Blasphemy Rights Day.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not looking for word games either. I'm trying to understand what behaviour (originally Matt's, but now apparently mine as well) you find "nasty and disrespectful". We are expressing our views, in as respectful a manner as we are able. Which is quite a challenge, given the nastiness and disrespect with which we are confronted time after time in the Quran. Matt said that "Literalism poses a serious threat. We have to speak out against it." If that is nasty and disrespectful, then what of the Quran (9:123), which urges believers to "fight ... the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness"? Do you not see how that statement (among many others), when taken literally, is a direct threat to us? Should we be "respectful" about such threats? I understand that you don't like our views, just as there are aspects of Islam that we don't like. IMHO that is all the more reason why we need to talk about them -- as respectfully as possible, but as frankly as necessary.

This is an excellent summary of the core of the matter. I wish Abuayisha had responded to this. I guess he ran out of arguments.

Two of the most troubling aspects of the Quran are

1) The demonization of the disbeliever, promising hellfire and torture over and over again
2) The promise of entering paradise for martyrdom

The Bible also contains lots of troubling aspects and not only in the Old Testament. The apostle Paul tells women to keep their mouths shut during community gatherings in the same manner Saudi clerics do today.

The difference is that the Bible isn't the literal word of God and that Christianity evolved over the centuries and went through a painful process called Reformation. Women can be bishops, though not Pope yet. How was all this change made possible? Discourse. Criticism. Sometimes nastiness. It was necessary. And it was worth it. Today's Christianity, though far from being perfect, is a lot better than it was 600 years ago. And the discourse continues. Christians have learned to see criticism as an opportunity. I wish more Muslims had the same courage. Only a modern interpretation of Islam can help create a more peaceful world.



Edited by Matt Browne - 17 January 2016 at 8:58am

abuayisha wrote: Perhaps you're more familiar with Saudi penal code than myself. What section or law would these women have violated to have been arrested? Speaking to a man is not against the law in Saudi. How Saudis structure their political campaign isn't our concern, but that of the Saudi people.

Come on, the issue is even more serious than that. Saudi law does not only prohibit women from talking to a man (who isn't a relative watching her) it also prohibits women from getting too close to such a man, even without even saying a word. Saudia Arabia imposes one of the most strict versions of Sharia law. Here's a recent example from Banda Aceh in Indonesia, also exforcing inhumane, cruel Sharia law:

"The whipping girl - Screaming in agony, a woman collapses as she and a man are caned under Sharia law in Indonesia merely for being 'seen in close proximity' to each other without being married. The woman was accused of getting too close to a fellow university student. She was brought to a mosque where she was caned in front of a crowd. The woman received five lashes and at end had to be taken to hospital. Under the law men and women, who are not spouses, are not allowed to get too close due to the 'khalwat' offence and punishment is by public caning."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377187/Screaming-agony-woman-caned-crowd-close-proximity-man-not-married-Indonesian-region-s-sharia-law.html

"Several sharia crimes, such as khalwat (close proximity of unmarried man and woman) are punishable ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

What do you know about khalwat? Is the article wrong?



Edited by Matt Browne - 17 January 2016 at 9:36am