Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    2. "idribuhunna" doesn't have to mean beat them, it could mean leave them. Like in English if you say "beat it" as a command to someone to tell them to go away, it doesn't mean "start beating whatever is near you" it means "go away"
    in Arabic - which I speak - you say "adhrablaka mathal" meaning "i'll give you an example" - teachers use it often.
    it is also used in the Quran in that context ^

    so it doesn't mean beat your wives, it means leave them in the hope that they will snap out of it
    Except for the small issue of the hadith that specify how severe the beating should be. It makes absolutely no sense that they reccomend a "leaving" that is not too severe, or a "leaving" that should not cause injury, or that you should not "leave" a wife in the face!

    Also, the other place in the Quran where waidribu is used in the same form is 8:12, where it describes striking enemies in battle.

    The "leave" argument is a desperate attempt by modern apologists to make an obviously unacceptable passage seem more palatable.

    the quran says
    "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"
    Except that is not the meaning of that verse.

    According to Ibn Kathir...
    "Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Masruq, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that a man used to divorce his wife, and when her `Iddah came near its end, he would take her back to harm her and to stop her from marrying someone else. He then divorced her and she would begin her `Iddah and when her `Iddah term neared its end, he would take her back again, so that the term of `Iddah would be prolonged for her. After that, Allah prohibited this practice."

    and lastly 3. not any man can come and hit a woman who doesn't do as he likes because he thinks that's right. firstly he's a pig and secondly it's specifically written in the context of marriage
    And yet, Allah specifically allows a husband to beat his disobedient wife (under certain circumstances). I agree that he is a pig if he does this, but I don't claim that the Quran is perfect and unchangable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    besides idk if it's just me but idg why Islam gets so much hate
    it gave women rights over 1000 years before the women's rights movement.
    http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/...ave_rights.php
    It gave the woman the right to become a legal party in a marriage contract, gave her rights in marriage, inheritance and divorce. The right to work and keep her income for herself. It prohibited female infanticide as well.
    Don't spread the myth that Islam gave women's rights. Other civilisations also gave rights to women over 1000 years before Islam (for example, in Ancient Egypt, women could own property, inherit, or divorce legally) or had female rulers; Mohammed didn't invent anything.

    The article you gave cherrypicks anything that might be considered as "rights" in the Quran, whilst also disregards - or even condones - its sexist aspects, eg. the right to beat your wife, to own slaves, half share of inheritance for women, etc., which frankly do not match the few "rights" than women supposedly gained from it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    "wage war on Allah and his messenger" If someone wages war most of the time killing happens...
    In this case, since men cannot wage a fighting war against an invisible deity, it is clear that we are talking about ideological warfare, or disagreement. In other words, Moslems can kill those who argue against Islam, which was quite convenient for Mohammed..
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    "wage war on Allah and his messenger" If someone wages war most of the time killing happens...The definition of war is the key point here.
    But Allah has no physical form. It is impossible to physically 'wage war' on the invisible and intangible - except by attacking an ideology, a concept. Why should anyone be killed, crucified or dismembered for opposing an idea?

    Also, why should being at war with someone necessarily mean that they should be punished by death or torture? I'm no expert, but I think the Geneva Convention has something to say about that.

    Ibn Kathir is one man, this would be like basing a reading of the bible of what a crazy redneck says.
    Except Ibn Kathir is probably the most respected and widely referenced classical scholar in the history of Islam, including current use. His source material is the authentic records of the sayings of Muhammad and his companions.

    Did not christianity follow harsh punishments up until recently ? To quote a few, corporal punishment endorsement, support for the slave trade... One could argue that they still cause human rights breaches, like influencing abortion bills that do not affect religious people in any way, disdain for contraception etc.
    One could indeed, except that Christianity has not claimed the bible to be the infallible and immutable word of god for some time.

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who brought up verse 5:32 as proof of something. You were quite happy to use it before.

    What religion preaches and what it's followers do are two completely different things.
    They are indeed. That is why you cannot define Islam by the behaviour of Muslims. You can only define it by its ideology, by the content of its scriptures. Otherwise we have the problem of defining Islam by the behaviour of both Maajid Nawaz and Mohammed Emwazi!

    Original Islam allowed women to demand a divorce,
    But it allows the husband far greater freedom in obtaining a divorce. And because of the immutable nature of Islam, that is still the way it is. It also allows a husband to beat his wife (under certain conditions).

    forbade 'unlawful' killing ( of course the definition is just and lawful can be twisted. )
    Pretty much every society and culture before Islam forbade "unlawful" killing. It's all down to the definition of "unlawful". If you read the Quran, hadith and a classical tafsir, you will see that there is much "lawful" killing that is unacceptable (like adulterers, apostates, homosexuals, and basically anyone who refuses to submit to Islam).

    Islam led to many things such as the first universities, the first hospitals,
    Don't be daft! Are you seriously trying to claim that there were no centres of learning or hospitals before the 7th century?

    algebra
    Which is why the Greek mathematician Diophantus (who lived 400 years before Islam) is known as "the father of algebra", or why the Indian scholar Brahmagupta is credited with some of the fundamentals. The Persian al-Khwarizmi (Persia was the already centre of learning in the region, long before Arabian Muslims conquered it) merely built on earlier work. Which is how things have always worked.

    and rubbing alcohol,
    The Greeks and Chinese were distilling alcohol centuries before Islam.

    education flourished for hundreds of years.
    Indeed. The "Golden Age of Islam" lasted until about 900AD. Until a shift away from assimilating and expanding on the knowledge of earlier cultures and a move towards strict dogmatic theocracy. And as we all know, since then, intellectual progress within Islam has stagnated.

    Many accounts that I have of the Islamic occupation of areas such as the south of Spain and Sicily show that Christian students attended Islamic run unis etc. and were not forced to convert.
    Some people converted (usually out of self-interest) and some became dhimmis (non-Muslims subjugated under Muslim rule and forced to pay a punitive jizya tax). There was no third option.

    And bear in mind that these regions were originally conquered by force. A change in the nature of conquered society in the decades following conquest does not indicate a free and willing acceptance. Or do you claim that because many Indians became Anglified during the Raj (for example), that it was all sweetness and light and they realised that we were doing them a jolly good favour?

    Your arguments reek of the naive apologetics of the easily fooled indoctrinate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    especially islam - isis.
    They have ruined our lives with all their terror attacks.
    Would probably be a better place without it

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    were you a victim in any of these attacks?
    Getting a flight is a bit of a pain nowadays.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ELVsLP)
    two guys who have failed to do their research
    So, women in the UK got the vote because of Muhammad, not because of the suffragette movement?
    Please furnish us with the links to the "research" that demonstrates this. (islamisresponsibleforeverygoodt hingintheworld.com is not an acceptable source)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boss_Rhythm)
    So basically
    ISIS= Muslims
    Zionist= Jews
    KKK= Christians
    Saffron Terror= Hindus
    BBS= Buddhism
    etc..
    Well...
    All ISIS are Muslims, but not all Muslims are ISIS.

    Hope that cleared it up for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Furthermore, when viewed in the context of the following verse (5:33)...
    "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"

    We can see that the Quran actually authorises barbaric punishments against those opposing Islam. (The renowned classical scholar, Ibn Kathir, describes 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". His tafsir (explanation of the Quran) is the most widely used and respected in the Muslim world.
    Can you quote Ibn Kathir in full? Just quote that one sentence about wage war to be contradiction and disbelief.

    Thanks
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blck&burgundy)
    Yh I sort of agree but does anyone else wonder if there was no such thing as religion would we have morals to begin with ? I've left Islam not that long ago and this has been on my mind for a while.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Religion does oppress people, you can follow the 'rules' and 'rituals' yet not even have a connection w/the Creator. So that's why becoming a disciple of Christ is different - because Jesus Christ came to provide a way for us to have a relationship and connection with God the Father, instead of just bring a new religion called Christianity.

    We can have a relationship with our Creator the way we talk and have a relationship with our family and friends. The Bible speaks the whole truth - we, as a human race need God/Jesus 💭 especially w/the horrible things happening in this world that we see


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I believe they're terrible yes but I can't imagine a world without them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah tell that to the millions of Christians who died from anti-Christian policies of the Soviet Union.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Except for the small issue of the hadith that specify how severe the beating should be. It makes absolutely no sense that they reccomend a "leaving" that is not too severe, or a "leaving" that should not cause injury, or that you should not "leave" a wife in the face!

    Also, the other place in the Quran where waidribu is used in the same form is 8:12, where it describes striking enemies in battle.

    The "leave" argument is a desperate attempt by modern apologists to make an obviously unacceptable passage seem more palatable.

    Except that is not the meaning of that verse.

    According to Ibn Kathir...
    "Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Masruq, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that a man used to divorce his wife, and when her `Iddah came near its end, he would take her back to harm herand to stop her from marrying someone else. He then divorced her and she would begin her `Iddah and when her `Iddah term neared its end, he would take her back again, so that the term of `Iddah would be prolonged for her. After that, Allah prohibited this practice."

    And yet, Allah specifically allows a husband to beat his disobedient wife (under certain circumstances). I agree that he is a pig if he does this, but I don't claim that the Quran is perfect and unchangable.
    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.

    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.

    Men and women are equal in Islam in the eyes of Allah - their spirits are the same, if wife beating was a thing that Islam condoned then why would Muslim women ever want to get married? If, in Islam, you are not allowed to hit a slave, you are not allowed to hit an animal, why would you be allowed to hit your partner in life, potential mother of your children? it doesn't make sense.

    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.

    (Original post by Josb)
    Don't spread the myth that Islam gave women's rights. Other civilisations also gave rights to women over 1000 years before Islam (for example, in Ancient Egypt, women could own property, inherit, or divorce legally) or had female rulers; Mohammed didn't invent anything.

    The article you gave cherrypicks anything that might be considered as "rights" in the Quran, whilst also disregards - or even condones - its sexist aspects, eg. the right to beat your wife, to own slaves, half share of inheritance for women, etc., which frankly do not match the few "rights" than women supposedly gained from it.
    It may not have invented them but it sure pushed for it and brought attention to it so you don't have to be cleopatra to have your voice heard.

    Men have no right to 'beat' their wives. 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. Islam encouraged treating slaves well and freeing them, and discouraged slavery, 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    Men have no right to 'beat' their wives. 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. Islam encouraged treating slaves well and freeing them, and discouraged slavery, 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.
    So it's not "women's rights", but "husbands' obligations".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Are you telling us that Mohammed did ban slavery?
    where did i say that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    OP you're talking as if religion is a new thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So, women in the UK got the vote because of Muhammad, not because of the suffragette movement?
    Please furnish us with the links to the "research" that demonstrates this. (islamisresponsibleforeverygoodt hingintheworld.com is not an acceptable source)
    do you even understand what liberation means?
    the suffragette movement just gave women the right to vote, pre 7th century a lot of women didn't even have the right to live. THAT is what i mean by him allowing female liberation
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ELVsLP)
    do you even understand what liberation means?
    the suffragette movement just gave women the right to vote, pre 7th century a lot of women didn't even have the right to live. THAT is what i mean by him allowing female liberation
    That is just silly. You aren't thinking. How do you explain the phenomenon of pre-Mohammed marriages. One of Mohammed's wives was a business woman who amassed her fortune before Mohammed came to power How could that be if she had no right to live?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No not really. If it wasn't religion it would be something else, in fact I would go as far as to say it's human nature (greed, power hungry etc.) that ruined the world.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.