1 in 1000 Irish Muslims are jihadi fighters

Donkey Oaty · 07-09-2014 08:11PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Translation into English is usually limited in term of translating the full meaning of the Arabic text

Would you like to give us your preferred English translation of Sura 4:34, with any scholarly footnotes you deem interesting, and we can take it from there?

bodice ripper · 07-09-2014 08:11PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

"Qur'an (4:3) - "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" Inequality by numbers"
From a moral and logical point of view do you really see nothing wrong with your wife being married to 3 other men? i mean how can you even know which child is yours.
"how many wifes have you got" is quite a humorous question a lot of the westerners ask the Arabs most of the time we answer by saying we got only one but its the solution to YOUR problem.
In America alone there are 7.8 million more women then men and obviously not all men will get married on top of that there are approximately 25 million men who are gays and hence ANOTHER 25m women cant get married/find a partner, 98% of the prison population are males so your problem is only getting more complicated while Islam is offering you a solution.
Quran is the only scripture which has the statement "marry only one" and you can only marry more if you can do JUSTICE between your wives in term of money,time and material things the quran it self acknowledge that doing justice in term of love is not entirely possible but that shouldnt make you unjust to another.
On another note you talk like Islam is the religion that introduced polygamy

So, not for women to do because it would inconvienece men, but grand for men to do if they deem that they are providing adequetly for the brood-mares? Again, your arguments are not pointing towards equality...

ahmdoda · 07-09-2014 08:13PM

UCDVet wrote: »

My goal isn't to debate the merits of polygamy or to imply that Islam is the first religion to advocate or allow it. I could point out that your argument doesn't make sense globally (there are more men than women in the world) and that we can trivially test for genetic paternity. It's painless and reasonably affordable.

My goal is to point out that the holy texts 'plainly' advocate that women are inferior to men and are to be allowed a subset of options available to men. I don't think you really disagree either - it's just, you'll either justify it (as you did above with polygamy) or you'll offer a different, more complex interpretation of what the text 'really means'. I also don't see why a woman being unable to pray during her menses has any bearing on her ability to testify. It all seems quite nonsensical to me. But again, if you *already* firmly believe in the text, of course, you will find a justification. What seems to make sense to you - 'Well yes! Women can't pray during their menses, of course we need two of them to carry the weight of a man's testimony'; seems well, ridiculous to me.

And that's fine.

But it's hard to say that the Qur'an doesn't say these things. It clearly does.

Again i guess it depends on what you deem as Inferior i can sit and argue all day but if you believe that a man marrying 4 and a women not is inferior i can talk you out of it as for praying during menses if you read about menses and changes in the women physiology that occur during it you will understand the wisdom behind it and then again if you see a women not praying her 5 prayers during menses as inferior treatment no matter whats the reasons are I cant argue with you.

shruikan2553 · 07-09-2014 08:16PM

Religious text filled with backward stupid **** that nobody in their right mind would follow word for word unless it suits them. Turns out everyone has them.

ahmdoda · 07-09-2014 08:18PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Would you like to give us your preferred English translation of Sura 4:34, with any scholarly footnotes you deem interesting, and we can take it from there?

hello there -i wanted to say your name but i felt you would be offended lol- thanks for asking i highly recommended that you read the following commentary to fully understand that verse http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html

Donkey Oaty · 07-09-2014 08:22PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

i can sit and argue all day

So I've noticed.

This has turned into Python's "I'm here for an argument" sketch.

PS: No it hasn't.

Donkey Oaty · 07-09-2014 08:25PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

hello there -i wanted to say your name but i felt you would be offended lol- thanks for asking i highly recommended that you read the following commentary to fully understand that verse http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html

Thank you - this is the quote I will use, but need advice on the pronunciation:

Some fuqaha (Muslim jurists) are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable.

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 08:26PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Again i guess it depends on what you deem as Inferior i can sit and argue all day but if you believe that a man marrying 4 and a women not is inferior i can talk you out of it as for praying during menses if you read about menses and changes in the women physiology that occur during it you will understand the wisdom behind it and then again if you see a women not praying her 5 prayers during menses as inferior treatment no matter whats the reasons are I cant argue with you.

Maybe we are just disagreeing with each other on what 'inferior' means?

Inferior to me means:
a person lower than another in rank, status, or ability.

So yes, if people in Group A are allowed to marry multiple spouses at a time and the people in Group B are allowed to marry only one spouse at a time - the Group B is inferior to Group A, in regards to their ability to marry. (I'd want to be in Group A)

If a member of Group A is allowed to walk outside, alone, but a member of Group B is not allowed to walk outside, alone....Group B is inferior to Group A, with regards to being able to walk outside, alone. (I'd want to be in Group A again)

In Islam (it seems, to me), women are inferior to men in many ways. Perhaps the reverse is also true in some other ways. Still, I will acknowledge that translating texts is very difficult, and I'm only able to read English. Ultimately though, we seem to agree on what is permitted. I don't think the language is an issue here, we just disagree on whether that different treatment means Islam treats women inferiorly.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 08:28PM

cletus van damme wrote: »

You need to be a muslim to get into the jihadi club

No. You don't.

An American soldier journeys to the 'good fight' in Libya

Maybe it passed you by but for the last number of years (and beyond) the the non-Muslim "West" have been transporting, feeding, arming, training and radicalising these same jihadis to fight their proxy wars for them.

And another thing - These same Islamic mercenary types from Ireland were being given liberator status when they were "freeing" the downtrodden people from the caricature evil dictator Gadaffi, so what has changed?

catallus · 07-09-2014 08:29PM

Is there not an important nuance between inequality and a cultural recognition of "difference" between men and women? I mean, from the point of view of the all-important family unit.

bodice ripper · 07-09-2014 08:34PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

hello there -i wanted to say your name but i felt you would be offended lol- thanks for asking i highly recommended that you read the following commentary to fully understand that verse http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html

[SIZE=-1]"Beat them". If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet. (4)[/SIZE]

Dude...seriously.

ahmdoda · 07-09-2014 08:38PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Thank you - this is the quote I will use, but need advice on the pronunciation:

[/SIZE]

Fuqaha are muslim jurists there are 4 principle school of thoughts in islam that differ in terminology and application of laws read the 4th sentences on top of notes on the article i linked to understand what is said i suggest you read the whole thing and not skip parts to fully understand things in context
~If you have any further question am happy to receive a pm i feel am populating this thread with my posts

bodice ripper wrote: »

Dude...seriously.

Again read the whole article to understand things in context being by understanding the importance of marriage in islam. you might also want to read what the stuff you didnt highlight you will find your answer there as you seem to have skipped over them and just highlighted what you wanted~

bodice ripper · 07-09-2014 08:44PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Fuqaha are muslim jurists there are 4 principle school of thoughts in islam that differ in terminology and application of laws read the 4th sentences on top of notes on the article i linked to understand what is said i suggest you read the whole thing and not skip parts to fully understand things in context
~If you have any further question am happy to receive a pm i feel am populating this thread with my posts

Again read the whole article to understand things in context being by understanding the importance of marriage in islam ~

I did. at no point did I see the phrase "ignore the following paragraph, its bull****". I did see that it is ok to beat your wife if you already tried shouting at her, and sleeping in different beds.

keeping in mind that this is the interpretive authority you chose...

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 08:49PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Fuqaha are muslim jurists there are 4 principle school of thoughts in islam that differ in terminology and application of laws read the 4th sentences on top of notes on the article i linked to understand what is said i suggest you read the whole thing and not skip parts to fully understand things in context
~If you have any further question am happy to receive a pm i feel am populating this thread with my posts

Again read the whole article to understand things in context being by understanding the importance of marriage in islam. you might also want to read what the stuff you didnt highlight you will find your answer there as you seem to have skipped over them and just highlighted what you wanted~

OK, but how do explain this quote? “a man may sell his daughter as a slave, but she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are.”

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 08:51PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, but how do explain this quote? “a man may sell his daughter as a slave, but she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are.”

Slavery, including sexual slavery is permitted in Islam.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 08:56PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Slavery, including sexual slavery is permitted in Islam.

Shame that quote is taken from the Bible then innit?
http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-7.htm

ahmdoda · 07-09-2014 08:58PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Dude...seriously.

bodice ripper wrote: »

I did. at no point did I see the phrase "ignore the following paragraph, its bull****". I did see that it is ok to beat your wife if you already tried shouting at her, and sleeping in different beds.

keeping in mind that this is the interpretive authority you chose...

Highlighting is a powerful tool as most people will mostly read the bold and skip over the surrounding text have another read at the exact quote you posted but with different bits highlighted,
Beat them". If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet. (4)

~Reads differently now dont you think?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, but how do explain this quote? “a man may sell his daughter as a slave, but she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are.”

Source? so that i can replay

UCDVet wrote: »

Slavery, including sexual slavery is permitted in Islam.

Again dont say a statement without supporting it with direct evidence from the quran or the hadeeth

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 09:01PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Highlighting is a powerful tool as most people will mostly read the bold and skip over the surrounding text have another read at the exact quote you posted but with different bits highlighted,

wrote:

"Beat them". If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet. (4)

Source? so that i can replay

Again dont say a statement without supporting it with direct evidence from the quran or the hadeeth

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."

Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:01PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Source? so that i can replay

Sorry, I was a little deceptive. It was from the Bible.

bodice ripper · 07-09-2014 09:03PM

ahmdoda wrote: »

Highlighting is a powerful tool as most people will mostly read the bold and skip over the surrounding text have another read at the exact quote you posted but with different bits highlighted,

wrote:

"Beat them". If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet. (4)

yeah, still says you can beat your wife if she is vexes you

getzls · 07-09-2014 09:08PM

Billy86 wrote: »

My point here is that if you want to label all Muslims over the absolutely deplorable acts of a minority in Rotherham, then you can expect to be labelled as a Christian for the deplorable acts seen in places like Alabama. Especially since you don't seem to have much idea of how some of the more extreme versions of Islam came about in recent times.

And forget Jesus, didn't God himself apparently tell the Israelites to do the following to different ethmicities: “smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.”

And didn't God praise Phinehas for murdering an interracial married couple because killing them “hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel.”

And he boasts about ethnicities in Israel that he “cleansed I them from all strangers”. Today, we call that ethnic cleansing.

So rather than just black people, God apparently hated any and every Israelite on the planet.

Those quotes of yours are not from the Christian Bible but the Jewish book.

And by the way, Islam has always been extreme.

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 09:11PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shame that quote is taken from the Bible then innit?
http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-7.htm

Sorry - I thought we were on Islam.

Christianity also permits slaves and sexual slavery. From what I understand, they're quite similar religions in many ways.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:16PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Sorry - I thought we were on Islam.

Christianity also permits slaves and sexual slavery. From what I understand, they're quite similar religions in many ways.

What do you understand? How have you come to understand it?

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 09:19PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What do you understand? How have you come to understand it?

Do you really expect me to write an entire list of everything I understand?
And how I have come to understand it?

That's quite the request.

Or do you just want a list of similarities between Islam and Christianity, aside from the similar stances on slavery in their respective holy texts?

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:26PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Do you really expect me to write an entire list of everything I understand?
And how I have come to understand it?

That's quite the request.

Or do you just want a list of similarities between Islam and Christianity, aside from the similar stances on slavery in their respective holy texts?

The thing is I reckon I have you figured out. I'd like to see if I am mistaken, but I doubt it. I don't think you know the first thing about Islam beyond what you've learned from hate-sites - which is less than nothing.

Anyone can google Islam + slavery and these same anti-Muslim hate-sites will provide. Anyone can produce out of context quotes without having any understanding of there true meaning.

I want to know what efforts you have made to understand there true meaning.

Donkey Oaty · 07-09-2014 09:31PM

If anyone's just joined us, we're discussing mystical texts.

Don't mention the wars.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:37PM

Billy86 wrote: »

My point here is that if you want to label all Muslims over the absolutely deplorable acts of a minority in Rotherham, then you can expect to be labelled as a Christian for the deplorable acts seen in places like Alabama. Especially since you don't seem to have much idea of how some of the more extreme versions of Islam came about in recent times.

And forget Jesus, didn't God himself apparently tell the Israelites to do the following to different ethmicities: “smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.”

And didn't God praise Phinehas for murdering an interracial married couple because killing them “hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel.”

And he boasts about ethnicities in Israel that he “cleansed I them from all strangers”. Today, we call that ethnic cleansing.

So rather than just black people, God apparently hated any and every Israelite on the planet.

New International Version (©1984)
Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

UCDVet · 07-09-2014 09:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The thing is I reckon I have you figured out. I'd like to see if I am mistaken, but I doubt it. I don't think you know the first thing about Islam beyond what you've learned from hate-sites - which is less than nothing.

Anyone can google Islam + slavery and these same anti-Muslim hate-sites will provide. Anyone can produce out of context quotes without having any understanding of there true meaning.

I want to know what efforts you have made to understand there true meaning.

Funny - I don't remember quoting any hate sites. I do remember quoting text from holy texts. Do you disagree with anything I've quoted? Do you feel I've misrepresented Islam in some way? Or Christianity?

If so, please, by all means - enlighten us (or at least me)

I've made very few claims in this thread. And every claim I've made about Islam has been backed by citations.

As for saying that Christianity is similar to Islam well....it's not hard to see. They both worship the same, singular god. They differ slightly on their interpretation of Jesus, but both agree on the virgin birth and that he was of religious significance. They both describe some of the same events.

They both appeared around similar times, fairly near to each other (Middle East).

They both have the concept of 'sins' and similar ideas of an afterlife (heaven/paradise vs. hell).

They both houses of worship. They both have a weekly 'holy day'. They both have a historical structure with religious leaders. They both have holy texts. I'm pretty sure the Christian 10 commandments all have pretty direct equivalents in the Qur'an too.

As far as religions go, they're pretty closely related.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:55PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Funny - I don't remember quoting any hate sites.

Right, so you just knew where to find these verses off the top of your head?

UCDVet wrote: »

I do remember quoting text from holy texts. Do you disagree with anything I've quoted? Do you feel I've misrepresented Islam in some way? Or Christianity?

This is the first verse you quoted, in context.

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
4:24And [forbidden to you are] all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]:26 this is God's ordinance, binding upon you. But lawful to you are all [women] beyond these, for you to seek out, offering them of your possessions,27 taking them in honest wedlock, and not in fornication. And unto those with whom you desire to enjoy marriage, you shall give the dowers due to them; but you will incur no sin if, after [having agreed upon] this lawful due, you freely agree with one another upon anything [else]:28 behold, God is indeed all-knowing, wise.
Note 26
The term muhsanah signifies literally "a woman who is fortified [against unchastity]", and carries three senses: (1) "a married woman", (2) "a chaste woman", and (3) "a free woman". According to almost all the authorities, al-muhsanat denotes in the above context "married women". As for the expression ma malakat aymanukum ("those whom your right hands possess", i.e., "those whom you rightfully possess"), it is often taken to mean female slaves captured in a war in God's cause (see in this connection 8:67, and the corresponding note). The commentators who choose this meaning hold that such slave-girls can be taken in marriage irrespective of whether they have husbands in the country of their origin or not. However, quite apart from the fundamental differences of opinion, even among the Companions of the Prophet, regarding the legality of such a marriage, some of the most outstanding commentators hold the view that ma malakat aymanukum denotes here "women whom you rightfully possess through wedlock"; thus Razi in his commentary on this verse, and Tabari in one of his alternative explanations (going back to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, and others). Razi, in particular, points out that the reference to "all married women" (al-muhsanat min an-nisa'), coming as it does after the enumeration of prohibited degrees of relationship, is meant to stress the prohibition of sexual relations with any woman other than one's lawful wife.

Brown Bomber · 07-09-2014 09:59PM

And this is what the note links to in the previous posts on slavery:

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
8:67IT DOES NOT behove a prophet to keep captives unless he has battled strenuously on earth.72 You may desire the fleeting gains of this world-but God desires [for you the good of] the life to come: and God is almighty, wise.
Note 72
I.e., as an aftermath of a war in a just cause. As almost always in the Qur'an, an injunction addressed to the Prophet is, by implication, binding on his followers as well. Consequently, the above verse lays down that no person may be taken, or for any time retained, in captivity unless he was taken prisoner in a jihad-that is, a holy war in defence of the Faith or of freedom (regarding which see surah 2, note 167) - and that, therefore, the acquisition of a slave by "peaceful" means, and the keeping of a slave thus acquired, is entirely prohibited: which, to all practical purposes, amounts to a prohitition of slavery as a "social institution". But even with regard to captives taken in war, the Qur'an ordains (in 47:4) that they should be freed after the war is over.

I hope this sets your mind at rest now. And it is worthwhile to contrast this position with the leader of the free world still keeping it's prisoners of war in cages today in it's Muslims-only illegal prisons - that is the one's it hasn't tortured to death or raped.

1 in 1000 Irish Muslims are jihadi fighters

Comments