The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Jonathan Drake
  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Let it be accepted that Islamic extremists behead people because they have subjectively interpreted certain scriptural words in the Quran to their own supportive intent and behavior.

    This is is absolutely true.

  • Finkelstein

    Lets make it clear that there is an overwhelming amount of scriptures contained in the Quran which directs Muslum men to beat woman if they don't behave the way men want them to behave.  I wont go too much of this topic because it diverts away to where this thread is about.   

    The Qur'an:

    Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

    Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."  Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

    From the Hadith:

    Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her.  Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing.  Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

    Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'"  This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.

    Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission.  Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."


    Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him.  According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

    Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them."  At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands.  Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

    Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

    Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'"  A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant.  Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.

    Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others."  According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.

  • Simon
    the difference between the Crusades and isis is that it actually was sanctioned by the entire Christian empire including its emporer. The two scenarios don't have any real comparison because unlike ISIS which makes up less than 1% of all Islam, the Crusades were supported by the 99% and only opposed by less than 1. People were just crazy about joining the crusades and fighting for the church and God. This is absolutely not the case with ISIS.

    There's considerable debate about the crusades - many see them as defensive after Muslim aggression. But whatever the reality, the fact is that it is very, very similar to ISIS today and people joining an army based on religious belief and eager to kill non-believers because of it.

    The people in the crusades probably made up way less than 1% of all Christianity so less than your estimate of ISIS supporters so what does that prove?

    This is the problem: if you want to use the crusades as a criticism of Chistianity then why can't the current situations be used as a criticism of Islam? It is exactly the same apart from one difference: the crusades were in the past and that mentality does not represent Christianity any more. However, the is considerable evidence that the extremist opinions are shared or tacitly approved of by many in the muslim world today.

    Christianity had it's reformation, what's so bad about saying that Islam needs to have one too?

    If it was the crusades happening today, what would your opinion be of people who adamantly declared "nope, nothing to do with Christianity at all"?

  • cofty
    The Quran stressed gender equality,

    JD - The quran prescribes beating a wife if she is stubborn.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    None of the citations from the Hadith matter. The Quran is the authority as it came through Muhammed and the Hadith did not. None of those citations are suppored by the Quran. I again stress review of the link I posted above. 

    Regarding the two verses provided that ARE from the Quran. 4:34 and 35 says,

    "Hushands should take good care of their wives, with the bounties God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have then guard in their husbands absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them of the teachings of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you you have no right to act against them: God is most high and great."

    The word translated 'High-handedness' is Nashaza from which Nushuz is derived means 'to become high, to rise. This high handedness is also condemned for husbands in verse 128. The word applies to situations where a person assumes a sense of superiority over the other. The Quran here directs a husband to use a slap as the LAST resort to such high handed behavior and to first try lovingly reminding them of God. Then in verse 128 this same sense of superiority is condemned for men as well, further showing than man and woman are viewed not as one superior to the other but as equal. This also flies in the face of the hadith, which is not from Muhammed and full of garbage. 

    38:44, "'Take a small bunch of grass in your hand, and strike her with that so as not to break your oath...'"

    to what oath was this referring? the footnote reads:

    "Quranic commentators explain that, when his wife blasphemed, Job swore that if he recovered from his illness, he would beat her with 100 lashes. When he recovered, however, he regretted his hasty oath, so God gave him this instruction."

    so neither one of the verses you've quoted from the Quran actually support mistreatment of women. They encourage avoiding such treatment at all costs, and Job had made an oath he regretted but had to fulfill. So a way out was made that he could do so without causing any harm to his wife. 

    The hadith and the Quran are different books. One is taken as inspired word from God through Muhammed, which is the Quran. Then Hadith obviously contradicts the Qurans treatment of women, it is therefore false. It did not originate with Muhammed, and Muhammed would not have enjoyed mistreating women for amusement. 


    it does not proscribe beating. A man should treat his wife as most precious according to the Quran. The scenario described in these verses would be like this:

    My wife is treating me as some stupid inferior imbecile. She does not listen to anything I say and she demeans me in public and in private. I first appeal to her faith in God to explain how such behavior is wrong. It does not stop. I then deny her her marital due while also reminding her of God and how it's wrong to act superior. She does not stop. Even now, if my wife did this and I tried everything to get through to her that treating me this way is wrong, I would slap her. 

    The reverse is also true. If I am behaving that way toward her, this is also wrong in the Quran. I, as the husband, may be the head of the house, but I am not SUPERIOR to my wife. Acting as though I am is condemned in the Quran. And in the verses 128 and after if I am treating my wife this way the Quran says its best we part ways. 

  • Finkelstein

    It seems literal interpretation of the Quran and adherence to those interpretations does provoke ideologies of self assuming power and control toward men, add that with weapons and you have hot pot of barbarism the likes of which haven't been unseen in a long time, perhaps even centuries.

    So once again when was that book the Quran written ?   1600 years ago !

  • cofty
    The Quran here directs a husband to use a slap as the LAST resort 

    Then you agree Mo said to SLAP disobedient wives. Right there the entire quran deserves to be thrown in the bin. It is vile.

  • LoveUniHateExams

     if you want to use the crusades as a criticism of Chistianity then why can't the current situations be used as a criticism of Islam? - well done, Simon, you've hit the nail on the head.

    Imagine a commentary on the crusades using today's touchy-feely PC jargon: 'Christianist millitants have conquered Jerusalem. They called their opponents and ordinary citizens infidels but lovingly gave them a chance to convert. They then slaughtered them afterwards and let God judge them. The christian community feel persecuted because of a possible backlash from this so Governments have set up a helpline. Any prejudice against this community is definitely Christianophobic, and possibly racist, since most Christians are Europeans too. Bigots say that the religion of Christianity needs to be reformed but as we know most christians are peaceful. These crusades have nothing to do with Christianity ...'

  • Simon
    The Quran here directs a husband to use a slap as the LAST resort 

    Why not a simpler "don't hit women!"

    Adding "last resort" is an excuse for abuse. "I had to beat me wife you see, she wasn't obeying me enough ...".

    But the specifics of where it says what is irrelevant - all that matters is what many believe Islam consists of today. If enough believe that is Islam then that IS Islam.

    The fact that these things are prescribed though makes it harder for people to stand up and say "no, this is wrong, we shouldn't be doing this".

    Christianity managed to strike out most of the bible and yet still profess to follow it. They figured out a way to cherry pick the common-sense parts and use those as the basis instead of the entire thing. It was really quite a party trick.

    Islam needs to figure out how to do that. It should start with whoever the leaders are standing up and saying "this is what islam IS and then is what islam ISN'T" but it's rarely done. Usually the messages we hear backup appalling behaviour or decrees.

Share this