I think the math analogy is not appropriate. Don’t get me wrong, in the West women do not have equal rights as men either – for example men can go topless whereas women can not go topless. It’s easy for me to see this. I would not use you math analogy and try to redefine equal. I would acknowledge that men and women are not treated equally under the law and accept that is the case.
The analogy is completely appropriate, and done so by mathematics (something that's rather difficult to argue). There are two ways of getting equal, but those two ways are not the same. Men and women are to be treated equal, but there are different advantages one has over the other that makes them that way.
I own a Qur’an but I’ve only read sections.
For my sake, just try reading the entire book with an open mind. If you read only sections, then you can't read it by context.
As for the “enlightening” topic. I do not need to be enlightened to appreciate something which was found enlightening. For example, I have tried to perform Zen meditation. I can not do it. I suppose to do so I would need to devote some serious time to it and who know maybe someday I will. That said, I appreciate when people say Zen meditation brings peace to them they never found in life. Actually, one very close friend of mine says when he was young he was always angry and got in fights all the time and never had any peace of mind. He met another ex-Muslim who convinced him Zen meditation would help him and is now a very happy Atheist who does meditation often. Here is something he found out. Eating meat makes reaching Zen nearly impossible. Thus many monks are vegetarians. Further, purposely causing harm makes reaching Zen difficult. Thus peace is a better frame of mind to be in if Zen is a goal. Lastly, from my own reading, old Zen monks have larger hippocampal volume (a part of the brain involved in happiness) and this is probably because they exercise this part of the brain when they meditate. So, to me, the enlightening part is that meditation increases the number of neurons in the limbic system (a known area of neuron birth) and thus can lead to an increase happiness. That happiness can be related to this physical event is in my mind enlightening. It's also the reason why Prozac works - it does something similar to mediation. I can appreciate what monks wrote down regarding meditation and happiness even though I can not do meditation.
Wow, thanks for the Zen meditation information. I kind of lost track of how this related to women in Islam. Oh well, I'll take you word for it.
I more than accept Muslim polygamy and have no desire that Muslims change to become monogamists.
So why are you constantly bringing up the issue? If you truly accept polygamy in Islam, is it safe to say that this section of the debate is closed?
Perhaps I will or someone else will. But, I had taken that your argument was that polygamy should be respected because we should respect other peoples choice if their choice is not harming us. By not accepting homosexuality you are at odds with this position. Either we accept people can make their own choice and if that choice doesn't harm thing then it’s fine for them to make it or we don’t accept that position. As you don’t accept that – such an argument wasn’t your real position. Your real position must be that the Qur’an says this and thus it is this. To me that’s a sad place to put oneself
.
By Islamic law, you cannot allow something just because it is someone's choice. People do make their own choices and decisions in life, and a lot of the times, they're wrong. What if my choice was to kill everybody who disagreed with me? What if I hated my life and chose to end it? These are poorly informed choices and shouldn't be allowed just because I formed them. There are rules and laws that are in place for a reason. Homosexuality, for instance, could be outlawed for a number of reasons.
Maybe because STDs/AIDS for homosexuals is much greater?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
Maybe because if everybody was allowed to do it, the population would stifle?
Who knows? All are legitimate arguments, and all favor disallowing homosexual practice.
I swear Sam said that homosexuality is not against Islamic practice.]
Ask her.
Sam’s definition of Islam is more open minded and broader than your’s. Just believe Mohammad was a Prophet and there is only one God. Basically even Baha’i are Muslims. Gays are Muslims etc…
I never thought I'd hear that, considering I was born, raised, and live in a Western nation. If you asked Sam, I'm pretty sure she as well believes Muhammad was a prophet and there is only one God. Those are the primary principles of Islam, and will propably be recited most often. I don't see how you can say gays are Muslims. If a homosexual man says he's Muslim, he is not Muslim just because he says he is. If he was a Muslim, he would comply to Islam. Is an illegal Mexican alien an American? He can claim to be American, but he is there illegally; thus, he is not American.
What is your definition of the word “Islam”?
Do you think that the USA should take Iraqi’s as slaves? Can you imagine what it would take to turn people who hate you into your servants? What would USA families who want to own Iraq slaves have to do to those people to break their will and turn them into slaves?
I anticipated this argument from you. NO, I do not think the USA should take Iraqis for slaves BECAUSE the WAR ITSELF was completely UNJUSTIFIED. Want to debate the Iraqi war? I'm MORE THAN happy to. It was a completely unjustifiable war originated from falsehood and deception.
On this point we will have to disagree. Slavery in my opinion is evil. Common sense will tell you that what is required to break a person and turn them into a slave is heinous.
So what do you propose to do with the people left over after war? Leave them so they can possibly harm you, or kill them all so they can't?
Back on topic:
Do you think that the Islamic countries like Afghanistan, KSA, Iran and Pakistan are fair or unfair in the legal treatment of women? Why?
Well, I have never been to these nations, so I can't tell you first-hand how they treat women. From what I see, from what I hear, from what I read, I can tell you their treatment of women is wrong by any definition. There isn't a religion under the sun which would condone and encourage such actions. I find the hostile treatment towards women 'unfair' and 'illegal' because not only does it go against my religion, but innocent people are hurt in the process.
I once asked my Iranian buddy what Iran would be like if it were Xian. (He's not Xian he's atheist) and he said it would be a lot better - probably just like any European country. In his mind having an Islamic government has ruined his country. I wonder if that's true? Would Iran be just like France if it were Xian? Interesting notion.
You asked your 'Iranian buddy.' What about the other tens of millions of people that could disagree? I know two Iranian families that moved over to Vancouver, and they seriously thought communism was what Iran should be run by. Do you think Iran could be successful and prosperous under communism?
1) Do you think that Xian’s, Hindu, Buddhists and Jews should be allowed to build places of worship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Lets suppose they bought some land and wanted to build a Temple – should that be legal?
No, I do not think these religions should build their shrines of worship on Muslim lands. No Muslim could build a Mosque in a region or area dominated by another religion, especially if it were constructed near a Hindu holy site. If these religions have their own land, then they should build it on their land only. However, any of these religions should be free to build a holy place of worship on a soil like, say, America, because America is a democracy. These things are legal here (even if mosques are usually vandalized).
2) Do you think that the wars against the Persians in the 637–51 (when they were conquered by Muslims) were just? Can wars of aggression ever be just?
This question is way too broad and is an overwhelming generalization. There were probably thousands of wars and skirmishes, so for me to say the whole ordeal was 'aggressive' or 'justified' is a bit outlandish.
