Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)
But you contradicted yourself on that. First you claimed the Quran doesn't really say you can beat your wife (when it does). Then you told us HOW you can beat your wife: not on the face, so that it doesn't leave a mark, isn't painful. Don't you see how it is a contradiction to claim the Quran doesn't allow to beat your wife then list us all the rules by which you can beat your wife?
Re-read my first explanation.
Do you think the followers of Muhammad didn't question the intreptration and understanding of each verse he revealed?
Muhammad lays down the conditions to the beating. Once you understand the conditions, you come to realize how in the world is that beating?
And thats the wisdom of that verse. If anyone caught their wife cheating, they would loved to slap them. However, if you read the Quran, you wouldn't be able to slap your wife across the face upon catching her sleeping with another man.
Muslims have the lowest number of divorce rate in the world, statistically.
I'm done anwsering this one.
Historical context is the way they always defend Muhammad's marriage to a child, but you apparently didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote about context above. Muhammad is claimed to be a perfect exaple of behavior for Muslims for all times. Supposedly the Quran is dictated to him (through Gabriel) as a book that should guide Muslims for eternity. So don't you think that such a book if it was truly written by an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise... (you can list all his supposed 99 characteristics of his) God then it wouldn't be so painfully obviously the product of its time with the morality of the 7th century?
Like I said above an all-wise God would know that pedophilia is not OK - he wouldn't only know it now, he would have also known it in the 7th century, despite of Muhammad's own historical context. And he would have ordered rules against pedophilia and not have allowed his holiest prophet who is held up as an example for all Muslims, to marry a child. An all wise God would have known all the consequences of that among Muhammad's followers: ie. that some Muslim countries still, until this day allow and practice child marriages, citing exactly Muhammad's example.
Let's make 1 thing crystal clear. Islam forbidds marrying a pre-pbusecent child under any circumstances.
Today, we define the term pedophilia loosely, whether the child is pre-pubscent or pubecent (teens)
So given that practice was for that time period, we know it's not the case in todays society. And like you said, some Muslims in certain countries, may hold on to that practice in certain cirumstances......but never a pre-pubsent child.
So since Muslims argue that the Quran is perfect for all eternity and that Muhammad is an example to follow for all Muslims, don't you think they shouldn't be so bound by historocal context and the morality of their time? You are beating Islam's argument of these things being divine or a great example to follow today when you bring up a historical context in their defense. If they are so bound by their historical context then they are not divine and not perfect and not great to follow today.
The problem is that most Muslims do hold these things up (Quran, Muhammad) as perfect or as an example to follow. Beceause the Quran and Muhammad have such a status in Islam all they do is cement 7th century morality, which isn't very good in the 21st century where in many areas we have made a lot of progress since 21st century.
Indeed one interpretation is the literalist one that ISIS or Saud Arabia do. If that's what is indeed literally in the Quran we cannot really say it has nothing to do with Islam, like some apologists always try to do, can we?
Like LindaG said, I am glad if you are for a more moderate interpretation of Islam, but who decides which one is the correct interpretation? Their version is as legit as yours. As horrible as they look through modern eyes ISIS does nothing that Muhammad didn't do. ISIS is what you get when you literally follow Muhammad's example. For the record, a state or quasi-state based on Leviticus would look equally horrible.
Like i explained before, yes certain laws found in Sharia Law were taken from a historial context and provided that this is how things should be done for all times.
The most ridculous law is forbidding Women to drive in Saudi. No bases on Islam or prophet Muhammad, obviously! In Indonesias Sharia Law, women are pilots!
As Muslims we great Muslims with Assalamu Aalikum (Peace be upon you). However, should we leave that pactice for 7th century? No, that's for all time.
So certain laws and practices is mean't for all times. Others were under historical circumtances but became for all times. That's why Sharia Law is so diversed within Muslim countries. It's man made. And MUST be adopted and changed to fit the 21st century.
So you speak about a reform? What do you think has been happening in the Muslim world for the past 50 years? We are in the middle of the Islamic reformation!
[/QUOTE]