What has islam contributed to the world?

[Starsoul]

Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please. (Quran, 2:223)

and what about these hadith's...

Allah’s Messenger said, “When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.” (Hadith - Tirmidhi 3257) Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [for sexual intercourse] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Hadith - Bukhari 4.460)

Instead of asking someone knowledgeable about hadiths, about what they mean, like un-educated people, one shouldn't form absolute opinions as you repeatedly show as if you're out to strike some sense into some blind people who could not read the same thing and think of it in terms it is supposed to be understood, which is completely opposite of what you have attempted to propose.

Allah’s Apostle said, “By him in whose hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her untill he (her husband) is pleased with her.” (Hadith - Sahih, 2.3367)

are you really going to try to defend this hatred?

It is ok to accept oneself as ignorant about something if one does not Know a thing about it. Your posts are the epitome of ignorance, and to quote hadiths without their understanding and relative context is something only done by people who want to deliberately spread misinformation about the religion and attempt to pose as experts of its text and give out their own misinterpretations as the valid ones. Sad indeed.

I would repeat the request here to not take a quote out of somewhere and present it as the ONLY quote available on the subject, as if the whole islamic literature carried only this quote for this situation.

This hadith was specifically quoted for a specific situtation, in islam, hadiths aren't random quotes uttered out by somebody in loneliness or for just for a literary niche. They are parts of islamic jurisdiction implemented by the Prophet and it is rather foolish to leave the whole event out and quote something which can have multiple opposing meanings.

These quotes, infact all quotes, relate to EVENTS and to miss those events out of the picture is the gravest errors of all which some un-educated self proclaimed moderates always imply, quite ignorantly. For instance if i did not understand x+y=z instead of throwing up my arms in dismay, a seeker truly would intend to find out why x+y=z, and that my friend is a lengthy process if you've ever studies algebra and geometry, yet the equation looks rather simple.

And since that intent is missing from people who look to the islamic text for only fuelling out dumb controversies, and to sound well read among their peers by offering critique over something the words of which they neither understand or have any sense of, to reply to them is just a huge waste of time.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

It is ok to accept oneself as ignorant about something if one does not Know a thing about it. Your posts are the epitome of ignorance, and to quote hadiths without their understanding and relative context is something only done by people who want to deliberately spread misinformation about the religion and attempt to pose as experts of its text and give out their own misinterpretations as the valid ones. Sad indeed.

You see, I have tried to discuss this with Bismillah, regarding specific quotes, alluding to my supposed ignorance for him to explain them, and all I get is that I should debate theology with him. I'm not real sure how to respond to that.

I would repeat the request here to not take a quote out of somewhere and present it as the ONLY quote available on the subject, as if the whole islamic literature carried only this quote for this situation.

Well, you see here is where the "Expert" should present the opposing side of said quote. There is only one way to cure ignorance.

This hadith was specifically quoted for a specific situtation, in islam, hadiths aren't random quotes uttered out by somebody in loneliness or for just for a literary niche. They are parts of islamic jurisdiction implemented by the Prophet and it is rather foolish to leave the whole event out and quote something which can have multiple opposing meanings.

Again, this is where the expert explains this islamic jurisdiction implemented by the prophet. I am, afterall, here to learn, not blindly bash peoples beliefs.

These quotes, infact all quotes, relate to EVENTS and to miss those events out of the picture is the gravest errors of all which some un-educated self proclaimed moderates always imply, quite ignorantly. For instance if i did not understand x+y=z instead of throwing up my arms in dismay, a seeker truly would intend to find out why x+y=z, and that my friend is a lengthy process if you've ever studies algebra and geometry, yet the equation looks rather simple.

So now your saying that Muslim moderates are ignorant?

And since that intent is missing from people who look to the islamic text for only fuelling out dumb controversies, and to sound well read among their peers by offering critique over something the words of which they neither understand or have any sense of, to reply to them is just a huge waste of time.

I don't see it as a huge waste of time when I ask someone why this specific quote has quite a violent undertone. Shouldn't the person being asked present why it is?

 

[LuisDantas]

As I said if you want to criticize Muslims it is different from criticizing religion as one refutes the actions of individuals and the other refutes doctrine. I cannot see how such a simple concept is the cause of so much unnecessary back and forth.

There are some among us that find the separation at least a bit confusing. To my mind, a religion is/i] the actions and ideas of its adherents. I think I have figured out why that is not the case with Islam and the Muslims. But it is stil weird to me.

Sometimes it looks like a "having your cake and eating it too" situation; Islam may well not even exist in this world to be found, yet we are expected to recognize that it has a lot of very specific attributes and lots of concessions should be given to its doctrine.

More than a little bit counter-intuitive to me.

 

[waitasec]

Instead of asking someone knowledgeable about hadiths, about what they mean, like un-educated people, one shouldn't form absolute opinions as you repeatedly show as if you're out to strike some sense into some blind people who could not read the same thing and think of it in terms it is supposed to be understood, which is completely opposite of what you have attempted to propose.



It is ok to accept oneself as ignorant about something if one does not Know a thing about it. Your posts are the epitome of ignorance, and to quote hadiths without their understanding and relative context is something only done by people who want to deliberately spread misinformation about the religion and attempt to pose as experts of its text and give out their own misinterpretations as the valid ones. Sad indeed.

I would repeat the request here to not take a quote out of somewhere and present it as the ONLY quote available on the subject, as if the whole islamic literature carried only this quote for this situation.

This hadith was specifically quoted for a specific situtation, in islam, hadiths aren't random quotes uttered out by somebody in loneliness or for just for a literary niche. They are parts of islamic jurisdiction implemented by the Prophet and it is rather foolish to leave the whole event out and quote something which can have multiple opposing meanings.

These quotes, infact all quotes, relate to EVENTS and to miss those events out of the picture is the gravest errors of all which some un-educated self proclaimed moderates always imply, quite ignorantly. For instance if i did not understand x+y=z instead of throwing up my arms in dismay, a seeker truly would intend to find out why x+y=z, and that my friend is a lengthy process if you've ever studies algebra and geometry, yet the equation looks rather simple.

And since that intent is missing from people who look to the islamic text for only fuelling out dumb controversies, and to sound well read among their peers by offering critique over something the words of which they neither understand or have any sense of, to reply to them is just a huge waste of time.

your obviously ignorant of a few things...
one compassion for the other half of humanity....

another is the use of language. for some reason theology doesn't seem to fit within the realm of rationality and logic...
if the hadith degrades women by comparing them to a field to then the hadiths compares them to fields...it's rather simple really, except for those who wish to ignore the obvious truth by attempting to conjure up any type of pathetic explanation for these demeaning passages.

i think it's rather funny how this unoriginal religion of which was
pretty much copy paste of the jewish and christian faiths...some passages are even verbatim, claims to be the last revelation of the same god...who also seems to be a god who can only speak one language...please.
it seems the arabs were a bit jealous of the notion god only revealed himself to the jews and then the christians...so it was about time god revealed himself to an illiterate prophet....whos 1st account of his life was written about 120 yrs after his death...yeah...he wasn't real smart... he didn't even pass the baton to any of his children which was the beginning of the sectarian violence his followers are in the middle of while constantly finding themselves picking up the pieces of flesh and bones of the innocent victims who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time....
pure rubbish...

you know something, whenever someone tries to control anyone it's because they're insecure... i wonder why this religion seem to be feeding off of insecurity so much...

 

[Bismillah]

That's nice....

I suppose sarcasm really is lost through the internet..

They should be more vocal, to the point where the media cannot ignore it. Where was the Muslim outcry at ground zero after 9/11? I don't remember any.

Yeah I am sure you don't

Muslim Victims of 9/11 - Muslim Victims of the 9/11 Terrorist Attack

Regardless enough innocent Muslims are killed every year in Pakistan alone, due to illegal drone strikes, to make up for civilian casualties yearly. I could care less about some type of projected victim hood if that's what you are going for.

It's not unnecessary when there is cause to criticize both, from different point of views. You cannot deny that the Koran and Hadith's present violent Sura's and passages.

I don't use such ambiguous terms as"violent" I refer to them as either just or unjust. You discussed various topics, I started with the issue of rape first, I have no idea why you could not take it upon yourself to debunk it.

I criticize Muslims for their extremism and willingness to kill innocents.

Ok you just generalised 1.4 billion people.

I criticize the scriptures because that is where these extremists are being taught from.

Yet we cannot even hold a theological debate about it without you entering into damned histrionics.

 

[Bismillah]

To my mind, a religion is/i] the actions and ideas of its adherents.

That is a completely alien viewpoint as the actions of individuals are ultimately their own actions. If you want to argue whether their actions are supported by a particular religion then you rely on scripture, if not then it seems like falling into circular logic.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a completely alien viewpoint as the actions of individuals are ultimately their own actions.

Of course. And religion is practiced by people, too.

Are you implying that religion is dictacted by God and therefore beyond one's choice? That is a difficult thought to keep, among other reasons because one can't help but wonder why God would not make his will clearer then.

If you want to argue whether their actions are supported by a particular religion then you rely on scripture, if not then it seems like falling into circular logic.

Circular logic? Only if we took as a premise that religion must justify things instead of being itself supported by moral premises.

Which I certainly don't, nor do I truly find that a genuine, acceptable premise for any religion.

Religion is not IMO something that justifies behavior. It may support behavior, but that behavior must be acceptable regardless of any religious significance. Otherwise we come dangerous close (or dive directly into) the ugly field of things that are only accepted due to religious dogma - which I find utterly despicable and worthless.

People are supposed to make their religious practice respectable, and definitely not to draw respectability from their beliefs instead.

Also, I don't know that any scripture could ever be accepted (much less needed) to justify behavior, religious or mundane. Scripture is by definition text. It can't hope to compete with the remarkable variety of situations and circunstances of any person. A person who relies on scripture is not taking his or her own religion seriously enough. We should instead aim for honoring the scripture by making good use of it - but the merit is ultimately from people for choosing wisely and even for reinventing bad scripture into constructive practice.

The role of a scripture, even a supremely good one, is to not get in the way of good religious practice. Religious guidance is ultimately beyond the power of scripture, and demands the reason, inspiration, sincere effort and discernment of actual living beings.

Or to put it in another way: a good religious disciple is not supposed to limit himself only to what is supported by religious scripture or even religious doctrine. That would be poor religious practice, which aims only to emulate past realizations instead of truly caring for them. Realization happens in this changing world, and it therefore needs the capability for change and adjustment itself, lest it become obsolete or even fully misguided.

It is a similar argument to that which demonstrates why Law is the result, and by definition never truly the cause, of a society's desire to be orderly and well-behaved. Keeping to the letter of the law is in fact a betrayal of its true purpose.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I suppose sarcasm really is lost through the internet..

Obviously it is, considering you missed mine

Yeah I am sure you don't

Muslim Victims of 9/11 - Muslim Victims of the 9/11 Terrorist Attack

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say Muslims didnt die in 9/11. What I was saying is I don't remember any demonstrations at ground zero, or elsewhere condemning the attack. If you have sources, provide them.

I don't use such ambiguous terms as"violent" I refer to them as either just or unjust. You discussed various topics, I started with the issue of rape first, I have no idea why you could not take it upon yourself to debunk it.

Of course you don't refer to them as violent. That would require you to actually admit that the verses are indeed violent. I don't see how using stoning, flogging, or pushing walls on to people is not violent or barbaric.

Also, not once have I ever said a thing about rape. If I remember correctly, I even stated that I didn't use the rape example, or the genital mutilation example because I did not have a source to provide. Try to pay attention before misquoting.

Ok you just generalised 1.4 billion people.

Obviously you missed that I was referring to only the Muslim extremist, not the Muslim population in general. I would have thought that you could derive that fact from my other posts, but I guess you believe what you want to believe.

Yet we cannot even hold a theological debate about it without you entering into damned histrionics.

Again, for maybe the fifth time, explain to me how me quoting a verse from the Koran, and asking you to explain why I could ascertain violence from it, is not theological. You have beat this horse bloody, and have yet to answer it.

 

[Chisti]

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say Muslims didnt die in 9/11. What I was saying is I don't remember any demonstrations at ground zero, or elsewhere condemning the attack. If you have sources, provide them.

Why should they?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Why should they?

Oh I don't know, perhaps to show the rest of the world that not every Muslim is a west hating, plane hijacking terrorist hellbent on world domination? Perhaps in an effort to educate the ignorant people of the world that do think this way.

Or perhaps they enjoy that stigma. No sweat off my back. I was merely making an observation. I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Chisti]

Oh I don't know, perhaps to show the rest of the world that not every Muslim is a west hating, plane hijacking terrorist hellbent on world domination? Perhaps in an effort to educate the ignorant people of the world that do think this way.

Or perhaps they enjoy that stigma. No sweat off my back. I was merely making an observation. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Since only a few Muslims were involved, one can easily infer that a majority of Muslims are peaceful. So why the need for demonstrations when inference is all that it takes?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Since only a few Muslims were involved, one can easily infer that a majority of Muslims are peaceful. So why the need for demonstrations when inference is all that it takes?

Yea, because 9/11 was and is the only demonstration of Muslim based terrorism.

 

[Bismillah]

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say Muslims didnt die in 9/11. What I was saying is I don't remember any demonstrations at ground zero, or elsewhere condemning the attack. If you have sources, provide them.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Of course you don't refer to them as violent. That would require you to actually admit that the verses are indeed violent. I don't see how using stoning, flogging, or pushing walls on to people is not violent or barbaric.

I could care LESS if they are violent, as I said the concept of jurisprudence in Islam revolves around justice.

Also, not once have I ever said a thing about rape. If I remember correctly, I even stated that I didn't use the rape example, or the genital mutilation example because I did not have a source to provide. Try to pay attention before misquoting.

We talked about lashing, I posed evidence that the manner in which lashings were applied are inconsistent with your points of contention. You then went on to post how people are lashed in the world today, abandoning the realm of theological debate. Understand or no? If you are ready to debate the topic again, be my guest.

Obviously you missed that I was referring to only the Muslim extremist, not the Muslim population in general. I would have thought that you could derive that fact from my other posts, but I guess you believe what you want to believe.

I believe what I read this is what you posted "I criticize Muslims for their extremism and willingness to kill innocents." That is an open ended statement without qualifiers, it would be perfectly reasonably to reach the conclusion I did.

 

[atanu]

it made the world move forward, it was due to islam that the world changed. -----

???????? So, Allah does not move the world or do you mean to say that Allah got activated only after Islam came onto the world stage?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe eselam meant that the world was destined to accept Islam? But maybe not. If Islam is unavoidable, then it doesn't need to be defended, after all.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Obviously I am not going to read every one of those but thank you for the link. The problem is how many of those are legit? Just looking at the list, the very first one, from CAIR is automatically negated. Several members of CAIR, including founding members have been prosecuted for financing terrorism. Not to mention two of the founders have ties to Hamas. Anything they have to say about 9/11 is insignificant and worthless.

Although I will not discredit them all, as I am sure there are legitimate sources in that list.

I could care LESS if they are violent, as I said the concept of jurisprudence in Islam revolves around justice.

Be that as it may, a large portion of Muslims do not see it that way, or their vision of justice is seriously skewed. No doubt they consider killing innocent women and children infidels justice for Allah.

We talked about lashing, I posed evidence that the manner in which lashings were applied are inconsistent with your points of contention. You then went on to post how people are lashed in the world today, abandoning the realm of theological debate. Understand or no? If you are ready to debate the topic again, be my guest.

How is providing examples of people dying from flogging, which is taken straight from the Koran/Hadiths not theological? You keep saying this, but have yet to explain this. We are talking about Islam, a religion, and how it affects/influences people. That my friend is theology. Stop with the excuses and answer the questions i have provided.

I believe what I read this is what you posted "I criticize Muslims for their extremism and willingness to kill innocents." That is an open ended statement without qualifiers, it would be perfectly reasonably to reach the conclusion I did.

Well then that is my fault, for I apparently gave you WAY more credit than you deserved, assuming that we have debated eachother in other threads, and I know you saw me say at least once that I did in no way consider all Muslims extremist, or even violent.

But hey, i guess you lose track of things when you are trying to win an argument.

 

[Tolerance]

What has "Islam" contributed to the world? Well, Islam contributed the Koran and the Hadith which isn't very much considering that it simply re-hashes the Bible.

It is like asking what, say Germany has contributed to the world. Germany is simply a landmass in Europe.

Individual Muslims might have contributed some things, however.

 

[cablescavenger]

Islam, as we can judge through its behavior, turns out to be a well-executed plan for Arab Imperialism. As a political ideology, it appealed to the idea of a creator god which commanded unity and commanded war, thus giving them the power to create the illusion that they were a civilization comparable to their neighbors: The Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. Using the false promises of this new movement, they attacked their neighbors to try to convert them. Those who resisted conversion were either converted by the power of the sword, or brutally murdered. But, after they conquered a neighbor, they would not seek to bring their civilization up to the level of those they had barbarically vanquished. On the contrary, they destroyed all the manifestations of culture in those societies: they burned down libraries of valuable books and forbade the practice of music, painting, sculpture, and even literature. The only literature needed under their system was the Koran. And this did the most fundamental damage to the language of the vanquished, essentially making it disappear gradually and become replaced with Arabic. In those societies where there was a strong resistance to the Arabicization of their language, Arabicization worked only partially. Such was the case in Persia, where the great poet Ferdowsi wrote the Epic of Kings (Shah-Nameh) for the explicit purpose of saving the language from Arabic slaughter. To this day, Persian is only about 50% Arabic.

Hence, for the past thirteen centuries, the Arabic "culture" has been spread throughout the world through Islam. But the significant point is that Islam did not bring in any major revolution in thinking. Its pronouncement of unity was essentially a plagiarism of Abraham's ground-breaking pronouncement of monotheism a few millennia earlier. Its specific rituals were borrowed mostly from Judaism (such as avoidance of pork). And the behavior of its leaders was shameful at its best. A case in point: The Prophet Mohammad wanting to marry a six-year-old girl, Aisha, but having to wait three years due to her parents' resistance, thus marrying her at age nine, and then making this the minimum-marriage-age law in Islam. In fact, the whole Koran is nothing but the personal thoughts and desires of Mohammad pretending to have Divine Laws revealed to him. Had he been Irish or Russian he would have probably made it a requirement to drink!

Islam did not bring forth ANY new thought, concept, or idea. After it conquered its neighboring civilizations, it started owning their intellectual properties. Hence, for example, Omar Khayyam, is often mentioned in the West as an Islamic mathematician. What was Islamic about his mathematics?! How did Islam contribute to his intellectual development?

This is the truth the majority of the world has never heard, but needs to hear now. Enough is enough. It is not a coincidence that modern Islamic terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the same line of thinking as that which started 14 centuries ago under the guise of a new religion. The majority of Muslims in the world are decent, peace-loving people. This is so because they are "cultural Muslims" (they happened to be born into that religion), rather than "religious Muslims" (they studied it objectively to decide if they want to adopt its tenets and practices). It is not a coincidence that the majority of the Muslims in the world are descendents of the conquered/vanquished, as explained above.

Islam flourished. It actively encouraged learning, and was the cornerstone of modern science for a while, but went into decline.

Tyson De Grasse gives a good account of what happens when someone tampers with a religious dogma.

[youtube]tIMifWU5ucU[/youtube]
The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century - YouTube