paul-
Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's wrong. Much of the Islamic world does not believe in Universal Human Rights, things we in the West take as a given. Specifically, the equality of all men and women under the law, the universality of the free vote, the right to assemble, the right to a fair trial, the right to one's choice of religion, and the separation of church and state.
"Simplistic" is not the same as "simple". They are two different words with pretty different definitions. The definition of simplistic is as follows:
1. characterized by extreme simplicity; naive
2. oversimplifying complex problems; making unrealistically simple judgments or analyses
Muslims in America, to my knowledge, have not as a group taken particular issue with equality of men and women under the law, the free vote, the right to assemble, the right to fair trial, the right to one's own religion, separation between church and state. Really, gender equality is pretty much accepted by everyone under the law. When it comes to personal views I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of different religious groups (including Christians) and minorities who do not regard women as equal to men. We should eradicate gender inequality from all sides of our culture.
I can't think of many American Muslims taking issue with the right to a free trial, the vote, the right to assemble, that under the law women are equal. We're talking about laws here and not religious "laws".
If religious "laws" were an issue, Christian men would be against all that you mentioned. For that reason I worry about people who take any religion literally.
The Quran says the man is the head of the household and can beat his wife if he "fears rebellion". It also says he can have up to 4 wives and limitless slaves. It says a woman gets 1/2 of a man in inheritance and her testimony in court is 1/2 of a man's. And I could rattle off chapter and verse of a dozen other things that are in direct conflict with the rights we hold "self-evident".
I'm not sure how bringing up a quote from the Koran clears things up here. It's as informative as bringing up a quote from the Bible on women.
Here's an example of a quote from the Bible on women from Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church"
In this section of Deuteronomy women who are raped and don't cry out loud enough are to be stoned to death: 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city"
I can too rattle off dozens of quotes from the Bible that are in direct conflict with our legal principles. Somehow Christians in this country manage to think that the two do not contradict one another. I suspect they adapt not because the religion they chose coincides with our principles but for other reasons that I've already stated previously.
Can you imagine if Christians in this country followed their Bibles? But they DON'T. So clearly it's not the choice of the religion here but how literally people follow it that is the problem. The religious texts are at least equal in brutality and injustice. I can match quote for quote on that.
*A side not on women's land inheritance: Islam was actually unique among Abrahamic religions for giving women the right to own land and the right to divorce. Prior to Islam, women had no such rights under religious law. Sure it seems terrible in 2011, but we are talking about 1,400 years ago so for that time that was pretty progressive and liberal for women. (In fact, when the British colonized Muslim ruled India, British law of that time dissolved of the Islamic women's rights to inherited land. I know this because my relatives went through this shift and as a result my grandmother had no immediate rights to inherited land under British law.)*
You sound also suspicious of "moderate" American Muslims and skeptical of their abilities to be truly reasonable and "moderate". As if "moderate" and "Muslim" cannot possibly go together.
If anyone were to read the Bible without presuppositions they would in fact question whether "moderate" and "Christian" can go together. (I have plenty of quotes to go to that point, but I don't know if you want my post to be that long).
Are you suspicious of American Muslims? Or are you afraid of religious zealots?
Do you think most Christians in this country would tell you the Constitution trumps all the verses of the Bible?
P.S. Forgive me for saying "you sound like..." as it may sound especially accusatory. That's not my intention at all. I'm only trying to express how your view is coming across to me. I'm open to a civil discussion.
reply
share
paul-2219
12 years ago
Can you imagine if Christians in this country followed their Bibles? But they DON'T. So clearly it's not the choice of the religion here but how literally people follow it that is the problem. The religious texts are at least equal in brutality and injustice. I can match quote for quote on that.
You seem to be arguing straight out of the CAIR taqiyya guidebook:)
You refer of course to Old Testament verses, David and Goliath, Samson the Superhero, don't eat port, eye for an eye, etc. In case you haven't noticed, ALL Christians (outside of loony bins and prisons) believe New Testament trumps Old.
The difference is that for Muslims, for ALL Muslims, the Quran is the eternal and protected guidebook for all time. There is NO separation of church and state in Islam, for Islam is more that a religion, it is an ideology encompassing all facets of life. It's not a fair comparison to match "verse for verse" when there are countries where Quranic verses ARE the law. And when MANY of these verses command adherents to "spread the good word", your dismissal of any possible danger as "no worse than Christian" becomes naive and dangerous.
I think you would be surprised how many "moderate" N. American Muslims would prefer to have aspects of Sharia law incoprorated into our constitutions. You don't hear about it much here as in Europe, cause their numbers are too small. Here in Canada we have Muslim groups constantly petitioning to have sharia "family courts" settle "family matters".
*A side not on women's land inheritance: Islam was actually unique among Abrahamic religions for giving women the right to own land and the right to divorce. Prior to Islam, women had no such rights under religious law.
I do hear that one a lot, and it's amazing as it's so untrue. What "religious laws" were in place in 7th century Arabia that are referenced by this famous claim? The truth is that Mohammed's first wife Khadjia was a wealthy WIDOW who married him when he was a young man. She INHERITED her late husband's trading business and worked it in his absence. She even employed Mohammed and gave him a salary. Only after she died, did Mohammed begin to "reveal" that a woman's inheritence should be 1/2 that of a man, because (NOW) the rule would be that "men are the maintainers of women", who "spend out of their property".
You sound also suspicious of "moderate" American Muslims and skeptical of their abilities to be truly reasonable and "moderate". As if "moderate" and "Muslim" cannot possibly go together.
I am suspicious, yes. I'm suspicious of anyone who says they find it "difficult to reconcile American culture and laws with their religion" (pretty much the tag-line for this reality show). What does this mean to you? It means there are aspects of our "freedoms" which are antithetical to their core Islamic beliefs. You should read some time the polls of British Muslims who identify as Muslim first, before British.
Are you suspicious of American Muslims? Or are you afraid of religious zealots?
Do you think most Christians in this country would tell you the Constitution trumps all the verses of the Bible?
I am suspicious of all religious zealots, whatever their stripe. If any "Christian" wants to trump our laws with some moldy old testament proverb, I'll tell him where to go. But your moral equivalence stance is dangerously tilted. I doubt there are more than a handful of kooks patterning their lives after Numbers and Leviticus, but in my estimation a near-majority of Muslims would like to see many of the "freedoms" I mentioned "altered" in a manner in keeping with sharia law. I guess I'm just not too concerned about a group of nuns in C4 vests blowing up schoolbuses shouting "Christ is Greatest".
Have a look some time at the direction France and Sweden and the Netherlands and Germany are headed, and tell me I'm being paranoid.
reply
share
Bullish_Captain
12 years ago
Don't people know there's an unwritten rule in the sky for all religous people, that they can pick and choose which parts of their holy books they want to follow?
reply
share