dialamah

If you were listening, I would tell you that I've seen this in action in my sister's family and when done right, it's very effective. But I also saw women begging on the street, so clearly not everyone in a 'sharia ruled' country will help others. Except that who would be the witness if a woman brought a charge against that person? She would need *more* witnesses than would a man in similar circumstance. Is that fair? You are young and naive, and in some ways it's kind of cute. I suppose some day you will realize that the world doesn't work quite as simply as you imagine. In Muslim majority countries, where Sharia law is implemented, women are disadvantaged and often oppressed - the stricter the code of Sharia followed, the worse is the woman's lot. Muslims who believe that the intent of Allah and Muhammed was to value and honor women should be aware of the injustices and inhumanities done because of Sharia law and work to change that, rather than burying their head in the sand and pretending this doesn't happen. If someone who hasn't yet made Altai's ignore list would like to repost that for me I would appreciate it, cause I would like her to see it.

Does the Quran teach you to walk away from people when they ask questions you don't like?

Too busy focusing on a much less prevalent problem ... Islamic terrorism.

Just quoting this because it does nicely sum up my feelings about the Muslim world. Not against educating newcomers about the law either, in regards to some of the practices they may take for granted, especially for the women who are the primary victims of those practices.

Gosh, did your tax burden prevent you from putting in gold bathroom fixtures during your bathroom renovation? Or perhaps you could only afford one fancy recliner when you actually wanted two? My heart bleeds. I know how you feel, though. My tax burden means I can't go on vacation the way I'd like to. Have to wait another year for that yard renovation, too, I'm thinking. And my daughter - she really gets it! Her $5,000 tax burden on her full-time, $14.00 an hour job means she sometimes has to shop at the food bank and she also has to drive a rusted out, shitbox car she got for $500 and repairs herself to keep it going. Having kids will do that; too bad the kids' dad didn't feel like he should have to help and disappeared, we know not where. And my friend on disability - she pays no taxes at all and it really pisses me off that I have to pay for her extravagant lifestyle of staying home because she can't afford a bus pass anymore since the BC Gov't took away the subsidized bus pass. She tends to run out of food near the end of the month; I keep telling her she has to get out of that moldy basement suite she pays $400 a month for; I'm sure she can find something cheaper, if she just looked. I give her my old clothes, and she sometimes goes to the skytrain station to beg money to buy time for her cell phone and pay her hydro bill, but still - why should any of my taxes go to help her, when dammit, I haven't been out of the country for a vacation in years! Really, Argus, I get it.

Thanks for explaining that. Now, I must admit I thought it was still being imposed due to posts made on this board and I hadn't actually checked it out until this morning. It seems that has become a practice relegated to history, notwithstanding the attempts of some terror groups to revive it. Sometimes a woman will have to work, for instance if her husband died or deserted her, or pehaps if she has never married. Should a woman still be denied the full share of an inheritance that may help her and her children? I suppose you will answer that the brother will take care of her but when it comes to money and inheritances, siblings do not always do as they should for each other. If a law is going to dictate who gets what, would it not be fairer and safer to require that an inheritance be shared equally? Can parents overrule this inheritance law, if they want? In my country, parents can decide who gets the inheritance - they can even essentially cut a child completely out of any inheritance. But at least they can respond to the reality that one of their kids may a criminal and would only use an inheritance to further his/her criminal endeavors and leave him/her little or nothing, or perhaps one child will need the major part of an inheritance because he or she has a condition that will require lifelong care. If the parents die without a will, then the courts will generally apportion everything equally. This makes women remarkably easy to take advantage of, and while it's nice to assume that all men know how to handle financial affairs and would never take advantage, this is simply not reality; nor is it reality to suppose that a woman will always have male relatives to look after her. Imagine that a woman's husband dies and leaves her fairly wealthy; she was considered too inept to learn financial mattes and so someone comes along and tricks her - she loses all her money and ends up destitute on the street. You may think this is far-fetched, but in Canada we used to have a kind of similar social expectation that men handled the money because women 'didn't have to' but then when the husband died, women were left clueless and struggling because they had never learned about their finances. If they choose to, can a husband and wife decide to share financial matters, or could a woman be the one 'responsible' for it? Does Sharia allow for that kind of flexibility in it's application? I think a system of laws or a social system which assumes women aren't capable of taking care of themselves and therefore must rely on men is unfair, and puts women at a distinct disadvantage. There is no guarantee that just because a law says 'men will protect/care for women responsibly' that it will happen or that any particular woman will always have a male relative to care for her. If a woman happens to be married to a man who beats her harshly, which is contrary to the Quran, but she is completely financially reliant upon him because of Sharia law, is that just? Did Allah intend for women to be helplessly reliant upon men, regardless of the circumstances of her life or the character of the men in her life?

Seems an over reaction to foot washing in a public washroom so I'm venturing a guess he has other issues.

I don't think even DoP would do that; it's not something I assume people would do no matter how they appear online. Those types of people are definitely in the minority. Of course it is. Why is my experience judged less valid or not representing Islam at all? (Not by you, necessarily). My assessment of you is that you are generally fair-minded, and that you would not deliberately do anything to cause another person harm or distress. I do think you have a bias that causes you to accept believe/accept statements which support your view and experience of Muslims - that they are generally not nice people. I'll try a different example of my frustration with some of the rhetoric ... I don't like the niqab or the burka; I think they are ugly and that they do reflect an oppressive patriarchal system. When this has come up in discussions I have made those statements, but they are ignored if I also say that it is a *valid* choice for some women, and that banning them means some women will not be able to leave their homes at all. This has resulted in accusing me of supporting misogyny and oppression of women, etc. Yet, not one person on 'that side' has suggested how banning the burka/niqab will actually help women escape the intrinsic oppression of their culture and Islam, nor how we would identify and help women who would be confined to their homes in the event that the government instituted a burka/niqab ban in public places. I've asked multiple times, and that question is entirely ignored. It's pretty hard to believe that these people are actually interested in "solving a problem" rather than identifying an object of hate. To be fair, I keep engaging with you and trying to find common ground because I believe you are genuine in your motives. I can't say the same for everyone.

No there isn't. As a matter of fact on my first introduction to Muslims and the Quran, I was amazed at how similar they are. If both Christians and Muslims followed biblical and quranic passages regarding tolerance, peace and acceptance, they'd be essentially indistinguishable. If they all followed respective passages regarding punishing people for disapproved behavior, they'd be equally indistinguishable.

The evidence she will give is the same evidence you would give: the stories and the book are their own proof.

Quran 9.29: Jizyah be levied on those who have been conquered until they convert to Islam. Quran 4.11: A man's inheritance is twice that of a woman Quran 2.282: Two men or one man and two women to be called as witnesses, suggesting a woman's word is worth half that of a man's. Quran 2.228: Men are a degree above women

Tax on Jews/non-Muslims in Muslim countries. Word of a woman is worth less than the word of a man.

What??? How is bringing up the fact that, for instance, practices you want to blame Islam for are also practiced by Christians stifle discussion? Could it be because it reduces your justification for hating and fearing Islam and Muslims? FGM is horrific whether it's practiced by Muslims or Christians. Pretending it's "an Islamic problem" is not a solution and it's not even a discussion. It's fear-mongering. Honor killings are unacceptable, whether practiced by Muslims, Hindus or Christians. Pretending it's "an Islamic problem" is not a solution and it's not a discussion. If people want to address inhumane practices that target women, then address them. Don't bring them up to justify hating/fearing Muslims or Islam when the same practices are carried out across multiple religions and countries. The only common Muslim practice that I can identify that is specifically Islamic is penalties for apostasy, whatever they are. Because far too many people are willing to give a pass to Christians that they won't give to Muslims. It has in secularised countries. But in some countries in which Christianity holds sway among the populace and government, not so much. High religiosity among society seems to be a problem in hindering human rights, not which religion happens to be dominant in that society. Islam is motivated to change: Tunisia is making an effort and there are many groups and individuals within Muslim-majority countries who are working to change things, including religious and political leaders. It is a very slow process. And sometimes appears to be going backwards, although I hope that's part of death throes or something. Why can't we focus on the ways in which individuals and groups within Islam are trying to change things, instead of this constant "Islam is evil; look at what they do". How does that help, exactly? What does it do but inform public opinion about Muslims, often inaccurately? A public attitude that views Muslims as barbaric, ignorant, violent and misogynistic is simply going to make it that much more difficult for Muslims who want equality, peace and tolerance - the constant refrain of "Muslims believe this (horrible thing)" without any sense of perspective simply does not help. Back to child marriage: A single hadith claims Aisha was six years old at marriage. Other references of the same era suggest she was older, between 9 and 12 - which would have been the "norm" in that time. Some scholars think she was much older, around 19. Yet, the only information you have been willing to accept is that she was six years old at marriage, that Muslims practice child marriage and that Islam is somehow responsible for the worldwide problem of child-marriage. Perhaps a little less focus on vilifying all Muslims for practices that are common around them, or throughout history, would lessen my tendency to point out that these are not Islamic issues, but cultural ones. If you don't want the gameboard tossed across the room, try accepting that often what you believe is true about Muslims and Islam, because DoP said it or because you read it on "answeringislam" or "thereligionofpeace" might be completely wrong, wildly exagerated, or controversial even among Muslims.

Perhaps they are, but they get ignored - much like you ignore the peaceful interpretation of Islam that has been shown you previously in favor of your horrific interpretation. Peaceful Muslims far outnumber the violent Islamists. Peaceful Muslims are much more threatened by violent Islamists than you or I. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? All you care about is that people accept your version of Muslims as inherently violent or inhumane and to understand that we're at imminent risk from them. Anyway, DoP, as usual it's been fun - but we'll have to take this up another day.

Exactly my point! They are also using the same Quran you and ISIS use to prove that beheading infidels/raping children/spreading war is a requirement of Islam. It's all in the interpretation! Well done, thanks for staying with it till you finally figured it out.

Well, that's an opinion. A certain band of First Nations used to be able to harvest clams as a mainstay of their diet. Climate change has made this impossible and they are suffering as a result. Sharia law, not so much. There is already climate change-related movement of plant, animal and human populations, albeit so small that if you keep your eyes focused firmly elsewhere, you won't notice. Now a good conspiracy-minded person might think that all this Muslim fear is deliberately stoked by the powers-that-be to keep people from noticing their environment disappearing, along with the viability of the human race.

Not really. I've pointed out pacifist Muslim sects, told you what my non-violent and equality-minded Muslim family and friends believe, and you've responded that unless they are willing to kill apostates, gays, oppress women, etc, then they are "not true Muslims". What is that but demanding that Muslims behave reprehensibly in order to be considered 'true Muslims' in your mind? I don't think I've misrepresented your position at all. I think you lose every single one of these discussions.

I don't believe you do get where I'm going with this. I agree reform of Islam is a good. And yes, they are fighting it tooth and nail. But so did Christianity - and they still are, but we don't see it as such, because for the most part they've submitted to the secularism and humanity we've demanded of them. But when you consider that American Christian politicians support anti-Gay legislation in Uganda, you have to have some inkling that the evil within Christianity is still there, just muted. Please keep in mind that any attempt I've made to meet the "idiotic right wing" half way has been completely disregarded and I have been vilified because I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of "Islam is evil". I can agree that there are problems within Islam, as a religion, that many of the practices inherent in Middle Eastern and African Muslim majority countries are abhorrent and to be condemned. I can't agree these are strictly "islamic" issues, however, when I see the same things happening in non-Muslim majority countries. And if you take the simple thing of child marriage and your statement that child marriage is a problem of Islam when it's clearly a worldwide problem and the country which has the most child-marriages isn't even a Muslim country, then how can I take your claim of being moderate and fair-minded seriously? Someone telling me that presentation of facts means I won't discuss the problem of Islam rationally or that I'm stifling discussion says a lot about where their bias is and the echo chamber they are looking for.

And yet, you are the one demanding that all Muslims kill gays/behead apostates. How can that be?

Funny how you only let the Quran "talk" when it suits your particular interpretation and agenda. I guess that's what "interpretation" means.

Yes it is. And you interpret it the same way as does ISIS, while my sister interprets it in an entirely different way.

You are also not an authority on Islam, yet here you are ...

Once again, you are free to interpret it in any way you choose - even if you are parroting ISIS.

If you believe, without question, every anti-Muslim story that comes out... For instance you say that 'groups of muslims in europe and the US who are actively seeking sharia law', but fail to include the information that these groups ask for sharia law for *themselves only* and only for civil/family matters. it's a very limited application of sharia law that has already been in place in many parts of the world for decades; it's not a desire to impose sharia on everyone in the country. Now, whether or not we should allow special laws for a particular group is a valid question, IMO. Why can't we discuss that? Why can't we discuss the facts instead of the hysteria?

You are free to use the same interpretation of the Quran as does ISIS and other Islamic terorrist groups.