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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Western women don't have to provide any more evidence than their own testimony, and if the prosecution is not successful they are not punished as a result.
    That's disgusting, so a man's freedom and innocence is based on the word of a random woman not concrete evidence?



    And in the real world:

    .....
    That's abhorrent and I detest it. However same goes with all the unreported rapes due to uncertainty of prosecution,the light prison sentence, the astronomical levels of rape in the "civilized" West isn't any better than those cases you presented.

    Sharia law when fully applied in several countries results in this kind of barbarity, and as it isn't fully applied in any country where it would be a more sensible toned down version of Sharia, the point that it could be interpreted differently is a mute point. There are countries which apply bits of sharia, but they mix them with other legal principles - and if you have to mix it or reinterpret it in line with modern sensibilities what is the point of advocating it over a modern legal system anyway? The argument is for 'Sharia lite' without the same level of misogynistic calories, but even the fluffy safe versions of Sharia are still prejudicial to women's rights to equality before the law.
    Well seeing as you demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of Sharia, you are in position to assert these moronic conclusions.



    And if we had a legal system based on the ugliest parts of the Old Testament (which is in any case superceeded by the New Testament for Christians in the same way that the Hadith is not binding upon Muslim) you just might have a point. But its not Christians campaigning for misogynistic legal codes that effectively punish rape victims now is it?
    How can the word of God be ugly? surely his words are a logical, rational and extol wisdom? I sense blasphemy :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    But if the biblical accounts of past figures and events are to be taken as historical events, why shouldnt the Quran mention them again? What you think if a two history books recount a historical event one must be plagirising the other? That particular point is mute.
    Historians would reject many of the things described in these religious texts as historical occurrences, the existence of certain figures could be accounted for in the way you describe, but the amount of apocryphal material drawn from the earlier texts and present in the Qu'ran cannot be accounted for in this way - whether one regards that as plagiarism or evidence of the truth of the successive revelations depends on what you believe.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    Islam doesn't disagree with this from my understanding, it openly admits this but states that Christians have strayed from their original teachings.

    There is much evidence on this point from completely independent sources, about the Bible not being what it was in its original form. There are so many different variations of it, so many different interpretations. It has supposedly been subjected to a complete revamp in some aspects, according to some people. Hence, the promise from God (in the Qu'ran), to protect the Qu'ran from any changes until the day of judgement.

    King Henry VIII made up his own version did he not after disagreement with the pope? (correct me if i'm wrong, this is simply my understanding).

    Though muslims have similar (to some extent) divisions and sects within their faith, Sunni & Shia been the main one, but they all still believe in the 1 same book.
    I was merely responding to the idea that Muhammed was ignorant of Jewish and Christian teachings - it seems rather clear that he wasn't.

    As for the Biblical side of things - you won't get any disagreement out of me. In fact, all these 'holy books' being used as accurate representation of universal reality makes me chuckle. Anyone with an unbiased mind and considers history would be able to see that these religions are cultural projections and not universal guides for all time. That is where you and I disagree, I am guessing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Historians would reject many of the things described in these religious texts as historical occurrences, the existence of certain figures could be accounted for in the way you describe, but the amount of apocryphal material drawn from the earlier texts and present in the Qu'ran cannot be accounted for in this way - whether one regards that as plagiarism or evidence of the truth of the successive revelations depends on what you believe.
    So other than historical events and figures, which both Abrahamic faiths believe in and subsequently see fit to mention, what else is there?

    And yes, I believe in the latter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Because its prejudicial to women, and because there should be one set of legal principles on which we adjudicate personal and family matters.

    The fact that you are not in favour of democracy speaks volumes.
    But it would be the woman's choice if she wanted to go to a sharia court. Well, I suppose the rest is opinion...

    I don't think you accurately read what I said concerning democracy. Democracy is a joke in this country, and I think the only way people would resume voting and high levels of turnout is by taking democracy away for a few years. In order for a democracy to function, there should be choices, correct? Unfortunately, the convergence of the main parties and the increase of ****** sound bites has not given us a lot of choice, check out Peter Oborne's analysis of the main parties, I think its called "why can't politicians tell the truth".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    That's disgusting, so a man's freedom and innocence is based on the word of a random woman not concrete evidence?
    If the jury believe her testimony yes; just as if someone stabbed you in private and the murder weapon wasn't found or any DNA traces he might still be convicted on your testimony. The worth of womans testimony is worth the same as a mans in our legal system.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    That's abhorrent and I detest it. However same goes with all the unreported rapes due to uncertainty of prosecution,the light prison sentence, the astronomical levels of rape in the "civilized" West isn't any better than those cases you presented.
    Give me an example of the practice of full and uncontaminated Sharia that you like and see as a model then.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Well seeing as you demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of Sharia, you are in position to assert these moronic conclusions.
    What you say is just your interpretation of Sharia, what I have cited is actual evidence of the application of Sharia in the real world.

    Sounds like when it comes to the Sharia, you ought to regard yourself in line with your ridiculous insult 'picka choosa'.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    How can the word of God be ugly? surely his words are a logical, rational and extol wisdom? I sense blasphemy :rolleyes:
    The words of the Old Testament God as asserted in the text are often ugly. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with blasphemy, banning it is a way to shut down rational discussion of religious ideas or truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    It seems that you are almost illiterate yourself. Or maybe, just an idiot? Either way, have you considered writing a holy book? All the best ones have been written by retards just like yourself.
    hold on you cant produce a surah like that in the quran so whats your point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    hold on you cant produce a surah like that in the quran so whats your point?
    You're right. I know far too much about science to write something that's completely fallacious. I'm also decidedly moral, so I don't think I could write something genuinely evil.

    I am completely incapable of writing a Surah like that in the Qur'an because I'm not enough of an illiterate, immoral fool with no knowledge about the universe.

    I'll write you a damn good academic thesis though. I can assure you it'd be infinitely more useful to humanity than the lump of crap you call the Qur'an.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    You're right. I know far too much about science to write something that's completely fallacious. I'm also decidedly moral, so I don't think I could write something genuinely evil.

    I am completely incapable of writing a Surah like that in the Qur'an because I'm not enough of an illiterate, immoral fool with no knowledge about the universe.

    I'll write you a damn good academic thesis though. I can assure you it'd be infinitely more useful to humanity than the lump of crap you call the Qur'an.
    wheres the surah?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    He is trying to make it more palatable by using the word spank rather than beat and suggesting it refers to men punishing women including fathers punishing daughters. He knows that the word spank has more posative connotations to a western audience than beat. Spanking your children is often highly frowned on in the west, but it is not comparable to wife beating. This is somewhat arbitrary in some respects. But violence against women by men is generally regarded as a bad thing in the west. I think that the verse does primarily refer to husbands and wives because of the mention of not sharing a bed as a precursor to such physical punishment, this surely does not apply to a father and daughter. It used to be ok to hit your wife in the west, the term rule of thumb refers to the old English law that you could beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb. Society has moved on since, I have no doubt that in the 7th century beating your wife was acceptable and common in most of the world, and I think that the verse was written to actually mean that you could hit your wife but not severely (you shouldn't leave a mark). Now if you regard women as being like children and men as being in charge of them, and the hitting (a more neutral term than the negative connotations of beat and the posative of spank) is a punishment for their own good - then your ability to do so makes perfect sense. Its perfectly possible to love and look after and protect someone and physically punish them at the same time without doing permanent harm. However, we have decided that it is abusive to hit your wife in any way shape or form so now the practice inspires revulsion in the west, many have also decided that it is abusive or counterproductive to physically punish a child - but as there is still some debate over this it is seen as an entirely different thing to hitting your wife. Hitting someone with a feather or toothbrush is a symbolic act, I don't think it was the purpose of such verses when they were written, it is a progressive reformulated interpretation to bring the text in line with more modern values and sensibilities - and that is no doubt a posative and necessary process, but we should recognise it for what it is.
    Yeah I agree, I mean I know I wouldn't hit my wife and my father doesn't hit my mother and their religious so I don't see any need to do it. But I have to disagree with the child spanking because I had been spanked but not hard enough or abused but lightly for when I don't show respect to my parents.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samrout)
    But it would be the woman's choice if she wanted to go to a sharia court. Well, I suppose the rest is opinion...

    I don't think you accurately read what I said concerning democracy. Democracy is a joke in this country, and I think the only way people would resume voting and high levels of turnout is by taking democracy away for a few years. In order for a democracy to function, there should be choices, correct? Unfortunately, the convergence of the main parties and the increase of ****** sound bites has not given us a lot of choice, check out Peter Oborne's analysis of the main parties, I think its called "why can't politicians tell the truth".
    "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
    British politician (1874 - 1965)

    Many charities who deal with abused women say that they receive ample testimony that women are often forced or pressured into going to Sharia tribunals by their husband and extended family. Choice is the theory, the problem is that its not necessarily the reality. And as I've said before on this thread, some women who don't speak English and are 'fresh off the boat' from Pakistan don't even know that they have a choice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    So other than historical events and figures, which both Abrahamic faiths believe in and subsequently see fit to mention, what else is there?
    There are many examples of the Qu'ran drawing upon apocryphal Jewish myths or the Torah, for example:

    In suras 2:34 and 17:61 Iblis refuses to bow down to Adam just as Satan refused to bow down to Adam in the second century Talmud.

    Sura 5:31:

    "Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. 'Woe is me!' said he; 'Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?' Then he became full of regrets."

    Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

    "Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, 'Let us follow the example of the raven,' so taking up Abel's body, buried it at once."

    Not the same, but there are evident similarities. And next one of the best examples:

    Sura 5:32:

    "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

    Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

    "We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, 'the voice of thy brother's blood crieth out', and he says, 'it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.' Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race."

    The addition of 'unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land' is quite useful to Islamists who want to justify violence with the verse that is most often cited along with 'there is no compulsion in religion' as being the basis for Islam's claims of peacefulness. Also the Qu'ranic verse itself cites this as something God said to the Jews who then broke their covenant, there is not even anything to say that this is supposed to apply to Muslims in the first place (it is merely part of a defunct covenant between God and the Jews).

    (Original post by MrGuillotine)
    And yes, I believe in the latter.
    Well that's a religious belief, there is no use arguing about it as if rational evidence will persuade you otherwise.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Wikipedia tells me that kafir (of which kuffar is the plural) means "rejecter" or "ingrate", both relatively pejorative.
    Because Wikipedia is the most reliable resource. Ever :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
    Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
    British politician (1874 - 1965)

    Many charities who deal with abused women say that they receive ample testimony that women are often forced or pressured into going to Sharia tribunals by their husband and extended family. Choice is the theory, the problem is that its not necessarily the reality. And as I've said before on this thread, some women who don't speak English and are 'fresh off the boat' from Pakistan don't even know that they have a choice.
    May I say excellent point, but I will keep my views and so will you. :hat:

    In other words: touche.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people have missed the point here.
    Yes, I agree that if two consenting adults wish to agree their differences without the British legal system but through an arbitration tribunal then so be it. However, the issue is, Islam does not treat women fairly, and they can be forced into accepting the terms.

    That is not legal, hence why I oppose Sharia Courts.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    A lot of people have missed the point here.
    Yes, I agree that if two consenting adults wish to agree their differences without the British legal system but through an arbitration tribunal then so be it. However, the issue is, Islam does not treat women fairly, and they can be forced into accepting the terms.

    That is not legal, hence why I oppose Sharia Courts.
    How does Islam not treat women fairly? The law is divine hence it is the most just so I don't understand your point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How about people just respect everyone else's beliefs and not impose their own faith on people who don't want to be imposed upon. Or is that wishful thinking, everyone getting along? :P
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz)
    Because Wikipedia is the most reliable resource. Ever
    Well, it is surprisingly good, yes. A recent study found Wikipedia to be as generally accurate as the most recent edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (which may be inaccurate through the inherent time delay of printing and general errors). Indeed, certain articles which often get plagued by pranksters are locked, so that only high-level users can edit them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    How does Islam not treat women fairly? The law is divine hence it is the most just so I don't understand your point.
    Because it will side against the female in favour of the male.
    If a female wants to bring a case against a male for abuse (or other vile actions) she will need the backing of other males (not females).

    Islam treats women like second third class citizens individuals property.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z332008)
    wheres the surah?
    Where's the criteria?
 
 
 
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.