This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
is it only me or has religion ruined the world?.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by z33
and... ? you said "religion ruined the world" not "monotheism ruined the world"
besides idk if it's just me but idg why Islam gets so much hate
it gave women rights over 1000 years before the women's rights movement.
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_women_have_rights.php
It gave the woman the right to become a legal party in a marriage contract, gave her rights in marriage, inheritance and divorce. The right to work and keep her income for herself. It prohibited female infanticide as well.
it gave animals rights
"The rights of livestock and animals upon man: these are that he spend on them the provision that their kinds require, even if they have aged or sickened such that no benefit comes from them; that he not burden them beyond what they can bear; that he not put them together with anything by which they would be injured, whether of their own kind or other species, and whether by breaking their bones or butting or wounding; that he slaughters them with kindness when he slaughters them, and neither flay their skins nor break their bones until their bodies have become cold and their lives have passed away; that he not slaughter their young within their sight, but that he isolate them; that he makes comfortable their resting places and watering places; that he puts their males and females together during their mating seasons; that he not discard those which he takes as game; and neither shoots them with anything that breaks their bones nor brings about their destruction by any means that renders their meat unlawful to eat. "
again over 1000 years before the protection of animals acts came out
It gave orphans and widows rights and basically gave a voice to the voiceless, just because GoatF**kers International are dropping bombs on everyone (including Muslims) in the name of the religion doesn't make the religion bad. Just because *****y sexist disgusting culture exists in predominantly Muslim countries doesn't mean Islam is to blame.
Das jus mahpinion tnx 4 reddin xoxoxo <333
besides idk if it's just me but idg why Islam gets so much hate
it gave women rights over 1000 years before the women's rights movement.
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_women_have_rights.php
It gave the woman the right to become a legal party in a marriage contract, gave her rights in marriage, inheritance and divorce. The right to work and keep her income for herself. It prohibited female infanticide as well.
it gave animals rights
"The rights of livestock and animals upon man: these are that he spend on them the provision that their kinds require, even if they have aged or sickened such that no benefit comes from them; that he not burden them beyond what they can bear; that he not put them together with anything by which they would be injured, whether of their own kind or other species, and whether by breaking their bones or butting or wounding; that he slaughters them with kindness when he slaughters them, and neither flay their skins nor break their bones until their bodies have become cold and their lives have passed away; that he not slaughter their young within their sight, but that he isolate them; that he makes comfortable their resting places and watering places; that he puts their males and females together during their mating seasons; that he not discard those which he takes as game; and neither shoots them with anything that breaks their bones nor brings about their destruction by any means that renders their meat unlawful to eat. "
again over 1000 years before the protection of animals acts came out
It gave orphans and widows rights and basically gave a voice to the voiceless, just because GoatF**kers International are dropping bombs on everyone (including Muslims) in the name of the religion doesn't make the religion bad. Just because *****y sexist disgusting culture exists in predominantly Muslim countries doesn't mean Islam is to blame.
Das jus mahpinion tnx 4 reddin xoxoxo <333
But in the quran it says that men can 'lightly' beat women if they disobey
Yes it has.When people put unreason and faith above reason and logic it is harmful to society.Religion causes divisions where there doesnt need to be any.Its not by accident that our greatest scientific advances have come in recent years when more people have abandoned religion.
No religion hasn't ruined the world. People ruin the world.
and if it is true that morals come from religion, then that hugely contradicts your view of religion ruining the world.
Religion is like anything else, it can be blamed for the poor, evil, cruel actions of other humans but you can't forget there are wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a fly that follow the same religion, therefore you cannot blame religion for ruining the world.
Humans can be cruel.
and if it is true that morals come from religion, then that hugely contradicts your view of religion ruining the world.
Religion is like anything else, it can be blamed for the poor, evil, cruel actions of other humans but you can't forget there are wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a fly that follow the same religion, therefore you cannot blame religion for ruining the world.
Humans can be cruel.
Original post by loveleest
But in the quran it says that men can 'lightly' beat women if they disobey
But the thing is, times have changed. There was a time when this was truly acceptable and no one would bat an eyelash.
Does it mean it adds imperfectness to what is believed to be a perfect text? perhaps. But I believe it's progressive society that allows this contrast to form.
Does it mean you have to follow a perfect text word for word? No, certainly not.
Does any of this make you a bad person for believing in a perfect text that mentions such a thing? no it really doesn't.
Original post by Robby2312
Yes it has.When people put unreason and faith above reason and logic it is harmful to society.Religion causes divisions where there doesnt need to be any.Its not by accident that our greatest scientific advances have come in recent years when more people have abandoned religion.
Our greatest scientific advances have come in recent years because they've had the old work to build on; you can't expect advances to magically happen without the precursors they require, and no matter your religious standpoint that takes time. The decline of religion is random correlation, not causation.
No, religion binds communities even if the ideology is misguided. Secularism in Britain has led to nothing but social fragmentation and civilisational decay.
Original post by loveleest
But in the quran it says that men can 'lightly' beat women if they disobey
1. that doesn't invalidate anything I've said
2. "idribuhunna" doesn't have to mean beat them, it could mean leave them. Like in English if you say "beat it" as a command to someone to tell them to go away, it doesn't mean "start beating whatever is near you" it means "go away"
in Arabic - which I speak - you say "adhrablaka mathal" meaning "i'll give you an example" - teachers use it often.
it is also used in the Quran in that context ^
so it doesn't mean beat your wives, it means leave them in the hope that they will snap out of it
the quran says
"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"
prophet Job (ayub) made a vow to hit his wife after they had some altercation when he was sick and she was fed up - he vowed to hit her 100 times when he became well. After he recovered he felt bad but he'd sworn to God that he would do it and it would be a sin to break an oath you make to God. So God ordered him to throw a few blades of grass at her and that would be sufficient to fulfil the oath while not harming his wife at all. In fact she wouldn't even know she was 'hit'
and lastly 3. not any man can come and hit a woman who doesn't do as he likes because he thinks that's right. firstly he's a pig and secondly it's specifically written in the context of marriage
Original post by QE2
Ah, good old verse 5:32, misquoted and used out of context, yet again.
What it actually says is...
"We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one 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"
"Spreading mischief" (or "fasad" in Arabic) is a vague term that includes many offences from treason and rebellion to simply "disobeying god's law".
So, we can see that the verse, when quoted in full, actually allows the killing of quite a lot of people who we would consider innocent of any crime.
Furthermore, when viewed in the context of the following verse (5:33)...
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"
We can see that the Quran actually authorises barbaric punishments against those opposing Islam. (The renowned classical scholar, Ibn Kathir, describes 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". His tafsir (explanation of the Quran) is the most widely used and respected in the Muslim world.
"Extremist" Islam is simply Islam that has not been modernised and diluted by centuries of adapting to other cultures, and while it is thankfully followed by relatively few Muslims, it is not some kind of "corruption" of Islam, it is actually the Islam of modern moderates that is the "corruption" (which is why the fundamentalist Islamists regard them as apostates or munafiq and therefore liable to capital punishment).
The various sects (even Sunni and Shia) tend to differ very little on the fundamentals. They all read exactly the same Quran. The differences are more to do with technicalities and interpretations of applications, etc.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn, considering your lack of knowledge (or dishonesty) regarding 5:32.
What it actually says is...
"We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one 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"
"Spreading mischief" (or "fasad" in Arabic) is a vague term that includes many offences from treason and rebellion to simply "disobeying god's law".
So, we can see that the verse, when quoted in full, actually allows the killing of quite a lot of people who we would consider innocent of any crime.
Furthermore, when viewed in the context of the following verse (5:33)...
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"
We can see that the Quran actually authorises barbaric punishments against those opposing Islam. (The renowned classical scholar, Ibn Kathir, describes 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". His tafsir (explanation of the Quran) is the most widely used and respected in the Muslim world.
"Extremist" Islam is simply Islam that has not been modernised and diluted by centuries of adapting to other cultures, and while it is thankfully followed by relatively few Muslims, it is not some kind of "corruption" of Islam, it is actually the Islam of modern moderates that is the "corruption" (which is why the fundamentalist Islamists regard them as apostates or munafiq and therefore liable to capital punishment).
The various sects (even Sunni and Shia) tend to differ very little on the fundamentals. They all read exactly the same Quran. The differences are more to do with technicalities and interpretations of applications, etc.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn, considering your lack of knowledge (or dishonesty) regarding 5:32.
"wage war on Allah and his messenger" If someone wages war most of the time killing happens... The definition of war is the key point here. Ibn Kathir is one man, this would be like basing a reading of the bible of what a crazy redneck says.
Did not christianity follow harsh punishments up until recently ? To quote a few, corporal punishment endorsement, support for the slave trade... One could argue that they still cause human rights breaches, like influencing abortion bills that do not affect religious people in any way, disdain for contraception etc.
What religion preaches and what it's followers do are two completely different things. Turkey for example is Sunni but much more liberal than Saudi and the gulf arabs because of a basic change in constitution. If you know many normal muslims you will know that they abhor terrorism for sullying the face of Islam. this person is blaming muslims in general for terrorism, this is akin to saying that all Jews support Israel's blockade of Gaza and settlement policies.
They all read the same qu'ran... and interpet it in massively different ways. Even the word jihad is interpreted differently depending on the sect.
Original Islam allowed women to demand a divorce, forbade 'unlawful' killing ( of course the definition is just and lawful can be twisted. ) Islam led to many things such as the first universities, the first hospitals, algebra and rubbing alcohol, education flourished for hundreds of years. Many accounts that I have of the Islamic occupation of areas such as the south of Spain and Sicily show that Christian students attended Islamic run unis etc. and were not forced to convert.
Original post by scaredofdeath
especially islam - isis.
They have ruined our lives with all their terror attacks.
They have ruined our lives with all their terror attacks.
were you a victim in any of these attacks?
Original post by mcneill98
What religion preaches and what it's followers do are two completely different things.
Nope. Religious people generally do what religion preaches. That's why they are religious people.
Turkey for example is Sunni but much more liberal than Saudi and the gulf arabs because of a basic change in constitution.
Yes, but still this level of liberalism is unacceptable to Europe.
If you know many normal muslims you will know that they abhor terrorism for sullying the face of Islam.
But they are not hurry to uproot Islamic extremism from their communities.
They all read the same qu'ran... and interpet it in massively different ways. Even the word jihad is interpreted differently depending on the sect.
But still mostly followers of Quran join the ranks of terrorists. That's the fact, not an interpretation.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
But the thing is, times have changed. There was a time when this was truly acceptable and no one would bat an eyelash.
Does it mean it adds imperfectness to what is believed to be a perfect text? perhaps. But I believe it's progressive society that allows this contrast to form.
Does it mean you have to follow a perfect text word for word? No, certainly not.
Does any of this make you a bad person for believing in a perfect text that mentions such a thing? no it really doesn't.
Does it mean it adds imperfectness to what is believed to be a perfect text? perhaps. But I believe it's progressive society that allows this contrast to form.
Does it mean you have to follow a perfect text word for word? No, certainly not.
Does any of this make you a bad person for believing in a perfect text that mentions such a thing? no it really doesn't.
When did i say that following religion makes you a bad person? I don't think that at all. I think that religion gives people good morals but I will still think that there are definately some problematic parts in religion that I will point out.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by QE2
This comes a close second to the classic "The sun is Muslim" statement from a while ago.Good work!
This comes a close second to the classic "The sun is Muslim" statement from a while ago.Good work!Original post by Good bloke
You'll be telling us next that Mohammed banned slavery.
You'll be telling us next that Mohammed banned slavery.
two guys who have failed to do their research
Original post by ELVsLP
two guys who have failed to do their research
Are you telling us that Mohammed did ban slavery?
Original post by z33
1. that doesn't invalidate anything I've said
2. "idribuhunna" doesn't have to mean beat them, it could mean leave them. Like in English if you say "beat it" as a command to someone to tell them to go away, it doesn't mean "start beating whatever is near you" it means "go away"
in Arabic - which I speak - you say "adhrablaka mathal" meaning "i'll give you an example" - teachers use it often.
it is also used in the Quran in that context ^
so it doesn't mean beat your wives, it means leave them in the hope that they will snap out of it
the quran says
"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"
prophet Job (ayub) made a vow to hit his wife after they had some altercation when he was sick and she was fed up - he vowed to hit her 100 times when he became well. After he recovered he felt bad but he'd sworn to God that he would do it and it would be a sin to break an oath you make to God. So God ordered him to throw a few blades of grass at her and that would be sufficient to fulfil the oath while not harming his wife at all. In fact she wouldn't even know she was 'hit'
and lastly 3. not any man can come and hit a woman who doesn't do as he likes because he thinks that's right. firstly he's a pig and secondly it's specifically written in the context of marriage
2. "idribuhunna" doesn't have to mean beat them, it could mean leave them. Like in English if you say "beat it" as a command to someone to tell them to go away, it doesn't mean "start beating whatever is near you" it means "go away"
in Arabic - which I speak - you say "adhrablaka mathal" meaning "i'll give you an example" - teachers use it often.
it is also used in the Quran in that context ^
so it doesn't mean beat your wives, it means leave them in the hope that they will snap out of it
the quran says
"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"
prophet Job (ayub) made a vow to hit his wife after they had some altercation when he was sick and she was fed up - he vowed to hit her 100 times when he became well. After he recovered he felt bad but he'd sworn to God that he would do it and it would be a sin to break an oath you make to God. So God ordered him to throw a few blades of grass at her and that would be sufficient to fulfil the oath while not harming his wife at all. In fact she wouldn't even know she was 'hit'
and lastly 3. not any man can come and hit a woman who doesn't do as he likes because he thinks that's right. firstly he's a pig and secondly it's specifically written in the context of marriage
Right, this is what I find interesting about religion. You said that the quote was misinterpreted- which is fine, fair enough but then I have seen on here Muslim guys saying that it is okay to hit women 'lightly'. I have also read it in translation... so a lot of things can be misinterpreted?
Original post by loveleest
But in the quran it says that men can 'lightly' beat women if they disobey
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Does any of this make you a bad person for believing in a perfect text that mentions such a thing? no it really doesn't.
Especially when you add the permissions for slavery, sex with slaves (or "rape" as it it called in legal circles), flogging for consensual adult sex, gender discrimination and barbaric punishments for "spreading mischief".
With so much unacceptable stuff in there, perhaps it is time that Muslims started distancing themselves from claims of the Quran's infallible immutability?
So basically
ISIS= Muslims
Zionist= Jews
KKK= Christians
Saffron Terror= Hindus
BBS= Buddhism
etc..
ISIS= Muslims
Zionist= Jews
KKK= Christians
Saffron Terror= Hindus
BBS= Buddhism
etc..
Original post by QE2
The "lightly" is not in the Quran. It is a later addition by scholars. The Quran only says "beat" or "strike".
Oh wow. Even worse than I thought.
I'm going to answer the title of this thread.
First things first religion is capable of being a highly effective weapon and a bright light that can unify people. The main issue with religion though is a simple one, it is the words of a god as interpreted by man, it can only be through using humans as a middle man and with that comes distortion and division. To understand why we have to consider what is the greatest fear, it is the fear of the unknown and the greatest unknown is what comes after death. Religion provides an answer to this question and in faith, we find comfort. However, religions also carry conditions for a good afterlife generally which forces conformity to them.
It is this conformity which enables religion to unify people, but it also causes segregation which is where it can become a weapon. When you have a tool which gives a person faith and shapes their morality, it becomes far simpler to get them to conform to your goals. Just look at the kkk, isis, even going back to the Crusades, religion was used to unify others to further the goals of the few.
I could go on for a long time, but I appreciate most people wouldn't read it, but in short religion has an unrivalled ability to unify people, what this does is down to the people leading the group and how they interpret the holy texts of their religion, and how people in the past have interpreted it. In short, religion is a means through which humanity damages itself, but it is also a means through which it heals and advances.
First things first religion is capable of being a highly effective weapon and a bright light that can unify people. The main issue with religion though is a simple one, it is the words of a god as interpreted by man, it can only be through using humans as a middle man and with that comes distortion and division. To understand why we have to consider what is the greatest fear, it is the fear of the unknown and the greatest unknown is what comes after death. Religion provides an answer to this question and in faith, we find comfort. However, religions also carry conditions for a good afterlife generally which forces conformity to them.
It is this conformity which enables religion to unify people, but it also causes segregation which is where it can become a weapon. When you have a tool which gives a person faith and shapes their morality, it becomes far simpler to get them to conform to your goals. Just look at the kkk, isis, even going back to the Crusades, religion was used to unify others to further the goals of the few.
I could go on for a long time, but I appreciate most people wouldn't read it, but in short religion has an unrivalled ability to unify people, what this does is down to the people leading the group and how they interpret the holy texts of their religion, and how people in the past have interpreted it. In short, religion is a means through which humanity damages itself, but it is also a means through which it heals and advances.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Customer Services Group; Executive Officer (EO) - Home Office - Various RolesLast reply 1 minute ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2866
Last reply 5 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 7 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 17 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 21 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Last reply 24 minutes ago
Why do some girls take pleasure in going after other girls boyfriends?Posted 25 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationTrending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
