Originally Posted by
Hazeleyed Honey
LOL @ the things he's admitted to believing in in this thread well after establishing that he believes every word int he Koran (I did a good job baiting him into that one)
-Beating women
-Slavery
-Murder of non-Muslims
What else can we get him to admit to?
I think both sides here are not arguing as logically when it comes to this debate on verses in the Qur'an.
First thing first, you do have to read those verse in the context of history. These verses were not used at all times as a carte blanche to kill infidels and non-believers. I also do agree with you in some cases.
Murder of non muslims - Looking at the history of when Prophet Mohammed founded Islam, it was used as a tool for political and economic reasons that formed an Arab identity. It basically served as the pillar of the rise of the Arab "nation".
Prophet Mohammed is seen as a philanthropist in the eyes of devout Muslims, but he was an army commander and a warrior who led the Arabs to triumph and conquest to build a powerful empire that succeeded to its prime centuries after his death. So yes, his hands are not clean of blood. He is no different than the greats like Napoleon and Genghis Khan.
So when you read these verses think of them in a context of conventional warfare.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Out of the the three monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is Islam that is the most progressive and advanced. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Slavery - Yes, Islam did not abolish it, but it was one of the first to see slavery as humans and provide "human rights" to slaves. But then again, look at the U.S. and how it was not abolished until 1808,right?[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Veil - Different scholars disagree if it is mandatory. The verses are so vague that no one can say what it truly means. Some scholars argue that the verse demands to just cover your bosoms. The word "hijab" means to cover. There are no clear instructions to wear it around your face or even to wear one. It is Islamic scholars who instilled it. Let's also remember that wearing the veil did not became mainstream and widespread until about the late 1970s/early 1980s after the Iranian Khomeini revolution. Back in Kuwait, at 16 years old, my mom was the first to wear one in her class. It was more secular back then, and wearing the hijab was associated more with being religious. Now, it is more culture and identity as a Muslim woman. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Beating women - That's not true. No one knows what the word "idrib" means in that context. It has many meanings. It can even mean "to separate". Scholars interpret it to how they want to suit their intentions. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
So, all in all, this is my take on it. Back when these religions were founded, why do some of you expect for them to be all fair with human rights?Of course they would be misogynistic and sexist. At those times, human rights were not even essential when it came to many spheres of society. Take these foundations of these religions for what they were meant to be used for at the time for the functions of those societies. In this day and age, we still struggle with human rights to be fair and just. Islam was certainly not, but given when it was founded, and given the context of itshistory, it was a bit more progressive than others at the time. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The issue I think you should debate is the fact people follow institutionalized religious laws instilled 1400 years ago. But, what some have done is changed the context a bit to fit modern times. [/font]
You're claiming "idrib" doesn't really have to mean hit "in that context"
and you're claiming that the Hijab isn't obligatory/is vague ?
Are you sure you understand what the VAST majority of Islam's premier scholars have ruled on these issues ? Are you aware of the strength of the evidences for the views ?
What legitimate scholars/evidences do you have for your claims ? By that I mean actual verses/authentic Hadith and rulings from respected scholars. Trying to portray things as just vague and reliant on the whims of whatever an individual scholar interprets as "for his own intentions" when in reality there are very strong evidences for the rulings is just plain dumb.
I can easily cite deviant sects...random youtube scholars.... articles written by non-scholars...or even a couple of scholars who reached different conclusions (very small %)... and claim so and so is "vague" while ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
lol @ anton claiming to have "baited me" into saying I believe every word of the Qur'an, (duh... it's a fundamental belief in Islam) as if this is something I'm supposed to be ashamed of or isn't a requirement of 1.3+ billion Muslims... anyone who claims to be Muslim but doesn't believe in every word of the Qur'an is surely a disbeliever.
How dumb is it to list things I "support" without any context/clarification... Look i can do the same
Oh you are a US citizen ? You support
- Murder
- Locking up people in cages for the rest of their lives
- Seizing property
This is how childish/stupid the tactics of the atheists are in making arguments