Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

We are talking about the same thing. There's lots of room for disagreement even if you know the historical context. There are differences in figuring out what exactly happened 1400 years ago (the hadith are a good example of this). Then if you can agree on the historical facts, you still need to interpret it within the historical context. For example, do verses commanding "fight in the cause of Allah against oppressors" refer to a physical or a spiritual fight? Knowing that one such verse was delivered in the context of attacks by Meccans doesn't necessarily answer this question. Nor does historical context answer questions about what constitutes "oppression" or "persecution" (cartoons?) or where the "limits" on responding are set. Historical context raises as many issues as it solves. Enter legions of independent scholars, some of them Wahabbi or Taliban, all issuing opinions about what this verse means. If you asked 10 scholars you might get 10 different answers for some questions, and each of them would think he's right.

Oh yes, I agree. There is a lot of room for disagreement but scholars differ on a lot of things but very rarely do they differ in Aqueedah or pillars, or Fiqh. Most of the disagreements are on contemporary issues and in that case, the ruling is to follow the stronger opinion ( there usually is one). That being said, it is perfectly OK to differ in opinions, so long as those opinions are based on Qur'an and Hadith and are not going against Islamic teachings. And that's why I cited earlier the example of "Killing someone", that goes clearly against islamic teachings, so one can theologically prove that it is wrong regardless of what school of Islam you belong to. I don't think there is a difference in historical context concerning the Qu'ran but you cited that there are some about the Hadiths, I can agree with that and that's why the Qur'an is superior to the hadiths, since the hadiths are the work of men, though there is an agreement about the 2 major books of Sunni hadiths.

For the verse "Fight in the cause of Allah against" that you mentioned, if one knows the history and context, they will understand that all verses revealed during that time commanded the Muslims to be patient and not to fight, to ignore and forgive the Pagans. It was after the emigration to Madinah that the first command to fight against them came through this verse, so this verse refers to a physical fight

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

I tried to find one of the existing threads for this post, but they've all gone so far off-topic that none of them seemed appropriate.

"One of the founding members of Charlie Hebdo has accused its slain editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, or Charb, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing increasingly provocative cartoons, as five million copies of the “survivors’ edition” went on sale."

Not only is this criticism interesting, but the reaction of Charlie Hebdo's lawyer was interesting:

"The accusation sparked a furious reaction from Richard Malka, Charlie Hebdo’s lawyer for the past 22 years, who sent an angry message to Mathieu Pigasse, one of the owners of Nouvel Obs and Le Monde. 'Charb has not yet even been buried and Obs finds nothing better to do that to publish a polemical and venomous piece on him.'"

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of an advocate of free expression. Promoting "freedom of expression" as a slogan is easy and, as we've seen, is easily done even by political leaders whose jails are full of journalists. But, in actual practice, just about everyone draws lines somewhere and nobody likes when there own personal lines are crossed.

Of course. Every single person has a line they don't want crossed, whether it's saying "OMG!" or attending children's parties naked. That isn't the issue. The issue is, did one French person publicly say these things, and another French person publicly answered him, and nobody died? Yes, yes and yes. That's free speech in action.

Not when you get fined or imprisoned for it.....

Anonymous wrote:

Ahh, so now you know it's not just about the cartoons? You're on the right track buddy.....I will tell you, when you tell me what the Iraqi children who died when Bush invaded Iraq did to engage the hostility.......

And, the owner of the Kosher deli was part of that? Really? Please explain. And, FWIW, I'm not your buddy. Convinced now that you are not a woman.

It's allowed to think and reflect, sometimes......

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, you haven't answered my question. What did the owner of the kosher deli do to engage the hostility?

Ahh, so now you know it's not just about the cartoons? You're on the right track buddy.....I will tell you, when you tell me what the Iraqi children who died when Bush invaded Iraq did to engage the hostility.......

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

Hah! Honey, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. I understand how courts work far better than you, clearly. Try selling "she asked for it" to a judge as a defense to murder. Go for it. And if a judge DID buy that argument, he is a terrible judge. The parallel universe is yours.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

I love it! Clearly, you know more about the American legal system than I do, having only attended the #2 law school in the country and practiced for 13 years. I bow down. Will go buy my niqab now.
You're a joke.

You are proof that sometimes, one should just stay at the local community college. Your inability to engage in simple comprehension is quite frankly disturbing......

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

Hah! Honey, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. I understand how courts work far better than you, clearly. Try selling "she asked for it" to a judge as a defense to murder. Go for it. And if a judge DID buy that argument, he is a terrible judge. The parallel universe is yours.

Muslima is obviously referring to the heat of passion defense, which allows cuckolded boyfriends to kill without repercussion, and also should apply to those who rightfully kill those who insult Mohammad.

No, that's not what I'm referring to......

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

Hah! Honey, I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer. I understand how courts work far better than you, clearly. Try selling "she asked for it" to a judge as a defense to murder. Go for it. And if a judge DID buy that argument, he is a terrible judge. The parallel universe is yours.

Sometimes, even Harvard is not enough Come back to me after after you spend some time at Yale, but I don't think they will let you in.....

Anonymous wrote:

That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.

Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

I don't think anyone stated that they deserved to be killed, but to make this an entire debate over freedom of speech is ridiculous when stated freedom of speech is not universal nor absolute

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

You make excuses for them. Which you wouldn't do for other violent criminals. Hypocrite. When the man kills his wife, do you make sure to raise the "social and political context" from which he is coming? Of course not. Because it's not relevant. He's a violent criminal.
You haven't once offered any suggestion for reducing the extremist Islamic violence except for people to stop offending extremists. So your bias is clear.

Education is an important part of human development, without it, critical thinking is absent and one can not have intelligent conversations. Going to your example of a man killing his wife, in any trial court, the defense will present mitigating circumstances that are considered by the court in sentencing. The fact that you are unable to understand this doesn't mean the outside world operates under the rules of your parallel universe.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

I have read your posts. Out of one side of your mouth, you condemn the killings. Out of the other side you say things like "But they shouldn't be surprised they get a violent reaction for blaspheming the prophet." I reject that. The onus should not be on the victim to prevent the crime. The onus is on the criminal. It is not the victim's fault. You very much like to blame the victim here.

I am have criticized them because i believe that what they are doing is wrong, but i am not going to ignore the social and pollitical context from which they are coming from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, I mean as someone who values the Western idea of feminism (both of my parents, especially my father, were proud feminists and children of the 60s), it makes me sad that other women who are living in a Western country are wholeheartedly rejecting that idea, either consciously or unconsciously. I feel the same way about quiverful women, too, although that choice is usually made consciously, rather than unconsciously.

You realize that's the same thing, right? You value the Western idea of feminism. It makes you sad other people don't value it like you do. You want everyone to be like you and it makes you sad that they aren't.

Silly me. I thought feminism was about freedom of choice. You and people like you are simply incapable of imagining that someone may make a choice different from yours voluntarily. In your mind, freedom of choice means everyone chooses exactly what you would. If they don't, they must be forced.

Too bad you don't see that forcing someone to conform to the dress code you have in mind is pure violence.

I understand that a woman's choice is the heart of feminism. I understand that in this country, women choose to work or not, get married or not, have children or not, have careers or hobbies or sit on the couch eating bonbons all day. I also understand that other cultures don't allow that choice. And Muslima is not convincing me that every niqabi has chosen A instead of B.

Pure violence? What is the greatest determinate for sexual abuse and gender dicrimination? Gender inequality.

I don't see any contradiction in this, you are essentially agreeing with me. You have trouble believing that anyone who chooses differently from you is choosing it voluntarily. You need special proof that they are, because you think that anyone in their right mind would choose exactly the way you did. And you are going to be reeeeally picky with that proof. Like, "no, still not convinced!"

If you think that uncovered women are never sexually abused or discriminated against, you're wrong.

+1000. Narrowmindness at its best

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.

I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?

There is lots of disagreement on interpreta

tion. For example, you are a Sunni, but millions of Shiites disagree with you on key points. I don't believe you're Wahhabi, but are you saying they're "bad" Muslims where various articles of faith, like niqabs and sharia punishments, are concerned?

That's the thing about saying you need context to read the Quran-it's basically saying that my context is right and yours is wrong, ergo my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. The Shiites and Wahhabis have their own contexts. (As an aside, Islam is also supposed to be a religion where you don't need a priest to interpret meaning or context for you.) Everybody thinks they're right, whether the disagreement is on veiling requirements or vanishing imams, and it's not for you to say they're necessarily straying from the "right" interpretation. That's also the thing about having no centralized authority: there are so many independent judges issuing conflicting interpretations on nearly every issue.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. When I say context, I'm talking about when and why the verse was revealed, there is no dispute on that as those are historical events, so your context and my context cannot be different. Shias and wahabis have their own interpretations but they are a minority , so the majority of Muslims do not practice Islam the way they do. Does it mean they are wrong? I don't agree with some of their interpretations but that is my opinion. However if someone tells me Islam says to kill unbelievers, I can theologically prove them wrong, using facts and events that are recorded and preserved and using the message of the Quran. When it comes to veiling or not, that comes under interpretation, that's a practice, so that has nothing to do with the Core of the message. There are 4 schools of thought in Sunni Islam which means, there are only 4 recognized interpretations of the major Islamic laws. Shias have their own school but they represent less than 10% of the Muslims. You don't need a priest to interpret something for you if you are learned, and have knowledge. If you've never studied the Qu'ran, how can you make up your interpretations? Muslims are supposed to learn their religion, ponder on it. The quran itself says “A book We have sent down to you, blessed, that men possessed of mind may Ponder its signs end so remember”. (38:29)

"Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Quran, or are their hearts locked up?"

If the Word of God was stated only in very simple language, its application in a wide variety of cultures, eras, and fields of study would be extremely limited, so again, God balanced His Book between simplicity and complexity to serve the needs of all humanity at the same time.
So, whenever you read the Quran, you should ponder upon its meaning, what is the meaning of this verse? What is the meaning of this word?
This does not mean that you invent (the meaning) from yourself , this is not permissible, rather you should refer to the authentic trustworthy books of Tafseer .

And if after that, you still don't know. The Quran tells you to ask. You have to ask the people of knowledge, Allah says, "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not." [(16): 43] and the Messenger (saw) said,

"…Shouldn't they have asked if they didn't know?! Verily the cure of all ignorance is to ask!" [Abu Dawood]

So when we say, we don't need priests , what is meant is we don't need an intermediary, we pray directly to God, but we definitely need scholars to understand Islam. The companions had the Prophet (saw) who explained to them the meaning of the verses, you cant learn Islam or read the Quran in a vacuum, you will just not get the message that way.

Anonymous wrote:My worry about the Quran (although not about most Muslims) is that it has a strong undercurrent of Us versus Them. More than the Bible or the Talmud or other similar texts, it has more than its fair share of statements to the effect that non-Muslims aren't to be treated with the same dignity or worth. It is both obsessed with non-Muslims and dismissive of them at the same time.

You would only get this idea if you read the Quran literslly without any understanding of the context or what the verses are related to. The Quran was revealed during 23 years, and during those 23 years, a verse, chapter was revealed depending on what was going on at the time. So yes, there are battle/war verses in the Quran referring to the period where the Muslims were at war against the pagans in Makka. But all of the verses in the Quran, even the most violent one talk about Self-defense, it adjusts says, if they attack you, then do x, y z but if they stop, you stop. There isn't one that calls for going around the world killing unbelievers.
Quran 2:190 Fight in the cause of God those who start fighting you, but do NOT transgress limits (or start the attack); for God loveth not transgressors. Respect his freedom of choice to be a "Disbeliever" - as this is a right bestowed upon humanity by God:
Quran 18:29 proclaims, "The truth is from your Lord": it is the free will of any person to believe (in God) or to be an Infidel (Un believer).

 Even if a Muslim should be convinced that someone is a non-believer, still he must accept that his fate is in the hands of God alone, since no one human can condemn another - this must be left to the judgment of God. 
Quran 88:25-26 for behold, unto (ONLY) Us (means God) will be their return, Then it will be for (ONLY) Us to Judge (humans).
22:17 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians (can mean an ancient religion or people with no specific religion), Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God (alone) is witness of all things. 

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one objects to uncovered faces when security is an issue (i.e. at ID checks, security checks, airline check-ins, ID pictures etc.), but security issues are up to the security personnel to handle. Women who cover their faces have no issues showing them for people charged with security. You are not that person, and no one has an obligation to uncover before YOU.

That is your opinion. There is a lot more to security than Transportation Security. There is a reason that tinted windows aren't allowed in a lot of states. Same thing.

Your opinion is a valuable one , but the US government and the governments of the majority of countries in the world do not agree with you, so niqabis will still wear their niqabs and go on with their day. If that frightens you, too bad!!!

It doesn't frighten me, it makes me sad. As a modern Western woman, living in a modern Western world.

And I am sad for you as well. God bless your heart!