Originally Posted by xlr84life
" The CDHRI gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour, or nationality,*but not religion
. In addition, women are given "equal human dignity", "own rights to enjoy", "duties to perform", "own civil entity", "financial independence", and the "right to retain her name and lineage",*but not equal rights in general"
I don't see where it restricts women rights.
"The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration's sole source."
Do you understand what that means? That means that any assurance of rights or freedoms are filtered through Sharia law. You have the Sharia version of 'financial independence' which equates to 'women can't work without permission of their husbands'. If we're reading and quoting from wiki, then why don't we quote one of the introductory passages as well? "It guarantees many of the same rights as the UDHR (cf. liberal Islam), while at the same time reaffirming the inequalities inherent in Islamic law and tradition in terms of religion, gender, sexuality, political rights, and other aspects of contemporary society at odds with Islamic law and traditions."
Originally Posted by xlr84life
Men and women are equal. With different rights. Why don't you argue on the part where men is responsible for spending on the family? And that women don't have to? At the end the hardships of both genders equal up. You just don't want to know about it.
That's not how equality works. You don't get equality by balancing the lack of rights of women with the lack of rights of men.
Originally Posted by xlr84life
Now, find me solid proof where Islam says women are less valued than man. You can't. We are both equally important.
Off the topic of my head, under Sharia, women's accounts as witnesses are weighed half as much men - two female accounts = one male account.
I can also recall, earlier in this thread, or the other one, Moonshake posting from the Quran "Qur'an (2:228 ) - "And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them".
Now, I also recall telling you the difference between intent and result. For the last time, it doesn't matter what the fuck Islam says it is, the reality is reflected in Sharia law.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Are you saying that mild inequality is actually equality?
I believe I'm saying that women not being able to leave the house without permission or being able to seek employment without permission is not mild.
Originally Posted by Gorman
You sure dodged that question lol.
So I'm guessing you are trying to say once again that women are not oppressed...
I believe I'm saying that women not being able to leave the house without permission or being able to seek employment without permission is not mild.
Originally Posted by Gorman
That's not true though, even the largest Muslim country in the world doesn't implement Sharia.
"The biggest Muslim country doesn't do it therefor you're lying". Link to application of Sharia law by country. All those Islamic countries in blue there have a system where they fully implement Sharia.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Also there's no such thing as a country with a large number of wahabists [sic], go check out their demographics mate.
Countries in the Arabic Penninsula have rates of wahhabists in the 40s. Besides, I wasn't the one who first used the term 'wahhabist countries' - that was you. I was using the term for your sake.
Originally Posted by Gorman
So are you trying to argue that when they /did/ accept the UDHR they weren't Islamic?
Nope. I'm arguing that most Muslim countries don't accept the UDHR. You said they did once. I said 'who the fuck cares, they don't now, and that's the point I'm making'. We're not having a discussion about Islam 20 years ago. We're having a discussion about Islam today.
Originally Posted by Gorman
Either Islam doesn't conflict the UDHR (which is why they accepted it initially), or it does conflict and they weren't Islamic at that time. It's pretty simple.
Mate, you're right, it is pretty simple. A quick fact check will show you that the reason they split was because the UDHR was too secular, and they wanted a system that recognised Sharia as legit.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM.
Originally Posted by raaage
The topic of this thread is "Is Islam a violent religion that needs to be avoided?".
If you really want to discuss gender inequality in Islamic nations then you may feel free to do so in a new thread, but this is way off-topic.
I like what proto said about this.
Originally Posted by protonitron
Anyway, the real problem of the thread is that the current discussion does not really address the question at all. Nevertheless, the discussion seems to be enjoyable for those involved and nobody is being too aggressive or presumptuous so closing it would be a waste. The problem is in fact the narrow scope for discussion of the thread, which can't be blamed on the creator since this thread was not created under conventional circumstances and the creator most likely did not expect this topic/thread to be such a popular discussion. In other words I think it is fine for us to ignore the threads title and simply focus on whether Islam is a problematic and discriminatory religion (In general terms, the phraseology of this sentence is too questionable and unspecific to be acceptable but the general meaning should be clear enough). Luckily we all seem to be doing that already.
If you are going to try backseat moderating please at least have the common decency to do it properly.
Another obscure long paragraph about logic.
Ele, I am skeptical about the relevance of your assumption that intent is less important than effect to this matter. Islam as a collection of scripture seems to be acceptable to you (not saying it is or it isn't, this point is entirely focussed on your ideas about intent and effect which should be the same regardless of whether Islam is good or not) but you have a problem with Islamic law (Sharia), however if Sharia is not completely essential to Islam then you can't argue that Islam is irrefutably inherently oppressive to women. From what I had time to read on good old Wikipedia it seems like Sharia is partially dependant on a lot of factors which are not Islamic (one of the many secondary sources for Sharia listed was 'logic' for example). However, I did not read all of the wiki page or understand all that I read, so your reasoning may be justifiable. The reason I mention this is because to me it seems unlikely that you have already read all the relevant parts of the wiki article to check the exact evolution or source of Sharia. It is subsequently likely (depending entirely on whether my aforementioned suspicions are correct) that you are treating an uninformed assumption as a fact which is not good practice if you intend to continue deciding what xlr8life "and a few others, also need to" do in this thread.
I completely accept the possibility that I entirely misjudged your capacity for background research on obscure aspects of your argument and that you have in fact read up on Sharia in detail, however, I felt like it would be worth me checking.
If anyone can see any fallacies in my reasoning (which there almost certainly will be) then feel free to tell me (via PM or the end of a post which is relevant to this discussion so that the discussion stays focussed on Islam rather than my poor attempts at logic).
I completely accept the possibility that I entirely misjudged your capacity for background research on obscure aspects of your argument and that you have in fact read up on Sharia in detail, however, I felt like it would be worth me checking.
If anyone can see any fallacies in my reasoning (which there almost certainly will be) then feel free to tell me (via PM or the end of a post which is relevant to this discussion so that the discussion stays focussed on Islam rather than my poor attempts at logic).
Good morning sweet princess
