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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    OK, so you are about to beat your wife. What implement do you pick up: a toothbrush or a cat of nine tails? When you make your decision you interpret the scripture: whether your interpretation is "OK seems like I get to choose" or "I'm going to guess Allah wants me to use X".

    I see how you can argue that the first option is not really an interpretation, but all this means is it is perfectly legit for a Muslim man to use the toothbrush if he wants. And I don’t see why the scripture precludes one Muslim advising to another the use of a particular implement, as long as it's made clear I suppose that the recommendation is "unofficial".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Yeah
    At least you don't deny such aspects of Islam (like other revisionist Muslim apologists do) and have confirmed that your 7th century Arab ideology is a violent, oppressive and intolerant ideology (nullifying the Muslim apologist claim of 'religion of peace' )

    Its just bad because it involves invoking spirits ect, and making sacrifices to other than God. Its a form of apostasy.
    What's objectively wrong with "Invoking spirits" and making "sacrifices to others, than (your) god"? How does this non-violent offence in Islam, warrant a violent punishment? Why is it even "punished" as opposed to being dealt with through more peaceful means? How does a trivial, temporary and reversible offence warrant a major, premenant and irreversible 'punishment' of execution?

    It seems your god (to which you have yet to prove) is a very insecure and jealous deity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    I have to vouch for this and agree with you. Given some of the things I've said on here in some less than well advised shots from the hip and the fact I've never been banned, you'd have to have said some pretty brutal stuff to be banned. Or consider that the nature of AMAs is to be respectful and he probably waded in there prothletising like a big ol neck beard which wouldn't have helped.

    Generally on forums when I see people bemoaning their bans, they point to their posts for which they got reprimanded, going "outrageous right? Didn't do nuffin!" and the reaction from everyone else is "what did you expect with conduct like that?!" Because it's nearly always something ban worthy.

    Even as an atheist myself I doubt this case is an exception.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    OK, so you are about to beat your wife. What implement do you pick up: a toothbrush or a cat of nine tails? When you make your decision you interpret the scripture: whether your interpretation is "OK seems like I get to choose" or "I'm going to guess Allah wants me to use X".

    I see how you can argue that the first option is not really an interpretation, but all this means is it is perfectly legit for a Muslim man to use the toothbrush if he wants. And I don’t see why the scripture precludes one Muslim advising to another the use of a particular implement, as long as it's made clear I suppose that the recommendation is "unofficial".
    I can't help what the Koran says. It bans interpretation, and makes it clear this applies even to Mohammed's interpretations, never mind his mates or modern imams. The reason for this is also made clear, and it's a bit of a gotcha - the reason Islam can never move forward - the Koran is the word of the deity and is perfect, incapable of being improved. Any interpretation would harm its perfect meaning. It even points out the language is clear and understandable by anyone for this reason. There are no unofficial changes to the word of your deity, of course. They would attract severe retribution in the afterlife - presuming to try to improve on what God has done.

    My own guess would be that the disobeyed husband would either pick up whatever is to hand (a chair, say, or a stick, or a camel whip) or lay into her with his hands, fists and feet. It is what abusive or disobeyed husbands in all cultures have done for aeons.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    Sorry, my mistake. I assumed that when you said...

    "OK, then what vehicle will you use to instill moral values in children? There are others - but, I feel, none with quite the persuasive impact of Christianity, which is responsible for the tallest, grandest building in every village, festivals which punctuate the year, ceremonies which punctuate people's lives, etc.

    I would far sooner have our weak infusion of Christianity as a moral authority than the state ideology"


    That you were suggesting that Christianity was in some way necessary to impart a workable morality.

    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.
    Simply, by use of the Golden Rule and the concepts of empathy and our place in a functioning society. By omitting any element of divine CCTV and eternal reward/punishment, the onus would be on doing the right thing because it is the right thing, rather than because we might get spotted and punished/rewarded. This is one of the most important aspects of a secular taught morality.

    Essentially, religious morality is taught through fear and self-interest, not through real morality and concern for others or the greater good. For the religionist, everything boils down to reaching heaven and avoiding hell, not leaving the world a better place than when you found it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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.
    Why did he need to explain it? Why was Allah incapable of saying what he meant?

    And why, after Muhammad had explained it, are scholars still arguing about what it means, and what Muhammad's explanation means?

    I don't think that you are really looking at this clearly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    you are sick
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    OK, so you are about to beat your wife. What implement do you pick up: a toothbrush or a cat of nine tails? When you make your decision you interpret the scripture: whether your interpretation is "OK seems like I get to choose" or "I'm going to guess Allah wants me to use X".

    I see how you can argue that the first option is not really an interpretation, but all this means is it is perfectly legit for a Muslim man to use the toothbrush if he wants. And I don’t see why the scripture precludes one Muslim advising to another the use of a particular implement, as long as it's made clear I suppose that the recommendation is "unofficial".
    This all well and good but 'beating your wife' is horrible and implies physical violence. Even if you beat you with a spoon as apposed to a mace ¬.¬
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    you are sick
    for disagreeing with a practice that destroys many lives (as in the darker aspects of sorcery)?

    Is it cos you're into that stuff? So u basically hate me for disagreeing with your religion?

    Isn't that what you're doing to me, yet I haven't stooped to personal insults?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    Not necessarily.
    Why would a Muslim not read the Quran, see that he is allowed to beat his wife, and just beat her? With his hand. Why would he necessarily, possibly in the heat of an argument, need to consult a scholar on how he should beat his wife?

    It is no more than post hoc attempts to mitigate a clearly unacceptable (and contradictary) passage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    for disagreeing with a practice that destroys many lives (as in the darker aspects of sorcery)?

    Is it cos you're into that stuff? So u basically hate me for disagreeing with your religion?

    Isn't that what you're doing to me, yet I haven't stooped to personal insults?
    No, you said that you support the killing of adulterers and apostates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely by allowing all points of view to be expressed by various authors it is one of the most reputable papers we have? Or would you rather have a society where discussion isn't encouraged?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Simply, by use of the Golden Rule and the concepts of empathy and our place in a functioning society. By omitting any element of divine CCTV and eternal reward/punishment, the onus would be on doing the right thing because it is the right thing, rather than because we might get spotted and punished/rewarded. This is one of the most important aspects of a secular taught morality.

    Essentially, religious morality is taught through fear and self-interest, not through real morality and concern for others or the greater good. For the religionist, everything boils down to reaching heaven and avoiding hell, not leaving the world a better place than when you found it.
    It was a long time ago, but I will say I never got the sense of fire and brimstone preaching beloved of the Westboro Baptist Church etc or the petty sexual and emotional repression we associate with say convent schools. Let's be clear, this was not a religious education of that sort as people who have had no contact with C of E schools might assume. Thirty per cent of schools and I would wager most rural schools are like this.

    I have always felt that the CCTV aspect of Christianity is quite good when it comes to accountability. The problem with any human authority is that it comes down to whether they can prove you're bad or not, and also you can be wrongly condemned or praised for an action you intended to be bad but which turned out good. Since God knows what you're really thinking though it forces you to be guilty for your actual sins and for the intentionality behind your actions.

    I reiterate that I never had a keen sense of heaven or hell and I do not believe it was a large part of what was taught. I suppose what I took away from the idea of God always watching was a sense of shame when I did something immoral.

    The idea of hell was simply not salient - and this is especially true when you consider how in Christianity you can basically just say sorry and get out of it as long as you are genuinely ashamed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Was arguing about this with my younger brother who is Christian. He thinks that basically 'anyone could have said what the Prophet said'. I don't believe so, Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)'s message was unique and free from flaws unlike any other culture that is constrained to tradition and time.
    100% agreed!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This all well and good but 'beating your wife' is horrible and implies physical violence. Even if you beat you with a spoon as apposed to a mace ¬.¬
    Well yes but I am mainly talking about how it is impossible not to interpret in some way. I feel this is probably quite a good philosophical foothold for people to use when starting the long and difficult process of debate calling for a moderate Islam.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So like every religion then?

    In primary school we used to get read old testament stories like David and Goliath. Have you seen what is in the Bible? The head teacher funnily enough didn't read us all pro genocide stories, all the stories where female slaves are fair game to be raped. Considering Christianity is part and parcel of 'British values' there is a lot fo hypocrisy in this discussion of whether Islam is compatible with Britain. Even more so when pedophilia gets brought up... It;s like you ahve no knowledge of the history fo this country.

    I'm fairly anti-religion, but in the same way I don't think all Christian or Jews are evil murderers and rapist, I don't think all Muslims are evil child rapists either. Christians can be perfectly civil citizens and so can Muslims.

    My response to the article is make all schools secular.
    What if then, students are exposed to extreme religious/anti-religious views outside of school. It could be online or subject within the family. How are they supposed to know that's wrong? If they aren't taught religion in school and the school becomes secular then they have no understanding of what they're getting into.

    Also about the bit about how they're supposed to know the views they've adopted are wrong, in some cases they can't other than for example ISIS and the KKK and their killings because that's just morally wrong. There are in some cases views that even though they're completley unacceptable, doesn't seem to change some people.

    I'm not against what you're saying since you made a lot of valid points.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tso)
    What if then, students are exposed to extreme religious/anti-religious views outside of school. It could be online or subject within the family. How are they supposed to know that's wrong? If they aren't taught religion in school and the school becomes secular then they have no understanding of what they're getting into.

    Also about the bit about how they're supposed to know the views they've adopted are wrong, in some cases they can't other than for example ISIS and the KKK and their killings because that's just morally wrong. There are in some cases views that even though they're completley unacceptable, doesn't seem to change some people.

    I'm not against what you're saying since you made a lot of valid points.
    That isn't what secular means.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That isn't what secular means.
    Secular as in less religious like the whole change in the 60s? or is there another secular definition i'm missing out on?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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.
    Sorry, I was not aware that the opinion of one of Muhammad's companions supersedes the opinion of Muhammad, or even the Quran itself.

    BTW, a miswak isn't just the trimmed stick as used for teeth cleaning. It also refers to the whole cane before trimming to individual brushes, so when Ibn Abbas said "Hitting with a siwaak and the like" he was more likely referring to these...Name:  Maswak.jpg
Views: 48
Size:  67.2 KB
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.