Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ahmadi · (This post was last modified: 01-19-2010 08:54 AM by Ahmadi.)

GT fifty years ago you would have been on good grounds in your comparison of the Western civilization and Islam, while the fruits of over emphasis on individual rights had not riped yet. Now looking at divorce statistics, only 25% children living in the typical homes with biological married partents, three million childeren in foster care in USA, Western civilization hardly has a case. There is a lot of literature about Fatherlessness in America.

Islam balances the family values with individual rights and is able to create the best society, the kind of family values that the Republican party talks about before the elections! We cannot compare one part of legislation with another in isolation but the whole system. The fruits of the two systems should be compared. Human actions alway fall deficient of the ideal teaching. But we have to some how be able to compare the two systems, and I could slowly do it as time allows me. But many of the other threads in this Forum are closer to my heart.

In Europe, Muslims have some growing comparative strength in numbers. It is dismissed as they having more children. But a man cannot have more children if he is paying alimony to his two prior wives and they spend their fertile years shopping for a partner rather than raising a family! Just a crude way of showing that the Muslim family is still intact, even though it is gradually being eroded. Free and easy sex is a very powerful addiction and a luring seduction. Most people fall for it and many are addicted now. Islam has had a wonderful role in preventing alcohol and gambling addiction and of course sexual addiction.

Islam wants to create a loving and romatic family life, "They are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them." (Al Quran 2:188)

TruthWon · (This post was last modified: 01-19-2010 06:31 AM by TruthWon.)

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 2:282 And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women,

Whats the opression in this? can you explain?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." Note that not only does Allah make men inherently better than women, but if you even fear rebellion (whether or not rebellion actually occurs,) then you should punish them physically. So, wife-beating! Yay!

wats opresion and violacne in this? can you explain?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:98 "Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way." This one is interesting. It's in the middle of a series of verses about who will go to hell. The Quran says that those not responsible for themselves will not go to hell. Feebleminded men and children are exempt from Allah's judgment. So are women, who apparently are too stupid to intentionally do anything. Stupid women.

women are cal stupid in what sense? can you explain?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:176 "They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things." It's great when holy scripture just lays out the comparative worth of women and men like this. The Bible did it in Leviticus, the Quran does it here. This sentiment is repeated constantly throughout the Quran.

this is good, that the women is given rights in inheritence, dont you know that even in England, the inheritance of women was started at the end of 1800's?and the time of Islam emerge, there was no right for women in inheritence? what opresion you see here?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 23:1-6 "Successful indeed are the believers Who are humble in their prayers, And who shun vain conversation, And who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy," Because women aren't really people, like slaves, so there's no reason to be modest around them.

what you mean? having sex with wife is something wrong? you are making fun of yourself here I guess brother

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 24:6 "As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;" Granted, this verse isn't as bad as the biblical equivalent, but it's still pretty bad. Normally it takes four witnesses to accuse a woman of adultery, but if you accuse your own wife... you only need one. A direct violation of previously established legal law (because hey, it's not like women are people.)

No Sir, you take wrong meaning, and have verse only, complete is this from 24-6, till 24-9. This means that normaly in old times, people just make false allegation on their wife, adn so do wifes, so these verses are talking about both, men and women as well, that they have to take swear of Allah, which is not an easy task to do. So wats the opression here?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 24:31 "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." This verse justifies the hijab, one of the most apparent signs of female degradation. Unlike most of these verses, this verse is actually significantly more oppressive to women than its biblical counterpart.

wats degradation here? can you explain?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 33:59 "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." More verses requiring oppressive female covering.

wats opresion in covering of female?can you explain

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 37:20-23 "And say: Ah, woe for us! This is the Day of Judgment. This is the Day of Separation, which ye used to deny. (And it is said unto the angels): Assemble those who did wrong, together with their wives and what they used to worship Instead of Allah, and lead them to the path to hell;" Remember that verse that said women were too stupid to deserve hell? Well women also aren't people, but property. So if their husband goes to hell, they go with him, whether they deserve it or not.

I think you didnt check complete, its said along with their wives, means both husband and wife are in wrong path, and they were send to hell, not only women,

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 65:4 "And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him." This is in the middle with rules on Islamic divorce law, which I won't get into. But what I find most interesting is that it gives legal recourse for dismissing wives who have not yet reached puberty. I'm going to say that again. Wives who have not yet reached puberty. The Quran condones pedophilia.

where is the verse saying who dont reach puberty? wrong interpretation of yours, nowhere in Quran its mention marry women who dont reach puberty. can you prove ?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 66:5 "It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids." This is technically talking about the wives of Muhammed, but still he serves as an example to Muslims. If women get divorced, then they are at fault, and Allah will replace them with better women. How empowering. So it doesn't matter how bad your husband is, you should stay in the marriage. Even if he "scourges" you as the Quran encourages above.

this you have to know complete story, that for what occasion this verse was revealed,because the wives fight with each other, and make problem for prophet for some issues. which the wives apologise after admiting their mistake. nowhere its opression, you are on mistake again

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: And this hasn't even gone into the ramifications of the fact that multiple wives are encouraged, and it's not a sin to sleep with your slave girls (the Quran, like the Bible, openly condones slavery). In general the Quran is kinder to women than the Bible, but there are a few specific verses that are far worse than anything in the Bible (the ones allowing for beating your wife, and for pedophilia.)

multiple wives are nowhere disallowed in any religious scripture, and wats opresion in multiple wives? in Quran its stated to marry only once. Beating wife you have to bring context. nowhere in quran is mentioned for pedophile. you are mistaken by Bible maybe.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: But no matter which one is better or worse, they're both pretty bad and immoral.

But you can;t prove with Quran that its bad and immoral. if you call wearing hijab and covering is immoral, than you have to prove why its immoral and bad covering the body?

GTseng3 · (This post was last modified: 01-19-2010 05:25 PM by GTseng3.)

(01-19-2010 06:20 AM)Ahmadi Wrote: GT fifty years ago you would have been on good grounds in your comparison of the Western civilization and Islam, while the fruits of over emphasis on individual rights had not riped yet. Now looking at divorce statistics, only 25% children living in the typical homes with biological married partents, three million childeren in foster care in USA, Western civilization hardly has a case. There is a lot of literature about Fatherlessness in America.

And you would be right in criticizing America for its moral laxness. Keep in mind that America is the only first world country that can be considered Christian. But that does not justify culture in Islamic nations. However, if anything America's moral failings are due to freedom, rather than oppression. The people of America decided that if they had to err, they would err on the side of freedom. Frankly, I agree with them. It would be best to find a balance, but if you have to be extreme, better overly-free (and thus immoral due to lack of responsibility) than totalitarian (and thus immoral due to repression).

Quote:Islam balances the family values with individual rights and is able to create the best society, the kind of family values that the Republican party talks about before the elections!

I find your comparison of Muslim societies and Republicans to be most apt. See my comments about totalitarianism, above.

Quote:We cannot compare one part of legislation with another in isolation but the whole system. The fruits of the two systems should be compared. Human actions alway fall deficient of the ideal teaching. But we have to some how be able to compare the two systems, and I could slowly do it as time allows me. But many of the other threads in this Forum are closer to my heart.

In Europe, Muslims have some growing comparative strength in numbers. It is dismissed as they having more children. But a man cannot have more children if he is paying alimony to his two prior wives and they spend their fertile years shopping for a partner rather than raising a family! Just a crude way of showing that the Muslim family is still intact, even though it is gradually being eroded.

Intact, yes, but what kind of family is this? A family where the father has all the power, and the women are kept in oppressed submission? When women were expected to stay at home the American family was more stable, but American women were oppressed and discriminated against. This also leads to uglier crimes, such as pedophilia and rape (since girls are expected to obey men, why should their objections or age be an obstacle?) Domestic abuse also runs rampant in such societies, where any problems in the home are expected to be dealt with in the home, leaving women nowhere to turn to.

It's always a tradeoff. Freedom or stability. I happen to think freedom is the better one to have.

Quote:Free and easy sex is a very powerful addiction and a luring seduction. Most people fall for it and many are addicted now. Islam has had a wonderful role in preventing alcohol and gambling addiction and of course sexual addiction.

Now this is an interesting statement. Islam represses free and easy sex, true. But is that a good thing? We have many examples throughout history that repression does nothing but create an underground market, often with violence and crime connected to it. Just observe what happened in America during the sexual revolution, as the previously oppressive taboos on sexuality were stripped away. It was like the entire country went mad.

They say that the youth in Iran right now are addicted to Western culture. Western television, music, clothing, all of it. It is a clear rebellion against traditional Islam. Now, Iran has a more oppressive government than America, so I really don't know if a sexual revolution could happen there as it happened in America. But certainly those in charge in America did not suddenly decide to stop looking down on sex. It was a revolution from the bottom up. Repression simply doesn't work.

Education and personal responsibility, that works. Responsibility must be personal. When it is enforced from the top down it only leads to revolution.

Quote:Islam wants to create a loving and romatic family life, "They are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them." (Al Quran 2:188)

But at what cost? That is my question. At what cost is this loving family life? Because I assure you, Muslims are not better people than Christians just because their families are more rigid and oppressive. Irresponsible and evil natures come out regardless, but in an oppressive society they come out in more insidious ways.

(01-19-2010 06:30 AM)TruthWon Wrote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 2:282 And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women,

Whats the opression in this? can you explain?

Women are worth only half as much as men. That is the essence of oppression, believing someone to be of less worth than yourself. If a man is worth two women, then why should men listen to women? Indeed, this verse says just that. Men shouldn't listen to women the way they listen to men. Oh, if multiple women say the same thing, maybe then you should listen, but a woman's testimony just isn't as valuable as a man.

Prejudice leads to oppression. That's how it works.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." Note that not only does Allah make men inherently better than women, but if you even fear rebellion (whether or not rebellion actually occurs,) then you should punish them physically. So, wife-beating! Yay!
wats opresion and violacne in this? can you explain?

Did you miss the point where it says men can scourge their wives even if they just fear rebellion? Before any actual rebellion happens? How can wife-beating be anything but horrible?

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:98 "Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way." This one is interesting. It's in the middle of a series of verses about who will go to hell. The Quran says that those not responsible for themselves will not go to hell. Feebleminded men and children are exempt from Allah's judgment. So are women, who apparently are too stupid to intentionally do anything. Stupid women.
women are cal stupid in what sense? can you explain?

This verse gives an exception for personal judgment. Taken in context (and I encourage you to read the whole passage, I only quoted part of it to save space,) it basically says that people who cannot properly make decisions and moral judgments are not in danger of hell. Which frankly is quite progressive. But this verse lists those people. Feeble men (mentally feeble in this case, unable to make proper decisions,) children (who are not yet wise enough to have true responsibility for their actions,) and woman. But why women? Well obviously because women are too stupid to make moral judgments. It's just like the verse where it says a woman's testimony is only worth half a man's. The assumption is that women are stupid.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 4:176 "They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things." It's great when holy scripture just lays out the comparative worth of women and men like this. The Bible did it in Leviticus, the Quran does it here. This sentiment is repeated constantly throughout the Quran.
this is good, that the women is given rights in inheritence, dont you know that even in England, the inheritance of women was started at the end of 1800's?and the time of Islam emerge, there was no right for women in inheritence? what opresion you see here?

England actually had instances of female inheritance long before that, but I'll agree with you about Europe in general (England was rather progressive). And again, the Quran was rather progressive for it's time. And if it were just a historical book we could leave it at that. But Muslims say the Quran is applicable today, and if you apply such a theory today it is highly immoral and backwards. Because now we know better. Women have just as much right to inherit as men.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 23:1-6 "Successful indeed are the believers Who are humble in their prayers, And who shun vain conversation, And who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy," Because women aren't really people, like slaves, so there's no reason to be modest around them.
what you mean? having sex with wife is something wrong? you are making fun of yourself here I guess brother

This one just further shows how women (and slaves) rarely count for anything. The verse doesn't specify that the exception is for sex, indeed the verse (and many other verses) simply state that you don't have to worry about modesty around women or slaves. Presumably because they aren't really intelligent beings.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 24:6 "As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;" Granted, this verse isn't as bad as the biblical equivalent, but it's still pretty bad. Normally it takes four witnesses to accuse a woman of adultery, but if you accuse your own wife... you only need one. A direct violation of previously established legal law (because hey, it's not like women are people.)
No Sir, you take wrong meaning, and have verse only, complete is this from 24-6, till 24-9. This means that normaly in old times, people just make false allegation on their wife, adn so do wifes, so these verses are talking about both, men and women as well, that they have to take swear of Allah, which is not an easy task to do. So wats the opression here?

The oppression is that, again, a woman's testimony is nothing next to a man's. It's not difficult to swear by Allah, you can lie about that. If a man says a woman's been unfaithful, all he has to do is find one witness. Just one. Quranic law says you need at least two witnesses (or three if one of the witnesses is a woman). And yet there is an exception for when husbands accuse their wives. Because in Islamic culture, as in every other culture during the time, wives were property. You pay their father for them, and you own them. It's fine in historical context (and as you state, even a little progressive for the time,) but again compared to today, when we understand things better, it is horribly immoral.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 24:31 "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." This verse justifies the hijab, one of the most apparent signs of female degradation. Unlike most of these verses, this verse is actually significantly more oppressive to women than its biblical counterpart.
wats degradation here? can you explain?

If a woman wishes to dress modestly, more power to her. Frankly, if a woman wishes to be nothing but a housewife and baby factory, more power to her. As long as that is what she wants. But as soon as you legislate it, as soon as you take that choice from her, it becomes monstrous. Forcing a woman to wear the hijab is oppressive. The hijab is a symbol of shame. Shame at your body, shame at your adornments. It leads to despair, a lack of self-respect, and a quiet, cowed woman who can easily be used and abused by men.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 37:20-23 "And say: Ah, woe for us! This is the Day of Judgment. This is the Day of Separation, which ye used to deny. (And it is said unto the angels): Assemble those who did wrong, together with their wives and what they used to worship Instead of Allah, and lead them to the path to hell;" Remember that verse that said women were too stupid to deserve hell? Well women also aren't people, but property. So if their husband goes to hell, they go with him, whether they deserve it or not.
I think you didnt check complete, its said along with their wives, means both husband and wife are in wrong path, and they were send to hell, not only women,

That is not what the verse says. If you want to look it up in the original Arabic, be my guest, but the translations I have make it clear that if a man is sent to hell, his wife goes with him. Conversely, in a whole lot of verses I didn't bother to quote, those who go to heaven get female virgins. Companions for them. Clearly this is only referring to men (since I doubt Allah condones lesbianism.) So what about women? What do they get? The Quran does not bother to say. Apparently women aren't important enough to consider.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 65:4 "And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him." This is in the middle with rules on Islamic divorce law, which I won't get into. But what I find most interesting is that it gives legal recourse for dismissing wives who have not yet reached puberty. I'm going to say that again. Wives who have not yet reached puberty. The Quran condones pedophilia.
where is the verse saying who dont reach puberty? wrong interpretation of yours, nowhere in Quran its mention marry women who dont reach puberty. can you prove ?

It's in the quote above. I made it bold. This is discussing divorce law, as I mentioned. Women have to be put away based on their periods. The Quran talks about that, then talks about a woman who has passed menstruation, and then "Along with those who have it not." i.e., those who have not yet reached puberty. Right there in the Quran. Incidentally there's a lot of this that goes on in Muslim countries, little girls being sold as wives. It's actually not uncommon in any culture that treats women as second class citizens, whether for religious or cultural reasons, so it's not just Muslims.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: 66:5 "It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids." This is technically talking about the wives of Muhammed, but still he serves as an example to Muslims. If women get divorced, then they are at fault, and Allah will replace them with better women. How empowering. So it doesn't matter how bad your husband is, you should stay in the marriage. Even if he "scourges" you as the Quran encourages above.
this you have to know complete story, that for what occasion this verse was revealed,because the wives fight with each other, and make problem for prophet for some issues. which the wives apologise after admiting their mistake. nowhere its opression, you are on mistake again

That's not what the verse says, nor what is said in its context. Frankly the Quran gives Muhammad a lot of license with his wives. He gets to marry as much as he likes, his wives and slaves have to give him sex whenever he wants, and of course they can never complain about him. Not a very nice guy, that Muhammad.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: And this hasn't even gone into the ramifications of the fact that multiple wives are encouraged, and it's not a sin to sleep with your slave girls (the Quran, like the Bible, openly condones slavery). In general the Quran is kinder to women than the Bible, but there are a few specific verses that are far worse than anything in the Bible (the ones allowing for beating your wife, and for pedophilia.)
multiple wives are nowhere disallowed in any religious scripture, and wats opresion in multiple wives? in Quran its stated to marry only once. Beating wife you have to bring context. nowhere in quran is mentioned for pedophile. you are mistaken by Bible maybe.

The Bible actually disallows polygamy in some verses, though it seems to support it in others. It's rather confusing. But regardless, I'm not comparing the Quran to other scriptures. I'm comparing the Quran to what we know now about an enlightened society. As I've said before, you can compare the Quran and the Bible all you want, it doesn't matter. They're both really bad (read earlier in this thread where I slam the Bible for its oppression of women.) And frankly, just look at the way women are treated in hardline Muslim countries who base their legal system off of the Quran and the commentaries written later, and see how they treat their women. Muslim countries are some of the worst places in the world for female rights (and human rights in general). And frankly I don't care about "context". If a book allows you to beat your wife for any reason, it's evil.

Quote:
(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: But no matter which one is better or worse, they're both pretty bad and immoral.
But you can;t prove with Quran that its bad and immoral. if you call wearing hijab and covering is immoral, than you have to prove why its immoral and bad covering the body?

Even if the only thing wrong with the Quran was its verse allowing husbands to scourge rebellious wives, that would make it evil. But it's not just that. It's the whole thing. And yes, the Quran does condone pedophilia, and it does make it clear that women are not worth as much as men, and it does require women to wear shameful garments. It's all in the verses listed above.

The Quran was, again, very progressive for its time. And no one is denying that the golden age of Islam was one of the high points of human existance. Islamic scientists gave us most of the major advances of that time, and I don't think any actual historian can deny that the golden age of Islam was the best place on earth at its time. But that does not justify it now. We have moved on as a species now. We understand now that all people are equal, regardless of gender, religion, or race. We understand now that men are not genetically superior to women. We understand that despite representing a major step forward, we have taken many, many steps further than that, and now the Quran is backward and immoral.

This should give us hope. The Quran moved us forward. We then moved forward from that point. That means that we can move forward from where we are now, and become even better.

Ahmadi · (This post was last modified: 01-19-2010 06:26 PM by Ahmadi.)

The Holy Quran set up the paradigm for family values. It defined age of marriage as the age of maturity, when adolescents can make good judgment. The allowed age of marriage has varied in different cultures and in the same culture over time. The main criterion is that they should have developed reasonable judgment. The Quran did not precisely define a precise age to avoid introducing rigidity in human affairs, but gave the principle. But it precisely defined the blood relationships that one shoud not marry. It can be said that it is perhaps the Quran that has defined this issue for both the Eastern and the Western world.

“It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages,” according to Wikipedia, “were widespread at least during the Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history. Numerous papyri and the Roman census declarations attest to many husbands and wives being brother and sister (Lewis, 1983; Bagnall and Frier, 1994; Shaw, 1993). In Hopkins (1980) this is conclusively demonstrated, and more recent scholars in the field have not questioned it. Some of these incestuous relationships were in the royal family, especially the Ptolemies (see the biography of Cleopatra VII, who married more than one of her brothers).” These types of relationships were also common in the Roman Empire. The names that come up, in several history books in this regard are Roman Emperor Claudius, Roman Emperor Caligula, Roman Emperor Nero and Queen Agrippina who was mother of Nero. Edward Gibbon has dedicated a chapter to the Emperor of Byzantine, Heraclius who was a cotemporary of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, in his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He writes about Heraclius, trying to explain his delay to Persian incursions, “It was the duty of the Byzantine historians to have revealed the causes of his slumber and vigilance. At this distance we can only conjecture that he was endowed with more personal courage than political resolution; that he was detained by the charms, and perhaps the arts, of his niece Martina, with whom, after the death of Eudocia, he contracted an incestuous marriage.”

Claudius married his niece Agrippina, an act contrary to Roman law, which he therefore changed. To satisfy Agrippina’s lust for power, Claudius had to adopt her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (later the emperor Nero), to the disadvantage of his own son Britannicus.

Encyclopedia Britannica says the following about the Emperor Nero:

“Nero the fifth Roman emperor (ad 54–68), stepson and heir of the emperor Claudius. He became infamous for his personal debaucheries and extravagances and, on doubtful evidence, for his burning of Rome and persecutions of Christians.
…
Nero’s father, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, died in about ad 40, and Nero was brought up by his mother, Agrippina the Younger, a great-granddaughter of the emperor Augustus. After poisoning her second husband, Agrippina incestuously became the wife of her uncle, the emperor Claudius, and persuaded him to favor Nero for the succession, over the rightful claim of his own son, Britannicus, and to marry his daughter, Octavia, to Nero. Having already helped to bring about the murder of Valeria Messalina, her predecessor as the wife of Claudius, in 48, and ceaselessly pursuing her intrigues to bring Nero to power, Agrippina eliminated her opponents among Claudius’ palace advisers, probably had Claudius himself poisoned in 54, and completed her work with the poisoning of Britannicus in 55. Upon the death of Claudius she at once had Nero proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, whose prefect, Sextus Afranius Burrus, was her partisan; the Senate thus had to accept a fait accompli. For the first time absolute power in the Roman Empire was vested in a mere boy, who was not yet 17.”

The Holy Quran laid down very clear rules about what relations humans were never to marry. “Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your fathers’ sisters, and your mothers’ sisters, and brother’s daughters, and sister’s daughters, and your foster-mothers that have given you suck, and your foster-sisters, and the mothers of your wives, and your stepdaughters, who are your wards by your wives unto whom you have gone in — but if you have not gone in unto them, there shall be no sin upon you — and the wives of your sons that are from your loins; and it is forbidden to you to have two sisters together in marriage, except what has already passed; surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.” (Al Quran 4:24)

TruthWon · (This post was last modified: 01-20-2010 07:28 AM by TruthWon.)

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: Women are worth only half as much as men. That is the essence of oppression, believing someone to be of less worth than yourself. If a man is worth two women, then why should men listen to women? Indeed, this verse says just that. Men shouldn't listen to women the way they listen to men. Oh, if multiple women say the same thing, maybe then you should listen, but a woman's testimony just isn't as valuable as a man.

Prejudice leads to oppression. That's how it works.

No, its not like that, the basic reason for this verse is, that because women tend to forget things, dats why its clearly writen, that if 1 women forget, other women may know. There is no opression in this, and what meaning you brought here, is absolutely out of Quran, and not included in Quran. So your claim is false about Quran here.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: Did you miss the point where it says men can scourge their wives even if they just fear rebellion? Before any actual rebellion happens? How can wife-beating be anything but horrible?

I'am sorry, where's the point of rebellion mentioned in Quran? you are not reading the passage complete, and just you look beating, you say "Yuppy, its violance" and came out here.
Whats mention in Quran, that man is the responsible for family affairs, as he is bringing wealth at home. So there is no opression of women here.
This does not mean that a man should resort to these three measures all at once, but that they may be employed if a wife adopts an attitude of obstinate defiance. So far as the actual application of these measures is concerned, there should, naturally, be some correspondence between the fault and the punishment that is administered. Moreover, it is obvious that wherever a light touch can prove effective.one should not resort to sterner measures. Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body."http://www.ilaam.net/Questions/ViolenceWomen.html".

[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: This verse gives an exception for personal judgment. Taken in context (and I encourage you to read the whole passage, I only quoted part of it to save space,) it basically says that people who cannot properly make decisions and moral judgments are not in danger of hell. Which frankly is quite progressive. But this verse lists those people. Feeble men (mentally feeble in this case, unable to make proper decisions,) children (who are not yet wise enough to have true responsibility for their actions,) and woman. But why women? Well obviously because women are too stupid to make moral judgments. It's just like the verse where it says a woman's testimony is only worth half a man's. The assumption is that women are stupid.

its only stating that men, women and children, who are not mentaly stable, wil not go to hell, where you got assumption that women are stupid? its your own assumption, not as per Quran, so your claim for Quran being wrong is again false.

[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: England actually had instances of female inheritance long before that, but I'll agree with you about Europe in general (England was rather progressive). And again, the Quran was rather progressive for it's time. And if it were just a historical book we could leave it at that. But Muslims say the Quran is applicable today, and if you apply such a theory today it is highly immoral and backwards. Because now we know better. Women have just as much right to inherit as men.

Yes, I agree that Quran is valid for today's life as well as future life as well. But it clearly say, and also obvious from most countries and cultures till today, that men is the responsible for the family, for bringing wealth at home, and hard-ship. so because of this case, he gets more rights than women,
However, in case, where men is not available, all rights goes to Women. So there is no opression in any case here.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: This one just further shows how women (and slaves) rarely count for anything. The verse doesn't specify that the exception is for sex, indeed the verse (and many other verses) simply state that you don't have to worry about modesty around women or slaves. Presumably because they aren't really intelligent beings.

maybe its your problem of english or understanding the verse, its clearly saying "Guarding the modesty,and saving their sexual desire for their women. means wives. what other meaning you are extracting from the verse, is out of Quran. I recomend you reading the link in detail reagrding this verse.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=23
[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: The oppression is that, again, a woman's testimony is nothing next to a man's. It's not difficult to swear by Allah, you can lie about that. If a man says a woman's been unfaithful, all he has to do is find one witness. Just one. Quranic law says you need at least two witnesses (or three if one of the witnesses is a woman). And yet there is an exception for when husbands accuse their wives. Because in Islamic culture, as in every other culture during the time, wives were property. You pay their father for them, and you own them. It's fine in historical context (and as you state, even a little progressive for the time,) but again compared to today, when we understand things better, it is horribly immoral.

again you are wrong Sir, you are not reading the verse correctly, and making wrong assumption, its saying if a man accuse women, and put allegation, and he dont have any witness, take Allah's oath, and no, its not easy for a true Muslim to take Allah's oath for a false issue.
2ndly its same for women as well, in the verse #-9, which you totaly ignored. So why double standard from you? you are accusing Islam for nothing, and can;t prove any single allegation, just making statements out of unknown fear and hatred my friend.

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: If a woman wishes to dress modestly, more power to her. Frankly, if a woman wishes to be nothing but a housewife and baby factory, more power to her. As long as that is what she wants. But as soon as you legislate it, as soon as you take that choice from her, it becomes monstrous. Forcing a woman to wear the hijab is oppressive. The hijab is a symbol of shame. Shame at your body, shame at your adornments. It leads to despair, a lack of self-respect, and a quiet, cowed woman who can easily be used and abused by men.

how you can say that Hijab is shame and lack of self-respect? you mean letting some1 wear clothes is shameful thing and dis-respect? realy this shows how ignorant you are Big Grin

men abuse women who wear full clothes or who wear less clothes?
Sikh-men cover their heads, is that opression to you? Nuns cover their heads, dat is opression in your mind?

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: That is not what the verse says. If you want to look it up in the original Arabic, be my guest, but the translations I have make it clear that if a man is sent to hell, his wife goes with him. Conversely, in a whole lot of verses I didn't bother to quote, those who go to heaven get female virgins. Companions for them. Clearly this is only referring to men (since I doubt Allah condones lesbianism.) So what about women? What do they get? The Quran does not bother to say. Apparently women aren't important enough to consider.

I think you realy have lack of understanding english. Read please the correct translation of Quran, I will recomend you this with authentic commentary, so you wil understand, and remove the misconception about Quran.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.p...e=22&to=74

[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: It's in the quote above. I made it bold. This is discussing divorce law, as I mentioned. Women have to be put away based on their periods. The Quran talks about that, then talks about a woman who has passed menstruation, and then "Along with those who have it not." i.e., those who have not yet reached puberty. Right there in the Quran. Incidentally there's a lot of this that goes on in Muslim countries, little girls being sold as wives. It's actually not uncommon in any culture that treats women as second class citizens, whether for religious or cultural reasons, so it's not just Muslims.

It didnt say that those who didnt reach puberty, it say those women who dont have period. Why you think women always have period 12 months a year? common, be logical my friend,use your mind anytime pelase. You dont have to abuse good things if you can;t understand english.
[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: That's not what the verse says, nor what is said in its context. Frankly the Quran gives Muhammad a lot of license with his wives. He gets to marry as much as he likes, his wives and slaves have to give him sex whenever he wants, and of course they can never complain about him. Not a very nice guy, that Muhammad.

You have to read this for details, I told you already, you need more research about Islam before making any comment dear.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=66
Now for Muhammad (pbuh), he is regarded and acknowledged as the best man in history and in world, by renouned scholars, historians,
http://www.faizani.com/soul_boosters/pro...ammad.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet...t-rao.html

[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: The Bible actually disallows polygamy in some verses, though it seems to support it in others. It's rather confusing. But regardless, I'm not comparing the Quran to other scriptures. I'm comparing the Quran to what we know now about an enlightened society. As I've said before, you can compare the Quran and the Bible all you want, it doesn't matter. They're both really bad (read earlier in this thread where I slam the Bible for its oppression of women.) And frankly, just look at the way women are treated in hardline Muslim countries who base their legal system off of the Quran and the commentaries written later, and see how they treat their women. Muslim countries are some of the worst places in the world for female rights (and human rights in general). And frankly I don't care about "context". If a book allows you to beat your wife for any reason, it's evil.

, We are discussing for polygamy, can you prove in any religion is polygamy is not allowed in scripture? and wats wrong in polygamy?
if you call beating without knowing the reason as evil, than all humans in the world including you are evil, because you also beat any1 for anycase. All countries in the world encourages beating . so every1 is evil in the world.
[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: Even if the only thing wrong with the Quran was its verse allowing husbands to scourge rebellious wives, that would make it evil. But it's not just that. It's the whole thing. And yes, the Quran does condone pedophilia, and it does make it clear that women are not worth as much as men, and it does require women to wear shameful garments. It's all in the verses listed above.

every country culture and constitution order for beating, . Nowhere in Quran is for pedophile, its in Bible. you are considering wearing clothes as a shamleful thing, I doubt your state of mind. Wink

[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: The Quran was, again, very progressive for its time. And no one is denying that the golden age of Islam was one of the high points of human existance. Islamic scientists gave us most of the major advances of that time, and I don't think any actual historian can deny that the golden age of Islam was the best place on earth at its time. But that does not justify it now. We have moved on as a species now. We understand now that all people are equal, regardless of gender, religion, or race. We understand now that men are not genetically superior to women. We understand that despite representing a major step forward, we have taken many, many steps further than that, and now the Quran is backward and immoral.

what all you are talking, is not fact, and nowhere near to any practical or possible in anywhere in this world. Howwver your views seems to be weak and very immoral and un-ethical, you need to get some knowledge and do research my friend.
[quote]

(01-18-2010 03:47 PM)GTseng3 Wrote: This should give us hope. The Quran moved us forward. We then moved forward from that point. That means that we can move forward from where we are now, and become even better.

If you know, west and europe are on the stage, that their civilization is in danger, and they make stats that after 50-100 years, the new generation will be much more less than now. and the 1 culture/religion to take over is Islam, because only this religion is practical and true to life.

Hope I clear all your points, and that you read more about Islam in real sense, with open mind.
http://www.islamicstudies.info/

GTseng3 · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2010 02:24 AM by GTseng3.)

(01-20-2010 07:26 AM)TruthWon Wrote: No, its not like that, the basic reason for this verse is, that because women tend to forget things, dats why its clearly writen, that if 1 women forget, other women may know. There is no opression in this, and what meaning you brought here, is absolutely out of Quran, and not included in Quran. So your claim is false about Quran here.

Wait. Women tend to forget things? Women tend to forget things? See, this is the real danger of religion right here. This is a perfect example. See how quickly the religious nut runs to the defense. "No, no, no! The Quran isn't prejudiced against women! It's just that women's brains don't work as well as man brains!" You misogynistic idiot.

Quote:Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it.

Oh, well as long as the Muhammad (Peanut Butter and Jelly be upon him) felt bad about it, I guess it's okay that he advocated beating your wife. I'm going to go kill someone now, but it's all right! I'm going to feel really bad about it. Seriously, that's just disgusting.

Quote:its only stating that men, women and children, who are not mentaly stable, wil not go to hell, where you got assumption that women are stupid? its your own assumption, not as per Quran, so your claim for Quran being wrong is again false.

Wrong. The verse clearly states that "feeble" only applies to men. Women and children both get passes. Unless the translation is remarkably faulty, but I'm using the translations approved by most Arabic scholars.

Quote:Yes, I agree that Quran is valid for today's life as well as future life as well. But it clearly say, and also obvious from most countries and cultures till today, that men is the responsible for the family, for bringing wealth at home, and hard-ship. so because of this case, he gets more rights than women,
However, in case, where men is not available, all rights goes to Women. So there is no opression in any case here.

Right. There's no oppression as long as there are no men around. Seriously, how twisted has your religion made you! Are you actually reading what you're writing? The man is responsible for the family, so he gets more rights than women? No! Men should never have more rights than women, any more than you should have more rights than me, or I should have more rights than you! Rights should be universal! If a woman chooses to be a submissive housewife and let her husband make all the decisions, more power to them, it's her decision. But to mandate it in the Quran? That's horrible.

Quote:again you are wrong Sir, you are not reading the verse correctly, and making wrong assumption, its saying if a man accuse women, and put allegation, and he dont have any witness, take Allah's oath, and no, its not easy for a true Muslim to take Allah's oath for a false issue.

Sure it is. You just have to be a liar.

Quote:how you can say that Hijab is shame and lack of self-respect? you mean letting some1 wear clothes is shameful thing and dis-respect? realy this shows how ignorant you are men abuse women who wear full clothes or who wear less clothes? Sikh-men cover their heads, is that opression to you? Nuns cover their heads, dat is opression in your mind?

Nuns choose to become nuns with full knowledge of what that entails. Sikh choose to become sikh with full knowledge of what that entails. Women do not choose to be women. Women have no choice over whether or not they are women. And to say being forced to wear a hijab is the same as being forced to wear clothes is like saying being forced to pay your taxes is the same as being forced to sell your family into slavery. The hijab shames women. Perhaps you disagree. But many, many, many women agree with me. And those women should have the right to choose for themselves. If they want to wear the hijab, they may. Their choice. But they should never, ever be required to.

Quote:We are discussing for polygamy, can you prove in any religion is polygamy is not allowed in scripture? and wats wrong in polygamy?

Again, do you even pay attention to the stuff you write? Polygamy in and of itself between perfectly consenting people isn't necessarily bad (though it rarely works out,) but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a country where fathers sell their daughters into marriage, where there is often no love, complete patriarchal dominance, and no choice on the women's part. In such cultures polygamy becomes a hotbed of abuse and oppression.

Quote:if you call beating without knowing the reason as evil, than all humans in the world including you are evil, because you also beat any1 for anycase. All countries in the world encourages beating . so every1 is evil in the world.

I would laugh if this wasn't so sick.

You know, I'm not going to give further commentary. I deleted a lot of sections where he accuses me of having a mistranslation of the English. The translations I'm using are considered the best by most Muslim scholars, but I'm giving him those points (mostly because it's after 2 AM and I don't feel like doing further research with Arabic lexicons.) But that still leaves beating. That still leaves oppression. That still leaves misogyny, polygamy, and the hijab.

So I tell you what. I'm leaving it here. And I want to see the Muslims on the forum tell this misogynistic fool just why he's wrong. I want to see the followers of Islam step up and take some moral responsibility.

Don't leave it to the atheist to point out all the horrible stuff with the Quran, and reel in horror at the man who just justified beating women. Step up. Show him (and me, for that matter) how the Quran says something different than what I think it says.

Because if you can't, well... what an immoral religion you have.

TruthWon · 01-21-2010, 03:04 AM

(01-21-2010 02:24 AM)GTseng3 Wrote: I would laugh if this wasn't so sick.

You know, I'm not going to give further commentary. I deleted a lot of sections where he accuses me of having a mistranslation of the English. The translations I'm using are considered the best by most Muslim scholars, but I'm giving him those points (mostly because it's after 2 AM and I don't feel like doing further research with Arabic lexicons.) But that still leaves beating. That still leaves oppression. That still leaves misogyny, polygamy, and the hijab.

So I tell you what. I'm leaving it here. And I want to see the Muslims on the forum tell this misogynistic fool just why he's wrong. I want to see the followers of Islam step up and take some moral responsibility.

Don't leave it to the atheist to point out all the horrible stuff with the Quran, and reel in horror at the man who just justified beating women. Step up. Show him (and me, for that matter) how the Quran says something different than what I think it says.

Because if you can't, well... what an immoral religion you have.

There is no problem in the translation, but the meaning you are taking, that is wrong, maybe your poor understanding of English, but anyway,
Since you have hard time understanding simple english, I dont think there is any need to make you understand.
Also, your state of mind, and lack of understanding is obvious, where you clearly said that wearing clothes is a shameful thing, and if a women is not having period, you call her that she didnt reach puberty, you call punishment immoral.
So realy you proved here that, Atheists are without mind, and without morals even Big Grin

GTseng3 · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2010 03:09 AM by GTseng3.)

Possibly. But at least 1 don't beat my beloved for any reason, whether some prophet says I can or not.

TruthWon · 01-21-2010, 03:15 AM

(01-21-2010 03:09 AM)GTseng3 Wrote: Possibly. But at least 1 don't beat my beloved for any reason, whether some prophet says I can or not.

Well, if you come to know (May it never happen) that your wife is sleeping with some other person beside you, you will still love her?
See Mr. GT, there are some morals, whch we have to keep for good society, because from 1 person become a family, and from good family is good society, if you have good society, than we have a peaceful and better world.
Now if family is corrupted, how can you make good society and culture/nation?
Ofcourse sometimes you have to use hardness on your loved ones, to correct them
Its same like, why we have jails, and punishment given to criminals? if we remove all punishment, as you say its unhuman, do you think world will be peaceful ?

GTseng3 · 01-21-2010, 05:20 AM

I'm sorry. Did I read you right in that you think I'd beat my beloved if she cheated on me? I just want to make sure. Am I reading that correctly?