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

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ISIS is not Islamic, ISIS is a blind militant group saying that they work for Islam, they are nothing but idiots, Islam is a religion of peace, it has some weird, dumb and brutal laws. But to be honest, every religion is ruining the world. there has not been a period in time which a war has not been caused by religion or most wars are caused by religion. Religion has set science and back by 1000 years, imagine, if were in the future, every human would live like a king and queen. (Atheist)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Lol its just you
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Can you quote Ibn Kathir in full? Just quote that one sentence about wage war to be contradiction and disbelief.

    Thanks
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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"?

    [/quote]why would you be allowed to hit your partner in life, potential mother of your children? it doesn't make sense.[/quote] 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!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ELVsLP)
    pre 7th century a lot of women didn't even have the right to live.
    What does this even mean?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PHD2027)
    ISIS is not Islamic, ISIS is a blind militant group saying that they work for Islam, they are nothing but idiots,
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    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
    Erm, because of the wording. You wouldn't read that passage and thing "oh, it means all of those things together, without exclusion". The word "includes" is a clue.

    Also, it would make no sense... blocking roads and spreading fear are just fine as long as you are a believer? Or disbelieving and spreading fear are ok as long as you don't block the roads? Really? And then there's "opposition and contradiction" to throw into the equation.

    What's more, you would still have the problem of "mischief" meaning "disobeying Allah", so the verse still says "those who disobey Allah can be killed".

    I appreciate that you really want to find some way of rationalising this verse, but the truth is, it was obviously written to provide a means of punishing those who refused to submit to Islam. It's not like its some crazy idea - most authoritarian regimes have some means of controlling and punishing opposition.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    especially islam - isis.
    They have ruined our lives with all their terror attacks.
    Did you know Baghdad was once the most scientifically advanced place on Earth? Intellectuals would come from faraway lands to discuss Science and Mathematics. it was during this time that Algebra was invented.... in Baghdad. But then along came a Muslim cleric who told the people that we "shouldn't question our existence" and that manipulating numbers was "The work of the devil"

    and look at Baghdad now
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it has, among other things.

    (Original post by PHD2027)
    ISIS is not Islamic, ISIS is a blind militant group saying that they work for Islam, they are nothing but idiots, Islam is a religion of peace, it has some weird, dumb and brutal laws. But to be honest, every religion is ruining the world. there has not been a period in time which a war has not been caused by religion or most wars are caused by religion. Religion has set science and back by 1000 years, imagine, if were in the future, every human would live like a king and queen. (Atheist)
    They are doing it in the belief that's what the Qur'an commands them to do. I disagree that it's a religion of peace. Few religions are religions of peace, really, more or less all condone fighting in some form. In fact, Islam promotes fighting those of different religions, one of the principles from which Jihad is encouraged.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.