Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Conscentia]

-snip-

No. It is literally the belief that some people can kill beautiful, vivid plants in less than a week just with their lusting glare.

When people compliment babies, they say "benza Deus!", something of the sort "let God bless him/her!".

People even put crosses with two cutting parts beneath the beds of newborns and babies before they are baptized to keep "witches" away, and moths are regarded to be signal of the coming of their evil eye.

What do you mean "no"? Nothing you've just said contradicts what I said.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

What do you mean "no"? Nothing you've just said contradicts what I said.

I thought you were saying that it isn't actually practiced in Brazil.

My bad.

[Conscentia]

What do you mean "no"? Nothing you've just said contradicts what I said.

I thought you were saying that it isn't actually practiced in Brazil.

My bad.

How? Brazil is part of Latin America. My post contained the words:
"Belief in the evil eye is strongest in the Middle East, Latin America, [...]"

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

How? Brazil is part of Latin America. My post contained the words:
"Belief in the evil eye is strongest in the Middle East, Latin America, [...]"

I thought that you were implying that in Latin America the sense of evil eye would be the same of in English. Not really taking it seriously.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You can argue the same about Christianity (and I have), whereas Atheism, being a set of beliefs that shares only the rejection of all Gods and Diety in common, cannot be claimed, as you seem to want to, have any beliefs inherent to it but that premise, that God is non-existent. There is no Atheist Koran, Bible, or Avesta.

So what you're saying is that intolerance of your fellow man is integral to the beliefs of atheism, right? Cause that is what it sounds like.
"Other beliefs are evil." "All beliefs but mine are wrong" "Only my beliefs impart any good on the world." Sound familiar? It's you.

The existence of your set of beliefs is more openly hostile to more people around the world than any other in the modern era.

Atheism, unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, does not structure themselves around texts, or a set of texts, and are merely united in what they are not, mainly, Theistic. I am hostile to all religion and to God, that does not mean that all atheists are, just as Theists are not united around a shared set of texts, or even a text at all, but by the common belief that there exist a being called God.

Islam, Christianity, and all those religions can be called 'evil', because the text upon which their religion is based advocate evil practices.

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So what you're saying is that intolerance of your fellow man is integral to the beliefs of atheism, right? Cause that is what it sounds like.
"Other beliefs are evil." "All beliefs but mine are wrong" "Only my beliefs impart any good on the world." Sound familiar? It's you.

The existence of your set of beliefs is more openly hostile to more people around the world than any other in the modern era.

Atheism, unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, does not structure themselves around texts, or a set of texts, and are merely united in what they are not, mainly, Theistic. I am hostile to all religion and to God, that does not mean that all atheists are, just as Theists are not united around a shared set of texts, or even a text at all, but by the common belief that there exist a being called God.

Islam, Christianity, and all those religions can be called 'evil', because the text upon which their religion is based advocate evil practices.

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

no.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Atheism, unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, does not structure themselves around texts, or a set of texts, and are merely united in what they are not, mainly, Theistic. I am hostile to all religion and to God, that does not mean that all atheists are, just as Theists are not united around a shared set of texts, or even a text at all, but by the common belief that there exist a being called God.

Islam, Christianity, and all those religions can be called 'evil', because the text upon which their religion is based advocate evil practices.

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

no.

Exactly, Atheism is not a religion or a belief structured around a central text, or shared group of texts, and are only united in what they are not, Theistic.

Islam is a religion that is built around the Koran, which is a rabidly misogynistic and homophobic piece of work.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

no.

Exactly, Atheism is not a religion or a belief structured around a central text, or shared group of texts, and are only united in what they are not, Theistic.

Islam is a religion that is built around the Koran, which is a rabidly misogynistic and homophobic piece of work.

No.
And I also think it's fucking hilarious how you're going to sit here and tell me that my religion and I are evil and intolerant, when you are the one trying to ban people from believing what they want when it doesn't affect you in any fucking way.

[Aurulence]

So what you're saying is that intolerance of your fellow man is integral to the beliefs of atheism, right? Cause that is what it sounds like.
"Other beliefs are evil." "All beliefs but mine are wrong" "Only my beliefs impart any good on the world." Sound familiar? It's you.

The existence of your set of beliefs is more openly hostile to more people around the world than any other in the modern era.

Atheism, unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, does not structure themselves around texts, or a set of texts, and are merely united in what they are not, mainly, Theistic. I am hostile to all religion and to God, that does not mean that all atheists are, just as Theists are not united around a shared set of texts, or even a text at all, but by the common belief that there exist a being called God.

Islam, Christianity, and all those religions can be called 'evil', because the text upon which their religion is based advocate evil practices.

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

no.

Exactly, Atheism is not a religion or a belief structured around a central text, or shared group of texts, and are only united in what they are not, Theistic.

Islam is a religion that is built around the Koran, which is a rabidly misogynistic and homophobic piece of work.

You are irritating.

If you're going to go around and claim that a text is misogynistic or homophobic or whatever, you need to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, just state your opinion and move on. You've already done the former, so unless you're planning on substantiating your opinions with evidence, it is time to do the latter.

[Virana]

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement [sic] upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

It may surprise you, then, that religion has accelerated the progression of mankind as well. The Enlightenment period, from which modern ideals of democracy and individual rights are derived, was centered entirely around the idea of "natural rights" endowed by a creator who sees all such creations equally.

It may also be a surprise to you that Islamic civilization was the most technologically advanced society a few hundred years ago, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age. The Islamic society then actively promoted scientific advancement and the expansion of knowledge, and numerous innovations and theories are derived from Islamic society and from the older Greek/Roman civilization whose knowledge they preserved.

I have no problem with atheism partially because religious conservatism has morphed into an intolerant and anti-progress group of people, and secularism is, in my opinion, the ideal balance. This is because individual rights are very important to me, and coercing others to agree with your beliefs such as in the society you're advocating for sounds like an Orwellian nightmare (or fantasy, if you're into that kind of stuff).

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Atheism, unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, does not structure themselves around texts, or a set of texts, and are merely united in what they are not, mainly, Theistic. I am hostile to all religion and to God, that does not mean that all atheists are, just as Theists are not united around a shared set of texts, or even a text at all, but by the common belief that there exist a being called God.

Islam, Christianity, and all those religions can be called 'evil', because the text upon which their religion is based advocate evil practices.

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

Exactly, Atheism is not a religion or a belief structured around a central text, or shared group of texts, and are only united in what they are not, Theistic.

Islam is a religion that is built around the Koran, which is a rabidly misogynistic and homophobic piece of work.

You are irritating.

If you're going to go around and claim that a text is misogynistic or homophobic or whatever, you need to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, just state your opinion and move on. You've already done the former, so unless you're planning on substantiating your opinions with evidence, it is time to do the latter.

I already have, if you are capable of reading.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The talk about evil eye was more interesting

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement [sic] upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

It may surprise you, then, that religion has accelerated the progression of mankind as well. The Enlightenment period, from which modern ideals of democracy and individual rights are derived, was centered entirely around the idea of "natural rights" endowed by a creator who sees all such creations equally.

Most of the Enlightenment thinkers were usually anti-religious or anti-clerical, Voltaire being an example. Many thinkers did believe in God and were Deists, but they didn't adhere to religion, and Jefferson himself edited a bible to remove all the bits he considered silly to keep only what he thought were the moral message.

It may also be a surprise to you that Islamic civilization was the most technologically advanced society a few hundred years ago, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age. The Islamic society then actively promoted scientific advancement and the expansion of knowledge, and numerous innovations and theories are derived from Islamic society and from the older Greek/Roman civilization whose knowledge they preserved.

Again, has nothing to do with the Islamic religion, then with the society. Islam didn't contribute very much to the 'Islamic Golden Age'.

I have no problem with atheism partially because religious conservatism has morphed into an intolerant and anti-progress group of people, and secularism is, in my opinion, the ideal balance. This is because individual rights are very important to me, and coercing others to agree with your beliefs such as in the society you're advocating for sounds like an Orwellian nightmare (or fantasy, if you're into that kind of stuff).

Christianity and Islam are inherently evil because the Bible and the Koran advocate things like this:
From the Koran
4:34

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. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

2:223

You women are a tilth for you to tilth as you will...

[Czechanada]

As such, while I am not the typical atheist, I am willing to admit an intolerance of their evil, which is definitively an impedement [sic] upon the progress of mankind, and advocating diverse evils, Islam, Christianity, and all those religion are a disease of humanity, and must be eliminated for human progress and human emancipation!

It may surprise you, then, that religion has accelerated the progression of mankind as well. The Enlightenment period, from which modern ideals of democracy and individual rights are derived, was centered entirely around the idea of "natural rights" endowed by a creator who sees all such creations equally.

It may also be a surprise to you that Islamic civilization was the most technologically advanced society a few hundred years ago, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age. The Islamic society then actively promoted scientific advancement and the expansion of knowledge, and numerous innovations and theories are derived from Islamic society and from the older Greek/Roman civilization whose knowledge they preserved.

I have no problem with atheism partially because religious conservatism has morphed into an intolerant and anti-progress group of people, and secularism is, in my opinion, the ideal balance. This is because individual rights are very important to me, and coercing others to agree with your beliefs such as in the society you're advocating for sounds like an Orwellian nightmare (or fantasy, if you're into that kind of stuff).

Well, if one really wants to get into the historical and sociological minutiae, Islam technically wasn't the progenitor of the Islamic Golden Age.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I find it funny how conservative Westerners try rather than convince Muslims that they can use their religion only in a part and ignore the most absurd parts just like all other peoples in the world are, secularizing themselves, show them in a confrontational light that Islam is pure ebul.

This will not lead to any positive among either side, instead some will not change at all, and others will find more reasons to be strong in their [inner and Ummah-side cultural] jihad.

[Aurulence]

Christianity and Islam are inherently evil because the Bible and the Koran advocate things like this:
From the Koran
4:34

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. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

2:223

You women are a tilth for you to tilth as you will...

Here's the url to a post where most of this question was answered (thanks HetRio!).

[Virana]

Christianity and Islam are inherently evil because the Bible and the Koran advocate things like this:
From the Koran
4:34

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. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

2:223

You women are a tilth for you to tilth as you will...

I don't know what Quranic translation you got that verse from, but mine indicates a message quite in contrary to yours. It also isn't written in a deprecated form of English.

The following are quoted directly from my Qur'an, termed "Qur'an As It Explains Itself" (it can also be found in PDF form online in case you want to verify them). The brackets do not indicate my own comments, but those of the author.

4:34

Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. God has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men should ensure that women are able to stand at their feet in the society. So, righteous women are obedient to God ́s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the values that God has commanded to be guarded. If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places, and refer them to the appropriate authority (or arbiters). If they pay heed to you, do not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great. [Qawwam = Protector = Maintainer = One who helps others to stand at their feet. Nushooz = Ill-treatment = Rebellion = To stand up (2:259, 58:11) = To stand up against virtue = Mental abuse = Domestic violence = To rebel against the permanent moral values. Wa ́az = Admonishment = To apprise of consequences (2:231, 3:66). Dharb = Example (13:17, 16:74, 36:13) = To stop or prevent (8:11, 43:5) = Referring to arbiters (4:35) = To give examples (4:34, 13:17, 16:74, 36:13, 43:58) = To withdraw (43:5)]

This indicates a mutual relationship where both men and women should cooperate and aid each other in the ultimate goal of standing up in society.

2:223

Remember that women in the society are the guardians of your future generations, just as a garden keeps the seeds and turns them into flowering plants. So, whenever you meet with women socially, treat them with respect, keeping the aforementioned principle in mind. This conduct will go a long way to insure the betterment of the future generations. Send forth good today for the sake of tomorrow. Be
mindful of God and know that you will, one day, face Him. O Messenger! Give good news to the believers. [Nisaa = Women, not wives]

This verse is essentially giving the message that because women are the future, treat them respectfully. The version you quoted is hilariously wrong, and the absurd ridiculousness of your unverified translations really debases your point here.

Edit: I would explain why relying on random unreliable sources for Quranic translations is bad, but Aurulence's post linked above says it very well. I've also written a post in the past about that topic, but the guy I was discussing it seemed to deliberately ignore what I said.

Virana: May I know where you come from, please? I am curious.

Anyhow, it is awful you had to go through that. If Saudi Arabians are racist, it is certainly not within the ethics of Islam to do so.

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I was born in Pakistan but I've grown up in the United States.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Christianity and Islam are inherently evil because the Bible and the Koran advocate things like this:
From the Koran
4:34

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. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

2:223

You women are a tilth for you to tilth as you will...

I don't know what Quranic translation you got that verse from, but mine indicates a message quite in contrary to yours. It also isn't written in a deprecated form of English.

The following are quoted directly from my Qur'an, termed "Qur'an As It Explains Itself" (it can also be found in PDF form online in case you want to verify them). The brackets do not indicate my own comments, but those of the author.

4:34

Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth. God has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men should ensure that women are able to stand at their feet in the society. So, righteous women are obedient to God ́s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the values that God has commanded to be guarded. If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in their resting places, and refer them to the appropriate authority (or arbiters). If they pay heed to you, do not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great. [Qawwam = Protector = Maintainer = One who helps others to stand at their feet. Nushooz = Ill-treatment = Rebellion = To stand up (2:259, 58:11) = To stand up against virtue = Mental abuse = Domestic violence = To rebel against the permanent moral values. Wa ́az = Admonishment = To apprise of consequences (2:231, 3:66). Dharb = Example (13:17, 16:74, 36:13) = To stop or prevent (8:11, 43:5) = Referring to arbiters (4:35) = To give examples (4:34, 13:17, 16:74, 36:13, 43:58) = To withdraw (43:5)]

This indicates a mutual relationship where both men and women should cooperate and aid each other in the ultimate goal of standing up in society.

And how is this still not sexist? You mean to tell me that because it says about the exact same thing, woman must attend to a seperate sphere from man, it should be acceptable to us, here in the civilised west, where we have long ago accept that woman are capable of being, and should be encouraged to be, their own protector and supporter, and that by saying that 'there are areas that god grant man to excell and areas god grant woman to excell', one is implicitly create a division of spheres which should be occupied by a man in his gender role and a woman in her gender role, like the Political and Domestic Sphere of the Victorian era, seperate but equal duties.

2:223

Remember that women in the society are the guardians of your future generations, just as a garden keeps the seeds and turns them into flowering plants. So, whenever you meet with women socially, treat them with respect, keeping the aforementioned principle in mind. This conduct will go a long way to insure the betterment of the future generations. Send forth good today for the sake of tomorrow. Be
mindful of God and know that you will, one day, face Him. O Messenger! Give good news to the believers. [Nisaa = Women, not wives]

This verse is essentially giving the message that because women are the future, treat them respectfully. The version you quoted is hilariously wrong, and the absurd ridiculousness of your unverified translations really debases your point here

Edit: I would explain why relying on random unreliable sources for Quranic translations is bad, but Aurulence's post linked above says it very well. I've also written a post in the past about that topic, but the guy I was discussing it seemed to deliberately ignore what I said.

How are women the future? I quoted only the 'tithing' part of this passage, translated here, not much differently as 'seeds and garden and flowering plants', using the same imagry of a woman as a farm, and, 'with this in mind', we should respect a woman. A woman, it seems, according to this passage, only has worth when defined with respect to the man, who plants the seed in that garden,. and should only be given respect in that respect, your translation does not make the case any better for the Koran not being a misogynistic rag like the Bible.

As for teh translator, it is by the Moslem convert and famed Orientalist Mahommed Marmaduke Pickthall.

[Aurulence]

2:223

Remember that women in the society are the guardians of your future generations, just as a garden keeps the seeds and turns them into flowering plants. So, whenever you meet with women socially, treat them with respect, keeping the aforementioned principle in mind. This conduct will go a long way to insure the betterment of the future generations. Send forth good today for the sake of tomorrow. Be
mindful of God and know that you will, one day, face Him. O Messenger! Give good news to the believers. [Nisaa = Women, not wives]

This verse is essentially giving the message that because women are the future, treat them respectfully. The version you quoted is hilariously wrong, and the absurd ridiculousness of your unverified translations really debases your point here

Edit: I would explain why relying on random unreliable sources for Quranic translations is bad, but Aurulence's post linked above says it very well. I've also written a post in the past about that topic, but the guy I was discussing it seemed to deliberately ignore what I said.

How are women the future? I quoted only the 'tithing' part of this passage, translated here, not much differently as 'seeds and garden and flowering plants', using the same imagry of a woman as a farm, and, 'with this in mind', we should respect a woman. A woman, it seems, according to this passage, only has worth when defined with respect to the man, who plants the seed in that garden,. and should only be given respect in that respect, your translation does not make the case any better for the Koran not being a misogynistic rag like the Bible.

As for teh translator, it is by the Moslem convert and famed Orientalist Mahommed Marmaduke Pickthall.

I disagree with your comment, and I'd like to copy/paste something from my other post to add to Virana's commentary.

About the second quote –– basically it's saying that any form of sexual intercourse is fine (although there are some hadiths –– sayings of Muhammad that were passed down through centuries –– that disallow anal sex, which is corroborated loosely in the story of Lot). Obviously, you could misconstrue the verse, but in doing so it wouldn't fit the rest of the Quran in regards to how men and women are equals (and therefore, would have equal autonomy and right to consent). There aren't too many differences among different translations on this quote.

[Islamic Commune]

And how is this still not sexist? You mean to tell me that because it says about the exact same thing, woman must attend to a seperate sphere from man, it should be acceptable to us, here in the civilised west, where we have long ago accept that woman are capable of being, and should be encouraged to be, their own protector and supporter, and that by saying that 'there are areas that god grant man to excell and areas god grant woman to excell', one is implicitly create a division of spheres which should be occupied by a man in his gender role and a woman in her gender role, like the Political and Domestic Sphere of the Victorian era, seperate but equal duties.

That specific verse did not limit gender roles in any way. If women want, they can go seek education and have a career in anything that they wish. All that the verse implies is that the men of a society are obligated to help and uphold support for the women in society. The only thing men have more than women according to the verse is more responsibilities.

A woman in an Islamic society, for example, does not have to obligate any of her wealth or effort for anyone; she can do whatever she wants with that. Men however, are obligated to ensure that women have all the support they can. If you think of it, it is really men that are at a disadvantage here, not women.

And as for women being their own protector and supporter, go around and ask women if they want to be absolutely responsible for everything in their life. Most women would not like to have total responsibility, and would like a companion to give them some support. Humans are interdependent.

How are women the future? I quoted only the 'tithing' part of this passage, translated here, not much differently as 'seeds and garden and flowering plants', using the same imagry of a woman as a farm, and, 'with this in mind', we should respect a woman. A woman, it seems, according to this passage, only has worth when defined with respect to the man, who plants the seed in that garden,. and should only be given respect in that respect, your translation does not make the case any better for the Koran not being a misogynistic rag like the Bible.

And obviously, when a quote is referred to out of context, the meaning will always change. Lets place all of it in context, shall we?

2:222:
"And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves."

2:223:
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers."

2:224:
"And do not make [your oath by] Allah an excuse against being righteous and fearing Allah and making peace among people. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing."

In the verse before the verse you quoted, the Qur'an is discussing about the appropriate time to engage in sexual intercourse with women, obviously saying not to have sex with a woman that is menstruating.

In the verse after, which is the one you have quoted, it is reassuring Muslims that sex is not a thing of disgust, and people should perform it however they wish.

Why was this verse even mentioned?

There was a superstition in that time that claimed that if people have sex in a rear-end position, the child will become cross-eyed. Some Muslims asked the Messenger about this and the above verse was revealed. At the same time, the Messenger Muhammad asserted that interpretation by saying afterwards:

(From the front or from behind, as long as that occurs in the Farj (vagina).)

So the verse you referenced had nothing to do with treating women like property, it was just about sexual etiquette.

However, let us interpret it literally. When the Qur'an says "Women are your tilth", which we will assume means farmland, well what exactly does that mean?

There is a mutual relationship between the Farmer and the Farm. Before the Farmer can "Sow his seeds" in the farm, he must first care for and maintain the farm. that means making sure that the farm's soil is okay and it is being watered properly, being cleared of weeds, etc.

In return for taking care of the Farm, when the Farmer sows his seeds, the Farm will give back crops to the Farmer. However, the Farm will not give crops if the Farmer is mismanaging the Farm and not caring for it.

Both the Farmer and Farm rely on each other. If the Farmer had no Farm, he would not survive. If the Farm had no Farmer to care for the wellbeing, the Farm would not survive. Logically, a Farmer will not just sow his seeds in a Farm that is not cared for, so he must care for the Farm in order to deserve anything in return.

And once again, we see that the responsibilities men have towards women are stressed, and that the Qur'an asserts that men must care for their women in order to deserve their support.

I appreciate that you finally gave us verses to try to prove your claim though. Please continue fully exploring the Qur'an.

[The White Horde]

Islamic Commune rocks.

[Glorious Wonderland]

That specific verse did not limit gender roles in any way. If women want, they can go seek education and have a career in anything that they wish. All that the verse implies is that the men of a society are obligated to help and uphold support for the women in society. The only thing men have more than women according to the verse is more responsibilities.

A woman in an Islamic society, for example, does not have to obligate any of her wealth or effort for anyone; she can do whatever she wants with that. Men however, are obligated to ensure that women have all the support they can. If you think of it, it is really men that are at a disadvantage here, not women.

And as for women being their own protector and supporter, go around and ask women if they want to be absolutely responsible for everything in their life. Most women would not like to have total responsibility, and would like a companion to give them some support. Humans are interdependent.

Isn't that somewhat sexist as well? I know many women who would like to have right to 'being their own protector and supporter' as men are. Humans are interdependent, then wouldn't men also interdependent then, and would not like to have total responsibility, too?

My opinion is that it shouldn't be a closed context of 'men xx women xx'. Women are dependent to men, so are men dependent to women. Domestic househusband is fully an acceptable choice just as domestic housewife. At the end, it's just the inter-supporting family that matters.

I noted that there's a wide difference between definition of 'sexism' in Islamic (and conservative as whole) society and NationStates General. Myself I stand in between -- I have several positions that could be described as sexist here in NSG, but back in Indonesia I would be a hyper-liberal right activist.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That specific verse did not limit gender roles in any way. If women want, they can go seek education and have a career in anything that they wish. All that the verse implies is that the men of a society are obligated to help and uphold support for the women in society. The only thing men have more than women according to the verse is more responsibilities.


A woman in an Islamic society, for example, does not have to obligate any of her wealth or effort for anyone; she can do whatever she wants with that. Men however, are obligated to ensure that women have all the support they can. If you think of it, it is really men that are at a disadvantage here, not women.



And as for women being their own protector and supporter, go around and ask women if they want to be absolutely responsible for everything in their life. Most women would not like to have total responsibility, and would like a companion to give them some support. Humans are interdependent.

'Men are woman's supporters and protectors...' already implies an inequality in relationship, whereby men take the role of 'protector' and 'supporter', and women 'protected' and 'supported'. In addition, it implication of the seperation of male and female works further by declaring that, in Pickthall's translation, 'Allah made one to exceed the other...', and which most translation, aside from this, agrees upon (most of what I have found made the commentary that this is meant in terms 'strenght', which is patently absurd, because if Allah is truly all knowing, then the simple fact that while this is generally true, it is not always so), and thus enforces gendered spheres. The idea that this means that men have more responsibilities, while women are free to do as they like is patently absurd when one reads the text, because the text makes the claims not only implicit, but explicit, by claiming that women necessarily depend on men because they are inferior, and depend on a man's property. This is followed by, in Pickthall's translation, some rather unfortunate sounding pieces of misogyny- "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. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." Here, the man takes a paternistic role over his wives, when they 'rebel', they are to be punished by the man (how can we, men, bear such responsibility as judge, father, and husband in one?), and even allowed physical punishment (sourge them), which is no idiosyncracy on the part of Mr MM Pickthall, another version by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan reads "As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great."

As for the claim that many women want to have a man to rule over them, I think you would find most women here in the Civilised west value independence, with all the responsibilities it entails, above dependence upon a man. In fact, that is usually our ideal of women.

And obviously, when a quote is referred to out of context, the meaning will always change. Lets place all of it in context, shall we?

2:222:
"And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves."

2:223:
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers."

2:224:
"And do not make [your oath by] Allah an excuse against being righteous and fearing Allah and making peace among people. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing."

In the verse before the verse you quoted, the Qur'an is discussing about the appropriate time to engage in sexual intercourse with women, obviously saying not to have sex with a woman that is menstruating.

222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.-Pickthall

In the verse after, which is the one you have quoted, it is reassuring Muslims that sex is not a thing of disgust, and people should perform it however they wish.

Why was this verse even mentioned?

There was a superstition in that time that claimed that if people have sex in a rear-end position, the child will become cross-eyed. Some Muslims asked the Messenger about this and the above verse was revealed. At the same time, the Messenger Muhammad asserted that interpretation by saying afterwards:

(From the front or from behind, as long as that occurs in the Farj (vagina))

So the verse you referenced had nothing to do with treating women like property, it was just about sexual etiquette.

And sexual etiquette requires that the woman be defined in terms of the man?

223. Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad ).

223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

2:223:
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers."

None of what you have said shows that these statements are not sexists, but do they show that the woman is defined in terms of her function to a man, that is, as either a farm for him to plough (tilthing, sowing seeds), neither does it remove the sexist implication of 'for you', that is, even if you were to grant that this is addressed to males, and advice on how men should view women, we should view her, apperantly, as a 'place of sowing seed'.

In short, your interpretation is not held up by the text, which states that (1) one should not sleep with menstrating women because they are unclean, (2) Women are men's field for them to plough, that can be used any time the man so desires.

However, let us interpret it literally. When the Qur'an says "Women are your tilth", which we will assume means farmland, well what exactly does that mean?

There is a mutual relationship between the Farmer and the Farm. Before the Farmer can "Sow his seeds" in the farm, he must first care for and maintain the farm. that means making sure that the farm's soil is okay and it is being watered properly, being cleared of weeds, etc.

In return for taking care of the Farm, when the Farmer sows his seeds, the Farm will give back crops to the Farmer. However, the Farm will not give crops if the Farmer is mismanaging the Farm and not caring for it.

Both the Farmer and Farm rely on each other. If the Farmer had no Farm, he would not survive. If the Farm had no Farmer to care for the wellbeing, the Farm would not survive. Logically, a Farmer will not just sow his seeds in a Farm that is not cared for, so he must care for the Farm in order to deserve anything in return.

And once again, we see that the responsibilities men have towards women are stressed, and that the Qur'an asserts that men must care for their women in order to deserve their support.

I appreciate that you finally gave us verses to try to prove your claim though. Please continue fully exploring the Qur'an.

Again, we see the dictonomy of the active male and the passive female, in that the farmer acts, the farm is acted upon, the farmer sow, and does what he will to the farm (it is advised that he should take care of it) and the farm at the mercy of the farmer. The farmer is the one who works the farm and owns the farm, he can do what he likes to it, the stress, to me, is the ownership, the man owns the woman, the man can do what he likes to the women just as the farmer can do as he like to the farm, the women is defined in terms of the man, who is the farmer, just as a piece of land becomes a farm when defined by its function to humans.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And I also think it's fucking hilarious how you're going to sit here and tell me that my religion and I are evil and intolerant, when you are the one trying to ban people from believing what they want when it doesn't affect you in any fucking way.

I am not saying you are evil and intolerant, I am saying your religion is evil and intolerant, and I freely admit to intolerance on my part against all religions. And don't say that it doesn't affect me, religion is the greatest impedement to human emancipation, and as I am human, it does indeed affect me.

[Puerto Tyranus]

How is religion the greatest impediment? What's it been doing recently that can't be disconnected from the religion like you just disconnected the practices from the followers (i.e. "It's the people in the religion not the religion itself")?