Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Independent: The Prophet Mohammed had British values watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    i don't disagree tho.

    I agree, I don't understand why people call themselves Muslims yet disagree with the teachings.
    But you are one of them! You have indicated that you disagree with the teachings in your heart: you know that as well as I do. Your position is, "Well, I must believe in these teachings (even though I clearly don't in my heart) because I am a Muslim." That's really not how it's supposed to work.

    You need not abandon Islam: do what the Christians did and reject literal interpretation of Scripture. Literally the one reason Christianity is better than Islam is the Sermon on the Mount which says the old laws are outdated, so use your own common sense. It sets a precedent that things can change as the world changes.

    Is there any messianism in Islam or any scope for its being updated in the future? It would seem a little short sighted if there isn't and makes one suspect that Islam is going to be a tougher nut to crack than other religions when it comes to moderation.

    (Original post by demx9)
    You actually got banned for criticizing Islam ?
    Usually people who complain about bans and moderation on online forums have been flinging insults, spamming or trolling. I comment against the community consensus in many places across the Internet and have never received a ban.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    I don't believe you should cause pain or bruises and that 'beating' should be done with a small miswak.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    You actually got banned for criticizing Islam ?
    Apparently, it was for debating on the Faith and Spirituality thread - although I was actually asking questions on an "I'm a Muslim, AMA" thread.

    I have since pointed out to the mods that the F&S forum is full of threads with people debating, but this was denied and my ban upheld.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Witchcraft and sorcery are also punishable by death as is apostasy...
    OK, so you were just confirming that you support the killing of adulterers and apostates.

    What does witchcraft and sorcery consist of?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    (Original post by IslamQA)

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    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.
    I'm selecting this to comment on as I can't stay long. Your other words are interesting though.

    I see secularism as an advance, not in terms of economics (and I agree that a religious country can advance economically, though somewhat held back in doing so), but in terms of shaking off the ignorance and superstitions that engender religion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    OK, so you were just confirming that you support the killing of adulterers and apostates.

    What does witchcraft and sorcery consist of?
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Yeah

    Its just bad because it involves invoking spirits ect, and making sacrifices to other than God. Its a form of apostasy.
    This is probably one of the more horrifying exchanges I've seen here on TSR.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    I don’t think that, as you would realise if you read the second paragraph of my post rather than posting the sort of knee-jerk response I have come to associate with overzealous secularists. As I said, I do think Christianity has an advantage though, not only due to shock and awe but because everyone knows the stories at least vaguely.

    I counter you by asking exactly how you would go about imparting morals to young children and telling me why your way is better than using Christianity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    No thats not true, ask anyone who is qualified to talk about the religion - the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings upon him, explained the Koran to the people.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Usually people who complain about bans and moderation on online forums have been flinging insults, spamming or trolling.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    But any Muslim man preparing to follow the teachings by administering a beating will have to make a practical choice about what implement to use. To that end Muslim cultural leaders offer advice which complies with the commandment while, presumably, attempting to reflect the spirit of Islam and/or minimise harm.

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Well this is the pattern I have observed on this and other forums, but you know best. Every warning I have received here was justified or at least justifiable.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    PLEASE. DONT MAKE ME CRY. He had Canadian Values.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You may say interpretations are not allowed but any man actually attempting to follow the commandment must make an interpretation.
    If a law says "men are permitted to beat their wives if they are not obeyed", no interpretation is needed (and the Koran says as much, as it claims to be in clear language, perfect and in need of no interpretation) as the statement is perfectly clear. Any beating is permitted.

    Any ameliorating of beating down to "touching with a toothbrush" or "only on a Tuesday when there is an R in the month and the temperature drops below freezing" is an addition or an interpretation, banned by the Koran itself.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Its just bad because it involves invoking spirits ect, and making sacrifices to other than God. Its a form of apostasy.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    And do you really think the Prophet's companions would make up such a ruling? Obviously the importance on 'the Prophet's companions' doesn't mean much to you, there is not point arguing because you don't understand how Islamic legislations is made.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    What do you even mean?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.