@br0kenrabbit: another of those vindictive "god" stories ? A couple of weeks ago I told Alim to pray to his super natural "heavenly father" to punish me and ..... Oh well, I'm still here waiting for that punishment, no bolt of lightning has struck me, no truck has run me over, no earthquake has swallowed my house, no black midget in need of a manicure has sliced me to pieces, Jibril hasn't chopped off my head with his sword.
"Why I don't criticize Islam"
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@alim298 said:
@foxhound_fox said:
Surah 4:34
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Islam condones beating your wife if she disobeys you.
I will continue to criticize Islam until Muslims give up on the idea that their Qur'an is the literal word of God and was in fact a book written by an illiterate war chief who starved himself and had hallucinations in a cave and is based entirely on the morality of the time it was created and has little to nothing to offer a modern, sensible person in terms of spiritual or moral guidance.
People who cherry pick verses are miserable. People who don't even understand the verse they cherry pick are furthur miserable. People who don't even bother reading the verse they cherry pick are even more miserable. Miserable because they've got nothing else against Quran except cherry picking.
Quran is not created. It's the word of God.
How is this a cherry picking? If it has a ulterior or greater meaning, please do point it out.. The fact that you do not prove this verse to mean otherwise isn't helping your position it is in fact making it far worse.. This is the problem with posters like Alim and Gwyn, your not some how showing that Islam is a more modern, humane religion, your showing just how crazy you guys are.. If this were a debate any one would just relinquish their debate time for you to talk more because your digging your own hole.
@br0kenrabbit said:
Speaking of Islam, when are the Khasum (short black people with lions claws) going to come from planet Ajiba that Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al-Kisa'i said would surely defeat Gog and Magog?
What about that planet with bird people? Sijjin was it?
Oh, religion...you so silly.
Just who the **** is this Kisai?
I didn't want to tell you this up to this point but I really feel sorry for you because instead of researching Islam, from inside, you are researching it through anti-Islam propaganda websites. How hard is it to grab a Quran and a Sahih Muslim instead of visiting those propaganda websites?
As for Kisai, never heard of him and I’m sure neither have many Muslims. And I’m not going to get to know the guy now that you’ve copy-pasted his name from God-knows-what anti-Islam website.
As for Sijjin and Kasum, Ajiba (?) never heard of them either bro. And Gog and Magog is a Christian/Jewish story anyways and the context of the only verse talking about them, is that Christians or Jews (don’t remember which one) asked about them.
@foxhound_fox said:
There was no cherry picking here. That was the entire verse quoted in context of the rest of the verse. It clearly said you can strike your wife if she disobeys you, along with withholding sex and showcasing the Qur'an's running theme of women being subservient to men.
And don't even get me started on the verse that talks about men and women being "spiritually equal" or whatever, that just proves a massive contradiction with the rest of the text and lends credence to the theory that it was in fact a book created by an illiterate war chief after hallucinating in a cave.
If people started looking past the literal, and drawing inspiration from the morally positive messages in the text, and ignoring the morally repugnant passages, I'd be more willing to give Muslims a fair chance at impressing me (in fact, I don't doubt a lot of them do this, but they don't advertise it) but they still hold fast to the idea that the entire text is perfect, unchanging, and an example of what a perfectly moral human being should be like.
There was indeed cherry picking in the form of highlighting the parts of the verse that suited your agenda of misleading people into believing Islam is ordering Muslims to beat their women to a bloody pulp. First let me do a little highlighting of my own:
[Men are in charge of womenby [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives]from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.]
And of course I believe your attempt at showing Islam as a misogynistic religion is laughable but I shall not get into that and for now let’s focus on the verse above.
First of all you do realize men were in charge of women mainly because they were the ones with wealth as stated in the above verse. And they were the ones with wealth because in the past there were no secretary jobs or jobs of that sort, it was all either labor work or trade and even the one who would choose trade needed to travel great distances and risk his life going through dangerous roads full of wolves and thieves or dying at sea. Not many women liked those sorts of jobs neither did they have the mental or the physical strength for those jobs.
Secondly, it’s funny that you glossed over the whole “what to do first and what to never do unless the other solutions fail.” This verse doesn’t say that you should outright beat your wife to a bloody pulp but that’s what you’re implying in your attempt to mislead people.
Thirdly, you’re implying that this verse says you’re permitted to forsake your wives in bed whenever you want but the verse clearly says “when you fear their arrogance” and we need to define “arrogance” here and it’s a really specific thing and has been defined in Islamic law I tell you that much.
Fourthly, you’re implying that Islam says Muslims should beat their wives to a bloody pulp as a third option. Well that’s just your imagination talking bro. You can’t find many of the hodud (limits) in Quran itself for that you need to refer to hadith. For instance cutting a man’s finger as it was practiced in the past. What hand should be cut? Left or right? Should the entire arm be cut? Or just what’s above the wrist? Or maybe just the fingers?
Same here. Unlike the customs of the barbaric Europe, where people would beat the shit out of their wives and beat them to a bloody pulp, Islamic customs speak of respecting women. It’s funny that you’re implying a scene where a man puts on his boxing gloves on and starts throwing punches at the wife. In Islam you’re supposed to “beat” your wife with a freaking “toothbrush.” Yeas that’s right you heard me right. A freaking toothbrush (miswak). Anything other than that and you’ve transgressed the limits (hodud) of God and you can be punished in an Islamic court. Now I like to know how you can beat your wife to a bloody pulp using a toothbrush. That’s like the softest thing that Arabs knew of. And if there were anything softer, then that. It would be more like teasing than beating to be honest.
Lastly, the word God uses hear is “zarb.” In Quran this word appears with two distinct meanings. One means to hit as in “Oh Moses! Hit the rock with your rod.” The other one means to walk or move (away) as in “believers, if you are journeying in the way of allah…” Some have translated the word to mean go away as in “go away from the house and the wife.”
With that said now let’s get to your third (and equally) ignorant paragraph.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You say Quran has been written by an illiterate man. How is it possible? Quran surpasses every text ever written in Arabic in terms of being eloquent. Many people became Muslims just by reading it or listening to it. Seriously there are many stories in this regard. The second Muslim caliph, Umar became a Muslim just by reading a verse or two from Quran. God in this regard says:
[And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.]
You are the kind people who have not bothered reading the whole Quran or reading it in Arabic and yet you are quick to criticize it. I truly feel sorry for you.
And yes the entire text is perfect. And the funny thing I’m noticing here is that you feel somehow superior or wise and intelligent because you apparently have found some verses of the Quran that are less morally correct than you are. It’s nothing new to us. The Mutazilah said the same thing and they prosecuted great people like Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may God be pleased with him) for believing that Quran is perfect. But at the end of the day it was the Mutazilah that had to pack their bags and go home.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@sSubZerOo
You know what the problem with you westerns is? You're underestimating Muslims and Islam. Here's the thing. Just because you can't find many highpoints in the history of Europe, it doesn't mean that the history of Muslims is like that too. We've been debating, arguing, writing books, criticizing each other’s books, and writing books in response to each other’s books for more than ten centuries. You are new players here and I'm sorry to tell you this but you're not bringing anything new to the table despite that. You know very little about Islam and yet you try to challenge it. Forgive us if we show you the finger for there were many greater more knowledgeable people than you who knew Islam way better than you and yet their claims were refuted. You, on the other hand are just a walk in the park for us. If you really want to challenge Islam go grab a Quran or a hadith book instead of reiterating the same garbage that’s on every anti-Islam websites.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@raugutcon
[And let not those who disbelieve think that our granting them respite is better for their souls; we grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.]
[And if allah had destroyed men for their iniquity, he would not leave on the earth a single creature, but he respites them till an appointed time; so when their doom will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time)]
@br0kenrabbit said:
@alim298 said:
@br0kenrabbit said:
Criticizing religion in general as the obviously fictional wish-thinking that it is kinda goes hand-in-hand with accepting an atheistic view of things. The same way you believe every religion but yours is false, so atheists believe they all are false. As someone said before, I just believe in one less God than you.
So you accept that atheism is a set of beliefs and not just a lack of belief? I'm relieved.
Atheism is lack of religious belief. Period.
Just because I can explain 'the divine' with math and physics doesn't mean I've substituted one belief for another: it simply means I've educated myself on the practical aspects of existence to have an understanding of the facts.
Hahah, no it isn't. You can believe in God or similar without having a religious belief.
@alim298 said:
There was indeed cherry picking in the form of highlighting the parts of the verse that suited your agenda of misleading people into believing Islam is ordering Muslims to beat their women to a bloody pulp. First let me do a little highlighting of my own:
[Men are in charge of womenby [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives]from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.]
And of course I believe your attempt at showing Islam as a misogynistic religion is laughable but I shall not get into that and for now let’s focus on the verse above.
First of all you do realize men were in charge of women mainly because they were the ones with wealth as stated in the above verse. And they were the ones with wealth because in the past there were no secretary jobs or jobs of that sort, it was all either labor work or trade and even the one who would choose trade needed to travel great distances and risk his life going through dangerous roads full of wolves and thieves or dying at sea. Not many women liked those sorts of jobs neither did they have the mental or the physical strength for those jobs.
Secondly, it’s funny that you glossed over the whole “what to do first and what to never do unless the other solutions fail.” This verse doesn’t say that you should outright beat your wife to a bloody pulp but that’s what you’re implying in your attempt to mislead people.
Thirdly, you’re implying that this verse says you’re permitted to forsake your wives in bed whenever you want but the verse clearly says “when you fear their arrogance” and we need to define “arrogance” here and it’s a really specific thing and has been defined in Islamic law I tell you that much.
Fourthly, you’re implying that Islam says Muslims should beat their wives to a bloody pulp as a third option. Well that’s just your imagination talking bro. You can’t find many of the hodud (limits) in Quran itself for that you need to refer to hadith. For instance cutting a man’s finger as it was practiced in the past. What hand should be cut? Left or right? Should the entire arm be cut? Or just what’s above the wrist? Or maybe just the fingers?
Same here. Unlike the customs of the barbaric Europe, where people would beat the shit out of their wives and beat them to a bloody pulp, Islamic customs speak of respecting women. It’s funny that you’re implying a scene where a man puts on his boxing gloves on and starts throwing punches at the wife. In Islam you’re supposed to “beat” your wife with a freaking “toothbrush.” Yeas that’s right you heard me right. A freaking toothbrush (miswak). Anything other than that and you’ve transgressed the limits (hodud) of God and you can be punished in an Islamic court. Now I like to know how you can beat your wife to a bloody pulp using a toothbrush. That’s like the softest thing that Arabs knew of. And if there were anything softer, then that. It would be more like teasing than beating to be honest.
Lastly, the word God uses hear is “zarb.” In Quran this word appears with two distinct meanings. One means to hit as in “Oh Moses! Hit the rock with your rod.” The other one means to walk or move (away) as in “believers, if you are journeying in the way of allah…” Some have translated the word to mean go away as in “go away from the house and the wife.”
With that said now let’s get to your third (and equally) ignorant paragraph.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You say Quran has been written by an illiterate man. How is it possible? Quran surpasses every text ever written in Arabic in terms of being eloquent. Many people became Muslims just by reading it or listening to it. Seriously there are many stories in this regard. The second Muslim caliph, Umar became a Muslim just by reading a verse or two from Quran. God in this regard says:
[And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.]
You are the kind people who have not bothered reading the whole Quran or reading it in Arabic and yet you are quick to criticize it. I truly feel sorry for you.
And yes the entire text is perfect. And the funny thing I’m noticing here is that you feel somehow superior or wise and intelligent because you apparently have found some verses of the Quran that are less morally correct than you are. It’s nothing new to us. The Mutazilah said the same thing and they prosecuted great people like Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may God be pleased with him) for believing that Quran is perfect. But at the end of the day it was the Mutazilah that had to pack their bags and go home.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry picking involves taking something in a quote out of context.
The surah I quoted clearly condones the beating of a woman if she at first doesn't listen to "advice" or the withdrawal of what I assume is sex. There is nothing being taken out of context here, I merely highlighted the portion of the quote SHOWN IN IT'S ENTIRETY that I had a problem with, which was the main topic of the quote itself (the fact that according to the Qur'an and by extension Allah, that men are in charge of women and have the right to beat them if they do not conform to the man's will).
There is a lot of defensiveness from you, and you seem to be really good at excusing this whole verse and making light of it.
IT CLEARLY TELLS A MAN HE CAN BEAT HIS WIFE IF SHE DOES NOT BEND TO HIS WILL.
This is inexcusable by modern moral and ethical standards. The western world (for the most part, there are still many Christians who believe the same, but again, religion) has moved past this medieval mentality and given women equal rights to men (despite what modern "feminists" would have you believe). You cannot explain this away with apologism and walls of text.
Allah told Muhammad to tell his followers that they can beat their wives if it comes down to it. This is what the surah says and there is no amount of contextualization, excuses or anything that can make it go away.
@foxhound_fox said:
Cherry picking involves taking something in a quote out of context.
The surah I quoted clearly condones the beating of a woman if she at first doesn't listen to "advice" or the withdrawal of what I assume is sex. There is nothing being taken out of context here, I merely highlighted the portion of the quote SHOWN IN IT'S ENTIRETY that I had a problem with, which was the main topic of the quote itself (the fact that according to the Qur'an and by extension Allah, that men are in charge of women and have the right to beat them if they do not conform to the man's will).
There is a lot of defensiveness from you, and you seem to be really good at excusing this whole verse and making light of it.
IT CLEARLY TELLS A MAN HE CAN BEAT HIS WIFE IF SHE DOES NOT BEND TO HIS WILL.
This is inexcusable by modern moral and ethical standards. The western world (for the most part, there are still many Christians who believe the same, but again, religion) has moved past this medieval mentality and given women equal rights to men (despite what modern "feminists" would have you believe). You cannot explain this away with apologism and walls of text.
Allah told Muhammad to tell his followers that they can beat their wives if it comes down to it. This is what the surah says and there is no amount of contextualization, excuses or anything that can make it go away.
It's like you didn't even read my reply. So why should I bother writing another one?
"IT CLEARLY TELLS A MAN HE CAN BEAT HIS WIFE IF SHE DOES NOT BEND TO HIS WILL."
No it doesn't. Please read what I wrote before reiterating yourself and making yourself look silly by doing so.
And yes I agree with you. We Muslims and the west clearly have different moral values. For instance:
In the west if a man tells his wife "I don't love you" the next day it's everything as usual. But when someone "beats" his woman with a toothbrush the whole world's going to lose its mind.
In Islam if a man tells his wife "I don't love you" that means divorce. There's no going back. The marriage no longer holds. Because we are aware of the mental damage that the saying "I don't love you" carries. On the other hand, if you are mad at your wife, don't be harsh on her instead tease her.
Just compare the two and you'll see how backward your values look compared to ours.
Again unfortunately you think you westerns have brought anything new to the table. I agree. What you did was revolutionary but for Europe where women were treated as objects (and still are albeit in the name of giving them "freedom") not for Middle East where one of the prominent reasons Muhammad fought the Arabs was to put an end to the prosecution of women.
"Allah told Muhammad to tell his followers that they can beat their wives if it comes down to it. This is what the surah says and there is no amount of contextualization, excuses or anything that can make it go away."
No it's not what the Surah says. As I said that's your imagination and your personal interpretation of the verse talking.
@raugutcon said:
ROFLMAO !!!!
Too funny !!!
[therefore they shall laugh little and weep much as a recompense for what they earned]
First, I'd like to clarify that the Adventures of Spiderman are not the actual words of Spiderman put into a book.
Regarding miserable people and stuff... in my perspective a good example of a miserable human is someone who justifies his cowardness and tyranny with a book. That person is truly miserable because it has NO moral autonomy and it's nothing but a religious drone. This is not just a problem with Islam, particularly in closed christian circles the way as women are treated is not that different.
Sometimes atheists can be pricks, but even if so, they have one thing going for them. The vast majority was raised in religious societies and at some point in their lives had the guts and mental clarity to chalange surrounding dogmas and put humanism above all other notions.
But of course, we shouldn't put all muslims in the same bag. Some muslims are modern and human people, who strongly disagree with the book, the same way many modern christians know and agree that the bible is a fiction, not the actual word of god. Many muslims while being more traditional are not muderers at all, most of them are not muders nor supporters of. Then there's that retarded scum that should be put out of this planet.
But this last ones are not solely a religious problem. Don't have any illusions, the main catalyst of our current problems are the relations between Europe and USA towards the muslim world since before the 1st WW. Religion is just a simple way to move simple minded people towards a common enemy that for around 100 years keeps on spreading chaos on those regions for economic reasons.
Yes, religion it's a problem but not the problem.
Alim are you even talking about? Anti Islam site? He quoted the actual Quran you fool. No one here has even mentioned any outside anti Islam sources. The help are you eve talking about? And what ? No where did I state that one civilization is superior to another. To me it looks like you have a massive interiorty complex going on.
@alim298 said:
It's like you didn't even read my reply. So why should I bother writing another one?
"IT CLEARLY TELLS A MAN HE CAN BEAT HIS WIFE IF SHE DOES NOT BEND TO HIS WILL."
No it doesn't. Please read what I wrote before reiterating yourself and making yourself look silly by doing so.
And yes I agree with you. We Muslims and the west clearly have different moral values. For instance:
In the west if a man tells his wife "I don't love you" the next day it's everything as usual. But when someone "beats" his woman with a toothbrush the whole world's going to lose its mind.
In Islam if a man tells his wife "I don't love you" that means divorce. There's no going back. The marriage no longer holds. Because we are aware of the mental damage that the saying "I don't love you" carries. On the other hand, if you are mad at your wife, don't be harsh on her instead tease her.
Just compare the two and you'll see how backward your values look compared to ours.
Again unfortunately you think you westerns have brought anything new to the table. I agree. What you did was revolutionary but for Europe where women were treated as objects (and still are albeit in the name of giving them "freedom") not for Middle East where one of the prominent reasons Muhammad fought the Arabs was to put an end to the prosecution of women.
"Allah told Muhammad to tell his followers that they can beat their wives if it comes down to it. This is what the surah says and there is no amount of contextualization, excuses or anything that can make it go away."
No it's not what the Surah says. As I said that's your imagination and your personal interpretation of the verse talking.
I read your entire post and disagree. You are just doing a bunch hand-waving and historical contextualizing. Typical apologist bullshit to excuse the fact the book clearly gives men the right to beat their wives.
It doesn't matter what Europe did in the past... it's in the past. Europe now has female leaders of state and women have the right to vote, right to a job and the right to not be beaten by their husbands if they disagree with what he says.
As for your last line, No True Scotsman coming into play here (no one person can have the "true interpretation"). My "personal interpretation" is a literal reading of what the passage says. There is no inference, no historical contextualization and no exegesis present. Just a plain reading of what is written on the page (and if it truly is "perfect" then it shouldn't need any interpretation BTW).
What is plainly written is absolutely fucking disgusting and the main reason why I gave up on reading the Qur'an about half way through (among other morally reprehensible permissions given to Muslims by God).
--
And don't get me started about this "reading it in Arabic" bullshit. I've read hundreds of Buddhist texts in English (both for school and pleasure) and gleaned an absolute ****-ton of positive messages from what was both plainly written, and inferred through translation. Reading a religious text in it's original language does offer some benefit to the reader, but the ultimate message, with the sheer number of different translations out there today, stays the same.
But that really isn't what grinds my gears about the Qur'an and Islam. The book is fine (when taken as an historical document for a period in time), it's this complete and utter persistence that Muslims care so much about it being absolutely perfect and a complete guide to being a moral human being. That's just offensive to anyone who lives in the 21st century and has benefited from the last 100 or so years of ethical and legal developments in the West.
The guy who wrote it married and had sex with a 9 year old girl, condones the beating of a disobedient wife and many references to violence and God giving permission to Muslims to kill those who would oppose them.
Most religions don't have a deity that gives them the right to kill other people. In fact, most religions abhor the idea of violence in all regards, and instead promote turning the other cheek, non-violent resistance/persistence or just plain pacifism. The idea of using violence in defence of oneself or even the religion is looked down upon by both followers and the deity/ies.
@alim298: Alim, please stop quoting your religious hogwash the only thing you do is give the enemy ( we infidels, pagans and atheists ) ammunition. What you are telling me is this:
The heavenly father creator of all things which in theory loves his children doesn´t really love them, he only created them in order to be punished, and I don´t mean being punished like right now the way I punish my children when they misbehave, no, he will allow his children to continue misbehaving and accumulate sins to punish them in the future for all eternity.
So, here I am, still waiting for your vindictive deity to come and punish me.
@sSubZerOo
I was mainly referring to Br0kenrabbit’s post. That got on my nerves.
As for the verse he quoted, I explained it as clearly as I could.
@foxhound_fox
"Typical apologist bullshit to excuse the fact the book clearly gives men the right to beat their wives."
No it doesn't. It clearly doesn't.
As for the alleged no Scotsman fallacy... I have to say... Your interpretation of the verse doesn't matter. Neither does my personal interpretation of the verse. The interpretation that Muhammad and Muslim scholars have given, that's what matters. And that interpretation, is what I've written in the original post.
And many Muslim countries have influential women right now. In fact we had many influential women since the very begining. Women had the right to vote in Islam since the beginning (in terms of giving bayah.) When was the first time Europe gave women such rights? Oh right. 50 years ago.
"and the main reason why I gave up on reading the Qur'an about half way through"
Your loss.
The argument about Arabic language... I never said you can't understand Quran if you read it in English. If it were like that then I wouldn't be having this debate with you over the English translation of that verse. You said it was written by an illiterate man I said it can't be because Quran is too eloquent to have been written by an illiterate man. And to know whether Quran is eloquent or not, you need to know Arabic don't you think?
As for pacifism... I've said it before... Islam is not passive... When there's injustice, when there are people who murder their own baby girls, then there's need to rise up and speak against it. If necessary violently. This is the Abrahamic religions we are talking about. Jesus is really a misinterpreted person. Moses on the other hand is really similar to Muhammad in his actions.
Again the idea that you can "beat" your wife is so ridicules according to Sunnah. You're simply misinterpreting the verse. It happens a lot. If it were not possible to misinterpret the verses, then there would be no Kharijites or the ISIS throughout history. Again you can't hold unto your personal interpretation of the verse. When you don't understand a verse, you need to refer to tafsir or a knowledgeable scholar. Again teasing your wife with a toothbrush is not the same as beating.
I give you examples from Sunnah regarding the alleged beating:
I heard Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) say: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.
Habibah daughter of Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qays Shimmas He beat her and broke some of her part. So she came to the Prophet (ﷺ) after morning, and complained to him against her husband. The Prophet (ﷺ) called on Thabit ibn Qays and said (to him): Take a part of her property and separate yourself from her. He asked: Is that right, Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: I have given her two gardens of mine as a dower, and they are already in her possession. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Take them and separate yourself from her.
[Part of a longer hadith] ...give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her...
A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Islam is in the same boat as every other religion in my mind. An old outdated and outgrown pillar of society that has little to no use in modern society, that should be gotten rid of entirely.
@alim298: There is no point in continuing our argument as you have entered the dreaded circular argument. Bringing up exactly the same points you did in the last post, and either restating them or mildly altering them.
We obviously have to agree to disagree and I feel no worse off for thinking poorly of the Qur'an and Islam. I know plenty of fantastic Muslim people who run quite contrary to the morals and beliefs they say they uphold, but I just cannot stand the religion and it's founder. I think it is a perversion of faith and either needs to reform and become updated to the modern ethical standard, or it well deserves to dry up and blow away.
Which is kind of funny, because Sufi Muslims have been running contrary to "mainstream" Islam since almost the beginning and no one in the Muslim community, be it extremist or otherwise gives two shits about what they do. And they tend to emphasize the loving kindness and devotional worship aspects of the Qur'an and largely ignore the violence and inequality between men and women. Odd.
Religion is a cancer, be whatever religion it is
@alim298 said:
I don't know why I even bother. People who don't know, and are too presumptuous to even want to know, will simply never know.
Everyone comes from different backgrounds. The very least we can all do is coexist peacefully, discuss openly, and not get offended when others criticize what we believe. A lot of Muslims these days have a problem with the last part.
@alim298 said:
@br0kenrabbit said:
Speaking of Islam, when are the Khasum (short black people with lions claws) going to come from planet Ajiba that Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al-Kisa'i said would surely defeat Gog and Magog?
What about that planet with bird people? Sijjin was it?
Oh, religion...you so silly.
Just who the **** is this Kisai?
I didn't want to tell you this up to this point but I really feel sorry for you because instead of researching Islam, from inside, you are researching it through anti-Islam propaganda websites. How hard is it to grab a Quran and a Sahih Muslim instead of visiting those propaganda websites?
As for Kisai, never heard of him and I’m sure neither have many Muslims. And I’m not going to get to know the guy now that you’ve copy-pasted his name from God-knows-what anti-Islam website.
Sorry to inform you that I have read the Koran a few times (in English) and am now into the satellite texts. The above is from Stories of the Prophets, and deals with the Seven Heavens and the Seven Earths.
"It is Allah Who has created seven heavens, and earths as many . ... Narrated Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Al-Harith"
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment