Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 28, 2024, 06:41 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 27, 2024, 01:26 PM

New Britain
April 27, 2024, 08:42 AM

What's happened to the fo...
April 27, 2024, 08:30 AM

Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 02:50 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 08:02 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 12:17 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 05:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 08:06 AM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 05:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 08:53 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Heaven or hell

 (Read 5975 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #30 - November 03, 2015, 06:52 AM

    Slavery, jiyzah, polygamy without polyandry, the association of unbelievers with negatives more often than not. There are good ideas as well. However the negative really reflect the human hand in the creation of the text as the divine could come up with better systems considering humans did to the point of slavery being illegal.

    Slavery was discouraged, manumission was encouraged. moreover the Qur'an was written at a time when slavery was rife, Jizyah provided an alternative taxation system for those who did not pay zakat, and went towards maintenance of churches, and there examples of where Jizyah was lower and higher than zakat throughout antiquity, and I'm sure you read my thread (or maybe it was my post on this thread) where I discussed why the qur'an portrays non believers thusly. It is not about theological disagreement necessarily, rather those 'negatives' that render someone being labelled a non believer.
    You could view the Qur'an and disbelievers thusly, it is an idea shared amongst scholars.
    The islamic tradition allows for much more scope than I believe you are willing to concede.
    Admittedly, Its not a mainstream or favourable position to suggest the Qur'an is divinely inspired rather than the literal word of Allah (swt), nonetheless it does not necessarily put someone beyond the realms of Islam, which is what you are suggesting.

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #31 - November 03, 2015, 06:59 AM

    In essence i'm just saying it's polite to ask someone their views,
    rather than just making assumptions and then complaining all 'apologists' are the same
    I'm not really here to 'apologise' for anything either
    I have sincere intentions of finding out the other side of the argument from what Im used to
    and figuring out what drove you guys from Islam

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #32 - November 03, 2015, 07:00 AM

    You make Allah look incompetent. Allah made a number of things forbidden but not slavery, ridiculous. It still allowed the practice of slavery, making it all rosy does nothing to undermine the support of an immoral system. Jiyzah was a submission tax not an alternative. It never went to the churches it went to state coffers. Link the accounts of it being lower, lets see the evidence of your claims, until you do so I will assume it bluster. When it comes to unbelievers I have already put myself in the negative camp since I am not convinced by the Quran's claims. Yet I have done nothing but reject grand claims of a text that has no evidence in support of said claims. You setup the scope in a previous comment which is the scope I am using. Sure you can claim it is inspired which sets it credibility at the level of other inspired texts which is none in my view. People claim the bible is divinely inspired yet I am not a Christian. It's great for the choir but not those outside of it.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #33 - November 03, 2015, 07:05 AM

    That is all what people are doing in this forum ElRafa.,  Questioning faiths and all faiths .. faith heads...
    I understand your concerns  ElRafa .,    but don't take Questioning a faith, a book , a statement in book as disrespecting you, your life, your worldview, your  friends, your  values, your ethics, and your  family.

    I dont take criticism as a disrespect.
    But i find some of the language used in description of the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh), who I have actually seen called Piss be upon him numerous times here.
    Diminishing the significance of the qur'an is, as bogart suggests unwise due to its historical significance.
    And to do so, contrary to historical proof of its profound influence, shows emotionalism in my view,
    I hope you understand
    its been two days on here and i've felt more misread than my holy qur'an itself

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #34 - November 03, 2015, 07:06 AM

    In essence i'm just saying it's polite to ask someone their views,


    My view is that it is a product of humans from a specific time dealing with human issues. This limits the scope in which it is useful in the modern world. Just as any other text is a product of it's time. For some they need to keep reinterpreting it to keep it relevant. It will either be stuck playing catch up or it's view will become outdated, many of which are outdated.


    Quote
    rather than just making assumptions and then complaining all 'apologists' are the same


    Apologetic is the same as it is a field. You are defending your religion which every apologist does. Your numerology code has been linked repeatedly on this forum for years.

    Quote
    I have sincere intentions of finding out the other side of the argument from what Im used to
    and figuring out what drove you guys from Islam


    Yet when I express such views you go straight into apologetic you denied you were interested in.  

  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #35 - November 03, 2015, 07:24 AM

    You make Allah look incompetent. Allah made a number of things forbidden but not slavery, ridiculous. It still allowed the practice of slavery, making it all rosy does nothing to undermine the support of an immoral system. Jiyzah was a submission tax not an alternative. It never went to the churches it went to state coffers. Link the accounts of it being lower, lets see the evidence of your claims, until you do so I will assume it bluster. When it comes to unbelievers I have already put myself in the negative camp since I am not convinced by the Quran's claims. Yet I have done nothing but reject grand claims of a text that has no evidence in support of said claims. You setup the scope in a previous comment which is the scope I am using. Sure you can claim it is inspired which sets it credibility at the level of other inspired texts which is none in my view. People claim the bible is divinely inspired yet I am not a Christian. It's great for the choir but not those outside of it.

    Some notes on the Jizya
    Omar Ibnul-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the leaders of armies: "Do not impose jizyah on women or children. Impose it only on those who are adults." The amount of jizyah was not beyond the ability of men; rather, it was easy to be paid. It did not exceed one dinar per annum during the age of the Prophet (PBUH) and four dinars during the age of the Umayyads. In this way, jizyah was imposed only on the third of the people of zimmah or even less. .
    Nabil Luqa Babwi, an orthodox Coptic Egyptian writer and scholar, wrote that, "Jizyah was a small amount of money. Over seventy percent of people of other beliefs rather than Islam were exempted: the old, women, children, and monks. It was not a punishment for not being a Muslim but rather a tax against the use of public facilities by non-Muslims and a defense tax against any external attack. This means that Islam did not spread by sword as stated by some Orientalists.

    "whoever treats a covenanted citizen unjustly or takes away a part of his rights or overburdens him or forces something away from him, I will be his enemy on the Day of Judgment." The Prophet's (PBUH) Companions and followers followed in his footsteps. Omar Ibnul-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) told his leaders: "Who is not able to pay jizyah, reduce it for him and who cannot pay, help him." When he saw an old Dhimmi man begging people he said:"Omar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". He then ordered his leaders not to take jizyah from the old. Moreover, in that case the Muslim state was obliged to allocate a pension for its needy non-Muslim citizen. Caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to his Basra governor that, "consider the Dhimmi people in Basra. For the old and the weak give them an allocation from the public treasury."

    Comparing jizyah and Zakat, we will find a big difference. If jizyah was not more than four dinars under the Umayyads, Zakat is 2.5 percent from annual savings that are at least equal to twenty karats as determined by the Prophet (PBUH


    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #36 - November 03, 2015, 07:41 AM

    My view is that it is a product of humans from a specific time dealing with human issues. This limits the scope in which it is useful in the modern world. Just as any other text is a product of it's time. For some they need to keep reinterpreting it to keep it relevant. It will either be stuck playing catch up or it's view will become outdated, many of which are outdated.


    Apologetic is the same as it is a field. You are defending your religion which every apologist does. Your numerology code has been linked repeatedly on this forum for years.

    Yet when I express such views you go straight into apologetic you denied you were interested in.



    You didn't read again. I put up the numerology code to emphasise the nuances of the qur'an, not prove its divinity.
    If you attack my views directly then of course I will defend them
    But I didn't attack yours or try to convince you of any of mine

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #37 - November 03, 2015, 08:52 AM

    Quote
    Some notes on the Jizya
    Omar Ibnul-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the leaders of armies: "Do not impose jizyah on women or children. Impose it only on those who are adults." The amount of jizyah was not beyond the ability of men; rather, it was easy to be paid. It did not exceed one dinar per annum during the age of the Prophet (PBUH) and four dinars during the age of the Umayyads. In this way, jizyah was imposed only on the third of the people of zimmah or even less.


    Irrelevant as it still taxes those able to pay.  One dinar was a lot of money during this era. The wages of a peasant was roughly 1-1.25 dinars a month which is a tax rate of 88.3% in comparison to a tax rate of 2.5 from Zakat. The rates of Jiyzah varied since it was treaty based There was also the land tax of Kharaj which varied from 20-50% of agriculture production. Go look up Umar's II laws regarding the punishment of those that do not pay. It torture and draconian.

    Quote
    Nabil Luqa Babwi, an orthodox Coptic Egyptian writer and scholar, wrote that, "Jizyah was a small amount of money. Over seventy percent of people of other beliefs rather than Islam were exempted: the old, women, children, and monks. It was not a punishment for not being a Muslim but rather a tax against the use of public facilities by non-Muslims and a defense tax against any external attack. This means that Islam did not spread by sword as stated by some Orientalists.


    Maindonies Responsum has a reference to male child as young as 8 paying the tax. He also references a community rate for the tax in which the community had to pool the funds to cover rates people as individuals could not afford. Since the tax rate was never actually established by the Quran by rate instead of the negative views heaped upon it, it was left up to the ruling individual/party. Also cite the actual source itself do not just quote it. With no source I can not confirm anything. A citation includes more than a name and quote

    https://www.englishclub.com/writing/plagiarism-citation.htm

    Quote
    "whoever treats a covenanted citizen unjustly or takes away a part of his rights or overburdens him or forces something away from him, I will be his enemy on the Day of Judgment." The Prophet's (PBUH) Companions and followers followed in his footsteps. Omar Ibnul-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) told his leaders: "Who is not able to pay jizyah, reduce it for him and who cannot pay, help him." When he saw an old Dhimmi man begging people he said:"Omar said to him, "Old man! We have not done justice to you. In your youth we realized Jizyah from you and have left you to fend for yourself in your old age". He then ordered his leaders not to take jizyah from the old. Moreover, in that case the Muslim state was obliged to allocate a pension for its needy non-Muslim citizen. Caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to his Basra governor that, "consider the Dhimmi people in Basra. For the old and the weak give them an allocation from the public treasury."


    Since there is no established rate nor what is considered a burden then the view is subjective. Obviously at times people felt the burden was not as demanding as you may think. This does nothing to help those able to pay an higher set of taxes. Your reference is only about the dirt poor. Which is irrelevant since they are not paying the tax. I am talking about rates which were placed upon people that could pay. Also see my above comment in which individual burdens were assumed by the community.

    Quote
    Comparing jizyah and Zakat, we will find a big difference. If jizyah was not more than four dinars under the Umayyads, Zakat is 2.5 percent from annual savings that are at least equal to twenty karats as determined by the Prophet (PBUH


    Not really since you provide zero references to actual rates but subjective views of burden which are not even established. I have shown the rates were almost 4 times the rate of zakat.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/090904.pdf

    page 18




  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #38 - November 03, 2015, 08:59 AM

    So it varies from society to society?
    I'll do some more research into it when I have time
    that was all very superficial admittedly.
    But I'm sure I will find evidence to support my not unreasonable claim that there were instances where the Jizya was lower than the zakat.
    Ive learnt it greatly fluctuates however and you're totally right
    like most things in Islam it comes down to the ruler and interpretation

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #39 - November 03, 2015, 09:16 AM

    Quote
    But I'm sure I will find evidence to support my not unreasonable claim that there were instances where the Jizya was lower than the zakat.


    Are you going to ignore eras when jizya was much higher than zakat then?

    You actually think jizya is a good idea?

    Kind of explains why I dislike debating with apologists. Their idea of what's good society is pretty much exploiting nonmuslims as lower class.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #40 - November 03, 2015, 09:21 AM

    Yes it varied since the rate was never established by the Quran. I do not doubt that there were very kind Muslims that lowered the rates to become more acceptable. It happened in the Ottoman Empire. However this does not overshadow that an unspecified rate including the negative views placed on Jiyzah. What I see happening is those that are kind good people interpret their own views into the texts, as you have done. Yet those that have negative views of non-Muslims will see the interpret and align with the negative aspects. In the end the tax is paid in order for a group of people to have rights. This is vastly different from the concept of inherent rights in which true religious freedom is part of citizenship not the tax system.

    I hope you are not referencing that my sources and argument are superficial since I provided actual sources to wage rates and references to the burdens by figures that lived under this system. Your own reference saying nothing except about the poor which is a moot point in the end. Catholicism did the same thing within European systems until the Protestant Reform undermined the charity structure due to the idea of predestination and destruction of the systems within nations such as England. With this theological ideology the poor were poor due to either not working hard, ie they are lazy, or that it was their destiny thus the will of God. In England it become horrible to the point that the poor were punished for being poor.

    Interpretation is the fundamental issue with Islam along with being it's greatest weakness when it comes to divine authorship.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #41 - November 03, 2015, 02:48 PM

    I'm just concerned there are underlying sentiments of disrespect.
    And disrespect toward Islam is disrespect to me, my life, my worldview, my friends, my values, ethics, my family.
    I take disrespect personally


    I find this association between respect for ideas and respect for people very problematic. What are u trying to do? Silence criticism of Islam? Because this is really how it looks. I don't have respect for Islam and thinking that because of this I don't have respect for some Muslims, is quite offensive to me.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #42 - November 03, 2015, 04:25 PM


    Even from a secular perspective, Its a 77,000 word completely rhyming text that is so nuanced it takes a several year degree to understand it at even a basic level.


    It is not completely rhyming, there are several passages that don't follow a rhyme pattern. Even if it was, what would that prove? It wouldn't prove anything more than that the author spoke really good Arabic and could write poetically. Also, if God wanted it to be a universal message, why would he give his book in a dialect that would eventually die, and therefore be impossible to understand without a several years degree? Why not make his message in a universal language that everybody could understand regardless of their culture and language? Surely if we could see the need for that and could send our tiny vessels to the stars with a message in a universal language (based on the actions of a hydrogen atom), an all-knowing, all-powerful god could have done the same.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #43 - November 03, 2015, 06:14 PM

    I find this association between respect for ideas and respect for people very problematic. What are u trying to do? Silence criticism of Islam? Because this is really how it looks. I don't have respect for Islam and thinking that because of this I don't have respect for some Muslims, is quite offensive to me.



    I find it even more offensive that a book that has plagued humanity for centuries demands to be respected.

    It has terrible ideas and terrible implementation. It is part of the reason why human rights in many parts of the world are lacking. It is the main reason why muslims aren't able to think critically. Why? Because whatever God says, then you must do.

    Research, human rights, compassion none of that matters when you have the word of God.

    Quran is a terrible idea for humanity when you interpret it as "perfect word of God". If you do it like "Quran is 70% right and 30% wrong". Now we can finally talk about some change.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #44 - November 03, 2015, 06:26 PM

    It is not completely rhyming, there are several passages that don't follow a rhyme pattern. Even if it was, what would that prove? It wouldn't prove anything more than that the author spoke really good Arabic and could write poetically. Also, if God wanted it to be a universal message, why would he give his book in a dialect that would eventually die, and therefore be impossible to understand without a several years degree? Why not make his message in a universal language that everybody could understand regardless of their culture and language? Surely if we could see the need for that and could send our tiny vessels to the stars with a message in a universal language (based on the actions of a hydrogen atom), an all-knowing, all-powerful god could have done the same.

    I wasn't trying to prove the divinity of the Qur'an, that's another argument.
    I was adamantly trying to remind people who suggest 'the  qur'an is just another book written by a bunch of nomads', that its one of the more nuanced and significant texts we have ever produced, and shouldn't be dismissed in such a manner.
    I find this association between respect for ideas and respect for people very problematic. What are u trying to do? Silence criticism of Islam? Because this is really how it looks. I don't have respect for Islam and thinking that because of this I don't have respect for some Muslims, is quite offensive to me.

    Criticise the ideas all you like, disagree with them for whatever reason, but emotionalistic-hate filled irrational reduction of something which is so important to so many people is fundamentally dangerous, and actually those people are no better than religious fundamentalists in promoting any kind of unity, harmony or peace in society.
    Not necessarily here on this thread, but I definitely detect these sentiments amidst ex-muslims and non muslims alike.
    The term for example i've seen people on here use is 'piss be upon him'. How is that helpful or constructive in any way? we are dealing with a very real crisis in the Islamic world and amongst muslims, and these people only contribute to the problem.
    You're welcome to be rude as much as you like, especially on here. What am I going to do about it?
    Besides you've completely taken what i've said out of context, as you guys are so eager to smash me, you're jumping on anything vaguely similar to something uttered by another apologist or muslim, and producing the same generic tirade.

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #45 - November 03, 2015, 06:44 PM

    I find it even more offensive that a book that has plagued humanity for centuries demands to be respected. Research, human rights, compassion none of that matters when you have the word of God.

    This is fairly superficial again, because I really don't have time for in depth research right now, but it is worth considering.


    Research and seeking knowledge is emphatically promoted in Islam
    "whoever is granted wisdom, he indeed is given a great good and none but men of understanding mind.(Surah Al Baqarah 2:269)
    Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high degrees; and Allah is Aware of what you do.(Surah Al Mujadilah 58:11)
    It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “The Messenger of Allah said: “…Whoever follows a path in pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make easy for him a path to Paradise.. ”(Sunan Ibn e Majah, Book of Sunnah, Hadith no 225, Classified as Sahih By Allama Albani)
    It was narrated that Anas bin Mâlik said: The Messenger of Allah said “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim”. ”
    (Sunan Ibn e Majah, Book of Sunnah, Hadith no 224, Classified as Sahih By Allama Albani)

    Human rights. Well The idea of social justice, human dignity, racial equality, rights of animals even.

    I suppose your grievances would primarily be women and slavery.
    Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set
    their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some  of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that  it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him.
    The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free.Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period.

    Women
    In the area of economic rights, we have to remember that in Europe until the 19th century, women did not have the right to own their own property. When they were married, either it would transfer to the husband or she would not be able to dispense of it without permission of her husband. In Britain, perhaps the first country to give women some property rights, laws were passed in the 1860's known as "Married Women Property Act." More than 1300 years earlier, that right was clearly established in Islamic law.

    "Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]

    Secondly, there is no restriction in Islamic law that says a woman cannot work or have a profession, that her only place is in the home. In fact, by definition, in a truly Islamic society, there must be women physicians, women nurses, women teachers, because it's preferable also to separate teenagers in the volatile years in high school education. And if she chooses to work, or if she's married with the consent of her husband, she's entitled to equal pay, not for equal work, but for work of equal worth.

    Thirdly, when it comes to financial security, Islamic law is more tilted in many respects towards women. These are seven examples:

    During the period of engagement, a woman is to be on the receiving side of gifts.

    At the time of marriage, it is the duty of the husband, not the bride's family. He is supposed to pay for a marital gift. The Quran called it a gift, and it is exclusively the right of the woman. She doesn't have to spend it on the household, she doesn't have to give it to her father or anyone else.

    If the woman happened to own any property prior to marriage, she retains that property after marriage. It remains under her control. Also, in most Muslim countries, the woman keeps her own last name, and her own identity.

    If the woman has any earnings during her marital life, by way of investments of her property or as a result of work, she doesn't have to spend one penny of that income on the household, it is entirely hers.

    The full maintenance and support of a married woman is the entire responsibility of her husband, even though she might be richer than he is. She doesn't have to spend a penny.

    At the time of divorce, there are certain guarantees during the waiting period and even beyond for a woman's support.

    If the widow or divorcee has children, she's entitled to child support.

    In return for these listed securities, it is clear why the Islamic laws pertaining to inheritance give men a higher share. From the social standpoint, as a daughter we find that credit goes to Islam for stopping the barbaric practice of pre-Islamic Arabs of female infanticide. These ignorant people used to bury female daughters alive. The Quran forbade the practice, making it a crime. Surah 81 Additionally, the Quran condemned the chauvinistic attitudes of some people who used to greet the birth of a boy with gladness, but sadness in the case of a girl.

    The duty, not the right, the duty of education, as the Prophet said, is a duty on every Muslim, male and female.

    As far as treatment of daughters is concerned, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Anyone who has two daughters, and did not bury them, did not insult them and brought them up properly, he and I will be like this," holding his two fingers close together. Another version adds, "And also did not favor his sons over daughters." One time the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was seated. A companion was sitting with him. The companion's son came. He kissed his son and put him on his lap. Then his daughter came, and he just sat her by his side. The Prophet told the man, "You did not do Justice," meaning he should have treated the daughter equally, kissed her and put her in his lap also. Indeed, whenever the Prophet's daughter Fatimah came to him, in front of everyone, he stood up, kissed her and let her sit in his favorite place where he'd been sitting.

    From the marital standpoint, the Quran clearly indicates in Surahs 30:20 and 42:11 that marriage is not just an inevitable evil, marriage is not somebody getting married to his master or slave, but rather to his partner.

    "Among His Signs is this, that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that they may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect." [Noble Quran 30:21]

    There are numerous verses in the Quran to the same effect.

    Secondly, the approval and consent of the girl to marriage is a prerequisite for the validity of marriage in Islam. She has the right to say yes or no.

    Husbands' and wives' duties are mutual responsibilities. They might not be identical duties, but the totality of rights and responsibilities are balanced. The Quran says:

    "Women have the same rights (in relation to their husbands) as are expected in all decency from them, while men stand a step above them." [Noble Quran 2:228]

    This only specifies the degree of responsibility, not privilege, in man's role as provider, protector, maintainer, and leader of the family. The same Surah speaks about divorce, about consultation between husband and wife, even in the case of divorce. When there are family disputes, first the Quran appeals to reason and the consideration of positive aspects of one's spouse,

    "Dwell with your wives in kindness for even if you hate them, you might be hating someone in whom God has placed so much good." [Noble Quran 4:19]

    If that appeal does not succeed, and problems between the husband and wife continue, there are measures that can be applied. Some of these measures are done privately between husband and wife. Some of them might appear harsh, but there are qualifications to restrict excessive or abusive use of these measures. These measures are considered an attempt to save a marriage rather than break a family apart. If the situation does not improve, even with the limitation and prevention of excesses, the next step is a family council. One arbiter from his family and one from her family should sit together with the couple and try to resolve the problems.

    If a divorce becomes necessary, there are many detailed procedures in Islamic law that really knock down the common notion that divorce in Islam is very easy and that it is the sole right of man. It is not the sole right of man alone and neither is it true that all you have to say is: "I divorce you three times," and that's it. Islam also has laws regarding custody of children. I was very surprised to see newspapers making the false claim that in all cases custody goes to the father. Custody involves the interest of the child, and laws often favor the mother of young children.

    Polygamy has become so mythical in the minds of many people that they assume being Muslim means having four wives. This is a false notion, of course. A very renowned anthropologist, Edward Westermarck, in his two-volume work, "History of Human Marriage," notes that there has been polygamy in virtually every culture and religion, including Judaism and Christianity. But the point here is not to say, "Why blame Islam?" Actually, Islam is the only religion even among Abrahamic faiths, that specifically limited the practice of polygamy that existed before Islam and established very strict conditions for guidance. The question, "How could any man have two wives? That's terrible!" reflects ethnocentrism. We assume that because we're living in the West and it seems strange, and we assume it must apply to all cultures, all times, under all circumstances. This simply isn't true. Let me give you one current-day example. In the savage attack on Afghanistan, genocide was committed on the Afghani people. It is estimated that 1-1.5 million people lost their lives, a great majority of whom were men of a marriageable age. Now, with a great shortage of men, what will happen to their widows, their orphans and their daughters of marriageable age? Is it better to leave them in a camp, with a handout? Or better a man is willing to take care of his fallen comrade's wife and children?

    It is obvious that monogamy is the norm for Muslims. If we assume that having four wives is the norm, then we assume a population of 80% female and 20% male, which is an impossibility on the aggregate level. The only verse in the Quran that speaks about polygamy, speaks about limiting not instituting polygamy. The verse was revealed after the Battle of Uhud in which many Muslims were martyred, leaving behind wives and children in need of support. This verse shows the spirit and reason of the revelation.

    Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #46 - November 03, 2015, 08:05 PM


    Besides you've completely taken what i've said out of context, as you guys are so eager to smash me, you're jumping on anything vaguely similar to something uttered by another apologist or muslim, and producing the same generic tirade.


    You were the one linking Islamic apologist websites not us. You set the table for us not the other way around. 
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #47 - November 03, 2015, 08:34 PM

    Quote
    Research and seeking knowledge is emphatically promoted in Islam


    Not when it comes to something that directly contradicts Islam. Part of the more bizarre interpretation of Islam is when they still want to apply medieval laws in modern times. Reading European news about muslims who think that blood money is a good idea; punishment is better than rehabilitation, all these irrationality come from conflicting views between their conscience and religion.

    Quote
    Human rights. Well The idea of social justice, human dignity, racial equality, rights of animals even.


    Your problem is that you tie this to ideas that emerged 1400years ago. It is greatly inferior to the ideas that we have now. Yet, people still cling to it and apologize for it because they are tied to this religion.

    Quote
    I suppose your grievances would primarily be women and slavery.


    Not just that, but the rights of non-muslims. That's the primary issue. Women who willfully choose to stay muslim even after knowing that they are regarded as inferior sex really need no sympathy.

    Quote
    Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set
    their slaves free.


    Islam also doesn't forbid slavery. Remember, as long as war is alive any non-muslim is a fair slave for muslims.

    Let's not forget to mention that it's completely halal to fuck your slave. Also, it's only men on women, women get no sexual freedom in this. Only for men.

    Female slaves who are married to non-muslim men also have their marriage abolished for some reason, I suppose so their master can freely fuck them then? This is what dignity is all about eh?

    Quote
    The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some  of their sins they should set their slaves free.


    Non-slavery should be the default position, not the position you take when you want to feel heroic for enslaving them in the first place.

    It is also quite telling that the less sin you make, the less slaves you need to set free.

    Quote
    The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves.


    That's hilarious, how did they became a slave in the first place? Because the prophet enslaved them? Okay then!

    "Mohammed had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold. He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out." Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 160

    Quote
    Secondly, there is no restriction in Islamic law that says a woman cannot work or have a profession, that her only place is in the home. In fact, by definition, in a truly Islamic society, there must be women physicians, women nurses, women teachers, because it's preferable also to separate teenagers in the volatile years in high school education. And if she chooses to work, or if she's married with the consent of her husband, she's entitled to equal pay, not for equal work, but for work of equal worth.


    Remember that she must ask the husband's permission to have these jobs. Husbands can order their wives to stay at home and she must obey.

    Quote
    Also, in most Muslim countries, the woman keeps her own last name, and her own identity.


    That still patriarchy, the children keep their father's name. If you want your family name to live, you need to have a male heir. Her family name doesn't get passed down.

    Quote
    Thirdly, when it comes to financial security, Islamic law is more tilted in many respects towards women. These are seven examples:
    In return for these listed securities, it is clear why the Islamic laws pertaining to inheritance give men a higher share.


    LOL Islam respects women because they give women financial security... in return, women get less money (less financial security) and have to be dependent on their husbands/male relatives to take care of them and there is no way to revoke it.

    I mean, this is such a huge cover-up it's not even funny. First of all, in terms of birth right she already gets less inheritance than her brothers.

    Now, when it comes to work, she must get her husband's permission to work. There are so many muslim men with this backwards thinking who dislike their wives working. And they can forbid their wives from working, it is their right. Bullshit.

    This is a system to make women dependent on their male relatives, and in all this cases men are indeed seen as the better sex. Men are in charge of women, and if women want to do something, they must seek permission from men to do it.

    Quote
    This only specifies the degree of responsibility, not privilege, in **man's role as provider, protector, maintainer, and leader of the family**.


    That specifies the privileges as well. Higher inheritance is privilege. He has the right to discipline her, that's privilege. He is the leader and he takes charge, that's privilege.

    So what is the wife's role in the family? Apparently she does not provide, protect, maintain, or lead the family. Despite the fact that she can work and provide+protect+maintain+lead just FINE. Islam forbids women from reaching her full capabilities, why?

    Quote
    Some of them might appear harsh, but there are qualifications to restrict excessive or abusive use of these measures.


    Let's cut the crap here, men can beat their wives if they are disobedient. "Excessive abuse" my foot, hitting women and treating her like children that need to be disciplined is emotional abuse. Plain and simple.

    "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them."

    Quote
    polygamy in virtually every culture and religion, including Judaism and Christianity. Actually, Islam is the only religion even among Abrahamic faiths, that specifically limited the practice of polygamy that existed before Islam and established very strict conditions for guidance.


    Actually, Islam is the only Abrahamic religion that still supports polygamy in modern world. Why do you keep mentioning the past, the past, the past? What about the modern world? The concern now is that Islam can't keep up with modern world. Modern human rights actually abolished slavery and give women equal rights. Islam is lagging behind while Judaism and Christianity already try to adapt.

    Quote
    It is estimated that 1-1.5 million people lost their lives, a great majority of whom were men of a marriageable age. Now, with a great shortage of men, what will happen to their widows, their orphans and their daughters of marriageable age? Is it better to leave them in a camp, with a handout? Or better a man is willing to take care of his fallen comrade's wife and children?


    You can't possibly take warring periods as the standards of Islam. Polygamy is also NOT restricted to only war victims, most part of the world are not at war. This polygamy bullshit are also practiced by peaceful countries.

    Why do you assume that these widows need to be taken care of, or live with a handout? If it's a man with dead wife, you wouldn't say "what would he do now, live with a handout?" because that is really degrading. You assume that women can't do work and can't earn anything by themselves. wtf.

    Quote
    The only verse in the Quran that speaks about polygamy, speaks about limiting not instituting polygamy.


    They do both, wtf is wrong with you. Now the norm is monogamy and Islam is forcing re institution of one-sided polygamy (only men can do it).  Without Islam, we won't have any major religion instituting (male only) polygamy.

    Islam was only fine in the past, when human rights were bad and standards were low. We live in modern time, and muslims are rejecting progressive ideas now because of Islam. They keep clinging to 1400 years old beliefs like enforcing gender roles and apologizing slavery because of Islam. Think critically, don't just approve something because Islam does it.

    Repeat: Compare Islam with Modern Standards. Modern Standards! We live in the present and we don't need to be dragged down with outdated laws. You tried to compare Islam with ancient British laws, that's just silly. England isn't trying to revert back to their ancient laws, you are.

    Without Islam, you won't be defending these atrocities.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #48 - November 03, 2015, 08:36 PM

    I wasn't trying to prove the divinity of the Qur'an, that's another argument.
    I was adamantly trying to remind people who suggest 'the  qur'an is just another book written by a bunch of nomads', that its one of the more nuanced and significant texts we have ever produced, and shouldn't be dismissed in such a manner.


    So, who do you think wrote/composed it, if not God? A school of elite scholars, a political entity, an individual human, whether or not they were inspired by God?

    If it's just a man-made book, then why imbue it with more significance than, say, Uncle Tom's Cabin--arguably the book that most impacted American history, and therefore the history of last century globally (via American imperialism)? Plus, unlike the Quran, Uncle Tom's Cabin did actually accomplish the abolition of slavery in America.

    As for nuance and significance, I don't know, have you ever read a science book (about a specialist topic, not just like the general overviews you get in primary school)? Maybe try a book like "The Evolution of Species"? or something by Feynman or The Selfish Gene? Or if you want something that will keep you at the edge of your seat and make you think hard trying to figure out what the author is doing/going to do next, maybe read a Sherlock Holmes book, or Nancy Drew, or another mystery series.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #49 - November 03, 2015, 08:51 PM


    Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set
    their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some  of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that  it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him.
    The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free.Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period.


    No it set freedom of slaves as a benefit for the master in Allah's view not for the benefit of the slave nor that slavery was wrong. Your assertion is false given that slavery did not only continued to exist but expanded greatly as the Islamic Empires expanded their territory. Yet Allah could make a number of customs, foods and ideas forbidden. He could force a change to the customs of Arabia but couldn't make slavery forbidden. Not a single law was put forward making slavery illegal for centuries. Europeans made slavery illegal well before any Muslim nation did. The Catholic Church declared that no European power could enslave people's of the New World in the 15th century, hence why they imported slaves from Muslim dominated slave trade in Africa. Besides there are non-Muslim examples of people freeing slaves while the system itself still existed and was practiced. A few people freeing slaves does nothing to resolve the fact that Islam never abolished slavery nor that slavery existed in other nations. It would be like mentioning a few Confederate didn't support slavery while ignoring that slavery was legal. History is against your view and shows it is a naive view based on your emotional connection to a religion you have already concluded is correct and moral.

    You mean companions such as Umar who still owned slaves and even made treaties in which slave were treated as property to be exchanged. Who was killed by a slave. Very convincing....

    Quote
    Women
    In the area of economic rights, we have to remember that in Europe until the 19th century, women did not have the right to own their own property. When they were married, either it would transfer to the husband or she would not be able to dispense of it without permission of her husband. In Britain, perhaps the first country to give women some property rights, laws were passed in the 1860's known as "Married Women Property Act." More than 1300 years earlier, that right was clearly established in Islamic law.


    False. You again demonstrate you know nothing about history since you get your history from apologist websites not any history book, if you knew what one looked like. Women under Roman law owned their property. On Memorable Deeds and Speeches by Valerius Maximus covers some of the rights of women in Rome. The rights you claim Islam created existed for century in Rome as a product of men without the need for a deity. Polybius on Roman Women and Property by Suzanne Dixon cover the law in far more detail. Christianity is what set back women's rights in Europe but since this is a setback there existed laws which gave women rights you attempt to parade around based on your lack of education in history. There is also the prime example of the Angevin Empire in which the majority of French lands under English control were the property of Eleanor of Aquitaine. If women had no rights to property as you claim then this Empire would have never existed. English Common Laws as made it legal for women to own property Did you miss classes on female rulers such as Mary and Elizabeth Tudor or Isabella of Spain.  You are out of your depth since you do not actually research the subject you are talking about. Standard apologetic copy/paste tripe.

    Quote
    Secondly, there is no restriction in Islamic law that says a woman cannot work or have a profession, that her only place is in the home. In fact, by definition, in a truly Islamic society, there must be women physicians, women nurses, women teachers, because it's preferable also to separate teenagers in the volatile years in high school education. And if she chooses to work, or if she's married with the consent of her husband, she's entitled to equal pay, not for equal work, but for work of equal worth.


    Except there is a noticeable absences of female rulers in the Caliph, monarch and nobility systems under Muslim systems. There have been far more female members as part of the ruling class in Europe than there has been for Muslim kingdoms of the same time. Your claims do not match historical reality. There is a social norm in place in which women are encouraged to be homemakers which explains the absences in both cultures despite laws allowing rights to women. Social norms often guide society above that of laws.

    Quote
    Polygamy has become so mythical in the minds of many people that they assume being Muslim means having four wives. This is a false notion, of course. A very renowned anthropologist, Edward Westermarck, in his two-volume work, "History of Human Marriage," notes that there has been polygamy in virtually every culture and religion, including Judaism and Christianity. But the point here is not to say, "Why blame Islam?" Actually, Islam is the only religion even among Abrahamic faiths, that specifically limited the practice of polygamy that existed before Islam and established very strict conditions for guidance. The question, "How could any man have two wives? That's terrible!" reflects ethnocentrism. We assume that because we're living in the West and it seems strange, and we assume it must apply to all cultures, all times, under all circumstances. This simply isn't true. Let me give you one current-day example. In the savage attack on Afghanistan, genocide was committed on the Afghani people. It is estimated that 1-1.5 million people lost their lives, a great majority of whom were men of a marriageable age. Now, with a great shortage of men, what will happen to their widows, their orphans and their daughters of marriageable age? Is it better to leave them in a camp, with a handout? Or better a man is willing to take care of his fallen comrade's wife and children?


    Polygamy is accept for me but not polyandry for women. If Islam truly treated women as equals as you claim, history shows otherwise, then there is no reason for not allowing this. Unless of course Islam was created in a patriarch society which favored men above women which is clear to see given the absence of major female figures in comparison to the so-called European restriction you conjure based on nothing. All your examples are of society which followed patriarch systems. Your false dichotomy is amusing. If these would-be husbands have the funds to support multiple wives then there are resources which could of been used as charity, charity which you mentioned in your previous posts. By providing charity there is no reason to marry anyone.

    Quote
    It is obvious that monogamy is the norm for Muslims. If we assume that having four wives is the norm, then we assume a population of 80% female and 20% male, which is an impossibility on the aggregate level. The only verse in the Quran that speaks about polygamy, speaks about limiting not instituting polygamy. The verse was revealed after the Battle of Uhud in which many Muslims were martyred, leaving behind wives and children in need of support. This verse shows the spirit and reason of the revelation.


    Not really, it shows a very simplistic look that I can counter as a mere humans using a far better system which required no marriages at all. I out thought your deity
  • Heaven or hell
     Reply #50 - November 04, 2015, 07:14 AM

    Quote
    That is all what people are doing in this forum ElRafa.,  Questioning faiths and all faiths .. faith heads...
    I understand your concerns  ElRafa .,    but don't take Questioning a faith, a book , a statement in book as disrespecting you, your life, your worldview, your  friends, your  values, your ethics, and your  family.

    I dont take criticism as a disrespect.

    But i find some of the language used in description of the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh), who I have actually seen called Piss be upon him numerous times here. 

    Diminishing the significance of the qur'an is, as bogart suggests unwise due to its historical significance.

    And to do so, contrary to historical proof of its profound influence, shows emotionalism in my view,

    I hope you understand  its been two days on here and i've felt more misread than my holy qur'an itself


    Hmm That needs detailed response ., So ElRafa.,   You say.,  " people of this forum  wrote/used  some insulting  words on "Quran text and "Muhammad of Quran  and Hadth"  texts   in their posts"    and you read it innumerable times..

    that suggests to me you are reading/following this forum for a long time.,  Could you   put some links of that text here?  and I am just curious here., did you also write in to the forum before?

    You already said., there is nothing in Quran that is divine., now you are saying   Quran has some "historical significance"

    what kind of history and what kind of "historical significance" does it have..

    It is a book.. just a book  ElRafa., Fools without reading it made that book as some divine ordained written text.... In that sense every old book has some historical significance..  I just don't get your point.,

    Do you think that there is some Islamic history in it so it should not be criticized??   

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »