The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Frievolk]

Oh, I just reread your post, Pillarcraft. (The one I replied with "give me evidence"). Yeah, I see what you mean that it's not the West's fault on individual governments for not taking care of themselves.

Though again, when it comes to foreign policy, I still say the West makes attempts to meddle in the affairs of the middle east and attempts to influence the middle eastern governments into fighting one another. That's what my main points were this entire time was mostly centered on foreign policy and infighting with one another.

Yeah, but if we were going to assign blame by how much every country meddles, then it'd be unfair. Every country openly meddles in the affairs of those beneath it in the pecking order. The Saudi Arabia and Iran meddle in Yemen and Syria, US and Russia meddle in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Jolthig]

Oh, I just reread your post, Pillarcraft. (The one I replied with "give me evidence"). Yeah, I see what you mean that it's not the West's fault on individual governments for not taking care of themselves.

Though again, when it comes to foreign policy, I still say the West makes attempts to meddle in the affairs of the middle east and attempts to influence the middle eastern governments into fighting one another. That's what my main points were this entire time was mostly centered on foreign policy and infighting with one another.

Yeah, but if we were going to assign blame by how much every country meddles, then it'd be unfair. Every country openly meddles in the affairs of those beneath it in the pecking order. The Saudi Arabia and Iran meddle in Yemen and Syria, US and Russia meddle in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Yeah, I agree. Meddling is worldwide. My points were the Arabs are so deep into their version of the Dark Ages that it allows other countries or even themselves to meddle in their affairs.

[Kubumba Tribe]

That's not a beating. This is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beating

Sounds exactly like wife beating in the Quran.

Except it isn't.

[Kramanica]

Sounds exactly like wife beating in the Quran.

Except it isn't.

But it is.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Except it isn't.

But it is.

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

[Frievolk]

But it is.

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bullshit by every single person you've shown it to. "Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

[Kubumba Tribe]

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bull by every single person you've shown it to.

Those who are kaafiroon, yes.

"Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

Nor should it cause pain. Also, it's not a beating.

[Jolthig]

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bullshit by every single person you've shown it to. "Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

That's not true. I'm the other person that said that daleel was correct which I believe is that one article Amin showed. I also said that the Arabic word mentioned in that article does not say "beat them violently" in the context of Surah 4:34. It just says, "beat them lightly" as Hadith shows us, which I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why they're somehow fabricated.

Also, how is it somehow worse?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bullshit by every single person you've shown it to. "Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

That's not true. I'm the other person that said that daleel was correct which I believe is that one article Amin showed. I also said that the Arabic word mentioned in that article does not say "beat them violently" in the context of Surah 4:34. It just says, "beat them lightly" as Hadith shows us, which I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why they're somehow fabricated.

Also, how is it somehow worse?

He's saying that if the ayah just meant "don't bruise your wife when you hit her" (which, to clarify, it doesn't), then Muslim men would still be able to cause pain to their wives while hitting them.

[Frievolk]

That's not true. I'm the other person that said that daleel was correct which I believe is that one article Amin showed. I also said that the Arabic word mentioned in that article does not say "beat them violently" in the context of Surah 4:34. It just says, "beat them lightly" as Hadith shows us, which I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why they're somehow fabricated.

Also, how is it somehow worse?

He's saying that if the ayah just meant "don't bruise your wife when you hit her" (which, to clarify, it doesn't), then Muslim men would still be able to cause pain to their wives while hitting them.

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

[Jolthig]

He's saying that if the ayah just meant "don't bruise your wife when you hit her" (which, to clarify, it doesn't), then Muslim men would still be able to cause pain to their wives while hitting them.

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bullshit by every single person you've shown it to. "Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

That's not true. I'm the other person that said that daleel was correct which I believe is that one article Amin showed. I also said that the Arabic word mentioned in that article does not say "beat them violently" in the context of Surah 4:34. It just says, "beat them lightly" as Hadith shows us, which I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why they're somehow fabricated.

Also, how is it somehow worse?

Can you?

[Frievolk]

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

That's not true. I'm the other person that said that daleel was correct which I believe is that one article Amin showed. I also said that the Arabic word mentioned in that article does not say "beat them violently" in the context of Surah 4:34. It just says, "beat them lightly" as Hadith shows us, which I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why they're somehow fabricated.

Also, how is it somehow worse?

Can you?

I'll respond to you via TG, if you don't mind.

[Jolthig]

Can you?

I'll respond to you via TG, if you don't mind.

Understood.

[Kubumba Tribe]

He's saying that if the ayah just meant "don't bruise your wife when you hit her" (which, to clarify, it doesn't), then Muslim men would still be able to cause pain to their wives while hitting them.

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

Are you a Qur'anist?

[Jolthig]

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

Are you a Qur'anist?

No. He isn't a Quranist either.

[Frievolk]

The Ayeh doesn't say "don't bruise your wife when you hit her".
It literally doesn't put any limits on it. The Scholars, at some later point, decided that "oops the Arab Women are pissed that we've taken all the privileges they enjoyed before Islam while pretending that we're giving them rights. Maybe we should cut back on the whole beating thing", hence the creation of the fake Ahadith for it.

Are you a Qur'anist?

I've been educated as one for four years as part of my education in Islamic Law.

[Frievolk]

Are you a Qur'anist?

No. He isn't a Quranist either.

(Not a certified one I am not. But I have been studying both the Fann-i-Hadiith, Fann-i-tafsir, and Fann-i-Ra'wa for more than four years now )

[Farnhamia]

Your daleel has been repeatedly renounced as bull by every single person you've shown it to.

Those who are kaafiroon, yes.

"Wife-beating" doesn't mean "beating your wife black and blue". it means "hitting your wife", and your daleel doesn't say "don't hit your wife, that's evil." it says "hit your wife lightly so they don't show a bruise in public" (which is nominally worse)

Nor should it cause pain. Also, it's not a beating.

Quoting Arch's ruling that says you have to be very, very clear about context when using that word does not give you a pass. In fact, it looks like rules-lawyering, which is itself an actionable offense. Pace to Arch, but my take on this is that the word is used only to aggravate and to troll. I doubt there is no word or phrase that conveys the sense of what you mean. And given that this is an overwhelmingly English-speaking forum, that's more necessary. I'm not going to warn at this time but I am going to ask for a second opinion on the report over in Moderation. And I don't want any debate on this, from you or anyone else. You can explain yourself in Moderation.

[Kramanica]

But it is.

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

Pretty sure I've explained to you before why that does not prove anything.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It isn't. Refer to the daleel shown before. We've already explained this.

Pretty sure I've explained to you before why that does not prove anything.

It's not supposed to prove anything, it explains the ayah.

[Kramanica]

Pretty sure I've explained to you before why that does not prove anything.

It's not supposed to prove anything, it explains the ayah.

It explains that strike means one thing in another context so it must mean the same thing in that context.

Not compelling.

[Frievolk]

It's not supposed to prove anything, it explains the ayah.

It explains that strike means one thing in another context so it must mean the same thing in that context.

Not compelling.

The good thing about having a religion in a foreign language (before said foreign language was standardized, of course) and a cult of personality around its founder is that you can lie your way out of everything.

[Jolthig]

Oh snap! We won't be hearing from Amin in a week.

Well. There's no use in the continuation of the above discussion with the exception via telegram with you, Pillarcraft, if you don't mind.

[Jolthig]

In the meantime, I wanna do something different for this thread. Tired of debating the same thing with people over and over again, and it really diminishes the productivity as well as interest in this thread, especially from people who want to sincerely ask questions about Islam or have a benefitial discussion on the faith. When people who may want to come on here and ask something sincere or just have a nice conversation with us, all they see is unproductive circular arguments on both sides. Anyone get where I'm coming from?

I mean, I get we are on a debate forum, but still. I would like to do something different.

[Genivaria]

In the meantime, I wanna do something different for this thread. Tired of debating the same thing with people over and over again, and it really diminishes the productivity as well as interest in this thread, especially from people who want to sincerely ask questions about Islam or have a benefitial discussion on the faith. Anyone get where I'm coming from?

I mean, I get we are on a debate forum, but still. I would like to do something different.

You think our questions aren't sincere?
Okay fine how about this.
Leader of the Ummah by popular will or ancestry?

The former I sympathize with the latter befuddles me as much as other forms of monarchy/aristocracy.