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

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Well actually this highlights another problem of interpretation. I at least tend to assume a corrective "beating" is administered with an implement. Now I accept that I am flat out wrong to assume that about the English word "beating". But what if nobody has an independently verifiable source for what the words written in seventh century Arabic mean? The word for beating could well mean beating only with an implement or beating only without an implement. All translation, particularly of old texts which often contain hapax legomena, is subject to interpretation.

    Furthermore we may one day learn the meaning of the word by investigating the contemporary practice of wife-beating in seventh century Arabia: was a certain implement commonly used? Should modern Muslim men use it too? If obeying the rule about not interpreting the words according to what we learn from some random archaeological find, what exactly is the line between an interpretation and just "what the words mean(t)"?

    Islamic literalism throws up huge contradictions relating to the nature of translation which is culture-bound and lossy.

    I despair that I have to virtue-signal in this manner but of course I do not consider the teaching justifiable, and it is to the discredit of Islam that it has no mechanism by which clearly unconscionable laws can be disregarded or even revised by a future messiah.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    What do you even mean?
    Where do these rules apply? For instance, does the state have to sanction the executions or are imams, scholars, etc, able to pronounce sentence. Does the adulterer, apostate or worshipper of other gods have to live in an internationally recognised, Islamic soveriegn state that has these punishments on its statute books or is the consensus of a regional government or community council sufficient?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Where do these rules apply? For instance, does the state have to sanction the executions or are imams, scholars, etc, able to pronounce sentence. Does the adulterer, apostate or worshipper of other gods have to live in an internationally recognised, Islamic soveriegn state that has these punishments on its statute books or is the consensus of a regional government or community council sufficient?
    All i know is that you can't just carry it out personally
    Offline

    20
    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.
    Islam, like all other traditions, is also constrained by time and flawed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    it is to the discredit of Islam that it has no mechanism by which clearly unconscionable laws can be disregarded or even revised by a future messiah.
    That is by design. Mohammed wanted no attempt to argue (and, of course, he wasn't concerned with the future). So, he wrote them to suit his purpose:

    The god (not me, the messenger) has said this and has not given me latitude to change; you had better go along with it or you will be punished.

    rather than

    You don't agree and want to develop the laws. Well let's sit down and have a chat about it. Who thinks a camel whip is too vicious? Well, what do you know, I didn't get my way.

    Islam is the antithesis to democracy. God's laws are all that matters.
    Offline

    18
    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?
    Well, there is a Bukhari hadith where Muhammad said "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it."!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    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.
    Ah, so the AMA threads are not AMA, but "Ask Me About What I Am Prepared To Talk About".

    It is quite clear that, on the religious forums, "offending" someone's poor ickle religious sensibilities is a worse offence than calling for the death of apostates and gays.

    You may be fine with that, but me and my little under-chin rodent are not, thank you very much.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wow MJLover, just wow. I am so thankful I was not brainwashed to hold such absolutely barbaric and bloodthirsty beliefs. Can't believe people with these views exist in the 21st century.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tso)
    Secular as in less religious like the whole change in the 60s? or is there another secular definition i'm missing out on?
    It would just mean the school is not religious. It doesn't promote any official religion, a religion is not part of the school/institution unlike say a Catholic school that will teach Catholicism as a doctrine to follow as part of the syllabus.

    There is no reason why you can not still learn about religions in a secular school.

    Although this can still have problems, like scrotgot pointed out. What replaces the religion in the institution? You can still end up with a kind of state religion that share lots of the bad aspects of religion.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It would just mean the school is not religious. It doesn't promote any official religion as being a part of the school/institution unlike say a Catholic school that will teach Catholicism as a doctrine.

    There is no reason why you can not learn about religions in a secular school.
    Of course! but it was just the likelihood, you'd expect a faith school to teach about religion and you could expect a more secular school to not teach about religion. It was an assumption.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Wow MJLover, just wow. I am so thankful I was not brainwashed to hold such absolutely barbaric and bloodthirsty beliefs. Can't believe people with these views exist in the 21st century.
    Lol time doesn't change beliefs fyi.
    Offline

    19
    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?
    Voldermort would never have got away with it if Hogwarts was Tower Hamlets
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Wow MJLover, just wow. I am so thankful I was not brainwashed to hold such absolutely barbaric and bloodthirsty beliefs. Can't believe people with these views exist in the 21st century.
    These are the "moderates" we hear about after every terrorist massacre :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    The main difference between the Islam and Christianity is that Christianity has had to grow up alongside secularism and freedom of criticism. It has been mocked, satirised and humbled into the crap it really is all by the peoples freedom to exchange ideas and criticism.

    Islam on the other hand has never been exposed to this and mixing it with the above as is happening now with the barage of muslim immigrants to the west is creating a deadly cocktail for western principles and her citizens
    That may be true now, but criticism of Islam was much more common in say, Iran, than it was anywhere in Europe, see Omar Khayyam.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I am fairly certain that any non-christian belief would have been considered heretic 150 years ago and would have been punishable by death.
    :confused: What country are you talking about?
    You did not answer my last question, above.


    (Original post by oShahpo)
    That may be true now, but criticism of Islam was much more common in say, Iran, than it was anywhere in Europe, see Omar Khayyam.
    What period are you talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the connection between the Prophet Muhammed and Jimmy Saville
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal)
    He was always eating his fish and chips, afternoon teas, watching the tennis, nice pinstripe suit
    "Ah, the smell of freshly cut grass and the sound of willow upon leather" as he reclined with a half lager shandy and a packet of smoky bacon cheese and onion crisps.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SendThemBack)
    I can see the connection between the Prophet Muhammed and Jimmy Saville
    Now then now then now then.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    Lol time doesn't change beliefs fyi.
    Well, for most human beings it certainly does.

    I don't believe the same things as my 14th century ancestors. I'd laugh at their stupidity and bumpkin ways if by some miracle I could meet them.

    And even speaking about ourselves as individuals in our own lifetimes - I don't have all the same view and opinions and beliefs that I had even 5 years ago, much less 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Experience of life has caused an evolution in my thinking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    for disagreeing with a practice that destroys many lives (as in the darker aspects of sorcery)?
    islam destroys many more lives than "sorcery".
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.