Polygami i islam

The practice of polygamy is a mathematical contradiction of the principle that men and women are to be treated equally. The Quran's allowance of multiple wives thus poses a challenge for the contemporary apologist, who wants his Western audience to believe that Islam encourages gender equality. There is no doubt that polygamy, when practised properly in accordance with Islam, achieves many things that are in people’s best interests (such as maintaining the chastity of the man who is not satisfied with one wife, taking care of and maintaining the chastity of the woman who has no husband, increasing the offspring of the Muslims ... Islam is criticized for allowing polygamy, for popular culture in the West views polygamy as relatively backward and impoverished. For many Christians, it is a license to promiscuity, and feminists consider it a violation of women’s rights and demeaning to women. Polygamy, in the sense of having more than one wife at the same time, has been one of the chief issues due to which severe criticism has been directed against Islam. Non-Muslims decry Islam for permitting polygamy and allowing a man to have up to four wives at the same time, thus debasing women and slighting their status in society. Islam is a very sensible religion that puts focus on maintaining the family as well as the community. In this sensibility, polygamy is permissible as it can benefit women in need, accommodate rising female populations and ensure the women’s rights are being upheld. Polygamy in History Islam did not invent the system of polygamy. It existed long before Islam came into the scene of world events. The Bible says that Lamech, the grandson of Adam, “took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.”3 So polygamy has existed from the earliest days of human history. Continuous debates are being held about Polygamy in Islam, saying that Muslims can Mary more than one wife deliberately. Actually what quran says regarding this is, in Sura an-Nisa Chapter 4 Verse 3 “Marry women of your choice in twos, threes or fours, but if you can’t do justice then marry only one.” Islam allows polygamy and permits men, under specific circumstances, to have at most four wives at any given time. Polygamy was customary before Islam and was not abrogated with the coming of Islam; instead, Islam has corrected and set various conditions for the practice. The principle was permitted, but polygamy was limited to four wives. Polygamy In Islam. previous next. Polygamy In Islam General. related works. The Exorcist Tradition in Islam. Dawah Course Manual. 7 Habits. Contemporary Issues. Evolution of Fiqh. Ramadan Reflection. Hajj and Umrah. Exorcism. The Fundamental of Hadeeth Studies. Dream Interpretation. Foundations of Islamic Studies. My comment about oppression did not refer to polygamy but to the fact that Islam allows us to choose according to our own faith when scholars disagree on how to interpret the meaning of suras or ahadeeth. So we are allowed to agree on disagreeing – it is Islamic. A man can waiver a right, the right to polygamy as well as any other right.

09-25 04:17 - 'You are cherry picking. / The people that blow up abortion clinics, attack gays, the kkk, nearly ever neo-nazi group, / They all have close ties to Christianity. / [quote] [Positive Christianity] here is a good start...' by /u/404_UserNotFound removed from /r/worldnews within 38-48min

2020.09.25 06:17 removalbot 09-25 04:17 - 'You are cherry picking. / The people that blow up abortion clinics, attack gays, the kkk, nearly ever neo-nazi group, / They all have close ties to Christianity. / [quote] [Positive Christianity] here is a good start...' by /u/404_UserNotFound removed from /r/worldnews within 38-48min

'''
You are cherry picking.
The people that blow up abortion clinics, attack gays, the kkk, nearly ever neo-nazi group,
They all have close ties to Christianity.
Are you really blaming Christianity for the Holocaust? really?
[Positive Christianity]1 here is a good start to look into.
...and its not like its ancient history that christianity has ties to white power ideology. Literally from today. "[NC Pastor yells 'white power' during Trump parade]2 "
The Catholic Church has been scrambling to make reforms so that child molesting stops.
Oh just to get out of the news...they only had the last couple thousand years of it. Ok I will give you that its only really been brought to light for the last 100? I think its fair to say 1920 is far enough along they could have started on it. but even still the last 50 is more than enough.
Call for any kind of reform in Islam, you’re a heretic.
not to everyone and lets be honest your catholic aunt is not better than your muslim nephew. If you go talk about abortion to a WBC group you are going to get treated the same as any other hate group.
There is always a spectrum in every group. Yes some muslims will kill you. Yes some catholics will too. Its not that one group is better or worse. Mexican cartel gangster still pretend to be catholic, and russians, and so do US gang members.
Bad people come in all colors and denominations.
If you give away money because a guy on TV said god told you to, I have no sympathy for you.
How christian of you. Some one is using gods name to rip people off (for millions a year, mostly elderly people who cant make it into churches) and you blame the victim...good job.
Polygamy has been forbidden by Mormon doctrine since 1890.
So it definitely isnt happening. Over a hundred years I bet they solved it and its all gone....
admittedly its not the nuttiest part of LDS and I just tossed it out as a lead into all the other crazy but you have made my point. LDS stopped it 130 years ago and[ yet its is still an issue.]3
the Amish aren’t moving to big cities and beating up anybody who uses a fucking iPhone, which would be the closest analogue to France’s current problem.
First off my point was they are nuts. That hasnt change. I made no reference that all religions are super violent, just all are a bit crazy.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: 404_UserNotFound
1: *n*wikip**i*.org/w**i/*ositive*Christi*nit* 2: *ww.newso*s*rv*r.c*m/*ews/l*c*l/*rt*c**245954125.h*ml 3: *w*.nyt*mes.com*2*20*05*1**us/u*ah-bigamy-l*w.*tml
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]


2020.09.23 21:34 CaramelxMarshmallows Indian women should NOT marry: 1.3 billion reasons

Indian women should absolutely NOT marry in the current Indian climate and in this essay I'll explain why it's too risky and the laws DON'T help.
India has 77 million more men than women. Reasons? Extreme male preference leading to widespread female foeticides and infanticides.
Now that they've killed all the women, Indian men don't have anyone to marry so they're looking elsewhere, for more gullible targets.
Women in India accounted for 36% of global female suicide deaths in 2016, despite making up less than 18% of the world’s female population

💀 Patriarchal upbringing and male pandered brainwashing of women💀

This starts at birth. Desi women are told that their entire self-worth and purpose is wrapped up in being a self-sacrificing wife, mother, and pillar of the household. After a woman reaches X age, she's constantly pressurised to marry. Often against her wishes, marriage proposals are sent and she's forced to marry a NVM that looks like an elephant sized amorphohallus.

💀 Blaming the women 💀

The number 1 rule of misogyny is: Blame the women.
Whenever something is wrong in the house or the family, people always ask “why didn’t do something about this?”, so from the get-go, your entire future is framed in terms of marriage and your future family. So a lot of women don’t know any better, and they’re a failure if they try to leave.

💀 Internalised misogyny💀

For this reason, a lot of older women in the family/MILs will treat younger women piss poorly, but for some the intention is to teach them at a young age how to manage a household and survive in a joint family, especially when it was tough for a lot of these MILs.

💀The MIL nightmare💀

The MIL will treat you like a slave. Will make you bend over backwards to make sure her son with the face of an elephant sized amorphophallus lives comfortably.

💀 Trashy NVM💀

Don't expect them to treat you like a Queen. They don't care about your happiness and they'll blame you if you raise your voice or try to leave. They'd rather you burn your blood and be a fuckin slave while they act like they're living a good life.

💀Abuse💀

Financial, physical, mental, emotional, psychological, sexual. Endless gaslighting. You name it.

💀No financial independence💀

You will be forced to resign from your job. If you don't, you face repercussions. The financial component is that men are breadwinners and they’ve never been taught to emotionally or intimately provide for their families, and it’s not like their parents’ relationships showed them any different. So women, even if they want things to change, don’t really have the financial backing or the power to get what they want. If they go back home, their family will be talked about or socially shamed (not to mention her family will probably be the ones doing the shaming).

💀Divorce💀

If they get divorced, the man will easily be married but she will have a “dirty/used goods” mentality about her. And kids make it all the more complicated, because if their lives are affected in any way, it’s the mom’s face and FDS mindsets will change things for women now, but the main thing is that women need to know that there are other options out there and the relationship they see with their parents isn’t the only reality they have to subject themselves to.
Speaking of the divorce, Triple talaq is a form of divorce that was practised in Islam, whereby a Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by pronouncing talaq (the Arabic word for divorce) three times. A divorced woman could not remarry her divorced husband unless she first married another man, slept with him for one night, a practice called nikah halala.
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/3-triple-talaq-victims-share-their-tragic-tales

💀Predatory grooming💀

Society strives to keep female financial independence to the bare minimum. Parents try to get girls fresh out of college or in their final semesters married, what life experience would these girls have?
Men, and their families want younger girls so they can "mold" them as they choose.

💀 Delusional romantic movies💀

Movies romanticize domestic lives, showing some stolen kisses in a kitchen while ignoring the larger nightmare that half the family is in the living room while this girl is cooking alone and her husband is distracting her.

💀Dowry💀

Be prepared to pay dowry at the time of: engagement, marriage, after visiting your own home, after your parents visit you, after the birth of every child.

💀 Housework💀

Be prepared to cook, clean and do all stuff while your family lounges watching TV and your MIL complains that you can't do stuff properly.

💀Family shaming💀

Your family will be shamed for anything your in-laws deem "inappropriate". Can't cook? Shame on your family. They didn't teach you to be a good DIL.

💀No healthy sexuality💀

Be prepared to have a lifetime of non-orgasmic sex and be ready to be sl*t shamed to the highest level incase you demand anything or masturbate. Men think sex is something humiliating and derogatory done to women.

💀 Restrictions on clothing💀

You maybe forced to wear ONLY traditional Indian dresses or your clothes may be regulated by your MIL to make you "fit to be a decent DIL".

💀 Entertaining guests💀

Your in-laws will call people to the house and YOU will be expected to prepare a luncheon and entertain them.

💀 In-law politics and gaslighting💀

They will make a mountain of a molehill at every point and you'll be seen as the trouble. If you buy something or get a gift from someone, expect your in-laws to get jealous and pass comments.

💀Womb- hijacking💀

You will be expected to be a good DIL and pop out kids as per your family's demands. You won't have a choice!
The DIL is supposed to have as many sons as possible. But a single daughter and the DIL along with her entire family gets shamed.
In some parts of the country, illegal tests are being done to determine sex of the child. If female, then it's illegal abortions, throwing DIL down the stairs, murder. You name it.
Especially MIL expects her DIL to give her grandchild within a year. I've seen my aunts and my mum's friends nag their DIL for it.
If you decide to be childfree, you'll be labelled "barren land" and someone who must be pitied. They won't care even if your husband is childfree which is unlikely.
After having kids and fulfilling their "kidesire", you'll be expected to "be mature" and leave your job, if you haven't already, to fully focus on child rearing. If you manage work and childcare, then be prepared to be exhausted and get gaslighted by the family for "riding two boats at the same time" while the in-laws will try to spoil the kids so that they can blame you.

💀Periodophobia💀

Menstruation is looked at as something impure in most families. Expect to be treated like an impure object, excluded from literally everything, separate utensils, no permission to enter the kitchen or to eat/ cook/ serve food to others or attend any religious occasion including weddings and funerals.

💀 Polygamy💀

Polygamy became illegal in India in 1956, uniformly for all of its citizens except for Muslims, who are permitted to have four wives and for Hindus in Goa and along the western coast where bigamy is legal. A polygamous Hindu marriage is null and void.

Some feminist commentary

Turkish feminist economist Deniz Kandiyoti calls this behavior Token Torture a form of bargain with patriarchy (PDF) where MIL gains some sense of control over a weaker female in her close proximity i.e. the DIL.

💀 State sponsored patriarchal control on married Indian women: 💀

  1. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
The law upholds father as the natural guardians of a Hindu, minor and after him comes the mother. This means the father is considered the natural guardian of a child, with respect to all legal decisions over a child’s life or even if you need to sign a document on behalf of the child the mother can’t do it by herself. There have been some cases which have been taken to court because a mother has done some investment on behalf of the child and the bank has refused the papers saying that the father has not signed. The actual implication is that the mother is not able to make her decisions on her own especially when she is dealing with the government or official institutions.
  1. Adultery: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
This one is tricky because prima facie it feels like it is pro-women since only, married men can be tried for this. The misogyny in this is that only aggrieved husbands can register the case. So the man whose wife is being cheated upon just has to grin and bear it.
  1. Marriagable Age: Hindu Marriage Act
Minimum age for marriage is 18 for girls and 21 for boys. Go figure why.
  1. Marital Property
In India, there is no concept of marital property i.e. shared property of the husband and wife. After divorce, the court asks the earning spouse (generally the husband) to provide the wife with a nominal maintenance. Unless the property is registered in her name, the wife does not get a share in the property. Also, maintenance stops if the husband dies. Then what? The divorced wife has no property in her hands. Her contribution towards the household is not taken into consideration so as to distribute the property, at least that which was acquired during matrimony, in a proportional manner. Instead, everything remains with the husband and is inherited by his heirs.
  1. The Hindu Succession Act
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve upon (after her children and grandchildren) the heirs of her husband before her own parents.
Even if her in laws mistreated her, by law, all her property could go to them.
  1. Rape of a separated wife
The rape of a separated wife carries lesser punishment than the rape of any other woman. Forced sexual intercourse with the former is punishable with two to seven years of imprisonment. Prison sentence for the rape of any other woman ranges from seven years to life.
https://qz.com/india/224632/indian-women-will-never-be-equal-as-long-as-these-9-laws-remain-on-the-books/
©To all the Queens for help. Thanks a lot! 🙂
So my desi queens, I suggest we learn something from our Japanese and Korean counterparts. They raised their voices but no one listened. So now they've stopped dating, marrying and having children in such large numbers that both these countries have a birth rate of less than 1 with a steadily declining population. So why should we contribute when the laws itself want to curtail us?

A fun fact: As per the Indian society, I'm a "home wrecker" because of this post. In their opinion, I'm trying to "destroy families and Indian culture".

submitted by CaramelxMarshmallows to ExHinduWomen [link] [comments]


2020.09.23 21:13 CaramelxMarshmallows Indian women should NOT marry: 1.3 billion reasons

Indian women should absolutely NOT marry in the current Indian climate and in this essay I'll explain why it's too risky and the laws DON'T help.
India has 77 million more men than women. Reasons? Extreme male preference leading to widespread female foeticides and infanticides.
Now that they've killed all the women, Indian men don't have anyone to marry so they're looking elsewhere, for more gullible targets.
Women in India accounted for 36% of global female suicide deaths in 2016, despite making up less than 18% of the world’s female population

💀 Patriarchal upbringing and male pandered brainwashing of women💀

This starts at birth. Desi women are told that their entire self-worth and purpose is wrapped up in being a self-sacrificing wife, mother, and pillar of the household. After a woman reaches X age, she's constantly pressurised to marry. Often against her wishes, marriage proposals are sent and she's forced to marry a NVM that looks like an elephant sized amorphohallus.

💀 Blaming the women 💀

The number 1 rule of misogyny is: Blame the women.
Whenever something is wrong in the house or the family, people always ask “why didn’t do something about this?”, so from the get-go, your entire future is framed in terms of marriage and your future family. So a lot of women don’t know any better, and they’re a failure if they try to leave.

💀 Internalised misogyny💀

For this reason, a lot of older women in the family/MILs will treat younger women piss poorly, but for some the intention is to teach them at a young age how to manage a household and survive in a joint family, especially when it was tough for a lot of these MILs.

💀The MIL nightmare💀

The MIL will treat you like a slave. Will make you bend over backwards to make sure her son with the face of an elephant sized amorphophallus lives comfortably.

💀 Trashy NVM💀

Don't expect them to treat you like a Queen. They don't care about your happiness and they'll blame you if you raise your voice or try to leave. They'd rather you burn your blood and be a fuckin slave while they act like they're living a good life.

💀Abuse💀

Financial, physical, mental, emotional, psychological, sexual. Endless gaslighting. You name it.
Let’s also mention the controversy over the existence of marital rape

💀No financial independence💀

You will be forced to resign from your job. If you don't, you face repercussions. The financial component is that men are breadwinners and they’ve never been taught to emotionally or intimately provide for their families, and it’s not like their parents’ relationships showed them any different. So women, even if they want things to change, don’t really have the financial backing or the power to get what they want. If they go back home, their family will be talked about or socially shamed (not to mention her family will probably be the ones doing the shaming).

💀Divorce💀

If they get divorced, the man will easily be married but she will have a “dirty/used goods” mentality about her. And kids make it all the more complicated, because if their lives are affected in any way, it’s the mom’s face and FDS mindsets will change things for women now, but the main thing is that women need to know that there are other options out there and the relationship they see with their parents isn’t the only reality they have to subject themselves to.
Speaking of the divorce, Triple talaq is a form of divorce that was practised in Islam, whereby a Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by pronouncing talaq (the Arabic word for divorce) three times. A divorced woman could not remarry her divorced husband unless she first married another man, slept with him for one night, a practice called nikah halala.
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/3-triple-talaq-victims-share-their-tragic-tales

💀Predatory grooming💀

Society strives to keep female financial independence to the bare minimum. Parents try to get girls fresh out of college or in their final semesters married, what life experience would these girls have?
Men, and their families want younger girls so they can "mold" them as they choose.

💀 Delusional romantic movies💀

Movies romanticize domestic lives, showing some stolen kisses in a kitchen while ignoring the larger nightmare that half the family is in the living room while this girl is cooking alone and her husband is distracting her.

💀Dowry💀

Be prepared to pay dowry at the time of: engagement, marriage, after visiting your own home, after your parents visit you, after the birth of every child.

💀 Housework💀

Be prepared to cook, clean and do all stuff while your family lounges watching TV and your MIL complains that you can't do stuff properly.

💀Family shaming💀

Your family will be shamed for anything your in-laws deem "inappropriate". Can't cook? Shame on your family. They didn't teach you to be a good DIL.

💀No healthy sexuality💀

Be prepared to have a lifetime of non-orgasmic sex and be ready to be sl*t shamed to the highest level incase you demand anything or masturbate. Men think sex is something humiliating and derogatory done to women.

💀 Restrictions on clothing💀

You maybe forced to wear ONLY traditional Indian dresses or your clothes may be regulated by your MIL to make you "fit to be a decent DIL".

💀 Entertaining guests💀

Your in-laws will call people to the house and YOU will be expected to prepare a luncheon and entertain them.

💀 In-law politics and gaslighting💀

They will make a mountain of a molehill at every point and you'll be seen as the trouble. If you buy something or get a gift from someone, expect your in-laws to get jealous and pass comments.

💀Womb- hijacking💀

You will be expected to be a good DIL and pop out kids as per your family's demands. You won't have a choice!
The DIL is supposed to have as many sons as possible. But a single daughter and the DIL along with her entire family gets shamed.
In some parts of the country, illegal tests are being done to determine sex of the child. If female, then it's illegal abortions, throwing DIL down the stairs, murder. You name it.
Especially MIL expects her DIL to give her grandchild within a year. I've seen my aunts and my mum's friends nag their DIL for it.
If you decide to be childfree, you'll be labelled "barren land" and someone who must be pitied. They won't care even if your husband is childfree which is unlikely.
After having kids and fulfilling their "kidesire", you'll be expected to "be mature" and leave your job, if you haven't already, to fully focus on child rearing. If you manage work and childcare, then be prepared to be exhausted and get gaslighted by the family for "riding two boats at the same time" while the in-laws will try to spoil the kids so that they can blame you.

💀Periodophobia💀

Menstruation is looked at as something impure in most families. Expect to be treated like an impure object, excluded from literally everything, separate utensils, no permission to enter the kitchen or to eat/ cook/ serve food to others or attend any religious occasion including weddings and funerals.

💀 Polygamy💀

Polygamy became illegal in India in 1956, uniformly for all of its citizens except for Muslims, who are permitted to have four wives and for Hindus in Goa and along the western coast where bigamy is legal. A polygamous Hindu marriage is null and void.

Some feminist commentary

Turkish feminist economist Deniz Kandiyoti calls this behavior Token Torture a form of bargain with patriarchy (PDF) where MIL gains some sense of control over a weaker female in her close proximity i.e. the DIL.

💀 State sponsored patriarchal control on married Indian women: 💀

  1. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
The law upholds father as the natural guardians of a Hindu, minor and after him comes the mother. This means the father is considered the natural guardian of a child, with respect to all legal decisions over a child’s life or even if you need to sign a document on behalf of the child the mother can’t do it by herself. There have been some cases which have been taken to court because a mother has done some investment on behalf of the child and the bank has refused the papers saying that the father has not signed. The actual implication is that the mother is not able to make her decisions on her own especially when she is dealing with the government or official institutions.
  1. Adultery: Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
This one is tricky because prima facie it feels like it is pro-women since only, married men can be tried for this. The misogyny in this is that only aggrieved husbands can register the case. So the man whose wife is being cheated upon just has to grin and bear it.
  1. Marriagable Age: Hindu Marriage Act
Minimum age for marriage is 18 for girls and 21 for boys. Go figure why.
  1. Marital Property
In India, there is no concept of marital property i.e. shared property of the husband and wife. After divorce, the court asks the earning spouse (generally the husband) to provide the wife with a nominal maintenance. Unless the property is registered in her name, the wife does not get a share in the property. Also, maintenance stops if the husband dies. Then what? The divorced wife has no property in her hands. Her contribution towards the household is not taken into consideration so as to distribute the property, at least that which was acquired during matrimony, in a proportional manner. Instead, everything remains with the husband and is inherited by his heirs.
  1. The Hindu Succession Act
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate should devolve upon (after her children and grandchildren) the heirs of her husband before her own parents.
Even if her in laws mistreated her, by law, all her property could go to them.
  1. Rape of a separated wife
The rape of a separated wife carries lesser punishment than the rape of any other woman. Forced sexual intercourse with the former is punishable with two to seven years of imprisonment. Prison sentence for the rape of any other woman ranges from seven years to life.
https://qz.com/india/224632/indian-women-will-never-be-equal-as-long-as-these-9-laws-remain-on-the-books/
©To all the Queens for help. Thanks a lot! 🙂
So my desi queens, I suggest we learn something from our Japanese and Korean counterparts. They raised their voices but no one listened. So now they've stopped dating, marrying and having children in such large numbers that both these countries have a birth rate of less than 1 with a steadily declining population. So why should we contribute when the laws itself want to curtail us?

A fun fact: As per the Indian society, I'm a "home wrecker" because of this post. In their opinion, I'm trying to "destroy families and Indian culture".

ExHinduWomen if anyone's interested. It's a radfem GC sub for women.
Edit: Thank you so much for the awards, QUEENS! 👑
submitted by CaramelxMarshmallows to FemaleDatingStrategy [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 20:01 Maybelowsmv The traditional role of a Muslimah

[views are not carried out in my own life].
Introduction
Our parents ideally want the best for us, and it is why as women we require a wali to accompany us to places if we're travelling far and why we require a wali to help us decide on suitable marriage partners. Suitable marriage partners would be ideally chosen for his religious commitment, his kindness and gentleness to women, his trustworthiness, his looks, wealth, status, etc. Granted, once you accept the hand of the man you desire who is approved by your wali, there is lots of things to consider.
Child-Bearing
One of the most important reasons for why people get married is to have a stable condition to raise children in. Islamically, men are recommended to marry women who are child-bearing. This suggests that it is also desirable for women to get married whilst younger as they will have greater child-bearing capabilities and can increase the size of the Ummah Insha Allah.
Make-up
It is the role of a Muslimah to beautify herself for her husband. She can do this through the use of good clothing and makeup. This was seen in the practice of the righteous women who wore fine clothes and jewellery at home to look beautiful for their husbands. A mistake a lot of women make is that they prioritise looking beautiful for the sake of other women, for instance, and remain at home looking 'homely'. Additionally, it is not appropriate to beautify yourself for the sake of other men especially when married. So a good practice would be to always dress and look well in the home so that your husband will look at you pleasantly.
Be pleasant in character
Whilst both men and women should be kind, there is a natural emotional role attached to women. To keep your union pleasant and harmonious, consider warmly greeting your partner, engaging in loving physical touch, complimenting your partner, and being comfortable with trusting in his lead and being vulnerable with him. This will present you as more feminine and would help him feel more masculine.
Be patient
Look and address your husband in a positively light. If you see that he is doing something wrong, encourage him to do good by speaking to him gently and rewarding his good behaviour. If you agree with his opinions or actions, show gratefulness. If you disagree, do not argue or express that you are 'better' than him... instead find ways to gently discuss topics and uplift his value.
Additionally, if he desires to fulfil his Islamic right in marrying plural wives, remain patient. I encourage you to read a beautiful poem that highlights the characteristics I have shown within this post so far: kindness, understanding, sympathy, love, beauty, and patience.
The poem
Polygamy, hmm tell me my sister, what is the big deal?
Your husband, my husband can have up to four wives if Allaah may will.
Explain to him why you are stressing, cos it's as though all the responsibilities are on you.
Fast Ramadahn, guard your Salaah, obey your husband and do what you do.
We as women are not like the men. We take our husbands to be our best and closest friend.
But Allah did not create the men like the women.
Take two, three or four so don't blame him sister if he want more.
Why make haram for him that which Allah has made halaal.
If you deny him of this, then have the courage to stand before him looking all wild.
Polygamy is something that is easier said than done. On the brother's part and on the sister's part.
But don't worry about who he loves more in his heart.
This matter is with Allaah, so strive to please your Lord.
Your destination is the Jannah, this dunya is just room and board.
Sister please don't worry yourself with "what are they doing". You continue to do what you do.
Have your stuff planned out, laid out and be beautified for the time that he spends with you.
Yes I understand polygamy can be very hard on the first wife.
And for some of us it cuts worse than the sharpest knife.
But what about your new co-wife? Who don't know your husband like you do.
So, it has to be scary for her too.
Sure, go ahead explain to her how he like his meat cooked.
And she will share with you her favorite cookbook.
Remember you are striving for the Jannah, not only for the love of this man,
If he is your ultimate goal, then my sister you have the wrong game plan.
This deen is good advice and this is mine to you.
Don't worry about what they are doing,
just handle yours when it's time for him to be with you.

Sources
https://idealmuslimah.com/family/polygyny/3047-personal-poetry-on-polygamy.htmlhttps://idealmuslimah.com/family/wife/3044-disrespecting-husband.html
https://idealmuslimah.com/family/wife/3619-keep-your-marriage-alive.html
https://idealmuslimah.com/family/wife/126-why-you-must-beautify-yourself-for-your-husband.html
https://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/printarticle.php?id=135443&lang=E
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/5202/attributes-of-the-ideal-muslim-husband
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/186325/can-she-ask-for-a-divorce-if-her-husband-takes-a-second-wife
submitted by Maybelowsmv to SunnahMuslimMarriage [link] [comments]


2020.09.20 20:57 plshelpthedog Indian liberals want to support everything Muslim, but that’s not the way to equal rights

That's the title of this May 2019 article by Taslima Nasreen that got posted here today. While I was drafting replies, post got removed for being an old article.
However, while article is old, the accusations remain the same. Since this kind of accusation keeps coming up here, usually from rightwingers, I'm putting up my comments as a new post for review and reuse.

Author seems to have made some implicit wrong assumptions:
  1. That "Indian liberals" are a monolithic hivemind who all think alike and act alike
  2. That Indian liberals advocate atheism for hindus and religion for muslims
  3. That hindu women have equal rights and are empowered by practice of hinduism unlike muslim women who don't have them and are oppressed by practice of islam
  4. That Indian liberals don't support UCC or specific problems like female genital mutilation
  5. That Indian liberals have influence on society
  6. That Indian liberals have persecuted Taslima Nasreen

Assumption 1 : "Indian liberals" are a monolithic hivemind who think and act alike
Wikipedia defines Liberalism this way:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

In the context of Indian politics, the phrase "Indian liberals" is a union of not just liberalism but also wider left-wing politics which it defines as:
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

These definitions themselves hint at why Indian liberals take some of the positions we do.

From just these two definitions, you can extract several combinations of beliefs which certainly don't make for a monolithic hivemind.
For example, there are people who are strictly secular and want state out of religion completely. There are also people who believe in freedom of religion and recognize that sometimes that may mean the state has to take some side (for example in some court disputes).

For the rest of my comment, "Indian liberals" refers to union of those who believe in some aspects of liberalism or some aspects of left-wing politics. I'll also include those gullible centrists in this group who believe in some of these aspects and also vote for BJP because they currently believe warnings about their ideology are mere fear mongering but may turn against BJP if those warnings are proven.

Similar range of beliefs exist over religion which I'll come to next....

Assumption 2 : That Indian liberals advocate atheism for hindus and religion for muslims
The second wrong assumption author makes is in assuming that Indian liberals advocate atheism for any group.
For example, she accuses as follows:
Indians Left and liberal intellectuals usually support everything to do with Muslim minorities – their religion, customs, madrassas, mosques, Eid, Muharram, hijab, burqa and sometimes even their right to follow Sharia laws.
Whether it is Muslims expressing a desire for more mosques, or if they insist on blocking thoroughfares for their Friday prayers – the Left and liberals back them up always.

Now this accusation makes sense only if all Indian liberals are a monolithic hivemind of atheists or anti-theists who are practising double standards against hinduism vs islam.
But census says only 0.27% of Indians are atheists. In the absence of any other specific data about liberals, we can only assume the same statistic, that only 0.27% of Indian liberals are atheists.

So the reality is that large numbers of Indian liberals themselves actively practice religion and belief in god. Many themselves participate in public displays of religion and wear religious markers.
You can find plenty of Indian liberals on social media who wish on hindu religious holidays, put up photos celebrating them, burst diwali crackers on roads and don't display any kind of atheist or anti-theist thinking.
They are practising theists with personal belief in religiosity, be it hinduism or islam or christianity or parsi or whatever. It would be hypocrisy then to criticize the same thinking in religious people of any other religions.

Have you ever heard of any campaign or court cases by Indian liberals to

If Indian liberals are guilty of not opposing muslim religious practices, we are equally guilty of not opposing hindu or any other religious practices either. No bias here.
If you accuse Indian liberals of "always backing up" only muslim religious practices, then you should prove that we have "never backed up" hindu religious practices or any other religious practices. No bias here either.

Apart from personal belief in practice of religion, there is also the risk in opposing religion. Denouncing religious practices risks not just harassment by fanatics but criminal prosecution by government for hurting sentiments, imprisonment and possibility losing livelihood.

As I already said Indian liberals are not a monolithic hivemind. Whether the reason is personal belief in religiosity or fear of opposing, one-sided bias for only muslim religious or cultural practices are just not true.

Assumption #3 : That hindu women have equal rights thanks to hinduism
Author does not state it so explicitly. But this is an underlying tone in the article. And it's also the tone in rightwing discourse including some commentators here - that hindu women have equal rights thanks to hinduism's cultural superiority, and muslim women don't thanks to muslim men and Indian liberals.

The reality is that no Indian women of any religion have equal rights as men. Every religious group is practising patriarchy. We all know this from personal experiences and discourse. But below are some actual numbers from different surveys in recent years:
These are certainly not numbers of a society that has solved the problem of equal rights for women.

Author attributes socio-economic status of muslim women to religion. We should be really careful here about how much of it is due to systemic factors and how much due to religion. Sachar report showed how literacy levels of muslims are close to SC/ST communities and that the primary factor affecting socio-economic status is not religious conservatism but class, caste and poverty.

Assumption #4: That Indian liberals don't support UCC or initiatives against female genital mutilation
Author claims:
The practice of triple talaq being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court has elated the Right-wing fundamentalists, while it has made the liberal class unhappy. While Hindutva supporters clamour for a Uniform Civil Code, liberals are not heard making similar demands. However, the liberals should have been at the forefront of this fight for equal rights.

This accusation too stems from an inability to understand that liberals are not a monolithic hivemind. There is no Indian Liberal Party where all of them register and get registration cards and fight each and every issue as a group.

Instead, there are many many small groups of independent unconnected people taking up different initiatives. Some on women's issues. Some on caste issues. Some on education issues. Some on rights issues. A group working only on caste issues does not imply they don't support women's or rights issues.

Triple talaq reform started long before shah bano or hindutva. Here's Ram Guha writing about muslim liberals like Hamid Dalwai and Sayed Mehboob Shah Qadri who pioneered it in the 70s. In the 00s, groups like Bebaak collective and activists like Shahnaz Shidrat had already organized, created studies and campaigns, and formed pressure groups to get the AIMPLB to abolish it. The SC judgement was the culmination of a decades long struggle by activist groups led by muslim women. Liberals consider these activists as liberals.
Author completely ignores this long history and falsely claims "it has made liberal class unhappy". The unhappiness was against the BJP's additional ordinance and usurping of this struggle motivated solely by their bogeyman of muslim demographic takeover of India and not by any liberal principles.

UCC too has a long history with different activists such as the same Hamid Dalvai and later Arif Mohammad Khan voicing support for it as far back as 1970. The problem with UCC is that its structure has never been thought through nor has any kind of consensus been created. There is also no feeling that such a wide ranging policy is a necessity for any kind of reform when more focussed reforms are easier to reach consensus and bring to courts. BJP's urgency around UCC is solely motivated by the same bogeyman of muslim takeover through polygamy. This article describes problems with UCC well. They will simply label hindu personal laws as UCC and impose it on everybody else which is certainly not what UCC should be nor how it should be arrived at.

Female genital mutilation is still prevalent, to ensure that women find no pleasure in sexual intercourse. They firmly believe sexual pleasure is solely for men. But the Indian liberals conveniently keep forgetting about female genital mutilation. Those who truly want the betterment of the minorities must surely wish for the latter to receive proper education and become self-reliant, that they turn towards a scientific outlook and extricate themselves from the mires of superstitions and religious fundamentalism.
While the ones who believe Muslims should be allowed to mutilate the genitals of young girls and call it culture
It's easy to find both muslim and hindu women activists involved in the reform of this terrible practice. Are they not liberals by their actions and beliefs? Author hasn't done her research and blindly assumes Indian liberals "conveniently keep forgetting" or that any liberals want such practices to continue.
Proper education and self-reliance are also what liberals want in all groups.
The demand for scientific outlook and extricating from superstition OTOH is complicated by the fact that many liberals are religious theists. They cannot easily criticize superstitions of another religion without appearing like hypocrites. So liberals attempt to compromise by navigating carefully. We again reach the original observation - that liberals are not a monolith but author wants them to act like one.
Atheism certainly is a solution to many social problems. I'll address the dilemmas of atheism vs liberals in the final conclusions.

Assumption #5: That Indian liberals have influence on society
Underlying the whole article is an assumption that Indian liberals are influential.
While there is certainly a liberal voice in the national discourse, author is heavily overestimating their influence on social, political or economic policies. If Indian liberals were influential, India would not remain so conservative and never have turned rightwing. At no time in our history after independence has there been any influential progressive group. Perhaps the closest we came was UPA's NAC who thought up and legislated some key progressive laws. But even they came in for a lot of flak.
When even theist liberals lack influence, author is daydreaming by assuming atheist liberalism can succeed. She just doesn't understand the deep role of religion in Indian society. RRM Roy and Vidyasagar succeeded in getting the colonial govt to abolish a few inhuman practices but certainly did not turn an orthodox society into a reformed one.

Assumption #6: That Indian liberals have persecuted Taslima Nasreen
When I speak in favour of the independence and rights of Muslim women, when I call for Muslim men to become more progressive and rise above fundamentalist dogma, the so-called liberal intellectuals who consider themselves well-wishers of Indian Muslims abuse me and label me ‘anti-Muslim’. Does that not make it clear what they want? They want for Muslims to remain consigned in the darkness.
Such people keep trying to stop me from showing Muslims the way towards the light; they want Hindus to find this illumination, but when it comes to the Muslims, they say it is not time yet.
I don't know what abuse incident she's referring to. But she should not mistake some opinions for opinion of all Indian liberals and generalize with so much negativity. Indian liberals don't want muslim men or women to remain "consigned in the darkness". As the history of Indian liberal initiatives above show, there have always been attempts to reform in different ways both directly and indirectly. Author does not know this history and did not bother to research it either. Her own wikipedia page lists the large number of Indian liberals who defended and supported her in India over last 3 decades while she was being persecuted by fanatics.

The last sentence actually exposes a certain arrogance inside the author that she looks at herself as some kind of a Moses leading the poor wretched muslims of India "towards the light" into permanent enlightenment.
The reality is that there have been many many activists before her. And unlike her, they put in actual effort such as organizing people or educating them or taking issues to courts to turn into progressive policies. What really has Taslima done for muslims other than tweeting and writing articles? I looked it up and I can't find any kind of educational or judicial initiative that she's started. It's good that she has good intentions but she should not mistake writing for activism and online fights for obstruction.

Conclusions
Author wishes Indian liberals to act as she'd like them to, to agree with her strictly atheist idea of progressiveness. But Indian liberals are not a monolith. Some individuals may agree but it may be as little as 0.27%. As an atheist, I personally agree that religion is best dumped forever by human society.
But practicising theist liberals will find it very difficult to give up their own faith. Neither hindu society nor muslim society nor even majority of Indian liberals are anywhere near accepting of that level of extreme reform. But it also does not mean the latter are in favour of extreme practices like genital mutilation or fundamentalism as author accuses. Progress has been made incrementally and most likely will continue in that mode very much in the presence of religion for at least a century or more. That's what even RRM Roy and Vidyasagar did for hinduism - they were reformers but very much remained religious.
submitted by plshelpthedog to india [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 23:21 hdeshp History of science and contextualization in Christianity and Islam

I got tired of people claiming that religion and science are incompatible. Here is my note proving that Catholicism and Science have gone hand in hand for a long time.
In recent years we have been subject to diametrically opposite arguments regarding Islam. For ISIS, Islam is a religion that permits use of medieval practices like polygamy as well as barbaric punishments such as beheading and stoning. Islam for such extremists does not permit co-existence with any other belief systems. On the other hand, majority Muslims in civilized world argue that Islam is a religion of peace and do indeed live in peace with people from other religions. This is a contradiction and a dilemma that needs to be explained.
Both Christianity and Islam evolved out of the same set of books, and both religions were born in similar geographical location as well similar era. Yet, both religions have evolved on a completely different trajectory. Citizens of most countries where Christianity is the dominant religion enjoy a better standard of living. On other hand, most Muslim majority countries have not been able to generate any wealth except that from oil. When we look at Muslim majority countries, we also see large scale social unrest. If we remove the veneer of oil wealth, then we hardly see any Muslim Majority country that has managed to generate wealth and facilitates a decent standard of living to its citizens. Some notable exceptions might perhaps be UAE and Iran. Iran enjoys the same advantages that Christians had. Iran is covered in detail below. As to UAE, if we look closely then we can see that wealth generated by UAE is closely tied up to wealth creating abilities of the Christian world.
So the question is, why is there such a huge difference in standard of living between Christian and Islamic world?
The short answer to this is contextualization. Christians (especially Catholics) actively embraced contextualization. Most peaceful Muslims in the western world have internalized this skill as well. On the other hand, many Muslims in the majority Muslim countries and the violent Jihadists actively walk away from it.
What exactly is contextualization?
Let us look at the change in attitude towards money lending as an example to understand contextualization. Jesus and Mohammad both abhorred the concept of money lending and both banned it. They saw money lending as taking advantage of the ill fortune of poor people. This attitude never changed in Islam (concept of profit sharing in Islam does not really work well). On the other hand, something else happened in Christianity. The late middle age saw an important development, the formation of business as a distinct entity than the people who floated the business. (This concept of distinct entity itself originated from colleges such as Oxford established by the Church and allowed to have an existence distinct from the sponsoring Church.) The Church soon recognized a major problem with this development, the principles of damnum emergens (Loss occurring) and lucrum cessans (profit ceasing). These principles recognize the fact that people who lend money to a business are taking the risk. Further, if the lenders had invested money themselves then they would have earned profits which they are now foregoing. It is natural to conclude from this that people need incentive to lend to for-profit organizations. Trade and Commerce is not going to flourish unless finance becomes available to businesses. The Church contextualized and concluded that since the concept of ‘business’ did not really exist during the times of Christ, it is acceptable to modify his command and make money lending acceptable as long as the money is being lent to businesses. This availability of finance kick-started the age of Capitalism in Europe. This is one of the major reasons why European powers achieved global supremacy. Imagine starting and running a business without a loan. It is important to note that the Church still makes the distinction between money lending to Business and individuals, with money lending to individuals still banned in Christianity.
Money lending to business is important since it allows businesses to grow and create jobs. Everyone as a result enjoys a better standard of living. On other hand stunted business activity means fewer jobs. This in turn breeds poverty and becomes a breeding ground for extremist elements.
The process of contextualization in Islam was happening during the life of Mohammad. The so-called contradictory verses in Koran are examples of contextualization. For example, Mohammad did say initially that a man should only take one wife. However, later during the wars with the Meccan tribe when the number of men in Ummah (the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion and which does not recognize national boundaries. ) depleted, he had to allow men to take more wives. Without this decision there was no way Ummah was going to survive.
What exactly happened that Christianity embraced contextualization, but Islam did not? The answer lies in what happened after the death of both prophets.
Let us begin with Christianity.
Before there was contextualization, there was allegory. We know that the concept of allegory started with the Greeks, perhaps with the works of Homer. Wikipedia best defines allegory as follows - “Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey (semi-)hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.” Perhaps it is not surprising that allegory started with theatrical work.
Contextualization is an extension of allegory. It provides justification to re-interpret the stories in the scriptures to make them more aligned with changing socio-economic circumstances. It makes sure that the religion does not remain stagnant. This is exactly how, in the example above, moneylending was re-interpreted. Without this re-interpretation, the religion becomes stagnant and is unable to face challenges of modern society. Lack of moneylending is one such example where Islam does not differentiate between money lending to people and money lending to businesses.
With Christianity (I am basically talking of Catholicism, the largest branch of Christianity), after the death of Christ the religion was shaped by Saint Paul and Saint Augustine of Hippo. In fact, Saint Paul shaped Christianity so much that it is even said that Christianity is a religion of Saint Paul as much as of Jesus. Saint Paul as well as Saint Augustine were well versed in Greek Philosophy and they made sure that Christianity became compatible with classical Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle leading to opening the doors for contextualization. We can see a similar process in Judaism as well where the concept of allegory being introduced around the time of Jesus Christ. We also see the influence of Allegory and Contextualization in Shia’s of Iran who retain Greek influence. Shia’s (unlike Sunnis) believe that Hadith (the life stories of Mohammad) are open for re-interpretation. It is not a surprise that of all Muslim countries Iran is perhaps the most developed country with a large industrial base. In this respect Shia’s enjoy the same advantage that the Christians had, exposure to Greek philosophy. Iran had deep ties with Greece. In military matters they might be adversarial but there is no doubt that Greeks have had a big influence on Iranian culture. Even in modern times, Ayatollah Khomeini was fascinated with Plato and Aristotle. These two philosophers are part of education for Mullahs of Iran even today.
Let us look at Islam now. The reason why contextualization did not happen in Islam was that Arabia before Mohammad did not have a rich history in Philosophy and no Greek influence. Arabia before Mohammad consisted mostly of warring, revengeful tribes. They had a little concept of civilized, sedimentary society (apart from a few exceptions such as Mecca). World was not exactly a peaceful place during the medieval period. However, Arabia with its blood thrusting cruelty stands out even during the violent period. Simply speaking there was no one in Arabia capable of understanding the real message of Mohammad and carrying forward the tradition of contextualization after the death of Mohammad.
Thus, we can see how lack of contextualization has paid a big role in what we see happening in Muslim countries today.
How does this explain the golden period of Islam during which numerous scientific discoveries were made? This period lasted from 9th century to 12th century AD and prima facie, contradicts everything that is said so far here. Baghdad was the scientific center of the world during this period and came to an end in the middle of the 13th century when Baghdad was overrun by Mongols.
So how did this golden period start and how did it come to an end and the progress was lost? Muslims generally tend to blame Mongols who they claimed to be barbarians that were largely responsible for this event. However, when we start looking into details, we see certain fundamental reasons why this Golden Period came into existence and why it withered away. First and foremost, there is an important distinction between scientific discoveries in Muslim world and Christian world. Science in Christian world was heavily promoted by the Church (More on this below). Compare this with Muslim world where science was promoted by the kings. Royal dynasties are short-lived. When science is supported by the royal degree then it will wither away once the royal patronage is lost. Compared to the royal decrees, religious traditions last for a very long time and if religion supports science then the effects are felt over a longer period.
In Muslim world the discoveries were localized in Bagdad to the Abbasid Caliphate and started with sponsorship by Harun-Al-Rashid. This kingdom had a lot of Persian influence. This is important to note since Persians as mentioned above retained a lot of Greek influence. The push to scientific glory in Baghdad started with translation of Greek scientific work and was done mostly by Christians, Jews and other people of the book (people of the book refers to religion other than Islam that are mentioned in Quran) such as Sabians. The state sponsored golden age in Baghdad was started by these people who had a knowledge of Greek and hence Greek science. For e.g. Al-Battani (858 AD - 929 AD) was a Harranian and a renowned astronomer as well as mathematicians who produced several trigonometrical relationships during the golden period of Islam.
Since science was sponsored by the king, this inspired next generation of Muslim thinkers and scientists who naturally wanted to better their life in the court of the king. This generation carried forward the science from its Greek routes to new heights. Unfortunately, Muslim religion became stronger as the golden age progressed. As the religion became stronger, so did the fundamentalist Islamists. These fundamentalists never shared any scientific traditions and once Mongols destroyed Baghdad there was never any revival of science in the Muslim world. The only exception to this decline is that of health-science since Mohammad himself had opined about the importance of good health in the Koran.
Let us now understand Christianity and the role of the Church in the development of science. This is where we can see how St Paul and St Augustine of Hippo shaped Christianity and the role of contextualization. They adapted the thinking that God has created nature. Hence, the study of nature aka science, is the study of god (We can see the influence of Plato in this line of thinking). Everything that happens, for e.g. sickness has two causes, secondary cause is something that has gone wrong which can be corrected temporarily like a virus infection. However, the primary cause is the fundamental force of nature which can only be unleashed by god. The thinking being that there should not be any problem with investigating the secondary causes.
This leads to us to the next question. We can see that Christian countries suddenly dominated world commerce starting with 1300 AD. What was Christian world doing before 1300 AD?
Important thing to understand is that when we say the dominance of Christian countries, we are talking about Western Europeans. Not Eastern Europeans, not Syriac Christians.
One important distinction to note is that unlike Eastern Europeans or Syriac, Western Europe was dominated by Catholics and it was Catholic Church that actively kept the traditions of interpretations and secondary reasons alive prior to this period. It was the Church that founded the universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. It is a great misconception that Catholic church blocked science during the dark ages. In fact, Catholics were so influential for the development of science that almost every scientist in the Christian world was associated with the Church and most of them were priests themselves.
After the fall of Roman empire by 4rth century AD, Western Europe was occupied by various tribes such as Goths, Vandals, Jutes, Angles, Saxons to name a few. We know these people today as French, Germans, British, Scandinavians etc. These tribes during those times were Pagans and spoke their own languages. This meant after the fall of Rome the knowledge of Greek was completely lost and entire Western Europe was deprived of ancient Greek knowledge and scientific discoveries in Europe mostly stalled. By the 7th century AD, Catholic Church had converted most of these tribes to Christianity, and we do see development in science throughout this period. Granted that most advances during this period in Europe were technological in nature with significance on day to day life. For example, major improvements were made in plows used for agriculture, crop rotation, water mill, windmills. We also see improvements in fighting technology such as horse stirrup, collar, horseshoes etc.
What happened in 1100 AD is the discovery of Greek science and culture. Prior to this period, Western world had heard about the Greek civilization but did not have access to the culture or discoveries of the Greeks. During 1100 AD Western world found out that most Greek scientific books were translated into Persian during Islamic golden age and were preserved. This led to a tremendous effort to translate Persian Greek works back into Western European languages leading to massive explosion of science and culture in Western Europe. We commonly know this period as Renaissance. Other branches of Christianity did not have the principle of contextualization and hence the religion in this case strictly limited advances in science.
As you can see contextualization has played a very important role in Christianity and how contextualization keeps religion compatible with modern values.
This does not mean that Christianity was completely free of blemishes. For e.g. it certainly bears responsibility for sanctioning of slavery (this is another long discussion but slavery sanctioned around 1500 AD is the one that really needs to be blamed).. However, largely we can see that Christianity has been self-correcting so far thanks to the ability of contextualize.
It seems things are changing in the world of Islam as well. The changes, though small, are very promising. Feminist movements within Islam are growing. This makes sense since women enjoyed a lot of freedom during the life of Mohammad. The Musawah movement is one such example of a movement that strives for equality and justice within the framework of the Koran. Let us hope that movements such as Musawah continue to grow and capture a mindshare. Let is hope that Islam will finally revert to it’s core message of equality, justice and peace as preached by Mohammad.
Let us hope that all Muslims embrace the concept of contextualization soon.
Credits: Whatever I have mentioned above, the thoughts are not mine. All I have done is to borrow ideas of others, consolidate them and put it in a narrative form to understand why the development of two great religions have been so at odds to each other. I have used many books to formulate my thoughts put forward in the article above. First and foremost I must mention ‘Heretic’ by ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’. This book introduces the concept of Islam of Mecca and Islam of Medina and opined strongly why Islam needs to go back to its roots in Mecca. ‘Aslan Reza’ in his fabulous work ‘God but no god’ explains Islam and the early life in Mohammad in great details. ‘Mohammad and the believers’ by ‘Fred M Donner’ turned out to be an interesting read. ‘In the shadow of the sword’ by ‘Tom Holland’ portrays a vivid picture of Mediterranean and Arab world before the rise of Islam. ‘Genesis of Science’ by James Hannam expels the myth of non-development of science in Europe during dark ages and proves beyond doubt, how the Church promoted science. ‘Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms’ by Gerald Russel is a fascinating narrative of religious diversity in Middle east and in part explains how Greek theory survived in Muslim world. ‘Aladdin’s lamp’ by John Freely is an interesting narrative of how Greek Science travelled to Europe through Muslim world. ‘What went wrong’ by ‘Bernard Lewis’ is an interesting take on the same subject. For those with a background in Science, I would recommend ‘Science in Translation – Movement of knowledge through cultures and time’ by ‘Scott Montgomery’ who himself is a physicist and narrates in abundant details how science moved from Greece to Europe through Muslim world. ‘How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs’ by De Lacy O’Leary, though having elements of European superiority complex, has a lot of details on the spread of Greek science at a political level. Ancient Greek Civilization by Jeremy McInerney (The great courses) is a definitive guide on Greeks of classical era and earlier. Christianty by Diarmald MacCulloch is highly recommended reading for someone interested in the history of Christianity as a religion. Finally, ‘Nabeel Qureshi’ in his book ‘Answering Jihad’ provided the partial solution to this complex problem.
submitted by hdeshp to Catholicism [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 02:36 iridescent_eyeball IslamQA on polygamy

I came across this on Islam Q&A:
If we assume that love between the spouses is required of each towards the other, and that the husband must love his wife and be attached to her, then what is the problem if the man marries two women, or three or four, then loves all of them?
What is the problem with that, apart from purely romantic notions about love between the spouses or between two people, and the idea that love cannot be shared with anyone else? It is as if they think of the beloved as a “god” who does not accept any partners in devotion!
Is it not the case that a person can love his father, and love his mother, and love other people? It is all love of the same kind, and loving more than one is not impossible, so how can it be deemed impossible for a man to love more than one wife?
Doesn’t a man love food of different types, or fragrances of different kinds, so he wants all of that and loves all of that; what is there to prevent him, on the basis of reason or religious texts, from loving more than one wife at the same time?
What is it that makes a man’s love for a woman something different, that cannot be shared?
Is this the love of devotion to the Almighty that cannot be shared??
If it is said that what we see in real life is that most people are like that, and are only attached to one woman, and a woman only loves one man?
The answer is: that is true; in real life most people do not engage in polygamy, but this does not mean that there are not some who engage in polygamy and share love with more than one. This does happen; it happens frequently and often.
I'm going to attempt to sort of break this down.

what is the problem if the man marries two women, or three or four, then loves all of them?
The problem is women are humans with feelings, and jealousy is one of them. These feelings can lead to depression, self-esteem issues, animosity and will most likely get in the way of her duties as a wife and eventually lead to a rocky marriage. What is the advantage of causing fitna between your wives? Furthermore, the wives don't have a say in this at all and can't leave the situation without the husband's or imam's permission. All for what? Because the husband supposedly has too much love to give? Get a grip.

apart from purely romantic notions about love between the spouses or between two people, and the idea that love cannot be shared with anyone else?
He's really reaching here and acting like this is such a foreign concept. I'm surprised he didn't imply that the west invented monogamy. Anyway, I'm always reminded of the verse (78:8):
وَخَلَقْنَـكُمْ أَزْوَجاً
And We have created you in pairs
I know this is in reference to God creating two sexes (male and female), but as a Muslim I couldn't help thinking that it implies that God created us to be one man for one woman and vice versa.

It is as if they think of the beloved as a “god” who does not accept any partners in devotion!
So loving one spouse is akin to worshipping them? And what's wrong with loving more than one god? Maybe we just have so much love to give that it wouldn't be fair to give it all to just Allah! /s

Is it not the case that a person can love his father, and love his mother, and love other people?
Yes, but they're all different kinds of love. You don't love your aunt or your sister the way you love your mother. They all have their own places in your heart (or maybe not at all). Same thing with loving your children. Your love for your child is completely different to your love for your parents. But a spouse is different. Who else can you love as a spouse?
It is all love of the same kind
False. Have you heard of platonic, familial or romantic love?
how can it be deemed impossible for a man to love more than one wife?
Nobody said it was impossible, but is it worth it when your first wife doesn't agree to it?

Doesn’t a man love food of different types, or fragrances of different kinds
Here we go with the comparison to objects... Of all the examples he could've picked, he chose perfume. By this logic, couldn't we say the same about women? Especially since fragrances are largely marketed towards women more so than men. Women love every one of their Gucci and Prada handbags, therefore they have the capacity to love multiple men as well. Also, continuing on with this line of reasoning, is monogamy like eating your favourite food every meal of every day forever? Are we really comparing people to food and shoes?

What is it that makes a man’s love for a woman something different, that cannot be shared?
It's stereotypical of women to be the more affectionate and lovey-dovey sex. So how is it a man now has all this love to share when some can barely even love one woman right? Since when? And literally reverse the sexes and ask yourself the question again? Why do you have a problem with one, but the other is encouraged?

some who engage in polygamy and share love with more than one. This does happen; it happens frequently and often.
False. It doesn't happen frequently and often enough that it needs to be promoted in a holy book- the final word of God, for all time and all mankind.
Edit: Just remembered this hadith which is relevant, from the chapter: Attempt to prevent the daughter's jealousy:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who was on the pulpit, saying, "Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to `Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless `Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me." (Sahih al-Bukhari 5230)
So... no polygamy for Ali unless he divorces Mohammed's daughter? Why is Fatima acting like she is a god(dess) who can't accept her partner worshipping anyone beside her? The hypocrisy is astounding.
submitted by iridescent_eyeball to exmuslim [link] [comments]


2020.09.08 21:19 deserr I am Catholic with questions regarding Islam.

I am a Catholic who is in a long and stable relationship with a Muslim man. We don’t really have problems in regards to our respective faith. I’m not sure if he expects me to convert to Islam if we get married; we haven’t really discussed our religion in terms of post-marriage.
I have questions about Islam (if you don’t mind me asking, I might use incorrect terms so please bear with me) and I want to set the record straight in my head:
  1. Polygamy. I learned in college that a Muslim man can marry and have 4 wives (maximum slot) as long as he can treat them equally (in terms of love and finances) and his first wife has given consent. Can a Muslim man go beyond the 4-wives “rule”?
1.a In my country, there is an insanely rich and famous Muslim man that already has 4 wives and at least 5 mistresses. He is currently dating a young famous Muslim woman and people are divided in their opinions. Some Muslims are saying that it’s allowed because in Islam “as long as you can provide you can keep marrying and dating” (their words not mine) while other Muslims are frowning at this matter and stating that those enablers are incorrect and has misunderstood the teachings. Can somebody set the record straight here?
1.b Do I have to make my boyfriend sign a pre-nuptial agreement in order for him not to marry someone else? Would that be valid in a Muslim court (not sure if this exists in your country, but in mine there is) ?
  1. Has anybody here experience an interfaith relationship (your religion and Islam) and how did you guys make it work in marriage and family?
submitted by deserr to islam [link] [comments]


2020.09.03 09:00 Shigalyov Chapter 2 (The Riddles of the Gospel) - The Everlasting Man Part 1

Chapter 2 (The Riddles of the Gospel) - The Everlasting Man Part 1
In this chapter Chesterton discusses the unique message of Christ. A message that transcended his own time and our own. He also delves into the very different opinions about him. This is due (without spoiling it) to Christ's peculiar nature. A nature he discusses in the next chapter.

Review
"The argument which is meant to be the backbone of the book is of the kind called the reductio ad absurdum. It suggests that the results of assuming the rationalist thesis are more irrational than ours; but to prove it we must assume that thesis. Thus in the first section I often treated man as merely an animal, to show that the effect was more impossible than if he were treated as an angel. In the sense in which it was necessary to treat man merely as an animal, it is necessary to treat Christ merely as a man.
...
And I wish to point out that a really impartial reading of that kind would lead, if not immediately to belief, at least to a bewilderment of which there is really no solution except in belief.
He looks at Jesus as a normal man would look at him. It is when you treat him as just another guy in first century Roman Judea that you realise he is not just another guy in first century Roman Judea.
This is reflected in his unique views.

Christ's compassion

Jesus chasing the merchants out of the temple - I on't know the source but this is perfect
here is something insupportable even to the imagination in the idea of turning the corner of a street or coming out into the spaces of a marketplace, to meet the petrifying petrifaction of that figure as it turned upon a generation of vipers, or that face as it looked at the face of a hypocrite."
The compassion of Christ has been made more popular than his anger. There is a popular conception (in our day as well) of Jesus as this soft-spoken pacifist hippy for lack of a better word.
This ignores a complete other side to him. Calling people vipers, chasing people out of the temple with a whip, accusing Peter of being the Devil just after praising him, all of this is everything but "kind".

"For instance, there is that long stretch of silence in the life of Christ up to the age of thirty."
I read somewhere that this was the usual way of writing about historical figures at the time. There's therefore not that as much mystery in this fact as Chesterton suggests. For ancient biographers, your childhood does not really matter. It is what you accomplish as a man that matters.

Warfare and politics

"There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ's attitude towards organised warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers. Indeed it is another perplexity, speaking from the same external and human stand point, that he seems to have got on much better with Romans than he did with Jews."
Both these points are true. It is quite remarkable how apolitical Christ was. He never made any politically incorrect statement, so far as the Romans were concerned anyway. In fact, as in the case of paying taxes, he managed to give a very politically correct answer. Almost shrewd in his choice of words.
It is also noteworthy that he never clashed with the Romans except at the crucifixion itself. The Jewish leaders were the main obstacles throughout his ministry, not the Roman rulers. He even helped a Roman centurion by healing one of his servants. He did this twice. The second time while he was being arrested. The point is that he was no political revolutionary. Even when the Jews said Jesus claimed to be king Pilate refused to budge. It was only when they threatened Pilate's relationship with Caesar that Pilate allowed him to be crucified.

Morals and time

Sermon on the Mount by Carl Bloch - Very high standards: Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"The freethinker frequently says that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of his time, even if he was in advance of his time; and that we cannot accept his ethics as final for humanity. The freethinker then goes on to criticise his ethics, saying plausibly enough that men cannot turn the other cheek, or that they must take thought for the morrow, or that the self-denial is too ascetic or the monogamy too severe. But the Zealots and the Legionaries did not turn the other cheek any more than we do, if so much. The Jewish traders and Roman tax-gatherers took thought for the morrow as much as we, if not more."
This is a good point. Christ's ethics was revolutionary. It was a harsh thing to say for an oppressed Jew at the time to turn the other cheek. They were under Roman domination when Jesus said this. It would be like telling Italians under Mussolini to turn the other cheek. He also told them to pay taxes, another thing the Jews did not like as that legitimized and enriched their oppressors. They should not think about the future, but the Romans and Jews did. The point Chesterton is making is that our critique of Christ's views is not new. In fact our critique of it is ancient, and Christ's ethics remain new. Difficult, but new.
"It might very well have been true that a Galilean teacher taught things natural to a Galilean environment; but it is not. It might rationally be expected that a man in the time of Tiberius would have advanced a view conditioned by the time of Tiberius; but he did not. What he advanced was something quite different; something very difficult; but something no more difficult now than it was then. When, for instance, Mahomet made his polygamous compromise we may reasonably say that it was conditioned by a polygamous society. When he allowed a man four wives he was really doing something suited to the circumstances, which might have been less suited to other circumstances."
This ties in with the previous point. There was nothing in the zeitgeist that supported Jesus's views. His claims weren't popular. They were counter-cultural. Remember we are talking about a time of Roman authoritarian domination, of widespread pederasty, homosexuality, pre-marital escapades, honour by the sword, and polytheism. For the Jewish side there was strict legalism, (often violent) opposition against Romans, and legalisation of divorce, if not polygamy. Nothing about Christ's views even feel outdated. Marriage for life, turning the cheek, paying tax, sexual purity, etc. These are just as difficult back then as now.
In contrast Muhammed championed popular views. He did not restrain violent impulses, polygamy, (sexual) slavery and repression. In fact he gave divine blessing for them. At best I think banning consumption of alcohol and being monotheistic would have been counter-cultural. Because of this we can recognise the cultural limits of Muhammed's views. Having slaves and being polygamous is now seen as obviously immoral. Yet Islam still retains 7th century Arabian norms. We can recognise the cultural aspect of it. In contrast the teachings of Christ never reinforced any bigoted norms of his day.

Jesus and slavery
"Christ as much as Aristotle lived in a world that took slavery for granted. He did not particularly denounce slavery. He started a movement that could exist in a world with slavery. But he started a movement that could exist in a world without slavery. He never used a phrase that made his philosophy depend even upon the very existence of the social order in which he lived. "
This is a good point yet again. I still have to read it, but I heard that in Aristotle's Politics he justifies slavery as natural. In his Niomachean Ethics he sometimes makes comparisons on topics with reference to slavery, using the masteservant dichotomy as justifications for certain ethical views (although to be fair on the whole his ethics is incredible). On his philosophy being depended on Aristotle's social order... Aristotle had an approach whereby he took instruction from the beliefs of people around him. Not uncritically, but he nonetheless took wisdom from his world. This strategy has good and bad elements in it. One bad element is that it can make you blind to your age's blindspots. In contrast, Christ is not bound in anyway that we know of by something "conservative" in that way. Every age challenges some virtue of his, but his ideals challenged his own age.
As Chesterton says,
"He did undoubtedly believe in certain things that one particular modern sect of materialists do not believe. But they were not things particularly peculiar to his time. It would be nearer the truth to say that the denial of them is quite peculiar to our time."

Jesus and marriage
"He certainly did not get his argument against divorce from the Mosaic law or the Roman law or the habits of the Palestinian people."
Mathew 19:9
"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Note the authority here. Moses is the number one Jewish figure. Jesus contradicted him explicitly. Frequently in the Gospels the Jews were surprised at Jesus's authority. He never said "In the name of God I tell you". He said "I tell you". He wasn't just a messenger. He was the one giving the commands. He did not appeal to cultural Roman norms to undermine Jewish norms. No, he presented his own authoritative message in contest of both present Jewish and Roman beliefs.

"It is an ideal altogether outside time; difficult at any period; impossible at no period."
The following verses immediately follow the previous question. Even Jews at that time thought Jesus's statement on marriage was too harsh:
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The point is that there is nothing in that message which was mainstream either in his day or ours. It is indeed "an ideal altogether outside time". Or as Chesterton puts it, "In other words, if anyone says it is what might be expected of a man walking about in that place at that period, we can quite fairly answer that it is much more like what might be the mysterious utterance of a being beyond man, if he walked alive among men."

Interpretations of Jesus
"Three or four separate schools of rationalism have worked over the ground and produced three or four equally rational explanations of his life."

Hermes Kriophoros, the Greek god as shepherd carrying a lamb for a sacrifice. Early Christians might have adopted this theme.
Each of these deserve to be discussed: 1) Jesus mythecism, 2) Embodiment of pagan sun/corn myths 3) An ethical teacher 4) A madman 5) Original socialist 6) Doomsday prophet 7) Spiritual healer 8) Exorcist.
"Now, each of these explanations in itself seems to me singularly inadequate; but taken together they do suggest something of the very mystery which they miss. There must surely have been something not only mysterious but many-sided about Christ if so many smaller Christs can be carved out of him."

"It were better to rend our robes with a great cry against blasphemy, like Caiaphas in the judgement, or to lay hold of the man as a maniac possessed of devils like the kinsmen and the crowd,
...
like one looking over his shoulder: 'Before Abraham was, I am.'"
If I remember correctly, he will expand on this idea in the next chapter. But so far he makes a similar point to the one he made in Orthodoxy. If there's something so diverse about one single man, if such different people can have such different views of one person, then maybe there is something to all these critiques. But something which can be explained by one answer. Chesterton brilliantly hints at the answer to all these questions: Christ's divinity. I am very tempted to say so much more about this now, but Chesterton teases the reader to read the next chapter. So I'll wait as well.
But I'll at least discuss this. The "Before Abraham" statement is probably the most blatant affirmation of his deity that Jesus ever gave. Here's the full quote. It is conveniently given within the context of Jesus casting out a demon, and being accused of himself being possessed:
"52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”
...
Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Consider everything about this. Jesus did not deny that he was greater than the prophets. Jesus claimed to have known Abraham. How could a mere human claim to have known someone who lived 2000 years before? Not only that, he clearly quoted from Exodus where Yahweh introduced himself to Moses as "I am that I am". So when the Jews wanted to know how Jesus could know Abraham's desires, Jesus responded by saying he knows because he is God. If there were any doubt about this, the Jews understandably wanted to stone him for blasphemy.
But Chesterton is only teasing here. Wait until the next chapter. If memory serves me right he presents what C. S. Lewis later developed into his trilemma.

Read it here
Chapter list
submitted by Shigalyov to GKChesterton [link] [comments]


2020.09.01 12:54 pineapplecheers Some Statistics on Islam in the Western World.

Some Statistics on Islam in the Western World.
Note: These are only the stats on Islam in the west, the stats on Islam in the Muslim majority world are much more depressing.
UK
  1. US Diplomatic Cables: One-Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
  1. Britain’s Ministry of Defence: More British Muslims have Fought for ISIS than having Served in the British Armed Forces.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/
  1. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
  1. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. ICM Mirror 2016: 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain Would not Report Terror Plot to Police.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs
  1. ICM Mirror 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357
  1. NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. AlJazeera Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/02/20084915451911371.html
  1. 25% of UK mosques have literature calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain Indoors, and forbidding interfaith marriages.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lessons-in-hate-found-at-leading-mosques-wzbwdtb2g0n?wgu=270525_16644_15959047563588_48638ee643&wgexpiry=1603680756&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551
  1. Gallup: Zero percent of UK Muslims think homosexuality is morally acceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
  1. Policy Exchange 2016: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with ISIS links.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/
NETHERLANDS
  1. Forum Multicultural Institute: 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers.
Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research/
SWEDEN
  1. Koopmans 2018: 52% of Sweden Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.
https://www.svd.se/radikal-islamism-drabbar-alla
  1. AHA Foundation: Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law.
Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn’t want to.
Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/six-out-of-ten-mosques-in-sweden-gave-women-advice-about-how-to-deal-with-spousal-abuse-and-polygamy-that-contradicted-swedish-law-a-media-investigation-has-revealed/
GERMANY
  1. Die Welt 2012: 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuerkische-Migranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html
FRANCE
  1. 46% of French Muslims believe Sharia law should be applied in country.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1568920086-poll-46-of-french-muslims-believe-sharia-law-should-be-applied-in-country
AUSTRIA
  1. FPO 2014: 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
http://rt.com/news/208387-austria-islam-kindergarten-muslim/
DENMARK
  1. Integration Barometer 2018: 27% of young migrants in Denmark say Islamic law should override Danish law.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803151062553576-denmark-copenhagen-sharia/
  1. Danish Justice Ministry 2020: 76% of Muslims want criticism of Islam criminalized in Denmark.
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/202005041079186984-majority-of-danish-muslims-wish-to-make-criticising-islam-illegal-minister-says-integrate-or-leave/
  1. Jyllands-Posten: 77% of Muslims in Denmark think that the Quran must be applied fully in the Danish society.
https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE8103969/Danske-muslimer-g%C3%A5r-mere-op-i-b%C3%B8n-t%C3%B8rkl%C3%A6der-og-Koranen/
USA
  1. CSP: 51% of US Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
  1. Pew Research: 72% of Muslim Americans support the proposal to build a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/30/Most-US-Muslims-back-Ground-Zero-mosque/54511314737569/
  1. American Mosques: Correlation Between Sharia Adherence and Dogma Calling for Violence Against Non-Believers.
51% have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence.
30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the Imam recommends studying violence-positive texts.
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques
CANADA
  1. MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/
  1. Association for Canadian Studies: 42% of Muslims in Canada believe that Islam is irreconcilable with Western society.
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/most-canadians-believe-west-and-islam-irreconcileable-poll
OVERALL in Europe
  1. WZB: 65% of Muslims in Europe Want Islamic Sharia Law in Their European Host Countries.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism
WORLDWIDE
  1. World Bank: ISIS Recruits are Better Educated than their Average Countrymen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/isil-recruits-better-educated-than-their-average-countryman-worl/
  1. INSS: 99.5% of all Suicide Attacks in 2015 were Motivated by Islam.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/
  1. The Freethought Report 2013: There are now 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being an atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/atheists-face-death-in-13-countries-global-discrimination-study-220495-2013-12-12
  1. There are 11 places in the world where homosexuals are legally sentenced to death. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/here-are-the-11-countries-where-being-gay-is-punishable-by-death/
  1. There are 9 places in the world that still have stoning as a form of legal punishment. Every single one is officially Islamic.
Stoning is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html
  1. Pew Research Centre: The Majority of Muslims worldwide favor Sharia.
84% of South Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
77% of Southeast Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
74% of Middle Eastern and North African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
64% of Sub Saharan African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics, and Society.
https://layman.org/survey-shows-majority-of-muslims-in-favor-of-sharia/
  1. Pew Research: The Majority of Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
85% of the Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
93% of the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
88% of the Muslims in South Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
87% of the Muslims in Middle East/North Africa believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/what-muslims-around-the-world-think-about-womens-rights-in-charts/275450/
  1. Worldwide Trends on Honor Killings:
91% of the Honor killings, worldwide, are perpetrated by Muslims.
96% of the Honor killings in Europe are perpetrated by Muslims.
84% of the Honor killings in North America are perpetrated by Muslims.
These crimes are not mainly about women having actual affairs.
Worldwide, 58% of victims are murdered for being "too Western" (as opposed to for reasons of actual alleged or imagined sexual impropriety).
In North America, 91% are murdered for being "too Western".
In Europe, 71% are murdered for being "too Western".
https://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
submitted by pineapplecheers to IndiaRWResources [link] [comments]


2020.09.01 04:35 pineapplecheers Some Statistics on Islam in the Western World.

Note: These are only the stats on Islam in the west, the stats on Islam in the Muslim majority world are much more depressing.
UK
  1. US Diplomatic Cables: One-Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
  1. Britain’s Ministry of Defence: More British Muslims have Fought for ISIS than having Served in the British Armed Forces.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/
  1. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
  1. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. ICM Mirror 2016: 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain Would not Report Terror Plot to Police.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs
  1. ICM Mirror 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357
  1. NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. AlJazeera Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/02/20084915451911371.html
  1. 25% of UK mosques have literature calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain Indoors, and forbidding interfaith marriages.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lessons-in-hate-found-at-leading-mosques-wzbwdtb2g0n?wgu=270525_16644_15959047563588_48638ee643&wgexpiry=1603680756&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551
  1. Gallup: Zero percent of UK Muslims think homosexuality is morally acceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
  1. Policy Exchange 2016: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with ISIS links.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/
NETHERLANDS
  1. Forum Multicultural Institute: 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers.
Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research/
SWEDEN
  1. Koopmans 2018: 52% of Sweden Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.
https://www.svd.se/radikal-islamism-drabbar-alla
  1. AHA Foundation: Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law.
Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn’t want to.
Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/six-out-of-ten-mosques-in-sweden-gave-women-advice-about-how-to-deal-with-spousal-abuse-and-polygamy-that-contradicted-swedish-law-a-media-investigation-has-revealed/
GERMANY
  1. Die Welt 2012: 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuerkische-Migranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html
FRANCE
  1. IFOP: 46% of French Muslims believe Sharia law should be applied in country.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1568920086-poll-46-of-french-muslims-believe-sharia-law-should-be-applied-in-country
AUSTRIA
  1. FPO 2014: 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
http://rt.com/news/208387-austria-islam-kindergarten-muslim/
DENMARK
  1. Integration Barometer 2018: 27% of young migrants in Denmark say Islamic law should override Danish law.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803151062553576-denmark-copenhagen-sharia/
  1. Danish Justice Ministry 2020: 76% of Muslims want criticism of Islam criminalized in Denmark.
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/202005041079186984-majority-of-danish-muslims-wish-to-make-criticising-islam-illegal-minister-says-integrate-or-leave/
  1. Jyllands-Posten: 77% of Muslims in Denmark think that the Quran must be applied fully in the Danish society.
https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE8103969/Danske-muslimer-g%C3%A5r-mere-op-i-b%C3%B8n-t%C3%B8rkl%C3%A6der-og-Koranen/
USA
  1. CSP: 51% of US Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
  1. Pew Research: 72% of Muslim Americans support the proposal to build a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/30/Most-US-Muslims-back-Ground-Zero-mosque/54511314737569/
  1. American Mosques: Correlation Between Sharia Adherence and Dogma Calling for Violence Against Non-Believers.
51% have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence.
30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the Imam recommends studying violence-positive texts.
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques
CANADA
  1. MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/
  1. Association for Canadian Studies: 42% of Muslims in Canada believe that Islam is irreconcilable with Western society.
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/most-canadians-believe-west-and-islam-irreconcileable-poll
OVERALL in Europe
  1. WZB: 65% of Muslims in Europe Want Islamic Sharia Law in Their European Host Countries.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism
WORLDWIDE
  1. World Bank: ISIS Recruits are Better Educated than their Average Countrymen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/isil-recruits-better-educated-than-their-average-countryman-worl/
  1. INSS: 99.5% of all Suicide Attacks in 2015 were Motivated by Islam.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/
  1. The Freethought Report 2013: There are now 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being an atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/atheists-face-death-in-13-countries-global-discrimination-study-220495-2013-12-12
  1. There are 11 places in the world where homosexuals are legally sentenced to death. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/here-are-the-11-countries-where-being-gay-is-punishable-by-death/
  1. There are 9 places in the world that still have stoning as a form of legal punishment. Every single one is officially Islamic.
Stoning is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html
  1. Pew Research Centre: The Majority of Muslims worldwide favor Sharia.
84% of South Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
77% of Southeast Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
74% of Middle Eastern and North African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
64% of Sub Saharan African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics, and Society.
https://layman.org/survey-shows-majority-of-muslims-in-favor-of-sharia/
  1. Pew Research: The Majority of Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
85% of the Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
93% of the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
88% of the Muslims in South Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
87% of the Muslims in Middle East/North Africa believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/what-muslims-around-the-world-think-about-womens-rights-in-charts/275450/
  1. Worldwide Trends on Honor Killings:
91% of the Honor killings, worldwide, are perpetrated by Muslims.
96% of the Honor killings in Europe are perpetrated by Muslims.
84% of the Honor killings in North America are perpetrated by Muslims.
These crimes are not mainly about women having actual affairs.
Worldwide, 58% of victims are murdered for being "too Western" (as opposed to for reasons of actual alleged or imagined sexual impropriety).
In North America, 91% are murdered for being "too Western".
In Europe, 71% are murdered for being "too Western".
https://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
submitted by pineapplecheers to Chodi [link] [comments]


2020.09.01 04:33 pineapplecheers Some Statistics on Islam in the Western World.

Note: These are only the stats on Islam in the west, the stats on Islam in the Muslim majority world are much more depressing.
UK
  1. US Diplomatic Cables: One-Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
  1. Britain’s Ministry of Defence: More British Muslims have Fought for ISIS than having Served in the British Armed Forces.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/
  1. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
  1. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. ICM Mirror 2016: 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain Would not Report Terror Plot to Police.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs
  1. ICM Mirror 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357
  1. NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. AlJazeera Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/02/20084915451911371.html
  1. 25% of UK mosques have literature calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain Indoors, and forbidding interfaith marriages.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lessons-in-hate-found-at-leading-mosques-wzbwdtb2g0n?wgu=270525_16644_15959047563588_48638ee643&wgexpiry=1603680756&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551
  1. Gallup: Zero percent of UK Muslims think homosexuality is morally acceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
  1. Policy Exchange 2016: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with ISIS links.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/
NETHERLANDS
  1. Forum Multicultural Institute: 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers.
Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research/
SWEDEN
  1. Koopmans 2018: 52% of Sweden Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.
https://www.svd.se/radikal-islamism-drabbar-alla
  1. AHA Foundation: Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law.
Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn’t want to.
Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/six-out-of-ten-mosques-in-sweden-gave-women-advice-about-how-to-deal-with-spousal-abuse-and-polygamy-that-contradicted-swedish-law-a-media-investigation-has-revealed/
GERMANY
  1. Die Welt 2012: 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuerkische-Migranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html
AUSTRIA
  1. FPO 2014: 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
http://rt.com/news/208387-austria-islam-kindergarten-muslim/
DENMARK
  1. Integration Barometer 2018: 27% of young migrants in Denmark say Islamic law should override Danish law.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803151062553576-denmark-copenhagen-sharia/
  1. Danish Justice Ministry 2020: 76% of Muslims want criticism of Islam criminalized in Denmark.
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/202005041079186984-majority-of-danish-muslims-wish-to-make-criticising-islam-illegal-minister-says-integrate-or-leave/
USA
  1. CSP: 51% of US Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
  1. Pew Research: 72% of Muslim Americans support the proposal to build a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/30/Most-US-Muslims-back-Ground-Zero-mosque/54511314737569/
  1. American Mosques: Correlation Between Sharia Adherence and Dogma Calling for Violence Against Non-Believers.
51% have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence.
30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the Imam recommends studying violence-positive texts.
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques
CANADA
  1. MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/
OVERALL in Europe
  1. WZB: 65% of Muslims in Europe Want Islamic Sharia Law in Their European Host Countries.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism
WORLDWIDE
  1. World Bank: ISIS Recruits are Better Educated than their Average Countrymen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/isil-recruits-better-educated-than-their-average-countryman-worl/
  1. INSS: 99.5% of all Suicide Attacks in 2015 were Motivated by Islam.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/
  1. The Freethought Report 2013: There are now 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being an atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/atheists-face-death-in-13-countries-global-discrimination-study-220495-2013-12-12
  1. There are 11 places in the world where homosexuals are legally sentenced to death. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/here-are-the-11-countries-where-being-gay-is-punishable-by-death/
  1. There are 9 places in the world that still have stoning as a form of legal punishment. Every single one is officially Islamic.
Stoning is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html
  1. Pew Research Centre: The Majority of Muslims worldwide favor Sharia.
84% of South Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
77% of Southeast Asian Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
74% of Middle Eastern and North African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
64% of Sub Saharan African Muslims favor enshrining Sharia.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics, and Society.
https://layman.org/survey-shows-majority-of-muslims-in-favor-of-sharia/
7. Pew Research: The Majority of Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands. 
85% of the Muslims worldwide believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
93% of the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
88% of the Muslims in South Asia believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
87% of the Muslims in Middle East/North Africa believe that wives should always obey their husbands.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/what-muslims-around-the-world-think-about-womens-rights-in-charts/275450/
  1. Worldwide Trends on Honor Killings: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/honour-killing-entrenched-in-islam
submitted by pineapplecheers to indianews [link] [comments]


2020.08.30 08:36 pineapplecheers Some Statistics on Islam in the Western World.

I know this may go against PWCI rules of this sub, but please don’t delete this one.
UK
  1. US Diplomatic Cables: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
  1. Britain’s Ministry of Defence: More British Muslims have Fought for ISIS than have Served in the British Armed Forces.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/
  1. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
  1. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. ICM Mirror 2016: 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain Would not Report Terror Plot to Police.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs
  1. ICM Mirror 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357
  1. NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
  1. AlJazeera Poll: 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/02/20084915451911371.html
  1. 25% of UK mosques have literature calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain Indoors and forbidding interfaith marriages.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lessons-in-hate-found-at-leading-mosques-wzbwdtb2g0n?wgu=270525_16644_15959047563588_48638ee643&wgexpiry=1603680756&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=4551
  1. Gallup: Zero percent of UK Muslims think homosexuality is morally acceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
  1. Policy Exchange 2016: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with ISIS links.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/
NETHERLANDS
  1. Forum Multicultural Institute: 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers.
Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research/
SWEDEN
  1. Koopmans 2018: 52% of Sweden Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish Law.
https://www.svd.se/radikal-islamism-drabbar-alla
  1. AHA Foundation: Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law.
Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn’t want to.
Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/six-out-of-ten-mosques-in-sweden-gave-women-advice-about-how-to-deal-with-spousal-abuse-and-polygamy-that-contradicted-swedish-law-a-media-investigation-has-revealed/
GERMANY
  1. Die Welt 2012: 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuerkische-Migranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html
AUSTRIA
  1. FPO 2014: 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
http://rt.com/news/208387-austria-islam-kindergarten-muslim/
DENMARK
  1. Integration Barometer 2018: 27% of young migrants in Denmark say Islamic law should overide Danish law.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803151062553576-denmark-copenhagen-sharia/
  1. Danish Justice Ministry 2020: 76% of Muslims want criticism of Islam criminalized in Denmark.
https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/202005041079186984-majority-of-danish-muslims-wish-to-make-criticising-islam-illegal-minister-says-integrate-or-leave/
USA
  1. CSP: 51% of US Muslims want Sharia.
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
  1. Pew Research: 72% of Muslim Americans support the proposal to build a mosque and Islamic community centre near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/30/Most-US-Muslims-back-Ground-Zero-mosque/54511314737569/
  1. American Mosques: Correlation Between Sharia Adherence and Dogma Calling for Violence Against Non-Believers.
51% have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence.
30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence.
In 84.5% of the mosques, the Imam recommends studying violence-positive texts.
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques
CANADA
  1. MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/
OVERALL in the Europe
  1. WZB: 65% of Muslims in Europe Want Islamic Sharia Law in Their European Host Countries.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism
WORLDWIDE
  1. World Bank: ISIS Recruits are Better Educated than their Average Countrymen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/isil-recruits-better-educated-than-their-average-countryman-worl/
  1. INSS: 99.5% of all Suicide Attacks in 2015 were Motivated by Islam.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/
  1. The Freethought Report 2013: There are now 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/atheists-face-death-in-13-countries-global-discrimination-study-220495-2013-12-12
  1. There are 11 places in the world where homosexuals are legally sentenced to death. Every single one is officially Islamic.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/here-are-the-11-countries-where-being-gay-is-punishable-by-death/
  1. There are 9 places in the world that still have stoning as a form of legal punishment. Every single one is officially Islamic.
Stoning is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html
  1. Pew Research Centre: The Majority of Muslims worldwide favour Sharia.
84% of South Asian Muslims favour enshrining Sharia.
77% of Southeast Asian Muslims favour enshrining Sharia.
74% of Middle Eastern and North African Muslims favour enshrining Sharia.
64% of Sub Saharan African Muslims favour enshrining Sharia.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
https://layman.org/survey-shows-majority-of-muslims-in-favor-of-sharia/
  1. Pew Research: The Majority of Muslims worldwide believe that wives always should obey their husbands.
85% of the Muslims worldwide believe that wives always should obey their husbands.
93% of the Muslims in Southeast Asia believe that wives always should obey their husbands.
88% of the Muslims in South Asia believe that wives always should obey their husbands.
87% of the Muslims in Middle East/North Africa believe that wives always should obey their husbands.
Primary Source - Pew Research Centre - The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/what-muslims-around-the-world-think-about-womens-rights-in-charts/275450/
  1. Worldwidw Trends in Honor Killings: 91 percent of honour killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/honour-killing-entrenched-in-islam
submitted by pineapplecheers to librandu [link] [comments]


2020.08.27 07:15 Mus29487 My white American ass has questions about race/religion/culture. I wanna start an open discussion between different types of people so that we can understand one another a little better and stop being such douches to one another :)

So I was writing a reply to a FB post about how school curriculums need to be restructured to promote inclusivity and an open space to ask questions about cultures, religions, races, etc. As I was writing it, I realized that there are hella things I don’t understand both about said cultures, religions, and races and the purpose of some tools or jewelry or hairstyles or whatever that white people have no use for and don’t use. I would like to understand as much as I can.
Ik that there are certain things that POC face in America that I’ll never be able to understand as a white girl. I can and will be an ally to the best of my ability. I feel as though to be a good ally, I need to be educated. So I’m asking questions that may come off as offensive through a screen, but I’m trying to word them as respectfully as possible and mean no harm or hatred to anyone. I’m just curious and want to make sure any misconceptions I have are set straight. If I word something wrong to make it seem offensive, please call my ass out and correct me. I just want to learn and thought it’d be better to come to everyday people instead of reading some article about culture 🤷🏻‍♀️
Answer what applies to you and/or keep the thread going and ask your own questions! I want this to be open. If ya’ll have any questions about shit white people do or Christianity or like hairstyles or American shit or anything like that, feel free to ask. Idk if you know everything ik about this stuff bc to me it seems like common knowledge, mostly bc white people have privilege so our shit is everywhere. I hope this turns into a good conversation to understand one another :)
I guess the first one I’ll ask is about textured hair?
How do braids or cornrows or dreads or other styles protect textured hair? Why don’t people with that hair type wash it everyday? Why do ya’ll wear the shower cap things to bed? What is the point of a do-rag? Why do ya’ll seem to use extensions or weaves in hella hairdos? Does your hair just not grow very fast or do you just not wanna wait or is it easier to switch it up that way or is it hard to get length without straightening it and causing breakage with heat damage because it’s curly?
Do black people get ashy often like the stereotype that exists? If you do, do you know if there’s a particular reason why?
How do you feel about the stereotype of black people loving watermelon and fried chicken?
What are your thoughts on BLM? Do you think the movement is moving in the right direction? Do you have a memory about a bad encounter with the cops because of your race? How can allies better help amplify your voices as you lead? Please go off about your thoughts on BLM. Don’t hold anything back.
There seems to be a huge cultural difference with slang and dialects. I’m sure POC have heard white people say, “oh, they sounded black/ghetto” (they use these words interchangeably), or “WHY CAN’T THEY JUST SPEAK ENGLISH”, or, “their accent was so thick I couldn’t understand shit”. Do we sound different to you? Do you think there’s a difference between sounding educated vs white or black or latino or asian, etc. in America? The reason I ask is bc I’ve heard many white people discredit POC’s speech as being uneducated compared to white people because they have a superiority complex. I just want to hear other people’s experiences on that bc I hear it a lot.
What is the significance of the red dots Indian people wear on their foreheads? Are they called bindis? I feel like this girl who was explaining some Indian culture to me in middle school called them bindis, idk. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Do all women get their noses pierced in Indian culture or is it a religious thing?
Is almost every Indian person a Buddhist or Hindu?
Why are cows considered sacred in Hinduism?
Is there a significance to wearing red on your wedding day?
Do most saris expose the belly and if so why is that?
How do you feel about the stereotype of Indians only work in tech support or Dunkin’ Donuts?
Does it bother you that dumb ass people don’t realize India is in Asia and not the middle east?
Is traditional dance a big part of Indian culture?
Does it irritate you when people don’t understand the difference between forced and arranged marriage?
Is Islam a peaceful religion? It has been demonized in American media especially since 9/11. Is it just extremists that make it look bad? I’ve literally learned NOTHING about Islam bc I went to Catholic school so I have a lot of questions.
If you are a religious Muslim, what is your favorite passage from the Quran and why? Also, I’ve seen your religious book spelled a million different ways, how is it supposed to be spelled?
Why do people wear hijabs?
Why do some people wear hijabs vs. burkas? Is it a religious or political thing? I thought I had read something about it being political & idk if I’m remembering wrong.
Do you feel oppressed as an Islamic woman by either your religion or your culture? I ask because to western standards and the big push for feminist movements, it looks as though you’re still submissive to men & have strict policies that aren’t standard here.
Are turbans part of Islam or am I in the wrong religion/culture?
What are mosques like? I’ve always wanted to visit for the experience, but I never wanted to intrude on your space & worship.
Are there religious services in mosques or is it all independent? If there are services, what do they look like?
Does praying 5 times a day get exhausting?
How do you juggle a typical, busy 40+ hr work week and finding time to pray that much?
What is the significance of bowing on what looks like a yoga mat? What is the mat ya’ll use?
If any witches come across this, can you explain the basics of the structure and the beliefs of witchcraft. Because I wouldn’t even know where to start.
If any former Amish people come across this, what was it like growing up without technology?
Why are the clothes so plain?
What is religion like in Amish communities?
Do women always have to have their hair in bonnets?
Ya’ll make some good food. No question here, just a complement.
Was the culture shock of the outside world so overwhelming that you didn’t know how to handle it/cope?
Does every teen get wild during Rumspringa?
What made you want to leave your community for good?
Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrate their birthdays?
How do you feel about the stereotype about acting like you’re not home so the Jehovah’s Witnesses will leave you alone?
Are Mormons really just baby factories like the stereotypes?
Are Mormons actually into polygamy?
What are the actual beliefs of the church of the LDS?
Have you seen the musical, the Book of Mormon and are you offended by it?
Why do guys have to do two years of “spreading the word”? What are they called, missionaries?
Why are the guys above called elders?
Does it bother you when people think Africa is a country and not a continent?
Where are the rich parts of Africa?
Is it a majority, a minority, or 50/50 on the amount of poor to rich countries in Africa?
Does the stereotype that Americans have about everyone on the African continent is poor, starving, and living in a mud hut bother you?
What are the big religions there?
Why does it seem like many African countries like bright colors and patterns?
What is something specific to your country that is unique?
Do all Russians really drink vodka?
How have ya’ll not froze to death yet up in Russia?
Does Putin actually have a lot of supporters or do a majority hate him?
Does the fact that Americans can’t tell Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Korean features or languages apart bother ya’ll?
What is it like in China under a communist government? Is it shit? Is it okay? Do you think it actually kinda works?
What are your thoughts on the one child policy or does that not exist anymore?
Is it always crowded af?
What are some great things about Japan away from Tokyo? I feel like Tokyo is all that’s ever talked about.
Are ya’ll bitter at the U.S. for the atomic bomb? I understand if you are.
Do you really have school on Saturdays?
What is South Korea like?
What is your view on the North/South Korean divide? Have the two been separated so long that it doesn’t affect much anymore or do ya’ll think about the filtered world your neighbors have created for their people often?
I have absolutely no idea what goes on in Vietnam, Indonesia, or the Philippines. Please enlighten me and tell me the best and worst things about your country and culture.
Australia, are you okay with your big ass spiders and dangerous snakes?
What are the attitudes of the British colonists’ descendants towards the Australian natives? How about the other way around?
South America! Are a majority of ya’ll super poor?
Brazil, does it bother you when people think you speak Spanish instead of Portuguese?
What is it like living that close to the equator? How do ya’ll deal with the constant heat?
Does it irritate you when Americans think all latinos are Mexican bc a majority of this country is racist towards latinos, specifically Mexicans?
Central America, are ya’ll super poor as well? Literally American media has grouped latinos all together for the most part.
What is in Panama other than the canal? Are ya’ll bitter at the U.S.? I would be.
What do you think the biggest differences between South American, Central American, Mexican, and Spanish cultures are?
Mexicans. I’m sorry the U.S. media hates ya’ll so much. Do you get frustrated with the American media’s portrayal of ya’ll?
If you’ve been in an ICE detention center, what is it like and what do you think would be the best way to help? Other than by overthrowing the government bc that’s a big order.
Thank you all in advance for reading and hopefully responding. Again, please don’t eat me alive if I ended up wording questions offensively. I think I got less academic-sounding as I went on bc I got tired. I have 0 intent of being a dick. Please correct me so I learn.
Hope ya’ll have a great morning/day/night :)
submitted by Mus29487 to questions [link] [comments]


2020.08.24 21:37 freethinkinthroaway Islamic principles vs. Modern principles

The following is a working list I created showing the difficulties of Islam in adapting to the modern world. Please note, the following differences DO NOT necessarily mean that Islam is "wrong" or "immoral"; I simply compiled these contradictions as a thought exercise. Some of them do reflect poorly on Islam, but some of them do not.
Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.
Again, note that this list is simply to show ways in which Islam contradicts modern moral principles, but that doesn't necessarily mean it contradicts in an immoral way. For example, not liking dogs or not liking statues is not "immoral" in the modern world in the way that the acceptance of slavery is. Moreover, some sexual progressives would say that accepting polygamy is better than only accepting monogamy, but that not accepting polyandry is a moral failure, and some criminologists might say that corporal punishment should be returned and is not necessarily "bad", etc. etc.
What do you guys think of this list? Seeing things written out like this, does it change your ideas about Islam? To my eyes, many of these "morals" make a lot of sense in the context of 7th century Arabia, but for moral standards that are supposed to be for all space and time, it is troubling that many do not fit in with the modern world.
submitted by freethinkinthroaway to exmuslim [link] [comments]


2020.08.22 14:06 TarpaulinUK123 LAWS OF PAKISTAN CONCERNING MUSLIM MARRIAGES

LAWS OF PAKISTAN CONCERNING MUSLIM MARRIAGES
INTRODUCTION
Today we are going to discuss rules of Pakistan regarding Muslim Marriages. This article is useful for everyone who is looking for rules regarding marriages and who are going to be married in coming years. However,if you want an expert advice then Hamza and Hamza Law Associates is one of the top divorce lawyer in Lahore who can guide you perfectly regarding marriage rules and regulations.

https://preview.redd.it/2m3tltc9oji51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1ed79f97c3727194cb8796ada19124c7238d92b
UNDER-AGE MARRIAGES
The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 has made under-age relationships a reformatory offense. Under the Act the base period of marriage for a male is 18 years though the base time of marriage for a female is 16 years. Regardless of the way that under-age relationships are obligated to a discipline such associations are not delivered invalid.
CONSENT OF WALI
As indicated by the Hanafi school, a grown-up lady may get her marriage without the assent of a wali.
ENLISTMENT OF MARRIAGES
The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 presented changes with respect to enrollment of relationships and in default of such enlistment punishments of fine and detainment have been endorsed. By the by, Muslim relationships are as yet legitimate and substantial in the event that they are performed by the necessities of Islam.
POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES
PK-Legal has additionally presented a few changes in the law identifying with polygamy. Presently, a spouse must present an application and pay an endorsed expense to the nearby association chamber so as to get authorization for getting a polygamous marriage. From that point, the administrator of the association committee shapes an intervention gathering with agents of both a couple/spouses so as to decide the need of the proposed marriage. The application must state whether the spouse has gotten assent of the current wife or wives. Getting a polygamous marriage without earlier agree is dependent upon punishments of fine as well as detainment and the spouse gets bound to make prompt installment of dower to the current wife or wives. In any case, if the spouse has not gotten assent of the current wife or wives the ensuing marriage stays legitimate.
TALAQ BY HUSBAND
Under PK-Legal constrained changes have likewise been acquainted in connection with talaq. Under PK-Legal a separating from spouse will, as quickly as time permits after talaq has been articulated, in whatever structure, give a notification recorded as a hard copy to the administrator of the Union Council. The administrator should then gracefully a duplicate of the notification of talaq to the spouse. Rebelliousness is deserving of detainment as well as a fine. Inside thirty days of receipt of the notification of talaq, the executive must establish an Arbitration Council so as to find a way to achieve a compromise between the spouse and the wife. On the off chance that and when such endeavors to arrange a compromise comes up short, a talaq that isn't disavowed meanwhile, either explicitly or certainly, produces results after the expiry of ninety days from the day on which the notification of renouncement was first conveyed to the director. Assuming, be that as it may, the spouse is pregnant at the hour of the declaration of talaq, the talaq doesn't produce results until ninety days have passed or the finish of the pregnancy, whichever is later.
INABILITY TO GIVE NOTICE OF TALAQ
Inability to inform, in the above expressed way, nullified Talaq until the last part of the 1970s and mid 1980s, however presentation of the Zina Ordinance permitted scope for maltreatment as renounced spouses were left open to charges of zina if their husbands had not followed the PK-Legal's warning method. Since mid 1980s, the act of the Courts in Pakistan is that they approve a Talaq in spite of an inability to advise as gave under the PK-Legal.
LEGAL DIVORCE/KHULA
Disintegration OF MUSLIM MARRIAGES ACT 1939
Legal khula may likewise be allowed without spouse's assent if wife is eager to renounce her monetary rights.
REASON FOR JUDICIAL DIVORCE
Grounds on which a lady may look for khula include:
  • Abandonment by spouse for a long time
  • Inability to keep up for a long time
  • Spouse getting a polygamous marriage in contradiction of set up lawful methods,
  • Spouse's detainment for a long time
  • Spouse's inability to perform conjugal commitments for a long time,
  • Spouse's proceeded with weakness from the hour of the marriage,
  • Spouse's madness for a long time or his genuine sickness,
  • Spouse's activity of her choice of pubescence in the event that she was contracted into marriage by any gatekeeper before age of 16 and renounces the marriage before the age of 18 (as long as the marriage was not fulfilled),
  • Spouse's pitilessness (counting physical or other abuse, inconsistent treatment of co-wives), and
  • Some other ground perceived as legitimate for the disintegration of marriage under Muslim law.

CALL US NOW : 0300 8447469 / 0321 4554554

submitted by TarpaulinUK123 to u/TarpaulinUK123 [link] [comments]


2020.08.21 04:52 Meteor_Herd [SECRET] Causing a Rift In MEK

As many Islamists and religious conservative leave MEK-they still do not feel comfortable with the increasingly secular and pro-Zoroastrian National Republic Party. As such, a new party called the National Islamic Party-led by none other than Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has formed and is drawing in millions of Iranians-mostly from the National Republic Party. They aren't very large as most Islamists support MEK at this point but they are large enough to be a tiebreaker party of sorts. They vow to form a coalition with National Republic under certain conditions. This split could potentially end National Republic's hold on power. That is why MEK must be split up too. Baghram Namazi has decided to work with SIAI to split up the People's Rebirth Party (MEK's party) in order to potentially be able to beat them without having to outright ban them before the election-or just cancel it entirely. MEK is a fragile alliance between progressive leftists-many of whom fiercely oppose theocracy and actual Islamist theocrats. MEK has had to not only balance these two factions but also shed their reputation as traitors to Iran for helping Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and accepting Iraqi/UAR aid to help destabilize Iran. They are a paper tiger and Namazi knows it. SIAI will infiltrate MEK to sow discord between the leftists and Islamists-highlighting the differences between the two factions. Draw parallels in the left about how Islamists lied to the left before to gain power and oppress them. Release video of MEK Islamists talking about theocracy. SIAI will tell the Islamists that the left wants a secular Marxist state with legal gay marriage, ban polygamy, legalize opium (marijuana and DMT is already legal), and ultimately ban Islam. Videos of leftist leaders in MEK talking about all these things will be disseminated. Iranian State Media will pressure Ahura Rajavi about whether or not she believes in controversial issues such as restoring Sharia law or believes in LGBTQ rights. She will dodge the questions which will be used as evidence to the left that she does and evidence to the Islamists that she is a secularist.
submitted by Meteor_Herd to worldpowers [link] [comments]


2020.08.18 22:29 Anarcho_Humanist [Small] Masterpost on the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY), or South Yemen, was a Marxist-Leninist state that existed in half of what is now Yemen from 1967 to 1990, or 23 years. It was the only Marxist-Leninist country in Western Asia (unless you also count Afghanistan, which is often included in South Asia with India and Pakistan).
Background
There were several key things to note about the background of South Yemen:
Economy
The government saw full employment in some sectors and the guarantee of a basic standard of living
In rural areas the regime provided full employment in agriculture, though some of its policies failed to produce the desired results. The establishment of state farms on the Soviet model on the lands of previous large landholders was largely unsuccessful, while the creation of cooperatives elsewhere, bringing smallholders together, had more success, though in effect the cooperatives remained little more than joint organizations for the acquisition of inputs and services and marketing, rather than a move towards the objective stated in the earlier, more militant days of increased collectivization of ownership and living conditions following the Chinese model. Between these sectors and limited industry, as well as the growing civil service and military institutions, the population was assured of a basic but adequate living standard for all, something which many promptly regretted as it disappeared with unification with the YAR [Yemeni Arab Republic] in 1990.
Social Services
The government had developed it's healthcare and education systems
an education system which covered the whole country, up to university level and including most subjects by the mid-1980s, as well as colleges of education in many towns in the governorates; in the early years it was largely dependent on importing foreign teachers, mostly from friendly Palestinian organizations and Sudan ... Frequent serious literacy campaigns were mounted to reduce adult illiteracy even in the more remote rural areas. The regime also established a health system which operated throughout the country. Support from Cuba and China played a significant role in the health sector, and by the late 1980s many locally trained doctors were also fielded.
Women's Rights
In 1974 it issued the most progressive family law in the Arabian Peninsula, similar to that in Tunisia, making polygamy extremely difficult, giving women the right to initiate divorce, and treating men and women as equally responsible for the maintenance of their households and children. This was a policy which was particularly detested by its enemies and led to accusations of atheism and being anti-Islam. It is also one of the policies which has had the most long-term impact, largely through the expansion of women’s education, leading to a situation where, prior to the current war, the majority of senior women in the administration and even the private sector, have either been educated in the PDRY or are originally from the South.
To quote a Reuters interview with several South Yemeni women:
Afrah Ali Said often recalls the days when she could go out with her family in just a shirt and trousers to enjoy a cool evening breeze on Aden’s beaches.
In contrast to the rest of the Arabian peninsula, the former socialist south Yemen enforced many reforms for women. Girls went to mixed schools with boys, women were encouraged to work and leave the headscarf at home.
Anti-Tribalism
A further important policy was the regime’s attempt to reduce allegiance based on ethnicity and family origin, commonly described as tribalism. The regime not only declared a reconciliation and ending of all tribal disputes and feuds, but it actually enforced this quite firmly by sending armed forces to prevent any actions contravening this order. This suppression policy did function effectively, but was unable to prevent underlying anger and memories. Its policy of ensuring that there were representatives of all geographical areas and social groups in both government and party institutions also contributed to the early stages of the establishment of a perception of a nation throughout the country.
Sources
Sadly, I could only really find two. One of which is a Reuters article:
The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen: Unique socialist experiment in the Arab world at a time of world revolutionary fervour (2017) - SciHub link, here is the original
Women of southern Yemen port remember better times (2010)
submitted by Anarcho_Humanist to socialism [link] [comments]


2020.08.17 09:10 she24esh42 My mom is mad at me for not liking stoning, chopping off hands, killing those who intentionally don't pray (and threats to disown me)

Yep. I'm still pretending to be a Muslim in front of everyone. Sometimes I just can't let things pass by and it accidentally fires up arguments, I only pretend to pray when my mom gets really angry at me. I remember as a kid around 9-10[was still a Muslim but I struggled to maintain praying, I'm 16 now and been atheist for a year] She'd tell me I don't deserve to breath air as long as I don't pray, That I don't deserve to eat or go to school while I don't pray because that's what god gave me and I'm not giving him his right as his slave [literally], And that the prophet said I should be beaten for not praying but she won't do that
A very popular narration from Muhammad: Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old. Sunan Abi Dawud 495.
Of course, she believes in capturing slave women from wars, owning slaves, chopping hands, stoning adulterers to death because "that's what god said" Quran, Al-noor [2] do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah(she emphasised this when I seemed upset).
She also wishes we lived in an Islamic state that perfectly applies the sharia (which we already live in an Arab Muslim country but of course isis driven states seem like a better option for her)
And that was our most recent argument, I didn't even say I don't accept this, I only said that if a person stole from me and I had the choice I would never cut off their hands, or if someone had premarital sex [zina] I would never like to watch them getting stoned to death. (of course I don't accept these by any means, but I would never dare to say that publicly)
She got all mad and riled up and flat out told me : Islam is submission to what god says do and don't, you don't have the right to say I wouldn't like this, and stuff like :who do you think you are And: how dare you not like God's law, you should accept stoning, cutting off hands, polygamy, it's not even a choice for you and If you keep listening to your devil you'll end up losing both your life and eternity and I will (disown) you.
and that's what hurts me the most, and constantly gives me fear of the future because it seems like I won't be able to put up with it for long, and I don't want to lose my family at the same time.. It seems like I made her look like a walking devil, and I really didn't intend to because irl she's a very compassionate person and she doesn't hurt or talk badly about anyone. and it feels unfair she was forced into believing and defending such brutal acts and never had the chance to reconsider the slightest bit of it.
It feels so imprisoning not being able to express your thoughts, at this point my only wish is to be myself and not have to pretend to accept such cruelty. I guess, that's it Feel free to vent about your current situation/how you deal with stuff. Or even criticize. I just needed to get that off my chest and have someone actually listen Thanks for reading
submitted by she24esh42 to exmuslim [link] [comments]


2020.08.14 23:05 GoneHippocamping Thoughts of an Indian Muslim on our Independence Day 🇮🇳

Thoughts of an Indian Muslim on our Independence Day 🇮🇳
Today is the 74th Independence Day of India. A country with around 200 million Muslims, the third-largest Muslim population in the world, who form around 13% of the country's population.
Jama Masjid, Delhi
There's a famous saying among us here - Muslims in India are like salt in a dish, just a pinch in quantity but its absence will render the whole dish tasteless. We are a country with the second-highest number of mosques in the world. We have had, and still have Islamic scholars and seminaries of great repute all over the world.

Darul-Uloom, Deoband
Now I know that the first thing you would bring up us the issue of Kashmir. Let us all agree that the issue of Kashmir, like Palestine, is that of human rights first and you need not be a Muslim or even from that region to want a peaceful solution to it, and no matter how complicated the situation may seem, let's all pray that we are able to find a solution for it soon.
But are Indian Muslims really just defined by Kashmir or by what the remainder of the country does? Don't they deserve to have an identity or a voice of their own? Are they only the people 'who didn't go to Pakistan' during the partition? What do we do with the people who stayed back, either by choice or by compulsion?
Masjid Rasheed, Deoband
The fact is that we are here to stay, no matter what anyone says. The whole population cannot migrate to any other country (neither is there a country openly accepting such a mass migration, least of all Pakistan) nor are they very easy to suppress in their own country. It is time that you accept that we have our own unique identity which is very different from everyone else. My observation is that no one thinks of Indian Muslims even they think of Muslims overall, they generally get overshadowed by Pakistan, although our Muslim population, by number, is not very far from theirs.
We have had our issues in this country, but there have also been many bright spots. I'm not an expert but I say this from my general experience. We have the freedom to practice our religion, even give dawah to non-muslims, we can hear the azaans from our homes, follow practises of personal law like inheritance and polygamy legally, our religious education degrees are recognised by the government - few perks that aren't available even to Muslims in the 'free' West. India was one of the fastest-growing economies of the world and was set to become one of the top three economies of the world, the others being the USA (1% Muslim population) & China (? Muslim population), and Muslims forming such a major chunk of such a large economy, definitely would have a huge role to play on the world stage. (I say 'was' because now everything is unclear due to the coronavirus situation, and due to the recent rise of anti-muslim forces in India).

Beemapally Mosque, Kerala
I do admit that things were starting to get a little worse for us in the recent past. A lot of plans existed of the anti-muslim forces which were put on hold due to the coronavirus situation (a blessing in disguise?), but these events also led to a kind of unification of the Muslims of the country in a way that was never seen before, and also an outpour of support from the worldwide Ummah which was very heartening, and actually caused these forces to take a step back and retreat for a bit.
The worst thing you can do is to tell us to leave the country. I don't understand how so many of you can be so heartless as to say this and how is this even considered normal. First of all, where do we go if we leave? To the West, where it's sometimes even harder to practice your Deen? And how many can even financially afford to do that? To Pakistan? No sorry, neither country allows or accepts people from each other. Where else? And why do you think one would be so inclined to uproot their whole lives and leave to a strange land before fighting for his rights where he has spent all his life?

https://preview.redd.it/y8vqjv9u71h51.jpg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bfa52055483fa6777a3e39fa87f6b50d40c229f
I request you all to pray that things get better in this country and never get worse. That we find our peace in our national identity as well as a part of the worldwide Ummah, and together we are able to advance the cause of Allah ﷻ and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ over the whole world.
submitted by GoneHippocamping to islam [link] [comments]


2020.08.12 14:05 removalbot 08-12 12:05 - 'So you mean that reducing islamic violence is not a reform? / We can't have bunch of snowflakes getting triggered over a facebook post. Whether it be Hindu Mob or Muslim Mob. / And as for the more complex reason you mentioned fo...' by /u/xilam123 removed from /r/india within 83-93min

'''
So you mean that reducing islamic violence is not a reform?
We can't have bunch of snowflakes getting triggered over a facebook post. Whether it be Hindu Mob or Muslim Mob.
And as for the more complex reason you mentioned for not advocating reforms in Islam, single most important reason is Vote Bank. Nothing else. Even a country like Turkey has banned Polygamy.
Secondly, bunch of woke muslim liberals regularly write for overseas papers, many times they are critical of Hinduism(nothing wrong in that). However, I would like to see same level of criticism for Islam/Christianity as well.
If that is not the case, then they should be open about their bias(nothing wrong in that as well).
Currently, LW Media/Liberals positions itself as sacrosanct, pure, with no bias. In my opinion, that is hypocritical.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: xilam123
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]


2020.08.12 11:15 RalphOnTheCorner Book Recommendation -- Last Days, by Brian Evenson [CW: mentions self-harm]

Hi all. I’ve just finished reading an excellent short novel, which is Last Days by Brian Evenson. I wanted to recommend it here because both the book itself and the life of Evenson the person overlap with various interests of Sam Harris (and hence this subreddit). (In addition there was a recent thread about the decline of the novel, so this seems timely.) A brief description of the plot is as follows:
Kline, an ex-detective suffering with depression following the amputation of his hand by ‘the gentleman with the cleaver’, is ordered to solve a murder which took place within a compound run by a strange sect/cult of Christianity. This sect/cult believes that amputating body parts brings one closer to God, and having more parts of one’s body removed creates a greater closeness to divinity and increased authority/standing in the faith. The belief and practice is inspired by a literal interpretation of Matthew 5:29–30:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee…And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee
I don’t want to say more about the plot as I don’t want to spoil it for anyone, but the book is intriguing, unsettling, and disturbing. I really recommend it for adventurous or curious readers. Last Days is a relevant point of discussion for this subreddit for a couple of reasons, namely:
If the Quran was exactly the way it is, but it contained a single extra line, and that line read: ‘If you see a red haired woman on your doorstep at sunset, cut her head off’. Ok just imagine a text like this, it comes down through the ages, that contains a line like that. I can tell you what kind of world we would live in. We would live in a world where red haired women would be found murdered in the Muslim world, you know, we would open the New York Times and we would hear that there were 20 heads found in a bag and they were all red haired women, and we would also live in a world where in which apologists for Islam would say, would look at that behaviour and say that has nothing to do with Islam.
In a way the example of self-mutilation and scripture used in this book both confirms and undercuts Harris’s claim. When reading this book I found myself thinking about this general claim, and figured that if this really were the case, shouldn’t it be very easy to find examples of people practicing this very form of self-mutilation in reality, in the name of Christianity?
It turns out the answer is, well…yes and no. The first thing I came across was the Russian Skoptsy sect, but this isn’t quite the same thing. On first glance this looks to me more like it’s influenced by the verses about eunuchs/castration; what I’m looking for is the removal of limbs or eyes as described in the Biblical quote above. I then found a paper reviewing the literature on acts of self-mutilation which explicitly referenced Bible verses. Published in 2012, the authors found sixteen cases of self-mutilation prompted by Biblical verses reported in the literature. Of these, twelve cases were either explicitly motivated by or referred to Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 5:29–30. Of these twelve cases, eleven of them also featured a psychiatric disturbance (schizophrenia or psychosis), and several also involved a background of substance use (e.g. alcohol, LSD) and other factors. That is to say, where there is a Biblical passage which can be literally interpreted as calling for someone to amputate a limb or remove an eye, such an interpretation and act appears to be staggeringly rare (certainly currently), and in nearly all reported cases occurs over a background of psychiatric disturbances, sometimes alongside psychoactive substance usage and other factors as well.
So to me, the example used in Last Days shows that, in a very shallow surface-level analysis, yes, Harris has a point: such a verse can inspire such behavior in people. There can be a one-to-one link between religious belief (taken directly from scripture) and behavior (or at the very least a meaningful contributory input from the former to the latter). However, the rarity of such events, in my eyes, massively undercuts Harris’s general claim about scripture and behavior. If it were that simple and direct then such a behavior as described above should be much more common in the literature, and should be associated with psychiatric conditions and other factors much less. Context and interpretation seem to have a greater weight than Harris allows them, and where an interpretation can lead to either shocking violence or something else, it seems like an interpretation leading to violence is something generally found on the fringes or accompanying psychiatric or other personal problems. I know it might be fun or convenient to construct thought experiments in which we can create whatever scenario we want to support our worldview and contradict that of our ‘enemies’’ without having to provide any actual evidence, but I don’t think it’s a serious or productive way to argue about or discuss issues.
Beyond Last Days itself, Brian Evenson would be an interesting guest for Harris to have on the podcast, for a number of reasons:
If he continues writing fiction of experimental modernism, Evenson knows he will be excommunicated from the Church he has served in numerous roles. The prospect fills him with terror. For a fundamental tenet of Mormonism, one to which he is devoutly committed, is that marriage binds a couple together for eternity (polygamy, once rife among Mormons, has been outlawed for more than a century).
The only way they can part is if one of them is excommunicated. So Evenson is trapped in a cruel dilemma: if he remains true to the impulses of his art, however dark these may be, he faces what he calls the agony of "eternal separation from his wife and children". But if he succumbs to authoritarianism and self-censorship he knows he will be miserable. "I feel good about my art," he says. "I feel like it is part of my identity. I don't want to have to make a choice between the Mormon Church and my work, but if I do I will be on the side of art, even though I still have my faith."
After much anguish and vilification, Evenson took a job last year at Oklahoma State University because he felt "there was no place for me at Brigham Young; they wouldn't support me in my work". Appalled that fellow Mormons found his fiction unconscionable, he felt trapped and harassed in Provo. "I felt like an outcast in my own town. I would go into restaurants and people would look at me as if I was dangerous. It kind of got to me."
And as Evenson said in another interview:
There was a lot of local controversy surrounding my first collection, Altmann's Tongue, which cost me my job at Brigham Young University, a Mormon university I was working at the time. I talk about that in an afterword the paperback version of Altmann's Tongue -- it was very difficult, and ultimately precipitated the collapse of my marriage. But also, knowing that people might dramatically object to what I do made me think very carefully about what I was doing and made me very committed to it: knowing that my life could fall apart because of my fiction made me want to be certain of every word I put on the page. If it was going to destroy me, I wanted it to be worth it.
If you want to talk about ‘cancel culture’ (whatever one means by that term) then why not talk to Brian Evenson? Due to his commitment to his art, he was made to feel like he couldn’t stay in his workplace, like he was unwelcome where he lived, and ultimately it contributed to the dissolution of his marriage. This is a man who was willing to have his life severely altered and disrupted (in unpleasant ways) because he had a particular artistic vision he wanted to pursue in his writing. I know it’s not the ‘sexy’ kind of ‘cancel culture’ that people like to talk about because it doesn’t involve someone being accused of racism or a dust-up on Twitter and can’t be used to bash the political left, coming instead from authorities within a denomination of Christianity. But if one wants to talk about ‘cancel culture’ I think Evenson might have an interesting perspective to share based on his own experiences. This experience also raises interesting questions about tensions between art and religious authority, including when the artist is a member of that religion and may wish to remain so.
Anyway, I think I’ve gone on long enough. In short: read this book, check Brian Evenson out, and Harris should invite him onto the podcast because I’m sure it’d be an interesting conversation.
To close, are there any novels/novellas/short stories people here think overlap with areas of interest for the Sam Harris subreddit? Which writers of fiction would make for good guests on Making Sense?
submitted by RalphOnTheCorner to samharris [link] [comments]


Polygamy (Multiple wives) in Islam by Khalid Yasin - YouTube Polygamy in Islam: A Safety Net For Society - YouTube Polygamy in Islam with Dr. Bilal Philips on TheDeenShow POLYGAMY IN ISLAM : MUSLIMAH PERSPECTIVE - YouTube Polygamy in Islam by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (3 of 5) - YouTube Polygamy in Islam: A Safety Net For Society

Islam and Polygamy - TheReligionofPeace

  1. Polygamy (Multiple wives) in Islam by Khalid Yasin - YouTube
  2. Polygamy in Islam: A Safety Net For Society - YouTube
  3. Polygamy in Islam with Dr. Bilal Philips on TheDeenShow
  4. POLYGAMY IN ISLAM : MUSLIMAH PERSPECTIVE - YouTube
  5. Polygamy in Islam by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (3 of 5) - YouTube
  6. Polygamy in Islam: A Safety Net For Society

A video dicussing polygyny in Islam and the reasons behind it. Also discussing ways to help Muslimahs with accepting the idea of polygyny and how to talk to ... This lecture serves as a tool to help in this great challenge as Dr. Lisa Killinger, an Amercian convert to Islam, shares her experiences with non-Muslims both before and after September 11th. Subscribe to our NEW CHANNEL: http://www.youtube.com/islamondemand The Islam On Demand iPhone App: http://www.IslamOnDemand.com/app Visit our website: http:/... Sheikh Khalid Yasin gives a brief explanation about Polygamy (multiple wives) in Islam. This is taken from the lecture 'Some Advice to the Muslim Women' Prod... http://thedeenshow.com/index.php A great Show about Polygamy in Islam getting to know that this was a practice that was practiced by many of the great prophe... Polygamy in Islam by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (3 of 5)