading quality of teaching in USA? They are really producing half-morons now(Look in Americans are not stupid thread for YT movies). So we do not have to separate genders to improve results. We need to change way of teaching. Alcohol legal is not a mistake... marihuana NOT legal is a mistake.

16. Since I have repeatedly in this very thread told YOU, Pat, that I would appreciate that you do not drag in your country for everything, BUT because you wish to do so thus also forcing me to raise a finger at your patriotism, I shall do so in this point.

a. Give me credible data regarding the quality of education in Polish schools. Then give me metric comparison of the differences between Polish and American schools. Then, contrast the same with Chinese, Austrailian and Russian Schools. Then compare those to British Educational systems.THEN, drag your own country into this.

b. Yes, I'm refraining myself.

c. Yes I highlighted a portion of what you have written :) Sub-points right here.
i. How many people were killed by war during 2000-2010?
ii. How many people were killed by Cigarettes during 2000-2010?
iii. How many deaths, rapes and how much fornication has occured thanks to alcohol? "accidents" included!
iv. Kindly cite medical studies which show that weed is 100% beneficial and that it has no effects on brain cells, immune system, motor control and psychological state.

v. WTH?!?!??!!!!!

patriota_PL wrote:

By the way... do you know that people who support legalising drugs usually support islam too? (what an irony). Of course you can blame Jew for crime. One was even arrested and handed to Germany (no Israel was not happy).

17. Sweeping statement on what appears to be nothing more than speculation. The british ruled the indian sub-continent through poppy plantations. The american swayed the taliban (80s) through poppy plantations.

a. Who? Cite fact. Speculation is easy.

Yao wrote:

You still have yet answer my question, according to the Quran in the correct context, what does it mean when it says: 1. A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282 2. Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223 I know that if you quote things out of context, it can mean entirely different. Then in your point of view, what is the correct meaning in the correct context?

18. Have a look at (9) above.
i. The chapter these have been taken from is the longest chapter in the Quran. I'm am reasonably sure that neither Analyzer nor myself can give you a complete and holistic analysis of the context. However, I have one based on my limited knowledge. It could be wrong. If you feel the error in the perspective, do let me know. Maybe I can find an answer by going a few lines up or down.

Yao wrote:

That paragraph doesn't contain the quote I was asking. So either the quote I posted is wrong or you are posting the wrong paragraph. If it's the first case, then you can ignore it.

19. I believe I have addressed this concern of yours in (9) and (18).

Yao wrote:

I understand the "how", but what about the "when"? "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will”. So when the wife does not want to have sex, you can still will it?

20. Nope. A husband can not force himself onto his wife. Regardless of the situation. If however, she does refuse, depending on the situation, the duration and remedy for it is different.

a. If you (the reader) wish to look at this from a statement perspective, then let me show you the error in your perception.

Statement 1 says, "don't have sex with women while they are having their periods" Statement 2 says "have sex with your women" If you look at it from a limited sentence perspectives. Isn't that a contradiction?

b. Before you say anything about (20.a) scroll up and read (1) and (2).

[quote="DizordA"]

theanalyzer wrote:

DizordA wrote: Now I totally disagree. If amuslim women really would be liberated would she be free to go in abikini in your home country. Tell me what would really happened if thathappened cause I really want to know. In Sweden they are allowed towear both niqab, burqa and bikini if they wanted and thats what I callliberty for women. They can choose to wear what they want to and ifthey pick burqa or niqab thats their choice and everyone will have toaccept that cause it her choice. Sometimes, we have to see whats beneficial to society in general and sacrifice the 'freedom' of the induvidual.

If you are forced to wear black clothes your whole life covering you whole body just for the rest of society you forget to think about yourself. If you forced to live a life you dont want I dont see any point of living at all.

DizordA wrote:

In Sweden/Scandinavia rape was never a big problem and women stopped covering their hair in the late 1800's. Not until recently rape became a big problem because of huge immigration. In Norway 98% of all rapists caught got somalian origin. In Sweden the majority of rapists are from MENA. The problem is these retards blames the women 99% of the time because they dressed sexy. They been taught their whole lives that its the women fault also so therefor they see themselves not doing anything wrong. Blaming the women is just a bad excuse.

21. Actually. Since women's rights seems to be a core concern. Lets go into the basics. Ok?

a. Original Sin? Islam, Judaism, Christianity. Valid story for all as to why and how Adam and Eve got kicked out.

To christianity: Eve's fault for being swayed by Lucifer.
To Judaism: Eve's fault for being swayed by Lucifer and then convincing Adam.

To Islam: BOTH at fault for defying God.

Someone here was talking about women's rights in Islam????

yao wrote:

That's for sure. Any religion worth the name has to be morally acceptable. I do not question the morality of Islam; I only question the Quran's text because man's interpretation is based on it. You've shown the interpretation of the "how", but I cannot fathom the implications of the "when" in that quote. If it cannot be morally interpreted then perhaps a revised version is required.

22. Nope. Kindly refer to ( , (18) , (19) , (20) and (21) of this post.

23. TIME IS NOW, UP!

Read the subject.

On each page I have addressed every question in this thread using nothing more than logic and reason based on factual citations.

If you wish to use this thread to bash Islam, or insinuate hate regarding Islam. Open a new thread so I can delete it.

If you wish to use DESTINY as a place to insinuate hate or bash ANY RELIGION (and yes, I mean any religion). Open a new thread, and I will delete it.

I am still NOT locking this thread.

I hope, that you (the reader) can use factual citations for your claims. If you wish to propagate hysterical paranoia based on speculation, then I speculate that you (the reader) is a hermaphrodite.

@All: (Including myself)

This is the second time this thread has resulted in hate propagation and religious intolerance. If you think that religious intolerance should be allowed then Cite the constitution of the country which allows it so that I can cite the same to the host, the french government it is located under and the EU whose jurisdiction is also applicable.

Thank you.

Yes. I'm on the verge of locking this thread. But I would rather not.

Thank you once again.

Xs, you shouldn't over-react. I don't see any hate propagation in this thread. There were some questionable links posted for the purpose of questions, other than that, it's all good discussion. I actually learn a lot about Islam from reading this thread.

I notice that you and theanalyzer give different quotes about the same thing I asked. theanalyzer's quote for 2:223 is "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will”.

While your quote is "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers. (O Muhammad)."

Why is there a difference? and which one is the correct one. And is the difference caused by different interpretations? And if so, how to know which is the correct interpretation? I have no further question with your quote, but with theanalyzer's quote, the "when" is very questionable.

I agree I might be over reacting a little. However, the causality is simple.

Read the subject.
Read every post in the last few pages of this thread.

You will see the process of deduction.

As for the translations.

Nope, there is no interpretation involved when it comes to the Quran. Both citations are probably from different translators. The reasoning for this being that transliteration is not done, rather translation is. I'm sure you have heard of the phrase, "lost in translation".

When translating, the reason I cite Marmaduke Pickthall is simple, he was a christian when he translated it. He did not call his works the translation. He called the book "Meaning of the Glorious Quran".

One can safely hypothesize that as a christian who is translating arabic texts, he might have a concious or subconcious bias against islam or is rather conciously being unbiased.

He later accepted Islam.

There are a few phrases in the Quran, which have to date NOT been translated and their meaning not understood at all. These are 1-3 words tops and usually in the start of a Chapter. e.g. Chapter 2 begins with "Alif Lam Mim" (arabic) There are many perspectives as to what these stand for, however none can be considered conclusive the speculative aspects of such conclusions are clear.

Oh I see. So the difference is due to different translations. This is quite common in any old texts actually.

What is the original language of the Quran? I know it's Arabic, but isn't there different versions of Arabic? Can you infer directly from the original text? I'm curious to know whether the "when" context is in the original text or not.

The 5 W (Where, What, When, Why, hoW) are the basic building blocks of any languages, so there shouldn't be any difficulty in finding the literal meaning "when" in the original text - if it's there.

I dont have time right now either to make a reply on everything xs said(I also did wonder where he went!) but I dont think this topic should be locked since I believe its a very interesting discussion and "educational".

Also about that quote pat made there's a similiar saying: "Man never forgives, women never forget." Not the exact same quote and well if you want me to trace its origin I would think that would be impossible.

This is a "quicker" reply since my other 30-40 min reply got deleted when the comp shut off.

Xs wrote:

a. In accordance with what I have said in point (2), Kindly give me ONE (JUST ONE) citation or example whereby Bikini's, skin exposure, or wearing spandex has 100% fruitful results. When, you have presented that citation, then and only then, do you have the factual basis for questioning the veil.

I dont understand what you mean by fruitful in this situation please define it. The point isnt what they are wearing the point is that they are forced to wear it. And in this case the women got different and in my opinion worse rules compared to the men.

b. Preemptively, If you wish to argue for womens rights and womens liberties.

i. At what point, (exposure), is the line crossed between liberties and rights and indecent exposure? Nipples and vagina are the things which need to be hidden? So all women should be walking around wearing that?

ii. At what point is the line crossed between liberties and indecent exposure for men? Groin and Butt are all that need to be covered? So all men should be walking around like that?

c. In reference to (3.b), yes you have to consider the extremes if you are talking about a moral and social code. Humanity likes to go to extremes when it comes to anything and as such, in accordance with 2000+ years of logic and deductive reasoning, which are still used today, we need to consider such things. [/quote]

i & ii: I believe people should be free to walk around naked if they wanted. Its their choice if the want to freeze their @rses off.

C: What is extreme in my eyes doesnt make it extreme in someone else's eyes.

Xs wrote:

b. @ your second paragraph: Good question, I sincerely like how you are thinking. And so, sub-points: i. What is the primary cause for rape? ii. What is the primary cause for masturbation? iii. In the process of Masturbation, what happens to the sanctity and "liberties" of the women who are in the mind of the male? (or other way around) iv. Again, what is the primary cause for rape? v. What is the primary cause for AIDS spreading at the rate it is?

i.: Being horny is my assumption. Then we can go on forever on why people are being horny but I believe that is a different discussion.

ii.: The primary cause I believe is also being horny but the other causes I believe varies alot from the causes of rape.

iii.: I believe nothing happens unless the person tells the other person and then the result may vary. What happens in the mind usually stays in the mind and will never be revealed.

iv: Look above

v: That depends on which region we are talking about. In Sweden doctors claims its because of unsafe sex. Rape is very rare in Sweden even though it increased alot in the recent years. According to statiscs Aids is extremly rare in Sweden to get from rape. All my sources on this are in Swedish and I wont bother to translate them unless I really have to.

If we go to Africa the situation is totally different.

I remember I wrote a 3rd part here before it got deleted but unfortunately I cant f@cking remember what I wrote and I hate my f@ckin computer.

Xs wrote:

c. @Questions above in (4.b). Yes I know you already built that causality, but I had to reiterate it for a simple purpose. i. Ever heard of women raping men? Yes it happens. ii. Ever heard that men are also required to cover certain parts of their bodies according to Islamic guidelines? iii. I'm certain that I must have cited the text "Lower your gaze and guard your modesty" from the Quran somewhere in these walls. This citation is for BOTH the genders. iv. So, the guidelines are, dress properly, don't cover youself and hersheys or spandex and think you are "decent" you aren't, get dressed. If that wrong?

i. In my hometown there were som p!ssed of feminists who decided to turn the tables and they went around shovin dildos up men's @rses. So yes I had heard of it.

ii. Yes but their guidelines varies from the women which I think is wrong.

iii. I cant remember that quote...

iv. The whole point is not how they dress. Even if they dresses as Santa the discussion would still be here cause its not the outfit itself we discuss. The 2 main points in my opinion is that men and women got different guidelines and that they are forced to follow those guidelines. (I made a long and complicated answer but that also got deleted and Im too p!ssed to rewrite everything again so I made it short)

Xs wrote:

- If (4.c.iii) is wrong, then I demand my freedom to walk around naked! - If (4.c.iii) is wrong, then I demand my freedom to undress every woman I want.

I believe you should be free to walk around naked if you wanted no matter on how ugly that would be. Although about undressing women I believe thats a totally different things. That involves their bodies in a totally different way. If you walk around nude it would be way easier to just close their eyes and/or ignore you. If you undress them they cant ignore it and close their eyes. And since you probably did it with force it would be totally different since you put/force them in a very hard situation.

Xs wrote:

v. The causality of "Womens rights" being a popular subject is simple. until 1967 (as I have mentioned in this thread earlier) women were not allowed to own property. Until the 20th century they were not allowed to vote. However, womens rights movements ensured that every woman thought for herself especially in the oppressive societies. From that same perspective. Why hasn't there been a "women's rights" movement in Islam? First, answer that question before you decide to point a finger.

I dont understand really which part of the world you are talking about. When Sweden starting to get laws in the 1200-1300th and according to those laws people could also steal from women so technically that would mean that women could have property. Sweden did get its first "public election" in 1918 which only allowed men above the agoe of 25 to vote. 3 years later 1921 Women did also have the right to vote.

I totally disagree with that women rights was never needed in Islam. Although I do admit my knowledge here is limited. But now to my point what do we then call it when women comes from the middle east into Sweden for example removes the burqa/niqab and say its anti women and they would get killed for doing it in their home countries. What about the case of that muslim reporter who fled to holland and claimed to fight for women rights in Islam and the middle east. I dont remember her name but she was quite famous because she got murdered by some extremists.

Xs wrote:

5. @ your third paragraph: You kinda said alot here and by alot I mean lots of good things. UAE follows a version of the Sharia law (as far as I know) that doesn't make it Islam. In KSA a bottle of JD contains the largest percentage of alcohol and it follows a version of the Sharia. That doesn't make it Islam. Pakistan makes and exports Beer, Vodka, and Whiskey to EU. A version of sharia law is also applicable here. That doesn't make this Islam. One could use these examples to question Islam. But, indecent exposure is wrong in Islam. But, Alcohol is BANNED in Islam.

Please enlight me on this part. I dont really understand what you are trying to say here.

Now I give up because I lost my temper when my 1st reply got deleted.

May I suggest to establish a basis for discussion? We are talking about equality of rights for the gender in Islam but have not determined which constitutional rights as the reference.
If we are using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then Islam fails it. If we are using the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam then Islam pass it.

This quote summarizes it all:

Quote:

Some Islamic countries have criticised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[20] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[21] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[22] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".[23] However, this document does not guarantee freedom of religion or gender equality, the root of many criticisms against its usage.

So Islamic laws are based on their own version of the human rights, not on the universal declaration of human rights. In other words, Islam has a different definition for "equality" than the rest of the world. An analogy: if a boy has 100% in an exam and a girl has 50% in the exam, they are equal because they both pass (50% is the passing grade); another analogy: the boy weighs 200 lbs, so he is given $200, the girl weighs 100 lbs so only $100 is given; the girl receives equally as the boy because the ratios of weight/dollar are equal even though the girl receives only half as much as the boy.

This shows two important things:
1. Islam is against the advance of society and,
2. It is impossible for Islam to advocate "universal" in its teaching.

My question is it possible that #1 is the primary cause for all the extremist groups under the name of Islam? Every religion has extremists; but in my opinion Islam stands out the most due to reason #1.

That all depends on whether Islam is willing to adapt to the advance of society. One thing is obvious; society is continuing to move in the opposite direction of Islam laws. If Islam cannot adapt, then extremist groups will continue to grow and become more desperate.

One of the most basic human rights is freedom of religion; this alone will separate Islam from the rest of the world.

An article for your thought http://www.rferl.org/Content/Islams_Challenges_To_Universal_Human_Rights/1357912.html

.

.

You meant rephrased by an Islam. Of course, it's expected that Islamic followers will defend its declaration of human rights since Islam probably has its own definition of universal as well. So it will be difficult to come to a consensus of what universality is.
A better way to distinguish the two declarations would be calling it "declaration of the gender rights" for Islam vs "declaration of the human rights" for the rest of the world, since woman under Islam is technically only half human :)

theanalyzer wrote:

... because those rights do not differentiate religion.

You should listen to yourself sometimes. You do realize that it is not called "The Universal Declaration of Religion Rights". We are not talking about rights of various religions. Every religion has different rights/beliefs over another, and they should be respected; there's no point in discussing that. But humanity is not a religion. Human is a being; we are talking about the rights of human beings, not rights of the religions. Why? It's because not every human being has the same religion, and following a particular faith doesn't change you into a super-human, nor a lesser-human.

If that's too hard to grasp, then think about animal rights. When we talk about animal rights, they are rights of the animal - not the rights of the religion of the animal.

Another example, if I were to compare my weight with yours then both of us would strip naked and get on a scale and weigh. There's no point in comparing if you wear a 10kg training jacket or I'm wearing the 50kg training shoes in 9Dragons; if we were to do this, we would be comparing our training gear weights, not our weights.

People don't like my walls of posts so I'll keep it short and not shoot down things preemptively. (Bad chess move that is but meh)

Yao wrote:

So it will be difficult to come to a consensus of what universality is.

1. What is Universality?
a. Humans only?
b. Animals + Humans?
c. What time period because the "rights" change, right?

Yao wrote:

A better way to distinguish the two declarations would be calling it "declaration of the gender rights" for Islam vs "declaration of the human rights" for the rest of the world, since woman under Islam is technically only half human :)

2. Fail.
a. The number of times the word Man has been used in Quran = Number of times woman has been used.
b. Women do get more liberties and freedoms (AS EQUALS) in Islam, than any "democracy" in the world today. "Lower your gaze and guard your modesty" Means, sexual harrassment, begins when a guy "checks out" a girl. Stop right there, sonny, don't do it.
Even conservative laws allow a male or female to ask a male or female 2-3 times after which it becomes harrassment in the workplace. Non-work place, nothing is stopping you with the exception of a harassment suit or stalking suit. The legalities differ.
My point.
Islam = Men, women, I don't care, respect the other one and don't fantasize, that's invading their rights to exist.
Laws = Fine, hit on em. Back off if they say no enough times. Smart people take advantage of the vulnerables ones, so get with it mate, lets play chess and monopoly with body parts.

Yao wrote:

You should listen to yourself sometimes. You do realize that it is not called "The Universal Declaration of Religion Rights". We are not talking about rights of various religions. Every religion has different rights/beliefs over another, and they should be respected; there's no point in discussing that. But humanity is not a religion. Human is a being; we are talking about the rights of human beings, not rights of the religions. Why? It's because not every human being has the same religion, and following a particular faith doesn't change you into a super-human, nor a lesser-human.

3. Agreed, agreed, and wait let me re-read.
....
...
..
.
Agreed!

Do religions respect other religions? Offer them protection? Consider all of humanity equal? Has an omnipotent entity been proposed which says that it ain't going to forgive you for the grievences you'll commit against another human being?

Isn't that taking "Human rights" to a truly "Universally applicable" level? I mean God's don't say, "you were a saint, did good, died nobly, but you took a USD 1 loan from the Chunky Monkey and even though you could return it later, didn't, so sonny, you ain't going into heaven until Chunky forgives you. I won't forgive you for that."

Right? thats just stupid no?

No.

Islam has that clause too :P

So what happens to a religion, which says the "Rights of God" are second to only "Rights of other Humans"?

They like to become terrorists? Blow em selves up to kill a few people and think its right?

I agree :) Them terrorists are real smar! (100% Sarcasm intended)

Yao wrote:

If that's too hard to grasp, then think about animal rights. When we talk about animal rights, they are rights of the animal - not the rights of the religion of the animal. Another example, if I were to compare my weight with yours then both of us would strip naked and get on a scale and weigh. There's no point in comparing if you wear a 10kg training jacket or I'm wearing the 50kg training shoes in 9Dragons; if we were to do this, we would be comparing our training gear weights, not our weights.

4. Hey, don't be derogatory against Catism or Dogism and yes their religions are different.
a. Catism = Feed me and stay away and lemme sleep unless I want you to scratch my belly. Don't forget to feed me!
b. Dogism = If you can't eat it or piss on it, least try to F*** it.

--------------
PUN INTENDED IN POINT (4)

YES I GET HIS POINT!

YES IT'S AN APT EXAMPLE TO GIVE, BUT I'M GRUMPY AND THAT STUPID EXAMPLE I GAVE MADE ME SMILE.

*grins*