1. Post #81
    Gold Member
    HiredK's Avatar
    November 2006
    423 Posts
    Dude, your seriously an idiot. I never mentioned christianity in any of my post, because I know most of the anti-islamic trolls have absolutely no basis to criticize Islam if they take the bible vs quran stance.

    The idea is now to compare islam vs the new world (aka secular). Hence my posts talking about the world super-power USA (secular) which happens to be violent too.

    People who are all violent are stupid. People who are total pacifists are stupid. The correct order requires a balance of both. Thats there in Islam, and thats there in the world's leading super power (strictly talking about killing policies).

    Islam is violent, hell yeah it is, BUT towards those who are hostile towards it. And it makes perfect sense.

    Anywho, done talking to you. Your just going to take 3 words out of the Quran and make some stupid conclusion as the previous two new posters have already figured out about you.



    It's consistent if you know the right sources to look at. The Quran isnt like the bible in any way. Each passage has a story behind and not to be taken literally. If you take sonerin's unacademic stance on things and compare 3 words out of context against 3 other words from the Quran, your bound to find contradictions.

    Islam is facing the same bullshit that Jews have suffered from. I had come across so many references from the Talmud (and that Protocols of the bla bla Zion) and so on referring to the "kill all non-jews" ideas. But came across another Judaic site which explained the context of that reference, and then suddenly it wasnt so evil after all.
    I can't believe what I'm reading seriously, why are we even discussing this? Look you may say everything you want about how bad it is elsewhere, but here's one true fact. Here in Canada, a women is (hopefully) treated equally to a men, however, it wasn't always this way... but you know what? We evolved from that and I'm damn proud of that. Now you're debating the institution of a law that goes entirely in another direction where the women has close to no right. And don't try to bullshit me by saying it's not true because we both know I can back this up. Now you need come back to reality and accept the fact that we respect your religion's law and even admire parts of it, but it will never make it's way to our countries, even if it's within your own follower, this is the only thing I will say on that matter.

  2. Post #82
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    No worse than laws based on the bible.

  3. Post #83
    Absynth's Avatar
    July 2012
    88 Posts
    No worse than laws based on the bible.
    Can people stop comparing Quran to Bible already? Both of them are shit, but different shits. Just because Bible is also fucked up doesn't mean Quran is good to go.

  4. Post #84
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    Can people stop comparing Quran to Bible already? Both of them are shit, but different shits. Just because Bible is also fucked up doesn't mean Quran is good to go.
    did I say the koran was good to go?

    Edited:

    I mean they're very similar, so I feel obligated to bring it up.

  5. Post #85
    Absynth's Avatar
    July 2012
    88 Posts
    did I say the koran was good to go?

    Edited:

    I mean they're very similar, so I feel obligated to bring it up.
    Oh, okay.

  6. Post #86
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    did I say the koran was good to go?

    Edited:

    I mean they're very similar, so I feel obligated to bring it up.
    Actually they're both really different. Similarities only come from time period and they both also contain some of the same "prophets" such as Moses, David, and even Jesus. The Quran goes from peaceful to harsh while the Bible goes from harsh to peaceful. Also not to get mixed any further, Christians follow the new testament and only learn from the old testament while Jews follow the old testament and say that the new testament is false because of their disbelief in Jesus as the son of God. Muslims follow the Medinan suras while they use the old Meccan suras to cover the Medinan suras. Sharia laws are based off of the Medinan suras because they overwrite Meccan suras. There is no conflict in the overwriting because they are all written by one person, their prophet Muhammad. Also you guys really need to get over yourselves thinking that these historical pieces are crap. They brought control and social evolution in a time period in which there was none. Only in the future was these book misused for power and dictatorial control which brings its hate from others. They might be outdated now, but that doesn't mean you need to bash them.

  7. Post #87
    -Kaider-'s Avatar
    February 2006
    374 Posts
    Any laws based on religion are "bad". Religion has no place in the formation of a state in my opinion. And I think everybody in this thread got trolled hard by somarin.

  8. Post #88
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    Any laws based on religion are "bad". Religion has no place in the formation of a state in my opinion. And I think everybody in this thread got trolled hard by somarin.
    In this case it's worse than bad because it's something more of a growing dominance on things in areas that they practice it. Especially when they try to overrule the areas justice system.

  9. Post #89
    zombojoe's Avatar
    March 2010
    7,607 Posts
    Any law that is supposed to be justified by religion is a bad law.

  10. Post #90
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    Thanks. Once again you've stated what someone else has already said. Really people. Come on. And also you cannot say that all laws justified by religion are bad laws. There could be one by any religion that could work in today's time period so please take your indirect religion bashing somewhere if you are not going to add a useful thought to the debate.

  11. Post #91
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    Thanks. Once again you've stated what someone else has already said. Really people. Come on. And also you cannot say that all laws justified by religion are bad laws. There could be one by any religion that could work in today's time period so please take your indirect religion bashing somewhere if you are not going to add a useful thought to the debate.
    Sharia law and Islam are bad in general.

  12. Post #92
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Thanks. Once again you've stated what someone else has already said. Really people. Come on. And also you cannot say that all laws justified by religion are bad laws. There could be one by any religion that could work in today's time period so please take your indirect religion bashing somewhere if you are not going to add a useful thought to the debate.
    It can certainly be argued that a religious justification is not justification at all as they lack reason and evidence. It is certainly possible for reason and evidence to argue any claim that a or the god makes, but that provides no validity to the religious justification, meaning that such claims are baseless and aren't arguments. Provided that, a more accurate statement would be "you cannot say that all laws justified through no justification are bad", to which the claim must bares to be false due to the contradiction it embeds.

    There are further issues with the claim that I can go into if needed. It is important to realize that the methodology is what is important in the claim.

  13. Post #93
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    Let's ask him, then. Why don't Muslims follow their book? Why don't they kill non-muslims like their book tells them to do so? Are they too dumb to still call themselves Muslims if they aren't going to follow their book?
    I asked a Muslim, and guess what he said. The same thing about context. The kill all situation is only used in a state of war against the aggressors, mind you the opposition's women, children and elderly excluded (unless they are involved in the fighting too).

    So again,

    Taking your facts from a pro-Islamic website?
    Like taking "facts" from an anti-Islamic website is any better.

    And I'm sure the bearded chap named Mohammad was attacked because of his violent beliefs. He attacked and killed a lot of innocent people even when he wasn't in war with people. He is the one wh o caused battles.
    Uh ok, if you say so, great debating there.

    Edited:

    Now you're debating the institution of a law that goes entirely in another direction where the women has close to no right. And don't try to bullshit me by saying it's not true because we both know I can back this up.
    Close to no right is a bit far fetched. I never said men and women had 100% equal rights in Islam nor that they were treated 100% exactly the same. Islam has a different outlook on gender roles and hence the rights of inheritance are based off of that..

    Some see Islam as a male dominated society, and at the same time, some see the Western system as a burden on women. Gender roles still is a discussed topic nowadays you know.

  14. Post #94
    Gold Member
    cis.joshb's Avatar
    January 2011
    1,873 Posts
    If willing people want to follow Sharia law and it is not part of the state or forced on the unwilling (as true Sharia law is) then they can do whatever they want.

  15. Post #95
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    I asked a Muslim, and guess what he said. The same thing about context. The kill all situation is only used in a state of war against the aggressors, mind you the opposition's women, children and elderly excluded (unless they are involved in the fighting too).

    So again,



    Like taking "facts" from an anti-Islamic website is any better.



    Uh ok, if you say so, great debating there.

    Edited:



    Close to no right is a bit far fetched. I never said men and women had 100% equal rights in Islam nor that they were treated 100% exactly the same. Islam has a different outlook on gender roles and hence the rights of inheritance are based off of that..

    Some see Islam as a male dominated society, and at the same time, some see the Western system as a burden on women. Gender roles still is a discussed topic nowadays you know.
    Quit pulling the "it's only war" bullshit. The "kill non-muslims" verses apply out of war and in war. Read the verses and you'll understand.

    "Taking out of context herr derr" card is getting old.

    Edited:

    If willing people want to follow Sharia law and it is not part of the state or forced on the unwilling (as true Sharia law is) then they can do whatever they want.
    Sharia Law's rules are to force their own shit against non-Muslims, it's not something you can coexist with if you're not a Muslim.

  16. Post #96
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    Sharia law and Islam are bad in general.
    Painting with a broad brush aren't you?

    Edited:

    I mean not every single muslim agrees on sharia law or islam

  17. Post #97
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    The "kill non-muslims" verses apply out of war and in war.
    Wrong. I already pointed out why.

  18. Post #98
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    Wrong. I already pointed out why.
    And I told you to stop pulling the "out of context" card, it's a stupid gateway out of my arguement. And no, not wrong. Islam is discriminative and violent.


    Painting with a broad brush aren't you?

    Edited:

    I mean not every single muslim agrees on sharia law or islam
    Doesn't change the fact that Islam and Sharia Law are evil, wrong, discriminative. Thus my point is right. I am not bashing Muslims here, I am bashing Islam.

  19. Post #99
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    And I told you to stop pulling the "out of context" card, it's a stupid gateway out of my arguement. And no, not wrong. Islam is discriminative and violent.
    Nope its not. Already showed why.

  20. Post #100
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    Nope its not. Already showed why.
    Yes it is, I've already shown proof.

  21. Post #101
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    I think we are having relative problems.


    Muslim=follower of Islam

    follower of Islam= enforcer of Sharia law

    Sharia law= moral code and religious laws of Islam written in the Quran and passed down from the prophet Muhammad for Muslims to follow and for them to enforce.

    Muslim who doesn't follow Sharia law=Not really a true believer and follower of Islam


    Its like nitpicking at a religion on what parts you'll follow and which parts you won't. It doesn't really work like that and their credibility on how the religion works cannot be sustained because of their ignorance or ineptitude to teach themselves more of their own belief in a religion.

    I feel like we might have a slight imbalance of knowledge on the issue and we should draw directly from the Quran or other unbiased pieces for our sources. My sources came from all over the internet by simply typing "Quran", "Sharia", or "Islam". Of course I used some of Wikipedia which I think is actually a very reliable source at some times.

    More debating, less arguing please.

  22. Post #102
    Absynth's Avatar
    July 2012
    88 Posts
    I think we are having relative problems.


    Muslim=follower of Islam

    follower of Islam= enforcer of Sharia law

    Sharia law= moral code and religious laws of Islam written in the Quran and passed down from the prophet Muhammad for Muslims to follow and for them to enforce.

    Muslim who doesn't follow Sharia law=Not really a true believer and follower of Islam


    Its like nitpicking at a religion on what parts you'll follow and which parts you won't. It doesn't really work like that and their credibility on how the religion works cannot be sustained because of their ignorance or ineptitude to teach themselves more of their own belief in a religion.

    I feel like we might have a slight imbalance of knowledge on the issue and we should draw directly from the Quran or other unbiased pieces for our sources. My sources came from all over the internet by simply typing "Quran", "Sharia", or "Islam". Of course I used some of Wikipedia which I think is actually a very reliable source at some times.

    More debating, less arguing please.
    That is exactly what I've been explaining to a few dimwits for the past two pages in this thread. If you call yourself a follower of your religion, you have to follow your religion and what your book says. And Qur'an literally tells you to kill non-muslims, that you are allowed to beat your wife up, that you should discriminate non-muslims, et cetera.

    In before someone pulls the "out of context, it's just war" card again.

  23. Post #103
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    Well, the Quran is a hard book to understand. There are many conflicting points in the Quran where one half is completely peaceful and the other half says "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." Surah (9:5) which is to say that Muslims would fight against non-Muslims. Now there are two different kind of Muslims. Ones that follow it completely in chronological order and ones that follow it historically as to not follow parts that were only beheld extremely in that time period. Ones that follow it completely are going to be more extreme and follow all that the Quran says and only use the first half as their cover of peace and sharing of beliefs. The other kind of Muslims will read the whole thing and delve into why certain say violent things. It is a breaking apart of Islam to discard violence from their beliefs and only keep the peace. The Quran is a very violent book and there is a large amount of Muslims who will only follow the peace while others who follow the latest writings from their prophet Muhammad to incorporate control and power for their religion. Sharia law is for those kinds of Muslims, not the peaceful ones.

  24. Post #104
    dubstep
    SCopE5000's Avatar
    August 2005
    4,195 Posts
    Islam is violent, hell yeah it is, BUT towards those who are hostile towards it. And it makes perfect sense.
    This is fucking ridiculous.

    IMO if a religion wants to continue being a religion in this day and age, all of the violent and hostile aspects need to be totally stripped out of it, because it's totally retarded that people still think it's okay for them to be there, and to be taken in any regard, I don't care if it's 'a story' or 'not to be taken literally' because people still will, regardless of how logical you assume they are.

    You don't get biologists killing people and saying 'oh well, we're all going to die, biologically, so it makes no difference if I kill you now' even though it's technically correct.

    There will always be exceptions, namely people who believe something and coincidentally their belief is reinforced, then they take it to the next level (which is great for healing when you understand it, not so great when you have lunatics thinking that it's okay to kill people because they predicted the sun would come out..)

  25. Post #105

    July 2012
    13 Posts
    yer its bad lol

  26. Post #106
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    This is fucking ridiculous.

    IMO if a religion wants to continue being a religion in this day and age, all of the violent and hostile aspects need to be totally stripped out of it, because it's totally retarded that people still think it's okay for them to be there, and to be taken in any regard, I don't care if it's 'a story' or 'not to be taken literally' because people still will, regardless of how logical you assume they are.

    You don't get biologists killing people and saying 'oh well, we're all going to die, biologically, so it makes no difference if I kill you now' even though it's technically correct.

    There will always be exceptions, namely people who believe something and coincidentally their belief is reinforced, then they take it to the next level (which is great for healing when you understand it, not so great when you have lunatics thinking that it's okay to kill people because they predicted the sun would come out..)
    They can't take verses out and leave the ones they like, it's not like that. You either do everything your book says, or don't do it at all. I don't understand why people continue calling themselves Muslims when they realise there are a lot of contradictions and agressive verses in Qur'an. They don't even want to follow them.


    Well, the Quran is a hard book to understand. There are many conflicting points in the Quran where one half is completely peaceful and the other half says "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." Surah (9:5) which is to say that Muslims would fight against non-Muslims. Now there are two different kind of Muslims. Ones that follow it completely in chronological order and ones that follow it historically as to not follow parts that were only beheld extremely in that time period. Ones that follow it completely are going to be more extreme and follow all that the Quran says and only use the first half as their cover of peace and sharing of beliefs. The other kind of Muslims will read the whole thing and delve into why certain say violent things. It is a breaking apart of Islam to discard violence from their beliefs and only keep the peace. The Quran is a very violent book and there is a large amount of Muslims who will only follow the peace while others who follow the latest writings from their prophet Muhammad to incorporate control and power for their religion. Sharia law is for those kinds of Muslims, not the peaceful ones.
    If there's even a single verse in a whole book that orders you to kill someone because s/he's not of your religion, it is enough for us to call this "religion" a hate cult.

  27. Post #107
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    They can't take verses out and leave the ones they like, it's not like that. You either do everything your book says, or don't do it at all.
    That's the theory, but very few people do it in practice.

  28. Post #108
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    IMO if a religion wants to continue being a religion in this day and age, all of the violent and hostile aspects need to be totally stripped out of it, because it's totally retarded that people still think it's okay for them to be there, and to be taken in any regard, I don't care if it's 'a story' or 'not to be taken literally' because people still will, regardless of how logical you assume they are.
    They represent themselves as a complete system. Asking a system to be stripped of any act of violence is retarded from any point of view and an "extreme" view (or right / left view whatever).

    That is exactly what I've been explaining to a few dimwits for the past two pages in this thread. If you call yourself a follower of your religion, you have to follow your religion and what your book says. And Qur'an literally tells you to kill non-muslims, that you are allowed to beat your wife up, that you should discriminate non-muslims, et cetera.

    In before someone pulls the "out of context, it's just war" card again.
    The Quran also says :

    So woe to those who pray 107:4

    Dimwits like you would take this literally and then cry on forums on how Islam is weird by making prayer an obligation and then slamming their followers for it. When you take stuff out of context and literally, you'll find the quran full of apparent contradictions and mistakes.

    Also wife beat up part is bull shit. Once again, you cant interpret the quran according to your liking of your local anti-islamic arab who knows jack shit about the religion. This I feel is the major problem in the misunderstandings. I could go on, but no matter what you say, I still think that what an islamic authority has to say about their book/religion is more right that what an anti-islamic site/bigot wants to portray.



    Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36 "(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

    "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

    From the Hadiths (Narrations)

    Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

    Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)" a


    ...........


    I have visited the link and it was what I expected. But the question I am asking is a linguistic one, not one based on interpretations and jurisprudence. Here again is the extract I provided:

    >>>>>>>
    (4:34) [...]as for those women on whose part ye fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adriboo) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

    The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words, according to the lexicon,3 are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.

    Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.

    Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.

    In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is 'marital discord' (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is 'to separate' or 'to part'. Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur'anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

    (4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

    The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur'an (see 8.5).

    The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.

    (4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.


    Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as 'ill-treatment' as against 'rebellion' in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!

    (4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[...]


    This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: 'to separate' or to 'part'. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:

    (a) Qur'anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur'an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. 'Daraba' can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.

    (b) The translation of adribu as 'to strike' in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:

    (i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.

    (ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur'an which led them to assume that 'to strike', given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Thanks
    A Tilling a
    Source : http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html

    There is also this source (http://www.sublimequran.org/) which is encouraging the use of the word separate instead of beat. Could copy pasta here but cant be bothered. I think the above wall of text proves the point pretty well.

    Edited:

    Yes it is, I've already shown proof.
    Bull. But anyway let me give another example for others who are still not convinced.

    Well, the Quran is a hard book to understand. There are many conflicting points in the Quran where one half is completely peaceful and the other half says "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." Surah (9:5) which is to say that Muslims would fight against non-Muslims. Now there are two different kind of Muslims.....The Quran is a very violent book...
    So Islam calls for killing of all non-believers right? So why arent Muslims doing so? Lack of conviction? Not proper followers? Okay. Lets take the example of the Taliban, who I assume people who agree were "hardcore" followers of Islam

    "The Taliban did not suppress us -- they respected our religion and if we had any problem they would resolve it immediately, let alone delay it until the next day," says Singh.
    Source : http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/0...49825920100702

    This is coming from a Sikh (who btw consider Muslims their enemies - one of their supposed rituals is washing their hair in blood of a killed Muslim). The article actually mentions that the Sikh and Hindus were better off under the Taliban than Karzai's regime.

    Tell me, why these fundamentalists Taliban, who didnt give a damn what the world thought about bamiyan buddhas, just go ahead and wipe out the entire non-muslim communities under their rule?

    Why is it that when their Prophet conquered Mecca, he offered amnesty to the pagans, instead of wiping them out? Or the Coptics of Egypt were never wiped out? Or the Hindus of India under their rule? The Jews under Ottomans? The Christians in Syria? The list goes on and on.

    GL spreading misinformation and hate. Hate mongerers like you are the problem in this world.

  29. Post #109
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    They represent themselves as a complete system. Asking a system to be stripped of any act of violence is retarded from any point of view and an "extreme" view (or right / left view whatever).



    The Quran also says :

    So woe to those who pray 107:4

    Dimwits like you would take this literally and then cry on forums on how Islam is weird by making prayer an obligation and then slamming their followers for it. When you take stuff out of context and literally, you'll find the quran full of apparent contradictions and mistakes.
    You love pulling the "out of context, not the real meaning, it was because of war" cards, don't you? If Qur'an says you are to kill non-muslims if they don't convert, then it means you are to kill non-muslims if they don't convert. There are no secret meanings to these verses. Islam is a violent religion, Mohammad was a violent pedophile, etc. Get over the facts.

    Also wife beat up part is bull shit. Once again, you cant interpret the quran according to your liking of your local anti-islamic arab who knows jack shit about the religion. This I feel is the major problem in the misunderstandings. I could go on, but no matter what you say, I still think that what an islamic authority has to say about their book/religion is more right that what an anti-islamic site/bigot wants to portray.
    u wot m8.

    Sura 4:34 says:

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

    65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)



    Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

    Sura 4:11 says:

    The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

    4:24 says:

    And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

    And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

    a 4:129 says:

    It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)


    Source : http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html

    There is also this source (http://www.sublimequran.org/) which is encouraging the use of the word separate instead of beat. Could copy pasta here but cant be bothered. I think the above wall of text proves the point pretty well.

    Edited:



    Bull. But anyway let me give another example for others who are still not convinced.

    So Islam calls for killing of all non-believers right? So why arent Muslims doing so? Lack of conviction? Not proper followers? Okay. Lets take the example of the Taliban, who I assume people who agree were "hardcore" followers of Islam



    Source : http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/0...49825920100702

    This is coming from a Sikh (who btw consider Muslims their enemies - one of their supposed rituals is washing their hair in blood of a killed Muslim). The article actually mentions that the Sikh and Hindus were better off under the Taliban than Karzai's regime.

    Tell me, why these fundamentalists Taliban, who didnt give a damn what the world thought about bamiyan buddhas, just go ahead and wipe out the entire non-muslim communities under their rule?

    Why is it that when their Prophet conquered Mecca, he offered amnesty to the pagans, instead of wiping them out? Or the Coptics of Egypt were never wiped out? Or the Hindus of India under their rule? The Jews under Ottomans? The Christians in Syria? The list goes on and on.

    GL spreading misinformation and hate. Hate mongerers like you are the problem in this world.
    I told you many times before. Muslims don't kill people at the moment because they don't even read Qur'an to see the violent bullshit in Qur'an. And the rest of them force themselves to think that they're not violent, aka simpletons like you.

    Islam itself is violent, I got no word for Muslims themselves.

    And it's funny the word "hate mongerers" is coming from you. I am trying to stop a violent discriminative hate cult, and I am a hateful person for that?

    gg would read again

  30. Post #110
    CabooseRvB's Avatar
    September 2009
    12,241 Posts
    Ohheylook.

    People thinking that Islam is more violent than any other religion because they find lines from holy texts and pull them out to bolster their argument. Can you get more bigoted in your explanations?

  31. Post #111
    sonerin's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,534 Posts
    Ohheylook.

    People thinking that Islam is more violent than any other religion because they find lines from holy texts and pull them out to bolster their argument. Can you get more bigoted in your explanations?
    Verses from Qur'an itself are the most solid proof to prove Islam's violent face. Disappointed?

    Edited:

    Another verse about Islam's violence against women. Indirect.


    24:2: The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

  32. Post #112
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    C57 please don't pull what I say out of context. Muslims agree it is a violent book, but most Muslims make it out to be a peaceful religion where its usage is pertained to the events that are happening and if to works during their time period. They actually do comprehensions of everything in the Quran whereas the "extremists" take everything as it is. Pure followers of the Quran will take everything literally in it which will make them violent while most of the other Muslims have to comprehend it. Also as I have stated pure followers of the Quran are violent because they follow the second half of the Quran containing all the new suras written by their prophet Muhammad after they immigrated to Medina form Mecca and they were much more violent than peaceful ones he wrote in Mecca so that means any conflicts the Medina suras would overwrite the Meccan suras.

    All in all the Quran is a violent book and Muslims agree, but it doesn't mean that all of them use everything they listen to in the Quran due to the reasoning of why their prophet Muhammad wrote them.
    Also CabooseRvB it can be a very violent religion due to the fact the Quran (Islam's book) is violent as well not just because there's some little scribble in some book, but thanks for your daft addition to our debate.

  33. Post #113
    Ploo's Avatar
    December 2009
    364 Posts
    How can you tell if an Arab just had sex?

    His eyes are all red from the mace.

    (User was banned for this post ("racism" - GunFox))

  34. Post #114
    dubstep
    SCopE5000's Avatar
    August 2005
    4,195 Posts
    IMO all beliefs are distractions to make the delusion of living more manageable.

    No one wants to have nothing, religions etc are there to 'soften the blow'.

    Going seriously out of your way to cause distress or hurt for other people who are in the same boat as you seems pretty ridiculous to me.

  35. Post #115
    Bob_Namg's Avatar
    June 2012
    491 Posts
    Shariah law is a corrupted code of rules to suppress and govern those under any 'Muslim' state.
    They entail to fabrication and rhetoric of which Islam is the only path to justice and righteousness and that all other religions and beliefs are to never be tollerated.
    That women and said others are to be lower in society and are expendable to the kingdoms and sovereignties in the name of God (Though that would sound like it's against his will).
    Shariah law translates to;
    "Be a Muslim slave to Islam or else."

  36. Post #116
    MyBigBoner.com
    fritzel's Avatar
    March 2009
    4,609 Posts
    Shariah law translates to;
    "Be a Muslim slave to Islam or else."
    It's not any farther than the truth. That's how almost every religion works.

  37. Post #117
    dubstep
    SCopE5000's Avatar
    August 2005
    4,195 Posts
    It's not any farther than the truth. That's how almost every religion works.
    He said Sharia law not religion.

    Any law essentially translates to 'be a slave to this law or else'.

    The law as it stands in the UK at the moment is fine; if you disagree, or wish to abide by other laws, move to a country where those laws are in effect.

  38. Post #118
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    You love pulling the "out of context, not the real meaning, it was because of war" cards, don't you? If Qur'an says you are to kill non-muslims if they don't convert, then it means you are to kill non-muslims if they don't convert. There are no secret meanings to these verses.
    Your like a broken record. If that was the case, then non-Muslim communities never would have existed under Islam rule. History is proof against your bullshit. There is no secret meaning, never said there was. But you like a simpleton like to take 3-4 words of choice out of the Quran and make a idiotic claim.

    Keep trolling.

    Sura 4:34 says:

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

    +other irrelevant text
    Translations can be erroneous. The issue of striking is debatable. There are two views

    View 1: As explained above (which you obviously didnt read) The word "daraba" which implies desert/seperate (ie send them back to their families) or divorce. This makes more sense because it goes with the Prophets teachings that the wife should not be beaten.

    View 2: This is a view of a companion of the Prophet who said it means to hit the wife with a stick smaller than the size of an index finger and it should induce no pain. This obviously holds less ground because what the Prophet said is > than what his companion thinks.

    In either case, you loose trying to prove Islam allows brutal/savage behavior of the husband towards the wife.

    Sura 4:11 says:

    The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)
    So? Islam doesnt treat male and females exactly the same. In some cases, men have more rights and in other cases women have more rights over men. I thought I mentioned this before, Islam has gender roles assigned, whether your animal-sex-approving-enlightened civilization likes it or not. Nobody cares.

    I told you many times before. Muslims don't kill people at the moment because they don't even read Qur'an to see the violent bullshit in Qur'an. And the rest of them force themselves to think that they're not violent, aka simpletons like you.
    Proven bullshit with the Taliban example. Try again.

    And it's funny the word "hate mongerers" is coming from you. I am trying to stop a violent discriminative hate cult, and I am a hateful person for that?
    Not a single acknowledgement/counter-argument of my explanations were presented from your side or accepted. Clearly your just trying to troll here and nothing else.

    So yeah, your an bigot. Repeating stuff like a broken record, without even bothering to research on the topic.

    Verses from Qur'an itself are the most solid proof to prove Islam's violent face. Disappointed?

    Another verse about Islam's violence against women. Indirect.
    Verses from the Quran can also prove it to be Ghandi's manuals. But it aint. Its not a purely violent book, neither is it a pacifists guide to galaxy.

    Another verse about Islam's violence against women. Indirect.
    Oh yeah so, there is stoning to death punishment for married spouses who have committed adultery. Since when did this become an issue specific to Islam? And how is it that you bring this as injustice to women, when men are also mentioned in the verse, ROFL

    Oh wait, your scholarly input of "indirect" means you must be right >.>

    Islam is violent towards those who commit what it considers acts of a wrong-doing. I already accept that and its just their take on how to treat criminals. They are entitled to their methods.

    Edited:

    C57 please don't pull what I say out of context. Muslims agree it is a violent book, but most Muslims make it out to be a peaceful religion where its usage is pertained to the events that are happening and if to works during their time period. They actually do comprehensions of everything in the Quran whereas the "extremists" take everything as it is.
    Pure followers of the Quran will take everything literally in it which will make them violent while most of the other Muslims have to comprehend it. Also as I have stated pure followers of the Quran are violent because they follow the second half of the Quran containing all the new suras written by their prophet Muhammad after they immigrated to Medina form Mecca and they were much more violent than peaceful ones he wrote in Mecca so that means any conflicts the Medina suras would overwrite the Meccan suras.

    All in all the Quran is a violent book and Muslims agree, but it doesn't mean that all of them use everything they listen to in the Quran due to the reasoning of why their prophet Muhammad wrote them.
    Also CabooseRvB it can be a very violent religion due to the fact the Quran (Islam's book) is violent as well not just because there's some little scribble in some book, but thanks for your daft addition to our debate.
    Please dont speculate. Give me examples of such people. Heck lets take the example of OBL eh? Why you do think he needed a justification for killing american civilians (ie revenge for civilians killed in iraq)? According to you, he is an extremist and all he needed to do was quote a verse saying "kill em whereever you find em". But nope, thats not how things are.

    While it is true that certain verses are Meccan and Median whatever, I have a feeling its not as simple a case like you mention. I have to google more on that.

    Please try to be neutral. The "muslims" you talk about are misfits of Islam, a few who keep repeating BS like sonerin trying to get some support and sympathy from the west. I agree the Quran is a violent book, but I also believe it is a peaceful book, ie there is a balanced amount of violent+peace verses. It needs to be violent against aggressors, and peaceful towards those who dont seek to destroy islam and want to be in peace as well.

    Makes sense to me.

  39. Post #119
    choco cookie's Avatar
    July 2007
    537 Posts
    C57. I keep trying to tell you about the two sides of Islam. It's not a speculation. You can look it up. Muslims who take into account the violence of the Quran and put out reasons of why it's in there and why it is no longer viable for modern day living to following such a law. It is not a peaceful book. If you follow it exactly as it says you will not be peaceful to non-Muslims, but if you follow it in a way where you research and comprehend the Quran you can really take out the peace in the book. The contradictions usually end up giving towards a violent ruling in the Quran because of the later writings, but there was reason behind its writings and it is no longer viable in today's society. I am being as neutral as I can on a subject where I was very willing to put aside all opinions to learn exactly how things are for the religion Islam instead of listening to the media. It is a very interesting learning experience for me on how there can be peaceful Muslims since before I thought it just wasn't possible.

  40. Post #120
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    Shariah law is a corrupted code of rules to suppress and govern those under any 'Muslim' state.
    Generic comment without proof is irrelevant.

    They entail to fabrication and rhetoric of which Islam is the only path to justice and righteousness and that all other religions and beliefs are to never be tollerated.
    Generic comment without proof is irrelevant.

    That women and said others are to be lower in society and are expendable to the kingdoms and sovereignties in the name of God (Though that would sound like it's against his will).
    Shariah law translates to;
    "Be a Muslim slave to Islam or else."
    Generic comment without proof is irrelevant.

    The non-muslims under islamic rule have rights, rights to their own courts, rights to their own religious places of worship, rights to security (whether it is harm from non-muslims of muslims), rights to charity. But they dont have rights to propagate their religion. How is that being a slave to a muslim?

    Non-Muslims’ Rights

    All people who co-exist peacefully as non-Muslim citizens with Muslims under Islamic sovereignty enjoy a special status. They should be granted protection and security. Following are among the rights that non-Muslims in a Muslim society should enjoy according to the teachings of Islam:

    1- Protection from outside aggression: Muslims and non-Muslims have equal rights with regard to protection. By virtue of the executive and military power invested in him by the Islamic Law, the leader of the Islamic State should provide protection to all civilians regardless of race, religion, color or class. Ibn Taymiyya, who was one of the great scholars of Islam, adopted the correct attitude in this regard. He went as an emissary to Qatlo Shah, a Tartar invader of Syria, to negotiate the release of all prisoners of war. The Tartar commander agreed to free only the Muslim prisoners of war. Ibn Taymiyyah insisted on the release of non-Muslims as well because they were under Muslim protection.

    2- Protection from general harm: Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said: “He who harms a non-Muslim harms me, and he who harms me harms God, and he who harms God will be punished.” (Al-Tabarani) Muslim leaders have taken this responsibility very seriously. For example, Umar bin Al-Khattab, the second caliph in Islam, used to ask Muslims who came to him from various provinces about the well-being of the non-Muslim citizens, to make sure that they were not experiencing oppression or injustice from irresponsible Muslims.

    3- Protection of Property: Besides protecting the life of a non-Muslim, Muslims are duty- bound to protect his property as well. For example, Ali bin Abi Talib, the fourth caliph in Islam, said: “The non-Muslims pay capitation tax so that their properties and lives are protected as are ours.” (Al-Mughni) It should be noted that the jizya (capitation tax) that non-Muslims used to pay was far less than the zakat (charity tax), that is incumbent upon Muslims.

    4-Social Welfare: All non-Muslims who live under the Islamic State should expect a decent and suitable livelihood. Prophet Muhammad said: “All of you are caretakers, and every one of you will be held accountable for his charges.” (Bukhari). An example can be found in Umar bin Al-Khattab, who once saw an old Jewish beggar. He ordered the state treasury to pay him an allowance, remarking, “It is unjust to collect the capitation tax from him in his youth and abandon him in his old age.” (Al-Kharraj, P. 126)

    5- Freedom of religion: One cannot be coerced to adopt Islam or any other faith. The Qur’an says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” (2:256)

    The teachings of Islam as found in the Quran and Prophet Muhammad’s dictates and conduct, as well as the actions and rulings of Islamic leaders and scholars all demonstrate the rights of non-Muslims in Muslim lands.
    Edited:

    If you follow it exactly as it says you will not be peaceful to non-Muslims, but if you follow it in a way where you research and comprehend the Quran you can really take out the peace in the book.
    Well, like I said, the Quran is interpreted as how their Prophet and society lived it under those times. Those who take it literally or the only source of guidance are bound to be mislead from its teachings. The quran itself says that it is to be understood as how the prophet explained it to them. People who take pacifist views to please the west, or those who go extreme in a killing mode are both wrong and rejected by the Quran.

    Once again, as a whole it is balanced. You have to live amongst Muslims to know their point of view, CNN/BCC/ABC are all BS and hardly neutral.

    The contradictions are usually explained through some level of research, something nobody bothers doing nowadays.