West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: coola on April 06, 2006, 10:12:07 PM
-
deny that mohammed married a 9 year old girl at the age of 54 ?
i'm not trying to diss here, i just want to know if you are aware of this, or if it's true.
-
if thats true then i dont even have a smartass remark to make, thats just wrong. how can you justify that?
-
not to hate or anything but y dont u leave the muslims alone and def leave a subject like this to the TOT forum. it seems like ur obsessed with them as if u subconsciously want to become one. either that or ur just a hater that tries to find everything wrong bout there religion.
-
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
-
^ lol a 9 year old kid married to their prophet isnt a small thing...
could a mod move this to T.O.T ?
and is this taken from the quran ?
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "
-
Of course it isn't a small thing, I'm not debating that. I'm just saying, past civilizations and societies did things that are no longer acceptable today. People used to sacrifice their children, have sex with their mothers, etc. I don't agree with it, but at that time, it was an acceptable act and marrying young girls was one of those things.
-
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
shouldnt morals be pure of religion ? i mean if its the word of Allah, these arent human morals were talking about here...
-
and mohammed met her when she was 6... they married when she was 9..
-
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
shouldnt morals be pure of religion ? i mean if its the word of Allah, these arent human morals were talking about here...
Of course. But what religion is truly pure? Nada. They're all established by human morals. That's how I see it.
-
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
shouldnt morals be pure of religion ? i mean if its the word of Allah, these arent human morals were talking about here...
Of course. But what religion is truly pure? Nada. They're all established by human morals. That's how I see it.
yeah but the quran, just like the bible, are said to be the word of God, through Jesus, or word of Allah through Mohammed... so how could someone accept a book which promotes pedophilia ? like yeah, the bible has alot of mythodology, but dont you have to accepts mythology to accept religion ? there is no scientific fact of the after-life, or anything for that matter...
and i'm not dissing, i'm just asking questions, if i dont ask these questions, how am i supposed to know ?
-
that quote was not from the Quran btw
that is a quote form a source, who is very questionable as half the things he says are pornographic and inaccurate
-
It was also at this time that he was betrothed to Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, who later became the first Caliph and whom Sunnis consider to have been Muhammad's closest friend. Most Muslims believe that she was only six years old at the time of the betrothal (a mutual promise to marry), based on oral traditions, or hadith reported by Bukhari. However, there are other traditions, including Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, that would indicate she was older[1][2].
Muhammad married Aisha after the Hijra, when she may have been anywhere from nine to seventeen years old. The marriage to Aisha may have been politically motivated initially, in that Abu Bakr was one of Muhammad's strongest supporters, and the marriage strengthened the ties between them
-
does it also say in the qu'ran that mohammed carried a bag of haribo in his pocket in case of emergencies? LOL
-
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
shouldnt morals be pure of religion ? i mean if its the word of Allah, these arent human morals were talking about here...
Of course. But what religion is truly pure? Nada. They're all established by human morals. That's how I see it.
Islam is truly pure. Islam was created from the word of Allah, thru prophet muhammed, who was an illiterate man.... if you wanna understand Islam, you must understand the deites, Islam is the truest religion beginning to end, and that has been stated at prestigous universities such as stanford, harvard, berkeley etc....
-
Islam is truly pure. Islam was created from the word of Allah, thru prophet muhammed, who was an illiterate man.... if you wanna understand Islam, you must understand the deites, Islam is the truest religion beginning to end, and that has been stated at prestigous universities such as stanford, harvard, berkeley etc....
What the fuc are you talking about? Stated in Universities?? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. She was 6 years old when he was kicking it alone with her for the 1st time to my understanding. I don't wanna get all into it, but it goes to show you a few things, tradition or not.
-
yeah but the quran, just like the bible, are said to be the word of God, through Jesus, or word of Allah through Mohammed... so how could someone accept a book which promotes pedophilia ? like yeah, the bible has alot of mythodology, but dont you have to accepts mythology to accept religion ? there is no scientific fact of the after-life, or anything for that matter...
and i'm not dissing, i'm just asking questions, if i dont ask these questions, how am i supposed to know ?
look, read your bible. in the bible, moses sins and is punished by god and never reaches the land of canaan after he led the israelites out of egypt and after he received the ten commandments. are you going to write off the ten commandments, judiasm and christianity because moses sinned later in life? it's in the bible.
i am not prepared to call muhammad a sinner. aisha? it looks like that marriage was politically motivated. the age of the woman has been debated. the woman's father was the first caliph, so clearly noone in the community had a problem with the relationship, most importantly not her parents.
-
yeah but the quran, just like the bible, are said to be the word of God, through Jesus, or word of Allah through Mohammed... so how could someone accept a book which promotes pedophilia ? like yeah, the bible has alot of mythodology, but dont you have to accepts mythology to accept religion ? there is no scientific fact of the after-life, or anything for that matter...
and i'm not dissing, i'm just asking questions, if i dont ask these questions, how am i supposed to know ?
look, read your bible. in the bible, moses sins and is punished by god and never reaches the land of canaan after he led the israelites out of egypt and after he received the ten commandments. are you going to write off the ten commandments, judiasm and christianity because moses sinned later in life? it's in the bible.
i am not prepared to call muhammad a sinner. aisha? it looks like that marriage was politically motivated. the age of the woman has been debated. the woman's father was the first caliph, so clearly noone in the community had a problem with the relationship, most importantly not her parents.
you can spurt out rubbish about pollitics
but after they got married, or maybe be before, he put his penis into a minor
-
you can spurt out rubbish about pollitics
but after they got married, or maybe be before, he put his penis into a minor
the age has been debated. the families did not oppose it. i don't know the culture to know how out of place this was, i doubt the chick was 9 because apparently she had an arranged marriage before muhammad that had fallen through.
i don't know how old this chick was.
she had another marriage arranged that had fallen through
i'm skeptical that she was 9 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy
ccording to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first few years of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol 1, Pg 227 - 234, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh).
Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her betrothal to Muhammad, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia. Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, p. 38.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50.
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH. Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, p. 377.
According to Abd ar Rahman ibn Abi Zannad, Aisha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma. (Siyar a“lām an-nubalā', adh-Dhahabī, Vol. 2, p. 289, Mu'assat ar-Risāla, Beirut, 1992). That is also confirmed by Ibn Kathir (al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya, Ibn Kathīr, Bd. 8, S. 371, Dār al-Fikr al-“Arabī, al-Dschīza, 1933). Virtually all other historical reports also agree in this matter. Ibn Kathir also reports that Asma was present when her son died in 73 AH and she herself died 5 days thereafter (other reports differ slightly, giving between 5 and 100 days between the deaths of the two). At the time of her death she was 100 years old (al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya, Ibn Kathīr, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dār al-Fikr al-“Arabī, al-Dschīza, 1933). This is also confirmed by Ibn Hadschar al-“Asqalānī who reports that she died in 73 or 74 AH at the age of 100 years. (Taqrīb at-tahdhīb, Ibn Hadschar al-“Asqalānī, p. 654, Bāb fi-n-nisā', harfu l-alif, Lucknow). But this means, of course, that Asma was 27 or 28 years old at 1 AH and the 10 years youger Aisha already 17 or 18, so when Muhammad and Aisha started to live together she was already 19 or 20.
they also mention the evidence that she was 9 so you can see both sides to the argument. i don't know enough to say muhammad had relations with a 9 yr old. her father was clearly comfortable with the relationship, so either the entire community accepted marriage of 7 year old girls, or she was older than 7.
-
you can spurt out rubbish about pollitics
but after they got married, or maybe be before, he put his penis into a minor
the age has been debated. the families did not oppose it. i don't know the culture to know how out of place this was, i doubt the chick was 9 because apparently she had an arranged marriage before muhammad that had fallen through.
i don't know how old this chick was.
she had another marriage arranged that had fallen through
i'm skeptical that she was 9 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy
ccording to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first few years of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol 1, Pg 227 - 234, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh).
Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her betrothal to Muhammad, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia. Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, p. 38.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50.
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH. Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, p. 377.
According to Abd ar Rahman ibn Abi Zannad, Aisha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma. (Siyar a“lām an-nubalā', adh-Dhahabī, Vol. 2, p. 289, Mu'assat ar-Risāla, Beirut, 1992). That is also confirmed by Ibn Kathir (al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya, Ibn Kathīr, Bd. 8, S. 371, Dār al-Fikr al-“Arabī, al-Dschīza, 1933). Virtually all other historical reports also agree in this matter. Ibn Kathir also reports that Asma was present when her son died in 73 AH and she herself died 5 days thereafter (other reports differ slightly, giving between 5 and 100 days between the deaths of the two). At the time of her death she was 100 years old (al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya, Ibn Kathīr, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dār al-Fikr al-“Arabī, al-Dschīza, 1933). This is also confirmed by Ibn Hadschar al-“Asqalānī who reports that she died in 73 or 74 AH at the age of 100 years. (Taqrīb at-tahdhīb, Ibn Hadschar al-“Asqalānī, p. 654, Bāb fi-n-nisā', harfu l-alif, Lucknow). But this means, of course, that Asma was 27 or 28 years old at 1 AH and the 10 years youger Aisha already 17 or 18, so when Muhammad and Aisha started to live together she was already 19 or 20.
they also mention the evidence that she was 9 so you can see both sides to the argument. i don't know enough to say muhammad had relations with a 9 yr old. her father was clearly comfortable with the relationship, so either the entire community accepted marriage of 7 year old girls, or she was older than 7.
whether the father liked it or not, or whether she was 9 or 19, the guy was supposedly about what 35 years older than her?
hes a peado anyway u look at it
-
whether the father liked it or not, or whether she was 9 or 19, the guy was supposedly about what 35 years older than her?
hes a peado anyway u look at it
you are simply looking for reasons to criticize the prophet. 19 is acceptable by any standard. there are child kings and queens in the bible, it's often used to unite families, tribes and nations. not only was this marriage politically motivated, aisha was almost without question of an acceptable age ~19.
why do you insists on critizing the prophet?
-
cause he's ass is insecure
-
deny that mohammed married a 9 year old girl at the age of 54 ?
i'm not trying to diss here, i just want to know if you are aware of this, or if it's true.
Once a girl has reached puberty her body is ready physically for a sexual relationship. This country has a manmade law that you can't have sex with a woman until she is 18, but the law of nature says a woman is ready upon reaching puberty. Muhammad (saws) did not consumate the marriage until after she had reached puberty.
I also want to mention that Muhammad only had one wife Khadijah, from the time he was 25 till the time he was around 45. Khadijah was much older than Muhammad was. After Khadijah died that's when Muhammad married other women.
-
deny that mohammed married a 9 year old girl at the age of 54 ?
i'm not trying to diss here, i just want to know if you are aware of this, or if it's true.
Once a girl has reached puberty her body is ready physically for a sexual relationship. This country has a manmade law that you can't have sex with a woman until she is 18, but the law of nature says a woman is ready upon reaching puberty. Muhammad (saws) did not consumate the marriage until after she had reached puberty.
I also want to mention that Muhammad only had one wife Khadijah, from the time he was 25 till the time he was around 45. Khadijah was much older than Muhammad was. After Khadijah died that's when Muhammad married other women.
Just for the record; would you have a problem having sex with an 11 year old who just had her first period? (This isn't an insult or a rhetorical question. I just want to know what your personal feelings are).
-
^ hey if its accepted by society, just do it..
that quote was not from the Quran btw
that is a quote form a source, who is very questionable as half the things he says are pornographic and inaccurate
so what does the qu'ran state about aisha ?
It was also at this time that he was betrothed to Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, who later became the first Caliph and whom Sunnis consider to have been Muhammad's closest friend. Most Muslims believe that she was only six years old at the time of the betrothal (a mutual promise to marry), based on oral traditions, or hadith reported by Bukhari. However, there are other traditions, including Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, that would indicate she was older[1][2].
Muhammad married Aisha after the Hijra, when she may have been anywhere from nine to seventeen years old. The marriage to Aisha may have been politically motivated initially, in that Abu Bakr was one of Muhammad's strongest supporters, and the marriage strengthened the ties between them
are you happy to follow a religion, where your prophet marries for political reasons ? Jesus died for his beliefs, i doubt he would do anything for political reasons... i believe in that is considered selling your soul.
Siblings married and had children not too long ago either. Morals and society changes over time and that was acceptable.
shouldnt morals be pure of religion ? i mean if its the word of Allah, these arent human morals were talking about here...
Of course. But what religion is truly pure? Nada. They're all established by human morals. That's how I see it.
Islam is truly pure. Islam was created from the word of Allah, thru prophet muhammed, who was an illiterate man.... if you wanna understand Islam, you must understand the deites, Islam is the truest religion beginning to end, and that has been stated at prestigous universities such as stanford, harvard, berkeley etc....
ok, so whats his illileracy got to do with anything ? he didnt write the qu'ran anyway.
to understand islam, you cannot understand islam, the good muslims on this board dont follow islam, they follow their own good version of it, which is blind to the real islam.
yeah but the quran, just like the bible, are said to be the word of God, through Jesus, or word of Allah through Mohammed... so how could someone accept a book which promotes pedophilia ? like yeah, the bible has alot of mythodology, but dont you have to accepts mythology to accept religion ? there is no scientific fact of the after-life, or anything for that matter...
and i'm not dissing, i'm just asking questions, if i dont ask these questions, how am i supposed to know ?
look, read your bible. in the bible, moses sins and is punished by god and never reaches the land of canaan after he led the israelites out of egypt and after he received the ten commandments. are you going to write off the ten commandments, judiasm and christianity because moses sinned later in life? it's in the bible.
i am not prepared to call muhammad a sinner. aisha? it looks like that marriage was politically motivated. the age of the woman has been debated. the woman's father was the first caliph, so clearly noone in the community had a problem with the relationship, most importantly not her parents.
yeah, the bible also says no human is perfect... and moses didnt marry a child. and just because the community was happy with it, what kind of excuse is that ? what if the whole communtiy was full of sinners ? what if the parents had an alterior motive, and didnt give a fuck about a FE-MALE child.
whether the father liked it or not, or whether she was 9 or 19, the guy was supposedly about what 35 years older than her?
hes a peado anyway u look at it
you are simply looking for reasons to criticize the prophet. 19 is acceptable by any standard. there are child kings and queens in the bible, it's often used to unite families, tribes and nations. not only was this marriage politically motivated, aisha was almost without question of an acceptable age ~19.
why do you insists on critizing the prophet?
why do you blindly defend the prophet ?deny that mohammed married a 9 year old girl at the age of 54 ?
i'm not trying to diss here, i just want to know if you are aware of this, or if it's true.
Once a girl has reached puberty her body is ready physically for a sexual relationship. This country has a manmade law that you can't have sex with a woman until she is 18, but the law of nature says a woman is ready upon reaching puberty. Muhammad (saws) did not consumate the marriage until after she had reached puberty.
I also want to mention that Muhammad only had one wife Khadijah, from the time he was 25 till the time he was around 45. Khadijah was much older than Muhammad was. After Khadijah died that's when Muhammad married other women.
ohhh so he married OTHER WOMEN, not just one ? oh but she was dead, so thats cool...
-
^ hey if its accepted by society, just do it..
it's pretty self-righteous for one to claim they know better than a community, and better than god's prophet as well.
so what does the qu'ran state about aisha ?
the quran makes no direct reference to aisha. it makes mention of the prophet's wives in a couple places, but never of aisha directly. she is mentioned only in hadiths.
are you happy to follow a religion, where your prophet marries for political reasons ? Jesus died for his beliefs, i doubt he would do anything for political reasons... i believe in that is considered selling your soul.
you deny half of your own bible in order to make your arguments. you deny the religion of jesus and the scriptures jesus studied to make your arguments. why is this?
what does the motivation for the marriage matter? where is it ever suggested that the prophet mistreated any of his wives?
to understand islam, you cannot understand islam, the good muslims on this board dont follow islam, they follow their own good version of it, which is blind to the real islam.
what muslim does not follow the qu''ran? maybe they have additional sources (the hadiths) but it's all going to start with the qu'ran. anyone with a complete understanding of the qu'ran can appreciate it's goodness and truth. it's only those with a partial understanding of a handful of verses that deny this.
how could someone accept a book which promotes pedophilia ?
atleast read the quran before you criticize it. this issue of aisha's age does not appear in the quran, but in a hadith attributed to her. and her age has been questioned in that source.
yeah, the bible also says no human is perfect... and moses didnt marry a child.
moses killed a man.
what if the parents had an alterior motive, and didnt give a fuck about a FE-MALE child.
to my knowledge it's never been suggested anywhere that aisha was unhappy or mistreated, and many hadiths are attributed to aisha and accepted as her own words.
why do you blindly defend the prophet ?
this is a non-issue. the quran never claims the prophet muhammad was perfect, there is even a verse that states god has forgiven him his past sins and will forgive him his future sins as well, thus acknowledging that he is not perfect. i don't know that aisha was 19. it's a non-issue. only your stubbornness denies the fact that we don't actually know her age.
ohhh so he married OTHER WOMEN, not just one ? oh but she was dead, so thats cool...
there's nothing wrong with a man having multiple wives. abraham had multiple wives, or children from multiple women, and his wife sarah sent the mother of ismael (who was a wife or servant, i'd need to look it up) away iirc. sent the woman away. that's far more eggregious than this non-issue.
-
you deny half of your own bible in order to make your arguments. you deny the religion of jesus and the scriptures jesus studied to make your arguments. why is this?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to share my beliefs regarding the Old Testament. I think Jesus made it very clear that much of the Old Testement can't be trusted since it filled with the ideas of man added to the ideas of God. He points out Moses a couple of times and corrects him and for this I only look to the Gospels as anything I would defend. Everything else is fair game as I feel it is filled with errors. I realize that someone could say they feel the Gospels have errors, but I am just specifying my personal beliefs stemmed from the fact that I haven't found anything in the Gospels I feel is remotely wrong. Not yet anyway.
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to share my beliefs regarding the Old Testament. I think Jesus made it very clear that much of the Old Testement can't be trusted since it filled with the ideas of man added to the ideas of God. He points out Moses a couple of times and corrects him and for this I only look to the Gospels as anything I would defend.
this is exactly why the holy qu'ran is so important. it provides greater clarity and understanding of the old testament, as well as clarifying misconceptions about the nature of christ.
the old testament supposedly represents a history of sorts. people wondered if the purpose of the religion was simply strict observance of the ten commandments and the laws of abraham. god is portrayed as a finicky and whimsical individual. the message largely has to be interpretted from this history.
your new testament has a series of verses about how everything is created with a specific purpose. a potter can make one clay vessel to honor and another to dishonor.
the holy qu'ran pulls all of this together. you mention the question of moses and his character, moses had a specific purpose. to lead the israelites out of egypt and deliver the ten commandments. the fact that he sins along the way (killing a man, disobeying god) is irrelevant. he was a messenger of god, delivered a warning to pharoah, served his purpose.
similarly, the prophet muhammad's purpose is clear. he brings good news and a warning for the disbelievers. he clarifies the message, purpose and laws. he clarifies the purpose and meaning of islam. he delivers the quran. that is the prophet's purpose, which he satisfied. the quran itself mentions that muhammad will commit future sins and accordingly be forgiven. thus muhammad is not perfect. he doesn't need to be perfect as his purpose was clear.
-
deny that mohammed married a 9 year old girl at the age of 54 ?
i'm not trying to diss here, i just want to know if you are aware of this, or if it's true.
lol so every religion has its faults. whats the point here? yea he married a little girl and that was his choice right? at least he got to practice his 'freedom'. why do u keep posting all this irrelevent shit. u sound like a little bitch who is ignorant. just by reading all of your posts i know u are a dumbass. how would u konw what life was like 1400 years ago?? stop asking dumb ass questions dude. just let it be. 1 billion ppl follow it. just like the millions or billions of ppl who believe in jesus and who beleive in hinduism.
some things arent ment for u to understand so stop making comments i think uve already made a fucking jackass out of yourself.
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to share my beliefs regarding the Old Testament. I think Jesus made it very clear that much of the Old Testement can't be trusted since it filled with the ideas of man added to the ideas of God. He points out Moses a couple of times and corrects him and for this I only look to the Gospels as anything I would defend.
this is exactly why the holy qu'ran is so important. it provides greater clarity and understanding of the old testament, as well as clarifying misconceptions about the nature of christ.
the old testament supposedly represents a history of sorts. people wondered if the purpose of the religion was simply strict observance of the ten commandments and the laws of abraham. god is portrayed as a finicky and whimsical individual. the message largely has to be interpretted from this history.
your new testament has a series of verses about how everything is created with a specific purpose. a potter can make one clay vessel to honor and another to dishonor.
the holy qu'ran pulls all of this together. you mention the question of moses and his character, moses had a specific purpose. to lead the israelites out of egypt and deliver the ten commandments. the fact that he sins along the way (killing a man, disobeying god) is irrelevant. he was a messenger of god, delivered a warning to pharoah, served his purpose.
similarly, the prophet muhammad's purpose is clear. he brings good news and a warning for the disbelievers. he clarifies the message, purpose and laws. he clarifies the purpose and meaning of islam. he delivers the quran. that is the prophet's purpose, which he satisfied. the quran itself mentions that muhammad will commit future sins and accordingly be forgiven. thus muhammad is not perfect. he doesn't need to be perfect as his purpose was clear.
For you the Quran is the clarity. For me it is the Gospel. I have personal issues with some things in the Quran as you do with some things mentioned in the Bible. It's not even so much that I disagree with the Quran but that I don't disagree with anything in the Gospel. In the end we both follow the same basic message on how to live your life and neither believe the other will be punished for practicing the way we do, so long as we are righteous, or at least strive to be.
-
In the end we both follow the same basic message on how to live your life and neither believe the other will be punished for practicing the way we do, so long as we are righteous, or at least strive to be.
real talk
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to share my beliefs regarding the Old Testament. I think Jesus made it very clear that much of the Old Testement can't be trusted since it filled with the ideas of man added to the ideas of God. He points out Moses a couple of times and corrects him and for this I only look to the Gospels as anything I would defend.
this is exactly why the holy qu'ran is so important. it provides greater clarity and understanding of the old testament, as well as clarifying misconceptions about the nature of christ.
what does the qu'ran state about the nature of christ ?
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to share my beliefs regarding the Old Testament. I think Jesus made it very clear that much of the Old Testement can't be trusted since it filled with the ideas of man added to the ideas of God. He points out Moses a couple of times and corrects him and for this I only look to the Gospels as anything I would defend.
this is exactly why the holy qu'ran is so important. it provides greater clarity and understanding of the old testament, as well as clarifying misconceptions about the nature of christ.
what does the qu'ran state about the nature of christ ?
that he isn't God, nor the son of God... he's just like all the other prophets (Moses, Mohammed, Abraham, etc.), a messenger
-
^ so by 'the christ', youre reffering to Jesus ? Jesus' name isn't christ, if you look up what christ means, you will find that it's a title...
when i was asking what does the qu'ran say about the nature of the christ, i'm not talking about what the qu'ran says about Jesus.
-
^ so by 'the christ', youre reffering to Jesus ? Jesus' name isn't christ, if you look up what christ means, you will find that it's a title...
when i was asking what does the qu'ran say about the nature of the christ, i'm not talking about what the qu'ran says about Jesus.
Yeah, I'm referring to Jesus... I don't know if nibs was or not.
Christ literally means the Annointed One... however to those who accept Jesus as "the Christ", the term can be used synonymously with Jesus... the term actually has different "meanings" to different people... I was simply referring to Jesus.
-
well does the qu'ran mention anything about the Christ ?
-
well does the qu'ran mention anything about the Christ ?
i didn't read this discourse closely enough.
some translations refer to jesus directly as the christ, which as jamal pointed out means "annointed one". others refer to jesus as the messiah as well.
i don't read arabic, so i can't say exactly what the qu'ran states as the translations differ over their usage of "christ", i also don't know what the connotations of christ or messiah have in arabic.
here is some of what the qu'ran says about jesus.
the qu'ran mentions jesus frequently. it supports the notion of the virgin birth, it basically says that jesus is devine and that jesus' soul was was of a divine nature. it mentions that jesus could speak as an infant.
sura 21:91 (sher ali)
And remember her who guarded her chastity, so WE breathed into her of Our Word and WE made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.
alternate translation (yusef ali):
sura 21:91
And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
there is a mention of the divine nature of jesus' soul.
sura 3:42-45 (sher ali)
When the angels said, `O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;
`And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.
She said, `My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touch me ? He said, `Such is the way of ALLAH. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it `Be,' and it is;
And HE will teach him the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel;
And will send him as a Messenger to the Children of Israel with the Message, `I come to you with a Sign from your Lord, which is, that I will fashion out for you a creation out of clay after the manner of a bird; then I will breath into it a new spirit and it will become a soaring being by the command of ALLAH; and I will heal the night blind and the leprous, and I will quicken the dead by the command of ALLAH; and I will announce to you what you will eat and what you will store up in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you, if you are believers.
here the qu'ran is supporting the virgin conception/birth and jesus miracles.
sura 19:22-30 (sher ali)
So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place.
And the pains of child-birth drove her unto the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, `O, would that I had died before this and had become a thing quite forgotten !
Then the angel called her from beneath her, saying, `Grieve not. Thy Lord has placed a rivulet below thee;
`And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will drop upon thee fresh ripe dates;
`So, eat and drink and cool thine eye. And if thou seest any man, say, `I have vowed a fast to the Gracious God; I will, therefore, not speak this day to any human being.'
Then she brought him to her people, mounted. They said, `O Mary, surely, thou hast committed a monstrous thing !
`O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother an unchaste woman !'
Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, `How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle ?'
Jesus said, `I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet;
`And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live;
`And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless;
`And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.'
That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt.
there is jesus as an infant talking.
the only area where the qu'ran disagrees with the popular thinking of christianity is in the notion that christ was equal to god, and that christ should be worshipped directly.
sura 4:171-172 (sher ali)
O People of the Book ! exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of ALLAH anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of ALLAH, and a fulfillment of HIS word which HE has sent down to Mary, and a mercy from HIM. So believe in ALLAH and HIS Messengers, and say not, `They are three.' Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, ALLAH is the only One God. Holy is HE, far above having a son. To HIM belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is ALLAH as a guardian.
Surely, the Messiah disdains not to be a servant of ALLAH, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoso disdains to worship HIM and is proud, HE will gather them all to Himself.
the qu'ran makes it clear that no prophet should be worshipped; and jesus was a prophet and a man. however, the nature of christ in the qu'ran is completely incomparable to any other human other than possibly adam (and also john the baptist) (as adam, eve and john were also created through direct divine action; and not simple procreation).
-
^ but if even the qu'ran speaks so highly of Jesus, why is it Mohammed is held in such high regard ? you said Jesus' soul was of divine nature ? it even backed up the fact that Jesus performed miracles... so why ? Mohammed in Islam has more respect than Jesus doesnt he ?
-
^ but if even the qu'ran speaks so highly of Jesus, why is it Mohammed is held in such high regard ? you said Jesus' soul was of divine nature ? it even backed up the fact that Jesus performed miracles... so why ? Mohammed in Islam has more respect than Jesus doesnt he ?
muhammad really doesn't get more respect than jesus. they are typically afforded the same level of reverence: both are identified as prophets; both are revered with the "peace be upon him" epithet.
the real difference is that as the qu'ran was delivered to muhammad, and it is the qu'ran and the hadiths which form the basis of islamic law; it appears that muhammad recieves a greater emphasis. muhammad's purpose was to deliver the qu'ran which clarifies and supercedes some of the misconceptions that people had about judiasm and jesus. similar to how jesus clarified older mosaic law, muhammad clarifies newer misconceptions that had arisen.
the reality is that islam is about neither jesus or muhammad but about god; so there isn't any great need to try to compare the prophets or place anyone above the others. all the prophets and messengers of god have had specific purposes that they satisfied.
-
^ i see.. well why is it there is so much trust put into Mohammed ?
sorry to say this, but islam is just confusing to me..
-
^ but if even the qu'ran speaks so highly of Jesus, why is it Mohammed is held in such high regard ? you said Jesus' soul was of divine nature ? it even backed up the fact that Jesus performed miracles... so why ? Mohammed in Islam has more respect than Jesus doesnt he ?
muhammad really doesn't get more respect than jesus. they are typically afforded the same level of reverence: both are identified as prophets; both are revered with the "peace be upon him" epithet.
the real difference is that as the qu'ran was delivered to muhammad, and it is the qu'ran and the hadiths which form the basis of islamic law; it appears that muhammad recieves a greater emphasis. muhammad's purpose was to deliver the qu'ran which clarifies and supercedes some of the misconceptions that people had about judiasm and jesus. similar to how jesus clarified older mosaic law, muhammad clarifies newer misconceptions that had arisen.
the reality is that islam is about neither jesus or muhammad but about god; so there isn't any great need to try to compare the prophets or place anyone above the others. all the prophets and messengers of god have had specific purposes that they satisfied.
If a new prophet were to emerge and have his mission be to clarify the misconceptions of the Quran (something like Muhammad's direct followers changed the Quran to suit there needs), how would you view him?
-
in arabic he is neither called jesus or christ.he is called aisa and al masseh
-
so back to the original topic of a guy 35 years older than the girl he is having sex with
if a 54 year old man was interested in my 19 year old daughter, id ask him what the fuck he is playing at
nibs & infinite how would u feel if a 54 year man wanted to marry your 9-19 year old daughter?
-
If a new prophet were to emerge and have his mission be to clarify the misconceptions of the Quran (something like Muhammad's direct followers changed the Quran to suit there needs), how would you view him?
rashad khalifah made that claim (and was assassinated for it). his translation of the qu'ran is very easy to read; however i'm skeptical of his claims and some of his changes. khalifah actually claimed to be a messenger as the qu'ran states muhammad was the last prophet. khalifah didn't like the hadiths and his translation of some verses is slightly different.
i personally would evaluate any new information in the same manner in which i evaluated the qu'ran.
it's hard for me to foresee misconceptions about the qu'ran as the qu'ran has been unaltered; and it is something that i have studied on my own. in contrast i have doubts as to how the bible was recorded and how the catholic church assembled the new testament specifically. how the teachings about christ have been presented. i have no doubts about the nature of the qu'ran.
the qu'ran covers the basics of what a person needs to know. the qu'ran is the basis of what any faith should have. while i could see other materials augmenting what the qu'ran says, i find it hard to foresee a need to replace anything that is said in the qu'ran.
-
so back to the original topic of a guy 35 years older than the girl he is having sex with
if a 54 year old man was interested in my 19 year old daughter, id ask him what the fuck he is playing at
nibs & infinite how would u feel if a 54 year man wanted to marry your 9-19 year old daughter?
i'd ask my daughter why she was interested in a 54 year old man.
19/20 will always be hot to me. the only issue i've ever had with "19" is that it's under the drinking age, and it's always a little weird when you are ordering drinks and the girl is like "i forgot my id ;)"
but hey, they typically let women by without much hassle.
i'm not really a drinker anymore, so that doesn't matter.
19 is old enough.
-
its not the age of the girl thats the problem
its the 54 year old thats fucked up in the head and should be interested in women his own age
-
its not the age of the girl thats the problem
its the 54 year old thats fucked up in the head and should be interested in women his own age
other than angela bassett (48?) there aren't many women of that age that do anything for me. a very superficial thing to say, sure. it's hard for me to think that at 54 i would stop appreciating that type of nubile beauty. 19 isn't a little kid. in terms of maturity and emotionally, maybe theres a disparity. but if they can make the relationship work i don't see the problem. it seems that the marriage worked for 8-10 years for them.
-
i give up, if you dont see anything wrong in it then you need to have your head checked out
-
If a new prophet were to emerge and have his mission be to clarify the misconceptions of the Quran (something like Muhammad's direct followers changed the Quran to suit there needs), how would you view him?
God tells us in the Qur'an that Muhammad is the last prophet. There have actually been a number of people who claimed to be prophets with new messages (ex: Bahaullah --- Baha'i faith), but "Muslims" didn't accept them because they were already told "by God" that Muhammad was the seal of the prophets.
-
If a new prophet were to emerge and have his mission be to clarify the misconceptions of the Quran (something like Muhammad's direct followers changed the Quran to suit there needs), how would you view him?
God tells us in the Qur'an that Muhammad is the last prophet. There have actually been a number of people who claimed to be prophets with new messages (ex: Bahaullah --- Baha'i faith), but "Muslims" didn't accept them because they were already told "by God" that Muhammad was the seal of the prophets.
what if he could walk on water n stuff?
-
We are told that the anti-Christ will be able to perform unbelievable acts, miracles, etc... and that's how he'll gain his followers.... one of the signs of the day of judgment.
-
^ so the anti-christ will be able to do all that ? wont the jews see him as the christ ? haha the jews are fucked..
-
i find it hard to foresee a need to replace anything that is said in the qu'ran.
And many Christians find it hard to replace anything in the Bible. I personally find it hard to to denounce anything in the gospel. The whole Son of God thing is either believed or not, but cannot be logically dismissed or proven. The bottom line is there is nothing in the Gospel that I disagree with morally. I can't say that for any other religious text I've read. All I'm trying to say is that you can see why I personally would have no interest ingoing from Christianity to Islam, (not that you are saying I should).
Someone new came along and claimed to be a prohet and claimed that Jesus was just a prophet and of course Christians would reject that, much like Muslims who have been told the Quran is the unaltered word of God, when in fact the only thing you can proove is that it is believed to be the unaltered word of God. You don't know for sure, but you believe, and that's fine.
I read lines like this from Surah 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.
Even in apoligist translations it still comes out that the man is the head and his will is more important htan the woman's. Now when Paul wrote shit like this in his letters I can accept it because Paul was a man of his times who was doing what he felt was right but not knowledgeable enough to understand what is to come and how the world will change. I see Moses and the other previous prophets the same way. Men who knew what they were told and added their own takes because they felt it was right. I can't accept anything I feel is immoral as the true word of God.
(This post was not an attack to instigate but to explain what I believe and why).
-
And many Christians find it hard to replace anything in the Bible. I personally find it hard to to denounce anything in the gospel. The whole Son of God thing is either believed or not, but cannot be logically dismissed or proven.
the son of god is largely a semantic issue. god is not a man, god does not have semen, god does not have sons in the sense that man has sons.
many people have interpretted the relationship of jesus and god, and jesus words in a far different manner. you portray this as an all or nothing issue when it's not.
The bottom line is there is nothing in the Gospel that I disagree with morally.
that is an interesting standard which is based largely on your own conjecture. one lesson that the qu'ran teaches is that often your moral decisions are often wrong if you do not have complete understanding of a situation. the point to religion is not necessarily to find what agrees with you, but to find what is true and understand why it's true.
Someone new came along and claimed to be a prohet and claimed that Jesus was just a prophet and of course Christians would reject that, much like Muslims who have been told the Quran is the unaltered word of God, when in fact the only thing you can proove is that it is believed to be the unaltered word of God. You don't know for sure, but you believe, and that's fine.
the qu'ran is more than just "unaltered". the bible represents mostly history based on observation, and even the accuracy of this history has been debated.
even the new testatement is mostly observation of jesus and part of what he said. this is more comparable to hadiths then the quran.
I read lines like this from Surah 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.
Even in apologist translations it still comes out that the man is the head and his will is more important htan the woman's.
you are looking for laws rather than guidance. men and women are different, their roles are different. in no way does that sura say that the man should disregard the advice and counsel of his wife. in no way does it say that a man should completely dominate his wife. what it says is that ultimately the man has the final authority which the woman should respect. the actual dynamics of the relationship; how decisions are debated, how the woman's opinion is valued..etc are completely unspecified. you suggest that women have no rights in a relationship, the reality is that the relationship could easily be 50.5%/49.5%. all it says is the man sets the tone.
for you to disagree is for you to deny that that it allows you to be as liberal as you wish in the relationship. additionally, it in no way condones abusive or irrational behavior. it relies on the husband to be just. women also have the right to seek divorce if the marriage isn't working; if the man is a bad husband.
it's hard to understand what you have a problem with. if people use scripture to justify bad behavior, it's not that their actions are good and just; it is that they are abusing the scripture. this is the exact same idea h cottie has been trying to use to explain why terrorists are wrong, and incompatible with islam.
I can't accept anything I feel is immoral as the true word of God.
in many ways the quran is malleable where you suggest that it is firm. saying the man is the head of the household is not the same as saying that the man must dominate and terrorize. it's nowhere near the same.
the qu'ran has an interesting parable about morality:
sura 18:60-82 (khalifah)
Moses said to his servant, "I will not rest until I reach the point where the two rivers meet, no matter how long it takes."
When they reached the point where they met, they forgot their fish, and it found its way back to the river, sneakily.
After they passed that point, he said to his servant, "Let us have lunch. All this traveling has thoroughly exhausted us."
He said, "Remember when we sat by the rock back there? I paid no attention to the fish. It was the devil who made me forget it, and it found its way back to the river, strangely."
(Moses) said, "That was the place we were looking for." They traced their steps back.
They found one of our servants, whom we blessed with mercy, and bestowed upon him from our own knowledge.
Moses said to him, "Can I follow you, that you may teach me some of the knowledge and the guidance bestowed upon you?"
He said, "You cannot stand to be with me.
"How can you stand that which you do not comprehend?"
He said, "You will find me, GOD willing, patient. I will not disobey any command you give me."
He said, "If you follow me, then you shall not ask me about anything, unless I choose to tell you about it."
So they went. When they boarded a ship, he bore a hole in it. He said, "Did you bore a hole in it to drown its people? You have committed something terrible."
He said, "Did I not say that you cannot stand to be with me?"
He said, "I am sorry. Do not punish me for my forgetfulness; do not be too harsh with me."
So they went. When they met a young boy, he killed him. He said, "Why did you kill such an innocent person, who did not kill another person? You have committed something horrendous."
He said, "Did I not tell you that you cannot stand to be with me?"
He said, "If I ask you about anything else, then do not keep me with you. You have seen enough apologies from me."
So they went. When they reached a certain community, they asked the people for food, but they refused to host them. Soon, they found a wall about to collapse, and he fixed it. He said, "You could have demanded a wage for that!"
He said, "Now we have to part company. But I will explain to you everything you could not stand.
"As for the ship, it belonged to poor fishermen, and I wanted to render it defective. There was a king coming after them, who was confiscating every ship, forcibly.
"As for the boy, his parents were good believers, and we saw that he was going to burden them with his transgression and disbelief.*
"We willed that your Lord substitute in his place another son; one who is better in righteousness and kindness.
"As for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city. Under it, there was a treasure that belonged to them. Because their father was a righteous man, your Lord wanted them to grow up and attain full strength, then extract their treasure. Such is mercy from your Lord. I did none of that of my own volition. This is the explanation of the things you could not stand."
ultimately noone knows everything. it's often more advantageous to look at a scripture in terms of "why is this right?" as opposed to looking for reasons to say it's wrong.
if ultimately you are going with your morality why even bother with the scriptures at all?
-
There was no point to respond to me. I made it very clear that I was just expressing my personal beliefs and in no way wanted to change yours or say yours were wrong. If you responded for the sake of anyone else reading so you didn't appear to give up then I understand. But you can't give me answers that are outside your realm. You can't prove anything about Islam as being true and it's pointless to try. You may go in with the implication that I know you mean "you believe" but for people looking on they may not see that and cofuse your beliefs with you attempting to present cold hard facts. In general you should try to say things that would imply Islam is more pure because the Bible was changed while the Quran wasn't, because you don't know.
There is one thing you said that I reallly had a problem with;
"in many ways the quran is malleable where you suggest that it is firm. saying the man is the head of the household is not the same as saying that the man must dominate and terrorize. it's nowhere near the same."
I just presented the quote and said I disagree with it, and that I have read the apologist interpretations and still disagreed. I never once said that the Quran endorses domination or terrorism with in the houshold. If it is 50.5% to 49.5% I still think it's wrong, and even if the woman can find a better husband she is still inferior, slightly inferior or not. I strongly believe that a woman lead household, where the woman can have the final say can be just as strong as a male lead household. I personally want would like a completely equal household where no decisions are made unless we both agree, with compromises being necessary from both, and I personally don't want to believe in a God that says it's okay for my word to take precedent over my wife's. It's just my view.
To answer your last question; "if ultimately you are going with your morality why even bother with the scriptures at all?"
I don't bother with them. I read them to know them for educational puposes. I belive when Jesus said he cam for the sinners not the righteous, claiming htat good people existed and could exist with out his teachings because they already knew the teachings. I take a very philosphical approach to Christianity and it suits me well. It doesn't have to suit you.
-
There was no point to respond to me. I made it very clear that I was just expressing my personal beliefs and in no way wanted to change yours or say yours were wrong. If you responded for the sake of anyone else reading so you didn't appear to give up then I understand.
i am not trying to convert you. i respond simply to indicate that where you suggest there are questions there are actually answers. i respond for completeness sake. for the record, i have no problem at all with you being a christian. i don't believe that people can be told what to do, people seek and they find. i am not telling you to convert, i am illustrating the misconceptions in your concerns.
But you can't give me answers that are outside your realm. You can't prove anything about Islam as being true and it's pointless to try.
my realm is infinite. you have made statements that were clear misconceptions and those were addressable.
You may go in with the implication that I know you mean "you believe" but for people looking on they may not see that and cofuse your beliefs with you attempting to present cold hard facts.
i present cold hard facts.
In general you should try to say things that would imply Islam is more pure because the Bible was changed while the Quran wasn't, because you don't know.
the bible is presented as a history and the actual accuracy of that history is debated; the meaning largely has to be inferred. the new testament suffers slightly less from this the old. the quran is presented as instructions with historical references. these are the facts.
I just presented the quote and said I disagree with it, and that I have read the apologist interpretations and still disagreed. I never once said that the Quran endorses domination or terrorism with in the houshold. If it is 50.5% to 49.5% I still think it's wrong, and even if the woman can find a better husband she is still inferior, slightly inferior or not. I strongly believe that a woman lead household, where the woman can have the final say can be just as strong as a male lead household.
you can structure your marriage however your wish. you could cede all the power to your wife. the point is not to create a strict law; the point is to create a mode of thinking. in countless scriptures throughout the quran there will be instruction and then a fallback position, and possibly another fallback position. it provides a structure, it provides a mode of thinking. the quran states directly "there is no obligation in religion". if you want to cede authority to your wife 50/50 or 0/100 this is not some sort inherent sin on it's own. it would depend on your own rationale. ofcourse being the man it is your decision whether or not to cede the authority, but it is something that you could do.
I personally want would like a completely equal household where no decisions are made unless we both agree, with compromises being necessary from both, and I personally don't want to believe in a God that says it's okay for my word to take precedent over my wife's. It's just my view.
you have this idea about islam that in many ways is misguided. the quran is not incompatible with the sorts of notions you put forward. there is actually alot of debate in the muslim world about the issue of women's rights and shari'a law for example. in iran the younger generations have been pushing towards more liberal interpretations of shari'a law. in palestine there had been some backlash when hamas took over as to whether hamas would try to impose a more strict form of shari'a law and force women to wear hijabs...there are liberal muslims, there are feminist muslims...etc. your criticisms here are misguided. while the quran is accepted as the word of god, some of the quran is actually contextual, making direct references to situations that were immediately relevant at the time. this is also allows for some of the malleability.
To answer your last question; "if ultimately you are going with your morality why even bother with the scriptures at all?"
I don't bother with them. I read them to know them for educational puposes. I belive when Jesus said he cam for the sinners not the righteous, claiming htat good people existed and could exist with out his teachings because they already knew the teachings. I take a very philosphical approach to Christianity and it suits me well. It doesn't have to suit you.
i maintain that religion has more to offer than just morality. religion also tries to impart wisdom, knowledge and truth. this is far different than simple morality.
i
-
^ i've been saying from the longest of times... the qu'ran does not state things in black and white. it does not call a spade a spade, if it did, then there wouldnt be such debate over womens rights.
the moral teachings in the new testament are clear, and do not offer mis-understanding. it is plain and clear what is right and wrong.
the bible is actually very strict in it's teachings aswell, one example is; if you are married, and you look around at other women erotically, remove the eye you look at them with, if you steal, remove the hand you steal with. it is plain and clear.
what i will never understand, is the whole dividing up assets stuff in case of death. there is nothing about dividing assets up in the bible, because dividing up assets is not important, what do you think assets mean to God ? everybody knows you cant take possessions to the afterlife. what is the point in putting such things in a book supposedly of the word of god ? they could have just made that an arabic law or whatever... but including it in a 'holy' document ?
-
^ i've been saying from the longest of times... the qu'ran does not state things in black and white. it does not call a spade a spade, if it did, then there wouldnt be such debate over womens rights.
the qu'ran states things in black & white, the debate is whether the qu'ran should be followed to the letter of the law or in the spirit of the law.
for example, if you look at sura 24:31:
And say to the believing women that they restrain their looks and guard their private parts, and that they display not their beauty or their embellishment except that which is apparent thereof, and that they draw their head-coverings over their bosoms, and that they display not their beauty or their embellishment save to their husbands, or to their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or women who are their companions, or those that their right hands possess, or such of male attendants as have no desire for women, or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of the hidden parts of women. And that they strike not their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may become known. And turn ye to ALLAH all together, O believers, that you may prosper.
the sher ali translation makes direct reference to the head covering which i understand is mentioned in the original arabic. this is why in the stricter islamic states women wear the burqa's or atleast the hajib.
if you look at a different translation (khalifah)
And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed.*
here he simply tries to capture the spirit of the message which is that women should dress modestly.
the bible is actually very strict in it's teachings aswell, one example is; if you are married, and you look around at other women erotically, remove the eye you look at them with, if you steal, remove the hand you steal with. it is plain and clear.
the letter of the law in the qu'ran is similarly strict (cutting the hand of the thief, beating an adulterer and adulteress)
The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.*
The adulterer will end up marrying an adulteress or an idol worshiper, and the adulteress will end up marrying an adulterer or an idol worshiper. This is prohibited for the believers.
Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty lashes, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
the qu'ran is specific.
what i will never understand, is the whole dividing up assets stuff in case of death. there is nothing about dividing assets up in the bible, because dividing up assets is not important, what do you think assets mean to God ? everybody knows you cant take possessions to the afterlife. what is the point in putting such things in a book supposedly of the word of god ? they could have just made that an arabic law or whatever... but including it in a 'holy' document ?
god advising how to life. appreciate this life, and prepare for the next.
people debate whether a daughter could now get equal share in an inheritence, as women now have greater roles in terms of their careers and rely less on their husbands; marriages aren't arranged...etc. people debate whether the qu'ran should be followed to the letter of the law, or the spirit which was about fairness and equity. if a daughter were going to have a husband to take care of her, while a son a family he would be obligated to take care of, the proportions in the qu'ran address that well. in a different time, where the roles of women and men differ, does it make sense to adhere simply to the spirit of fairness.
sura 2:256
There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
that is really the key to islam. all the other directions and instructions are things that are better for you to do. things that prepare the right frame of mind and right disposition.
-
i am not trying to convert you. i respond simply to indicate that where you suggest there are questions there are actually answers. i respond for completeness sake. for the record, i have no problem at all with you being a christian. i don't believe that people can be told what to do, people seek and they find. i am not telling you to convert, i am illustrating the misconceptions in your concerns.
I don't think you are trying to convert me. I just know you can't answer questions that can't be answered any anyone. I choose to belive this and you choose to believe that.
my realm is infinite. you have made statements that were clear misconceptions and those were addressable.
i present cold hard facts.
Your realm is infinite? You sound like Infinite maybe, but your realm is not infinite. You cannot answer all of life's questions, and that's what I meant when I said outside of your realm.
It may be a fact that the Quran says things but that doesn't make the thing the Quran says are facts. The very existence of God is not a fact. You can belive the Quran has never been changed but you can't prove it.
"god is not a man, god does not have semen, god does not have sons in the sense that man has sons."
I never implied that any of this is true, but I can't prove any of this isn't. I'm not God, and have never met God, and can't begin to understand what he is capable of being and doing.
"many people have interpretted the relationship of jesus and god, and jesus words in a far different manner. you portray this as an all or nothing issue when it's not."
Why did I portray it as such. What Jesus is or was before he entered the body of the baby born to Mary is not clearly explain. The Gospel of John states that it was the word of God that entered the body, and that the word came from God and was God at the same time. What that means exactly is anybody's guess and can be interpreted in different ways. It makes enough sense to me for me to believe it and I do.
the bible is presented as a history and the actual accuracy of that history is debated; the meaning largely has to be inferred. the new testament suffers slightly less from this the old. the quran is presented as instructions with historical references. these are the facts.
I could care less about the Old Testmament. I believe in the Gospel, which means the Good Word of Jesus Christ which is the Good Word of God as well, as far as my beliefs go. I have very philosophical views of where that Good Word can come from, and I don't thinkit has to come from reading the 4 scriptures in the Bible.
you can structure your marriage however your wish. you could cede all the power to your wife. the point is not to create a strict law; the point is to create a mode of thinking. in countless scriptures throughout the quran there will be instruction and then a fallback position, and possibly another fallback position. it provides a structure, it provides a mode of thinking. the quran states directly "there is no obligation in religion". if you want to cede authority to your wife 50/50 or 0/100 this is not some sort inherent sin on it's own. it would depend on your own rationale. ofcourse being the man it is your decision whether or not to cede the authority, but it is something that you could do.
It's not about whether I could if I wanted to but whether she could if she wanted to and the type of God I want to believe in. I don't agree with that and that's just how I feel.
you have this idea about islam that in many ways is misguided. the quran is not incompatible with the sorts of notions you put forward. there is actually alot of debate in the muslim world about the issue of women's rights and shari'a law for example. in iran the younger generations have been pushing towards more liberal interpretations of shari'a law. in palestine there had been some backlash when hamas took over as to whether hamas would try to impose a more strict form of shari'a law and force women to wear hijabs...there are liberal muslims, there are feminist muslims...etc. your criticisms here are misguided. while the quran is accepted as the word of god, some of the quran is actually contextual, making direct references to situations that were immediately relevant at the time. this is also allows for some of the malleability.
You have made it very clear that the quote I presented stands true and places the male above the female, even if ony slightly, so how is that a misconception on my part?
i maintain that religion has more to offer than just morality. religion also tries to impart wisdom, knowledge and truth. this is far different than simple morality.
i
It's not about being just about morality, it's about me being able to easily more see what it moral and what is immoral, rather than what is wise and what is unwise. Wisdom is more complicated than morality as far as I'm concerned, and wisdom, great wisdom, comes from many non-religious places. Now I don't know whether that means that because the source wasn't religious that the wisdom isn't part of religion, but I'm not pretending to know. Maybe wisdom is like morality (my version of morality anyway), in that it is from God and put inside all of us and becomes apparent to some before it does for others. I don't know. I don't know why we're here, or where exactly we are going, but I believe that if I live a certain way that those answers will be shown to me one day, and until then I will try my best to live a good life and pay the highest tribute to God the best way I feel I can; by trying to get others to live a good life (good as in a life filled with morality, logic, and practicality, which in turn may be the epitome of what is wise). I will not reject any wisdom, knowledge or truth that comes my way, whether it agrees with it or not, and decide for myself if I think it is wise, smart, or true.
-
. I strongly believe that a woman lead household, ;where the woman can have the final say
:-\
-
I don't think you are trying to convert me. I just know you can't answer questions that can't be answered any anyone. I choose to belive this and you choose to believe that.
i believe we are in agreement. i'm certain that there are people who know these answers; and i am also certain that it is possible to find the answers to life's greatest question if one seeks in the right sources. the key is that this sort of realization happens at the individual level and is something that cannot be told or directed. the knowledge that you speak of is not some sort of intellectual concept to be understood, but a state of mind, a state of understanding to be realized.
in many ways various religions have tried to capture both the descriptions of these realizations; and also direction to finding and verifying these answers on one's own.
"god is not a man, god does not have semen, god does not have sons in the sense that man has sons."
I never implied that any of this is true, but I can't prove any of this isn't. I'm not God, and have never met God, and can't begin to understand what he is capable of being and doing.
the bible does not claim that god is a man with semen. the bible clearly states that mary knew no man. the debate over whether or not jesus is god's son is largely a semantic debate over the usage of the word "son". neither the bible nor the quran suggest that mary was impregnated by a man. there is no debate in the qu'ran and bible as to the nature of the conception of jesus. it's a semantic argument over the usage of words.
"many people have interpretted the relationship of jesus and god, and jesus words in a far different manner. you portray this as an all or nothing issue when it's not."
Why did I portray it as such. What Jesus is or was before he entered the body of the baby born to Mary is not clearly explain. The Gospel of John states that it was the word of God that entered the body, and that the word came from God and was God at the same time. What that means exactly is anybody's guess and can be interpreted in different ways. It makes enough sense to me for me to believe it and I do.
the one idea that i want to convey here is that the qu'ran and the bible do not disagree to the nature of jesus at all. the qu'ran also refers to jesus as "the word of god":
sura 4:171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.
the only disagreement that exists is the notion that jesus is equal to god and should also be worshipped. the notion of the trinity. the qu'ran completely supports the divine nature of jesus in all ways.
when people suggest that the interpretation of christ in the qu'ran is radically different from ideas held by some christians...this is wrong, and not bore out by studying the text to the quran.
It's not about whether I could if I wanted to but whether she could if she wanted to and the type of God I want to believe in. I don't agree with that and that's just how I feel.
this is the root of our current disagreement. the old testament, the qu'ran...etc. there is this idea that god's prophets, and religions in general often tell people what they need to hear for their circumstance. the qu'ran directly has this idea of different people getting prophets and messengers at different times depending on their circumstances...if you look at the history of how the qu'ran was revealed (which was in stages over time) one theme has been that various suras were revealed to the prophet muhammad to address and resolve issues and concerns that were going on at the time. there are verses in sura's that deal directly with people interacting with the prophet and his wives...etc. this is why the qu'ran does not consider it an inconsistency that the various prophets throughout history have said different things. it isn't an issue of god changing his mind; this is not the nature of god. it is an issue of prophets providing divinely inspired guidance to the people.
the basic idea that i think you are missing is this. the qu'ran isn't about dictating the terms of your marriage; however the qu'ran does provide guidance about the structure of marriages at that time, and that advice is still heeded today.
in modern times; when marriages are not arranged by parents, the matter in which you structure your marriage would be less influenced by that guidance and more dictated by your own wishes; so it's a moot issue.
you've suggested that muslims believe in "the sort of god" that wishes to see women dominated and subservient.
god does not wish in this sort of whimsical manner. what the qu'ran states is that god wishes for his creations to be loving towards each other and to worship him.
everything else is basically advice that people would be better for heeding, and warnings that people should be wary of ignoring; because the world is not perfect, and people do not abide by god's will.
what i am challenging is your suggestion of the qu'ran's portrayal of god, when across the muslim world's there are numerous examples of the nature of god being appreciated in a vastly different manner than what you suggest.
i heard a sufi shaykh speak and he characterized the judiasm/christianity/islam relationship thusly:
abraham/moses were about living by the law
jesus was about looking towards the afterlife
muhammad was about balancing the preparation for the spiritual afterlife with appreciating the physical world and existence as well.
-
i believe we are in agreement. i'm certain that there are people who know these answers; and i am also certain that it is possible to find the answers to life's greatest question if one seeks in the right sources. the key is that this sort of realization happens at the individual level and is something that cannot be told or directed. the knowledge that you speak of is not some sort of intellectual concept to be understood, but a state of mind, a state of understanding to be realized.
in many ways various religions have tried to capture both the descriptions of these realizations; and also direction to finding and verifying these answers on one's own.
Many wise people who have dedicated their lives to finding these answers have come to different solutions. That right there tells me that we can't truly figure it out. I've always hada theory that God purposely put people on earth with different beliefs and that no matter what religion, if any, you can logically conclude what you should or shouldn't do in every situation. There are some that tricky like if someone is about to shoot you and you have a gun should you try and shoot him first to save yourself or let him kill you since you havea devout belief in the afterlife? Would it be suicide since you are letting yourself die, or sacrifice since you are sure you are getting to heaven but not sure if your attacker will and you want to give him a chance to repent and redeem himself?. Our human instinct would tell us to shoot back but if we absolutely knew for certain that we would be in paradise we'd probably let him shoot. For the most part though the answers aren't as hard to figure out.
the bible does not claim that god is a man with semen. the bible clearly states that mary knew no man. the debate over whether or not jesus is god's son is largely a semantic debate over the usage of the word "son". neither the bible nor the quran suggest that mary was impregnated by a man. there is no debate in the qu'ran and bible as to the nature of the conception of jesus. it's a semantic argument over the usage of words.
"many people have interpretted the relationship of jesus and god, and jesus words in a far different manner. you portray this as an all or nothing issue when it's not."
I know what the Bible claims. I'm just saying if God can do anything then he should be able to become anything, and if he wanted to becaome a man with semen I don't see how he couldn't. I'm not saying that he has. I'm just saying he could.
and the Gospel of John is very clear about the origin of what became Jesus, and it's pretty much the essence of Christianity to believe that God was not pleased with the way his chosen prophets interpreted his word so he more or less sent his word down in the flesh, which meant he sent himself down so that we get it right. That's the belief anyway.
the one idea that i want to convey here is that the qu'ran and the bible do not disagree to the nature of jesus at all. the qu'ran also refers to jesus as "the word of god":
sura 4:171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.
the only disagreement that exists is the notion that jesus is equal to god and should also be worshipped. the notion of the trinity. the qu'ran completely supports the divine nature of jesus in all ways.
when people suggest that the interpretation of christ in the qu'ran is radically different from ideas held by some christians...this is wrong, and not bore out by studying the text to the quran.
I never thought or implied that the Quran dismiss Jesus or disagrees with most of what Jesus is/was. I just don't see such a huge problem with the trinity. It could mean anything really, but as of now I see it as; Dan is Dan. Dan is also the house painter who lives down the street. And Dan is also the father of Nick. So what is Dan? Is he the house painter or Nick's dad? He's both, and he's Dan. I know this is a lot simpler than saying God is God and he is God's son, so how can the son be the father. You can't father yourself. I get it. But you also can't split a sea in two so people can walk through it or send angels from the sky to earth, but God can, so maybe he can be the father and the son. I just don't question it since if I question tat I may as well question everything else God supposedly did.
this is the root of our current disagreement. the old testament, the qu'ran...etc. there is this idea that god's prophets, and religions in general often tell people what they need to hear for their circumstance. the qu'ran directly has this idea of different people getting prophets and messengers at different times depending on their circumstances...if you look at the history of how the qu'ran was revealed (which was in stages over time) one theme has been that various suras were revealed to the prophet muhammad to address and resolve issues and concerns that were going on at the time. there are verses in sura's that deal directly with people interacting with the prophet and his wives...etc. this is why the qu'ran does not consider it an inconsistency that the various prophets throughout history have said different things. it isn't an issue of god changing his mind; this is not the nature of god. it is an issue of prophets providing divinely inspired guidance to the people.
So Muhammad said to do that while he was under the influence of God? I thought the Quran was the direct word of God and not Muhammad, and that Muhammad had his own teachings in another book.
the basic idea that i think you are missing is this. the qu'ran isn't about dictating the terms of your marriage; however the qu'ran does provide guidance about the structure of marriages at that time, and that advice is still heeded today.
in modern times; when marriages are not arranged by parents, the matter in which you structure your marriage would be less influenced by that guidance and more dictated by your own wishes; so it's a moot issue.
So then why wouldn't the Quran state that this is a "for the times" suggestion? Or does it? And if it doesn't identify which is for the times and which isn't then who is to say what is timeless and what isn't. I know people that still live with a very sexist mindest (Muslim and Christian). Blatant hypocrites who would beat up there sister's or future daughters for having sex but have no problem deflowering young sisters and daughters of other men. I guess I don't like it when people like that can look to spiritual scripts and interpret justfication for their actions. When a Christian takes various quotes from Paul and point out something that makes it okay for them to act that way, I just say show me where Jesus said it was okay and I'll leave you alone. They usually ignmore me for a while and hope I forget. (I have a lot of loser friends).
you've suggested that muslims believe in "the sort of god" that wishes to see women dominated and subservient.
god does not wish in this sort of whimsical manner. what the qu'ran states is that god wishes for his creations to be loving towards each other and to worship him.
I never said that they should be dominated or hurt. I just said that they should be seen as 100% equal. Anything a man is allowed to do according to God, a woman should be given that same permission.
what i am challenging is your suggestion of the qu'ran's portrayal of god, when across the muslim world's there are numerous examples of the nature of god being appreciated in a vastly different manner than what you suggest.
i heard a sufi shaykh speak and he characterized the judiasm/christianity/islam relationship thusly:
abraham/moses were about living by the law
jesus was about looking towards the afterlife
muhammad was about balancing the preparation for the spiritual afterlife with appreciating the physical world and existence as well.
I don't doubt that there are many muslims, maybe even most musims, that don't follow anything immoral. I guess I see it as with Islam a person has to almost rise above some of the things Muhammad did or said to be as righteous as they can be, where in Christianity a person can't even come close to being as righteous as Jesus. For this I cannot call Jesus and Muhammad equals and have to see Jesus as superior.
P.S. When I say rise above, I mean see a verse like Sura 4:34 where it says you should scourge or admonish a wife that rebels and say; no I'd rather treat my wife as an equal instead of leading her, since I am no better than her, and since I don't want to raise my daughters to be less than ther future husbands as far as raising the family goes. I didn't mean you have to become a better person than Muhammad was.
-
Many wise people who have dedicated their lives to finding these answers have come to different solutions. That right there tells me that we can't truly figure it out.
i think that there are many valid solutions to life's questions, some different and some contrasting. life is what you make it, religion is what you make it as well.
I've always hada theory that God purposely put people on earth with different beliefs and that no matter what religion, if any, you can logically conclude what you should or shouldn't do in every situation.
There are some that tricky like if someone is about to shoot you and you have a gun should you try and shoot him first to save yourself or let him kill you since you havea devout belief in the afterlife? Would it be suicide since you are letting yourself die, or sacrifice since you are sure you are getting to heaven but not sure if your attacker will and you want to give him a chance to repent and redeem himself?. Our human instinct would tell us to shoot back but if we absolutely knew for certain that we would be in paradise we'd probably let him shoot. For the most part though the answers aren't as hard to figure out.
i think the right thing to do is the decision that is made that is selfless. decisions that are made out of selfishness and malice are what is wrong.
sometimes people will make horrifically destructive decisions with the purest of intentions. possibly because of ignorance, possibly because they are misguided. the ultimate reward requires both wisdom and pure intentions.
there is an interesting hindu parable that suggests that the best thing to do in your murder suicide scenario would be to shoot and kill your assailaint in order to prevent him from injuring his soul by incurring negative karma from assaulting you in malice. hinduism has the belief that the soul is eternal, the physical body is a false identity, and while life is precious and suffering is only imagined; it is impossible to actually harm another person's true self in this physical realm. so it all works out.
there are alot of varying ideas on how to address those sorts of situations.
and the Gospel of John is very clear about the origin of what became Jesus, and it's pretty much the essence of Christianity to believe that God was not pleased with the way his chosen prophets interpreted his word so he more or less sent his word down in the flesh, which meant he sent himself down so that we get it right. That's the belief anyway.
and the qu'ran supports that belief.
the reason for the prophet muhammad was in no way a slight against jesus; but instead the qu'ran states that the purpose is to further clarify what some jesus followers have gotten wrong. i just want to emphasize that the qu'ran is in no way an assault on christ's teachings. rather, it's stated purpose is to clarify misconceptions about those teachings as well as the old prophets.
more interestingly, in several verses the qu'ran suggests that christians and jews will also attain heavenly reward, even without accepting the qu'ran.
sura 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
So Muhammad said to do that while he was under the influence of God? I thought the Quran was the direct word of God and not Muhammad, and that Muhammad had his own teachings in another book.
it is the direct word of god to the prophet muhammad. i did not mean to suggest otherwise. the context with which the qu'ran should be appreciated is subject to debate and also varies. i tend to agree with the argument that god tells people what they need to know. this idea is supported within the qu'ran as not only did various communities get different warners with different messages, but some of the teachings of the various prophets vary slightly. the purpose for religion is not to create robots out of people but to create a level of understanding; thus the notion that the answers would change slightly within context is not disturbing.
So then why wouldn't the Quran state that this is a "for the times" suggestion? Or does it? And if it doesn't identify which is for the times and which isn't then who is to say what is timeless and what isn't.
the qu'ran does not apply expiration dates to it's advice.
the qu'ran does identify which ideas are the most important; and which ideas are for advice. the core ideas are absolute, the qu'ran defines directly what islam is: submission the the will of god; leading a righteous life, observing the contact prayers, charity towards to poor...etc. it also provides general advice and guidance for life and life's affairs, and typically contains the rationalization for that guidance. in order to interpret a verse then, one can focus on the rationalization to appreciate the spirit of the law.
for example:
sura 2:62 (snippet)
any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
sura 2:112
Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
those are very specific and absolute.
in contrast:
sura 33:32
O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (God), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.
sura 33:59
O Prophet ! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
while this is god's word, it is advice to the wives of the prophet specifically; the second verse also applies to female muslims. this advice is provided to address and prevent undesirable behavior in others; it does not indicate that god cares or desires women to cover up for their spirituality; but it is advice for the women conducting themselves among others.
when the context of how to interpret the qu'ran is debated, the ideas in the qu'ran that are absolute and timeless are clear. there is one god, do not worship idols...etc. other ideas that are inherently contextual have been interpretted in different ways across muslim communities. some prefer literal interpretations; some favor adhering to the spirit of the advice; thus you have many muslim not wearing a burqa or hijab but still dressing modestly.
I guess I see it as with Islam a person has to almost rise above some of the things Muhammad did or said to be as righteous as they can be
i think it depends on how you interpret what the prophet muhammad said and what the qu'ran says. i haven't studied the hadiths, but i am familiar with how people have misinterpretted some of the teachings of the prophet muhammad.
i don't look at the qu'ran as a set of rules but as instruction to developing a more righteous mindset.
in Christianity a person can't even come close to being as righteous as Jesus. For this I cannot call Jesus and Muhammad equals and have to see Jesus as superior.
in islam one would worship god and neither the prophet jesus nor the prophet muhammad; so it isn't a big issue.
P.S. When I say rise above, I mean see a verse like Sura 4:34 where it says you should scourge or admonish a wife that rebels and say; no I'd rather treat my wife as an equal instead of leading her, since I am no better than her, and since I don't want to raise my daughters to be less than ther future husbands as far as raising the family goes.
i understand why you would have issues with sura 4:34 to the letter of the law.
sura 4:34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).
beating is the last resort. it states that the rationale is that the man provides for the woman; which may or may not be true today as women are better able to provide for themselves. additionally, the woman here is charged with disloyalty. much of sura 2 and 4 are dedicated to establishing the rights of women as well as the fair treatment in general; and also specifically for women after divorce where the husband must continue to take care of them and allow them to remain in their homes. 4:34 is an attempt to preserve the balance so that a wife could not force a divorce yet still be taken care of. this is largely an issue of fairness. the reason that i don't have a problem with this is i don't see it as advocating domination but advocating a measure of balance and fairness when taken within the qu'ran as a whole.
we can look at jesus, he performed miracles for his times, but he did not perform miracles for the future. jesus could have revealed some amount of specific scientific information that could only be appreciated and understood in the future times. yet he did not. his miracles were contextual.
the qu'ran could have been a message directed towards future more liberal societies but then you have to question how those ideas would have been accepted at that time.
surely there is the danger of an individual trying to exploit the letter of the law, but again; religion isn't about some sort of strict legal adherence to the letter of the law. it's about what is in an individuals heart and what motivates them. and this is born out in the qu'ran.
sura 2:8-12
Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in God and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!
In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"
Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
the qu'ran as a whole paints a different picture than individual selected verses.
-
religious people need to smoke some bud to relax
-
religious people need to smoke some bud to relax
LMAO
preeeeeach !!! i'm off to roll one up 8)