The qur'an

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks Mr Spinkles. By the way i'm really not trying or hoping that you'd see the Quran as perfect wisdom, i'm merely trying to answer some of the points you've made, since at least as far as i noticed you were the first one to make an assessment based on valid arguments. For example its already out of the way that you don't find its wording that special at all, and that you think this book might have been very good for the time it was in, but that you don't find it a great reference to be followed today.

Thanks to you too Badran, as always it's great talking with you and Sahar and others. I totally understand you are not hoping to persuade me that the Qur'an is perfect wisdom, I'm not hoping to persuade you either, but I do appreciate the valid points you have made and your objective approach, and the patience you've shown in the face of criticism.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

So the brother gets a lot of money which actually belongs to his sister, and he is expected to spend the money on her. Why not eliminate the middle-man and give directly to the sister?

This is a bit off topic but I say do away with inheritances all together. Or at least increase the inheritance tax on the very rich.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, let me see............

Basically this how you establish whether your opponent knows anything about the TOE.

But, hey.....

this far interesting,

ammm, come on the guy was just asking you, and you call it a lie.


I guess my guess was correct. [/qutoe] No, it was not. My reaction was as I said.

So are you ready to apologize for spreading disinformation about the Qura'n ?.

What disinformation?

I doubt that you really understand what you read, go back and show me how my comment says that the translation of Qur'an were not done by experts.

Sure. We were talking about the problem of reading it in translation, and you said:

It is not the case that is really hard to translate Qur'an correctly, but it is when someone is not aware of the Islamic studies and not even an expert on it, comes with all the ignorance and confidence to interpret the Qura'n.

What I got from that is that the problems with the translations is that they are not done by experts. If not, why bring it up, as it would not be a problm.

 

[Badran]

But to leave twice as much wealth to female children as male children, and to marry one of those "whom your right hands possess" .... that is too "traditional" isn't it?

The part of slaves of course, because like i said we do recognize the factors surrounding each rule. We understand the context, the time and the aim this part was addressed to. Today however slavery is unacceptable. We're supposed to progress, not go back in time.

The part about inheritance, let me try and put it in different words. Your concerns about certain situations, is justified. And thats why this rule has many ways around it. As it is not supposed to be applied blindly no matter what. Nothing is. Like i said for example if a daughter (who lives alone or is married) needs more than a son who is rich, the parents can give her whatever they want, even all the money when they are alive to compensate for the difference in need. In general though, usually the man has more responsibilities, and most people aren't rich, so its only fair to give him more as this bigger sum is not just for one. While in her case, the entire sum is hers.

And like i said, if a wife and husband can both work and support their family, its okay. The woman will help the man then. I see this as protection from the abuse of women that is done by men. This is clarification that a man can not and should not expect that his wife share her money with him. And to compensate for that, he gave him a bigger share in inheritance, as another possible income. Its like a security measure for any woman who decides to stay home when she has children.

Thanks to you too Badran, as always it's great talking with you and Sahar and others. I totally understand you are not hoping to persuade me that the Qur'an is perfect wisdom, I'm not hoping to persuade you either, but I do appreciate the valid points you have made and your objective approach, and the patience you've shown in the face of criticism.

Its a pleasure talking to you as well.

 

[Autodidact]

So, what you are saying is, believing the Qur'an is a guide will make your country poor, violent, oppressed, and miserable?

Yes, that's what we observe.

That's an interesting conclusion. Of course, that's throwing all other possible causes out the window, which in my personal opinion hold a lot more weight.

It is a fact that Muslim majority countries tend overwhelmingly to be among the most ignorant, impoverished, violent, oppressed and miserable on earth. I don't think it's coincidence. I think it's the result of a basically backward looking culture, a primitive, tribal, approach to morality and governance.

Going by what Caladan said: if this book is so bad that it can make societies terrible places to live in, why was there an Islamic Golden Age? I suppose they ignored the Qur'an for six centuries, if your suggestion has any merit.

It may have been a golden age compared to the primitive conditions Europe was experiencing at the time. For us, today, it would be a huge step backward.

Islam was progress forward from 6th century Arab nomadic raiding tribes. It's a step backward from modern, secular, enlightenment society.

Aberrant? No, I wouldn't say, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Exactly. Within a Muslim majority country, killing someone for merely advocating freedom of speech is not crazy; it's normal, even admirable.

Now that's an aberrant lunatic. But the comparison doesn't fly.

Apparently you thought it did when a Muslim made it here in this thread. When I point out the differences, suddenly it doesn't?

Humans tend to be crazy, in this crazy raven's opinion. I don't think you can just label it Islam, though.

Islam is just one variety of human insanity.

 

[Autodidact]

I can assure you Islam does not harm millions of people, Auto. It really just does not.[/qutoe] I disagree vehemently. Islam oppresses, murders, impoverishes. Muslims slaughter each other by the hundreds. Muslims in Sharia lands have no freedom, no autonomy, no human rights.

For the average person of faith, believing in God is personal comfort, feeling a connection to a Creator, a social paradigm, a bit of culture. I personally look to my actions and consider God's position in my life. I live in relative saftey to practice my faith in my home and in group worship, I feel just fine and right with the world.

Because you don't live under Sharia.

I can not begin to imagine how someone would feel where things are different.
People want to be right. They tend to be aggressively persistent in pursuing righteousness. They may look to their scriptures to justify actions they feel compelled toward. But an objective look at the Quran does not support this. Yes, intelligent people without any faith or God directed guidance are perfectly capable of showing morality and restraint. But most people in the world aren't necessarily intelligent and willing. The guidance may help them learn and achieve restraint.

From the qur'an? Well, it won't encourage them to restrain themselves from enslaving others, oppressing women, and apparently, for millions of modern Muslims, murdering innocent people, including infants, many of them Muslim.

I converted to Islam. I chose this way of life for the mirroring of my own organic ideas of God. I live in the safety of a politcly stable country with a strong constitution garunteeing my freedom to be Muslim.

Aren't you lucky? How would you like to be a Christian in Pakistan? How about an atheist and former Muslim in Saudi Arabia? You live in a country that recognizes freedom of religion, precisely because it is not a Muslim country.

I have a very high tolerance level. But I don't know what I would do had I been raised outside of this paradigm.
People will use whatever they can to justify their position,right? Since many people have some faith identification and consider God absolute that is the logical place to seek your defense. You can't readily find a suitable defense when applying all the qualifiers and principals, heck just cut n paste. It is not Islam that creates this issue and it is not a condition exclusive to Muslims.

It's not exclusive to Muslims, but is is prevelant among Muslims.

Tell me, Auto, are you ever concerned that some ignorrant individual will place any mistakes your children make on your sexual identity. it happens. I had a dude friend and his Mom ( lesbian, and a terrific person too) was blamed by her own family for her sons criminal issues

Of course, in a Sharia country, it wouldn't have been an issue, because she would have been executed

. He was primarily raised by his Dad and the other children were exemplery. No one considered his social/financial status, that he was a child of divorce. They hated her gayness and so THAT MUST be the reason for her child's suffering. That's crap and blaming the Islam.... that's crap too.:yes::sorry1:.

The two are not comparable. In reality, lesbians on average do a better job of raising children than heterosexual women. Muslims on average are more ignorant, more poor, more violent, more backward and more oppressed than non-Muslims, because they rely on an incoherent, barbaric, medieval collection of primitive confusion as the sole guide to life.

I don't expect you to read the Quran. But could you just consider that having not done so and not having faith, that perhaps it is better than what propagandists say it is, even if you won't agree it is as noble as what Muslims say it is.

My main impressions come from my own experience of trying to make sense of it. I couldn't. What I could understand seems authoritarian, patriarchal, arbitrary, intolerant and violent.

 

[Autodidact]

what do you even know about Qur'an? , what do you even know about Muslims?

what do know about Islam ?

I'm really surprised how ignorance makes one able to draw absurd conclusion without knowing anything. Good for you.

I'm not surprised at how you make assumptions about other people and substitute ad hominem fallacies for actually showing that the poster is wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

People who kill in the name of Islam: They do the opposite of what you've stated. The ignore the qualifiers, conditions and all other available recourse prescribed.

Now let me prepare my flame retardent hijab... ok.. here goes... I'm one of the 1.5 billion Muslims. I am no lunatic and have no desrie to kill anyone, not do I feel even slightly compelled by my faith to do so. Am I unfortunate. Should I be confined to an asylum should one be manifest to contain us all?:sarcastic

Well, the qur'an instructs you not to be friends with non-Muslims. Do you follow that instruction? The qur'an instructs you to fight against infidels; do you do so?

 

[Autodidact]

This part is really hard, but i'll try my best. To make it as simple as possible, in the end we will come down to one question which has to do with the point of all this, which we don't and can't know. For example Allah allows natural disaster to happen, or makes it happen, although it would best at least from our point of view if it doesn't happen. Yet that doesn't mean its a bad thing, when one considers the concept of the afterlife.

In other words, yes Allah already knows that for example not all Muslims will follow this certain rule or will not do as instructed in a certain case (which are many), yet he allows us. If you consider the attributes which we believe Allah has, you'd agree that of course it was easy for him to make us obedient in all cases, yet he hasn't, because thats not the point. He gave us and others before us the rules, and it was and is up to people whether or not to follow them.

I hope i didn't misunderstand your point, if i did please say so.

But a rule he didn't give us: Don't take slaves.

 

[Autodidact]

But the verse I quoted about giving to sons and daughters does not consider the psychological characteristics of each party, or even the financial situation or need of each party; the only consideration was the gender of each party. In other words, it ignored everything relevant and considered only one thing, which was irrelevant.

Yup. Pretty dumb rule.

But it is not irrelevant. It is of the greater relevance when all things are considered. In our modern society we have fought to secure what we thought was equality for women, the right to work and own property being at the forefront of this cause

That is, secular society has. Muslim society is still in the dark ages of female oppression.

( Islam already established this as the rule). But at the expense of our children and families. There are wonderful families that can make it work with non-traditional roles, like Dad at home or teenagers raising younger sibs while Mommy works. But now we (women) have been stripped of the right and option to raise our children.

Stripped of the right? What are you talking about? Women don't have the right to raise their children? Why? Is it illegal?

The average family can not afford to have a stay at home Mother.

The majority of Fathers will still work or may be just leave. Moms in many homes have no choice BUT to work. By making it the standard that men must provide for the females in their lives, women retain the ability to raise their own children in the context of the full time job that it is.
This and riba(interest) are to me some of the beast examples of how Allah gave us reason and our ignoring it has come full circle. It is now obvious to me had we followed just these two basic principals our world would be far better than it is.

So your solution is to deprive women of equal rights?

Here's a question for you. On average, where do you think women are happier, secular, Western nations and Japan, or Muslim nations?

 

[Autodidact]

Why did you get that out of her post? Do you view a mother or a father who dedicate their lives for their children as live stock? Thats how you feel about any mother who when has children, and her husband's job is enough for them to live on, decides to stay home and dedicate herself to them at least until the grow past a certain age limit?

If a man or woman decides this is best for their family, and want they as a family decide to do, it's great. If on the other hand a woman doesn't have equal rights to a job, to education, to leave her home when she decides to, to make decisions about her self and her family, then it's not good for her or her family.

Its not even as if she was saying that women should stay at home, merely that Islam has secured her in the case she makes that choice when & if she and her husband have children. If between the woman and her husband they can provide sufficient care for their children while both working, then there is nothing wrong with it.

And either way, if she happens to live in a Sharia country, she will live as a virtual prisoner.

 

[Autodidact]

and why wouldn't be that because you didn't accept Islam, you didn't really understand it correctly ?

Or, alternatively, he understood it all too well.

 

[Autodidact]

It was neither desperate nor childish. I am neither desperate nor childish. But I do have an understanding of someone in your postion. I am not saying your disbelief would not have come from your rationality had you a different upbringing, but I can imagine the Islamic perspective you have was influenced by your parents and their culture.
You said I couldn't know Islam and still want to be Muslim but i think your understanding could just be very different coming from your parental heritage. I also have perhaps a differnt understanding because I have never been one to accept what I am told without my own investigation, so I am not clouded by what this person and that person tells me Islam is. I dunno, I just wish you weren't so hostile toward it. And maybe some day you may come to a more neutral ground, seeing you were once very religious and now you are very critical.

Really? What religion were your parents?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

"...an obscure, incoherent, bizarre medieval text, a curious amalgam of Talmudic Judaism, apocryphal Christianity, and pagan superstitions that is full of barbarisms."

Ibn Warraq

Thoughts?

I don't necessarily agree. Any text of any religion can be full of barbarisms if the understanding of it never evolve and grow. The Quran is much nicer then say the Bible in many ways. I do agree that it is largely based on the Apocrypha of Judaism and Christianity, but who's to say some of those books didn't have some truth to them?

 

[Sahar]

So the brother gets a lot of money which actually belongs to his sister, and he is expected to spend the money on her. Why not eliminate the middle-man and give directly to the sister? This would make sense especially if she is married with her own family.

It sounds like you agree that an equal share of the family wealth rightfully belongs to women, but males have the terrible burden and responsibility of controlling the wealth and distributing it. This sounds like a great way to trick women into being subservient to men. It's like saying the King has a burden and responsibility for dividing the country's wealth equally, and the peasants are actually treated like Kings. If that actually works in practice, great, but it's too bad for the unlucky peasants who get stuck with a selfish or incompetent King. If a husband wants to control everything and a wife wants to be treated like a docile princess, great.

No, the male has the terrible responsibility of gaining money to satisfy his family economically. It's indeed a terrible responsibility.

But the male is not the king , he serves the female princesses, ok kidding. The male is not the king because if he was incompetent or selfish there is a court and legal system that can force him to fulfill his financial responsibility. Secondly, the husband doesn't control everything, because of the reason I just said and because he doesn't control his wife's money. The wife can make her own money if she wants. Thirdly, the wife is not forced to get stuck with a selfish and incompetent husband...there is always an option called divorce.

Statements and words like "subservient to men" and "docile" are only empty repetition of hardcore feminists' propaganda that view men as their enemy, competitors or better their ideal whom they strive to be like. From another perspective, we could say man is the "subservient" to the woman because he has to work to comfort her. Most people subconsciously repeat what they used to hear without examining it. But the truth is it's not about subservience or who has the control. It's about completing and helping each other. My understanding of the Muslim woman is that she is not docile at all. She is strong and self confident. she is ready to speak the truth when she witnesses wrong or injustice. She is ready to correct her husband, brother or any other male is her life without any hesitation. She respects her uniqueness and emphasizes it. She realizes that men are not her ideal or standard, she is not in a race to prove that she is better than them but her only standard is her God and by that she is really free and independent from all the creatures. This is my understanding of the Muslim woman. And this doesn't mean that she can't be spoiled at the same time. :flirt:

I know a friend who has a good inheritance wealth from her father. She and her husband are in a need for a car and she can buy a good car by her money. But her husband doesn't want to take her money and consume it and asked her to wait a little so that he can buy that car, although this will overburden him. His wife has her independent wealth but he works hard day and night to satisfy his wife and provide a decent life for her and their future kids, he just doesn't burden her. This is a real man. On the other hand, there is another "man" who doesn't exert any effort in abstaining from taking his wife's money, even with his wife's disapproval. He disobeyed God's Shari'a in this case. It's the decision of the wife solely to share. But in case of the husband he must support his family economically, he doesn't have an option.

(By the way, ladies, if you are burdened with too much wealth I would be happy to control it for you and give you a fair monthly allowance. )

:tsk:

All I'm saying is, I am not convinced this 1400 year-old custom is the one, the only, the ideal way for every individual and every culture. What is wrong with fair and equitable alternatives in which all parties are happy?

But who is not happy?! Maybe it's you who are not happy. Maybe there are some Muslims with weak faith who are not happy whether males or females. Listen, the issue of inheritance is the reason of many fights and problems between the one family and the relatives. The Islamic Shari'a made it clear from the start so that everyone can know his rights and to prevent any place for grudge and hatred, etc. And in our case, according to each one's burden is a reasonable divide. (I think we will have to agree to disagree but anyway every one try to explain his point of view as possible as he can.)

My wife and I make financial decisions together, as a team, and the money we bring home is not mine to share with her, it's ours to share with each other.

Again, Spinkles, it's not about sharing. You don't have an option in this, this is something you must do according to Islam and if you didn't then wait for Allah's wrath or the worldly court's verdict. She and the kids have already their share if you liked it or not.

This works great for us. It would be ludicrous to do otherwise -- she has a degree in economics and she works as a personal banker! This does not mean she never gets treated like a Queen, or that I never get treated like a King.

Hehe...I don't see how this scenario would be different from that of a committed Muslim family, of course you are a team and you complete each other. That's why there are different roles that form a cooperating team. The team can't consist of goalkeepers only, for example, but of people with different complementing roles. Secondly, you confused between your responsibility to provide a decent life for your family and the wife's choice to have a degree and work. Whether she worked and made money, have an inheritance wealth, or not, you still have to financially support your family, of course "according to Islam".

Are you saying that it is always fair for parents to leave twice as much to male children? You cannot imagine a situation where this would be unfair?

It's not the parents who leave twice or not, it's the automatic divide of their wealth after their death "according to Shari'a". Unfair for whom? In any case, the female shall be satisfied financially.

 

[Sahar]

I am afraid that talking about rights, obligations and duties give an impression that the Muslim couple treat each other in a way of order and submission or you must and you must not. The Muslim family should be based on love, respect, mercy and understanding...this is even what the Qur'an says. They think and take decisions together...but while everyone knows what pleases Allah and what doesn't and based on this they treat each other in their agreements and disagreements and even if it will end up with divorce.

 

[Autodidact]

I am afraid that talking about rights, obligations and duties give an impression that the Muslim couple treat each other in a way of order and submission or you must and you must not. The Muslim family should be based on love, respect, mercy and understanding...this is even what the Qur'an says. They think and take decisions together...but while everyone knows what pleases Allah and what doesn't and based on this they treat each other in their agreements and disagreements and even if it will end up with divorce.

For the husband, that is, who has the right to divorce the wife whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants. The wife, on the other hand, must ask the husband for a divorce. If he refuses, she must...well, it's not clear, because the glorious qur'an is not clear. She may, or may not, be allowed to ask a Sharia court to grant her a kuhl divorce in which she refunds the dowry.

Khul' divorce has been difficult to obtain for some women as there must be a fear of desertion, abuse or sin in order for it to be granted

[wiki]

In this and everything else men have more rights than women in Islam.

 

[Sahar]

The divorce initiated by the wife is known as Khul' (if the husband is not at fault) and requires that the wife return her dowry to end the marriage because she is the 'contract-breaker'. In the instance of Talaaq, where the husband is the 'contract-breaker', he must pay the dowry in full in cases where all or part of it was deferred, or allow the wife to keep all of it if she has already been given it in full.
In the case that the husband is at fault and the woman is interested in divorce, she can petition a judge for divorce, with cause. She would be required to offer proof that her husband had not fulfilled his marital responsibilities. If the woman had specified certain conditions that are Islamically accepted in her marriage contract, which were not met by the husband, she could obtain a conditional divorce.
Islamweb

 

[Hyperborean]

In this and everything else men have more rights than women in Islam.

And in Marxist America, women now have more rights than men thanks to feminism and political correctness.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

And in Marxist America, women now have more rights than men thanks to feminism and political correctness.

What a sniveling, dishonest, and hateful response. Are you sure "cultural conservative" isn't just code for "bigoted idiot?" You are deliberately decieving people, a technique which no doubt is a result of your religious training. I suppose you think making 70 cents for every 1 dollar a man makes is just "too much" and that women can be beaten and treated like cattle.

Pardon my French but if you don't like it here in America get the hell out and back to whatever 3rd world stinkhole you came from.