Debate a Muslim

[firedragon]

No. But I heard it is pretty cruel.

Ciao

- viole

You heard nonsense. Thats the problem with hearsay.

 

[viole]

You heard nonsense. Thats the problem with hearsay.

Well, if that is any consolation, we also banned Kosher. But we have a pretty lively Muslim and Jewish community that does not seem to care too much about it.

Anyway, import of that sort of meat is still allowed. Status today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it should be.

OK, good.

Rationally, it would depend on a lot of things. This was not considered as "allowed" first of all. This is the way you have perceived because of propaganda. Islamic law came way, way, way before any of the ahadith were ever written down on this matter. There is one hadith from Bukhari's kuthub as sahih. That hadith speaks of women having half the value in testimony. This was narrated ultimately (apparently) after Bukhari died, by his unvouched for (In islamic tradition someone has to vouch for someone elses scholarship) student called Firabry. And the manuscript tradition dates to approximately the 14th century which is 700 years after Muhammed. Anyway, it is predominantly Christian evangelists who demonised this and you have inherited that. No doubt.

No one said "women are not allowed". It is the person who signs the contract who is told to get two women as witnesses if not one man. So saying "it is not allowed" is a twist in it. Of course, you will not accept it.

And the recommendation is for what reason? Do you agree that this recommendation should be otherwise?

So the idea is that women and men are equal in Gods eyes. But they have differences biologically and sociologically. You will of course look at it from where ever you are. And in the future, maybe they will have a machine to take care of the child, maybe they will have other highly superior technology where you won't even have to step out of the house to vote. Maybe they will develop surrogate robots to represent you in courts. Well, in that case, this law is unnecessary.

Why is taking care of a child relevant for this? Both men and women can take care of a child. Also, there is no demand that witnesses say their views at a fixed time: arrangements can be made.

So, once again, you bring up the irrelevancy that women take care of children. Why do *you* think it is relevant to the discussion?

At the moment if you go to lets say a place in Asia where in a village a mother gives birth at home or at the local government funded hospital. Then she gets 4 to 5 months maternity leave. The father if he is employed or is a farmer or a businessman will have no choice but to go to work. The mother has no choice but to stay at home.

Really? No choice? It sounds to me that staying at home *is* the choice made. Not to mention the choice to have a child at all.

Why not bring the child with?

Baby has to be fed 10 or 12 times a day. They will not use diapers because it is not something they use. It is not in their culture. They will have a white cloth they will tie around the baby like a napkin folded in the form of a panty. They will have them washed by hand and hung on a line all over their backyard. It is a very very common problem when there is a court case, the woman is unable to make it. It is very very common. Just that some people in the city of high rise cannot empathise with this because their perspective is very limited.

So yes. These kind of laws can, and must change.

It sounds to me that the society has to change to allow both men and women to work and both to stay at home, if required.

Also, can a woman who is not pregnant and is not expected to become pregnant able to give sole witness?

Can the man claim that other responsibilities of his preclude appearance in court?

 

[viole]

You heard nonsense. Thats the problem with hearsay.

A steak is a steak. It does not keep memory of how the animal has been killed. Thinking otherwise is what I would call nonsense. So, why do you care?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Well, if that is any consolation, we also banned Kosher

The world is not your "we". And that's not a consolation, it shows how unsophisticated your method is.

Dont worry, we didnt just rob you, we robbed others too. What logic is that? Hilarious consolation

 

[firedragon]

A steak is a steak. It does not keep memory of how the animal has been killed. Thinking otherwise is what I would call nonsense. So, why do you care?

Ciao

- viole

Hearsay university of hatred.

 

[firedragon]

Why not bring the child with?

What a question to ask? You ppl are so far away inside your self and your immediate surroundings that you are incapable of having empathy. ITs worthless discussing with people who cannot.

These women in that kind of village to go to courts will have to take the child, a new born baby, with them and travel maybe 50 miles in a bus and/train, and the bus station must be 4 or 5 miles far away. The world is not you, the world is very large.

Anyway, since you are unable to have some humanity to understand how a poor human being must be living, I am leaving this conversation.

Have a good day.

 

[viole]

The world is not your "we". And that's not a consolation, it shows how unsophisticated your method is.

Dont worry, we didnt just rob you, we robbed others too. What logic is that? Hilarious consolation

Whatever. All I can tell you is that that ban is more than 100 years old and I am not aware of any Muslims, nor Jews to complain. You take that too seriously. Actually, when we talk of Muslims, they insist to come here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Hearsay university of hatred.

What hatred? LOL. Do you think steaks are different if the animals has been killed Halal or not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Whatever. All I can tell you is that that ban is more than 100 years old and I am not aware of any Muslims, nor Jews to complain. You take that too seriously. Actually, when we talk of Muslims, they insist to come here.

Ciao

- viole

I am not complaining. Lol. How could one complain to someone who likens killing an animal for food to killing a new born baby?

Ciao.

 

[viole]

I am not complaining. Lol. How could one complain to someone who likens killing an animal for food to killing a new born baby?

Ciao.

You lose.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sun rise]

Claims are your epistemic foundation?

Good grief. I posted a support of your position and now you're trying to take me apart for agreeing with you.

 

[firedragon]

Good grief. I posted a support of your position and now you're trying to take me apart for agreeing with you.

I understand. But see, I always prefer precision. Sorry to have offended you. ISIS or as 99% of the world calls them, DAIS, is a terrorist group every muslim I have ever met hates. Even the most extreme fighters like the Taliban guys, or the Egyptian political groups, the Hamas, to an innocent muslim living in an Australian corner hate them. Who told you they are Salafi? Salafis hate them. Wahabis hate them. DAIS groups in Syria are hated by Syrians, in Nigeria, they are funded by the government.

They dont consider themselves Salafi? Do you understand how far even your simple statement can go? Thats the reason I questioned you. Dais is a criminal organisation built on a promise you would not understand. Thus, dont bring them up. They dont even quote what you think they quote.

So I apologise for offending you. Peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to Christianity Jesus died on the cross.
According to Islam, Jesus didn’t die on the cross. .. I think history strongly supports the Christian view.

Yeah, scholarly opinion is in favor of this view (and nothing beyond it). But if Jesus is supposed to have reappeared, that will support the Muslim view. Make your choice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Very good. To speak diurectly, you dont know if its humane or not right? You just hate muslims.

I wouldn't be throwing that claim around in this thread (someone "hates Muslims") when your coreligionists are in this thread defending child sex and marriage, insulting the West, defending blasphemy laws and second class statues for non-Muslims, etc. Are we supposed to love what we are being told here?

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't be throwing that claim around in this thread (someone "hates Muslims") when your coreligionists are in this thread defending child sex and marriage, insulting the West, defending blasphemy laws and second class statues for non-Muslims, etc. Are we supposed to love what we are being told here?

Yeah you're right.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, scholarly opinion is in favor of this view (and nothing beyond it). But if Jesus is supposed to have reappeared, that will support the Muslim view. Make your choice.

1 The historical evidence shows that Jesus was crucified and died at some point

2 The historical evidence shows that appeared after he died.

So your options are

A) Accept 1 and reject 2 (atheist)

B) Accept 2 and reject 1 (muslim)

C) Reject both (Internet atheist)

D) Accept both (Christian)

I am glad that my world view is the only one that allows us to accept all the historical evidence, other views are based on rejecting well established historical evidence.

 

[sun rise]

ISIS are not Salafis.

That is strictly true but in the sense of principles ISIS follows Salafi doctrine.

Does ISIS Really Follow the Salafi Version of Islamic Law and Theology?

For its part, ISIS does draw heavily on Salafi principles and texts. A majority of its commentaries are works by Wahhabi authors -- and continue to be a focus of these activities, with a clear direct targeting of today's Saudi religious establishment for what ISIS sees as the latter's betrayal of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's legacy. Moreover, its textbooks on creed ('aqida) include chapters on "nationalism," "patriotism," "democracy" -- consistent with the kinds of writings of earlier Salafi authors who deemed these political concepts as unnecessary divisions of the Muslim community and as signs of unbelief. And the group does not recognize the Islamic schools of law in its textbooks on jurisprudence, referring exclusively to hadith reports, Qur'anic verses and statements of select scholars who share its views -- all consistent with Salafi epistemology.[12]

But the project of at least rhetorically justifying, if not working towards the realization of, a state-caliphate project seems to have cornered the self-proclaimed caliphate into an intellectually awkward spot, precisely because Salafis have not traditionally created the blueprint for such initiatives. One can even go so far as to say that, aside from law and creed, there really is no one uniquely Salafi approach to subjects that one might expect on a school curriculum (and which ISIS includes in theirs) -- subjects like literature, geography, mathematics, physics and biology.

All of these subjects -- including the very concept of a caliphate -- have no doctrinal basis in the Salafi worldview for the simple reason that they have not been priorities for Salafi groups.

 

[sun rise]

1 The historical evidence shows that Jesus was crucified and died at some point

2 The historical evidence shows that appeared after he died.

Any evidence there is shows "appear to have died". In the East, yogis can stop their breath etc. This is the basis for the Quran's assertion that Jesus appeared to have died but did not really die.

 

[Polymath257]

What a question to ask? You ppl are so far away inside your self and your immediate surroundings that you are incapable of having empathy. ITs worthless discussing with people who cannot.

These women in that kind of village to go to courts will have to take the child, a new born baby, with them and travel maybe 50 miles in a bus and/train, and the bus station must be 4 or 5 miles far away. The world is not you, the world is very large.

Anyway, since you are unable to have some humanity to understand how a poor human being must be living, I am leaving this conversation.

Have a good day.

Again, women are quite capable of doing this. And, with some preparation, they can leave the child with the father, who could also take the child to work.

It isn't easy having a child. But that's not an excuse to say two women are needed as witnesses and only one man.

In the rare cases where a woman has a newborn child and i under excessive duress in bringing it along, the case can be delayed a month or two. Or, even better, a court appointed caretaker can be assigned.

These rare cases are going to be matched by situations where a *man* has difficulties being a witness and so do not give a valid reason for the distinctions being made.

Furthermore, having it as a general rule as opposed to a situation that can be dealt with on a case by case basis leads to a significant reduction in the rights and status of women, even those who are not with little children.