Essentially, Qa, your entire argument is founded on straw men.
Then admit that the separation of mosque and state is a good thing.
Yes, they certainly kept them dirty kuffar under control. I bet they never let them post on internet forums.
Congratulations! Halfway. Now go to that perfect book you know so well: Q 4: 11 and Q 4: 34.
For starters, it's not legal to pay a woman less than a man. Meanwhile, in the good ol' ummah, one can beat hell out of a woman and never be charged.
Great Darwin, man: did you not even look at the link I sent?
Ah. Then you'll be the first to tell the others to back off of me having to slap them down in the other thread? Never mind: not necessary.
Ah, see, now I was going to leave you alone to lose to Mike when I saw this. Too late now.
Then admit that the separation of mosque and state is a good thing.
Yes, they certainly kept them dirty kuffar under control. I bet they never let them post on internet forums.
Congratulations! Halfway. Now go to that perfect book you know so well: Q 4: 11 and Q 4: 34.
For starters, it's not legal to pay a woman less than a man. Meanwhile, in the good ol' ummah, one can beat hell out of a woman and never be charged.
Great Darwin, man: did you not even look at the link I sent?
Ah. Then you'll be the first to tell the others to back off of me having to slap them down in the other thread? Never mind: not necessary.
Ah, see, now I was going to leave you alone to lose to Mike when I saw this. Too late now.
Communism, Democracy, Islam, Socialism, Fascism, Christendom, ect.. they all proscribe what's the best things to do to make the best possible society. To me it seems, that from the perspective of women having equal rights legally and socially, Islamic countries are dead last. Very few if any other counties force women to cover from head to toe or to veil her face or doesn't let them drive or doesn't let them vote.
You answer is that this is because there are dictators - yet North Korea has a dictator, China has a Dictator, Russia had Dictators, Ancient Rome had Dictators. As they don't do this to women we must assume it's more than just a despot.
Yes a leader is different from a Dictator. An Emperor is also different than a Dictator. But a Dictator can be a leader and an Emperor. The question is: Is it Qur'anic to have hereditary Emperors? If it is not then none of the examples you have given where Islamic nations. They were the typical hereditary governments who ruled people, some of whom, happen to be Muslim.
That's a big difference.
Anyway, it's odd for you to pick the best Emperors who were good Dictators and say this is a great example of Islam and then pick the crap ones and say oh no they're not Islamic. Either the rule is there are no hereditary rulers or the rules are there are hereditary rulers. You can't really have it both ways and still be consistent.
I'm happy to discuss any other issues. The West is by no means idealistic and as I said women are not even equal under the law here. But they are getting there and that's a product of the social values in the West.
I find it hard to believe that women who are arranged to marry 50 year old men for a family connection are all that bloody happy about it. Oh they may shut up and do it - but they aren't jumping for joy. I already explained why I think polygamy can lead to a state of mind with less regard for women.
We'd really have to look for the Stats and I'm sure they'd be hard to come by.
dropped.
As to the wiki: I gave the citation [1] linked in the wiki article here: Polygyny in Islam
In Islam, polygamy is allowed and practised under certain restricted conditions. Muslim men are allowed to practise polygyny and can have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four. Muslim women are not allowed to practise polyandry.
Although many Muslim countries have Islamic law (sharia) which permits polygyny, certain elements within Islam challenge its acceptability. See this discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize these forms as valid.
Polygamy for Muslims, in practice and law, differs greatly throughout the Islamic world. In some Muslim countries, polygamy is relatively common, while in others, it is often rare or non-existent. Tunisia, for example, is an Arab country where polygamy is not allowed.
In the Islamic world, polygamous marriages constitute only 1–3% of all marriages.[1]
Last edited:
You must live in an alternate universe. Personally I know quite a few.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate
Perhaps divorce shouldn't be frowned upon? Maybe in the future we will think of divorce as a natural progression in many a relationship? Not always but not necessarily a bad thing. People grow apart after all.
Diverse is different than equality but they are connected. If a women can not have financial security she may stay with a man she hates. Many Japanese women were in this situation I think.
Diverse is different than equality but they are connected. If a women can not have financial security she may stay with a man she hates. Many Japanese women were in this situation I think.
And divorce/remarriage has been acceptable in Islam since 1400 years so there is no argument there.
To reiterate Michael's point:
Compare that to my link below:
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol3/4/3-4.pdf
Supports or not?
Compare that to my link below:
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol3/4/3-4.pdf
Supports or not?
Does that work for all poor communities? India, Africa, East Europe?
Is there greater divorce in one than the other?
If people have too much money does that mean they will be more likely to engage in meaningless relationships? Marriage will be based less on commitment more on whimsy? What do you think?
Is there more divorce in rich Islamic women?
I'd bet there are more divorces for rich Islamic women with the capability for independence compared with poor dependent Islamic women. Because that's the case for everyone regardless of religous affiliation.
Bail for Pakistan 'same-sex' pair
She was aware of his condition but says she needed his help to avoid being forced into wedlock with someone else.
This peace is sensational due to the sex reassignment performed on the man but it's obviously this is going to happen in many more day to day circumstances.
Last edited:
So can we stratify the Western sample the same way? What stigma is attached to divorce in Western society? Does the family or perhaps the younger daughters suffer for such an event?
Go ahead and stratify it any way you like. I know where more children/relationships are "discarded".
Let me know the results.
Divorce has been prevalent in the ME since 1400 years. In the Indian subcontinent, Indian values supercede.
Why do the Islamic countries do this?
My answer isn't because they have a dictator. I didn't say that at all. My answer is that they have dictators who run for a specific political agenda. I don't know what drives some of these people to hate women, but one thing is for certain: it isn't Islam.
This should answer some questions:
The Qur'an highlights an important aspect of Islam's concept of leadership. After successfully completing a number of tests, Prophet Ibrahim is given the glad tidings that he has been appointed Imam (leader) of all the people. "What about my progeny?" asks Ibrahim. "My covenant does not include the dhalimeen (oppressors)", comes the divine reply (Al-Qur'an 2:124). An important point emerges from this dialogue: an oppressor is not fit to be leader of the Muslims, regardless of what other qualities he may possess. Implicit in this ayat are two other points about leadership: to be legitimate, it must have divine sanction and, Islam rejects the concept of hereditary leadership; each person must qualify for it on merit.
If an emperor is a true follower of Islam, then he will be good for his Muslim people. If an emperor is not a true follower of Islam, and his people are Muslims, then there will be problems. I just quoted Islam's status on leadership and how leaders are chosen. Yes, dictators are a bad idea, but if you have a good dictator, then it could be a great thing. That's the gamble.
They aren't forced to do it, therefore it is by their own will. Look Michael, you're not a female, and you didn't grow up in Arabia 1400 years ago. What may seem odd to you now was as normal as two 25 year olds getting married today. You cannot look back that far into the past with a modern eye and judge people by your own standards.
Exactly, because the different cultures of these nations form different mindsets to people when viewing polygamy. That, or some countries have a very high rate of poverty, which makes them financially unable to marry more than once (or at all, for that matter).
It says 1-3, so let us assume 2% to be fair. Two in ONE HUNDRED men will choose to practice polygamy, and overwhelming odds are that they'll only have one extra wife. Do you see any urgency here whatsoever?
And the 'stigma' thingy?
There is a stigma attached to divorce in the ME?
I also note this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage
"This reinforces the contention that for Eastern societies (India, Pakistan and Middle East in particular), marriage is a vehicle for societal and economic aggrandisement."
A business arrangement? Seems not terribly enlightened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage
"This reinforces the contention that for Eastern societies (India, Pakistan and Middle East in particular), marriage is a vehicle for societal and economic aggrandisement."
A business arrangement? Seems not terribly enlightened.
Yeah, especially considering how the society has survived for how many thousand years again? They obviously need to learn from the West about marriage and bringing up children.