Kipling's Cat (mintogrubb) wrote in uk_cell,
Kipling's Cat

Not only in America...

...but in Europe as well, there are those that want to turn the clock back. In the last 200 years or so, we have created societies in the Western World that offer a more equal opportunity for women to lead their own lives as they would choose. Western women now have a choice in how many childen they will have, if they choose to have any at all.

Not everyone is happy with this, as the following link makes clear.,1518,344374,00.html

We must unitite internationally against this sort of extremism. We must export the Jihad and it's principles across the world and stand in solidarity with all who wish to remain free of the tyranny of the theocrats whose values come down from a different age and culture.
Xposted in uk_cell and my LJ
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

They don't want to turn the clock back - they want to turn Europe Muslim.

Their life isn't a return to the past, it's the way life is lived where they (or their parents, or grandparents) came from.
I wouldn't call it Muslim. It's Arabic, if anything.
My apologies; Arabic, then.
It is Medieval, first and foremost, and that is what I object to.
I believe in a woman's right to decide her own future for herself, and unless I am much mistaken, the koran does not uphold these rights.

I could be wrong. maybe a woman is allowed to divorce her husband, hold down a job and use contraception under Islamic law, but i don't think so. I stand to be corrected if anyone can show me the relevant Suras in the Koran, though.
I have no idea how you have been so misinformed.

A woman is allowed to divorce her husband.
A woman is allowed to hold down a job. Prophet Muhammed's first wife (PBUH) was a Merchant Queen. He worked for her.
Contraception is not forbiddon. It depends how you look at it. Some people say that it shouldn't be used but to my knowledge there is nothing forbidding it.

I can't tell you the relevant Surahs simply because I do not know the Qu'ran that well. But what I've told you is widely believed. The Qu'ran upholds the equality of women, I can't stress by how much. Please don't be misguided by the culture of many self-professed "Islamic" nations.
As I say, I have only read the Koran through once. It was in English and may have been an abridged version. If, as you say, women's rights are enshrined in the Scriptures of the Islamic faith, I hope that tha moderates can win out over the fanatical extremists.I have heard from elsewhere that the Koran itself does not insist on women being veiled, it is simply tradition, so I would not be surprised if Islamic scholars could show that the Koran originally was more enlightened than many modern day followers admit or even know.

Hopefully, a dialogue can be set up that provides another voice in contrast to the militants.
Can you please give me the source of your information? Was it a Qu'ran from the Internet or did you buy it. If so, from where? The Qu'ran should never be altered or abridged. Of course you can have books with quotations from the Qu'ran but that's hardly the same thing.

To my knowledge you're correct in saying that the Qu'ran doesn't insist on women wearing hijab, you can't force a woman to, it should be her choice. The interpretation of Islam in the West is horribly wrong because the culture of several "Islamic" states is confused with the religion. There are a lot of scholars who actively show that this view is wrong but fanaticism and ignorance wins out. There are a lot of misinformed Molvis who teach the wrong religion. I have not willingly gone to a mosque in years simply because I disagree with 99% of the Molvis around London because even they confuse culture with religion (I can think of only one that I like). In my eyes, they're more dangerous than any fanatic.
It was some decades back, I borrowed it from the public library. it was a translation from the Arabic into English by a respected scholar who spoke Arabic and lectured at Oxford university.

The original article in Der Speigel makes the point that Turkey is a secular Moslem state, but that life in the family is dominated by men, and it is a culture of male domination that many women unfortunately have to live with.
I get what you are saying about our perception being horribly wrong though.
Jesus himself was someone who told his disciples to put down their swords, rather than engage in violent struggle. Compare this with the bloodshed that His so called 'followers' caused during the Crusades, and the many other religious wars that flared out across Europe in the Middle Ages. I think it fair to say that all the Great Faiths of the world are united in teaching the sacredness of human life, and the virtue of living in peace rather than going to war. however, fanatics of every kind distort the great teachings of the past in thier lust for power and control.
Lovely, isn't it?

Ooo that's a shame. I was hoping to look through it and then report to to some sort of authority so it could be discredited. I don't believe that any of the "Muslim" states are Islamic. They're so damn hypocritical. Argh, don't get me started on Middle Eastern politics!

Their life isn't a return to the past

Sorry -it is. right now in Europe, women are free to divorce, to have a career independent of a husband, a father, or any other male. Our culture stems from things that happened in the 50s/60s. thiers is dependent on a worldview developed and unchanged since around 600 AD.

I have read the Koran myself. An English translation, admittedly, but it does say that men have the right to rule over women as they must spend their wealth to maintain them.

Not in our society, they don't.
Sorry -it is. right now in Europe

Exactly. If it was Europeans doing this, I'd agree, but it's not. This is how things are done now where they come from. This is how their culture is now.
The fact that these people keep customs going that are centuries old is nothing that they should be neccessarily be proud of. Ok, you can talk about the drugs and crime that afflict westen society, but the fact remains that not everyone in the west is a junkie using crime to finance a habit. Jewish culture is a lot older, but Jews do not have a problem with alcohol, for instance. Just because it's old does not make it right...
I didn't say anything about it being "right". All I said was that these people aren't trying to "turn the clock back", they're trying to bring their culture with them. It's equally unacceptable.
And exactly how do they have that right? Must they spend their money to maintain them?

I personally think you're somewhat misguided. Under Islam a woman does have the right to make money, has the right to keep all her money, and guess what? They have the right to spend that money too! So a man does not have to spend their money to *maintain* a woman.
Can't quote you the exact verse, sorry, Surah, but that bit did stick in my mind as i read the Koran years ago because I thought "What???" I am positive that the Koran does say something to that effect.
I disaggree, of course, but this is a genuine quote from memory.
As I said I don't know my way about the Qu'ran well enough, but I'll research and get back to you on it!
Many thanks.
I am not anti religion per se, I am a churchgoer myself, but I disagree with many things that are said in the Christian Bible ( or at least the Protestant version)
My faith is one that allows for the fact that our (Christian and Jewish) Scriptures were written thousands of years ago, and modern science has moved on since then.
What do you mean by "the Protestant version"?
Well, the Catholic Church includes the books of the Apocrypha as part of the canon, but insists that these are on a lower level of inspiration.
Actually, the earliest collection of Christian Scripture (for the Bible is a collection of works rather than a single work) included a book called 'the wisdom of Ben Sirach'. However, you will find that in the Catholic version with the other Apocryphal works, and is deleted entirely from the Protestant canon.
then, of course, there are several translations of the original texts.
the most popular translation among fundamentalists is the NIV (the New International Version) this preserves a lot of the misunderstandings of earlier scholars, so of course, fundamentalists like it.
the New English Bible, however, accurately renders Isaiah as saying that a "maiden" would become pregnant, not a " virgin" as the Septuagint erroneously has it.
This makes it less popular in some quarters, but is truer to what the original writers meant to convey.
You may be thinking of the King James as the "fundamentalists" one; almost all the fundamentalists I know of use it, most notably Jack Chick.
Because it bears the name of "The Authorised Version", some do like the King James Version, I know, but it was only authorised by the king of England, not jesus himself.
It's Elizabethan language, full of 'thee's and 'thou's, does lend it an olde worlde feel, but it was contemporary speech to the sociey that produced it.

Among Evangelical Christians who want to be more 'up to date', the NIV is the most popular. This includes such people as Dr. R. T. Kendall, a respected theologian from Kentucky who graduated from Oxford University, and also leaders of fringe groups like Kip Mackean, founder of the International Church of Christ. It is also wiely used in Anglican Evangelical churches. Another interesting development in recent years is the New Authorised Version, which basically updates the language but preserves the syntax and style of its prdecessor. thanks for the link to Jack Chick, I will be checking him out.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I believe that Islam is quite a personal religion. When you read the Qu'ran you realise it's just a set of rules on the best and simplest way to lead your life. At first glance it seems quite stark, very white and black but it actually isn't like that, there is a lot of room open to interpretation, which is why one person's faith won't be identical to another's. It's also why that from the very start there have been different fractions of Islam because they hold different interpretations. I heard someone use this great analogy, that if you had a canvas on which you could paint all religions/ideas/philosophies, Islam wouldn't be a point on it, but a circle. The circumference of the circle is hard to define but it's pinpointed by the few rules that the Qu'ran insists upon.

I haven't come across anything in Science that the Qu'ran contradicts. It doesn't deny evolution on the whole, just evolution of mankind.

Deleted comment

No problem! I'm only saying what I actually think. The media's portrayal isn't that bad, depends where you are really. Sometimes I just think that we are our own worst enemies. They do a lot of wrong. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the centre of our religion and just look at the state of it.

Never give in to the media! Hehe. But seriously, how does it persuade you?
Sometimes I just think that we are our own worst enemies. They do a lot of wrong. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the centre of our religion and just look at the state of it.

It's also true to say that the situation in Northern Ireland is really awful becuse both communities have come a long way from Christ's original teachings.
I would like to thank you for giving us a clearer picture of Islam. I hope that you will go ahead and write an article on what the Koran actually teaches, because most people in the west (inclluding me) are very ill informed. sadly, ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hatred. It is good to know that there are those within the Islamic community who oppose honour killings, and the other atrocities carried out by the extremists.


12 years ago


12 years ago


12 years ago


12 years ago