tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3836554088515054023..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Evidence that GW Believed Jews, Christians, and Muslims Worship The Same GodBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1107903250846802042017-06-12T14:30:58.797-06:002017-06-12T14:30:58.797-06:00I think we have to be humble and cautious with lab...I think we have to be humble and cautious with labels...in general. In this thread, I've seen several things said critically about fundamentalists (or "fundies") and evangelicals. There are bad apples in just about every group, but if I may offer this...<br /><br />Most Bible-believing evangelical Christians do NOT want the Law of Moses codified into civil law for the United States. They may want the United States to hew toward a general Judeo-Christian morality as expressed by many of our nation's Founders, but they very much understand the dangers of any sect or denomination seizing the levers of power and imposing its theology by law. <br /><br />We can debate the nature of that "general Judeo-Christian morality" in another thread. In many ways, that's the whole theme of this blog. For now, I want to focus on how many people unfairly (I believe) criticize (even castigate) well-intentioned evangelicals for their Scripture-based orthodoxy. <br /><br />If God is real, then it's logical to hold that God may have opinions different from ours. It isn't for us to make God in our image. It's the other way around. God has standards. God has opinions. God has priorities and values. And...<br /><br />Christians have historically believed that God expressed those standards, principles, beliefs, etc. through prophets and apostles -- and especially through His "only begotten Son" who is "the chief cornerstone" of Christianity. See Ephesians 2:19-20. And that the divinely inspired teachings of these apostles and prophets as well as of Jesus have been accurately passed down through the generations -- even to us and will continue to be passed to our children and children's children. See II Timothy 3:16.<br /><br />Now, it's well within a person's legal, social, and political right to DISAGREE with the above, but... the basic Christian doctrine outlined above is a logically coherent position that is backed up by fairly substantial evidence. And therefore...<br /><br />It's NOT unreasonable for Christians today to hold to a strict orthodoxy that includes such tenets as: Jesus is God and the "Way, the Truth, and the Life"; the Bible is inspired by God; and to disagree with the teachings of the Bible is to disagree with God's revelation. These may be controversial. They may be offensive. But... They are reasonable positions to take within the context of basic Christianity. <br /><br />Now having said all the above... let me add...<br /><br />I believe in loving my neighbor and doing good to all. I have friends and acquaintances all over the map in terms of religion, creed, sexual orientation, political views, etc. and I strive to be kind and respectful to all of them. I'm not here to impose my beliefs on anyone. But it is my hope that people will be humble, kind, and fair when assessing the beliefs of others, including (in this case) the beliefs of evangelical or even (classic) fundamentalist Christians.<br /><br />Love and Blessings!Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39257727924643121692011-04-14T13:19:52.459-06:002011-04-14T13:19:52.459-06:00Y'know, I was gonna go Snickers and Mars with ...Y'know, I was gonna go Snickers and Mars with this, but the Peter Paul thing had a better riff.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17283354161102734532011-04-13T21:29:02.689-06:002011-04-13T21:29:02.689-06:00Almond Joy? Mounds?! Gadzooks! Where will this her...Almond Joy? Mounds?! Gadzooks! Where will this heresy stop? Snickers is the true candy bar!!! The true essence of the forms!jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37597026200909525902011-04-13T16:09:35.857-06:002011-04-13T16:09:35.857-06:00The “true” candy bar is, of course, in the realm o...The “true” candy bar is, of course, in the realm of Plato’s forms. All others are imperfect knock-offs, just a shadow of the thing-in-itself. ;)Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32482226283943124462011-04-13T15:37:38.057-06:002011-04-13T15:37:38.057-06:00Yes, and an Almond Joy man can speak of candy bars...Yes, and an Almond Joy man can speak of candy bars normatively with a Mounds guy. <br /><br />Because sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. ;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74556562295119050292011-04-13T15:29:09.432-06:002011-04-13T15:29:09.432-06:00There is only one true candy bar. There are just ...There is only one true candy bar. There are just a bazillion variations and as many preferences.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45564792432612922692011-04-13T08:56:14.655-06:002011-04-13T08:56:14.655-06:00Let's ask a Muslim: Mr. Erdogan, the popularly...Let's ask a Muslim: Mr. Erdogan, the popularly elected PM of the most secular and liberal Islamic nation, says: "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it."<br />http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/2595.htm<br /><br />If we are going to do this "empirical" thing, I'm afraid Mr Erdogan has the votes. I’m met very few Muslims who see “many Islams.” Most claim there is only one “true” Islam, which, of course, is always theirs. <br /><br />I used to converse with a “liberal” Muslim from Jakarta who once repeated the cliche “there are many Islams just like there are many denominations of Christianity.” I asked him why describe the differences in Islam are like the differences between Baptists and Catholics? Instead, why not say they are like the differences between Franciscans and Dominicans? He laughed and admitted the differences in Islam are far less than those of Christianity. <br /><br />You say Hanbali, I say Hanafi. ... let’s call the whole thing off. Ira Gershwin?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87567033231988505942011-04-12T12:31:34.907-06:002011-04-12T12:31:34.907-06:00That was Mormons. here's some Muslims:
http:...That was Mormons. here's some Muslims:<br /><br />http://www.wluml.org/node/4422<br /><br /><i>Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said hundreds of members of his community in polygamous marriages have been collecting welfare for some time.<br /><br />The Ontario Family Law Act recognizes wives in polygamous marriages as spouses, providing the marriages were conducted legally under Islamic law abroad.<br /><br />Ali said Muslims now want the polygamous marriages to be recognized under federal immigration laws so they can legally sponsor their wives here. Immigration spokesman Karen Shadd-Evelyn said only one marriage is recognized in Canada.<br /><br />Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses, many who join their husband and his main wife in Canada as landed immigrants or visitors.<br /><br />Opposition leader John Tory said Premier Dalton McGuinty has to clarify the meaning of the polygamy law to Ontario residents. Polygamy is illegal in Canada, but recognized in the province, he said.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54213288736109724082011-04-12T12:28:14.338-06:002011-04-12T12:28:14.338-06:00Angie, I'm speaking of Islam in the Muslim wor...Angie, I'm speaking of Islam in the Muslim world, as a control and case study of religion and gov't, of "political philosophy."<br /><br />Islam in the West is a different subject. Briefly, a) many of France's "laicite" secular laws couldn't pass First Amendment muster and b) you can make a solid Islamic case that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries must follow the laws.<br /><br />And c) Polygamy isn't going anywhere in the US; as you know, that was settled with the Mormons and by the Supreme Court.<br /><br />I don't envy the European nations. They're completely unprepared for this. They have no First Amendment and little experience with American-style pluralism. The fit is hitting the shan.<br /><br />Even in Canada...<br /><br />http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/01/will-polygamy-be-legalized-in-canada/Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21679453055071386012011-04-12T12:12:42.639-06:002011-04-12T12:12:42.639-06:00Tom,
Don't you think the FIRST step we must ta...Tom,<br />Don't you think the FIRST step we must take in the West is to demand assimilation concerning such issues, as dress and marriage as a start?<br /><br />The recent decision in France is a case in point. This is where we can limit those that don't like our society from immigrating and those that do, must abide by our standards for women. That way we have a right to penalize, or arrest those that are not compliant.<br /><br />We did stand against polygamy in the past with the Mormons didn't we? <br /><br />We can't loose our own nation, forget the Islamic States. These won't change, and dead bodies will be the costs of such an attempt.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62437587382838021832011-04-12T11:43:31.420-06:002011-04-12T11:43:31.420-06:00Not really. You doggedly insist on sophistically ...Not really. You doggedly insist on sophistically trying to pin the other other fellow into an untenable position via language. But language isn't concepts.<br /><br />Everyone else knows exactly what I'm saying. Until you discuss Islam the reality, with specifics, you're just playing word games.<br /><br />In fact, you got your head handed to you at the League for arguing just the way you accuse me of. they quite saw through you. Even your friend Mr. Heath tired of your games and lack of civility, charging your interlocutors with all sorts of dishonesties and lack of integrity. you do not discuss, you attack.<br /><br />And so, our work is finished here. Polygamy and women's rights is a substantive place to start on Islam. And good luck with your Islamic defense of gay rights. Al-Fatiha Foundation folks feel unsafe enough to keep their identities secret.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80743894150039883972011-04-12T05:31:17.490-06:002011-04-12T05:31:17.490-06:00Mr. Van Dyke,
I did read what you wrote. You reg...Mr. Van Dyke,<br /><br />I did read what you wrote. You regularly claim I have not read, misunderstood, or purposely misunderstood you. I try my best, but you are a very obscurantist writer. I am of the opinion that you are purposely so. Of course I have no respect for obscurantism. If you want others to understand you, make yourself clear.<br /><br />If you are denying that there is "a" single "normative practice" that constitutes Islam proper, then just say so. Say "there are multiple normative practices that constitute Islam proper in the eyes of the practitioners."<br /><br />This is why I say arguing with you is like arguing with a tar baby. You refuse to speak specifically enough for a person to get real purchase on your arguments, and in so doing you cleverly give yourself wiggle room to avoid ever being pinned down to a specific position.<br /><br />Those who argue with integrity do not argue in that fashion.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12960473464636749742011-04-11T22:16:34.111-06:002011-04-11T22:16:34.111-06:00The point I tried to make is that when one holds t...<i>The point I tried to make is that when one holds to a text as revealed, inspired, and infallible, there will be many variances of understandings, but Islam is still defining itself upon a text/tradition of the text. Therefore it is exclusive in its claims about its text/tradition in opposition to any other religious claim or tradition.</i><br /><br />Ms. VDM is correct here, with the proviso that interpretations have variations. There is no ONE sharia. Even James Hanley concedes that Islam has less internal variation than Christianity, but it's absurd to assert that we cannot speak of Christianity in a normative fashion. <br /><br />As Leo Strauss once noted about the wide swath of philosophers, they still agree on more than they disagree on, more than they agree with the madding crowd.<br /><br />Muslims agree on more with fellow Muslims than they do with Jews or Christians, but more with the "People of the Book"---the Abrahamic religions---than with Chinese or Hindus and especially western secularists. [Like Angie.]<br /><br />Polygamy vs. monogamy---esp since the emancipation of woman is so key to Western liberality---is a starting point.<br /><br />To both James and Angie I submit Sisters-in-Islam is a "liberal" starting point for the Western mind.<br /><br />Until then, this is going nowhere, it's time to move on, and thx for your call.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38178660265033418112011-04-11T22:01:00.837-06:002011-04-11T22:01:00.837-06:00It's a shame you don't respond to what I a...It's a shame you don't respond to what I actually write, James. Or read it, apparently.<br /><br />BTW, I just got your back @ the League. I actually read what you write, and they were unjust to you.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51862717035844004902011-04-11T20:09:05.158-06:002011-04-11T20:09:05.158-06:00As to framing one's reality, one is allowed su...As to framing one's reality, one is allowed such framing in Western society. That is what liberty allows. People frame the child's reality, but not the adult's. The adult must choose how he will live his life.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51474877827535830852011-04-11T20:03:53.221-06:002011-04-11T20:03:53.221-06:00Yes, empirically,there are many Islams, but each o...Yes, empirically,there are many Islams, but each one understands itself by certain definitions.<br /><br />The point I tried to make is that when one holds to a text as revealed, inspired, and infallible, there will be many variances of understandings, but Isam is still defining itself upon a text/tradition of the text. Therefore it is exclusive in its claims about its text/tradition in opposition to any other religious claim or tradition.<br /><br />Inductive reasoning is self-defeating and that was my point, one defends one's position by one's position. I don't think the East is known to think in logical ways. It is holding to an A AND non-A position, doesn't it?<br /><br />Experience is confined to tradition/text and not life, itself. There is not much belief in liberty or the pursuit of happiness.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57556509337204902342011-04-11T18:57:14.322-06:002011-04-11T18:57:14.322-06:00@Angie,
So, Islam's framing of identity is Is...@Angie,<br /><br /><i>So, Islam's framing of identity is Islam, in whatever context Islam is found.</i><br /><br />This argument begs the question, because it assumes a single Islam (an Islam that can frame an identity) for the purpose of trying to demonstrate a single Islam.<br /><br />And it also incorrectly assumes that a concept, a non-material/non-sentient thing, can act--can do the framing. But in reality only <i>people</i> can do that framing,* so Islam has the identity that Muslims--plural--frame for it. And since those Muslims themselves are not homogeneous, but differ significantly (if perhaps less divergently than Christians), there are as a matter of undeniable empirical reality <i>many</i> Islams, each as really truly Islam as the next.<br /><br /><br />_________________________<br />*Or, potentially, God, if God exists.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-92329864088091492011-04-11T18:47:58.932-06:002011-04-11T18:47:58.932-06:00@Mr. Van Dyke,
James, since you don't speak ...@Mr. Van Dyke,<br /><br /><i> James, since you don't speak of Islam as a reality, only as a sophistic experiment as some theoretical religion on some theoretical planet,</i><br /><br />Actually, Mr. Van Dyke, since I am speaking of a broader range of Islamic experience than are you, I think this criticism is more accurate if reversed. I speak of Islam as the reality experienced by those many millions whose daily understanding of Islam stands outside what you claim to be the normative practice of Islam. Your definitions disenfranchise them from their own faith and religious experience, at your own whim and for your own convenience. But your view of Islam is not a view of Islam in its reality, because it is no a view of Islam in its totality.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47181448700044880332011-04-11T17:45:59.152-06:002011-04-11T17:45:59.152-06:00No, Angie, you missed the point about ecclesiastic...No, Angie, you missed the point about ecclesiastical courts. I was speaking historically: Christendom's were no different than Islam's. [Britain kept theirs into the 19th century.]<br /><br />The "witch trials," Anne Hutchinson, etc., weren't ecclesiastical courts, they were poorly run civil ones. <br /><br />What I'm trying to do is navigate a course where James asserts we can make NO normative statements about Islam [that any exceptions obviate all rules] and you talking about terrorism and Somalia as if that helps any attempt to speak of Islam as it understands itself.<br /><br />I've intentionally tried to set an outer bookend of Islam at its best both theologically and in practice, in places like Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia, so at least we can have one end of the bracket, where anything to its "left" isn't normative. To Islam's "left" is just your type of Western-style self-actualization talk that isn't even necessarily normative in America.<br /><br />[Yet.]<br /><br />Pls read the links, Angie. Sisters-in-Islam are seeking Islamic solutions, not Western ones, to the problems in the Muslim World. In best practice, I think we'll find many or most Muslims with the belief that Islam is the best and most just system for living in this world.<br /><br />I might be wrong about that, but I've been presented precious little evidence to the contrary.<br /><br /><i>In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest. The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.</i><br /><br /><i>Only</i> source. And here I'm just talking about sharia/ecclesiastical courts as a <i>parallel</i> system to the civil system, as it was in Christendom.<br /><br />So just try to hang in with me here and study and discuss Islam as Muslims understand it, not via 21st century Western liberal condemnations.<br />________________________<br />Above poll data sourced from an article about the flak Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canturbury, got when discussing ecclesiastical courts.<br /><br />http://nawaat.org/portail/2008/03/17/why-shariah/Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75391034571022071742011-04-11T16:59:27.793-06:002011-04-11T16:59:27.793-06:00Tom,
The Puritans had their ecclesiastical courts...Tom, <br />The Puritans had their ecclesiastical courts, too! These defined heresy "by the book" and many were accused of being witches and burned at stake. No different than the ex-communication of Catholicism over scientific discoveries that challenged their view of the world!<br /><br />As to gay marriage, that is a good case in point of allowing the separation of the "civil" and the "religious".It allows those that would not fit in certain religious sects to have a "life" as defined by their conscience, and not another's!<br /><br />I don't think 'putting our heads under domination by primitive fears, ideas, and angst does anyting of value for people. I think it is like saying that terrorism is a good thing, if we can only get our "heads around it". Terrorism does not respect any other opinion, except what is in THIER heads. And if we tolerant the intolrable, then we are undermining the basis of our liberites.<br /><br />I wonder if these women and men under such oppressive regimentation have come to really and truly be individuals in their own right. Maybe heteronomous societies make for heteronomous individuals, instead of autonomous ones in Western society.<br /><br />Isn't there some research to the effect that personalities tend toward heteronomy or autonomy? And how do we evaluate that in light of religious communities?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23745954958441354652011-04-11T16:38:56.030-06:002011-04-11T16:38:56.030-06:00Well, I'd hoped you'd read them before com...Well, I'd hoped you'd read them before commenting. ;-)<br /><br />I'm trying to get at arm's-length here without us giving opinions about what makes the best society or "regime." Perhaps the best regime in the Muslim World is not Western-style secularism. <br /><br />That's certainly the argument of even Sisters-in-Islam and "moderates" like Tariq Ramadan. We in the West must listen to them, in their own context, Islam.<br /><br />Sharia courts---<i>ecclesiastical</i> courts---are nothing new in Abrahamic religion. Israel has them, and Christendom had them long after the Puritans left them behind in Britain in the 1600s. [Not precisely because they were undesirable, but more because of their association with the Roman and/or Anglican churches.]<br /><br />Ecclesiastical courts always handled marriage, divorce, inheritance, blasphemy, adultery, drunkenness, and even property disputes.<br /><br />[In fact, an irony is that among supporters of gay marriage in America, some say the gov't should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religion!]<br /><br />Now, back in reality---and the link to the Turkish guy fits---what you can get in an Islamic society is polygamy practiced only religiously, and the odd wife or her children end up with no legal protections. If you don't accommodate polygamy legally, you can get even worse results.<br /><br />Now it appears that Malaysian law had accommodated for that, that at least the father was responsible for his children regardless of wedlock status. But again, according to the Sisters-in-Islam, this is not being enforced.<br /><br />[What happens to discarded wives is another and important problem as well.]<br /><br />In the olden days, in Christendom too, the church's cultural authority enforced a lot of protections.<br /><br />It's not as easy as it all looks. We must shed our 21st century heads. I don't have an opinion, but mebbe women and children were better off in the olden days, when "society" was more religious, and could come down harder on men, who are dogs, let's face it.<br /><br />Certainly, this is what orthodox Muslim women are saying in defense of the Islamic system. We don't have to agree, but first we should hear them out. Many of them are scared to death of the life of a single---abandoned---mother in their countries, and for good reason. Western-style "freedom" would be a disaster for them, because there is no "safety net."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21408690418990087842011-04-11T15:50:17.446-06:002011-04-11T15:50:17.446-06:00Tom, I never said that there was to be no compulsi...Tom, I never said that there was to be no compulsion to religion, as this underwrites my argument against religious claims having political clout. Those that think they are "more holy" or 'above the law" because of "God's sanction" are to be held accountable to laws that protect equality under law. Otherwise, men do whatever they want, at the excusing of their own conscience. Civl society is broad enough to not compel in the details (the "Devil" is in the details). The Judicial branch was to be separated from the political/the people (masses'opinion) because of this very reason.<br /><br />There are two distinctive issues that overlap somewhat in how we understand religion and the political. Relgious claims that are exclusive are dangerous to a civil society, because it does politicize "a" understanding of "God". And when "God" is used to defend THE stance on family, one has also undermined civil society, where diverse interests must be defended. <br /><br />Civil society allows for diversity in interests, opinons, and values. Otherwise the society would not be one that allowed religious liberty (diversity) or the value of conscience. <br /><br />The First Amendment separates the government from intruding into the private areas/domains of religious groups. But, the protections of individual liberties are those that are defined in the Bill of Rights which defend against intrusions into private spaces of personal value, as well.<br /><br /> Religious sects do not unite our culutre, or nation, as there are so many ways of defining "God", and our "moral ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". <br /><br />Civil soceity must be defined apart from religious societies, because religon does not speak for everyone's conscience or values. AND civil law should be the norming NORM, as it defends the liberties of women, as a group, and individual women regarding issues of marriage. <br /><br />I want to come back later to read your suggested sites....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51880732136428934462011-04-11T15:16:53.631-06:002011-04-11T15:16:53.631-06:00And for accuracy's sake, let's add that po...And for accuracy's sake, let's add that polygamy has been illegal in Tunisia since 1956. The Islamic parties who will be vying to form the new gov't there say they will keep the ban.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78836997840002002252011-04-11T14:38:46.576-06:002011-04-11T14:38:46.576-06:00Ms. Van De Merwe, your personal value judgments an...Ms. Van De Merwe, your personal value judgments and CAPITAL LETTERS are inappropriate on this blog. This isn't Jihad Watch.<br /><br />You're also inaccurate: that there's to be "no compulsion in religion" is explicitly in the Qur'an and has been normative Islamic theology and practice from the first, far longer than it has been in Christianity and Christendom.<br /><br />But there's an accuracy and a discussion point in Islam presenting itself as a comprehensive theology/social politics.<br /><br />In "liberal" Malaysia, only Muslims are held to sharia and/or Islamic law. And so, from another Sister-in-Islam:<br /><br /><i>The irony is not lost: how can non-Muslim women have more rights than their Muslim counterparts in this country?</i><br /><br />http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1064&Itemid=1<br /><br />We need to understand Islam as it understands itself to discuss it normatively. In other words, Muslim sources whenever possible. <br /><br />[By looking at the most liberal societies where Islamic theology is put into practice---Malaysia and Indonesia for example---I think we're being quite charitable, if not downright sympathetic.]<br /><br />In fact polygamy---normative in Islam and Islamic countries---is a fine place to start. Even in Turkey, we're it's been illegal since 1926, a recent gov't official is quite bold about his 3 wives and will add a 4th. [Four is the limit.]<br /><br />http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=four-women-2010-08-05<br /><br />Now, in Islamic theology, the first wife has to approve. But this fellow in Turkey doesn't care, and Sister-in-Islam's complaint is that the Malaysian sharia courts don't care either.<br /><br />In fact, in "liberal" Malaysia, women's marital rights seem to have backslided substantially.<br /><br />http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1061&Itemid=1<br /><br />[A pal of mine was going to marry a Muslim gal, who wanted to keep an Islamic household. He asked me what I thought, and I said sure, as long as she lets you take another 3 wives.<br /><br />I lost track of him soon thereafter. I'd love to know how it all came out.]<br /><br />And so, as a "new" Egypt [pop: 83 million] is poised to take shape, the whole world is watching. "Normative" is definitely up for grabs.<br /><br />See also<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8421551.stmTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53101935878129556812011-04-11T12:28:03.097-06:002011-04-11T12:28:03.097-06:00There NO solution to an ideal such as "the en...There NO solution to an ideal such as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it is illogical and is ONLY loyal to those it deems as ENEMIES OF EVERYONE THAT THEY DEEM TO BE THEIR ENEMY!!! ISN'T THIS POLITICAL DOMINATION THROUGH SUBVERTING EVERYTHING EXCEPT ISLAM??? ISN'T THIS AN IDEOLOGY THAT WILL NOT BEND BECAUSE IT WANTS CONTROL!! IN ALL AREAS OF LIFE....POLITICAL, SOCIAL/MORAL!!! We cannot compromise with Islam, because they WILL NOT compromise thier religious commitments, though they are diverse in thier expressions.<br /><br />Pluralism isn't allowed, because "God" is the all consuming....and holy. Islam, is not the only fundamentalist, or exclusivist view of religion. In other words, you can't come to the negotiating table when there is only one view about "God" and his claims upon life! This is not based on liberty of conscience, no, not at all!!!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com