Ask About Islam

[Sheldon]

Whomever doesnt understand the explanation under that statement doesnt know what they are talking about.

Why should a woman have less say than a man, just because they are married?

Also to be clear, do you think it is ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife when she does not consent?

I would say it is not of course.

 

[stevecanuck]

I agree that it would have, had you originally asked me how I interpreted your post. Instead of assuming that I didn't.



Ayup. I completely and utterly agree with you there. You most certainly seem to have a firm grasp on the situation in which you find yourself. One might even say, the bed that you have made for yourself in which to lie -- were one so inclined to make such a comment.

Heh, heh. I see what you did there.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I offered a dictionary definition, if you are disagreeing with the dictionary, then you are the one deviating from what most people understand the word to mean, that is how dictionaries are compiled. My observation was based on that commonly understood definition. If you disagree with it say how and why, implying I am in error is simply wrong. So to start with you disagree with this definition then?

Miracle
noun

1. an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So how do you define a miracle then, that would be a start.




You brought them up?? And the moon isn't fixed, it orbits the earth, did you not know this?



What does that even mean?





The moon orbits the earth, again to remotely imply it could stop moving is absurdly nonsensical, tidal flows are caused by the moons gravitational force, can you imagine what would happen if its orbit stopped. I have no idea what connection you're assuming between the sun and moon, and spears and bows, as you have offered nothing comprehensible to explain this.



That's because it is incomprehensible, I have no idea what you're assuming the connection is, and I see no measurement whatsoever?



I think you mean reading, not listening, and no amount of reading is going to make this vague jumble of words comprehensible.



Oh I know what the words mean, they just make no sense in the context you're offering them, and you have simply made the unevidenced and inexplicable claim they are somehow measurements?



You just keep repeating it, even after i have explained it means nothing to me? How on earth are figs the same as stars?



Seriously that made no sense when you first posted it, and repeating it isn't going to change that. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, and you have failed to explain.



If you say so, it mean nothing to me sorry, can you offer nothing in the way of explanation here?



So entirely subjective then, and not remotely objective evidence.



I already know how the words sound, this adds no meaning to what you have claimed, none.

The moon, stars and sun are being used as symbols. Its not talking about the physical moon, stars, and sun.

The symbols represent something specific. And there are other symbols that represent the same things. They are often woven together confirming the somethings that is being represented.

So one symbol can be seen as another symbol from a different set. They are referring to the same thing.

That is how miracles/prophecies seem to work. The stacking of symbols into specific positions.




Like this which Ive been trying to explain to you repeatedly but you dont get it:


The moon, stars, and sun are three things.
The spear, the sword, and the bow, are another three things.

Three things:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;


Three things:
Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows.


In this verse there are two things from each set being combined:

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.


The sun and moon symbols stand still in specific positions. With arrows/bow and spear.

(One symbol is missing from each set. The sword, and the stars).

That is not a one off occurrence.

Ive had a look into the texts and this sort of thing is all through it.
I have put a table together that shows word positions.

Moon is in the position of spear, sun is in the position of bow, and stars are in the position of sword.


And Figs are also in the position of stars. So stars and figs represent the same thing. That is why stars are figs.

But lets really try to sort this moon, star, sun nonsense out first.
Then I will explain the lion eating straw with the Ox. It uses the same concept.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Why should a woman have less say than a man, just because they are married?

Also to be clear, do you think it is ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife when she does not consent?

I would say it is not of course.

A woman does not have less say than a man because they are married.
That was my point and what my explanation was about.
I do agree with you.

It appears trying to explain nonsense could easily be confused as being nonsense.
I'm sorry. I am really trying.

I'm speaking of symbols, not speaking in symbols.

Would you understand me if I said I've seen a red heifer in the desert shining as brass in the moonlight?

Could this table help you to know what Im talking about:

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Desert - Wilderness - Mount
Moon - Star - Sun

I think Mohammad could have separated the moon.
As Jesus picked the corn.
As Moses separated the "red" sea

Red - Purple - Blue
Sea - River - Stream
Corn - Oil - Wine
Moon - Star - Sun


To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever: Psalm 136:13


There is a prophecy about a pure red heifer.

This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke: Numbers 19:2

Perhaps such a heifer exists that doesnt even have a single black hair.
Perhaps the red heifer is a symbol.

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goats - Sheep

 

[joelr]

I realise there is a difference in belief since the Reformation.
Of course, if one is trying their best to live a righteous life, there is good reason to be optimistic.

If a person believes there is life after death, then that is what they believe.
It might be that they wish there was not. Sometimes the idea of eternal oblivion is quite appealing .. I just can't believe it is true.

Unfortunately all of the evidence points to oblivion. But it's one thing being discussed here, evidence. Now the people attempting to defend the idea that science in the Quran proves it's divine have gone silent so that's pretty clearly not evidence. The argument seems to be the same on both sides. Christians claim Jesus was a divine being and appeared to Paul to confirm the story is true. The Quran claims a divine being came to Muhammad with some updates. Both claims resulted in a large amount of scripture, definitely stories that people have written and no real evidence.
Reading through the Quran I have to say I've never read scripture like this. It's very angry at non-believers (doom) but clearly curses and condemns Christians and Jews. Repentance seems to recommend even fighting them. Very disturbing?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Unfortunately all of the evidence points to oblivion..

I don't see why you should say "unfortunately" ..
It would be very comforting to the billions of people who are suffering right now.

I understand what you mean about people believing in "heaven" i.e. life after death, but as suffering is clearly a very real phenomena, I have no reason to believe that it is only something that happens in this life.

G-d knows best who is an aggressor and who is a defender.
Politics is not straightforward.
However, a person who lives in a stable democracy has good reason to be wary of military dictatorships and repressed people.
On the other hand, wealthy nations should not be complacent .. evil comes in all shapes and sizes.

 

[joelr]

I don't see why you should say "unfortunately" ..
It would be very comforting to the billions of people who are suffering right now.

Because afterlifes are usually taught as places where one will feel good. The Persian revelations that Christianity adopted - war on earth against God and evil, lots of fire and monsters, God wins, all followers get resurrected into new bodies and the earth is a paradise, that has a happy ending.

I understand what you mean about people believing in "heaven" i.e. life after death, but as suffering is clearly a very real phenomena, I have no reason to believe that it is only something that happens in this life.

G-d knows best who is an aggressor and who is a defender.
Politics is not straightforward.
However, a person who lives in a stable democracy has good reason to be wary of military dictatorships and repressed people.
On the other hand, wealthy nations should not be complacent .. evil comes in all shapes and sizes.

The reason suffering happens only in life is because there is no evidence or good reason to believe in any other life. I don't know of any way to know about or understand what any God knows?
If one believes in the God from Islam then multiple interpretations can be made about aggression and defense. Some passages suggest peaceful existence with others while many others say do not befriend or speak with non-believers and even to attack Christians and Jews? I see people on Quora saying Jews are cursed for disobeying God as well as other terrible things. They quote from 9, Repentance. This is not a good doctrine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because afterlifes are usually taught as places where one will feel good..

Yes .. if we do the right thing.

War is hateful. It increases the suffering that people have to endure.
The problem is, if G-d teaches us [in scripture etc.] to never engage in war, those that wish evil against us will have no difficulty in their plight.

..so it becomes a debate about why G-d has allowed us to do whatever we like .. good or bad.

The correct understanding of "afterlife" is that if we live according to G-d's guidance, evil can be minimised .. in this life, and subsequently the next.
Neither communism or capitalism have ideologies that can achieve this. They both lead to greed, corruption and envy.

When the majority of wealth gets into the hands of a few, then enmity increases.
Mankind is weak .. we love wealth and power to our downfall.

 

[Sheldon]

The symbols represent something specific.

That is just an unevidenced subjective claim, you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence to support this, but even were it true, you have failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence that something unequivocally specific has been successfully predicted. I've also explained that even were this to happen, all we would have is an inexplicable occurrence, so assuming divine agency from not knowing something, would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Ive had a look into the texts and this sort of thing is all through it. I have put a table together that shows word positions.

That's just an unevidenced and subjective claim, it is not objective evidence. You said you had objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Why should a woman have less say than a man, just because they are married?

Also to be clear, do you think it is ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife when she does not consent?

I would say it is not of course.

A woman does not have less say than a man because they are married.
That was my point and what my explanation was about.
I do agree with you.

Well you asserted (below) that a woman must obey her husband, so a wife would demonstrably have less say than a husband, if as you claimed he must, a husband had the final say.

Yes it is said the wife must obey the husband

You also did not answer my question, is it ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife if she does not consent, or against her will?

Please no symbolism, I'd appreciate an honest and definitive answer.

 

[KWED]

I have never said that it's ok for a man to maltreat his wife.

You said that a man does not need consent from his wife to have sex with her. Sex without consent is rape.

What I have said, is that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not acceptable in an Islamic society.

You keep repeating this lie, despite being repeatedly corrected.
Sex outside marriage is acceptable is Islam - as long as the female is owned as a slave or captive.
So, given that you know it is a lie, why do you keep repeating it?

 

[KWED]

Can you show me that you understand me?

Look, no one understands you because you make no sense.

 

[KWED]

Yes, some can be like that, but a simple search on Google or Youtube can show you many scientists believe in God as the result of their research

Calling cowpoop on that one.
Links please.

 

[stevecanuck]

You said that a man does not need consent from his wife to have sex with her.

And he would be right according to verse 2:223 - "Yusuf Ali: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will".

With verses like that (and 4:34) it amazes me that educated and otherwise intelligent women convert to Islam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you looking for hatred you find hatred, if you looking for enlightenment from within, you will find enlightenment from within.

That's about it..
It depends on our spiritual condition when we read something, as to what we understand.

We are all different and live in different situations.
G-d knows best why some people believe in G-d, and some don't.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Well you asserted (below) that a woman must obey her husband, so a wife would demonstrably have less say than a husband, if as you claimed he must, a husband had the final say.

I asserted?
So why do you leave out the explanation of who the husband is in the story.

Look again:

Yes it is said the wife must obey the husband:


Understand who the husband is:
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. Isaiah 54:5


Understand not everything is said in a nice way.
To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. Proverbs 1:6

Did you just fixate on one sentence and disregard the rest?

You also did not answer my question, is it ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife if she does not consent, or against her will?

Please no symbolism, I'd appreciate an honest and definitive answer.

I did answer,
You asked:

Also to be clear, do you think it is ever morally acceptable for a husband to have sex with his wife when she does not consent?

I would say it is not of course.

And I said:

A woman does not have less say than a man because they are married.
That was my point and what my explanation was about.
I do agree with you.

So you want honesty. I will give you honesty.

I meant what I said. I do agree with you.
But thats my personal subjective belief. As I am considerate of others.

Let me tell you something.
A couple of weeks ago I saw a male duck attacking and raping a female duck. It definitely wasnt consented.

And I've bred dogs/animals and although I know breeding can be done successfully on the first heat I prefer to wait until the female is fully developed. That doesnt happen with animals in the wild.

Now you tell me.
Do you think it is somehow unnatural for a thirty year old man to chase a twelve year old girl through the forest and have unconsented sex with her if he can catch her?

Be honest.

 

[KWED]

"f you looking for hatred you find hatred"
That's about it..
It depends on our spiritual condition when we read something, as to what we understand.

If there is hatred to be found in Islam, then it contains hatred. You cannot find what is not there.
However, you can ignore it and pretend it isn't there.

 

[KWED]

I asserted?
So why do you leave out the explanation of who the husband is in the story.

Look again:




Did you just fixate on one sentence and disregard the rest?




I did answer,
You asked:

If you meant that a woman should obey god, why did you say that she should obey her husband, given that the discussion was about women obeying husbands, not god?

A couple of weeks ago I saw a male duck attacking and raping a female duck. It definitely wasnt consented.

And I've bred dogs/animals and although I know breeding can be done successfully on the first heat I prefer to wait until the female is fully developed. That doesnt happen with animals in the wild.

Now you tell me.
Do you think it is somehow unnatural for a thirty year old man to chase a twelve year old girl through the forest and have unconsented sex with her if he can catch her?

So you are equating "it happens in the wild" with "morally acceptable"?
Yikes!

 

[RAYYAN]

Calling cowpoop on that one.
Links please.

cowpoop.....
Scientists Who Converted To Islam

 

[KWED]

cowpoop.....
Scientists Who Converted To Islam

Oh dear.
None of those appear to have converted to Islam. Most seem to come from the list of scientists who were conned into making an appearance at press conferences where they where encouraged to make statements in support of the Quran containing scientific information. Many of then have since publicly distanced themselves from those events.

The street dawah videos are just some dishonest charlatan ambushing clearly vulnerable people on the street.

Also, you said ... "many scientists believe in God as the result of their research". Those examples were mostly just people agreeing with disingenuous statements presented to them.
So, still calling taurine faeces.