Independent: The Prophet Mohammed had British values

i don't disagree tho.

I agree, I don't understand why people call themselves Muslims yet disagree with the teachings.

You actually got banned for criticizing Islam ?

I don't believe you should cause pain or bruises and that 'beating' should be done with a small miswak.

You actually got banned for criticizing Islam ?

Witchcraft and sorcery are also punishable by death as is apostasy...

What is the basis for this belief?
The Quran merely mentions beating, with no qualification. The word used (wahadribu) is only used in that form in one other place, 8:12 where it is used to describe the striking of enemies in battle - so a clear context of violent force.

There are hadith that state that the beating should not be too severe, not cause injury or strike the face, but make no mention of not causing pain or leaving bruises.

The reference to a "miswak" is not from Muhammad but is merely the opinion of a follower.
BTW, before a miswak is cut down into individual tooth sticks, it is a similar size to the canes used for punishment in British schools - before such barbarity was outlawed.

So, in short, you support the beating of wives, but would like to think that there are ways of reducing the severity, but if those hadith were found to be unreliable, then you would support a violent beating.

4 – And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218.

What is meant by “they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike” is that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses, whether the person disliked is a man or a woman, or any of the woman’s mahrams [close relatives to whom marriage is forbidden]. The prohibition includes all of them. From the words of al-Nawawi.

The hadeeth may be understood as meaning that a man has the right to hit his wife, in a manner that is not harsh and does not cause injury if if there is a reason for that, such as her going against his wishes or disobeying him.

This is like the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“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); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

If a woman rebels against her husband and disobeys his commands, then he should follow this method of admonishing her, forsaking her in bed and hitting her. Hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.

‘Ata’ said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]

The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.

And Allaah knows best.

So you do not believe schools have a responsibility to try to ensure pupils understand right and wrong? What of less responsible parents?

And did your children develop their moral systems through for example story books or TV shows? Because that is another option I left open to you for how schools could do it; although as I said I consider Christianity to have a bit more shock and awe around it thus it may be more effective.

The morality promoted in schools like mine appears consonant with the general sense of what is fair and righteous in British society today. That is probably to do with the declining Anglican church needing to dance to the tune of the times as much as the entwined history of Christianity and Britishness.

I am an atheist myself and so are my parents for what it's worth.

For some reason, you and I'm sure many others, seem to equate or conflate secularism with "advancement".

Whilst there may be correlation between the two, it is not strictly necessary that a country has to be embody secularism in order to advance.

Granted, the progress of any advancement may be slower than say a secularist country, but that doesn't mean that they won't advance.

Check the bolded bits. Plus Ibn Abbas is not just a regular scholar, he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he agreed that 'beating' should be done with a small miswak.

OK, so you were just confirming that you support the killing of adulterers and apostates.

What does witchcraft and sorcery consist of?

Yeah

Its just bad because it involves invoking spirits ect, and making sacrifices to other than God. Its a form of apostasy.

Why do you think that religion is required to instil a sense of right and wrong in children?

Is there a single worthwhile aspect morality in Christianity that cannot be imparted to children without reference to the supernatural?

That doesn't matter. The Koran specifically says that interpretations and additions to the words of the Koran are forbidden, even if they come from the prophet. The Koran is sufficient and accurate in itself, it claims. The unqualified word "beating" is therefore correct, and miswak's are an erroneous distraction.

Usually people who complain about bans and moderation on online forums have been flinging insults, spamming or trolling.

That doesn't matter. The Koran specifically says that interpretations and additions to the words of the Koran are forbidden, even if they come from the prophet. The Koran is sufficient and accurate in itself, it claims. The unqualified word "beating" is therefore correct, and miswak's are an erroneous distraction.

Are you a mod on TSR? If so, you will be aware that none of my posts have contained insults, trolling or spamming. If you are not, then you are just voicing an opinion based on no evidence.

Check the bolded bits. Plus Ibn Abbas is not just a regular scholar, he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he agreed that 'beating' should be done with a small miswak.

You may say interpretations are not allowed but any man actually attempting to follow the commandment must make an interpretation.

Its just bad because it involves invoking spirits ect, and making sacrifices to other than God. Its a form of apostasy.

So, exactly as I stated.
The Quran says beat (with a context of force).
There are hadith that say the beating should not be so severe as to cause injury.
The reference to miswak comes from a follower, not Muhammad himself.

So, you support wife-beating for disobedience, but you are keen to minimise any injury. That's very gallant of you!

Such a shame that your god and his prophet couldn't have just missed out the bit about hitting women. But then, as they are comfortable with flogging them and stoning them to death, I guess that a little domestic violence is neither here nor there to you.

So the worship of any supernatural being other than Allah is also punishable by death. And you support this.

In what socio-political context can these punishments be applied?