snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08 June 2007, 10:18 PM
andak01
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Actually, I see it as a good sign that moderate Muslims are trying to interpret scripture in a way that is less violent and more tolerant. It means that the very basic concept of women's rights is being acknowledged.
It's a very old interpretation, it just doesn't make the same headlines as faithfreedom or MEMRI. I'm sure the Christian missionary sites know more about Islam than Muslims do, but I'll content myself to the interpretation I've come to from reading the Quran and Sunna and the interpretations of various Sheikhs.

Quote:
I don't really care if it requires a revisionist interpretation of the Koran; I'm just happy if more and more Muslims stop tolerating violence against women.
Muhammad said don't beat your wife.

...How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel
and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?...
(Sahih
Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).

d. True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the
Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless
of the circumstances.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/end.html

Muslim countries have the same need for women's shelters and the same issue with violence against women as that found elsewhere. Women's shelters and counciling are a relatively recent solution in the west and admittedly, the Middle East has a lot to do to catch up. However, the idea that Muslim men are typically wife beaters and Christians are not is not backed up by the facts.

This is a common issue that can be resolved in an interfaith way instead of demonizing and alienating Muslims unnecessarily.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08 June 2007, 10:47 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
It's a very old interpretation, it just doesn't make the same headlines as faithfreedom or MEMRI. I'm sure the Christian missionary sites know more about Islam than Muslims do, but I'll content myself to the interpretation I've come to from reading the Quran and Sunna and the interpretations of various Sheikhs.
Which sites are "christian missionary sites"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
Muhammad said don't beat your wife.

...How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel
and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?...
(Sahih
Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).

No, this says don't beat your wife and sleep with her in the same day." It doesn't say Don't beat your wife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu Dawood

Book 11, Number 2142:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu Dawood

Book 11, Number 2141:

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

There are just two examples. I have taken them straight from the Islamic texts. Please let me know if you'd like more (there are many).




Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
d. True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the
Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless
of the circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
This is untrue. Muhammad his one of his own wives (Aisha) for disobeying his command:

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Sahih Muslim

Book 004, Number 2127:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.
Will you accept the word of a website (although Pro-Islamic) that lies about its own texts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post

Muslim countries have the same need for women's shelters and the same issue with violence against women as that found elsewhere. Women's shelters and counciling are a relatively recent solution in the west and admittedly, the Middle East has a lot to do to catch up. However, the idea that Muslim men are typically wife beaters and Christians are not is not backed up by the facts.
I agree with you on this. However, when Muslims beat their wives, they can point to Quran 4:34 as a divine command to do so (beat them). Can Christians do the same? Also, in the West , hitting women is a crime; can you say the same for Muslim countries? What do they then do with Allah's word if they were to outlaw wife beating?


Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
This is a common issue that can be resolved in an interfaith way instead of demonizing and alienating Muslims unnecessarily.
How do you suggest we solve it? The Quran gives me the RIGHT to beat their wives. If they were to dismiss a part of the Quran, they would no longer be Muslims. After all, a Muslim is one who believes in Allah, Muhammad and what was revealed as unchanged and the perfect word of their deity.

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08 June 2007, 10:48 PM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricB View Post
Aren't most major religions relatively mysoginistic (mostly as a reflection of the systems of authority they were coded in)?
You have to ask whether the religion itself is misogynistic, or the moral code built around the religion is misogynistic. Not all religions dictate a moral code directly a la Ten Commandments. For example, Hinduism and Buddhism both teach philosophy, and do not dictate morality. Society has taken that philosophy and built a moral code around it. The core philosophy itself isn't misogynistic, but the society built on top of turned out to be deeply misogynistic. I guess the religions are partially at fault for allowing misogyny to develop
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08 June 2007, 11:37 PM
andak01
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
Will you accept the word of a website (although Pro-Islamic) that lies about its own texts?
You obviously don't accept the word of Dr. Badawi, an internationally noted scholar on Islam. Why should I accept the out of context translations with your dramatic bolding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaki_Badawi
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08 June 2007, 11:58 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
You obviously don't accept the word of Dr. Badawi, an internationally noted scholar on Islam. Why should I accept the out of context translations with your dramatic bolding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaki_Badawi
What do you mean they are 'out of context'? I have provided each hadith in its entirety. You are free to check them (I have provided the V,B&N for you to do this). Sure, I can accept what the scholar's say; however if their own texts contadict them, then no, I do not accept it.

Now, my questions:
(a) Are you going to stick to your interpretation even though I have shown you Islamic texts that contradict your claims?
(b) Which sites were you referring to as "Christian missionary sites"?
(c) Are you a Muslim? (this would answer a lot)



Please address my posts properly; claiming they are 'quotes out of context' is ludicrious! Do you have anything to say at all??

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10 June 2007, 07:48 PM
andak01
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a funny game to pretend that Islam supports wife beating in our western sense of the word, but almost to a person, every scholar, even the most extreme ones forbid violence against women. That fact goes unnoticed because of the single word beat translated from the Arabic. But that verse has been clarified and commented upon by numerous sources, and what we come up with isn't wife beating at all. It isn't physically harmful. It isn't chronic. It isn't something that would drive a woman to fear for her safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
(a) Are you going to stick to your interpretation even though I have shown you Islamic texts that contradict your claims?
Are you going to stick to your claims even though I've shown you a noted Sheikh and internationally renowned Islamic scholar saying Islam doesn't allow wife beating.

Now on to the hardline interpretation.

Take this Sheikh that defines beating as something that, causes no injury and makes it clear that anything injurious to the woman would be against Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58

Here's a better clarification of what a siwak or miswak is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xct8w...elated&search=

Sheikh Qaradawi, who is often quoted in this matter was asked to lead the Muslim Brotherhood. He is hardly a moderate. Even he says:

The respectable and honest Muslim man does not beat his wife, and his hand is not accustomed to beating.

The Prophet said:

"It was reported to the Prophet (pbuh) that some of his Companions beat their wives, whereupon he said, 'Certainly those are not the best among you [as reported by Ahmad, Abu Daoud, and al-Nisai. Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim classify it as sound, as narrated by Iyas ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abu Dhiab].'

Saudi Law states:

As defined by the Hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone's face, cause any bodily harm or even be harsh. What the Hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light beating, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolical) use of the miswak.


Sheikh Siddiqi says:

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle [a] delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih,' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that [the] face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

http://www.ummah.net/forum/archive/i...p/t-33857.html

Further explainations I've seen is that only a woman's arms or legs can be touched and then again only with the siwak.

Of course again we are obsessing over the end point of what is really a pretty long journey. A woman must be ill behaved (in a religious sense). That is, she could be stealing, committing adultry, slandering her husband. After being admonished, she refuses to mend her ways. The man refuses to share his bed. So another day has passed. At that point, he is permitted to tap her with a toothstick on her arm or leg.

Quote:
(b) Which sites were you referring to as "Christian missionary sites"?
Faithfreedom isn't Christian, although it is vociferously anti-Islam.

Quote:
(c) Are you a Muslim? (this would answer a lot)
Are you Christian, Atheist? This would answer a lot.

The Muslim opinion of what our own beliefs are doesn't seem to hold any weight among Christians and Atheists, who; while informing us of how intolerant we are insist that we must conform to their own stereotypes of who we are.



Please address my posts properly; claiming they are 'quotes out of context' is ludicrious! Do you have anything to say at all??

Thanks

-KC[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15 June 2007, 06:11 AM
MichiganGirl's Avatar
MichiganGirl MichiganGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 14 August 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricB View Post
Aren't most major religions relatively mysoginistic (mostly as a reflection of the systems of authority they were coded in)?
But most churches treat women differently than 1300 years ago, unlike Islam. Most people also don't follow the bible exactly as written, saying nothing has changed in over a thousand years, also unlike Muslims.

Michigan "it's not the 8th century anymore" Girl
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15 June 2007, 06:14 AM
MichiganGirl's Avatar
MichiganGirl MichiganGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 14 August 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,181
Default

KC, didn't you know, only Muslims can intrepret the Hadith. Not the lowly non-muslims (or those of us who have left Islam)? It means what they want it to mean, or at least what they are willing to admit what it means in front of non-muslims. Even though it says you can hit your wife, it doesn't actually mean that (unless you're a Muslim who wants to hit your wife).
MG
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15 June 2007, 07:02 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganGirl View Post
But most churches treat women differently than 1300 years ago, unlike Islam. Most people also don't follow the bible exactly as written, saying nothing has changed in over a thousand years, also unlike Muslims.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and I'm pretty sure only a few of them treat their women as they were 1300 years ago. Another thing that you have to consider is that Islam 1300 years ago was "ahead of its time" in some ways regarding women's rights. So, while I agree that the current record is not very good in many Muslim countries*, and extremely bad (much worse than Islam 1300 years ago) in a few of them, your post is not really correct. (* I wrote "countries" but what I really meant was countries/families/clans/sects, etc.)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15 June 2007, 08:35 AM
BlueStar's Avatar
BlueStar BlueStar is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 3,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
There are just two examples. I have taken them straight from the Islamic texts.
Then how come they're in English?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15 June 2007, 10:10 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganGirl View Post
KC, didn't you know, only Muslims can intrepret the Hadith. Not the lowly non-muslims (or those of us who have left Islam)? It means what they want it to mean, or at least what they are willing to admit what it means in front of non-muslims. Even though it says you can hit your wife, it doesn't actually mean that (unless you're a Muslim who wants to hit your wife).
MG
This is so true! Also many Muslims do not know much about the religion besides the day to day stuff. So they are told "only scholars can interpret the Quran/ahadith" so if they DO look into the hadith and find something horrible they then know that 'they can't interpret it themselves' to they take the information to an Imam (Religious leader) who will 'explain it for them' (read pacify their doubts).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganzfeld
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and I'm pretty sure only a few of them treat their women as they were 1300 years ago. Another thing that you have to consider is that Islam 1300 years ago was "ahead of its time" in some ways regarding women's rights. So, while I agree that the current record is not very good in many Muslim countries*, and extremely bad (much worse than Islam 1300 years ago) in a few of them, your post is not really correct. (* I wrote "countries" but what I really meant was countries/families/clans/sects, etc.)
Whoah! What rights did Arabs have after Islam that they did not have BEFORE it? The only thing they got with Islam (that wasn't present before) was extreme prejudice against Women.

Please tell us what rights women had after Islam that they did not have before it. I require evidence as to conditions in the Jahiliya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Star
Then how come they're in English?
What good would it do to present the ahadith in arabic? Do you speak arabic? Does everyone else? I present them in English to everyone can understand.



Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 15 June 2007, 10:14 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
Please tell us what rights women had after Islam that they did not have before it.
I have never made this claim. I did not say anything about the societies that came before Islam.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 15 June 2007, 10:24 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I have never made this claim. I did not say anything about the societies that came before Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganzfeld
you have to consider is that Islam 1300 years ago was "ahead of its time" in some ways regarding women's rights
I read that as Islam introduced women's rights that they did not have before Islam. Did I misunderstand?

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 15 June 2007, 10:39 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,657
Icon401

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
I read that as Islam introduced women's rights that they did not have before Islam. Did I misunderstand?
Yes. I simply meant that the eaarly Islam incorporated rights that were unknown to women in many other contemporary societies. (As I understand it, at least some of those rights were a continuation of previous soceities in that area.) Most sources I can find (that I consider to be unbiased) claim that Islam became more and more oppressive to women after its first century. But I'm willing to admit that I could easily be wrong about that.

I wanted to say that I don't think it's right to say Islam maintains a relationship with women that is 13 centuries old because that relationship has varied greatly during those centuries and continues to vary greatly from place to place and people to people in the Muslim world. I agree with the general criticism about women's rights but I don't think it helps anyone to oversimplify the situation by implying (wrongly) that all of Islam has been a catatonic and uniformly bad state of affairs regarding women's rights for the past 13 centuries. (Maybe I'm just being pedantic. After all, it is true that, in general, the record of women's rights under Islam has been and continues to be very poor.)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 15 June 2007, 10:53 AM
BlueStar's Avatar
BlueStar BlueStar is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 3,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
What good would it do to present the ahadith in arabic? Do you speak arabic? Does everyone else? I present them in English to everyone can understand.
Indeed, but you haven't taken them "directly from the Islamic texts" then, as you claimed - in a thread concerned with different views on how to translate them into English I thought that was a point worth making.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:00 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Yes. I simply meant that the eaarly Islam incorporated rights that were unknown to women in many other contemporary societies. (As I understand it, at least some of those rights were a continuation of previous soceities in that area.) Most sources I can find (that I consider to be unbiased) claim that Islam became more and more oppressive to women after its first century. But I'm willing to admit that I could easily be wrong about that.

I wanted to say that I don't think it's right to say Islam maintains a relationship with women that is 13 centuries old because that relationship has varied greatly during those centuries and continues to vary greatly from place to place and people to people in the Muslim world. I agree with the general criticism about women's rights but I don't think it helps anyone to oversimplify the situation by implying (wrongly) that all of Islam has been a catatonic and uniformly bad state of affairs regarding women's rights for the past 13 centuries. (Maybe I'm just being pedantic. After all, it is true that, in general, the record of women's rights under Islam has been and continues to be very poor.)

Ah no worries; thanks for the clarification. However I am talking about "True Islam" as it relates to the command to follow Muhammad's example. Muhammad said that anyone who innovated Islam or the Quran (to be anything different to the example that he set) would end up in hell.

This is why I look to what Muhammad said/did in order to say what Islam is and isn't (according to my current knowledge; I too can be wrong). Muhammad, after all, was the lone person who heard this Allah and revealed the Quran to mankind.

It is interesting to note that Muhammad's first, wife, Khadija, was a successful and independent businesswomen. When she was alive, Muhammad's prophethood was under her rules. She wouldn't allow woman oppression and playing 'second chair' to the man whether he's right or wrong. She called the shots and was very very wealthy.

When she died, Muhammad pushed women down and introduced all the oppressive measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Star
Indeed, but you haven't taken them "directly from the Islamic texts" then, as you claimed - in a thread concerned with different views on how to translate them into English I thought that was a point worth making.
No worries. Would you like to discuss the Arabic (Quran/ahadith/Tafseer/Sira)? Was there something I said that you do not believe is correct? Regarding the meaning of the word darb, I provided an article (IIRC) above that deals exhaustively with the nuances of darb and its contexts, leading conclusively to the meaning in 4:34.

Anyway thanks.

-KC



ETA: Yes here it is again: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...stian30907.htm

Last edited by King_Crimson; 15 June 2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason: adding link
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:29 AM
BlueStar's Avatar
BlueStar BlueStar is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 3,024
Default

My point is that even when the words are in the original language, there are people who have wide ranging views on what they mean (This goes for all people who adhere to a religious text) From when you decide on which translation to read (in the case of books being read in a different language to how they were originally penned) to what you consider that word to mean at the time, to if you consider them commandments from God directly, suggestions, metaphorical, or just an arcaic and no longer relevant relic of the time. Faith Freedom will obviously pick the interpritation which suits the agenda it has, just like there are sites which are keen to extract rather horrifying sections of the bible and present them at face value, only to be told they're reading them wrongly or out of context by proponents of that religion. (Which is not to say there wont be people with in that religion which take the same view of those passages as Faith Freedom or American athiest blogs).

My personal view is that people mould their religious texts around their views and not vice versa. If a man wants to beat his wife and he's religious, he'll damn well find something which allows him to do it. If a woman belives her religion is peaceful and comes across a verse which seems to advocate violence, she'll find a way around it. If a guy likes eating lobster and hates gays, he'll find backing in a text which (some feel) calls both an 'abomination' to carry on how he likes.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:46 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar View Post
My point is that even when the words are in the original language, there are people who have wide ranging views on what they mean (This goes for all people who adhere to a religious text) From when you decide on which translation to read (in the case of books being read in a different language to how they were originally penned) to what you consider that word to mean at the time, to if you consider them commandments from God directly, suggestions, metaphorical, or just an arcaic and no longer relevant relic of the time. Faith Freedom will obviously pick the interpritation which suits the agenda it has, just like there are sites which are keen to extract rather horrifying sections of the bible and present them at face value, only to be told they're reading them wrongly or out of context by proponents of that religion. (Which is not to say there wont be people with in that religion which take the same view of those passages as Faith Freedom or American athiest blogs).

My personal view is that people mould their religious texts around their views and not vice versa. If a man wants to beat his wife and he's religious, he'll damn well find something which allows him to do it. If a woman belives her religion is peaceful and comes across a verse which seems to advocate violence, she'll find a way around it. If a guy likes eating lobster and hates gays, he'll find backing in a text which (some feel) calls both an 'abomination' to carry on how he likes.
I agree with your thoughts here on for the mostpart, however your implication that FFI will pick the 'worst' interpretation and run with it is wrong. Reading the article you will see that FFI presents evidence from scholars and many many translations of the verse, and then goes on to translate the arabic words of the phrase.

So unless you can fault the arabic itself, your point in this case is wrong.

The bottom line is that Muslims believe that the Quran itself is:
(a)Uncorrupt
(b)Uncorruptable
(c)the exact and literal word of their deity (Allah)
(d) Muhammad Sunnah (example) is to be followed by EVERY Muslim for ALL time (these are the ahadith).

So if you want to know what a verse/text means then you either look at many many translations (by different people), read the Tafsir for the verse (commentary) or learn arabic and do it that way.

If the Quran is uncorrupt, as Muslims claim, then you can't play around with the translation (given by context).

That's my point; I am glad you shared your perspective; I too hold it in most situations. My thoughts are not an atttack on Muslims but explanations of the Quran/ahadith. I do not say that ALL Muslims beat their wives; I say "This is what the Quran says".

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 15 June 2007, 11:58 AM
BlueStar's Avatar
BlueStar BlueStar is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 3,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
I agree with your thoughts here on for the mostpart, however your implication that FFI will pick the 'worst' interpretation and run with it is wrong.
I'm sorry, but that is definitely the feeling I've had in the past from the site and certainly what I would expect from a site which states on it's main page that its goal is to

Quote:
unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism
Something that said that about ANY religion is not somewhere I would first head to for impartial analysis of their religious texts.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 15 June 2007, 12:19 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar View Post
I'm sorry, but that is definitely the feeling I've had in the past from the site and certainly what I would expect from a site which states on it's main page that its goal is to

Something that said that about ANY religion is not somewhere I would first head to for impartial analysis of their religious texts.

This is true. But once you read the Islamic texts (Quran/Tafseer/ahadith/Sira etc..) do you think you would have an 'impartial view' of Islam/ Have you read any texts? Have a look at the FFI challenge here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

All of this information to make these charges against the "best example for all mankind" (Muhammad) are made within Islam's texts. Since Muhammad's example is to be followed for all time, then Allah/Muhamamd are telling Muslims its perfectly acceptable to do all of these things to this very day.

You are of course, welcome to have your opinion; but where shall we go for an unbiased look at Islam? An Islamic site? Of course they believe the Quran and Muhammad are infalliable, error free and the epitome of morality! At FFI we do not lie about the Islamic texts; all Muslims have to do is prove the charges wrong and it will be removed (with an apology forthcoming). Refute all the charges and the site goes away.

Why, if our look is so 'biased' and we (as you seem to think) 'cherry pick' the 'bad parts' have No islamic scholars/experts etc.. been able to refute the accusations we level against Muhammad (the best example for all of us to follow for ALL TIME)?

Sorry to keep repeating that, but I just need to reinterate that Rape, Paedophilia, Terrorism, Mass murder, banditry, piracy, misnogymy etc.. are all "admirable traits" for Muslims to have, because Muhammad did it.



Anyway, sorry to go on so long; I do appreciate your opinion Thank you

-KC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.