You should run for office. You are great at not listening to what people say, replying to something you say they said (that includes quoting out of context), and throwing around rhetorical questions like there's no tomorrow.
Seriously, the information value of your posts is nearing zero. It's just a bunch of text shoved into a blender.

Not all cultures are created equal. Customs are the boulder blocking the way of progress. Your view is static, while the world is and always will be dynamic.


Islamic culture had it's moments a few hundred years ago (Arabic numbers, anyone?), but it proved to be inferior in the long run. That's why we run around in cars fueled by dead dinosaurs, and they are stuck with camels and goats. (I'm over-simplifying here, but you get the idea.) The Middle-East in general should be a lot better off than it is currently.


I'm not losing anything, since "hobo rant" isn't a valid argument. If you actually gave me something to reply to, I'd be glad to reply. See above.

@Proto, on intent/result.
Is Islam violent/oppressive/problematic is the question, right? We're not looking at does Islam say it's not, we're looking at some of the results of it. You can't answer is Islam violent etc. by looking at scripture (because, as I've said, what something says isn't necessarily what it does). You've got to turn to the real world to look at its effects.



Pig, since you're obviously going to just keep arguing that lack of free will is a mild issue, we'll move past that and focus on your position - which you've graciously, finally offered.


I don't think it's question of validity at all. I think what we're talking about has to do with applicability/suitability. As Hyde's mentioned, Islam was pretty cutting edge back in the day, and many of their practises wouldn't have seemed out of place at all. The issue is that as the rest of the world evolved and developed more humane ways of approaching life, Islam stagnated. Have you read Leviticus? There's some pretty hardcore shit in there that it says to do that we don't do anymore because we realise that the time and place for the kind of shit has passed. Leviticus is not applicable to our modern world. In the same manner, parts of Islam suits an older, more barbaric world than we have now. Context gives meaning. Those parts of Islam we're talking about made more sense back then, in that context. In a different context (i.e. our modern context), it lacks the conditions that made it necessary and/or suitable in the first place.

It's not cultural superiority to suggest that certain customs and traditions aren't applicable to the modern world. But, since you're you, I entirely expect you to dismiss this argument and assault each individual phrase, shredding apart both context and meaning.

@Ele

That is kinda what triggered this whole discussion, when I said a few days ago that the problem is human nature, not Islam. You and a few others disagreed with me.
Now you are saying it doesn't matter about the intent, it's the effect.
Intent = Quran
Effect = people

If you are saying effect is the problem, which is people, I 100% agree with you.

The initial topic was discussing whether Islam itself is the problem (everyone was quoting Qruan verses and stuff). Since it has changed, could you post some evidence that sharia is oppressing women today? Because when I searched it myself (i didn't read from possible bias news such as waahingtpnpost), rather I read blogs and stuff by women actually living in saudi arabia and they seem quite happy and actually defend sharia. You also need to prove that millions are effected as you claimed. I would post the links but it's a huge hassle on my outdated phone. I will try on the weekend however.

To be clear, I'm not saying human nature is the problem. I'm saying, regardless of what the scripture says, the result (specifically sharia) is the problem.


Yeah sure. I posted this back on page 8. http://www.clarionproject.org/unders...s-under-sharia

Under sharia, women don't have the free will to leave the house or seek employment.


Yeah, I did this already too. Back on page 11, I posted this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#...by_country.svg) that shows the countries that have fully implemented Sharia and also the countries that partly have it. Just going off two of the countries that fully implement it, Iraq and Iran, you've got over 110 million people. Around half of those would be women - at the very least 50 million.

edit: Hawkes beat me to it.

I guess I didn't word it properly, sorry, I know how many countries implement sharia, I meant to say, show evidence that millions of women are actually oppressed by it. Showing stats of which countries element sharia doesn't mean that they are oppressed.

What would be really strong is if you could find articles written by women actually living in these countries, and proof that millions feel oppressed. Ok go

Lack of free will is oppression, no matter how someone might feel about it.

That said, even if 90% of the women living under sharia are all thumbs up about it, that's still more than 20 million women that don't like it.

In your own assumption. Because proof doesn't matter.

People saying they like being oppressed doesn't mean they aren't being oppressed. I like how you're the one talking about 'proof'.

I like how no one wants to cite evidence