Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Guest Peeves]

Islam most certainly can reform.

Islam could reform of course, but that is unlikely since every word, comma or period in the Koran is deemed the last and holy word of Allah and not a period may be changed. Changing the word of Allah is blasphemy meriting execution.

Which is total horse shit by the way because it has had many changes over the centuries.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

I haven't seen a religion that this isn't true for, save perhaps Buddhism.

Most every other religion I can think of has had revisions making it conform more to contemporary times. Not however Islam, it's completely anachronistically fixed into the 7th - 8th century (see sharia.)

Islam cannot be reformed since the Koran is the (last and final) word of god and not a period may be altered under sentence of death.

There is a tendency by some today to attempt to compare ancient Judaism and Christianity to commonly practiced Islam today. (See Saudi Arabia and 18th century Wahhabism.)

Of course that is dishonest since neither Judaism or Christianity practice the 7th century religions in contemporary times.

[Michael Hardner]

Nobody has suggested extreme Christians aren't extremists. But what are the odds American would vote in a party led by the Phelps?

Every Muslim country which has had anything approaching free elections has voted in Muslim parties which promise to rule according to the Koran. But you don't consider them or the people who voted for them to be extreme, do you? Every poll taken of sentiments in Muslim countries shows a majority have extreme antipathy towards Jews and homosexuals. But do you believe that makes the populations of those countries extreme?

Extreme is a relative term.

No, I don't think a Phelps would get elected but you can't get elected in the U.S. without referencing the bible in some reverent way.

I'm just trying to figure out what the point is in painting other countries as having religious extremism, and how people see that. Every time I ask, I get a slight change in the parameters.

[Guest Peeves]

Extreme is a relative term.

I'm just trying to figure out what the point is in painting other countries as having religious extremism, and how people see that. Every time I ask, I get a slight change in the parameters.

truncated:

Perhaps then we need remove the qualifier, religious, since that seems to be the contentious issue.

Culture is at times the villain.

Hundreds of honor killing take place in certain cultures (Pakistan in the hundreds annually are reported by the Western press.

Pakistan honor killings: "Pakistan has taken steps to counter the troubling rise of "honor killings," but recently enacted laws were not enough to save 675 women.

That is the number of women who died in honor killings in the first nine months of 2011, according to Pakistan's leading human-rights watchdog, putting the county on track to exceed the record number of such killings recorded in 2010"

FGM. is culturally practiced in some countries "According to the WHO, it is practised in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of Asia and the Middle East, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia.[2] The WHO estimates that 100–140 million women and girls around the world have experienced the procedure, including 92 million in Africa.[1]"

Wearing a face covering is a cultural manifestation, in fact it can be deemed unlawful in Muslim countries.

Clothing considered a custom, a culture or tradition may conflict with countries laws and do not supersede or trump them.

http://www.humanreligions.info/clothing_and_symbols.html

Many dress codes in workplaces are not only sensible, but often increase the safety of the individuals and those they work with. If a person chooses to follow a religion that forbids them from following the dress code required with certain work, then, they should not do that work. There is no requirement for the demands of physical reality to be bent to the idealism of religious dogma.

If you indulged in some type of behaviour that didn't make any sense, had no merit, achieved a mystical goal and was also impractical, then everyone would conclude it was a superstition. The following news report from the UK's National Secular Society brings together these elements in a type of case that has been hitting the press frequently this decade:

“Muslim woman wants religion put before hospital hygiene rules.

A Muslim woman radiographer at a Berkshire hospital is claiming she was discriminated against because she refused to follow the national hospital dress code aimed at combating the spread of superbugs. She has now left her job.

The woman refused to follow the ruling that says that arms must be uncovered, either from wearing short-sleeved uniform or by rolling up the sleeves. This policy has been introduced to combat the alarming spread of MRSA and Clostridium difficile.

The woman said Islam teaches that women should dress modestly and cover their bodies while in public, and therefore the rules forced her "to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood". She had worked as a therapeutic radiographer for 10 years, and described her situation as a "continuous nightmare". She says she has been "emotionally torn about" over losing her job.

She said that she fears she may not be able to get another job, but has vowed to campaign against the NHS's "bare below the elbows" policy.

The woman, who did not want to be identified, said she wants to "prevent the policy from being universally applied, so other Muslim women do not experience the same trauma."”

National Secular Society (2008)1

Similarly though a cultural tradition, a beard may be in conflict when wearing a face mask required in environmental conditions as there could be no seal.

In certain sports traditional/cultural clothes may reasonably be prohibited.

While some may claim it's a religious issue, it isn't it's cultural or a sect tradition in many cases, no more a religious creed than eating fish on Friday, Easter eggs or a Yule log.

Cultures are often in conflict with the law, but that does not mean they can be claimed as religious and so justified in demanding of a 'religious' accommodation.

OUR laws, Our, customs, OUR traditions are in need of recognition, or we will lose them. Traditions or cultural affectations carried here as baggage from Africa or Hotzenplotz should be carefully scrutinized before appeasement (often called euphemistically as accommodation)is granted.

Certainly there are justifications for refuting religious claims for what are quite simply cultural symbols, shared attitudes, values, or sectarian practices or tradition.

After all, there is a determination by some to institute their values on us even if that means we as the host country lose ours.

We have had cases of female Genital Mutilation here, 'honor killings HERE! There have been attempts to accept sharia law here.

There has to be a line drawn in the sand before the sand becomes concrete or quicksand.

[Guest Peeves]

Again, there is no central authority in Islam. It's not the religion that needs to reform, it's the interpretations of religious zealots that needs to reform. Your argument is like saying Christianity needs to reform because the Phelps family is batshit crazy.

Christianity and other religions...Judaism have reformed of course.

While there is as you say no central authority as the Pope in Islam, there certainly are millions that revere certain leaders leaders who openly state their views and interpretation of the Koran. They issue fatwas, (: a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader) without hesitation on issues of life, death or incrementals on anything in between between.

There interpretations may well conflict with other Imams, but conflict is all most Muslims in theocracies or dictatorships have ever known. Islam is a political, historically violent practice that kills other Muslims over religious differences.

Admittedly Christians and others kill one another over lebensraum, but hardly over religious differences today.

I wouldn't deem to call all of them zealots, but, held to such high esteem they may be very dangerous zealot or fringe or mainstream depending on their following.

I might for the uninitiated point out that the worst enemy of Muslims is of course other sectarian Muslims.

Followers of Fatah murder Hamas members or vice versa.

Practitioners of Sunni murder the Mulim Shi'a , and the Kurds or the Bahá'í , Jews, Christians, Hindus or whatever are targets at anytime.

Since it has been impossible for Muslim sects to get along for centuries, why would we expect them to coexist with others?

[Michael Hardner]

I never said extreme Christians aren't Christians. You twist my words do you not.

Let's try to be honest here.

I suggested that I doubted the Phelps, (by their actions), would be considered as Christians.

That's very subjective. If you're the one deciding on what is Christian and Muslim here then how can we have an objective discussion ?

I believe in general terms much of Islam today is a violent perverted political abomination being foisted on those wishing human rights and freedom enjoyed by countries created under Judea-Christian values. Certainly millions of Muslims practice their Islamic faith in peace and are good human beings.

To the contrary we see Muslim countries like Syria -Egypt- that suffer under Islam.

Much of Islam ? Ok... feel free to further qualify but you didn't answer my question: give me the measures that you will use, and how you will apply them to Christianity as a baseline then we can go through the exercise for Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps then we need remove the qualifier, religious, since that seems to be the contentious issue.

Culture is at times the villain.

...

There has to be a line drawn in the sand before the sand becomes concrete or quicksand.

Yes, culture is at times the villain - I agree. So how do you draw this line in the sand if there are cultures, not nationalities or religions involved ?

[Guest Peeves]

That's very subjective. If you're the one deciding on what is Christian and Muslim here then how can we have an objective discussion ?

Much of Islam ? Ok... feel free to further qualify but you didn't answer my question: give me the measures that you will use, and how you will apply them to Christianity as a baseline then we can go through the exercise for Islam.

"That's very subjective. If you're the one deciding on what is Christian and Muslim here then how can we have an objective discussion ?"

" A further perversion of what I said, in fact the opposite. I never stated anything of the kind.

I will not attempt to judge who is Christian nor who is Muslim and I have said so. I certainly will hold an opinion as to seems to be following their claimed religious beliefs or tenets. Since Muslims can't agree on who is a Muslim nor Christians on who is a Christian one can only judge their respective actions.

I suggested that I doubted the Phelps, (by their actions), would be considered as Christians.

Not at all subjective, that's a statement.

Your attempt to spin my statements are pretty weak.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

"That's very subjective. If you're the one deciding on what is Christian and Muslim here then how can we have an objective discussion ?"

" A further perversion of what I said, in fact the opposite. I never stated anything of the kind.

I will not attempt to judge who is Christian nor who is Muslim and I have said so. I certainly will hold an opinion as to seems to be following their claimed religious beliefs or tenets. Since Muslims can't agree on who is a Muslim nor Christians on who is a Christian one can only judge their respective actions.

I suggested that I doubted the Phelps, (by their actions), would be considered as Christians.

Not at all subjective, that's a statement.

Your attempt to spin my statements are pretty weak.

I'm not intending to spin your statements.

We've evolved the conversation, and so... where are we with this ? Culture is indeed a factor so what do we do with this information ?

[Guest Peeves]

Yes, culture is at times the villain - I agree. So how do you draw this line in the sand if there are cultures, not nationalities or religions involved ?

Simply by putting our culture, laws and traditions first and if there's any conflict go with our traditions, laws and culture.

Perhaps I might think, ? what would their former country do in similar circumstance ? as a means of explaining no concession on our principles...

That's tongue in cheek btw.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not intending to spin your statements.

We've evolved the conversation, and so... where are we with this ? Culture is indeed a factor so what do we do with this information ?

Culture is flexible. Culture is to be admired. Culture that conflicts with the host countries culture is trumped. Culture that is admirable should be encouraged. Culture that is not, FMG, Honor murder, Wearing a mask, caste system, suttee or anything of the like contrary to contemporary mores should of course be unacceptable as contrary to our traditions or laws.

If a cultural practice is NOT in conflict in any way, then it should be considered.

An example might be Quebec. There the insistence is on all things French first. Regardless my right as a Canadian to expect English signs or language to be predominant in Canada, I then expect cultural LAWS in Quebec to be different and my culture is secondary. If there's a conflict, Quebec's culture wins out.

If an immigrant or convert has some desire to observe a custom then they must accept that their wants are secondary to mine.

The veil is a good example. Wearing a veil hijab, or babushka or kerchief is generally not a problem,(could be in certain situations), but it is a custom in many cultures.

Wearing a niqab or burka is an entirely different thing. While still a cultural thing ONLY, by Islamic

sources, it is contrary to our traditions of face to face discussion or meeting or social intercourse. It is simply a disguise, a mask and an object of subjugation. It's not welcome to most here that have a tradition contrary to such a probable humiliation to the wearer and an indignity to others..me.

Since it is not religiously prescribed, (source Islamic scholars), it cannot be defended by such claim.

And like other customs, denied public expression.

There are other customs that are contrary to allowed practice and I have noted a few. Those concerned with advocating accommodation miss the point, our custom, our traditions are primary and those coming here are expected to honor our customs, if they don't they are rather openly insulting us in my opinion

[cybercoma]

perhaps only wrong from another's perspective

It's funny how conservatives (small c, meaning ideology, not party) argue from a modernist perspective all the time. For instance, there are right and wrong values or they hold ideas that promote the advancement of other people and cultures that conservatives believe are "backwards" or "primitive" (more articulate and less offensive debaters will say "underdeveloped"). However, when someone disagrees with their modernist perspective, they're quick to adopt post-modernist ideology that embraces a multiplicity of perspectives, as you have done above. It's incredibly inconsistent. If various perspectives have equal value, then you ought to embrace others' beliefs, cultures, and ways of life. Along with this paradox, conservatives are apt to use this line of reasoning against more liberal people. They will say, if all beliefs and values are just various perspectives, you must accept the conservative one, even if it's not based on sound logic.

[Michael Hardner]

Culture is flexible. Culture is to be admired. Culture that conflicts with the host countries culture is trumped. Culture that is admirable should be encouraged. Culture that is not, FMG, Honor murder, Wearing a mask, caste system, suttee or anything of the like contrary to contemporary mores should of course be unacceptable as contrary to our traditions or laws.

If a cultural practice is NOT in conflict in any way, then it should be considered.

...

The veil is a good example. Wearing a veil hijab, or babushka or kerchief is generally not a problem,(could be in certain situations), but it is a custom in many cultures.

Wearing a niqab or burka is an entirely different thing. While still a cultural thing ONLY, by Islamic

sources, it is contrary to our traditions of face to face discussion or meeting or social intercourse. It is simply a disguise, a mask and an object of subjugation. It's not welcome to most here that have a tradition contrary to such a probable humiliation to the wearer and an indignity to others..me.

Since it is not religiously prescribed, (source Islamic scholars), it cannot be defended by such claim.

And like other customs, denied public expression.

We don't deny other religions from wearing certain clothing, so how would you prohibit one religion from doing so without discriminating ? Is that what you're talking about - making certain clothing illegal ?

[Scotty]

It's funny how conservatives (small c, meaning ideology, not party) argue from a modernist perspective all the time.

I personally find it funny how some posters say things in all seriousness even though they don't believe them for a second.

Small c conservatives always adopting modern perspectives? Huh? You don't believe that for a second. But I suppose it's a necessary prelude for the rest of your silly argument.

For instance, there are right and wrong values or they hold ideas that promote the advancement of other people and cultures that conservatives believe are "backwards" or "primitive" (more articulate and less offensive debaters will say "underdeveloped"

).

Conservatives are, in fact, not particularly known for holding ideas that promote the 'advancement of other people and cultures". That's a liberal thing, you know, the noble white man's burden of those oh-so-precious progressives determined to lift the little people up out of their benighted state.

Again, thank you for amusing me by your "more articulate debaters' sputter regarding 'underdeveloped' vs 'backward'.

The term underdeveloped does not bespeak any particular degree of literacy, but rather more of that precious liberal determination to never be offense - EVER - except, of course, towards those evil conservatives they hold in such utter contempt.

Backward is backward. Calling it something pretty doesn't make it any nicer to look at, however much you try.

But it is true, conservatives generally aren't as frantic as you to not hurt anyone's feelings.

However, when someone disagrees with their modernist perspective, they're quick to adopt post-modernist ideology that embraces a multiplicity of perspectives, as you have done above. It's incredibly inconsistent. If various perspectives have equal value, then you ought to embrace others' beliefs, cultures, and ways of life.

But various perspectives don't necessarily have equal value, any more than various cultures, religions, values, or people.

Some ARE better than others.

[cybercoma]

I suggest you get a grasp on the difference between "modern" and "modernism". After you've done that you can figure out what postmodernism is and perhaps then you'll understand my post.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

I suggest you get a grasp on the difference between "modern" and "modernism". After you've done that you can figure out what postmodernism is and perhaps then you'll understand my post.

Mere mortals can only hope to match you brilliance.

[Scotty]

I suggest you get a grasp on the difference between "modern" and "modernism". After you've done that you can figure out what postmodernism is and perhaps then you'll understand my post.

Perhaps if you had a greater grasp on literacy your posts wouldn't require followup explanations and further study.

[bud]

just like christianity, there are several sects and sub-sects. for example: sunni, shia, wahabi, islmaili, bohris etc. and within these sects, for example, sunnnis, there are hanafi, sha'afi, hanbali, maliki etc. each of these groups have beliefs and interpretations that do not necessarily match with the others.

for example: are muslim women in lebanon, turkey, palestine, egypt, morocco, jordon, indonesia, china required (or forced) to wear the hejab (head cover)? no.

next time you try to paint a picture, remember that you'll end up looking quite ignorant if you use 1 stroke to paint.

[Guest Peeves]

just like christianity, there are several sects and sub-sects. for example: sunni, shia, wahabi, islmaili, bohris etc. and within these sects, for example, sunnnis, there are hanafi, sha'afi, hanbali, maliki etc. each of these groups have beliefs and interpretations that do not necessarily match with the others.

for example: are muslim women in lebanon, turkey, palestine, egypt, morocco, jordon, indonesia, china required (or forced) to wear the hejab (head cover)? no.

next time you try to paint a picture, remember that you'll end up looking quite ignorant if you use 1 stroke to paint.

I don't know who this is directed at, but I agree. Today in Iraq, Shiite politicians are attempting to

eliminate the Sunni politicians. That sectarian violence has gone on since the 7th century and isn't about to quit anytime soon.

[cybercoma]

It especially doesn't help when certain countries have a foreign policy that arms certain sides against others.

[Guest Peeves]

It especially doesn't help when certain countries have a foreign policy that arms certain sides against others.

"Certain countries" ?

Certainly countries now and historically sell or give arms to other countries as Russia has- China has- etc. but some only care to recognize the USA in 'that' critique.

You mean like Russia supplying Iran?

Consequently Russia has become in the past decade Iran’s main source of advanced conventional arms, an ‘alleged’ supplier of know-how and technology for its ballistic missiles and chemical and biological warfare programmes. Russia is also the sole source of Iran’s civilian nuclear technology.

Russia arming Palestinians?

Russia Arms Syria With Missiles To defend Against NATO Attack

Iran arming Hezbollah- Hamas- Iraqi Sunnis-

Syria arming Hezbollah.

Or China supplying

The Palestine Liberation Army, the anti-Israel war wing commanded by Ahmed Shukairy, has again received arms shipments from Chinese Communist sources, in recent weeks, it was reported here today

vidence that shows China offered to supply huge stockpiles of arms to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi during the last days of his rule, in spite of UN resolution 1970, which ordered in February that all military assistance to Colonel Gaddafi’s regime be stopped.

[cybercoma]

I never said the US. You're only proving my point that certain countries arm warring factions in these nations, exacerbating the problems.

[Guest Peeves]

We don't deny other religions from wearing certain clothing, so how would you prohibit one religion from doing so without discriminating ? Is that what you're talking about - making certain clothing illegal ?

Of course what else could I mean. NOT!

Unacceptable clothing is frequently denied by situ.

There are dress codes in many establishments. Schools, restaurants- courts, swimming pools- sports-

There have been hijab baning in sports and if loose they would be disallowed by H& safety laws in industry where certain clothing is required and other clothing not allowed for safety reasons.

How would I personally deal with clothing issues? Firstly it would not be discriminatory as you suggest, to address an issue of attire as being acceptable or unacceptable.

If it( dress-attire)is in conflict with a law or policy or procedure, it is simply unacceptable.

That IS NOT discrimination. That is not singling out one religion.

When the Hajj requires a woman to remove a face covering in Saudi Arabia, or when Turkey demands-restricts where a niqab-hijab even may not be worn, is that discrimination ? Not if it's the law there.

When an industry requires, regardless tradition or culture or religion that specific attire is required and other attire is forbidden, that is not singling out one religion nor is it discrimination.

If our country specifies no face covering on an oath taking or (?) in court or while driving, that is not discriminating, it's applying our laws, values, traditions and culture, as it exists or existed before someone took advantage of our rather broad and lenient immigration policies.

Having said that, I also expect my government to protect our values and traditions from those who for political reasons attempt to change them and refuse to leave their conflicting culture---baggage behind.

All attempts to change our country (to a more draconian model of sharia -anachronistic values) must be resisted.

[Guest Peeves]

I never said the US. You're only proving my point that certain countries arm warring factions in these nations, exacerbating the problems.

No of course you never said the USA. I'm always pleased to be able to further your (sometimes ambiguous  clear as dishwater, cryptic, doubtful, dubious, enigmatic, enigmatical, equivocal, inconclusive, indefinite, indeterminate, inexplicit, muddy, multivocal, obscure, opaque, polysemous, puzzling, questionable, tenebrous, uncertain, unclear, unintelligible, vague) point.

Thanks not required, I'll just be pleased as punch to have been of assistance. Don't hesitate to ask if such is required in the future.

[Shakeyhands]

No of course you never said the USA. I'm always pleased to be able to further your (sometimes ambiguous  clear as dishwater, cryptic, doubtful, dubious, enigmatic, enigmatical, equivocal, inconclusive, indefinite, indeterminate, inexplicit, muddy, multivocal, obscure, opaque, polysemous, puzzling, questionable, tenebrous, uncertain, unclear, unintelligible, vague) point.

Thanks not required, I'll just be pleased as punch to have been of assistance. Don't hesitate to ask if such is required in the future.

That would have been good if not for being pulled right out of thesaurus.... still in alphabetical order at that.