Aillyria wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Islam does not make women slaves to men, nor does it allow them to "abuse" us. Much of the actual meaning is diluted in traslation between English and Arabic, and misunderstanding even occurs in translation between Classical/Quranic and Modern Arabic. Arabic makes many nuances were English doesn't. Also, the point on Sunnis and the hadith means nothing to me.....I'm a Sufi. I follow no hadith, only the Quran.
It's a common lie for Islamic missionaries to claim that the savage teachings in the Qu'ran are a byproduct of bad translations. I guarantee you, the Qu'ran teaches the inferiority of women in both its English and Arabic versions. And, of course, if you want to try going for the argument that the Arabic Qu'ran is unreliable, that would mean that the Qu'ran hasn't been perfectly preserved after all; it would mean that the Qu'ran has been compromised and Islam's most trusted source cannot be trusted.
Surah Four, Verse Thirty Four, of the Qu'ran:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.The Qu'ran very clearly, very explicitly, says that women must unconditionally obey their husband, and gives their husband the power to strike them if they refuse (which is an act of physical abuse). I'd say that you don't know what you're talking about but, quite frankly, I find it far more likely that you know damn well what Islam really teaches and are just spouting the same Islamic propaganda that most Muslims here recite.
الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ
حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ
فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا
Here's the Arabic version of the verse; I assure you, it has the same message as the English one, that a woman belongs to a man who is free to beat her if she refuses to do as he commands. Unlike some people, I know the Qu'ran well enough to know that it's a blatant lie to say that the Arabic Qu'ran contains no immoral teachings. It does, and I know it does; you're not fooling anybody.
Even if you completely reject the teachings of every major Islamic school of jurisprudence in the world, and the beliefs of ninety five percent of all Muslims, and disregard the Hadiths, the second most important sources in Islam, and only follow the Qu'ran, Islam is still a savage and violent religion with savage and violent doctrines.
Hakons wrote:"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.
The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.
An ironic sentiment coming from the side of the debate which has consistently spouted non-sequiturs and the non-argument of "my false god said so, therefore it's true."
Seeing as how religion is the main source of opposition to homosexuality, I think we can all agree that it's a perfectly valid target in a discussion dealing with homosexuality (and opposition to it).
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:12 am