The Muslim Dr. Phil?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wow, that's certainly an impressive list of liberal stereotypes you've managed to cram in there, so I'll offer a conservative stereotype for you. I don't think you have an evil political agenda, I think you're just being stupid. My point is extremely straight forward, and while I don't think you're any danger to the local Mensa membership, I think you're smart enough to get it...if you weren't so blinded by political angst and attempting to cram me into some ridiculous stereotype because that makes your argument easier.

Despite what you might think, "Americans", "Europeans", "Blacks", "Whites", "Christians" and "Muslims" don't do anything. They don't have conflicts and they don't have problems. They are huge groups of individuals with a lot of differences between them, so much so that attempting to categorize them by such broad labels is a waste of time. Individuals who may BE black, white, European, American, Christian or Muslim might have problems...and I'm saying we deal with those problems in whatever way possible. But I'm also saying that those problems are problems of individuals or particular groups, not problems with hugely broad cultural divisions.

You dismiss this as being brainlessly PC, probably because doing so is a reflex for folks on the right, but what I'm saying has nothing to do with being politically correct, it's just common sense. If we define a problem as a "Muslim" problem, that diffuses our responsibility to actually go after the individuals who have the problem. It means that Muslim terrorism is as much the responsibility of the Muslim mechanic at my local auto repair shop as it is the responsibility of Osama bin Laden. And, more importantly, that intelligently dealing with the problem of Muslim terrorism means we need to "deal" with the Muslim mechanic just as much as we need to deal with Osama bin Laden. Now call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

Personally I think the problem here is being too "anti-PC". Conservatives have it so ingrained that certain cultures or skin colors or religions or whatever are so inherently inferior that you can't accept a solution to a problem WITHOUT treating it as primarily a problem with one of those traits. I don't know if it's a reaction to overly PC feelings on the other side or what, but it's not smart and it's not a good approach. And while I don't endorse the idea that being PC for the sake of being PC is the best solution to all problems, I also think this reflexive reaction of being anti-PC just for the sake of being anti-PC is a poor solution.

I think the best approach to terrorism is to figure out who's doing it, and then find them and arrest them if possible, and shoot them in the head if that proves too difficult. Entering religion or skin color or favorite genre of movie into the picture is pointless, and strikes me as just a feeble excuse to persue a political agenda.

Cliffs: repeated same thing; added extra insults.

For whatever reason that I'm not even going to try and figure out, you cannot seem to grasp the big picture. You want to run around and arrest or shoot those people that do certain things while having a tantrum with the notion that we look into cultural reasons the behaviors exist. That's why I call you PC, because in my mind, people who call ideas, concepts, principles, and beliefs off-limits to debate are being politically correct. In other words, moral cowards.

OMG it's a religion!!!

Who f-in cares?

Hey, you want reasonable discussion without the insults? It's a two way street, chief. If you're going to be an asshole, don't expect me to bring out the flowers and chocolates.

I really do think you're missing what I'm saying, probably because you have this idea that I fit some sort of ridiculous liberal stereotype. So tell you what, I'll assume that you are a normal person who thinks about things a number of different ways and doesn't fit into some silly little ideological box, if you step back and make the same assumptions about me.

I'll put this in simple terms...I'm not saying religion should be off-limits to the debate, I'm saying it IS part of the debate and has been found wanting as a cause for behavior. I don't see me making the argument that you can't say Islam causes terrorism because religion is off-limits, but what I do see me saying is that you shouldn't argue that Islam causes terrorism because there isn't a lot of factual basis for doing so. Those are two pretty different ideas, I think.

To use an analogy, I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories saying the government was behind 9/11. Not because I'm some government suck-up who thinks the idea that the government would do something bad is just too taboo to mention, but because I HAVE considered the idea in this particular case and found a lack of support for it. In another case, I might find the idea more compelling...but not now.

And like I said, I can't help but wondering if you're so afraid of being PC that you are clinging on to this idea that Islam=Terrorism BECAUSE it's anti-PC to say so.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: yllus
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

I agree. In fact, I find it entirely unacceptable PERIOD, take the religious bullshit out completely. This nonsense of "who's worse" or "who killed more people" needs to end. There's no justification for this kind of nonsense; Anyone who continues to parrot it and make excuses for the Clerics and nutcases preaching and practicing it is every bit as disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

Uh, no. I am focusing entirely on a verse in the Koran. Had I never read a single word in the Bible or Torah, my statement would remain completely the same. Violence towards your wife is considered acceptable in Islam.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: yllus
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

I agree. In fact, I find it entirely unacceptable PERIOD, take the religious bullshit out completely. This nonsense of "who's worse" or "who killed more people" needs to end. There's no justification for this kind of nonsense; Anyone who continues to parrot it and make excuses for the Clerics and nutcases preaching and practicing it is every bit as disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Oh yea, your priorities really are in order. You have a problem with the men beating their wives but you have no problem killing their wives:roll:.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

Uh, no. I am focusing entirely on a verse in the Koran. Had I never read a single word in the Bible or Torah, my statement would remain completely the same. Violence towards your wife is considered acceptable in Islam.

You must consider spanking children as an act of violence as well, right? Seriously, where is all this fake, hypocritical, elitest, outrage coming from?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Modern Islam, especially in the Middle East, has serious problems with a great many civilized norms. It's an ugly fact you want to evade, make excuses for, and twist into an argument about evil political agendas. It's like you'd rather have conflict and wars instead of reasonable reform. Because despite what you say, there is a problem with the religion as it's practiced by tens of millions of people.

QFT. :thumbsup:

And just how many people has "Islam" killed? Religions don't "do" anything, it's all about the people who wield it. I would imagine that a group of people who make that argument with firearms all the time would have a better appreciation of this concept.

The funny thing we do target the ideas and behaviors that lead to gun violence. Why can't you target the ideas the behaviors that lead to violence on behalf of Islam?

Why do you keep focusing on Islam? You act as if all muslims have this disease or something? Simple question, how many people have muslims killed within the past 100 years? What's the number for Christians? Now, whichever one has a bigger kill count, isn't that the one with the issue?

Wow, bogus argument. Why focus on anything?

Maybe we should wait until Muslims kill a lot more people, then when the numbers are more even, we'll have this debate :roll:

Well, I can see that you implicitely admitted to Christians killing many more people within the last 100 years. Well then, why don't you focus on your problem? George Bush, the hypocritical Christian leader, is killing scores of Muslims on Muslim land. That is fuelling the problem you want to discuss here. Why don't you do something about it?

Apples and oranges kid. Bush is a leader who is Christian, not a Christian leader. Our daily lives are not dominated by fundamentalism. Our government and culture is not dominated by fundamentalism. Apparently you are ignorant of the very great difference religion plays in western countries compared to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. People are not going around and murdering Muslims (or anyone) because it's the will of Jesus.

You attitude is close to that of the extremists... very historical, very black and white, completely religion-centered, and full of half-truths and hate.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Oh yea, your priorities really are in order. You have a problem with the men beating their wives but you have no problem killing their wives:roll:.

Can you show me where I've advocated and found acceptable the killing of wives?

You must have me mistaken for a Muslim Cleric.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

Uh, no. I am focusing entirely on a verse in the Koran. Had I never read a single word in the Bible or Torah, my statement would remain completely the same. Violence towards your wife is considered acceptable in Islam.

You must consider spanking children as an act of violence as well, right? Seriously, where is all this fake, hypocritical, elitest, outrage coming from?

??

Explain to me what is fake about pointing out that the Koran tolerates beating your wife. Show me how it is hypocritical or elitist to point out a verse in the holy book of Islam.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Modern Islam, especially in the Middle East, has serious problems with a great many civilized norms. It's an ugly fact you want to evade, make excuses for, and twist into an argument about evil political agendas. It's like you'd rather have conflict and wars instead of reasonable reform. Because despite what you say, there is a problem with the religion as it's practiced by tens of millions of people.

QFT. :thumbsup:

And just how many people has "Islam" killed? Religions don't "do" anything, it's all about the people who wield it. I would imagine that a group of people who make that argument with firearms all the time would have a better appreciation of this concept.

The funny thing we do target the ideas and behaviors that lead to gun violence. Why can't you target the ideas the behaviors that lead to violence on behalf of Islam?

Why do you keep focusing on Islam? You act as if all muslims have this disease or something? Simple question, how many people have muslims killed within the past 100 years? What's the number for Christians? Now, whichever one has a bigger kill count, isn't that the one with the issue?

Wow, bogus argument. Why focus on anything?

Maybe we should wait until Muslims kill a lot more people, then when the numbers are more even, we'll have this debate :roll:

Well, I can see that you implicitely admitted to Christians killing many more people within the last 100 years. Well then, why don't you focus on your problem? George Bush, the hypocritical Christian leader, is killing scores of Muslims on Muslim land. That is fuelling the problem you want to discuss here. Why don't you do something about it?

Apples and oranges kid. Bush is a leader who is Christian, not a Christian leader. Our daily lives are not dominated by fundamentalism. Our government and culture is not dominated by fundamentalism. Apparently you are ignorant of the very great difference religion plays in western countries compared to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. People are not going around and murdering Muslims (or anyone) because it's the will of Jesus.

You attitude is close to that of the extremists... very historical, very black and white, completely religion-centered, and full of half-truths and hate.

Why focus only on Saudi Arabia or Iran? That's like me focusing only on the Vatican or the Netherlands or Italy. WHy not look at Egypt or Indonesia or Seychelles or Tanzania or Chad or the countless other Islamic nations where the religious leaders don't run the country? Again, stop focusing on the religion and look at the individuals. Bush may not be a christian leader, but he claims to be one and seesks to impose his views on our country. The Terry Schiavo case, where he supported the Congressional resolution, is an example.

You are bias and you know it. Not all muslims are like bin Laden just like not all muslim countries are like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

Uh, no. I am focusing entirely on a verse in the Koran. Had I never read a single word in the Bible or Torah, my statement would remain completely the same. Violence towards your wife is considered acceptable in Islam.

Well that was sort of my point. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, and I find those ideas expressed in the Koran pretty medieval and stupid as well. But if you object to the ideas more than the particular religion, I can't help but question your laserlike focus on the Koran. You're arguing that religious support for domestic violence is bad, which I completely agree with, yet you seem to only be able to summon up the energy to do so when Islam is the religion in question.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I question your motives here.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
...
This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

But you ARE drawing a comparison, because the outrage you've managed to show here doesn't seem to translate into any other religion. You might not be intending this comparison, but it's still there.

Uh, no. I am focusing entirely on a verse in the Koran. Had I never read a single word in the Bible or Torah, my statement would remain completely the same. Violence towards your wife is considered acceptable in Islam.

Well that was sort of my point. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, and I find those ideas expressed in the Koran pretty medieval and stupid as well. But if you object to the ideas more than the particular religion, I can't help but question your laserlike focus on the Koran. You're arguing that religious support for domestic violence is bad, which I completely agree with, yet you seem to only be able to summon up the energy to do so when Islam is the religion in question.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I question your motives here.

The problem is you don't read enough. Do a search for the threads that deal with the Koran here and in OT. I am defending maliciously translated verses in 90% of them. Frankly, the apologists and fools like the ones trying to divert the topic in this thread make my job of factual education on the religion all the harder.

Topic Title: The Bible vs. The Koran on various issues of Man.
Created On: 05/01/2002 10:17 PM

As the linked thread I started five years ago shows, I believe in facts. The fact is, the Koran advocates violence towards women. There is no sidestepping or re-translation possible.

 

[Pabster]

The Bible and the Koran should both be outlawed. That would solve it.

Anyone who lives their life by what some "good book" tells them to do or not do is a real tool.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sheikh Yusuf Estes weirds me out... every time I see him, I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit!

AFAIC, the only excuse to ever hit a woman is self-defense, or in stopping a violent crime from being committed by said woman.

Any religion that states, or even implies, otherwise, is FLAWED and SICK. period.

I take it you're not a fan of most Western religions then? Because most of them seem to have a pretty medieval attitude towards women, even if some of the modern adherents have managed to studiously ignore that particular facet of their faith.

I'm not a fan of ANY organized religion.

The closest description to my personal belief system that I have been able to find, after many years of searching, is self-observed Deism.

Everything else comes across as mind-warping bullsh1t.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sheikh Yusuf Estes weirds me out... every time I see him, I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit!

AFAIC, the only excuse to ever hit a woman is self-defense, or in stopping a violent crime from being committed by said woman.

Any religion that states, or even implies, otherwise, is FLAWED and SICK. period.

I take it you're not a fan of most Western religions then? Because most of them seem to have a pretty medieval attitude towards women, even if some of the modern adherents have managed to studiously ignore that particular facet of their faith.

I'm not a fan of ANY organized religion.

The closest description to my personal belief system that I have been able to find, after many years of searching, is self-observed Deism.

Everything else comes across as mind-warping bullsh1t.

I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sheikh Yusuf Estes weirds me out... every time I see him, I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit!

AFAIC, the only excuse to ever hit a woman is self-defense, or in stopping a violent crime from being committed by said woman.

Any religion that states, or even implies, otherwise, is FLAWED and SICK. period.

I take it you're not a fan of most Western religions then? Because most of them seem to have a pretty medieval attitude towards women, even if some of the modern adherents have managed to studiously ignore that particular facet of their faith.

I'm not a fan of ANY organized religion.

The closest description to my personal belief system that I have been able to find, after many years of searching, is self-observed Deism.

Everything else comes across as mind-warping bullsh1t.

I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

Have you read the "Jeffersonian Bible"? He believed in essentially the same premise you're speaking of - in terms of morality-based faith and using only the "life lessons" found within the texts to educate his own children.

You also hit the nail right on the head with the word "egos"...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

It is entirely possible to have morals and social fabric without organized, manipulative, cult-based Religion. I know, because I've been doing it for many years 😉

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sheikh Yusuf Estes weirds me out... every time I see him, I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit!

AFAIC, the only excuse to ever hit a woman is self-defense, or in stopping a violent crime from being committed by said woman.

Any religion that states, or even implies, otherwise, is FLAWED and SICK. period.

I take it you're not a fan of most Western religions then? Because most of them seem to have a pretty medieval attitude towards women, even if some of the modern adherents have managed to studiously ignore that particular facet of their faith.

I'm not a fan of ANY organized religion.

The closest description to my personal belief system that I have been able to find, after many years of searching, is self-observed Deism.

Everything else comes across as mind-warping bullsh1t.

I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

Have you read the "Jeffersonian Bible"? He believed in essentially the same premise you're speaking of - in terms of morality-based faith and using only the "life lessons" found within the texts to educate his own children.

You also hit the nail right on the head with the word "egos"...

Yeah, I've read it, and I agree with a lot of the approach. I tend to like an approach that looks beyond Judeo-Christian texts (I think there is a lot of good stuff in Buddhism, for example), but the basic idea is something I completely agree with.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

It is entirely possible to have morals and social fabric without organized, manipulative, cult-based Religion. I know, because I've been doing it for many years 😉

Not only is it possible without cult-like religions, it's probably easier. If your morality and social fabric is something handed down to you by some dude in a robe, you really better hope he's got your best interests at heart. If your morals come from inside, it's a lot harder for someone looking for wealth and power to manipulate you using your faith.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

It is entirely possible to have morals and social fabric without organized, manipulative, cult-based Religion. I know, because I've been doing it for many years 😉

Not only is it possible without cult-like religions, it's probably easier. If your morality and social fabric is something handed down to you by some dude in a robe, you really better hope he's got your best interests at heart. If your morals come from inside, it's a lot harder for someone looking for wealth and power to manipulate you using your faith.

If your morals come from inside they are nihilistic and meaningless, might as well not bother.

Most people who consider themselves of good moral stock are less so than they think and further many of their morals came from an offshoot of, at least in our society Christianity anyway.

So when you said it's easier to have morals without a cult-like religion, you may be right; with no greater sense of purpose, it's incredibly easy to sacrifice your own morals at the alter of hedonism whenever you choose to.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sheikh Yusuf Estes weirds me out... every time I see him, I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit!

AFAIC, the only excuse to ever hit a woman is self-defense, or in stopping a violent crime from being committed by said woman.

Any religion that states, or even implies, otherwise, is FLAWED and SICK. period.

I take it you're not a fan of most Western religions then? Because most of them seem to have a pretty medieval attitude towards women, even if some of the modern adherents have managed to studiously ignore that particular facet of their faith.

Very true, women in Islam have more rights then they could ever dream of in western religions, yet I don't see a single person talking about that.
I don't know of a religion that in it's holy book talks in detail what a women's rights are when it comes to finance, inheritance, work, house affairs, politics, legal matter ...etc Feel free to read for yourselves.

And as when it comes to beating your wife, I think this guy nailed it.
And no I don't think it's a futile exercise NOTHING in the Quran is futile, it's a last resort when IMHO all communication fails on the woman's sidde, and you know between you and God that she won't listen to you otherwise when she is truly doing the wrong thing under religious ruling!
The man in the video says that some scientists even advocated that instead of using something as small as a meswak/toothbrush a man can poke the woman with his fist. It's dead obvious that the purpose is not to inflict physical damage but it's to get the attention of the woman to the magnitude of her mistake.

Even in our western societies like here in the states, a man just can't be arrested for lightly poking his wife with his fist! If it doesn't inflict significant pain, bruise or cause any type of injury then it doesn't really fit the legal definition of violence.

KEEP IN MIND every Muslim's top example is prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and in no historical reference that I have come across does Mohammad (PBUH) advocate nor implements wife beating.

Mohammed married a six year old girl and fucked her when she was nine, if that is what Muslims go by then all Muslims are pedophiles? Of course not, sanity does prevail over religion in modern society, sometimes.

So you are the one to decide when your wife is not following the religious ruling, who decides when YOU are not following it, does your wife get to beat you then or is that a right she doesn't have in the "equal" Muslim matrimony? Along with all other rights of course, women are mostly slaves to men under ANY religion, Islam is most definently not different, it does mention some things about how to keep her happy but that's mostly so she'll not stray and you'll have to stone her to death.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think religion is a good basic idea that has been through too many people trying to use it to get their way and to gain power. "Love your neighbor", "be a good person", these aren't bad ideas...it's just that, by themselves, they don't allow people with no discernible skills to live in enormous monuments to their own egos. Hence, organized religion.

It is entirely possible to have morals and social fabric without organized, manipulative, cult-based Religion. I know, because I've been doing it for many years 😉

Not only is it possible without cult-like religions, it's probably easier. If your morality and social fabric is something handed down to you by some dude in a robe, you really better hope he's got your best interests at heart. If your morals come from inside, it's a lot harder for someone looking for wealth and power to manipulate you using your faith.

If your morals come from inside they are nihilistic and meaningless, might as well not bother.

Most people who consider themselves of good moral stock are less so than they think and further many of their morals came from an offshoot of, at least in our society Christianity anyway.

So when you said it's easier to have morals without a cult-like religion, you may be right; with no greater sense of purpose, it's incredibly easy to sacrifice your own morals at the alter of hedonism whenever you choose to.

Men and women of honor will remain true to themselves even after the last Religious man has gone to hell.

Christianity is the religion of murderers and rapists, just say you're sorry and don't do it again, accept Jesus as your saviour and you'll get to go to heaven. It's like it was created as a loophole for everyone who couldn't pass the strict laws of the Jews.

 

[ZeGermans]

To be fair, they all have the same color hair, so the scarf doesn't really take anything away from the imagination.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: yllus
....
And finally, the Koran sitting on my bookshelf says "scourge them".

This is something I consider entirely unacceptable in a religion. I draw no comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism... I don't care about what's better or what's worse. Taken on its own - an absolutely unacceptable statement. I am disgusted by the people who would spin this into pretending that means something other than it very clearly does.

Simply: Yes, you are allowed to beat your wife by the principles of Islam. First speak to them, then send them away, but if those measures fail, according to the Koran you are allowed to lay a hand on your wife.

Did you see the videos in the OP? Yusuf Estes a notable American Muslim scholar that has a good understanding of both English and Arabic said that the word "scourge" used in your translated copy of the Quran, is actually a mistranslation, the clocsest meaning is to tap/hit not to scourge. Look at the video yourself and you'll see.

As an Arab myself, I know very well Arabic is an especially tough language to translate and specifically when it comes to thee most vocabulary rich book known to all Arabic scholars. You have to focus very well on the context and after that you have to compare the Quran with Sunnah teachings of Mohammad(PBUH) then you arrive at your conclusion, it's not always that you can take things out of the Quran and say BOOYA!

The problem you are facing here is that you don't understand the complex structure of Islam as a religion (and that's why I think you are in no position to pass judgments around just like that).
Interpretations of things that aren't straight down common knowledge cannot be made by simply reading the Quran alone, Islamic scholar's research findings MUST BE entertained before a decision is arrived at, the process involves intense research about all possible sources and references that are considered legal.

Usually for you as a non-Muslim, you don't get exposed to topics relating to Islamic sciences, but it's no trip in the park and in some cases require decades of concentrated academic exposure and in some rare scenarios centuries of cumulative debate and that is an exaggeration by no means. It's one of the reasons Islam is (and that's in my humble opinion of course) thee most preserved religion since it came to existence in the Arabic peninsula +1400 years ago. A painstaking process has to be undergone every time a single philosophical dispute surfaces.

You can say all you want, but the facts are in your face, scholars (except for a handful of fundamentalist ones), Mohammad and the Quran are basically telling you don't do it as it's pretty much in most cases pointless and comes with a whole series of restrictions where most of the time nothing comes out of it. Now this was +1400 years ago, and even then it was not a common practice nor something encouraged not even by the top example for every Muslim (Mohammad PBUH), so what about about our times? Think about it. In all the Islamic communities that I have lived in here and abroad, it's a big shame to beat your wife, it means your not a man really, well unless it is some extreme situation, like a man walking into his room only to find his wide in his bed with some other guy, then maybe it would be considered justified over there but you get the idea it just doesn't apply to a normal and peaceful life style

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
To be fair, they all have the same color hair, so the scarf doesn't really take anything away from the imagination.

They do? They sure fooled me there.

I thought most were dark haired, now i know that they are all blond.