Islamophobia in the West

[basics]

In what religion does one half have a say in what the other half does? How does that even work?

PointOhViewGun,

I said that in Islam one half does not have a say in what the other half does so let me explain that better. Assuming male and female numbers are the same then the female population does not have a say in what the male population does. The male is in charge of every aspect of the female's life.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOhViewGun,

I said that in Islam one half does not have a say in what the other half does so let me explain that better. Assuming male and female numbers are the same then the female population does not have a say in what the male population does. The male is in charge of every aspect of the female's life.

That is simply false but I was asking in what religion does one half have a say in what the other half does. Which religion has women have a say in what men does? If you can substantiate that I can understand the points you're looking at.

[pacifism]

200,000 is a good size army. And for every combat soldier, there are typically 3 support staff, making it like 600,000 Muslims committed to killing non Muslims. That is a lot, since you don't have 200,000 Christians and Buddhist terrorist motivated solely by religion.

200,000 is more troops than the US has in the middle east right now, and you are not including the Iranian army, which should be included, since the entire country is operating under Islamic principles.



The SS only numbered around 250,000 in WW2. The population of Germany in WW2 was around 70 million, and 250k wasn't even 1%, so the SS should not have been a problem?

The fact that all, not some Muslim countries, but all, treat non Muslims as 2nd class citizens with inferior right doesn't bother you at all?. So itnis ok if Muslims kill non Muslims as long at it is only a small percentage doing the actual.killng and the majority of Muslims just let the minority do it without joining in is all right?.

That 20% of Muslims countries have death penalties for apostates and blasphemers, including the 2nd most populous Muslim country, Pakistan, that is more like 200 million Muslims, not a small number or a small percentage.

First of all, your apology means a lot to me, so thank you very much.

I’m not saying that it’s a small number, I’m saying it’s a small percentage. If we were to divide terrorists by their religious beliefs, I’m fairly confident that there are more self-identified Muslim terrorists than any other religion. But I don’t know how important that fact is because non-terrorists outnumber terrorists by such a large margin in any religion. When it comes to deciding how widespread or representative a certain belief is, the percentage of people who believe something is more important than the number. Here’s an example why percentages matter more than numbers. If someone said that Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t have a hate problem because only about seventy people there are hateful, that would be silly because there are only seventy or so people at that church, so actually about 100% of that church has a hate problem.

In the case of this little Godwin’s Law thing we have going, the average Nazi was not in the SS or running death camps. They were civilians. Personally, I find it a lot more insightful to examine Nazi Germany by what it was like for the general public and ordinary people, both the minority working in the government and the majority everyday citizens. A German baker or something from 1918 to 1945 is not exactly guilty of being involved in any of the human rights abuses of their country. They probably made excuses about why strong, capable leadership was more important than a democratic lawmaking process, or rationalizations why the plight of certain other people didn’t matter as much as their own. They did that to explain away why they chose to be happy that life was better for them now and ignorant that it was so much horrifically worse for others. I think that we can both agree that that line of thinking done by an average German was wrong and that person should have never voted NDSAP if they ever did, but that individual’s actual actions were never that evil. As I said to Axalon, people are only responsible for their own actions, not others in their in-group.

For the Middle Eastern equivalent of Joe Sixpack, he doesn’t really have much say in how his country is run or in reigning in the human rights abuses if legitimate opposition parties don't exist or there is no civilian control of the military. I mean, what do you expect, people to start a bloody civil war to maybe depose the government but probably get crushed? Honestly, the whole idea that you’re implying - that citizens agree with what their governments do 100% of the time - is bizarre, to say the least. There are quite a few Muslims who vocally oppose terror, and the Arab Spring protests show there is a desire for democracy and more accountable governments.

“But wait!”, I can imagine you thinking. “Why are you blaming the normal civilian in Nazi Germany for something but not the normal civilian in the Middle East, what with their terrorists and dictators?” Well, first of all, nowhere in the Middle East is as bad as Nazi Germany. Secondly, I’m not saying that anyone is ever completely without blame. Given where the conversation has gone so far, I think that I have emphasize a different aspect of that. Third, terrorist groups are non-state organizations, and it’s really the responsibility of law enforcement or sometimes the military to deal with that, not ordinary citizens. But for the dictatorship that they live under, there may have never been a legal recourse for the people. The ultimate authority of governments like the current ones in Iran or Saudi Arabia are not answerable to the people and never have been. A majority of the members of the council that elects the Supreme Leader of Iran are chosen by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. The transition out of the Weimar Republic to a one-party state was basically a legal and democratically accepted use of emergency powers, so the comparison between that and the Middle East is really a lot less straightforward in my mind.

Really, the only thing you can expect of someone in a Middle Eastern dictatorship to do is either start protests or start revolutions in a country with huge restrictions on opposition media, internet access, freedom of speech and protest, freedom of press, etc., which is a tall order and – frankly – easy for us to say. My argument has been that if we take these people and offer them a new life in our countries, we can start giving them a taste for democracy, civil liberties, and religious freedom. Arab Spring shows that there quite a few people in the Middle East with an appetite for that sort of thing. Doing something like that will provide a stronger foundation for a more peaceful Middle East one day. I don’t see how returning hostility with hostility and aggression with aggression changes anything, because it would just lead to more escalation and violence and blurs who the good guys even are anymore.

To answer your question on whether it bothers me that all these Muslim countries don’t have freedom of religion like in the developed world: not particularly more than any other country that places restrictions on religious freedom. Although many countries that place restrictions on the free practice and spread of religions are Muslim, many of the people who cannot free practice or spread their faith are living in other countries such as India or China. It’s not that the lack of freedom in the Middle East doesn’t matter to me, it merely matters to me just as much as the lack of religious freedom in non-Muslim countries too.

I never said colonialism was moral, only that was not what made the Muslim world backwards as you assert. Islamic religion, not colonialism, lay at the root of thr Middle East problem. The same factors, driven by religion, that enabled the Europeans to colonize the Middle East in the first place are at work causing its problems today.



American Indians are not committing terrorist acts around the world. American Indians are not responsible for 90% of the terrorist deaths in the US. Muslims are.

Your example proves my point. Aborigines, American Indians, Southeast Asians, are not going around killing other groups, Muslims are.

So what?

ISIS fighters are not fighting against Israel. The Iranian terrorist commander was killed in Iraq, not Israel, and most of the terrorist attacks he was directing were in Iraq, not Israel.

Gaddafi launched a military attack against Israel as far as I can recall - can you show where he did?

Ans please show me where Gaddafi was overthrown because of his support for Israel? Khomeini overthrew the Shah because Khomeini wanted to implement an Islamic Republic, and implement Islamic policies like having sexnwith 10 years old girls and killing young girls for adultery, not because of Israel. The Iran Hostage criss happened because Carter planned to let the Shah into the US, and they were released when Reagan became president, even though Reagan was a big Israel supporter.



The wars were decades ago, before most ofnthe ISIS fighters were born. The ISIS fighters came from all over Europe ro implement the Islamic Caliphate, it is even in their name, remmeber? How many military battles did ISIS launch against Israel? Israelmisna factormin the Middle East, but is no the only one or even the biggest factor these daysm



And how long was Syria a French colony? Less than 50 years? And how long ago was it since has been a French colony? 26 years? And how long was it a colony of the Islamic Ottoman Empire - 400 years?

And Libya was an Ottoman colony for 360 years, and Italian colony for 32 years. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the Ottoman occupation for 10 times the length had less impact than the Italian and French occupation s?

You misunderstand my point. I wasn’t there or anything, but I’m pretty sure Khomeini didn’t overthrow the Shah because he wanted to legalize having sex with ten-year-olds. What I was saying was that Gaddafi and Khomeini came to power in their respective country’s revolution that was in part due to dissatisfaction with the Idris and Pahlavi regimes pro-West (and implicitly pro-Israel) stance. Providing support and solidarity with the Palestinian resistance was a huge part of their messaging. And by the way, you can’t dismiss the Syrian wars with Israel because they were a few decades ago. For someone who brings up the Armenian genocide and conquest of Alexandria(!) as pertinent historical information about The Muslims^TM, it’s really not a good look to be dismissive of the relevance of those wars that happened within a normal lifetime ago. They’re a big part of the political history of Syria that brought it to the sorry state it’s in now.

In the case of Daesh, they were actually something of an anomaly because they saw Israel a non-immediate adversary. They were pretty unusual for opposing Hamas, but they didn’t do it because they were pro-Israel. Daesh was anti-Palestinian because it thought that it held the monopoly on the only legitimate form of jihad as a caliphate. That’s also how they ended up fighting al-Qaeda. Basically, they wanted to save the fight against Israel for themselves, but the first priority was the so-called purification of Muslim societies.

And I’ve said multiple times, it doesn’t matter how long those countries were colonies. What matters is that the colonization and decolonization process is what lead to the borders drawn the way they are, what government was put in place for the newly-independent nation, what problems colonialism caused in the meantime, and so on. Those events did more to shape the current issues in the Middle East than the exact number of years Syria and Libya were part of the Ottoman Empire. I don’t understand how you and Axalon keep confusing this point. It’s embarrassing that you act like the Umayyads or whatever are the most relevant part of this story. If the actions of the Umayyads and Ottomans explain the existence of Islamic terror, why weren’t terrorist archer militias shooting up Christians a problem in Spain in the 700s? Why weren't there any random lone-wolf Turks strapping gunpowder barrels to themselves or driving their carriages through crowds in Austrian marketplaces in the 1500s? That’s what I meant by events from centuries ago being less relevant to the situation today. Just because those empires are what caused those areas to be mostly Muslim today, that doesn’t mean that those events are terribly relevant to the decision-making process of dictatorial governments or terrorist cells today.

That is what I mean when I said that contemporary Middle Eastern politics is shaped by oil, Israel, and decolonization.

That's quite a hypocrisy you've got going here. Insisting that those few muslims you've met are representative while vastly larger sample is not.

You don’t know how many Muslims I’ve met.

Let’s extend my examples a little bit to include the millions of Muslims living in the West and hundreds of millions more across the world who go their entire lives without killing a single person, much less an infidel.

Now, obviously, I am not a Muslim, so Islam is nothing more to me than the beliefs and practices of its followers. The majority of Muslims have not indiscriminately killed any nonbelievers, so I take that view as being more representative of Islam than the small percentage of those that do. It’s similar to, say, the pro-life movement. There have some pro-life activists who killed doctors and burnt down Planned Parenthood clinics, but it’s a mistake to call those people representatives of the whole.

Take a good look at history of Ottoman empire and Ataturk's Turkey, and the rise of Islam in Indonesia, and other cases where influence of Islam can be separated from other factors. They'll reveal that the Islam is indeed primary cause here.

I’m not really sure why I bother responding to you. So far, this is like the second or third time you’ve snatched two sentences out of a much longer post I make for a quick Gotchya! and then disappear to do the same thing in over again a few pages later regardless of how I respond.

The historical record of the origin and growth of Islam in Indonesia is fragmentary. Since it’s still so unclear, so I’ll just focus on the Ottoman Empire. For most of its history, the Ottomans allowed the different cultures to exist and practice their religion. The non-Muslims had to pay jizya, something that Muslim countries would abolish in the 19th century, but they also operated under the millet system which allowed non-Muslims to basically follow their own legal codes. Devshirme, by the way, was later considered to be a violation of Sharia law, so I’ll ignore that because it's not very relevant.

A lot of this Ottoman cultural plurality changed in the late 19th century when the massacres and genocides began. If that was done for strictly religious purposes, why didn’t those things happen until the twilight years of empire? Pan-Islamism was a failed attempt at centralization in the midst of rising nationalist movements weakening the country. In a multinational empire like the Ottoman, nationalism was clearly a greater threat to its stability than it was in areas that had one nationality split across multiple states – like Germany or Italy. In other words, Ottoman pan-Islamism was a reactionary political movement. That is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say that religion was a secondary factor and that political and economic variables have explanatory power for why the Middle East is the way it is. It’s not just because of religion, it’s just because of people.

---
EDIT:

For those arguing against Islamophobia in the West, how would you define the term wne what specific features does it have?

Well, a lot of people dislike the word Islamophobia for reasons. I think that anti-Muslimism is a similar term that gets at what I have problems with. It's nothing more to me than the discrimination and stereotyping of people because they're Muslim. Sometimes it's nothing more than stereotypes, but for some it can lead to fear, profiling, or even violence. That kind of extreme anti-Muslimism that we see on the news is often flirting with a kind of far-right, white supremacy kind of deal, which is obviously bad. As an small-town American kid growing up during the Iraq War, I heard all the terrible things people say about Muslims as a people or Middle Easterners as a race, but not about anyone else. I think that's wrong.

Anyway, features of anti-Muslim sentiment in the West include:
- failure of extending empathy or compassion towards Muslims in particular (making them "The Others")
- failure to distinguish the diversity among Muslim demographics and thought ("they're all alike: barbaric")
- examining issues through the lens of being at war - or at least in conflict - with Muslims as a monolithic whole (should be obvious)
- implying responsibility of historical events from centuries ago to Muslims today (try saying that for any other religion: the Jews killed Jesus, Catholics want to start crusading again, etc. It doesn't make sense.)
- implying responsibility or complicity of any random Muslim with the actions of other Muslims ("they're all pro-terrorism, or at least complicit")
- disingenuous study of Muslim beliefs and theology to justify these views

Basically, I don't see why Muslims are inherently any different from me as people. Isn't that what they all say when people are killing each other?

[basics]

That is simply false but I was asking in what religion does one half have a say in what the other half does. Which religion has women have a say in what men does? If you can substantiate that I can understand the points you're looking at.

PointOfViewGun,

A Christian wife has every right that the husband has meaning she can express her feelings inside and outside the home. The one and only exception is within the church where worship is being conducted, why? Because in the order of creation, Jesus is the Head of the man and man is the head of the woman and so women are to remain silent. However women are allowed to teach other women if a man is not present. Otherwise women are free to express their opinions quite freely by voting, by driving, by shopping, by talking to other men, by dressing themselves for themselves without any fear. Indeed if a wife or a single woman hears what she considers a false statement made by any preacher she has the right to approach the Elders or Deacons to discuss the matter.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

A Christian wife has every right that the husband has meaning she can express her feelings inside and outside the home. The one and only exception is within the church where worship is being conducted, why? Because in the order of creation, Jesus is the Head of the man and man is the head of the woman and so women are to remain silent. However women are allowed to teach other women if a man is not present. Otherwise women are free to express their opinions quite freely by voting, by driving, by shopping, by talking to other men, by dressing themselves for themselves without any fear. Indeed if a wife or a single woman hears what she considers a false statement made by any preacher she has the right to approach the Elders or Deacons to discuss the matter.

For reference, Quran doesn't tell women to remain silent. It doesn't say women can not teach women or men with a man present or not. There is no original sin concept in Quran. Creation and responsibility often uses equality of language holding both men and women responsible for their deeds. Your example falls flat on that.

[Heathen Hammer]

The problem right now is that you're not explaining your earlier assertion despite being asked about it. Instead, you're deflecting by discussing your personal opinion that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion.

You talk of independent women following Jesus as a contrast to Muhammad. You're ignoring the fact that, not just the first female follower, but the very first follower of Muhammad was an independent business woman, Khadija... Depending what section of the Bible you read you can create a different take on Christianity. Yet, it's a blatant lie that the church never taught to subject women. The Bible is explicit in this regard. I don't know how you can even imply that.

The only reason "independent business women" existed in that society was because it was pre-Islamic, since they seized to exist after Muhammad's cult gained prominence.
Why did a woman support Muhammad, a man who clearly hated women (perhaps due to Muhammad's sexual impotence or some other freudian sexual complexes)? Who knows, but we do know that Islam is an incredibly misogynistic religion in which women aren't equal to men.

[PointOfViewGun]

The only reason "independent business women" existed in that society was because it was pre-Islamic, since they seized to exist after Muhammad's cult gained prominence.
Why did a woman support Muhammad, a man who clearly hated women (perhaps due to Muhammad's sexual impotence or some other freudian sexual complexes)? Who knows, but we do know that Islam is an incredibly misogynistic religion in which women aren't equal to men.

Khadija was likely Muhammad's only true wife. We know how Aisha even after Khadija's death was jealous of him as Muhammad continued to be faithful to her memory. The fact that only Khadija bore Muhammad any children is a testament to the point that he only had a real relationship with her. Other women continued to hold public offices or business statuses during and after Muhammad as well. Al-Shifa' bint Abdullah, for example, was known for her business dealings and was appointed the market inspector by the caliph. Amra bint Abdurrahman, on the other hand, is known to have taught and mentored a lot of male scholars of the time such as Abu Bakr ibn Hazim who was appointed the judge of Medina. Something she could not do under Christianity.

[Heathen Hammer]

Khadija was likely Muhammad's only true wife. We know how Aisha even after Khadija's death was jealous of him as Muhammad continued to be faithful to her memory. The fact that only Khadija bore Muhammad any children is a testament to the point that he only had a real relationship with her. Other women continued to hold public offices or business statuses during and after Muhammad as well. Al-Shifa' bint Abdullah, for example, was known for her business dealings and was appointed the market inspector by the caliph. Amra bint Abdurrahman, on the other hand, is known to have taught and mentored a lot of male scholars of the time such as Abu Bakr ibn Hazim who was appointed the judge of Medina. Something she could not do under Christianity.

He definitely had more the one wife (including a child, pointing out that he was also a pedo), the point is just because he married an old rich woman for her money doesn't mean he wasn't misogynistic, given how women are have less rights then men according to Quran.
While that doesn't really stand out that much in 600s, whole point is that people still take that seriously 14 centuries later, which is a problem. Western countries won't kill you for being an apostate and no longer burn witches, but that is still reality in Muslim-majority countries. Hence why Islam is viewed negatively around the world for logical and rational reasons.

[PointOfViewGun]

He definitely had more the one wife (including a child, pointing out that he was also a pedo), the point is just because he married an old rich woman for her money doesn't mean he wasn't misogynistic, given how women are have less rights then men according to Quran.
While that doesn't really stand out that much in 600s, whole point is that people still take that seriously 14 centuries later, which is a problem. Western countries won't kill you for being an apostate and no longer burn witches, but that is still reality in Muslim-majority countries. Hence why Islam is viewed negatively around the world for logical and rational reasons.

Actually, it was Khadija that wanted to marry him. She proposed. Nobody here, seemingly other than you, depended whether Muhammad was a misogynist or not on his marriage to Khadija. So, I congratulate on striking that wind mill successfully. It's not Quran, but men that argue like you that makes Muslim women have less rights.

Quran 9:71

The believers, both men and women, are guardians of one another. They encourage good and forbid evil, establish prayer and pay alms-tax, and obey Allah and His Messenger. It is they who will be shown Allah’s mercy. Surely Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

Yes, many Muslims are a problem today because they share the same train of thought that you present here.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

How does Islam choose its holy men, men that preach violence to non-Muslims? Surely Muslims should sort that out rather than be silent and why are they silent? Fear! That's the answer and has to be because it is a religion built on fear and run on fear. In all your arguments supporting Islam I don't remember once you condemning the men of violence, why is that?

[Gromovnik]

Actually, it was Khadija that wanted to marry him. She proposed.

Yes, even then there were older rich women falling for younger men who were using them to get rich.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

How does Islam choose its holy men, men that preach violence to non-Muslims? Surely Muslims should sort that out rather than be silent and why are they silent? Fear! That's the answer and has to be because it is a religion built on fear and run on fear. In all your arguments supporting Islam I don't remember once you condemning the men of violence, why is that?

Is this a deflection of yours from acknowledging the failure of your earlier point that to be a great religion half its followers had to have a say on the other half and that while Islam fails at this Christianity excels at it? You failed miserably in defending that viewpoint. You seem to be relying on "Bible is true because Bible says so" line of thinking on your tangent.

Yes, even then there were older rich women falling for younger men who were using them to get rich.

If Muhammad used that wealth for personal glory, sure, you'd have a point. It was not him but caliphs that came after him that built palaces. Despite the immense wealth Khadija brought he continued to live in a simple house.

[Gromovnik]

If Muhammad used that wealth for personal glory, sure, you'd have a point. It was not him but caliphs that came after him that built palaces. Despite the immense wealth Khadija brought he continued to live in a simple house.

Sure he did. Also, funding wars is really cheap, he did it with his boytoy weekly allowance.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sure he did. Also, funding wars is really cheap, he did it with his boytoy weekly allowance.

Given that she used her wealth to free Muslims persecuted as slaves and to feed the Muslim community, sure, her wealth was put to good use. Also, since Muhammad didn't fight his wars with the help of a mercenary army but with his followers there wasn't much money needed for that. Muhammad was fairly rich at the time she asked to marry her anyways. War can be cheap or expensive based on the circumstances, but its definitely cheap to call a man regarded as a prophet by over a billion people as a boytoy.

[basics]

[QUOTE=PointOfViewGun;15962637]Is this a deflection of yours from acknowledging the failure of your earlier point that to be a great religion half its followers had to have a say on the other half and that while Islam fails at this Christianity excels at it? You failed miserably in defending that viewpoint. You seem to be relying on "Bible is true because Bible says so" line of thinking on your tangent.

PointOfViewGun,

The Bible my friend is God's finished revelation to the world and so what is more important than the word of God? The Koran is not the word of God nor is it in the same class. Regarding your post about what you think I said and what I actually said there seems to be a big dicrepancy. Half of the Muslim world being women as a generalisation then that's the half that are subjected to men, any men. They do not share the freedom that women of other cultures can do especially Christian women. So no it's not a deflection at all. Perhaps since you have not answered me on that post it is you who is deflecting here?

So, here's another question for you, where do Muslim women go when they die? Do they get the seventy odd virgin men? Christian women get to be with God just as Christian men do but not so it appears for Muslim women.

[Himster]

Khadija was likely Muhammad's only true wife. We know how Aisha even after Khadija's death was jealous of him as Muhammad continued to be faithful to her memory. The fact that only Khadija bore Muhammad any children is a testament to the point that he only had a real relationship with her. Other women continued to hold public offices or business statuses during and after Muhammad as well. Al-Shifa' bint Abdullah, for example, was known for her business dealings and was appointed the market inspector by the caliph. Amra bint Abdurrahman, on the other hand, is known to have taught and mentored a lot of male scholars of the time such as Abu Bakr ibn Hazim who was appointed the judge of Medina. Something she could not do under Christianity.

So when, how and why did the Caliphate become so infamously sexist?

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

The Bible my friend is God's finished revelation to the world and so what is more important than the word of God? The Koran is not the word of God nor is it in the same class. Regarding your post about what you think I said and what I actually said there seems to be a big dicrepancy. Half of the Muslim world being women as a generalisation then that's the half that are subjected to men, any men. They do not share the freedom that women of other cultures can do especially Christian women. So no it's not a deflection at all. Perhaps since you have not answered me on that post it is you who is deflecting here?

So, here's another question for you, where do Muslim women go when they die? Do they get the seventy odd virgin men? Christian women get to be with God just as Christian men do but not so it appears for Muslim women.

You did say how Christianity lacks the basic rights of a woman to teach a man. You even tried to justify that. So, I don't really need to alter your words to point out that Bible has no moral high ground on the Quran. You made a claim that Islam is not a great religion because of half of its followers, aka women, have no say on the other half, aka men. When asked to give an example of a religion that has the opposite you brought forward Christianity. That failed. Telling me that Bible is god's revelation or asking me about how does Islam choose its holy men doesn't change that. Not entertaining your deflection is not deflection as well. What kind of Bible verse gives you the right to distort the reality, aka god's creation, to keep arguing for the sake of arguing? Is that not a sin?

So when, how and why did the Caliphate become so infamously sexist?

That question could have a million answers. I would tie the answer to the hold of existing patriarchal society and corruption of the office of caliph. Absolute power corrupting men absolutely. In their desire for control men in power turned to their patriarchal culture and continued to build up on those values. What makes the caliph special is that its place of high regard that provides a footing for those men to stand on. Muawiyah could be regarded as the tipping point. In their thirst for power and maintaining power they turned to immoral but practical means instead of principles.

[Himster]

That question could have a million answers. I would tie the answer to the hold of existing patriarchal society and corruption of the office of caliph. Absolute power corrupting men absolutely. In their desire for control men in power turned to their patriarchal culture and continued to build up on those values. What makes the caliph special is that its place of high regard that provides a footing for those men to stand on. Muawiyah could be regarded as the tipping point. In their thirst for power and maintaining power they turned to immoral but practical means instead of principles.

Thankyou, that's a very helpful answer.

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually, it was Khadija that wanted to marry him. She proposed. Nobody here, seemingly other than you, depended whether Muhammad was a misogynist or not on his marriage to Khadija. So, I congratulate on striking that wind mill successfully. It's not Quran, but men that argue like you that makes Muslim women have less rights.

Quran 9:71


Yes, many Muslims are a problem today because they share the same train of thought that you present here.

According to book of fairy tales? Yes. Was it likely given the realities of early medieval society in which they lived? Haha, no.
In any case, it seems Quran is quite misogynistic, we've got everything here, from justification of rape and slavery to justification for physical punishment or that women are legally less rights then men:

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . .

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . .

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . .

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

[PointOfViewGun]

According to book of fairy tales? Yes. Was it likely given the realities of early medieval society in which they lived? Haha, no.
In any case, it seems Quran is quite misogynistic, we've got everything here, from justification of rape and slavery to justification for physical punishment or that women are legally less rights then men:

When you're making claims on what a "book of fairy tales" say it kinda does what that "book of fairy tales" say. By asking that question you're merely expose your objections as purely asinine. What makes it even more asinine is that you don't even seem to be referring to anything I say. Oh well. Not the first case of arguing for the sake of arguing. You're basically saying "I can't really address what you said, so I'll vaguely dismiss it and move on to other stuff." Sure...

Nice copy paste for the rest though. As expected a poor job on context. 4:11, for example, concerns distribution of inheritance when the wealth of the deceased was no distributed through a will. First, Quran instructs to spread it equitably:

2:180 It is decreed that when death approaches, you shall write a will for the benefit of the parents and relatives, equitably. This is a duty upon the righteous.

If the males of the family is rich the women could have everything. 4:11 that you copy pasted there concerns the situation where a will was not written. Since Quran puts more weight on males as it puts the responsibility to look after the family, the women get less while carrying the need to care for their needs. Wills, however, precede this, as the same verse in a part where you left out in your copy past puts first priority on execution of the will. On the other hand, women have a right to get a dowry and keep it after divorce. Men don't. 4:4 gives that right to women specifically. So, based on 4:4 we have to say that the Quran is misandrist? If yes, I can address the other ones as well, if not, then I don't see any point in entertaining your double standards.