Sunday, November 19, 2006
Muslim feminists want to start a Koran council
ASMA recently held a women's conference, and at the conference they called for something extreme: they called for women to start a Koran council to reinterpet the Koran according to womenly perspectives! They claimed the Koran was a pro-woman document, but the interpretation of it was anti-woman, and as applied is anti-woman. All I can say is...good luck.
(see previous post about this here)
What do you all think? Will this be successful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sounds good to me.
I can just imagine the outrage from the fundie muslim extremists.
I would do security for them if they needed, keeping out the would be acid throwers and honor killers. I've played enough videogames to know how to beat up bad guys.
Christianity took about 1400 years, from 300 to 1700 to start to reform. It still took 200 years to actually see some results.
If Islam takes the same tact, it's 1400 year militant phase (after the golden age) should end around 2600. Perhaps by 2900 Islam (if there are more then a remnant of Muslims left on earth)should be at the same stage that christianity is today.
If these feminists don't like the current Islam, maybe they should consider converting to Christianity or secular humanism.
There is nothing in the Quran for women. They are deemed second class citizens within the Quran (it specifies women only have half the brain of what a man has), women are second class citizens within Islamic culture and women are second class citizens under Sharia Law.
Steven,
To be fair, the bible has verses such as those as well.
Obviously the only way the Koran could be pro-woman is for Muslims to ignore verses such as those, just as Christians and Jews ignore verses such as those.
At one point, one wonders...if there is so much being ignored, what's the point?
As far as God goes...I disagree. One can just as easily claim divine right for atrocities.
Red Tulips, I think you haven't grasped the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity is a religion that is separated from the government/legal system and only has a say in matters of morality/ethics. Islam is a religious/political system. Not only that, it doesn't accommodate nationality, ethnicity, any laws other than Sharia, no ethics, no tradition other than Islamic, no moral values other than what the Mullahs decree. Unlike Christianity, Islam has a built in agenda, world domination which cannot be ignored by its followers. Islam has zero tolerance for other religions,check out Saudi Arabia. Islam doesn't recognise the concept of Human Rights, it doesn't acknowledge the United Nations, it doesn't tolerate diversity. In our society we can question the truth about the Bible and choose whether we believe it to be fact or mythology. Under Islam you believe what's in the Quran and that's that.
""""Christianity is a religion that is separated from the government/legal system and only has a say in matters of morality/ethics. """"
You clearly haven't been keeping up with modern political developments, or you're just an apologist for the theocons.
Here is today's Dennis Prager Radio interview with Robert Spencer on the subject of moderate islam and radical islam.
http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3
""God is a logical fallacy... but so is the belief that everything has always just existed.""
No one has killed anyone over the idea that everything always existed.
And the vast majority of atheists subscribe to some variation of the big bang.
So the number of people who think everything always existed are in the minority, and most people just pose it as philosophical conjecture and a mental excercise.
An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic doesn't know if god exists. Maybe yes, maybe no. So you can't be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.
Felix> What if you believe in God (well my definition is more something like natural law than the standard deity), but are uncertain about all else, but accept the existence of absolutes and objective truth, though have no idea what they are?
RB> A religion without logical fallacies may be so milquetoast and uninteretsing that no one would bother showing up for the service. I'm not religious now, but I can understand the appeal of mystery.
Now, as for the original topic, I think the idea is a good one, but they have their work cut out for them. Even some reforms in a faith don't do too much good, except when the proper reaction occurs.
But more power to those who fight the good fight.
Jason,
please fill me in on modern political developments. I am not an apologist or theocon. I am a atheist.
It should firstly be noted that most atheists are not 'strong' atheists (ie, BELIEVE there is no God), but rather are 'weak' atheists, meaning, they do not believe in God without proof, and see no PROOF God exists. I fall into the weak atheist category.
As far as the theory of creation - to accept matter in the universe always existed is of no greater logical impossibility for humans than to accept that God always existed. But there is more than that. The concept of infinity is beyond human comprehension. The concept of forever is beyond human comprehension.
And thus, I believe that if somehow God does exist, it is wholly irrelevant to all our lives, as we would all be beyond understanding such a force. Worship wouold be irrelevant. Theological exploration would be irrelevant. God, if it exists, is so beyond our understanding, that it would be equivalent to ants worshipping humans, a pathetic and impossible exercise.
But I also think we are like ants. I see some beauty in the world, and I see human beauty, but I also see extreme ugliness, and I also know humans have been around for less than 10,000 years. We are a fart in the history of time. Perhaps we are God's fart, if God exists. By that I mean, perhaps God did not even intend to create us, if we are creations of God. Perhaps God farted and we are the smelly sulphuric excrements left over. Is this any less of a possibility than what religion says???
The universe was clearly not created for humanity's benefit. If God particularly created humanity, then why create such a vast and wide universe, with so many other galaxies, solar systems, planets, and stars? The universe is so vast and wide and we are such a tiny little speck on it, that, frankly, I fail to see human significance. We do think we are significant - but I am sure apes think they are significant as well - it is all a matter of perspective.
And so ultimately, life is what you make it. If humanity believes in justice, then there is justice. If humanity believes that a higher power guides their actions, they will organize society as such, and then in a sense 'create' God, which in many senses is merely a concept, rather than a metaphysical being.
If you think about the path of human evolution, it takes ideas that worked when formed, and uses them as the basis to form newer, better ideas, and such.
I don't know if humanity is ready for a godless world. I think most people need something to believe in and would go crazy if they thought God did not exist. But I also think, nay, I know, that a fully secular world is not necessarily an amoral world, because of the concept of humam evolution. The ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, while they have a foundation in religion, are so firmly ingrained in society, that it does not NEED religion to have validity. In fact, religions are the ones now who are causing injustice - just look at the way the 'big three' religions treat women and gays. (I include judaism in this - the orthodox are NOT wholly ecumenical)
And so, to sum it all up, I am fascinated by religious philosophy, as I see it as essential to the underpinning of society. However, I do not believe that society needs religion to determine 'good and evil' in the future. It just DOESN'T need the destructive 'post-modernists' (many of whom were also anti-Israel, see: Focault), who are wrecking havoc on the world.
Post a Comment