is it only me or has religion ruined the world?.

Original post by z33

If we're going to look at ahadith why don't we look at the one that says to beat your wife you throw a handful of grass at her... do you consider that beating? I don't - it's meant to be playful apparently.

Hey, I agree that the hadith (and Quran) are contradictory on many issues (although I am not familiar with the "handful of grass" one, could you link? Thanks).

However, when the Quran says "beat", several sahih hadith explain that the beating should not cause severe injury and to avoid the face, and the consensus of scholars is that it means "beat" (regardless of how hard), it is disingenuous to claim that it does not provide justification for wife-beating of some sort. The vast majority of scholars, from classical to modern, agree that it permits a physical beating of some kind.

Personally, I think that the use of any kind of violence against a spouse as a punishment for bad behaviour is unacceptable. And so does the law.

The general rule for me is any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid - since ahadith are basically stories / accounts that were passed on/ narrated by fallible humans and can't be 100% authentic.

Indeed. "Do not cause serious injury and avoid the face" does not contradict "beat them". "Throw a handful of grass at them" does. So we can disregard your hadith example.

Men and women are equal in Islam in the eyes of Allah - their spirits are the same

Glib platitude.
They are clearly not equal, if you have read the Quran. It is an act of pure fantasy to claim otherwise. Even if there were 100 verses saying "men and women are equal" in 100 different issues, it only takes one verse saying they are not equal in one issueto invalidate the 100.

if wife beating was a thing that Islam condoned then why would Muslim women ever want to get married?

It does not say that men can randomly beat their wives for any reason, it states that they may be beaten as a punishment and deterrent for certain types of unacceptable behaviour, and a "good Muslim wife" would not behave in that way, so they have nothing to worry about.
It's like asking why people would ever buy a car if you can be imprisoned for some driving offences.

If, in Islam, you are not allowed to hit a slave,

Then why is there sahih hadith where Muhammad says "Do not beat your wife as you would your slave"?

why would you be allowed to hit your partner in life, potential mother of your children? it doesn't make sense. If you are questioning something in Islam because it doesn't make sense, I thing there are bigger issues than punishing disobedient wives! (Remember that the Quran was written in the 7th century. It would be more remarkable if there was no reference to disciplining your wife!)

yeah - like i said the word means all kinds of different things
here's the thing - im not saying im some prophet that knows everything about Islam, i'm trying to understand it too. i don't want to just dismiss everything about it just because i disagree with the potential interpretation of one verse in the Quran, I'm just sharing my thoughts at this point in time.

If you are genuinely trying to understand the Quran, try this method... After reading every passage, say to yourself "does this make more sense as the perfect and timeless word of a god who knows everything and cannot make mistakes, or does it make more sense as the writings of 7th century Arabs.

The prophet didn't beat his wives, and neither did any of his successors - if wife beating was allowed/ encouraged I'm sure he would've done it.

First, don't add irrelevant words to make your argument work better. I have never claimed that the Quran encouraged beating, only that it is permitted under certain circumstances.
Second (notwithstanding the sahih hadith where Aisha describes Muhammad hitting her and "causing her pain"), it is irrelevant whether he beat his wives or not. If they were never "disobedient", he would not have had cause or permission.

Islam encouraged treating slaves well and freeing them,

So you agree that Islam condones slavery, but you find it hard to accept that it allows wife beating (under certain circumstances)? Seems an slightly odd position to take. Why do you find slavery less difficult to accept than disciplining a disobedient wife?

And freeing slaves is always mentioned in the context of a penance for sins commited or as a way of accruing "good deeds". There is nothing in the Quran that simply says "free your slaves because keeping them is wrong".

and discouraged slavery,

This is simply untrue. There is nothing in the Quran that implies that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

men are forced to spend on their family whereas women don't have to spend a penny and can actually charge their husbands for the chores they do and for feeding his children, Islam is all about balance.

Hold on, you earlier said that men and women are equal. This doesn't sound like equality!

Reply 82

Original post by ELVsLP

pre 7th century a lot of women didn't even have the right to live.

What does this even mean?

Reply 83

Original post by QE2

What does this even mean?

It is what ill-informed do-gooders and apologists are reduced to once they have tied themselves in the knots necessary to defend Islam.

Reply 84

ISIS is fundamentally Islamic. They are simply implementing a literalist, retentionist version of Islam, undiluted by centuries of modernisation and revisionism.
Clearly they are idiots, for believing the stuff in the Quran. But they are definitely Islamic idiots.

Islam is a religion of peace,

No, it is a religion of peace and violence. The peace only applies to those who submit to Islam. Those who oppose it are faced with violence.
Try reading the Quran.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 85

ToussJ

1

Original post by scaredofdeath

Divided and ruined.
Look at the middle east the place is a hellhole.
Look at muslim areas in europe - Hellholes.

Most of the Middle East problems are caused by Western interference and meddling. Look into the history of ISIS; basically, the US built a big jail and put all the terrorists in together, so they made business connection and learn new tricks. then they left the country and released them.

Reply 86

Original post by ToussJ

Most of the Middle East problems are caused by Western interference and meddling. Look into the history of ISIS; basically, the US built a big jail and put all the terrorists in together, so they made business connection and learn new tricks. then they left the country and released them.

Are they? How many times has the USA invaded Egypt and caused insurrection? What about Libya, which overthrew its dictator all on its own? Or Tunisia? Or Morocco? How about the peoples of the Gulf States (such as Oman, Qatar and Bahrain), who are constantly agitating about authoritarian governments and autocratic monarchical constitutions (with no support from the western allies of those governments)?

What about Turkey, where an Islamist government is turning back a century of secular government?

Or Yemen, where the democracies haven't been seen since Britain abandoned Aden?

And how is the west responsible for the Syrian uprising against Assad?

And do you think the west will be responsible when the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia explodes in the future? If so, how?

Reply 87

ToussJ

1

Original post by Good bloke

Are they? How many times has the USA invaded Egypt and caused insurrection? What about Libya, which overthrew its dictator all on its own? Or Tunisia? Or Morocco? How about the peoples of the Gulf States (such as Oman, Qatar and Bahrain), who are constantly agitating about authoritarian governments and autocratic monarchical constitutions (with no support from the western allies of those governments)?

What about Turkey, where an Islamist government is turning back a century of secular government?

Or Yemen, where the democracies haven't been seen since Britain abandoned Aden?

And how is the west responsible for the Syrian uprising against Assad?

And do you think the west will be responsible when the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia explodes in the future? If so, how?

First of all, by no stretch of the imagination are Libya, Tunisia and Morocco Middle Eastern.Second of all, look into the origins of those countries. Most were established by European powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which was caused by WW1, a Western conflict.

Reply 88

Original post by ToussJ

Most were established by European powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire

You'll be going back so far that you'll be able to blame the Middle East's problems on Spain for reconquering the Iberian peninsula next.

Reply 89

Original post by ToussJ

Most of the Middle East problems are caused by Western interference and meddling. Look into the history of ISIS; basically, the US built a big jail and put all the terrorists in together, so they made business connection and learn new tricks. then they left the country and released them.

Newsflash kiddo - there is, and has been for centuries, a lot more to the ME's problems than just ISIS.

If the two major Islamic sects, and the many dozens of tribal affiliations, weren't hell-bent on slaughtering each other at every given opportunity, the region would be a much more peaceful place.

You can't really blame "The West" for Sunnis believing that Shia are munafiq and apostates who deserve to die. (Even on TSR, a British student website, one of the regular ISOC posters called Shia "deviant", so you can imagine the strength of the hatred in somewhere like rural Iraq)

Reply 90

Original post by Good bloke

Are they? How many times has the USA invaded Egypt and caused insurrection? What about Libya, which overthrew its dictator all on its own? Or Tunisia? Or Morocco? How about the peoples of the Gulf States (such as Oman, Qatar and Bahrain), who are constantly agitating about authoritarian governments and autocratic monarchical constitutions (with no support from the western allies of those governments)?

What about Turkey, where an Islamist government is turning back a century of secular government?

Or Yemen, where the democracies haven't been seen since Britain abandoned Aden?

And how is the west responsible for the Syrian uprising against Assad?

And do you think the west will be responsible when the powder keg that is Saudi Arabia explodes in the future? If so, how?

I think the answer can be summed up with the concept of "soft racism of low expectations".
"Oh, the poor Brown Foreigners aren't capable of doing anything by themselves. Without the influence of The West™, they just wander around being proud and gentle and living in harmony, like little children".

And the irony is that these are the people that are always ready to lob the R-bomb at anyone expecting everyone to take responsibility for their actions, without special accommodation for culture or religion.

Reply 91

Original post by ToussJ

First of all, by no stretch of the imagination are Libya, Tunisia and Morocco Middle Eastern.Second of all, look into the origins of those countries. Most were established by European powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which was caused by WW1, a Western conflict.

So, you think those regions were better off ruled as occupied territories of an expansionist empire? That's very colonial of you.
Do you think that India and much of Africa would also be better off under British rule as part of the Empire?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 92

Original post by Good bloke

You'll be going back so far that you'll be able to blame the Middle East's problems on Spain for reconquering the Iberian peninsula next.

Well, it was an unprovoked and aggressive act against the Peaceful Empire of Islam, who were invited to conquer Spain by a willing population. They didn't even want to.

Reply 93

Original post by QE2

Well, it was an unprovoked and aggressive act against the Peaceful Empire of Islam, who were invited to conquer Spain by a willing population. They didn't even want to.

A warlord's gotta do what a warlord's gotta do.

Reply 94

champ_mc99

2

Original post by QE2

I said it "includes" opposition, contradiction and disbelief, not "is".

`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.*

And just so you don't use the (frankly ludicrous) argument that 5:33 only applied to the camel thieves who killed Muhammad's shepherd (yes, apologists have actually claimed that!) Ibn Kathir states...

The correct opinion is that this Ayah is general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned.

So there is clearly no historical context.

* Elsewhere in his tafsir, Ibn Kathir explains the meaning of "mischief" ...
Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth

So how do you know a person doesnt have to fulfill all three of "disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear" to commit crime rather than just disbelief?

Thanks

Reply 95