Quote:


Rules generally emanate from morals. You've merely not looked for the morals, and instead just seen the rules that emanate from them.

Also morals are subjective. Is adultery immoral? I'd say it is, and so would most other sane humans, and Islam definitely espouses this moral. Is stealing immoral? I'd say it is again, as would most other humans, Islam also espouses this moral.

I think this point is just nonsensical. Is it because Islam actually prescribes a punishment for disregarding the moral, that you consider it to be just based on rules rather than morals? I'm truly at a loss to see your point on this one.

Quote:


The collapse of the Caliphate undoubtedly led to a lot of the problems we see today,. because many of them simply didn't exist prior to it. But each inidviidual is responsible before God for his own shortcomings and "There was no caliphate" is not going to be any kind of excuse at all for mistreating anyone.

Also I don't think you've really proved any great amount of mistreatment of women in Muslim societies. All you've done is claim "They don't keep statistics, therefore it must be worse than in our society", or use things like "women have to cover more nakedness, so they must be oppressed".

When you cxan actually bring some concrete evidence on this one, we can look deeper at it, but again as I say, you're confusing apportioning blame to merely recognising that a certain historical event did result in a certain set of conditions.

Like your false claim that Muslims blame the situation of Islam today on the West, just because the decline opened the door for the West, doesn't mean we blame them. We blame ourselves, for our own failures to maintain our strength and unity, and to adapt to the changes in the world.

Quote:


Islam does not legislate immorality at all, this is garbage.

Quote:


Islam does not allow 'sex slaves'. It permitted enemies to be captured when they fought against the Caliphate, and they forfeited their freedom by this. All nations of the world did this at the time Islam was revealed, it was the norm. As has been pointed out to you so many times, the Bible also permits this (actually it permitted slavery in many different ways, far beyond what Islam did), as it was the norm. You need to accept this fact. If you'd like to argue it should be stopped in this day and age, then I can see us discussing it. But if you just want to promote the false idea that Islam alone permitted this, and nobody else did, then you're wasting your time,  I'm not interested in debating such fallacies.

The Christian West permitted even capturing of free men, not in times of war only a small number of centuries ago, when Islam abolished this over 14 centuries ago. Obviously the injunctions in the Bible were justification enough for them. Let me guess, the Catohlics did it all? The typical Christian cop-out.

Quote:


Again you're not being honest here freediver. Islam does not permit marriage (as it's understood today) to a pre-pubescant girl. It permits people who've attained puberty to be married, again as did all societies up until very recently, and in fact some societies even permitted marriage (as we understand it today) to younger than pubescant people. Islam put clear rules for all these things mentioned so far, in a time when no other nation/religion/civilisation did, and for that you're condemning it? Quite ironic, since those laws were revolutionary. Yes I understand you see them as being outdated, that's fine, but to claim they were legislated out of immorality is just ridiculous.

Quote:


You know full well slavery was only ever permitted for captives of war, and that can't happen without a Caliphate, so this statement was just a waste of your perfectly good typing skills.

Quote:


Since paedophilia is defined as an unnatural attraction to pre-pubescant children which wanes as the child approaches puberty, and then the paedophile must find a new victim, Shari'ah law does not seem like a dream come true for them at all. As they wouldn't be able to marry a girl until after she passed the age he'd have lost interest in her. Also their behaviour is predatory, and has not been observed to be long term, as marriage obviously is. Again, what another waste of valuable screen real-estate this one was.

Quote:


Quite ironic considering most padophiles are from European Christian societies. Yes I know, they're just not reported in Muslim societies, but obviously must be far more endemic...

Character limit..

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:






Quote:


Wrong, i would suggest.

Rules generally emanate from an authority which has the power to enforce them.

Laws are about politics, power.

Laws are not necessarily about justice, or morals.

ISLAM is a system of laws.

Yet many ppl, including many ex-muslims [who have intimate knowledge of ISLAM], insist that ISLAM is an immoral philosophy.





Quote:


Is the rape of a woman who is an 'unbeliever' moral abu?

Why is it that some muslims believe that it is moral????





As i have asserted previously....

All things are permitted if they are permitted by Sharia......

Rape victims were harangued as 'sluts' by attackers...
"The brothers, Muslims from Pakistan, targeted mostly Anglo-Saxon Australian girls whom they would later call "sluts" as they attacked them."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/27/1069825922999.html

"....attacks on girls as young as 13.... they had no right to say “no.” They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: “I’m not doing anything wrong.”"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=20535&p=1



++++++++



ISLAM is always dualistic in how it approaches the issue of morality, and the behaviour of muslims.

Fellow muslims must be treated one way, under ISLAMIC morality.

'Unbelievers' are treated in a separate, different way, because of what the Koran instructs,

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008
v. 8 - 11

So if a concubine doesn't want to be a concubine she can just wlak away from her position of slavery? Or does rape not count when it is done to a non-Muslim war captive - it's just 'spoiles of war'?

Good luck.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#The_concu...

I think that Islam's rules reflect to a large extent the conditions under which Arab tribes lived on the Arabian peninsula during Muhammed's time. They were laregly nomadic tribesmen and lead a harsh, survivalist lifestyle. Morality only extended to fellow tribesmen. Raiding other tribes was something of a 'national sport'. There was no immorality assigned to stealing from or killing those you weren't related to. There were some settled regions, which were also plundered. The nomadic tribes could easily escape into the desert where settled people could not follow them. People sometimes shifted between settled and nomadic lifestyles as conditions changed.

Muhammed seems to have adopted this amorality and extended the concept of the clan to all who adopted his ideology. He even incorporated pre-existing 'holy sites' where tradition forbade bloodshed. He thus converted them from warring tribes to a warring, expansionist empire able to take on neighbouring empires. His rules seem to be geared towards fueling this war machine, rather than correcting the amorality of the violent nomadic lifestyle.

Sex and material wealth seem to have been his main motivational tools. His social structure ensured that huge numbers of young men were denied love, or wives. So, off to battle the infidels they went. If they were killed, 72 dark eyed virgins would tickle their every fantasy in heaven. If they were unfortunate enough to survive, they had to make do with whatever infidel women they could capture, along with all of their land, farm animals and material posessions. But there was no rest for the wicked. The slaves were eventually freed and the cycle started again, except this time the battlefield was even further away.

The standard response to this is that other empires behaved the same way. This is of course true, but kind of misses the point. No-one takes the example of an ancient plundering empire and assigns it divine justification. Except of course Muslims.

Anyway I think I'm going to go back to the core of this argument, that morality and rules are completely seperate things.

Quote:

Wikipedia

Now if you ask me, that all sounds a lot like what the Islamic system is about, is it not?

Also Roget's Thesaurus lists moral as a synonym of rule.

Well the drinking of alcohol they were doing (which is actually associated with a lot of rapes) is a staple part of the Australian lifestyle, for that reason I mentioned that they seemed to be quite obviously more engulfed in the Australian lifestyle, than the Islamic one.

But unlike Yadda, I'm not going to goto the extreme of blaming it on that lifestyle, though in this case, I think I'd have much more right to than Yadda does, since these guys were obviously closer to Australian culture than to Islamic culture.