Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does DH go shopping with you, make the purchasing decisions and stand in line and pay for things like clothes for you and DC or food?

Wow, uncalled for. I'm not a muslim, either. It doesn't hold a candle to threads on Christianity. (Can you imagine how "I'm a Catholic, ask me anything?" would turn out?) But maybe we can all try to be respectful??

Why is this not respectful to ask if her husband makes most of the everyday purchasing decisions for the family? Many women do these things for their families.

Anonymous wrote:Does DH go shopping with you, make the purchasing decisions and stand in line and pay for things like clothes for you and DC or food?

Wow, uncalled for. I'm not a muslim, either. It doesn't hold a candle to threads on Christianity. (Can you imagine how "I'm a Catholic, ask me anything?" would turn out?) But maybe we can all try to be respectful??

Does DH go shopping with you, make the purchasing decisions and stand in line and pay for things like clothes for you and DC or food?

I have read the koran, and DD had to read it for high school. Both of us came away thinking that the koran was generous towards non-believers in some places, and frankly really intolerant - worse than intolerant -- in other places. I'm not going to get into quoting the koran because I don't want to look like one of those freaky islamophobic bloggers, also I think quoting the koran is unnecessary because I'm guessing you know what I'm referring to wrt christians, jews, polytheists, and apostates (people who leave Islam).

My question is, this can't just all be written off as "cultural" because some of it's in the koran, which is the word of God. So how do you approach these verses? Do you think some of them were directed at peoples in another time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Islam impose a higher moral standard for how you treat other Muslims than for how you treat non-Muslims?

Not OP but Another Muslim poster: nope- a person is a person.

A Muslim man once told me if want fine for him to sleep with non-Muslim women outside of marriage but that he would be defiling a Muslim woman if he did that with her before marriage. I found that insulting. What was he talking about?

OP here: That Muslim man was obviously a jackass (sorry for my language but as I said, I'm a liberal Muslim and I take liberty to use colorful language when I get upset with people like this). Too bad you can't publish his identity so that all Muslim women can know to stay away from him.

I'm pretty sure there are separate rules for the women a man owns "with his right hand," i.e. slaves. He is free to use the women he owns with his right hand. It's also relevant that a muslim cannot hold another muslim as a slave.

It seems to me that this would apply not just to adultery, but to sex outside marriage under any circumstances.

Are the penalties for rape better, or worse, than the 100 lashes prescribed here?

Anonymous wrote:You don't need 4 witnesses to prove rape. You need 4 witnesses to prove adultery.

There are several Hadith that discuss a woman's testimony alone or a man's confession being enough to convict for rape.

There can be such a fine line that this distinction is very fuzzy for practical purposes. That's why, in places like Pakistan, there is no distinction. Honestly, not everything can be dismissed as "cultural" because some of it is based on a reading of the Quran. Here's the relevant verse from what seems to be a neutral online source:

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

Also, I don't get how hadith are useless for interpretting this per an earlier post, except for the handful of hadith that a more modern interpretation.

You don't need 4 witnesses to prove rape. You need 4 witnesses to prove adultery.

There are several Hadith that discuss a woman's testimony alone or a man's confession being enough to convict for rape.

Do you view the Quran as the literal word of God as conveyed to Mohammed, or do you see it as being divinely inspired? Some of the other Abrahamic faiths have a similar tension: is the Bible the word of God, or is it divinely inspired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true that all major religions were very misogynistic when created, but most have become more gender-neutral in practice. Why hasn't Islam followed suit? Why can't women drive in Saudi Arabia? And I honestly can't believe that people on this board are defending the 'women's word is worth 1/2 of men's.' I believe in countries like Pakistan, you need 4 witnesses to report a rape. As if that ever happens.

I don't see anyone defending anything. Just trying to explain. Islam is very often practiced liberally. Mostly in the west, but also in the upper classes of many predominantly Muslim countries. Culture has a huge influence, and Indonesian Muslims practice Islam very differently than Saudis, for example.

It's not 4 witnesses for rape. It's 4 witnesses to prove adultery. Huge difference.

OP here: There are definitely a lot of rules that need to be further explained because they certainly make Muslims societies look paternalistic and oppressive to women. Some Shaira laws are indeed very oppressive to women. But if you just look at the Quran and not the Sharia the rules can be explained well. The requirement for witnesses was implemented in order to protect WOMEN. Sometimes men would accuse women of adultery. If the account of only one witness were to suffice what if that one witness was lying? Thus, four witnesses are required to bring a case against a woman accused of adultery. It makes it very hard to bring a case against a woman, let alone convict her then.

But whatever the origin, it leads to such difficult consequences. A woman cannot prove rape unless she has 4 witnesses. This is regardless of whether she is married, or one of the rapists is married. If she charges rape but can't produce the 4 witnesses, then she herself is charged with adultery and subject to a prescribed punishment, whipping or stoning, I forget which. Also, there is no such thing as rape within marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Islam impose a higher moral standard for how you treat other Muslims than for how you treat non-Muslims?

Not OP but Another Muslim poster: nope- a person is a person.

My grad school friend's roommate wouldn't shake my hand because as a non-believer I was unclean. I thought there were special tax rules and protected statuses for People of the Book vs. atheists and polytheists, too?

Was the Muslim a man or a woman? What are you? Muslims aren't supposed to shake hands of the opposite sex, but it has nothing to do with being unclean.

Muslims pay zakat.
Christians and Jews living in an Islamic state paid jizyah. Muslim rulers in India extended the tax on Hindus and Sikhs. I don't know if it exists anywhere today.

OP here: Muslims ARE allowed to shake the hands of the opposite sex. The Quran never, not once, states this is forbidden. Because the Quran states that there should be modesty between men and women, people have inferred it must mean there must be absolutely no touching at all between people of the opposite sex. This is ridiculous. It's just more ignorance that is rampant in our Muslim communities.

Can I ask what school of law you follow? Or are you a Qu'ranist? Because all four madhabs of Sunni Islam state it is impermissible for men and women to shake hands, with some very limited exceptions. If you are a Qu'ranist, that's fine. But that is a very small minority view of Islam. To call other Sunnis who follow the four major schools of law ignorant is just wrong.

How do you feel when one of your clerics says that any Muslim can kill people for puttingllah in a cartoon, or the satanic verses, or a Turkish soap opera?

http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/03/09/reuters-tv-turkish-soap-operas-ignite-culture-war-i?videoId=231452645

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true that all major religions were very misogynistic when created, but most have become more gender-neutral in practice. Why hasn't Islam followed suit? Why can't women drive in Saudi Arabia? And I honestly can't believe that people on this board are defending the 'women's word is worth 1/2 of men's.' I believe in countries like Pakistan, you need 4 witnesses to report a rape. As if that ever happens.

I don't see anyone defending anything. Just trying to explain. Islam is very often practiced liberally. Mostly in the west, but also in the upper classes of many predominantly Muslim countries. Culture has a huge influence, and Indonesian Muslims practice Islam very differently than Saudis, for example.

It's not 4 witnesses for rape. It's 4 witnesses to prove adultery. Huge difference.

OP here: There are definitely a lot of rules that need to be further explained because they certainly make Muslims societies look paternalistic and oppressive to women. Some Shaira laws are indeed very oppressive to women. But if you just look at the Quran and not the Sharia the rules can be explained well. The requirement for witnesses was implemented in order to protect WOMEN. Sometimes men would accuse women of adultery. If the account of only one witness were to suffice what if that one witness was lying? Thus, four witnesses are required to bring a case against a woman accused of adultery. It makes it very hard to bring a case against a woman, let alone convict her then.

Anonymous wrote:Do you consider yourself to be a "patriotic" American?

OP here: yes I do consider myself to be patriotic. In the war with Iraq, I didn't condone our country being there but I supported our troops and prayed for their safe return. I do support the U.S. being in Pakistan and Afghanistan because that's where the mastermind of 9/11 was hiding out and the U.S. has every right to enter a country from which mass terrorism was inflicted on our country..especially since Afghanistan and Pakistan probably on their own would do nothing to catch Bin Laden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Islam impose a higher moral standard for how you treat other Muslims than for how you treat non-Muslims?

Not OP but Another Muslim poster: nope- a person is a person.

My grad school friend's roommate wouldn't shake my hand because as a non-believer I was unclean. I thought there were special tax rules and protected statuses for People of the Book vs. atheists and polytheists, too?

Was the Muslim a man or a woman? What are you? Muslims aren't supposed to shake hands of the opposite sex, but it has nothing to do with being unclean.

Muslims pay zakat.
Christians and Jews living in an Islamic state paid jizyah. Muslim rulers in India extended the tax on Hindus and Sikhs. I don't know if it exists anywhere today.

OP here: Muslims ARE allowed to shake the hands of the opposite sex. The Quran never, not once, states this is forbidden. Because the Quran states that there should be modesty between men and women, people have inferred it must mean there must be absolutely no touching at all between people of the opposite sex. This is ridiculous. It's just more ignorance that is rampant in our Muslim communities.