ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[Link]

Sorry, I don't mean the right to wear the Islamic dress code. I mean that it should be implemented as in society should be taught to wear that dress code and the law enforces it if and only if majority perceive the wisdom of it.

I'm arguing this is true regardless if Quran and Islam is true or not.

 

[Link]

Do you want thread in the one on one debate section about this?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sorry, I don't mean the right to wear the Islamic dress code. I mean that it should be implemented as in society should be taught to wear that dress code and the law enforces it if and only if majority perceive the wisdom of it.

I'm arguing this is true regardless if Quran and Islam is true or not.

They say in Iran, women are like chocolate and men are like Flys. So, they need to cover a woman just as they need to protect a chocolate from Flys.
It is a fallacious argument. Wrong comparisons. Men and Women have Will, and mind. They are like Flys and chocolate.
Even if a woman have a complete Hijaab outside, she can go with a man inside a home and take it all off. So, enforcing Hijab or dress code does not solve any problem. We all need spiritual education to have control over Lust, and temptation.

 

[Link]

They say in Iran, women are like chocolate and men are like Flys. So, they need to cover a woman just as they need to protect a chocolate from Flys.
It is a fallacious argument. Wrong comparisons. Men and Women have Will, and mind. They are like Flys and chocolate.
Even if a woman have a complete Hijaab outside, she can go with a man inside a home and take it all off. So, enforcing Hijab or dress code does not solve any problem. We all need spiritual education to have control over Lust, and temptation.

This is over-simplification. I can have a debate with you one on one if you like otherwise the door is open for @Azrael Antilla

 

[stevecanuck]

There is no point in me arguing with you.
If you consider that Islam promotes slavery, that's your opinion.
I would agree that it is not "forbidden".

The Qur'an promotes slavery, if not explicitly, by simply not abolishing it and speaking of it as being an everyday occurrence. My favorite is 2:221. It says, "And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist".

Not only does this normalize slavery, but check out the highlighted bit. It even allows for keeping Muslim slaves.

 

[KWED]

Yes it relates to 1%

Are you really claiming it refers only to the 1% that suffers from amenorrhea and not to the other 99% that "not yet menstruated" logically refers to?

and if God wanted to include children, he would've mentioned "children",

He did. How else would you describe a girl "too young to have started menstruation"?

not the condition.

He doesn't mention primary amenorrhea. He only says "those not yet menstruating". That refers to both the very few suffering from primary amenorrhea, and those too young to menstruate.

Other verses show age of marriage

Which verses state the age of marriage?

so this how to interpret Quran, let it interpret itself.

Ironically, this is ISIS' approach. They say "the Quran says what it says" and :Muhammed said what he said". They don't try to invent explanations that make Islam seem more compatible with modern society. Their maxim is "Islam will not change to suit the world. The world must change to suit Islam".

 

[stevecanuck]

I don't feel obliged to defend anything that I don't agree with.

I'm afraid you're going to have to pick a lane as KWED is suggesting. You've back yourself into a corner on this one. Let's examine it:

- The Qur'an does not forbid slavery. It is spoken of as being a normal part of society.
- You disapprove of slavery (good to hear).
- Therefore, you are critical of a practice employed by Mohamed and condoned by your god.

Are you sure you want to defend that position on Judgement Day?

 

[stevecanuck]

Either you have never read the Quran, or you are lying. Either way, not a good look for an apologist of Islam.

The only way to make Islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about what it teaches.

 

[KWED]

Does it?

Iddah is the waiting period before a husband can have sex with a wife who is not a virgin in order to guarantee paternity.

"and for those who have not menstruated the period is three month. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth."

I'm sure you are aware that women don't menstruate when they're pregnant, and the verse that you quoted previously refers to that.

And if you had read your Quran you would know that those who have not yet started menstruation is a different group to those who are pregnant, as highlighted above.

Just in case you still aren't convinced, here are the tasfir of some classical and modern scholars...
"(along with those who have it not) because of young age" - Ibn Abbas
"those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age" - al Jalalayn
"The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation" - Ibn Kathir
"They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age" - All Maududi

Of course, you can argue that they are all wrong and you are right, but in matters of understanding the Quran I defer to the tafsir of renowned Muslim scholars rather than some random apologist on the Internet who doesn't even seem to have read the Quran properly. With all due respect.

 

[KWED]

Because Quran shows those who want to be followed instead of Ahlulbayt (a) are Satanically possessed by sorcery. I've been telling you this for a long time. Anyone who attributes God things out of ignorance is not to be followed but this who are termed "we followed our great ones and leaders so they lead us astray" as opposed to the leaders that God makes, "And we made them leaders guiding by our command" like Ahlulbayt of Ibrahim (a) were.

Quran says "O you who believe do not say reverentially follow us..." we are allowed to say "look at us (for what we have to convey of truth from God's rope)", but never "follow us with reverence".

The exalted leadership belongs to the Ahlulbayts (a) chosen by God and Mohammad's (s) family is the last one of these.

Yes, we know. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is under dark magic. Even Muhammad.

 

[KWED]

The Observer Effect is not about results but about the interaction of the observer and that which is observed in experiments.

The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics...This article presents a number of examples of observer effects in purely classical processes. It also introduces a framework for understanding and analyzing many of such effects for classical systems. Ignoring observer effects can cause errors in experiments at a macroscopic level where no quantum effects would be discernible. Consequently, there are practical reasons for being careful to address observer effects.

Still don't see how it is relevant.

 

[KWED]

There is a limit. It is illegal for people to walk around naked, in a civilised society.
Some people don't want to display their bodies to others, while some do.
It is not just about women, although many have a nature that cause them to want to show the world how beautiful they are.
That is not always to the benefit of the individual or society in general.

I think it is a case of where you draw the line.
Extreme interpretions are not beneficial in the long run.

So you agree that Muslim women should all be able to wear what they want. Shorts and a crop top when at the gym. A bikini or even topless on the beach. A low-cut evening gown at a posh do.
You consider all that reasonable and acceptable.

 

[KWED]

By extension the founders of the US are equally culpable because they owned slaves.

Yes. Their slave owning should be condemned in absolute terms, but understood in relative terms. Same with all historical behaviour. We can understand why Muhammad kept and traded slaves, but we can still condemn the practice in principle.
The difference between the founding fathers and the Quran is that the words and deeds of the FF are not considered to be immutable and infallible.

And the Bible? The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

Yep. The Bible contains just as much abhorrent barbarism as the Quran

The Quran? 2:177

The Quran prescribes freeing slaves as a good deed. That is because slaves were a valuable commodity and like giving money, sacrificing animals, fasting, etc, it was a sacrifice, giving up something valuable for no return except the promise of paradise.
Instructions to give away money does not mean god wants to abolish money.
The Quran and sunnah permit slavery and don't even suggest that it is wrong and should be abolished.

 

[KWED]

What is the word used there to address these little girls who have not started menstruating? Could you please advise? Is it Fathaaya, Thifel, Nisaa, Jaariah, Ukhth, which one?

None. A pronoun is used. Haven't you read it?

Come on, you need to do better than this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Qur'an promotes slavery, if not explicitly, by simply not abolishing it..

No, not imo.

"And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist".

It's called communication. It is reminding us how important faith is when it comes to marriage.
It doesn't mean that slavery is a good thing.
Naturally, most people would look down on slaves. G-d is reminding us that a person's status is not as important as their faith.

 

[KWED]

It goes beyond that mate. If you actually take time to study the Quran, it goes beyond your request. It tells people to spend money to free slaves. You dont SPEND MONEY to free your own slaves if you have any. You spend money to free other slaves. Other peoples slaves.

Also, if you have some humility to actually study the language of the Quran, the word Rikaab/Rakaba stems from those who are under suppression, watched, trapped. So its blanket for all kinds of them.

So you admit that there are no passages in the Quran or sunnah that imply that slavery is wrong and should be abolished, while there are passages permitting and regulating the keeping, taking, trading of slaves.

Strange that you think that shows slavery to be bad and a desire for abolition.

What you do show is that slaves were considered a valuable commodity so freeing them for no return was like giving money to the poor, fasting, sacrificing animals, etc. It is showing willingness to give up something as a sign of piety.

 

[KWED]

The thing is this. You are right. Men should not hold some monopoly in stipulating dress code to women.

BUT, the Qur'an clearly states "yadhribna bikumurihinna alaa juyoobihinna", so you have to cover your chest. It also says to dress modestly and which "AT LEAST MEANS DRESS".

You are directly told not to walk around naked.

Why is a woman's awrah the whole body apart from the hands and face, but a man's is only from the knees to the navel?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course, you can argue that they are all wrong and you are right, but in matters of understanding the Quran I defer to the tafsir of renowned Muslim scholars rather than some random apologist on the Internet..

I can indeed argue that they are wrong.
You can cherry-pick your scholars.
I agree with you that the "scholars" you pick are well known, but that doesn't mean you are right, about it being about immature girls.

It doesn't make sense. What father would want their daughters to be sexually active before puberty? It's ludicrous.

Women often miss periods, for various reasons.
I have 6 daughters.

 

[KWED]

Sorry sorry. I mean to say "should not".

But still, that does not mean nudity is a okay. I mean as I said not according to the Quran.

Cheers.

What a strange and false dichotomy.

 

[KWED]

There isn't a single passage that could be attributed to a supernatural controlling entity. As they don't exist! Obviously it was written by 7th century Arabs.

But even if such a being did exist, there is nothing about the Quran that suggests it might have been authored by one.