Should Christianity adopt Islam’s laws of sins of the flesh?

[Greatest I am]

Should Christianity adopt Islam’s laws of sins of the flesh?

 

There is a fair bit of noise nowadays about Sharia law.

 

 

I am not advocating Sharia law for our secular system but have to wonder if Christianity would be well served by adopting Sharia law for the Church.

 

Islam must change as it enters into secularism. It, like all Abraham based religions, need much improvements to their laws but, in terms of sins of the flesh, they may be above the Christian ethos. Abortion, infidelity, and other inappropriate sexual habits seem to be better handled by Islam. They have gone the wrong way in some of their cults, the so called rape law, exemplifies this, but I think that this is just a blip to their overall theology and will be rejected soon. Their homophobic stance also must change.

 

The spread and customs of abortion and unwed mothers in the west, as well as the numbers of men who do not do their duty to their children, is not good. Family values, although still healthy in the west, is taking a good beating. Perhaps it is time for Christianity to look at other religious systems including Islam, and adapt what it and others do to Christian families, if they find the new system better.

 

I would think that such a move would also be a good time for Christianity to redress their shameful religious discrimination and denigration of Gays.

 

I did not bother with statistics as I think that what I have said is well recognized as fact. The U S situation is well known. In this O P, I would include fornication, infidelity, prostitution, unwed mothers and abortion. Homosexuality, I do not consider as inappropriate sex but know that it will be expressed by the homophobes.

 

Should we recognize this better part of Islam, in terms of dealing with sins of the flesh, or should Christianity just continue with the dismal record that it presently has?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Chances are anything you find morally objectionable about Islam is also in Christianity and vice versa.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ydoaPs

[lemur]

Chances are anything you find morally objectionable about Islam is also in Christianity and vice versa.

In practice, I'm sure you're right. Still, I have been thinking about the practice of polygamy being limited to 4 wives in Islam and I think there might be more sexual responsibility in that than in freely dating and divorcing/re-marrying limitlessly in the west. Usually, I would think of polygamy as involving more male-dominance than polygamy but I think polygamy could actually function as a restriction for western men if they were required to marry every women they had sex with.

[StringJunky]

 

I did not bother with statistics as I think that what I have said is well recognized as fact. The U S situation is well known. In this O P, I would include fornication, infidelity, prostitution, unwed mothers and abortion. Homosexuality, I do not consider as inappropriate sex but know that it will be expressed by the homophobes.

 

Should we recognize this better part of Islam, in terms of dealing with sins of the flesh, or should Christianity just continue with the dismal record that it presently has?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

First off, I would like to address your use of 'unwed mothers' and 'fornication' (non-marital sex) as moral negatives and socially destructive:

 

Virginal marriages (no premarital sex ) are a disaster waiting to happen and a likely precursor to later infidelity. I think people should have a varied sexual experience with different partners before they get married and/or have children as I believe the eventual offspring have a higher likelihood, in this modern age, of still having their parents livijng together by the time they reach adulthood...they are wiser as to the possibilities and limits of relationships and their sexual curiosity is hopefully satiated before they commit to the all important task of raising children.I don't think marriage is a necessary requirement for a happy, healthy, nurturing environment either.

 

I have no moral problem with prostitution between consenting parties. The only thing that distresses me is the seemingly excessive use of abortion as a form of post-conceptive contraception...it's a sometimes necessary evil that should not be taken lightly, but used inappropriately and casually, as it quite often is in Western societies, demeans the value of human life.

 

The cement that binds many Islamic societies imo is fear of being ostracised due to non-conformity of which they are largely intolerant. Another thing one may note, when I researched for a post on the acceptability of pornography in a thread on this site, is that the highest proportion of Google search requests for what most Westerners would class as deviant, immoral sexual imagery is from repressed Islamic countries. Also, Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia have the highest number of heterosexual men engaged in homosexual activity with each other due to strict social customs prohibiting casual encounters between the opposite sex in the absence of a chaperone. On the Islamic surface it's all chaste and hunky dory but underneath it seems to be ,the more one looks, a platform for sexual and social repression which can lead to a consequent perversion of a person's natural inclinations in their search for sexual and emotional solace.

 

It's clear to me, for Western society to adopt the Islamic sense of morality is a retrograde step and even your own Christian, judgement-laden ideas about non-marital sex and unmarried parents are out of step and unworkable in a modern and increasingly secular society imo.

Edited April 6, 2011 by StringJunky

[Marat]

I essentially agree with Stringjunky, since the OP seems to take it for granted that certain culturally arbitrary assumptions about what is proper and what is improper have some transcendental warrant for their validity, which a critical approach shows they do not. Abortion is only wrong if we can somehow prove that the nature of the fetus requires us to regard it as a human being and grant it the same rights as ordinary humans, but what could possibly prove this? The fact that it has a finger print? So does a corpse! The fact that it will someday become an ordinary human? A seed will someday become an oaktree, but that does not mean we have to regard seeds and oaks as identical in value or nature.

 

Similarly, to take up the example in the OP, we can ask whether it is on balance for men to leave the mothers of their children after the women become pregnant or give birth. People need freedom; they can fall in love with a variety of people, and they need sex, but women for hormonal reasons become disinterested in sex for about a year after childbirth. If we value freedom, the variety of emotional ties, and sex above traditional forms of organizing marriage and child rearing, then it is better for men to leave their women than to stay with them. This is not to deny that there are excellent reasons which can be argued against this view, but it is just to show that all these values are debatable, so we should not assume, as the OP does, that there is no question but that sexual conservatism consistent with Islamic teachings is any better than other ways of life.

[TonyMcC]

In practice, I'm sure you're right. Still, I have been thinking about the practice of polygamy being limited to 4 wives in Islam and I think there might be more sexual responsibility in that than in freely dating and divorcing/re-marrying limitlessly in the west.

As far as I know a man may have up to 4 wives in Islam, but a woman may not have 4 husbands. Why is this (assuming I am right)?

Edited April 6, 2011 by TonyMcC

[michel123456]

_In ancient society, the purpose of marriage is not to unite 2 people who fell in love, but to unite properties, pieces of land or flocs of sheeps in agricultural societies, entire countries and industries in aristocracy. This is not only a tradition, but a way to organize and survive.

The moral values that have been associated to this way of living have been enhanced by religion. The natural sexual attraction must be hidden to avoid problems when the parents negotiate the marriage of their children. The important figure is how many sheeps, not if the bride is good-looking. It is much better that the future married never meet before wedding. Sexual contact must be prohibited, there is a contract to honor. _The age also is not important at all. The only important thing is that the husband must be older than his wife in order to maintain domination.

 

_In those societies, the number of children is important. More children means more working hands for the fields or for the sheeps. Increased infant mortality makes the need even more important. It is the source of polygamy and instinctive repulsion of abortion.

 

_Love, freedom, sex, happiness, fulfillment and all that kind of feelings are not taken under consideration in those societies. They are obstacles.

 

_Prostitution is banned because the married man must fornicate only in order to produce a ribambelle of children to his wives, and because unmarried young fellows don't have to be informed of pleasures that will make them think twice before marrying.

 

_And so on.

Edited April 6, 2011 by michel123456

[Greatest I am]

Chances are anything you find morally objectionable about Islam is also in Christianity and vice versa.

 

 

I agree.

 

That is why it is strange that in the issues of the O P, Islam does not have to kill hundreds of thousands of zygotes yearly while the Christian west does and it seems to not have near the numbers of people out to screw each others wives and children.

 

One has to wonder why Christianity cannot learn from it’s sister religion.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

In practice, I'm sure you're right. Still, I have been thinking about the practice of polygamy being limited to 4 wives in Islam and I think there might be more sexual responsibility in that than in freely dating and divorcing/re-marrying limitlessly in the west. Usually, I would think of polygamy as involving more male-dominance than polygamy but I think polygamy could actually function as a restriction for western men if they were required to marry every women they had sex with.

 

 

There is that for sure and I talked once to a Muslim who, thanks to tradition, had to take the wife of his dead brother. He was not happy about it. No man over 40 would be if you give it just a bit of thought. Polygamy may just be a curse from God and not a blessing.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

First off, I would like to address your use of 'unwed mothers' and 'fornication' (non-marital sex) as moral negatives and socially destructive:

 

Virginal marriages (no premarital sex ) are a disaster waiting to happen and a likely precursor to later infidelity. I think people should have a varied sexual experience with different partners before they get married and/or have children as I believe the eventual offspring have a higher likelihood, in this modern age, of still having their parents livijng together by the time they reach adulthood...they are wiser as to the possibilities and limits of relationships and their sexual curiosity is hopefully satiated before they commit to the all important task of raising children.I don't think marriage is a necessary requirement for a happy, healthy, nurturing environment either.

 

I have no moral problem with prostitution between consenting parties. The only thing that distresses me is the seemingly excessive use of abortion as a form of post-conceptive contraception...it's a sometimes necessary evil that should not be taken lightly, but used inappropriately and casually, as it quite often is in Western societies, demeans the value of human life.

 

The cement that binds many Islamic societies imo is fear of being ostracised due to non-conformity of which they are largely intolerant. Another thing one may note, when I researched for a post on the acceptability of pornography in a thread on this site, is that the highest proportion of Google search requests for what most Westerners would class as deviant, immoral sexual imagery is from repressed Islamic countries. Also, Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia have the highest number of heterosexual men engaged in homosexual activity with each other due to strict social customs prohibiting casual encounters between the opposite sex in the absence of a chaperone. On the Islamic surface it's all chaste and hunky dory but underneath it seems to be ,the more one looks, a platform for sexual and social repression which can lead to a consequent perversion of a person's natural inclinations in their search for sexual and emotional solace.

 

It's clear to me, for Western society to adopt the Islamic sense of morality is a retrograde step and even your own Christian, judgement-laden ideas about non-marital sex and unmarried parents are out of step and unworkable in a modern and increasingly secular society imo.

 

 

You seem to think we will have little thoughts in common but there is not much here that I would argue.

One thing. I am not a Christian. To me, that is an insult.

I do not agree with your view of --retrograde. BTW. We are not talking society as in secular governments. We are talking Chritianity.

 

I see a potential saving of hundreds of thousands of zygotes that we abort yearly.

 

I have no problem with what consenting adults do but the trend towards unwed mothers and our men not stepping up to their responsibilities as compared to Muslims who do, speaks poorly for western morality.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

As far as I know a man may have up to 4 wives in Islam, but a woman may not have 4 husbands. Why is this (assuming I am right)?

 

Likely because women are not as stupid as men. LOL.

 

 

Seriously though.

 

I imagine it is an old rule implemented to make sure that in times of war or just after a war, all those unmarried women would be taken care of.

 

An old custom that never died out. Remember the times and conditions when these rules were thought up.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

_In ancient society, the purpose of marriage is not to unite 2 people who fell in love, but to unite properties, pieces of land or flocs of sheeps in agricultural societies, entire countries and industries in aristocracy. This is not only a tradition, but a way to organize and survive.

The moral values that have been associated to this way of living have been enhanced by religion. The natural sexual attraction must be hidden to avoid problems when the parents negotiate the marriage of their children. The important figure is how many sheeps, not if the bride is good-looking. It is much better that the future married never meet before wedding. Sexual contact must be prohibited, there is a contract to honor. _The age also is not important at all. The only important thing is that the husband must be older than his wife in order to maintain domination.

 

_In those societies, the number of children is important. More children means more working hands for the fields or for the sheeps. Increased infant mortality makes the need even more important. It is the source of polygamy and instinctive repulsion of abortion.

 

_Love, freedom, sex, happiness, fulfillment and all that kind of feelings are not taken under consideration in those societies. They are obstacles.

 

_Prostitution is banned because the married man must fornicate only in order to produce a ribambelle of children to his wives, and because unmarried young fellows don't have to be informed of pleasures that will make them think twice before marrying.

 

_And so on.

 

 

Yes. All old customs that are dying out as people think as individuals more than as family, tribe and social responsibility to a local common. We are all becoming world citizens and not just local.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As far as I know a man may have up to 4 wives in Islam, but a woman may not have 4 husbands. Why is this (assuming I am right)?

It's also the case that adultery in ancient Judaism (and in the Old Testament) was a crime that could only be committed by a married woman. Here's what the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary has to say about the reasoning:

 

Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never against a wife. It was considered a most grievous transgression, to be punished by the death of both parties. There is no actual evidence that this punishment was ever carried out, but it may have been in certain instances, and the threat of execution still existed in the first century. The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband's child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated.

 

Now, in the New Testament this had changed, but similar reasoning can be used to show that a men may have multiple wives but a woman may not have multiple husbands. If a woman has several husbands, who is the father of her children? Whose names do the children take? Whose property do they inherit?

[lemur]

As far as I know a man may have up to 4 wives in Islam, but a woman may not have 4 husbands. Why is this (assuming I am right)?

I don't know first hand, but I see polygamy as a pragmatic response to marital infidelity. I.e. If you cheat on your wife, you have to take care of her and her children. As I understand it, pre-marital or extra-marital sex is regarded as rape to protect the honor of the woman. This is why it makes sense to make marriage punishment for rape, i.e. because that ensures that the rapist takes responsibility for his victim, whether it was actually consensual or not. I.e. just because it was consensual, that doesn't justify walking away and taking no responsibility for your sexual partner after using her for pleasure.

[StringJunky]

You seem to think we will have little thoughts in common but there is not much here that I would argue.

One thing. I am not a Christian. To me, that is an insult.

I do not agree with your view of --retrograde. BTW. We are not talking society as in secular governments. We are talking Chritianity.

 

I see a potential saving of hundreds of thousands of zygotes that we abort yearly.

 

I have no problem with what consenting adults do but the trend towards unwed mothers and our men not stepping up to their responsibilities as compared to Muslims who do, speaks poorly for western morality.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

I apologise for my assumption that you are a Christian but the kind of words you chose which I highlighted at the start of my post seemed to suggest to me that you were...obviously I was wrong.

 

The problem of personal accountability by errant fathers is largely a problem within a secular society not Christianity...a committed Christian ethic existing within a group has family bonds and sense of community as strong any Islamic religion but it's voice and influence is waning within an increasingly athiest secular Western society...I'm English, so it's from that pov and what's happening in GB and Western Europe that my comments are based on.

Edited April 6, 2011 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

Why does a man have to take care of a wife? Because a wife doesn't have a job, she does not produce any income. Only children. For thousands of years, the faith of millions of women has been to stay in the kitchen at day, to clean babies bottom, to feed an illiterate phalocratic or even perverse husband, and to endure his penis with her open legs at night under the threat of torture and mortal punishment.

I cannot believe any sensitive person of any religion can possibly want this to continue.

 

There is a mess of civilisations here.

At times where women go out of the kitchen (heresy) and out of home (worst heresy), she can do what she wants. She is free to treat her own body as she wishes (who asked your brother's wife opinion?), she is not obliged to endure raping 3 times a week from a man her father choosed. Yes, I suppose in muslim countries marital rape does not exist.

 

 

She can show her face (heresy), her hair (lynching), her body (is there anything worse than lynching, lapidation maybe). Not talking about adultery.

She can choose the man she wants. She is not obliged to ask her dad first. She is not obliged to be sold for 6 camels and 20 sheeps. She can decide how many children she will raise. At last, the other half Humanity can look at life with some hope.

 

Family is not a Holy Thing anymore. Individual respect is. And I hope will continue to be.

Edited April 7, 2011 by michel123456

[lemur]

Why does a man have to take care of a wife? Because a wife doesn't have a job, she does not produce any income. Only children. For thousands of years, the faith of millions of women has been to stay in the kitchen at day, to clean babies bottom, to feed an illiterate phalocratic or even perverse husband, and to endure his penis with her open legs at night under the threat of torture and mortal punishment.

I cannot believe any sensitive person of any religion can possibly want this to continue.

 

There is a mess of civilisations here.

At times where women go out of the kitchen (heresy) and out of home (worst heresy), she can do what she wants. She is free to treat her own body as she wishes (who asked your brother's wife opinion?), she is not obliged to endure raping 3 times a week from a man her father choosed. Yes, I suppose in muslim countries marital rape does not exist.

 

 

She can show her face (heresy), her hair (lynching), her body (is there anything worse than lynching, lapidation maybe). Not talking about adultery.

She can choose the man she wants. She is not obliged to ask her dad first. She is not obliged to be sold for 6 camels and 20 sheeps. She can decide how many children she will raise. At last, the other half Humanity can look at life with some hope.

 

Family is not a Holy Thing anymore. Individual respect is. And I hope will continue to be.

While I agree with the essential politics of this, I find it somewhat hypocritical when westerners say this considering that 'modern economies' haven't actually eliminated subjugation of the social rights of women (and men) to economic prerogatives of those with power/money, but have rather facilitated them through greater legitimations at the institutional level. So, for example, women are still sold into marriage in the west - only they do the selling themselves and their motivation is that they are seeking a husband who can give them at least as materially wealthy a life as their daddy did (otherwise they feel like a failure or "cheap"). Often times, women who become economically powerful through a job or business instead of marriage are still more attracted to economic power than to other things. And this is true for men as well - money is the master many people love exclusively, whether the currency is camels and sheep or euros.

[Greatest I am]

I apologise for my assumption that you are a Christian but the kind of words you chose which I highlighted at the start of my post seemed to suggest to me that you were...obviously I was wrong.

 

The problem of personal accountability by errant fathers is largely a problem within a secular society not Christianity...a committed Christian ethic existing within a group has family bonds and sense of community as strong any Islamic religion but it's voice and influence is waning within an increasingly athiest secular Western society...I'm English, so it's from that pov and what's happening in GB and Western Europe that my comments are based on.

 

I live in Canada and see Canada and the U S as what some call Christian nations.

We are that but we are also secular.

You seem to think that secularism is leading Chritians to default on their responsibilities but I cannot see people ignoring their religious training just because they live in a secular society.

 

Whether the training comes from religion or government is not pertinent if we are not taking our responsibilities.

Both then would be guilty of not instiling the right values.

 

Those here who default are generally Christians.

 

Regards

DL

 

Why does a man have to take care of a wife? Because a wife doesn't have a job, she does not produce any income. Only children. For thousands of years, the faith of millions of women has been to stay in the kitchen at day, to clean babies bottom, to feed an illiterate phalocratic or even perverse husband, and to endure his penis with her open legs at night under the threat of torture and mortal punishment.

I cannot believe any sensitive person of any religion can possibly want this to continue.

 

There is a mess of civilisations here.

At times where women go out of the kitchen (heresy) and out of home (worst heresy), she can do what she wants. She is free to treat her own body as she wishes (who asked your brother's wife opinion?), she is not obliged to endure raping 3 times a week from a man her father choosed. Yes, I suppose in muslim countries marital rape does not exist.

 

 

She can show her face (heresy), her hair (lynching), her body (is there anything worse than lynching, lapidation maybe). Not talking about adultery.

She can choose the man she wants. She is not obliged to ask her dad first. She is not obliged to be sold for 6 camels and 20 sheeps. She can decide how many children she will raise. At last, the other half Humanity can look at life with some hope.

 

Family is not a Holy Thing anymore. Individual respect is. And I hope will continue to be.

 

As I said, reform of attitudes has to happen to both Christianity and Islam.

The idiocies you name are within both religions to some extent and if a rapprochement were to take place, that would be a great time to address some of these idiocies.

 

Regards

DL

Edited April 7, 2011 by Greatest I am

[michel123456]

(..) guilty of not instiling the right values.

(...)

 

I judge you guilty.

 

(...) if a rapprochement were to take place, (...)

 

Is that your idea? A rapprochement of Christianism & Islam ?

[jimmydasaint]

Why does a man have to take care of a wife? Because a wife doesn't have a job, she does not produce any income. Only children. For thousands of years, the faith of millions of women has been to stay in the kitchen at day, to clean babies bottom, to feed an illiterate phalocratic or even perverse husband, and to endure his penis with her open legs at night under the threat of torture and mortal punishment. I cannot believe any sensitive person of any religion can possibly want this to continue.

 

I think no religious person would argue with you, if the case you describe was true. This would be a case of repression of women, and highly unjust, were this the case.

 

There is a mess of civilisations here.

At times where women go out of the kitchen (heresy) and out of home (worst heresy), she can do what she wants. She is free to treat her own body as she wishes (who asked your brother's wife opinion?), she is not obliged to endure raping 3 times a week from a man her father choosed. Yes, I suppose in muslim countries marital rape does not exist.

 

I am not sure if this Table is correct, but in terms of rape crime, South Africa is at the top of this shameful statistic and Saudi Arabia at the bottom. Does covering your body deter rape? I don't know. League Table rape crime

 

I am actually seriously thinking about becoming a Muslim, and, from what I have read, women also have a say in their marriages. What you are describing in the whole of your post is actually cultural repression of women and cultural norms, not religious norms. I am reading through the Quran and I can honestly say that I have not read about this sort of repression. However, Islam, the religion, or the Way of Life, actually put women's rights on a platform similar to men (but not equal). I think this site covers the most common misconceptions with reasonable intelligence. Misconceptions about women

 

 

She can show her face (heresy), her hair (lynching), her body (is there anything worse than lynching, lapidation maybe). Not talking about adultery.

She can choose the man she wants. She is not obliged to ask her dad first. She is not obliged to be sold for 6 camels and 20 sheeps. She can decide how many children she will raise. At last, the other half Humanity can look at life with some hope.

 

Family is not a Holy Thing anymore. Individual respect is. And I hope will continue to be.

 

I have Muslim friends and have attended a Muslim wedding about 3 years ago. The couple met by chance and then mutually agreed to get married but no camels or sheep were involved unfortunately, although this sight would have entertained the East End of London no end, had it occurred.

Edited April 8, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[lemur]

I am not sure if this Table is correct, but in terms of rape crime, South Africa is at the top of this shameful statistic and Saudi Arabia at the bottom. Does covering your body deter rape? I don't know. League Table rape crime

 

I am actually seriously thinking about becoming a Muslim, and, from what I have read, women also have a say in their marriages. What you are describing in the whole of your post is actually cultural repression of women and cultural norms, not religious norms. I am reading through the Quran and I can honestly say that I have not read about this sort of repression. However, Islam, the religion, or the Way of Life, actually put women's rights on a platform similar to men (but not equal). I think this site covers the most common misconceptions with reasonable intelligence. Misconceptions about women

I think the reason why people seek Islam as an escape from western 'Christian/secular' culture has to do with Foucault's repressive hypothesis described in the History of Sexuality (volume 1?) where he claims that Victorian culture repressed sexuality for the sake of titillation in order to intensify desire for expression in 'its proper forms.' I think he claims that the Victorian culture has evolved in such a way that "we new Victorians" continue to play all sorts of flirtatious games with sexual repression in order to be 'naughty' and break the rules for pleasure. I sort of have the sense that Islam appeals to people as having a moral code strict enough to escape all this game-playing and titillation that goes on regarding sexuality (and other aspects of culture for that matter). Of course I can't generalize, but from the few Imams and Muslims I've talked with, there seems to be a high degree of sincerity and directness regarding sexual matters that is only slowly emerging in much of western culture after decades of "sexual liberation."

[jimmydasaint]

Interesting hypotheses, both yours and that of Foucalt. I will have to catch up with a bit of reading. From a previous post, IMHO, repression can be quite damaging in a country like Saudi Arabia, but I believe that the rise in homosexuality is more a cultural phenomenon, rather that arising from religious repression. Our cultural norms, IMHO, in the West allow for extended childhood into the artificially created 'teenage' years and create a situation where teenagers desperately seek a sexual outlet for what their hormones are telling them to do, leading to a rise in teenage pregnancies and trying to meet the responsibilities of parenthood whilst still feeling like children. As for infidelity, who has not been tempted to be unfaithful? However, destroying the trust in a potential long-term relationship for a few foolish moments of pleasure defy rational thinking and can permanently damage both parties involved- I have seen this first hand, many times. IMO, the family structure is a compact, support network for individuals, an emotional safety net, if you will, without which individuals may be left in social isolation and a lack of mental 'wholeness', for want of a better word. The atomisation of society, and the celebration of the individual over community is our worst export to the rest of the world, more used to extended families, and the safety and moderation of extreme behaviour that came with them.

 

However, I cannot see the point of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim dialogue in this matter. Where do these faiths differ in matters of the flesh?

[lemur]

Interesting hypotheses, both yours and that of Foucalt. I will have to catch up with a bit of reading. From a previous post, IMHO, repression can be quite damaging in a country like Saudi Arabia, but I believe that the rise in homosexuality is more a cultural phenomenon, rather that arising from religious repression. Our cultural norms, IMHO, in the West allow for extended childhood into the artificially created 'teenage' years and create a situation where teenagers desperately seek a sexual outlet for what their hormones are telling them to do, leading to a rise in teenage pregnancies and trying to meet the responsibilities of parenthood whilst still feeling like children.

This is getting into a much broader discussion of culture, which I would gladly engage in except I don't want to deviate too far from the focus of the thread. What I would like to know is whether Islam is more effective for individuals seeking liberation from the obfuscation of sexual morality as titillation or whether it just intensifies the intrigue of sex by making it that much more a release from the public bondage of unfaithful authoritarian morality.

 

 

As for infidelity, who has not been tempted to be unfaithful?

Temptation is omnipresent. The question to me is when people with clarity see the costs of infidelity alongside the immediate gratification. Western culture has developed an ethic of "you only live once so embrace every opportunity for experience." I think this obfuscates the value of religious morality that gives people the option of choosing sustainable peace-of-mind over the roller-coaster of 'living life to its fullest.'

 

The atomisation of society, and the celebration of the individual over community is our worst export to the rest of the world, more used to extended families, and the safety and moderation of extreme behaviour that came with them.

While I agree with your ideas about family emotional support, I think you fail to recognize that this demonization of individuality has been appropriated in the interest of fascism in the west. Individuals should be taking responsibility and using their moral reason to self-govern for the optimization of good for themselves and others. Yet fascist culture tells them that instead of embracing their individual responsibility and reason, they should regard these as "selfish individualism" and thus subjugate themselves to collectivist authority. Then, once external authority has them in submission, they no longer dare to resist the abuse of power and thus end up mindlessly conforming to whatever "the flow" is doing, afraid to subject authority to their own moral reason because they've become brainwashed that to do so is selfish egoism/narcissism on their part.

 

However, I cannot see the point of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim dialogue in this matter. Where do these faiths differ in matters of the flesh?

Christianity has never required that men take any responsibility for their mistresses/affairs as far as I am aware.

 

 

[Greatest I am]

I judge you guilty.

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

 

Is that your idea? A rapprochement of Christianism & Islam ?

 

 

Have you heard of Vatican II.

 

Regards

DL

 

Interesting hypotheses, both yours and that of Foucalt. I will have to catch up with a bit of reading. From a previous post, IMHO, repression can be quite damaging in a country like Saudi Arabia, but I believe that the rise in homosexuality is more a cultural phenomenon, rather that arising from religious repression. Our cultural norms, IMHO, in the West allow for extended childhood into the artificially created 'teenage' years and create a situation where teenagers desperately seek a sexual outlet for what their hormones are telling them to do, leading to a rise in teenage pregnancies and trying to meet the responsibilities of parenthood whilst still feeling like children. As for infidelity, who has not been tempted to be unfaithful? However, destroying the trust in a potential long-term relationship for a few foolish moments of pleasure defy rational thinking and can permanently damage both parties involved- I have seen this first hand, many times. IMO, the family structure is a compact, support network for individuals, an emotional safety net, if you will, without which individuals may be left in social isolation and a lack of mental 'wholeness', for want of a better word. The atomisation of society, and the celebration of the individual over community is our worst export to the rest of the world, more used to extended families, and the safety and moderation of extreme behaviour that came with them.

 

However, I cannot see the point of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim dialogue in this matter. Where do these faiths differ in matters of the flesh?

 

From what I see, they mimic their dogmas. Both are oppresive to women and Gays and have draconian view that would hopefuly be address as new rules come about.

Islam, for reasons that may be purely cultural, seem to have much fewer abortions and unwed mothers. There is a fly in the soup in some countries where they actually have more abortions per capita than the west. That aside, It is my hope that as they modernize, they can maintain there better overall numbers.

 

Regards

DL

Edited April 9, 2011 by Greatest I am

[lemur]

It is my hope that as they modernize, they can maintain there better overall numbers.

Imo, "modernization" fails when it is applied cross-culturally. All cultures modernize according to their own progress, albeit in dialogue with all other cultures they are in contact with. Btw, don't assume that "culture" is ever homogeneous at the group level. Every society and individual consists of multiple interacting "cultures" and each "culture" evolves interactively with others. No expression of Islamic culture, for example, exists in isolation from the complex of other social-cultural traditions of the particular society in question. Each "culture" consists of numerous interacting constituent "cultures" that evolve in dialogue (interactively) with one another.

[jimmydasaint]

This is getting into a much broader discussion of culture, which I would gladly engage in except I don't want to deviate too far from the focus of the thread. What I would like to know is whether Islam is more effective for individuals seeking liberation from the obfuscation of sexual morality as titillation or whether it just intensifies the intrigue of sex by making it that much more a release from the public bondage of unfaithful authoritarian morality.

 

From what little I have seen, Islam tends to avoid titillation and 'naughty' indulgences or transgressions, at least in principle. IMHO, the status of women seems to be more balanced and 'moderate' than that of the West, where women also have a status as sex objects and subconsciously associate this status with liberation and freedom. I don't want to be a hypocrite and say that I don't enjoy this fact. I do. I love looking at a lovely pair of legs or a well rounded bottom, or pair of large, firm breasts. However, my mind is inevitably turned towards sex when I do so, and I am sure that other males do the same.

 

Islam protects women from being observed as sex objects. It orders the covering of breasts, hair and arms to the wrist, and legs to the ankles. Talking to Muslim women happily avoids talking to a cleavage, and considers the personality of the woman rather that appreciation of attractive physical aspects. Moreover, males are ordered to fast and pray if they feel sexual temptation and I presume that the physical and spiritual immersion in both activities as well as a full working day occupy the mind far more than sexual titillation.

 

 

 

While I agree with your ideas about family emotional support, I think you fail to recognize that this demonization of individuality has been appropriated in the interest of fascism in the west. Individuals should be taking responsibility and using their moral reason to self-govern for the optimization of good for themselves and others. Yet fascist culture tells them that instead of embracing their individual responsibility and reason, they should regard these as "selfish individualism" and thus subjugate themselves to collectivist authority. Then, once external authority has them in submission, they no longer dare to resist the abuse of power and thus end up mindlessly conforming to whatever "the flow" is doing, afraid to subject authority to their own moral reason because they've become brainwashed that to do so is selfish egoism/narcissism on their part.

 

You are right here about Fascists. But is Fascism not just another brand of collectivism? I wanted to highlight the negative aspects of promoting individuality and individual freedom to indulge in personal pleasures, whilst ignoring the rest of society, and also decry the breakdown of the family. You can see that there is ego and narcissism in the arts, as well as other aspects of life, and I find it regrettable. For example, I came across the example of an artist whose display consisted of all the popular video cassettes that were issued when he was in his mother's womb. Rather than being self expression that educated and enriched the life of the viewer, giving the viewer an alternative view or participation in the highest self expression of the artist with a sublime theme of morality or aesthetic value, it was egoistic masturbation. And this is sad.

 

 

Christianity has never required that men take any responsibility for their mistresses/affairs as far as I am aware.

 

Point taken

Edited April 9, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[Marat]

The great intellectual revolution in the West, which the East did not participate in, was the recognition by Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Heidegger that humans are the type of beings for whom freedom of choice is more important that making the right choice, so any society which aims to treat people with respect has to give primacy to their free self-development over prescribing to them their proper range of acceptable choices. As Sartre put it, for humans alone of all things, existence precedes essence. In other words, while we can prescribe what a chair, a dog, a house, or a nuclear reactor should be before it even exists, for a human there is no formula for being the best it can be, but rather, each person has to create and expand the concept of humanness through his own free exploration.

 

Obviously there is a limit on this freedom in a social context, which is usually stated in the West as the rule that everyone's freedom reaches to the maximum extent possible as long as it does not interfere with the equal freedom of others. An objectively neutral concept of physical harm has to regulate this boundary so we don't just wind up imposing arbitrary cultural values as the limits to freedom.

 

Since Islam operates with a pre-modern, pre-existentialist concept of the self and social value, so that people doing the right thing is more important than people being free to develop their own concept of the right thing, Islam and the attenuated, secularized remnants of Christianity now prevalent in the West can never be reconciled, given that once a society has matured to attain an existentialist insight, it can never go back.

 

To illustrate this by a specific example, consider the notion that women should be covered up to promote a suppression of sex presumed to be valuable for some assumed cultural reasons, or to prevent women from being viewed as sex objects, which is also taken for granted to be wrong. All these values set up as limits on the right of individuals freely to shape their own destiny and sense of self-hood are disputable, but the fact that they are embedded in traditional culture is taken to establish them as supreme over individual liberty, which is obviously not valued very highly if even public cultural values which cannot be proven can override it.

 

E.g., when I play chess with someone, I just regard him as a chess-playing brain, so does this disrespect the full human he truly is, with emotions, friends, lovers, culture, language, and a personal psychological history? Of course not, since all humans have different aspects and in many situations we interact selectively with one aspect or another, but not with all aspects. Enjoying dancing with someone is in this sense no different from regarding someone purely as a sex object, since when I take him/her as a dancing partner I regard him/her purely as a dancing partner object, and yet no one minds this narrow focus in the second case, while everyone goes into an attack of vapors over the narrow focus in the first case! The cultural value is exposed as ridiculous, and yet it still trumps human freedom in Islamic societies, since they value traditional cultures over the primacy of human liberty and its claim to accept or reject cultures as it sees fit, and not to abide by any restrictions of human freedom unless these can clearly be proved to be objectively necessary to prevent abuse to other people's freedom.

[michel123456]

 

Have you heard of Vatican II.

I am far from an expert in Vatican II issues. looking at the wiki article I don't see anything related to this thread or your post.

 

 

 

 

 

(...)Islam, for reasons that may be purely cultural, seem to have much fewer abortions and unwed mothers. There is a fly in the soup in some countries where they actually have more abortions per capita than the west. That aside, It is my hope that as they modernize, they can maintain there better overall numbers.

 

Oh yes. "for reasons that may be purely cultural". You must be kidding. Do you believe also that "for reasons that may be purely cultural" there are no gays in Iran, or maybe because homosexualism is totally forbidden. You should open your eyes and look at reality.

 

Where you see a lot of unhappy couples in some country, and a lot of divorces, it is not a "cultural" issue, it is simply because disagreement in couple can be openly showed, because women have rights, and because divorce is allowed. If you take another country where divorce is not allowed, it is obvious that statistics will report no divorce in yhis country. Not that you can assume all couples are happy there.

 

(...)

I am not sure if this Table is correct, but in terms of rape crime, South Africa is at the top of this shameful statistic and Saudi Arabia at the bottom. (...)

 

Same objection. Do you figure a Saudi woman arguing her husband has raped her? You must know how difficult it is in the West, not to mention in Saudi Arabia.

 

From Misconceptions about women in Islam suggested above: emphasis mine

 

Islam stipulates that blood money is to be paid for a woman's murder as half of that which is paid for a man. This is of course when a Muslim woman is killed by accident, rather than a capital crime.

 

As for murder, which requires capital punishment, both male and female are equal in the sight of the Islamic laws in this case, as both male and female are equal in terms of human rights. However, in the case of accidental killing where the blood-money paid to the heirs of the victim is half of that paid for a man's killing, it is due to the damage done to the family of that man after his death. The family whose breadwinner is killed loses the person who is financially responsible for the entire family, although a man's emotional care of the family is not comparable to that of the woman's.

As for the family members whose mother is killed accidentally, they only miss, mainly, their mother's love, caring and affection, matters which most men cannot provide. However, the financial situation should not be effected that much with the loss of the mother. Of course, there is no wealth or financial compensation which can substitute for a mother's love, caring and affection.

 

Women's Right to Work (...) In the meantime, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) specified the female, the woman, and equipped her with what it takes to reproduce the progeny of mankind. She is well equipped with necessary apparatus to bear children, deliver them, nurse them and care for them.

 

Consequently, the woman has been endowed with love, kindness, care, sympathy, care and affection in order to carry out her hard duties with a smile on her face and with pride and dignity. Thus, based on this natural preparation and delegation of responsibilities, and based on the unique specifications of both male and female, it is only natural for man to be prepared to work outside the house, and earn the bread of the family. On the other hand, it is only natural for the woman, the female, to work inside the house and take care for its needs in general.

 

Islam does not, however, deprive the woman from the right to work. In fact, Islam permits the woman to directly conduct her business contracts and financial transactions. All such contracts and transactions are sound and valid in the sight of Islamic Laws and teachings and they are in no need of the approval of the husband, the father or any other guardian. Islam, however, organized these transactions and set rules and conditions for them. If any of these set conditions is not observed, the permission given to the woman to practice this right will be rendered null and void, and the woman will become forbidden to use her right:

(...)

 

A woman must work with other women. She must not work in a co-ed. environment where she comes into physical contact with other men. (...)

 

The job or the work that the woman performs outside her house must be, in the first place, a lawful job that suits the nature of the woman. A woman, for instance, must not be involved in heavy industrial jobs, actual combat in a military, and other jobs to which men are more inclined such as sewer cleaning, general maintenance, street cleaning, road construction, etc.

 

Divorce Power Is with Man We have to realize, in the first place, that Islam hates and dislikes divorce. Allah's Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) says: “The most hated and disliked act in the Sight of Allah, although it is lawful, is divorce.”[89]

 

He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was further reported as saying: “May Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), curse a man who often practices divorce after each new marriage.”[90]

 

(...)

 

The most natural and logical way to this peace is to let the man have control over the divorce process, and not the woman.

 

Woman remains the weak side in all human societies.

 

Similarly, Islam requires the acceptance of the woman and her approval of the marriage to a certain man, as it requires the presence of a male guardian for the marriage validity in order to complete a marriage contract.

 

However, as women are more emotional, in general, than men, and are easily affected with various matters around them, and in common, women are easily tempted with the appearance of things, rather reality of things, Islam gave the right to the guardian to refuse and reject a person who proposes to marry a woman if he is not a sound match for her. Generally, men are more acquainted with other men than women. A man is more capable of finding out more about the characteristics of a man than a woman. But, if an appropriate man who is a sound and good match for a woman proposed marriage but the guardian refused for no valid reason except being stubborn or impossible, then the guardianship will be withheld by Islamic law, and will be given to the nearest male relative of the woman. If the woman has no male relatives, then the Muslim Judge will assume the responsibility of guardianship for that woman and offer her in marriage to the person who proposes marriage to her.

 

Islam forbids the woman to marry a man who is not a sound and good match for her in terms of social status as such a marriage might bring shame and indignity to the family. Moreover, a forced marriage that is not done with the family's approval will end up splitting the family members and cutting relationships, a matter that Islam does not condone or promote. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), urges Muslims to maintain, support and strengthen family ties as much as possible.

 

Travel Without Immediate Male Escort Islam forbids a woman (single or married) to travel alone without the escort of an immediate unmarriageable relative companion [Mahram] such as a husband, a son, a brother, a father, a nephew, an uncle, etc. Such a relative, other than the husband, must be one of those whom she permanently cannot marry due to his immediate blood relationship to her.

 

 

Women's Beating (...)

Islam, in fact, forbids beating women and warns strictly against it. This is due to the general basic fact that women, in general, are physically weaker than men in their physical make-up are. Women are usually unable to defend themselves against beating. However, although beating of women is forbidden, Islam permitted it in restricted and very limited occasions and only when it is required as a final treatment of a persistent situation, i.e. when a wife disobeys her husband's instructions for no visible and acceptable valid reason.

 

 

No other comment.

Edited April 9, 2011 by michel123456

[Greatest I am]

Imo, "modernization" fails when it is applied cross-culturally. All cultures modernize according to their own progress, albeit in dialogue with all other cultures they are in contact with. Btw, don't assume that "culture" is ever homogeneous at the group level. Every society and individual consists of multiple interacting "cultures" and each "culture" evolves interactively with others. No expression of Islamic culture, for example, exists in isolation from the complex of other social-cultural traditions of the particular society in question. Each "culture" consists of numerous interacting constituent "cultures" that evolve in dialogue (interactively) with one another.

 

 

No argument but people are people and will all do what is profitable to do.

 

I see profit here for Christianity and Islam in a rapprochement. If they do not see it from within their little fiefdoms, or suppress change for their own aggrandizement, then there is nothing we can do.

 

Culture is just tradition and people change traditions and fashions all the time although religions try their damnedest to slow the process.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

jimmydasaint

 

“From what little I have seen, Islam tends to avoid titillation and 'naughty' indulgences or transgressions, at least in principle.”

 

This is true I think. I had a discussion with a Muslin some time ago and his view in all other sins was that they should be confronted and mastered, not run from.

 

Except for sexual matters. With them the trend was to hide it away and never master it.

 

He could not explain this. Care to have a go?

 

How can you learn to control a passion if you never confront it?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

michel123456

 

 

 

http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Interfaith_dialogue/interfaith_giant.php

 

http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/rome-promotes-islamic-vatican-ii-islam-shoots-back/

 

You will note that I have taken about the same mind set of rapprochement as progressive .

 

Christianity and Catholics have. They often takes the high ground. In the case of the O P, I have just given them the low ground.

 

I hear what you are saying of the inhumanity to women and Gays that both Islam and Christianity are prone to.

 

As I indicated in the O P, both camps would have to liberalize as they modernize.

 

Both are in barbaric and chauvinistic mode and as they secularize, those laws will eventually prevail in their thinking.

 

Then perhaps shit like this will stop.

 

 

Do try to remember that 99.9 % of Islam is not the Islam we see on T V.

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Marat

 

Well said.

 

Islam may have missed a chance free themselves in the past.

 

Do you see that omission being reversed with what is happening in Egypt, Libya and Syria?

 

Regards

DL