Page 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 556 to 570 of 762

Thread: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

   
  1. #556
    Points: 12,393, Level: 72
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,258
    Points
    12,393
    Level
    72
    Thanks
    7,032
    Thanked 2,836 Times in 787 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Are non-atheists allowed to comment or express their opinions on here?
    I can't speak for everyone but I welcome it, otherwise this place becomes an echo chamber ;D

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LindavG For This Useful Post:


  3. #557
    Points: 64,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    15,730
    Points
    64,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    20,325
    Thanked 35,853 Times in 9,311 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Only do not proselytize.

  4. #558
    Points: 49,905, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 29.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    analogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    7,362
    Points
    49,905
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    2,140
    Thanked 7,958 Times in 2,486 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Are non-atheists allowed to comment or express their opinions on here?

    You need to know the password to get in

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to analogue For This Useful Post:


  6. #559
    Points: 64,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    15,730
    Points
    64,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    20,325
    Thanked 35,853 Times in 9,311 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? – An Oped by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Published by The AHA Foundation at February 20, 2017


    Originally published in The Australian: 12:00AM February 18, 2017

    Yassmin Abdel-Magied, an Islamic activist, has been paid by the Australian government to visit countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Qatar, it is said, “to promote Australia”. Far from offering criticism of the misogynistic sharia laws on the books in those countries, Abdel-Magied recently stated that Islam is “the most feminist” of all religions. Confronted with the abuses that are committed against women in the countries she visited, Abdel-Magied replied: “I’m not going to deny, some countries run by Muslims are violent and sexist, but that’s not down to sharia. That’s down to the culture and the patriarchy and the politics of those … countries.”

    That is absurd. Abdel-Magied fits into a familiar pattern, where the government of a free society such as Australia invests a considerable sum in an individual or a group in the hope that the person is a “moderate” Muslim and will advance the assimilation of their Muslim minority through constructive engagement. Then the supposed moderate the government has invested in is exposed as a closet Islamist, in this case sympathetic to sharia law. The government is left red-faced. Others simply see red.

    In a televised exchange on ABC, Australian senator Jacqui Lambie challenged Abdel-Magied’s views, holding that those who support sharia law should be deported from Australia. Remarkably, the televised debate was followed by a demand for an apology by the ABC from a collective of 49 Muslim scholars, lawyers and self-appointed individuals who claim to speak for all Australian Muslims. The petition alleged “Islamophobia” and criticised ABC host Tony Jones for not upholding the “values of respect and fairness” and for failing to provide a “safe environment” for Abdel-Magied.

    Yet what set of principles is less safe for women than sharia? As a moral and legal code, sharia law is among the most dehumanising, demeaning and degrading for women ever devised by man:

    • Under sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s testimony in court (Koran 2:282).

    • Under sharia law, men are the “guardians” of women; women are to be obedient to men, and husbands may beat their wives for disobedience (Koran 4:34).

    • Under sharia law, a woman may not refuse sexual access to her husband unless she is medically incapable or menstruating, a teaching based partly on Allah himself saying in the Koran, “Your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish” (Koran 2:223)

    • Under sharia law, a woman inherits less than a man, generally half as much, again based on holy writ: “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: the male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (Koran 4.11, 4.12).

    • Under sharia law, men and women who commit fornication are to be flogged. As to the punishment for fornicators, the Koran says: “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment” (Koran 24:2).

    • Under sharia law, a man may unilaterally divorce his wife through talaq, whereas women are limited to divorce either under specific circumstances, such as the husband’s impotence, or with the husband’s consent and payment of a certain amount of money (khul).

    • Sharia law permits fathers to contract binding marriages for their children so long as they are minors; and although a boy married against his wishes may exercise his power to divorce his wife unilaterally once he matures, a girl’s exit from such an unwanted marriage is much more difficult.

    • Under sharia law, the custody of children is generally granted to *fathers, and mothers lose custody if they remarry because their attention is supposed to go to their new husbands.

    • Although majority-Muslim countries have in practice abolished slavery (Saudi Arabia did so mainly as a result of foreign pressure in 1962), slavery still has not been abolished in sharia law. Sexual slavery was common in Islamic history and is accepted by sharia law.

    Defenders of sharia note that in some respects, Islamic law improved the position of women in 7th century tribal Arabia, for instance by categorically banning female infanticide. Yet surely, in the 21st century, we can set the bar higher than that?

    Contrary to the claims of Abdel-Magied, the problematic tenets of sharia are not some relic left over from the cultural practices of the 7th century. Today, sharia law is applied in many countries as a matter of reality, and it is also enforced in many Muslim communities in matters such as marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance proceedings.

    Indeed, the countries Abdel-Magied visited are proud to call their legal code sharia law.


    Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law states: “The regime derives its power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet’s Sunnah, which rule over this and all other State Laws”, all “within the framework of the sharia”. Likewise, Kuwait’s constitution declares that “Islamic law shall be a main source of legislation”.

    Sudan’s interim 2005 constitution states: “Nationally enacted legislation having effect only in respect of the Northern states of the Sudan shall have as its sources of legislation Islamic sharia and the consensus of the people.”

    Qatar’s constitution requires the ruler to “swear by God, the Great, to respect the Islamic law”. Egypt’s 2014 constitution holds: “The principles of Islamic sharia are the principle source of legislation.”

    In Iran, the marriage of girls at a young age is permitted, based on Mohammed’s consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was nine. Was marriage at such a young age uncommon, given the cultural norms of the 7th century? No. Should such a historical precedent be emulated today? No.

    It is therefore plainly false to say, as Abdel-Magied does, that the subjection of women in these countries is “not down to sharia (but) down to the culture and the patriarchy and the politics of those … countries”.

    However, an important distinction can be made between “sharia lite” and “sharia forte”. Sharia forte is applied in the legal system of theocracies such as Saudi Arabia (which Abdel-Magied visited) and Iran, and by organisations such as Islamic State and Boko Haram. It does not apply in the West for obvious reasons.

    But sharia lite is informally enforced within Muslim communities in Western countries, including Australia. In Australia, Islamists rely on sharia law to arbitrate divorces and inheritance disagreements. In 2015, a journalist writing in this newspaper observed that “given the undercover application of sharia law, often within mosques, there is little scrutiny of the process and the fairness of the adjudications”.

    There is another problem: the general mindset of some Islamic “leaders” in Australia. In 2006, Australians were shocked to find the country’s most senior Islamic cleric, Taj el-Din Hilaly, refer to unveiled rape victims as “uncovered meat” that was left out in public. When a cat comes to eat the meat, the sheik reasoned, “the uncovered meat is the problem” because “if she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred”.

    The ensuing public controversy led to Hilaly’s retirement, but his views were not out of line with Islamic law.

    Sharia manuals such as Reliance of the Traveller hold that a husband may forbid his wife to leave the house and the wife must obey, and that a woman may not draw attention to herself in public.

    In the Islamist mindset, Muslim women in Western countries should not enjoy the legal protections of the societies they live in. Two recent studies conducted by Elham Manea and Machteld Zee into British sharia “arbitration councils” offer clear evidence of this.

    Abdel-Magied and the Islamist collective that is demanding an apology from ABC are not interested in this kind of inconvenient truth. They want to deflect attention away from the problems inherent in sharia law.

    In my view, the Australian government should stop funding people such as Abdel-Magied, and the other partners they have, and instead find progressive, reform-minded Muslims who will help with the vital task of assimilating Muslims into Australian society.

    The only way to resolve the fundamental challenge to women’s rights posed by sharia law is to criticise its problematic aspects openly.

    The successful assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Australia is an achievable goal, but not on the basis of the hypocrisy and phony indignation in which the likes of Abdel-Magied specialise.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and the founder of the AHA Foundation, which exists to protect women and girls from abuses of the sort described in this article. She will visit Australia in early April to discuss reforming Islam.
    http://www.theahafoundation.org/how-...aan-hirsi-ali/

  7. #560
    Points: 16,455, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    3,851
    Points
    16,455
    Level
    82
    Thanks
    1,750
    Thanked 1,393 Times in 533 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Respect,

    Do you honestly believe that Islam promotes beating your wives? There's wisdom in that verse, and if you took the time to understand what the revelation is actually saying with proper context, you'd be surprised to know that Islam says you can't beat your wife.

    Also, Sharia Law varies from country to country. For exmaple, Women can't drive in Suadi, however in Yemen they can, under Sharia Law. Nothing to do with Islam. Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia should not be the representation of Islam.

    "Sharia law was deveoped within a clear historical context, that evolved in response to specific historical circumstances, and that it was privy to the same social, polititcal, and economic factors that have been infleunced all legal codes in all cultures and in every part of the world."

    Nonetheless, a lot of those laws are not contextualized and just looked at in face value. Ayaan may think she knows all about Islamic history and the Qur'an, but she only hears what she wants to hear because of her own biased misrepresented views of Islam.
    Last edited by h0opman31; 22-02-2017 at 02:00 PM.



  8. #561
    Points: 64,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    15,730
    Points
    64,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    20,325
    Thanked 35,853 Times in 9,311 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Respect,

    Do you honestly believe that Islam promotes beating your wives? There's wisdom in that verse, and if you took the time to understand what the revelation is actually saying with proper context, you'd be surprised to know that Islam says you can't beat your wife.
    Then please explain what is the "correct" interpretation of those texts and what is the "wisdom" in those verses? For example these ones:

    Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation....ter=4&verse=34

    Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation....er=2&verse=223

    The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
    https://quran.com/24/2

    Do you agree that man are in charge of women? Do you agree that it's OK to beat one's wife if she is disobedient to her husband? Do you agree that a man should be able to have sex with his wife whenever he wants, however he wants? Do you agree that people who have sex outside of marriage should be lashed with a hundred lashes? Let's just start with these.

    Also, Sharia Law varies from country to country. For exmaple, Women can't drive in Suadi, however in Yemen they can, under Sharia Law. Nothing to do with Islam. Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia should not be the representation of Islam.
    Thing is, by representative polls a lot of Muslims (a majority of them, and not only in the above mentioned countries) interpret many Islamic teachings in a way that is simply incompatible with modern liberal democracy. Are they all wrong? What is your intepretation then? And how do you know yours is the correct interpretation instead of the literal interpretation?

    "Sharia law was deveoped within a clear historical context, that evolved in response to specific historical circumstances, and that it was privy to the same social, polititcal, and economic factors that have been infleunced all legal codes in all cultures and in every part of the world."
    And as such it is a product of its time, just like Leviticus. I agree with that.

    The probelms start when people think they are laws that should be still relevant today. If you are not one of those Muslims, that's great. I hope for more such Muslims, altough the polls I have read about aren't too encouraging in that regard.

    Let me point out that I don't consider Biblical laws, especially in the Old Testament, any better than the Quranic laws. Thing is however, there isn't any Western countries any more that are based on Biblical laws - let alone on Leviticus. Sure there are sometimes attempts by right-wing conservatives to shuffle Biblical laws into state laws (eg. when they want to restrict LMBTQ rights, clearly based on their Biblical beleifs), but there isn't really a Biblical basis to those attempts. Christianity in its core isn't political. Jesus wasn't a politician and refused to be one. Whenever he was confronted with political questions he circumvented them (for example "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" when people asked him about whether they should pay taxes to Ceasar). Muhammad however was a politician. And Islam as a result isn't only a religion but it is also a political system. Something that should be aspired to be made the law of the land with a majority Muslim population. Christianity doesn't have anything equivalent to that. In Christianity the rules only apply to people who are Christians - and they are self-applied. There aren't such rules as in Sharia, for example about how you should treat people who live under your rule. Christianity didn't even anticipate to rule and have political power when it was concieved. Or there aren't rules to punish apostates. And so forth and so on. That is a huge difference between the two religions IMO and a difference that makes Islam a lot harder to fit into a modern world based on equal rights for everyone, regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation and free choice.


    Nonetheless, a lot of those laws are not contextualized and just looked at in face value. Ayaan may think she knows all about Islamic history and the Qur'an, but she only hears what she wants to hear because of her own biased misrepresented views of Islam.
    I have seen such "contextualized" interpretations of Christianity as well. Because Christianity has its own backwards views as well. For example, I have seen people who are gay but still want to be Christians. I have read their websites and how they try to "contextualize" (ie. explain away) those homophobic Biblical verses to somehow reconcile their homosexuality with their Christianity. Saying they were only relevant at the time. Saying they reference to some sort of practice of idol worship of which homosexual acts were a part of. And it is only relevant to such homosexual acts. I am glad if such interpretations give them a peace of mind because no one deserves to suffer because of a fairy tale. However, I can see that those kind of arguments aren't really convincing to many, many other Christians - because let's face it: "God" sure didn't go out of his way to explain that those verses are only relevant for that time or only relevant in connection with some sort of idol worship. It's just an interpretation and sure a good (if not better) argument can be made for the opposite as well. Thing is the Bible is a product of its time and it mirrors views from that time which wouldn't be compatible with modern liberal democracies, individual rights, human rights etc. today. Same with the Quran. As long as you acknowledge that and don't want to make such religious laws rule a country today, or in any way force onto other people, I think it is OK. The problems start when people think these books are God's laws for humanity for all times and these laws should rule today. Secular liberal democracies aren't perfect either but they are better than any religion-based system and we should protect them.

    I am a secularist who thinks the best way to run a state is by a seperation of state and church. Any kind of church. Christian, Muslim, whatever. Do you agree with that?
    Last edited by respect77; 22-02-2017 at 05:44 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:

    Lil

  10. #562
    Points: 16,455, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    3,851
    Points
    16,455
    Level
    82
    Thanks
    1,750
    Thanked 1,393 Times in 533 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Respect,

    "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

    2 part anwser to this:

    firstly,

    The original language of the Quran is in Arabic. That means theres only 1 Quran which is in arabic, the translated ones are merely a translation.

    Because of the variability of the Arabic language, the arabic word 'qawwamuna' is grammtically, systematically, and definitionally correctly translated to the words 'watch over', 'protect', 'support', 'attend to', 'look after' or........'be in charge of'

    Same goes for the arabic word 'adribubunna', which can be translatred correctly to, 'turn away from them', 'go along with them', 'have consensual intercourse with them', or...............'beat/strike them'


    secondly,

    When prophet Muhammad revealed this verse, his followers asked him how they can beat their wives, since the verse doesn't explain how. Poprhet Muhammad explains 1. You CAN NOT strike the face 2. You CAN NOT cause pain 3. You CAN NOT leave a mark

    So anyone in their right mind can come to the conclusion that those conditions to 'beating' doesn't make it really beating as the arabic word was rendered to. This is why the Qur'an can't be exactly translated into English.

    Thus, the Quran says you CAN NOT beat your wives. If you do, you have sinned!


    Last edited by h0opman31; 22-02-2017 at 07:57 PM.



  11. #563
    Points: 64,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    15,730
    Points
    64,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    20,325
    Thanked 35,853 Times in 9,311 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Respect,


    Same goes for the arabic word 'adribubunna', which can be translatred correctly to, 'turn away from them', 'go along with them', 'have consensual intercourse with them', or...............'beat/strike them'

    On the website I have linked to there are a number of translation variations. Each one of them talk about beating, striking or scourging.

    first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.
    As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
    onduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);
    admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them;
    Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them.
    As to those women on whose part you see ill*conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful),
    And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation....ter=4&verse=34

    secondly,

    When prophet Muhammad revealed this verse, his followers asked him how they can beat their wives, since the verse doesn't explain how. Poprhet Muhammad explains 1. You CAN NOT strike the face 2. You CAN NOT cause pain 3. You CAN NOT leave a mark

    So anyone in their right mind can come to the conclusion that those conditions to beating doesn't make it really 'beating' as the arabic word was rendered to. This is whe Qur'an can't be exactly translated into English.

    Thus, the Quran says you CAN NOT beat your wives. If you do, you have sinned!



    So beating isn't really beating if it isn't in the face, doesn't leave a mark or isn't that painful? Wow, you seriously think this is a good defense of the above verse and it makes it look civilized in comparation to liberal democratic laws where you aren't allowed to beat your spouse in any way? Even non-painful or "light" beating is humiliating and it expresses a kind of pecking order between two people if one is allowed to beat the other and rule the other by ways of beating, slapping, striking, scourging.

    According to the Hadith Muhammad himself wasn't free of domestic violence.

    He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.
    http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmus...mber-2127.html

    He also laughed at domestic violence by other men.

    Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (Peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) which he does not possess.
    https://muflihun.com/muslim/9/3506

    Considering that Muhammad in Islam is considered to be the highest example of good human behavior who should be emulated by all Muslims I would argue that he wasn't really a great example in terms of treating women.

    Narated By Basrah : A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (pbuh) said: She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him.
    http://hadithcollection.com/abudawud...mber-2126.html

    https://muflihun.com/abudawood/12/2126

    And so on and so forth.

    I find it problematic that so many Muslims are trying to bagatellize these verses instead of facing the problematic aspects of their religion and realize how it is not right to apply 7th century "values" in the 21st century.
    Last edited by respect77; 22-02-2017 at 08:30 PM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to respect77 For This Useful Post:


  13. #564
    Points: 12,393, Level: 72
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,258
    Points
    12,393
    Level
    72
    Thanks
    7,032
    Thanked 2,836 Times in 787 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Respect,

    Do you honestly believe that Islam promotes beating your wives? There's wisdom in that verse, and if you took the time to understand what the revelation is actually saying with proper context, you'd be surprised to know that Islam says you can't beat your wife.
    I would love to hear that context because a straightforward reading of the text clearly says that men can physically discipline their wives if they are disobedient. The source Respect77 linked to (http://corpus.quran.com/translation....ter=4&verse=34) provides several translations of this verse by Islamic scholars and every single one mentions the 'beatings'. The most liberal interpretation I have heard is that men aren't supposed to literally beat their wives, a light tap on the wrist is sufficient. But that doesn't excuse the deeper reason for why this verse is problematic, which is that it describes men and women as fundamentally unequal. Men are in charge of women and women are supposed to be devoutly obedient lest they be 'punished' in some way. I wonder if you would still see the wisdom in this verse if the gender roles were reversed. It's degrading to be treated like a child who needs a caretaker and who can't be trusted with her own opinions. No man would settle for that.

    Also, Sharia Law varies from country to country. For exmaple, Women can't drive in Suadi, however in Yemen they can, under Sharia Law. Nothing to do with Islam. Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia should not be the representation of Islam.
    It's true that Saudi Arabia has a particularly strict version of Islamic law and not all their laws are derived from the Quran, as you pointed out with the female driving ban. That doesn't mean that there aren't some objective aspects of Sharia law that are universally agreed upon and that would be considered deeply unethical from a Western point of view, such as:

    * Punishment for adultery ranging from 100 lashes to stoning to death
    * Amputations for theft
    * Murderer can be forgiven by victim's family and walk free, which is how honour killings often go unpunished
    * Homosexuality is illegal and punishable by imprisonment or death
    * A man's share of inheritance is larger than a woman's (typically twice as much) even if they have the same degree of relation to the decedent

    And so on. In many Islamic countries, I would be put in prison or even sentenced to death just for speaking out about my views regarding atheism and Islam. Saudi Arabia considers atheists terrorists by definition.

    "Sharia law was deveoped within a clear historical context, that evolved in response to specific historical circumstances, and that it was privy to the same social, polititcal, and economic factors that have been infleunced all legal codes in all cultures and in every part of the world."
    Yes, it made sense in the 7th century but I would hope we have made some progress since then.

    Nonetheless, a lot of those laws are not contextualized and just looked at in face value. Ayaan may think she knows all about Islamic history and the Qur'an, but she only hears what she wants to hear because of her own biased misrepresented views of Islam.
    Ayaan's perspective is just as valid as yours. She grew up in a devout Muslim family and lived in several countries with a large Muslim presence (Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya). If her view of Islam isn't quite as rosy as yours, perhaps it's because she suffered FGM as a little girl, had to flee abroad to escape an arranged marriage and has lived in fear of her life for many years now. When she lived in the Netherlands, she made a documentary called Submission about the treatment of women in Islam. The film director she made the documentary with, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated on the street by a Dutch Muslim and a knife was stuck in his chest holding a letter with a death threat to Ayaan.

    That aside, "context" is the favourite excuse of any religious apologist, whether they're Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Somehow anyone critical of the plain text doesn't understand the context, unless the literal interpretation puts the religion in a more favourable light, then by all means ignore the context.



    Edit: oh dammit, I had dinner and came back to finish my post but now you've already responded. I"ll get back to you later

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LindavG For This Useful Post:


  15. #565
    Points: 16,455, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    3,851
    Points
    16,455
    Level
    82
    Thanks
    1,750
    Thanked 1,393 Times in 533 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    I highly implore you whenever you don't have an undersanding of a verse in the quran, go to an islamic scholar for the understanding and interpreation. THEN you can conclude whatever your heart tells you. But please don't go to anti-muslim webites or scholars who claim to have knowlege of Islam....go to the Muslim scholars. Go to the Islamic historicans.







  16. #566
    Points: 16,455, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    3,851
    Points
    16,455
    Level
    82
    Thanks
    1,750
    Thanked 1,393 Times in 533 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    double post



  17. #567
    Points: 26,927, Level: 97
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 423
    Overall activity: 97.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranOverdrive25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    11,311
    Points
    26,927
    Level
    97
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 1,585 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    All formalized religions are full of BS.. Bible "your desire be for your husband and he will rule over you".. story of a woman grabbing a mans groin (who is not her husband) having her hands cut off.. the bible even talks about vailing women and those who do not cover there hair should cut it off..

    All/most religions are recycled stories from each other that Is used for whoever's purpose it is to endocrine. Stories from Greek mythology used "modern" religions with names, locations changed.. It's allllll the freakin same.. Stories!
    **He lives forever within us**

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to KOPV For This Useful Post:


  19. #568
    Points: 16,455, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 395
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    3,851
    Points
    16,455
    Level
    82
    Thanks
    1,750
    Thanked 1,393 Times in 533 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    A[/QUOTE]yaan's perspective is just as valid as yours. She grew up in a devout Muslim family and lived in several countries with a large Muslim presence (Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya). If her view of Islam isn't quite as rosy as yours, perhaps it's because she suffered FGM as a little girl, had to flee abroad to escape an arranged marriage and has lived in fear of her life for many years now. When she lived in the Netherlands, she made a documentary called Submission about the treatment of women in Islam. The film director she made the documentary with, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated on the street by a Dutch Muslim and a knife was stuck in his chest holding a letter with a death threat to Ayaan.


    That aside, "context" is the favourite excuse of any religious apologist, whether they're Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Somehow anyone critical of the plain text doesn't understand the context, unless the literal interpretation puts the religion in a more favourable light, then by all means ignore the context.



    Edit: oh dammit, I had dinner and came back to finish my post but now you've already responded. I"ll get back to you later [/QUOTE]
    '

    I agree, she went through tragedy, and I can understand why she left Islam, cause that culture of FGM and forced marriages blurred her from seeing the true teachings of Islam and what is a cultural practice.

    So is context not important outside of religious scripture? Do humans not deal with context in their every day life? come on now, thats nonsense. Do students not need to know the context in the books they read in their literature class, otherwise they fail the class?



  20. #569
    Points: 64,380, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    15,730
    Points
    64,380
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    20,325
    Thanked 35,853 Times in 9,311 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    I highly implore you whenever you don't have an undersanding of a verse in the quran, go to an islamic scholar for the understanding and interpreation. THEN you can conclude whatever your heart tells you. But please don't go to anti-muslim webites or scholars who claim to have knowlege of Islam....go to the Muslim scholars. Go to the Islamic historicans.
    I was quoting the Quran and the Hadith, not anti-Muslim websites.

    And just like in Christianity in Islam too there are people who are doing all kind of mental gymnastics to explain away some uncomfortable verses in their scriptures. I gave an example of that from Christianity above (re. gay Christians trying to explain away the homophobic verses of the Bible).

    I am all for moderate interpretations, those are sure better than literal ones, but thing is there are more literalists today in Islam than in any other religion. While Leviticus also orders the stoning of adulterous people, or the killing of gays, but you don't see Jews practice that today anywhere in the world. But in Islam you actually see countries where adulterous people or gay people are killed, for example. Or where apostasy is a capital crime. And it is dishonest to deny that they do have support for that from Islamic scriptures.

    Why do you think so many Muslims support the execution of apostates, for example? Do they all misunderstand Islam? And if there is such a wide-spread misunderstanding of Islam among its own adherents, don't you think that Muslims like you should rather be among them and spread the "correct" interpretation of Islam, rather than be all defensive about Islam in an atheist forum?

    I think Islam does need to go through some sort of reform where people let go of these literal interpretations, much like Jews did re. Leviticus.
    Last edited by respect77; 22-02-2017 at 09:06 PM.

  21. #570
    Points: 12,393, Level: 72
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,258
    Points
    12,393
    Level
    72
    Thanks
    7,032
    Thanked 2,836 Times in 787 Posts

    Default Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

    Quote Originally Posted by h0opman31 View Post
    Respect,

    "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

    2 part anwser to this:

    firstly,

    The original language of the Quran is in Arabic. That means theres only 1 Quran which is in arabic, the translated ones are merely a translation.

    Because of the variability of the Arabic language, the arabic word 'qawwamuna' is grammtically, systematically, and definitionally correctly translated to the words 'watch over', 'protect', 'support', 'attend to', 'look after' or........'be in charge of'

    Same goes for the arabic word 'adribubunna', which can be translatred correctly to, 'turn away from them', 'go along with them', 'have consensual intercourse with them', or...............'beat/strike them'


    See, the skeptic in me questions why the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the Universe would leave His pivotal message to mankind in Ancient Arabic, a language that takes years of study and apparently easily leads to misunderstandings and wrong translations. If you're right and beating a disobedient wife is indeed sinful, then countless men have sinned all the while thinking they were faithfully adhering to the Quran.

    secondly,

    When prophet Muhammad revealed this verse, his followers asked him how they can beat their wives, since the verse doesn't explain how. Poprhet Muhammad explains 1. You CAN NOT strike the face 2. You CAN NOT cause pain 3. You CAN NOT leave a mark

    So anyone in their right mind can come to the conclusion that those conditions to 'beating' doesn't make it really beating as the arabic word was rendered to. This is why the Qur'an can't be exactly translated into English.

    Thus, the Quran says you CAN NOT beat your wives. If you do, you have sinned!

    I'm confused. First you said the verse doesn't say husbands can beat their wives but now Mohammed is providing specific instructions on how to beat a wife? What amazes me is that you don't see anything wrong with above explanation. Do you really think that it's fine to physically discipline your wife if you feel she's being disobedient to you, as long as you don't hit her face, cause pain or leave a mark? What about the indignity of being treated with such disrespect?

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LindavG For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •