Do you, a free person, see Muslim females as slaves?

Page 5 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

21 Mar 2017, 2:22 am

no not really.
if all they know how to cook is that arabian rubbish they eat (like camels tongue stew) then they can remain on the market.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:32 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
We have no business telling other people how to live.

And also ....

Image


So you would not mind having a slave owning neighbor. Ok.

Nothing quite like doing unto others.

If yours was the prominent attitude before the Civil War, then the U'S' would still be a slave holding country.

Seems you would have been yelling at the North to mind their own business.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:39 pm

adifferentname wrote:
No, I see majority Muslim societies as inherently harmful to most men and women within them due to cultural norms and traditions that we have moved on from.


If not slave, what would you call a person that can be bought or sold the way Muslim females can be?

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:42 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
To the original question, most religions enable people to justify treating women as slaves if they choose to do so. Some muslim men choose to treat women as slaves and some do not. Some christian men, too. Buddhists have a wretched history on that front, much to the dismay of some dabblers.

Societies have a long history of treating women like slaves. There are women alive today, in the US, who had to have their husbands sign off on any disposal of their property under Lord and Master Laws.

Realistically, the Islamic World is a little behind the curve, currently,


20/20 Buddy.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:44 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
More as brood mares and baby machines than slaves....


True, perhaps, but those women are not likely using their free will and are thus slaves, especially if they were bought and paid for when young.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:49 pm

ltcvnzl wrote:
This concept of free person seems quite weird for me. are we really free? (ok maybe it's probably a north american thing so probably it wouldn't fit me as i'm not american but even americans, do you really believe in your freedom?)

In west we still have tons of problems. I think we should care about it previously than trying to discuss problem's in different cultures. Not because I believe we can't judge other cultures (we can) but because I think it's way more complex, so if we don't do our homework being critical to our own context, it's impossible to have an accurate view on something more distant and complex.

Although many woman in muslim societies are under heavy oppression I doubt to consider it was an inherently or exclusive muslim trait: this patterns repeat itself through most of cultures (even if in different intensities and in different times). So how and from what exactly are we freeing this woman?

Also, I don't believe in top to bottom actions as effective. You can just go and free some people. It takes a lot more than this, and it can be really free if the person isn't involved in this freeing. Anyway, It's obviously a very complicated matter and I don't hope to have any answer for it, just a bunch of random impression.


I agree that freedom is a poor word to use but most in the West use it.

My point here is to wonder why it is considered ok for Muslim male slaves to Islam to created an even lower class slave than himself just because someone is a woman.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 3:53 pm

Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.


Yours is a sick view and inaccurate view.

Are you saying your government broke your constitutional law when trying to prevent the Branch Dividian from practicing the suicide aspect of their cult?

How about the law that tells religions that they cannot protest near where soldiers are being buried. Does that law go against your poorly written constitution?

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:04 pm

the_phoenix wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
On an individual level, I smile at women wearing hijab if they make eye contact with me. I don't try to initiate eye contact, unless I feel unusually happy and friendly.

However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.


You do realize that some would call you racist for these types of remarks?


Which race is our friend denigrating?

I must have missed that part.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:08 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Someone could call me a religious bigot for saying it, I guess. If they wanted to press the issue, I expect that I could cast imprecations on as many other religions as they care to name, with perfect philosophical integrity. I expect that I could even find some atheists using scientific sexism to oppress women and express my disgust with that, too.

If they want to keep calling me a bigot after all that, I really can't argue any further.


Any person today that does not hate Christianity and Islam, is not a moral person.

Both religions are intolerant, homophobic and misogynous and have grown themselves through violence instead of good deeds.

No moral man would promote either religion or their Gods of war.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:13 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Subjugated is probably a more accurate than slave altho slavery including sex slavery are authorized in Islam, that is how Muhammed lived.


I hear you but subjugation does not include a selling price and child brides come with that price.

That is why I call Muslim females slaves.

As an aside, no Muslim man has yet to argue against the proposition so it is strange to see non-Muslims argue for them.

Regards
DL



Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

21 Mar 2017, 4:15 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.


Yours is a sick view and inaccurate view.

Are you saying your government broke your constitutional law when trying to prevent the Branch Dividian from practicing the suicide aspect of their cult?

How about the law that tells religions that they cannot protest near where soldiers are being buried. Does that law go against your poorly written constitution?

Regards
DL
No I'm from the Netherlands. And yes it was incorrect I already got corrected by Jones, which I appreciate.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:17 pm

Biscuitman wrote:
People seem to find it very easy to mix up the moral codes of Islam with the laws of a country.


Is that how you justify ignoring slavery or are you saying that both Islam and the country should share the blame for having institutionalized slavery?

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:18 pm

Yo El wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Yo El wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
However, I would always prefer to patronize businesses which forbid any religious expression in the public area. Personally, the whole idea of the hijab disgusts me, modesty disgusts me, and the kind of religion which boils down to believing it because some old douchebag said it disgusts me beyond my ability to decently express.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment of the constitional law which clearly states someone's right to freely express his religion. Restrictions on religious freedom have no home in a democracy and is something you would find in a place like Saudi Arabia.


Yours is a sick view and inaccurate view.

Are you saying your government broke your constitutional law when trying to prevent the Branch Dividian from practicing the suicide aspect of their cult?

How about the law that tells religions that they cannot protest near where soldiers are being buried. Does that law go against your poorly written constitution?

Regards
DL
No I'm from the Netherlands. And yes it was incorrect I already got corrected by Jones, which I appreciate.


My oops.

Regards
DL



Yo El
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: Netherlands

21 Mar 2017, 4:19 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
If they want to keep calling me a bigot after all that, I really can't argue any further.

Any person today that does not hate Christianity and Islam, is not a moral person.

Both religions are intolerant, homophobic and misogynous and have grown themselves through violence instead of good deeds.

No moral man would promote either religion or their Gods of war.

Regards
DL
Do you also hate religious people or only the religion?



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

21 Mar 2017, 4:24 pm

Shahunshah wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Citing the text of the First Amendment is good, but none of it applies simply and literally. There's a lot of case law, and in some cases, different Circuit courts have different positions on it. In your comments, you sort of understand what's going on, and I want to encourage that. Getting lectured on a subject by someone who doesn't understand the complexity of the topic will never go over well.

Look I don't think Yo El was saying something uninformed. Mike Huckabee said a similar thing in that abortion violated the 15th amendment. It is just how you interpret things. But heck I am 16 so maybe I don't know.

Huckabee's argument hinges on his belief that life and personhood and citizenship and constitutional rights begin at conception, ending those same rights for the incubator.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

21 Mar 2017, 4:28 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Do you, a free person, see Muslim females as slaves?

In the more right wing of Islam, females are what I would call slaves. I am prompted to think in that term because if I were a Muslim man living under Sharia, I can buy myself a few child brides. There is also little stopping me from doing the same, --- where Muslims live under Sharia law, --- in new adopted countries in the free world. Slavery returns to the West.

Fraternité, if I may remind the English speakers, means a fiduciary relationship to all other people. Slave is appropriate here. Fraternité and honesty also forces that I must look at Muslim females as slaves.

Do I, as a free man, have any responsibility to free these Muslim women, who inadvertently help propagate slavery by their lack of revolt against it?

The West also helps propagate slavery by allowing it into the West.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtY5bv-oxLE

If I, as a free man hold a responsibility, as a free person, do you?

How much tolerance should tolerant nations give to a huge slave trading religion and government system?

Regards
DL


Yes, for the Muslim women living under the real Sharia like KSA and Afghanistan, they are slaves even against their will.

But here the thing:
Most Muslims live in denial, and most Muslims living in non-Sharia countries (hint: most muslim-dominated countries) believe in an embellished version of Islam. In particular most Muslim women believe in a very very embellished version of Islam while they they ignore or turn a blind eye on the verses that clearly diminish their status, maybe they only read embellished narratives and never read the Qur'an fully. The Arabic dialect of Qur'an is an old tribe-specific, and it's not exactly the same as the Classic Arabic, it's somehow like Old English to modern English - I would understand it better if I read its English or French translation than in its original language.

For example, the other day I was in an outing with classmates, and one of my christian classmates mentioned the polygamy in Islam, a muslim classmate, who is a Muslim young woman (not veiled and wears short skirts too which isn't uncommon here) answered by repeating a popular verse's interpretation how no ordinary man's love can be perfectly equal between two women, therefore he's not deemed for marrying more than one. In other term, she believes that Allah allows only monogamy for non-prophet men.
This is an extremely popular narrative I've heard from moderate and even conservative Muslim women who reject, despise and even mock the idea of polygamy hence why the concept is not popular in many muslim places except in the Arabia. (Less than 1% of Muslims in the world practice Polygamy, according to stats, at least it's the figure for the registered marriages)

In fact, women in these countries, like in Christian countries, are more likely to be more religious than men; and for some reason less likely to be agnostic/atheists (this is a world phenomena).

So no, these are not slaves, they just don't believe in the real Islam though like most Muslim men. They live on the blue pill.


This was well thought out but I cannot see how you can say they are not slaves when there is often a price tag attached to the proposals.

Regards
DL