-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Georgetown Islamic studies professor defends slavery and rape
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
This "ultra-Leftist" is not a friend of Conservative religious ideology. I find such apologetics to be very troublesome, and wonder if there is anything psychologically wrong with them for their dismissal and/or approval of human suffering.
Scientists and academics in general tend to hold Left-winged ideologies and positions. Natural scientists, on the other hand, do tend to be non-religious way more frequently than pretty much any other group.
Social sciences are sciences, and as we've seen with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Big Tobacco and Prozac, even natural sciences can be manipulated to suit an agenda.
With things such as philosophy and social sciences. Those actions include victims, denial of self-autonomy, and have the potential to cause long-term psychological and/or physical damage. Any sane, logical, and rational person should be able to put together even a half-assed argument of "why slavery and rape are bad."
For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming the article is accurate.
There would be a silver lining in the situation, because the guy got his chance to express his opinions. Violent protestors did not keep him from speaking - that truly is a good thing, hooray.
Next, it's really important for the snowflake crowd to be exposed to opinions like this. It gives them an opportunity to sharpen their critical thinking and debate skills and mount truly well thought out (and we'd hope), eviscerating counter arguments.
Hooray for letting such (horrible) speech happen!
There would be a silver lining in the situation, because the guy got his chance to express his opinions. Violent protestors did not keep him from speaking - that truly is a good thing, hooray.
Next, it's really important for the snowflake crowd to be exposed to opinions like this. It gives them an opportunity to sharpen their critical thinking and debate skills and mount truly well thought out (and we'd hope), eviscerating counter arguments.
Hooray for letting such (horrible) speech happen!
Last edited:
Yet the bible is a display for rape victim rights by forcing them to marry the rapist. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Really, allowing the "mainstream Liberal" crowd to hear such speeches is what needs to happen. It doesn't take a "9/11 Liberal" (a term Maher uses) to point these things out, all you really have to do is listen to religious apologetics speak. They tend to be very forthright and honest about what their religious texts say, and approve of behaviors that are far beyond misappropriate, not by "today's standards," but by humanitarian standards that we will, hopefully, continue to improve and refine as we learn more about ourselves, each other, and the world we share.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Shad
Veteran Member
He goes into far more detail than the article even hints at. Details that are ignored.Some are good. some bad, some interesting. Decides for yourself
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm going to be honest, at an hour and a half I really don't feel like watching it. Do you know if it generally supports or opposes the article in the OP?
Augustus
…
The article takes what he says completely out of context and significantly misrepresents what was discussed. The talk was not a blanket defence of Islamic slavery but largely about how the notion of slavery in general throughout history has been very varied and comparing it with notions of 'freedom' throughout history. For example, while technically a slave, many people have been independently wealthy and politically powerful figures and even slave owners themselves.
Where he said 'it's not immoral for a human to own another' it is in the context of how someone could be technically free, yet oppressed and totally beholden to powerful interests and to all intents and purposes 'owned', whereas a slave could, potentially, be wealthy, powerful and living in luxury due to patronage and unrecognisable from what we associate with slavery.
Historical notions of slavery have been so varied, that the term without further explanation is practically meaningless and talking about the ethics of slavery requires a greater contextualisation because notions of slavery are skewed by how we understand the terms today.
With the 'consent isn't necessary for lawful sex' he was talking about historical fact rather than a personal opinion, which he clearly highlighted. It is in the context of how, traditionally, women had no choice in who they married and comparing this to being, for example, a concubine. In neither situation is the woman rally 'consenting', yet the 2 situations are viewed completely differently. This wasn't to say 'concubinage was great let's reintroduce it', just to compare how people view history from a certain perspective.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think you'd better do some serious research because this is very far from the truth, according to polls I've seen.
Scientist overwhelming tend to vote Democratic here in the States at least, and those with a ph.d. are almost at 90% if they vote for either Republican or Democrat. The Republicans have had a "war on science", which hasn't gone over well at all within the scientific community.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
The continued denial over global warming and evolution probably does not do much for wining over the scientific community.
Shad
Veteran Member
It is a mixed bag as due to omission. The author of the article is very clear on his own position as an absolutist within Islam. It seems like he didn't like what he heard as it conflicts with his view of Islam.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I think he just has problems with basic comprehension skills. Explaining concepts as they were known and understood previously is not in anyone encouraging or condoning them. Mr. Nutters McTriggerhappy should probably take some remedial English courses if he has such a degree of difficulty in comprehending the distinction. Both attacks and defenses of the Bible and Koran are often based on the fact many of those ideas and concepts were not understood then as they are now. And a class in journalism and ethics probably wouldn't hurt either.
Shad
Veteran Member
The author of the article seems to be a "journalist" by choice not education
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Exactly. If he's going to do it, he should learn how to do it right so isn't misrepresenting someone's views and causing undue tarnish on their reputations. There is a huge difference between explaining how sexual consent is a modern concept (and in all reality it is), and saying it's OK for Muslims to rape women.
Augustus
…
Here is a short article of Jonathan Brown clarifying his comments addressed in the OP:
Apology without Apologetics | Jonathan Brown | MuslimMatters.org
So I’ve learned a few things over the last couple of days. First, I want to apologize to those hurt by how I addressed the topic of slavery in Islam. I should listen to my wife more. She always tells me that I talk about things too much like a scholar and not enough like a normal person. Topics like slavery are felt with the heart; I shouldn’t talk about them like a disembodied brain (especially when my body and experiences don’t reflect the subject).
Apology without Apologetics | Jonathan Brown | MuslimMatters.org
So I’ve learned a few things over the last couple of days. First, I want to apologize to those hurt by how I addressed the topic of slavery in Islam. I should listen to my wife more. She always tells me that I talk about things too much like a scholar and not enough like a normal person. Topics like slavery are felt with the heart; I shouldn’t talk about them like a disembodied brain (especially when my body and experiences don’t reflect the subject).
Last edited: