Islamaphobia?

"I'm not saying that there isn't a human urge to connect to a higher meaning. Of course there is"

No there isn't. I am human and have no such urge. Never have. You may have noticed that I'm not the only one.

There is a human urge to explain the unknown, which is why people have come up with Greek Mythology to explain natural phenomena like rain, thunder, and earthquakes. It is also why people have come up with notions of heaven and hell. It's comforting to think that you won't just disappear when you die but will have eternal bliss as long as you're good.

"That's probably why atheists can get so evangelical and as passionate as believers in their atheism; finally they've been liberated from the crazy rules of religion and they're free!"

I've never been enslaved by religion and again, I'm not the only skeptic who has always been a skeptic, even as a child.

Atheist can be very vocal because (1) religious people are and it does get a a bit too much at times and you want to argue back eventually, and (2) the whole hypothesis of creator God who checks on you to see if you're good and will put you in heaven after death if you just believe is so ludicrous that you want to make those under the spell see the nonsense for what it is.

I used to do that in my teens because I thought that I could get people to see that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of their fundamental assumptions, it then I saw that it is impossible for them to think objectively and rationally on a subject they have effectively been brainwashed about from an early age.

I'm not saying that there isn't a human urge to connect to a higher meaning. Of course there is, but the kind of oppressive rules forced on us from an early age by the main religions that we currently have are just awful.

That's probably why atheists can get so evangelical and as passionate as believers in their atheism; finally they've been liberated from the crazy rules of religion and they're free!

I remember as a kid spending days worried I was going to hell because I'd blasphemed and that is the unforgivable sin. It's crazy and some of my friends had such high expectations to live up to. It's so liberating to realise that you're not going to hell.

Pretty much the only thing you need to remember to do is be nice to people and you're golden.

"THe prescriptions are cultural, but the idea that there is an arbitrator or whatever is universal."

1. It is nowhere near "universal". Most people seem to want to believe in a creator who will protect them, but to many of us this hypothesis makes no sense. You may have heard of the terms atheist and agnostic.

1. Appeal to Numbers is a logical fallacy. Belief in flat Earth used to be far more universal than belief in God is now, and we all know how that turned out.

The fact that most people are raised from an early age to believe in a God might have something to do with large numbers of believers. It's funny how children don't seem to get a "God-shaped hole" to fill if you never carve it out teach them about the God hypothesis when they are small.

They are almond. And to people who feel it deeply, scientific positivism doesn't explain life/emotion/consciousness as they percieve it.

7days, yes, I think these things are deeply rooted in the human psyche.

Religion is human made, but religiousity, sprituality and the rest is a Real Thing. Lots of people subscribe to the notion of a higher power,and things non material. Maybe psychological, perhaps a recognition of something that exists independently? But it helps a lot of people on a personal level, through the ordinary tribulations of life. You can argue all you want about the influence of religion on different societies, and there's loads to criticize there, but that has eff all to do with the ordinary person, living an ordinary life with ordinary tragedies & joys.

The different codes and laws mean less that the notion that there is something out there. THe prescriptions are cultural, but the idea tha
t there is an arbitrator or whatever is universal.

Moonstruck I really appreciate you telling us about Ayesha and Lady Khadija. It is interesting.

I think it just goes to show how religion can be interpreted so completely differently, because it is both conservative and reactionary at the same time.

Conservative because it is rooted in the norms of society at that time but reactionary in that the main leaders were reacting against injustices in that society.

So people can look to it to reflect their own beliefs. One person can look to the conservatism of Christianity to justify their own homophobia whilst another will see Jesus' acceptance of outsiders as a reason to embrace everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

You Moonstruck are obviously someone who sees Islam in progressive terms whilst others will look to it as proof that women should be secluded and hidden. It's all in the interpretation because religion is ultimately human made.

speaking of Mary and Martha, there is an old gospel song i once came by on youtube and even as a muslim i was very struck by the words...

'Mary don't you weep, and tell your sister Martha not to moan'.

to me it spoke of not becoming depressed or constantly complaining but to hold one's head up and have hope and faith that things will change. as a feminist agitating for reform in my own faith community those words are very inspiring, though i do not know the biblical story of Mary and Martha. i think its a nice anthem though for feminist women of colour dealing with intersectional problems that sometimes seems so heavy and awful to bear. not just racism and classism and sexism but also tradition and custom too.

Aretha Franklin does it amazing but this version by Fantasia at 'Black Girls Rock' 2015 just kills it for me, the emotion and expression right till the end of the performance is very powerful.

night ladies.

you can have two conflicting trends in the same place or religion. i used race relations in America as an example. it is the only western country to democratically elect a black president to LEAD the country. and yet, black young men and women are constantly shown being gunned down on the streets by federal police for the slightest incursions and infractions which you wouldnt see in the UK or other countries though they also have problems with the police and ethnic minorities. we see america as in a league of its own in that aspect, is this by Obama's edict? no. as a backlash to a black man named Barak Obama being able to make edicts then yes i think so. this is in 2015 and hes still in his 2nd term. never underestimate the general down and dirtiness of the powerful to uphold the status quo under and above any efforts to change the system, you speak of 2000 years but that was ample time to change the message of Jesus away from the message he came with eg female worship leaders etc i dont really know that much. but thats how i see misogyny and patriarchy in islam, as a backlash.

Exactly Bertrand.

I always thought that was mean of Jesus to be so dismissive of the work she was doing but still quite happy to eat her food.

My guess is that Mohammed and Jesus were a bit ahead of their time, revolutionary in their forward thinking attitudes but still people of their time. Quite natural and understandable if you see them as just good men, rather than men with supernatural abilities to hear God's word.

And I suspect all the be-nice-to-each-other stuff wasn't anything a woman hadn't already said. Except it takes a man to say it for it go become a religion

That's not just down to the Religions of the Book though. It's human history.

and no Ayesha wasnt his favourite wife or most beloved, that was held by lady khadija who was his first wife and he stayed monogamous with her their first 20 odd years together until she died. the latter is held up for a different reason in islam, she was a widow and a prominent businesswoman who was much older than Muhammad when she proposed to him and she was also the only one he had any surviving children with from the 9 wives he was married to in his lifetime. all the rest of his marriages were for political alliances and ties and except Ayesha were with widows or divorcees. whilst widows and divorcees generally find it hardest to marry now in muslim communities because of a singular preference for virgins they were not considered on the shelf back then.

It does seem to say something about all the religions "of the Book" that we do all this scrabbling around to show how important women are. If women reLly were important they would be front and centre. Not in the background when it comes to mainstream, with people reminding us how important they are. And, frankly, I look at Jesus being all groundbreaking by siding with Mary and all, but he did tell Martha off for not understanding how important her backstage role was. And also, that was 2000 years ago. You would have thought that in that time he could have done something abdtout the role of women in his church? Maybe?

I keep having to go back to the opening post because I've forgotten what it was.

The historic points are interesting but clearly there is disagreement on what those facts are. I'm not sure what relevance they have however to whether or not religion oppresses women now, and if it does what should be done. (The "if" is probably redundant )

Having checked the list of countries which are identified as Islamic States is it wrong to say I'm glad I live in western Europe ?Brunei for example, does not recognise marital rape as long as the wife is over 13. Sexual spousal assault is recognised but the sentences are paltry.

I acknowledge of course there are Latin American countries I wouldn't want to live in either.

tbh Muhammad was a paedohile isnt the worst thing iv read on mumsnet, as I said earlier this was a man who went completely out of his way not only in dissuading any claims of divinity or chances of being raised upto divinity in preaching about the Creator God, but he challenged the powerful of his day and stood up for a very disadvantaged group in his society which were women. If he were European he would be lauded for what he stood for concerning women at that particular time in history the 7th century. (i said 6th century earlier by mistake!). the religion legislated for marriage, divorce, inheritance, separate property ownership, birth control, the Quran talks about right of alimony for the divorced wife, breastfeeding if it isnt a burden on the mother, many issues far earlier than many other societies including most western society until the 19th century. sure, europe now far surpasses the muslim world on womens rights now but consider the hold of patriarchy in such societies now and then consider the chokehold it would have been in that 7th century. so muslim feminists do not generally hold a hostility to Muhammad (pbuh) or the Quran, its the generally perverse direction that orthodoxy took in the centuries since as a backlash against what Muhammad (pbuh) sought for islam to be a forerunner on. rather like the backlash of white supremacy in america against having the west's first elected black president in Obama by cops murdering unarmed innocent young black males and females who they can get to.

Slugs so did I.

Slugs, in 1500 years time people will hopefully be denigrating those men who raped their wives in marriage. And not because, dismissively, 'it wasn't ok', but because it will be seen as abhorrent behaviour.

Just like we think now, that an adult male having sex with a 10 year old is abhorrent.

But it makes not a jot whether or not she had achievements in society or came to prominence. Not. A. Jot. It won't change religion.

This thread is about patriarchal attitudes towards women, especially in religion. Oh and for the purposes of equality, I know many men who are atheists who think that marriage/partnership means that sexual availability is on tap.

Marriage and partnership is a religious concept, and whilst women will be protected in marriage legally this only occurs when the marriage fails, and she is given financial recompense. Yeah! Let's all cheer!

"that is because most non muslim women know nothing about her and only talk about her in order to disparage Islam and Muslims."

I think it's entirely possible to think Mohammed should not have married such a young girl at the same time as admiring what that young girl became.

I also think it's reasonable to hold Mohammed to a slightly higher standard than the accepted norms at the time. He was after all a prophet. I appreciate that Mohammed was probably more feminist than many of his followers since but why do we need a prophet or a son of god to teach us the difference between right and wrong?

I mean it's pretty obvious that we should treat everyone as equals, that we shouldn't preach laws to others we have no intention of keeping ourselves and that girls (or anyone for that matter) should be allowed to grow up in their own time without being married off and pressured into having sex. I don't need God to tell me that.

but elendon a grown man having sex with a 16 year old girl here in the UK is within bounds, but in the USA or Ireland would be called a paedophile because the age of consent is higher. Until a couple of years ago Spain's age of consent was 13 but now matches the UKs, whereas France and Germany still lag behind, ages 15 and 14 respectfully. these are all western liberal countries in 2015, but all with their own cultural and legal norms. i see the issue of the marriage of Ayesha and Muhammad in the same light, it was ok for their people and in their time 1430 odd years agp. the greater lessons i take from her are her achievements in the society she came from and her prominence.