They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[godelian]

Well "actionable" is one thing. You can't tell what a person has inside them, so other people can't take action based on things that don't show.

We are finally -- at last -- Praise the Lord! -- getting to the point.

But I think it's sketchy to think Allah would be impressed by somebody who inwardly hated him even while remaining outwardly forced to conform.

That is not our problem, as fellow humans. That is Allah's problem!

But if Allah can be fooled that way, I guess he can be fooled that way. If you say so.

Even that is not our problem, as fellow humans. Seriously, I am not Allah. So, I cannot be expected to do his job. I am certainly not going to try to solve all the problems of the world. I was merely asked not to break his law, when and if uberhaupt possible.

You can try to fool our beloved Master, the Almighty All-knowing Lord of both worlds. However, don't be surprised if it doesn't work out as expected.

[Immanuel Can]

Well "actionable" is one thing. You can't tell what a person has inside them, so other people can't take action based on things that don't show.

We are finally -- at last -- Praise the Lord! -- getting to the point.

What would 'the point' be? I wasn't aware we were trying to head for anything.

But I think it's sketchy to think Allah would be impressed by somebody who inwardly hated him even while remaining outwardly forced to conform.

That is not our problem, as fellow humans. That is Allah's problem!

It's our problem if the god we're following is not capable of being just or wise. And I have to say, this doesn't seem either just or wise at all.

You can try to fool our beloved Master, the Almighty All-knowing Lord of both worlds.

How does this "all knowingness" and "belovedness" fit with a conception of god that doesn't know what people think in their hearts, or does, and yet doesn't care, and how is he "beloved" who thinks the people who hate him and only submit between gritted teeth might be more virtuous than those who love him?

You have to admit: that's not a very winsome or wise picture of a deity. And I can't help but wonder if other Islamists are equally committed to this sort of picture of the allegedly supreme being...

[promethean75]

Alright time to place some bets, u guys. Which one of these two strange fellows will bail from this debate first, IC or G dawg?

My money's on G dawg.

[godelian]

Well "actionable" is one thing. You can't tell what a person has inside them, so other people can't take action based on things that don't show.

We are finally -- at last -- Praise the Lord! -- getting to the point.

What would 'the point' be? I wasn't aware we were trying to head for anything.

What you are saying, is not actionable, and can therefore never be law. For example, loving your neighbor is a recommendation. It can never be law. How could a violation of that even be dealt with? Christ did not change or expand Mosaic law. Christ made recommendations only. If you want to know what the rules are in Mosaic law, you can only refer to Moses.

[Immanuel Can]

We are finally -- at last -- Praise the Lord! -- getting to the point.

What would 'the point' be? I wasn't aware we were trying to head for anything.

What you are saying, is not actionable, and can therefore never be law.

What is that, to the point? Why is the human attempt to follow various laws such a great thing? It always fails.

The Bible says the problem with the Law is that nobody is able to keep it. That's the point Christ was making in the Sermon on the Mount, too...if you think you've done all the Law requires of you, as the Pharisees did, then, says Jesus, you don't know what you're talking about. The Law requires you not merely to follow the letter of what is written, but also complete the spirit in which it was sent -- such as not merely to love your friends (which everybody pretty much does anyway, because it's rewarding) but to love, show mercy to, and even pray for your enemies, for hating people is a form of mental murder; or not merely not to sexually assault women, but not even to indulge the common male propensity for dwelling on such imaginings, since that is like "committing adultery with her already in his heart," as Jesus pointed out.

So the problem with the Law is twofold: one, that men think it's too easy...that all they have to do is to stick to doing or not doing one thing at a time, and all the associated evils are overlooked; and two, that because we all fail at it, ultimately, all it succeeds in doing for mankind is pointing out how corrupt we are, and how far short of the ideal we've all come, whether we want to recognize it or not. And it's in that sense that "the Law brings a curse": like a CAT scan or MRI, all it can do is show you how badly things have gone wrong, but cannot correct any of them for you.

For example, loving your neighbor is a recommendation.

According to you, perhaps. Not according to Jesus Christ. For Him, it's one of the two greatest commandments that establish the whole Law. (See Matthew 22). And he explicitly identifies it there as a "commandment," not as a suggestion or recommendation. And I think His insight on the Law is going to be considerably better than ours, don't you?

It can never be law.

That's exactly what Christ says it is: a commandment, and a summary of the whole Law.

How could a violation of that even be dealt with?

Well, here's a difference between Islam and Christianity, really. If your version of Islam is correct, you suppose that the Law depends on whether or not men can enforce it. In Christianity, the attempts of any men to fulfill the Law are recognized as deficient, and the only One who can trutly uphold the Law is the Lawgiver Himself, God. So whether the Law stands violated or upheld will not be decided by lawyers, or policemen, or judges, or priests or imams: it depends on God.

Christ made recommendations only.

You can see, this is not how Jesus Christ Himself saw it. He said He had come not just to obey the Law, but to complete it -- by explaining the full range of its implications, which in Moses's writings had been misunderstood by the Pharisees (John 5:45-47), who thought of themselves as the ultimate Lawkeepers, but could now be explained as requiring nothing less than moral perfection -- a perfection that no natural man has, but for which he must apply to God Himself for both forgiveness and enabling.

And those who have no relationship to God? As for fulfilling the Law, they may as well try to drink the Pacific Ocean. Despite the Pharisees self-confidence, the thing cannot be done that way.

You may not agree with all this. But you can certainly see it's miles away from what you've been describing. It's safe to say that what Jesus Christ taught in the gospels is not what you've been representing as the practice of Islam. For the Islam you present seems to understand itself as confident it's "submitted" and "obeying the Law," whereas outsiders can see not only how guilty of falling short of that it has been, but its violent and bloodthirsty character, and can be troubled by its hatred of its enemies, and its rapacious attitude to women and children, and wonder how such a religion could consider itself safely obedient to the Law of God.

[godelian]

[If your version of Islam is correct, you suppose that the Law depends on whether or not men can enforce it.

Yes, only what can be enforced, is law. Everything else are mere recommendations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior,[1] with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.[2][3][4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement

Law enforcement is the activity of some members of government who act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, investigating, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society.[1]

Exhorting your followers to love their neighbors, amounts to recommending a particular behavior. There is absolutely no hope or pretense that it can ever be enforced. That is why it cannot be law.

[Immanuel Can]

[If your version of Islam is correct, you suppose that the Law depends on whether or not men can enforce it.

Yes, only what can be enforced, is law. Everything else are mere recommendations.

Why would Allah have to depend on you to enforce what he cannot enforce? Doesn't that make him look weak?

Exhorting your followers to love their neighbors, amounts to recommending a particular behavior.

That's not what Christ explicitly says it is: he calls it one of the two great commandments. He says it's not just "Law," but the totality of the Mosaic Law. And Mohammed called him a true prophet, remember; so what will you do with that? Will you say that Mohammed got that wrong?

[godelian]

Why would Allah have to depend on you to enforce what he cannot enforce? Doesn't that make him look weak?

Law is enforced by societal institutions. Your views on the matter are unrealistic.

That's not what Christ explicitly says it is: he calls it one of the two great commandments. He says it's not just "Law," but the totality of the Mosaic Law. And Mohammed called him a true prophet, remember; so what will you do with that? Will you say that Mohammed got that wrong?

I would actually have to figure out how the ulema (scholars) would rule on this matter, but they won't, because they consider the Gospels in the Christian Bible to be mostly fabrications. Now, even though it is obvious that the Gospels are replete with forgeries, I also believe that some their content is truthful.

Christ was a prophet but in my opinion not a messenger of God. He was not appointed to transmit law. He was not even in a position to do so, since he was not the sovereign ruler of his nation. His recommendations are certainly fine, but they are not and will never be law.

Everything that the Ebionites, i.e. the congregation of the poor, thought was important to mention about Christ, has actually made it into the Quran. Therefore, if you want to discuss what Christ has said, you'd better quote from the Quran than from the Christian Gospels. Otherwise, the entire problem of fabrications and forgeries will start tainting the discussion, while no Islamic scholar will want to weigh in on the matter on that basis.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would Allah have to depend on you to enforce what he cannot enforce? Doesn't that make him look weak?

Law is enforced by societal institutions. Your views on the matter are unrealistic.

That's not an answer, of course. How about you just answer the question?

...even though it is obvious that the Gospels are replete with forgeries...

Sorry...there isn't a manuscript tradition to support the old Islamic claim that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupt. In fact, if you pay attention to the archaeological evidence, you'll be perplexed by how massive and consistent the manuscript tradition of both is. But I suspect you'll just continue to believe whatever your imam has told you about that, and won't want to look. If you do, you won't like what you'll find.

Christ was a prophet but in my opinion not a messenger of God.

Then I guess you don't believe Mohammed. In fact, that doesn't even make sense -- Christ was a "prophet," you say, but he was "not a messenger of God"? What is a "prophet" if not that? It can only be a "false prophet," which would mean Mohammed also was also a false prophet, for he claimed Christ was a true one.

[riju77]

They see the gender pay gap as a problem but often fail to address its root causes. Instead of implementing meaningful policies and systemic changes, they resort to superficial measures. This approach not only fails to close the gap but also perpetuates inequality. True progress requires a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that all workers are valued and compensated fairly, regardless of gender. uttar pradesh scholarship

[Immanuel Can]

They see the gender pay gap as a problem but often fail to address its root causes. Instead of implementing meaningful policies and systemic changes, they resort to superficial measures. This approach not only fails to close the gap but also perpetuates inequality. True progress requires a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that all workers are valued and compensated fairly, regardless of gender. uttar pradesh scholarship

What if they don't do equal work, or work as long, or are not willing to work in jobs that are money-makers, or that require serious personal financial investment, or are not keen to accept dangerous jobs? What if they take longer vacations, take time off for family, and won't work overtime? Should they be paid as much then?

Or should we be "transparent" about the fact that they're not putting in the same hours, not taking the same risks, not making the company the same money, and not doing jobs that, in real terms, are worth as much money?

How much actual "transparency" about that can we stand?

[godelian]

They see the gender pay gap as a problem but often fail to address its root causes. Instead of implementing meaningful policies and systemic changes, they resort to superficial measures. This approach not only fails to close the gap but also perpetuates inequality. True progress requires a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that all workers are valued and compensated fairly, regardless of gender. uttar pradesh scholarship

Feminists are opposed to the traditional -- and actually even biological -- division of labor between man and woman. In itself, that is ok. However, when the government starts simping for feminism, it inevitably involves the use of force.

As far as I am concerned, the feminist government has lost the mandate of heaven and therefore the monopoly on the use of violence.

Even though I am perfectly aware of the fact that western men are complete pushovers, I can also see that a rigorous solution can be found elsewhere. That is why I am looking and shopping around for other people to finally solve the problem.

[LuckyR]

They see the gender pay gap as a problem but often fail to address its root causes. Instead of implementing meaningful policies and systemic changes, they resort to superficial measures. This approach not only fails to close the gap but also perpetuates inequality. True progress requires a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that all workers are valued and compensated fairly, regardless of gender. uttar pradesh scholarship

What if they don't do equal work, or work as long, or are not willing to work in jobs that are money-makers, or that require serious personal financial investment, or are not keen to accept dangerous jobs? What if they take longer vacations, take time off for family, and won't work overtime? Should they be paid as much then?

Or should we be "transparent" about the fact that they're not putting in the same hours, not taking the same risks, not making the company the same money, and not doing jobs that, in real terms, are worth as much money?

How much actual "transparency" about that can we stand?

"What if"? That happens all the time right now. And the answer is, in those circumstances women are paid less.

[godelian]

Sorry...there isn't a manuscript tradition to support the old Islamic claim that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupt. In fact, if you pay attention to the archaeological evidence, you'll be perplexed by how massive and consistent the manuscript tradition of both is.

Christian scribes were known as the interpolandi and the fabricaturi:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpolation

In textual criticism, Christian interpolation generally refers to textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish and pagan source texts during Christian scribal transmission.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpo ... nuscripts)

An interpolation, in relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author.

This was almost always done in order to insert the views of the notorious heresiarch, Paul, the apostate from the law, into the original Jewish text.

That is why no text copied by Christian scribes can be trusted for its authenticity.

Prophet Muhammad endorsed the views on Christ written into the Quran. If you want to point out an inconsistency, then you will have to do that exclusively based on verses in the Quran only. Prophet Muhammad is not responsible for the numerous fabrications and forgeries in the Christian Gospels.

[Immanuel Can]

They see the gender pay gap as a problem but often fail to address its root causes. Instead of implementing meaningful policies and systemic changes, they resort to superficial measures. This approach not only fails to close the gap but also perpetuates inequality. True progress requires a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that all workers are valued and compensated fairly, regardless of gender. uttar pradesh scholarship

What if they don't do equal work, or work as long, or are not willing to work in jobs that are money-makers, or that require serious personal financial investment, or are not keen to accept dangerous jobs? What if they take longer vacations, take time off for family, and won't work overtime? Should they be paid as much then?

Or should we be "transparent" about the fact that they're not putting in the same hours, not taking the same risks, not making the company the same money, and not doing jobs that, in real terms, are worth as much money?

How much actual "transparency" about that can we stand?

"What if"? That happens all the time right now. And the answer is, in those circumstances women are paid less.

And is it fair that they are paid less for less work, for fewer hours, for fewer years? Or for choosing less company-profitable and less risky careers, and careers that involve people rather than things, for inventing and innovating far less often, for being more reluctant to do overtime and travel, for taking time out for children and family, for declining to pony up capital and be as entrepreneurial, and so on?

It would be impossible to imagine why we should pay a man equal to another man if he were to make those choices; so in a spirit of equity, why would we pay a woman to do that?