Turkish journalist Uzay Bulut succinctly detailed the crisis situation faced by women across the Islamic world. In doing so, she leveled her gaze at Western progressives, particularly feminists, who have a penchant for sweeping Islam’s crimes against women under the rug of “multiculturalism,” to the continued detriment of their sisterhood abroad:

Statements that come up with “multicultural” excuses to provide cover for the practices of fundamentalist Islam, however, never have, and never will, help to liberate women who suffer under Islamic misogyny, gender apartheid and jihad.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain. Yet in Muslim countries, it is impossible speak openly about what is in these Islamic teachings and traditions, without putting one’s life at risk.

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries, in part thanks to the dangerous enchantment of Western progressives and feminists who romanticize Islamism.

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative.

Feminists in the Islamic world have a laundry list of Western progressive feminism’s “Excuses for Abuses” which include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

“Injustices against women take place all around the world, not just against Muslims or in Muslim countries.”

“What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked.”

“It is not about Islam. Crimes were committed and are being committed in all places throughout history.”

Bulut’s responses to the last two “Excuses” are particularly interesting:

“Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.”

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them “bad Muslims.”

“All religions are essentially the same.”

Well, not quite. Biblical values are far more benign than Islamic ones, and generally descriptive rather than proscriptive. Furthermore, the most violent of them were long ago abandoned.

No religion, for instance, other than Islam, has ever commanded that those who insult or leave it should be put to death. (See Surahs 6:93, 33:57, 33:61)

Bulut’s conclusion acts as a clarion call to Western feminists: You can defend Islam, or you can defend women, but you cannot defend both.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/10/turkish-journalist-western-feminism-excuses-islams-abuses/



Includes vid from a Sydney appearance at the Opera House (Ideas at the House)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vrEZI5zCDk#t=17


You can side with Brain, HB, PB, or you can side with Hirsi Ali and Bulut.

I remember reading a book called "Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia" when I was a student. I few days later I was talking to a girl who announced that she was a feminist. So I told her about this book and asked her what she thought. She looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language.


Quote:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

She must have met Brian and Gandalf.

Quote:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

Especially when said critics make racist comments about muslims when no one else had mentioned it.

You do not need to support Islam to be refusing to discriminate against it.

Quote:

You can support women or Islam, not both

You could also say that you can support Woman or Tony Abbott as well.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Quote: You can support women or Islam, not both You could also say that you can support Woman or Tony Abbott as well.

The old boy hates women and Islam.

Loves a good stool though.

Karnal wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 10:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2nd, 2014 at 7:29pm: Quote: You can support women or Islam, not both You could also say that you can support Woman or Tony Abbott as well. The old boy hates women and Islam. Loves a good stool though.

You mean Bulut, a Turkish woman, hates women and Islam.


Bulut’s conclusion acts as a clarion call to Western feminists: You can defend Islam, or you can defend women, but you cannot defend both.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/10/turkish-journalist-western-feminism-excuses-islams-abuses/




Eat more shite sandwiches, PB, you know you want to.

Grin away.

Good grief, a person criticising islam in a huge muslim country - and a woman no less??

Surely you know thats not possible Soren - the great islamic terror machine has successfully silenced anyone daring to criticise islam - remember?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

Good grief, a person criticising islam in a huge muslim country - and a woman no less?? Surely you know thats not possible Soren - the great islamic terror machine has successfully silenced anyone daring to criticise islam - remember?

You mean in the ONLY secular Muslim country.
And it's not holding out for long.

Soren wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

You mean in the ONLY secular Muslim country.

Quite right - oh apart from all those other like you know, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and of course the largest muslim country on earth - Indonesia.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 6:33pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 5th, 2014 at 5:48pm: You mean in the ONLY secular Muslim country. Quite right - oh apart from all those other like you know, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and of course the largest muslim country on earth - Indonesia.

So nuffin' unique about Ataturk, ALL the others are just the same.

You were the one who said Indonesia is not secular. Do you agree thats just a tad stupid?

Stupid or mendacious?

That’s the question.

You can support women or Islam, not both

I hope someone lets all the Islamic women know before its too late :D :D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 8:09pm:

You were the one who said Indonesia is not secular. Do you agree thats just a tad stupid?

It is not secular like Australia is secular.

neither is Turkey - but apparently that qualifies as 'secular'.

I didn't know that mixed marriages were not recognised in Indonesia. Did you?

Under Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning marriages in Indonesia (Article 2 (1): "a marriage is legitimate if it has been performed according to the laws of the respective religious beliefs of the parties concerned."

In recent months, thanks to the work of academics and scholars from four law schools in Jakarta, the Constitutional Court has begun debating the possibility - and the opportunity - of changing existing laws.

Proposals submitted to the Constitutional Court in July 2014 centre on three issues: the inability to recognise a marriage unless it is performed by one of Indonesia's state-recognised religions, the ban on mixed marriage and the requirement that spouses belong to the same religion.

Last September, the then Minister for Religious Affairs Lukman Hakim confirmed the validity of the rules in place and excluded the need for any constitutional amendment.

In his view, before any legislative action is taken, religious leaders, in particular experts in Islamic law, should be consulted

The former president of the Constitutional Court also shut the door to possible changes, noting that "if a mixed couple insists on legalising their status, they should go abroad."

Asked for their opinion on the matter, the leaders of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) called on the Constitutional Court to reject calls for changes and maintain the status quo.

Prompted by parliament, leaders of religious minorities presented their respective positions, with the Catholic Church taking a lonely stance.

Indonesia Hindu Dharma Parisada, which represents the country's Hindus, came out against the legalisation mixed marriages.

Similarly, the deputy president of Matakin (the Supreme Council for Confucian Religion in Indonesia) said that "mixed marriages are not valid according to our teachings."

Catholic bishops have taken a different view. For Fr Purbo Tamtomo, expert in Canon Law at the Archdiocese of Jakarta, the union between a man and a woman is "an inalienable human right". Equally, the principle of separation between state and religion is the basis of the state.

In fact, he complained that many couples, married in Church, end up converting to other religions in order to have their union recognised by the state.

Interesting article on the present state of play WRT to interfaith marriages in Indonesia.

As usual, when examining anything that Soren claims, he is telling only half the story.  It appears there is movement in both directions - towards the opening up of recognition of interfaith marriages and of course, his claim that it's being closed down.   Neither direction has prevalence yet.

As always, if we open up the myopic view that Soren is attempting to present us with of this issue, we discover that many religions forbid or don't recognise interfaith marriages and even within Islam (as always) this is a contentious issue and depends upon whom you consult on the issue.  A good Wiki article on the topic is available here and I suggest that people read it to get a broader picture than Soren would prefer being seen.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

Interesting article on the present state of play WRT to interfaith marriages in Indonesia. As usual, when examining anything that Soren claims, he is telling only half the story.  It appears there is movement in both directions - towards the opening up of recognition of interfaith marriages and of course, his claim that it's being closed down.   Neither direction has prevalence yet. As always, if we open up the myopic view that Soren is attempting to present us with of this issue, we discover that many religions forbid or don't recognise interfaith marriages and even within Islam (as always) this is a contentious issue and depends upon whom you consult on the issue.  A good Wiki article on the topic is available here and I suggest that people read it to get a broader picture than Soren would prefer being seen.   ::)

Sooooo....... is the current Indonesian law, by not recognising mixed marriages, secular or not secular?

Gandy reckons Indonesia is secular.
I reckon a country that doesn't recognise mixed marriages ain't secular at all.

Whaddaya reckon, Brain?  You can't decide or even judge (dread word, that) because you are not yourself a mixed marriage?

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 2:49pm: Interesting article on the present state of play WRT to interfaith marriages in Indonesia. As usual, when examining anything that Soren claims, he is telling only half the story.  It appears there is movement in both directions - towards the opening up of recognition of interfaith marriages and of course, his claim that it's being closed down.   Neither direction has prevalence yet. As always, if we open up the myopic view that Soren is attempting to present us with of this issue, we discover that many religions forbid or don't recognise interfaith marriages and even within Islam (as always) this is a contentious issue and depends upon whom you consult on the issue.  A good Wiki article on the topic is available here and I suggest that people read it to get a broader picture than Soren would prefer being seen.   ::) Sooooo....... is the current Indonesian law, by not recognising mixed marriages, secular or not secular?

Obviously, as one of my links makes clear, it is presently being interpretated in a non-secular way, Soren.  However, on non-secular interpretation does not necessarily mean that the entire nation and it's political and legal system is necessarily totally non-secular.

One only has to look at the non-secular way in which Christianity has influenced the Australian Marriage Act, declaring that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for some unfathomable reason.   Using your logic, that means Australia is a non-secular nation.  Is that true?  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 2:49pm: Interesting article on the present state of play WRT to interfaith marriages in Indonesia. As usual, when examining anything that Soren claims, he is telling only half the story.  It appears there is movement in both directions - towards the opening up of recognition of interfaith marriages and of course, his claim that it's being closed down.   Neither direction has prevalence yet. As always, if we open up the myopic view that Soren is attempting to present us with of this issue, we discover that many religions forbid or don't recognise interfaith marriages and even within Islam (as always) this is a contentious issue and depends upon whom you consult on the issue.  A good Wiki article on the topic is available here and I suggest that people read it to get a broader picture than Soren would prefer being seen.   ::) Sooooo....... is the current Indonesian law, by not recognising mixed marriages, secular or not secular? Obviously, as one of my links makes clear, it is presently being interpretated in a non-secular way, Soren.  However, on non-secular interpretation does not necessarily mean that the entire nation and it's political and legal system is necessarily totally non-secular. One only has to look at the non-secular way in which Christianity has influence the Australian Marriage Act, declaring that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for some unfathomable reason.   Using your logic, that means Australia is a non-secular nation.  Is that true?  ::)

Spineless is correct.
You are squishy, spineless, dishonest drone, Brain.

You left out reflexive and mendacious, OB. Have you been.drinking?

Karnal wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

You left out reflexive and mendacious, OB. Have you been.drinking?

The reflexive and mendacious go without saying.


If you had to utter in good faith you'd die. You just could not do it.

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 8:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Soren wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 2:49pm: Interesting article on the present state of play WRT to interfaith marriages in Indonesia. As usual, when examining anything that Soren claims, he is telling only half the story.  It appears there is movement in both directions - towards the opening up of recognition of interfaith marriages and of course, his claim that it's being closed down.   Neither direction has prevalence yet. As always, if we open up the myopic view that Soren is attempting to present us with of this issue, we discover that many religions forbid or don't recognise interfaith marriages and even within Islam (as always) this is a contentious issue and depends upon whom you consult on the issue.  A good Wiki article on the topic is available here and I suggest that people read it to get a broader picture than Soren would prefer being seen.   ::) Sooooo....... is the current Indonesian law, by not recognising mixed marriages, secular or not secular? Obviously, as one of my links makes clear, it is presently being interpretated in a non-secular way, Soren.  However, on non-secular interpretation does not necessarily mean that the entire nation and it's political and legal system is necessarily totally non-secular. One only has to look at the non-secular way in which Christianity has influence the Australian Marriage Act, declaring that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for some unfathomable reason.   Using your logic, that means Australia is a non-secular nation.  Is that true?  ::) Spineless is correct. You are squishy, spineless, dishonest drone, Brain.

Ah, yes, spoken like a true bigot, Soren.  There is no other interpretation than your way.  You'd make a good Takfiri zealot, Soren.  Which madrassah did you graduate from again?    ::)

University of Balogney if I’m not mistaken.

Karnal wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

University of Balogney if I’m not mistaken.

Ah, that would be his post-graduate studies, wouldn't it?  I'm talking about his under-graduate degree.   ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 10:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 10:07pm: University of Balogney if I’m not mistaken. Ah, that would be his post-graduate studies, wouldn't it?  I'm talking about his under-graduate degree.   ;)

Oh, I see. That was that stool-washing course he did back in the old country.  Bachelor of Faecal Studies if I’m not mistaken.

The old boy should be able to clear it up.

Karnal wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 11:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 10:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 10:07pm: University of Balogney if I’m not mistaken. Ah, that would be his post-graduate studies, wouldn't it?  I'm talking about his under-graduate degree.   ;) Oh, I see. That was that stool-washing course he did back in the old country.  Bachelor of Faecal Studies if I’m not mistaken. The old boy should be able to clear it up.

Is that before or after he treads through it?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Christianity has influenced the Australian Marriage Act, declaring that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for some unfathomable reason.

Karnal and you are a match made in Darlighurst.

To pretend, as you do, that marriage is 'unfathomably' between a man and a woman is to sign away any claim to sanity that would have had until that little declaration.

You are both for Islam and same sex marriage. That's how dishonest you are.

Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

You can support women or Islam, not both

I rather think that I will make that decision for myself - thanks anyway.

Soren wrote on Dec 7^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm: Christianity has influenced the Australian Marriage Act, declaring that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for some unfathomable reason.    Karnal and you are a match made in Darlighurst. To pretend, as you do, that marriage is 'unfathomably' between a man and a woman is to sign away any claim to sanity that would have had until that little declaration. You are both for Islam and same sex marriage. That's how dishonest you are.

You're so dishonest, you pretend I'm for gay marriage, when I've been saying how silly I think it is for years.

Where's Darlighurst, old boy? Back in the old country, eh?

I bet they're famous for their stool.

Quote:

Lord Mayor walks out of Islamic charity lunch after his lady consort was told she had to sit downstairs at the event     Lord Mayor John Thomas was said to be upset at being segregated     He walked out of the Islamic charity lunch before it had even started     A source said he had 'insulted' other guests by walking out early     Lunch was to mark the end of charity week, in which £730k was raised     Councillor Thomas has been on the Leicester City Council since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2862914/Lord-Mayor-walks-Islamic-charity-lunch-lady-consort-told-sit-downstairs-event.html

|dev|null wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 3:17pm:

Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men.

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men.

Oh, bollocks.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. Oh, bollocks.

It's true Annie. I have seen it with my own eyes. 40 degree heat, and Muslim lady getting round in a black letterbox outfit while her husband wears shorts and a T shirt.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 7:01pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. Oh, bollocks. It's true Annie. I have seen it with my own eyes. 40 degree heat, and Muslim lady getting round in a black letterbox outfit while her husband wears shorts and a T shirt.

How does that make her inferior?

She's not the one wearing the pants is she?

If I did that to my dog, I would probably get arrested.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:35pm:

She's not the one wearing the pants is she?

Unless you've taken a peek up her burqa, it's impossible to tell. They wear regular clothes underneath you know.

Degradation and abuse of women are entrenched in most religions - particularly the big 3. However, there are plenty of Muslim feminists who find Islam liberating and the covering aspect empowering. There are others still who believe in the religion but don't believe in covering. Muslim feminist is not an oxymoron.



Quote:

If I did that to my dog, I would probably get arrested.

Did what? Are you making an assumption that a particular woman has no more agency than a dog based purely on what she's wearing?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Did what? Are you making an assumption that a particular woman has no more agency than a dog based purely on what she's wearing?

I think he's assuming she has no agency because she's a muslim. And that the man is a misogynistic prick because he's a muslim - and would naturally therefore make his wife suffer.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 7:01pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. Oh, bollocks. It's true Annie. I have seen it with my own eyes. 40 degree heat, and Muslim lady getting round in a black letterbox outfit while her husband wears shorts and a T shirt.

Yes, FD, but she’s only doing it to offend decent white people.

I do feel that no one has the right to not be offended, you know.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 7:35pm: She's not the one wearing the pants is she? Unless you've taken a peek up her burqa, it's impossible to tell. They wear regular clothes underneath you know. Degradation and abuse of women are entrenched in most religions - particularly the big 3. However, there are plenty of Muslim feminists who find Islam liberating and the covering aspect empowering. There are others still who believe in the religion but don't believe in covering. Muslim feminist is not an oxymoron. Quote: If I did that to my dog, I would probably get arrested. Did what? Are you making an assumption that a particular woman has no more agency than a dog based purely on what she's wearing?

Dogs and uncovered meat. Not that FD wants to offend awful tinted people and their Freeeedom.

That’s haram.

Quote:

Unless you've taken a peek up her burqa, it's impossible to tell. They wear regular clothes underneath you know.

Sounds pleasant. There's nothing I enjoy more than wearing a tent in addition to regular clothes in 40 degree heat.


Quote:

Degradation and abuse of women are entrenched in most religions - particularly the big 3. However, there are plenty of Muslim feminists who find Islam liberating and the covering aspect empowering.

That would be a struggle in our weather. Making a statement with your clothes is one thing. Torturing yourself with them is another.


Quote:

Muslim feminist is not an oxymoron.

Have you ever met one? Perhaps Gandalf is one. I know he is opposed to executing gays.


Quote:

Did what? Are you making an assumption that a particular woman has no more agency than a dog based purely on what she's wearing?

I am saying you was in a position of inferiority. It is because of her agency that the husband did not get arrested. If he had a dog and a woman in a burqa side by side in that heat, he would get arrested for mistreating the dog, and you would celebrate the woman as a Muslim feminist.

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men.

And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren?

Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::)

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men.

It is their choice.  Who are you to criticize it? You know nothing of their circumstances or their beliefs.  How is this different to any Orthodox Jewish woman who accepts her position of inferiority to men?   No criticism of that, from you.  Just your usual islamophobic ranting.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Quote:

It is their choice.  Who are you to criticize it? You know nothing of their circumstances or their beliefs.

Sounds like Brian.

Not always their choice, head loppers and moral police have a say.    8-)

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

Quote: It is their choice.  Who are you to criticize it? You know nothing of their circumstances or their beliefs. Sounds like Brian.

So you believe you should attack people for making a free choice, if they are women?   Doesn't this run counter to the idea that you're supposedly defending their right to make a free choice?  Or is their free choice only to be respected if it's the choice you agree with?  Isn't that just as patronising as you accuse Islam to be?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Datalife wrote on Dec 9^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

Not always their choice, head loppers and moral police have a say.    8-)

But what of where and when it is their choice DL?  No head loppers, no moral police, just free will?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 10:40pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren? Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::)

I don't think so.

|dev|null wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

freediver wrote on Dec 9th, 2014 at 7:34pm: Quote: It is their choice.  Who are you to criticize it? You know nothing of their circumstances or their beliefs. Sounds like Brian. So you believe you should attack people for making a free choice, if they are women?   Doesn't this run counter to the idea that you're supposedly defending their right to make a free choice?  Or is their free choice only to be respected if it's the choice you agree with?  Isn't that just as patronising as you accuse Islam to be?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

Now you sound even more like Brian. You left out the bit where I said we should crack each others' heads open and feast on the goo inside.

no FD, you're thinking of us muslims.

I'm sure you'll find it in the Quran somewhere... ask sprint.

We'll have to ask Brian what I really meant.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 10th, 2014 at 11:26am: freediver wrote on Dec 9th, 2014 at 7:34pm: Quote: It is their choice.  Who are you to criticize it? You know nothing of their circumstances or their beliefs. Sounds like Brian. So you believe you should attack people for making a free choice, if they are women?   Doesn't this run counter to the idea that you're supposedly defending their right to make a free choice?  Or is their free choice only to be respected if it's the choice you agree with?  Isn't that just as patronising as you accuse Islam to be?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D Now you sound even more like Brian. You left out the bit where I said we should crack each others' heads open and feast on the goo inside.

He didn't have to, you just said it yourself, FD, right on cue.   ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

We'll have to ask Brian what I really meant.

I defer to Karnal.  He seems to know exactly what you're thinking, FD.   ::)

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 10:40pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren? Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::) I don't think so.

Funniest post of the day.

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 10:40pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren? Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::) I don't think so.

Hows the feminist campaign for a female Pope coming along, Soren?   ::)

Ordination of women in the Eastern Orthodox church?

How many female Bishops are there?  Cardinals?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10^th, 2014 at 11:27pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2014 at 5:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 10:40pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren? Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::) I don't think so. Hows the feminist campaign for a female Pope coming along, Soren?   ::) Ordination of women in the Eastern Orthodox church? How many female Bishops are there?  Cardinals?    ::)

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.


Quran in Sura 2:228

Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.


The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female (inheritance).


Christianity:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).


The source of universal human rights, BTW.

Can I play Quotsies too Soren?

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Timothy 2:8-15

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:22



In the Bible, women are tainted and are to be forever subservient because Eve was the transgressor - not Adam:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

1 Timothy 2:11-14

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

Can I play Quotsies too Soren? To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. Timothy 2:8-15 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22 In the Bible, women are tainted and are to be forever subservient because Eve was the transgressor - not Adam: Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

I blame Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

Can I play Quotsies too Soren? To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. Timothy 2:8-15 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22 In the Bible, women are tainted and are to be forever subservient because Eve was the transgressor - not Adam: Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

And yet, there is no ruling on a woman being worth half a man. That is left for the Koran.

What you are quoting are social norms that have been well and truly left behind without Christianity being left behind - because they are recognised not as universal rulings but as norms pertaining to  a place and time.

Islam being absolutely timeless and pertaining to no particular place is unable to evolve as Christianity has evidently done.

Traditionally, Christians have always treated women as being of less worth than a man, Soren.   You're a fool if you claim otherwise.    ::)

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 10th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2014 at 5:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 10:40pm: Soren wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 6:07pm: |dev|null wrote on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: Why can't women choose to follow Islam?  I've always understood that the point of feminism was to ensure women were able to choose.  Why must you Soren deny them that choice?   Surely that is paternalism as bad as anything in Islam?    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D They can and do, thereby accept their own inferiority to men. And how is this different to the position of women within Christianity, Soren? Afterall, women are definitely "inferior" to men in that religion.   ::) I don't think so. Hows the feminist campaign for a female Pope coming along, Soren?   ::) Ordination of women in the Eastern Orthodox church? How many female Bishops are there?  Cardinals?    ::) The Quran...

So, you're admitting that traditionally Christians are no better than Muslims, in their attitudes towards women?

You going to answer the questions, Soren?

Where are the female clergy in the major denominations of Christianity?

No female priests, bishops, cardinals, popes in Catholicism.

No female priests, bishops, Patriarchs* in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Most Protestant denominations don't ordain women either.   ::)




* Raises an interesting question.  If women ever do get equal billing, will their title be "Matriarchs"?   ;D

The West is secular and in every secular society women are equal to men.

There is no Christian or Western secular law that requires women to inherit half of what men inherit or to have her testimony be worth half of his. There is no accepted doctrine in Christianity that stands in the way of women's equality.

There is plenty in Islam.

Soren wrote on Dec 14^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

The West is secular and in every secular society women are equal to men.

True but only in the last 40 years, Soren.  Of course, we aren't discussing secular societies, now are we?  We're discussing religious values.  Please stick to the subject rather than attempting to divert it away when you're losing the argument....   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 14th, 2014 at 2:36pm: The West is secular and in every secular society women are equal to men. True but only in the last 40 years, Soren.  Of course, we aren't discussing secular societies, now are we?  We're discussing religious values.  Please stick to the subject rather than attempting to divert it away when you're losing the argument....   ::)

No, we are discussing the fact that you can support women or Islam, not both.


Was the change in the last 100 (not 40) years in the West worthwhile? If yes, is it only good for Western people, not others?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

Traditionally, Christians have always treated women as being of less worth than a man, Soren.   You're a fool if you claim otherwise.    ::)

Not at all. The old boy is simply being mendacious.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

Traditionally, Christians have always treated women as being of less worth than a man, Soren.   You're a fool if you claim otherwise.    ::)

Do you live a traditional life, Brain?

Why not?

You can support women or Islam, not both

Women have always been expensive.

Soren wrote on Dec 14^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2014 at 7:37pm: Traditionally, Christians have always treated women as being of less worth than a man, Soren.   You're a fool if you claim otherwise.    ::) Do you live a traditional life, Brain? Why not?

'cause I'm not traditional?   ::)

Soren wrote on Dec 14^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14th, 2014 at 3:44pm: Soren wrote on Dec 14th, 2014 at 2:36pm: The West is secular and in every secular society women are equal to men. True but only in the last 40 years, Soren.  Of course, we aren't discussing secular societies, now are we?  We're discussing religious values.  Please stick to the subject rather than attempting to divert it away when you're losing the argument....   ::) No, we are discussing the fact that you can support women or Islam, not both.

Yet I mentioned Christainity's record as being no better, Soren.  Why single Islam out for your attention while you ignore Christianity's ongoing abysmal one?    ::)


Quote:

Was the change in the last 100 (not 40) years in the West worthwhile? If yes, is it only good for Western people, not others?

You're comparing apples and oranges, Soren.    ::)