U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-04-2015, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
It is another reminder as to who can marry who

70:28 (Asad) for, behold, of their Sustainer's chastisement none may ever feel [wholly] secure; [11]
70:29 (Asad) and who are mindful of their chastity, [12]
70:30 (Asad) [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock] - : [13] for then, behold, they are free of all blame,
]

70:28 (Y. Ali) For their Lord's displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
70:29 (Y. Ali) And those who guard their chastity
70:30 (Y. Ali) Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,


70:28 (Picktall) Lo! the doom of their Lord is that before which none can feel secure
70:29 (Picktall) And those who preserve their chastity
70:30 (Picktall) Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
70:28 is not about who can marry who.

Chapter 70:1-28 Allah threatened DOOM and none can feel secure, except believers who comply to the various conditions.
70:29 One condition, i.e. those who preserve their chastity [sex that are morally acceptable] will not be doomed
70:30 Chaste = it is morally acceptable to have sex with wives and slaves [those who their right hands possess], they are not to be blamed, thus will go to heaven ..

Note how Asad is deceptive and twisted the intended meaning of the verses and mentioned only spouses via wedlock and deliberately ignore the 'slave' element.
Pickthall and Y. Ali are correct so is many other translators and Asad is one of the rare exceptions.
Some other translators include 'captives.'

Implications of the above:
1. Believers can have sex with their wives
2. Believers can have sex with their slaves and captives.
3. It is not likely slaves and captives will agree to consensual sex, therefore mostly forced or coerced subliminally.
4. Slavery is immoral
5. Above is taken as God's Law or a generic principle by Muslims and committed by those who want to get as close as possible to God to ensure eternal life in heaven.
6. The above 1-6 do not portray the Quran in good light.

 
Old 07-05-2015, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
70:28 is not about who can marry who.

Chapter 70:1-28 Allah threatened DOOM and none can feel secure, except believers who comply to the various conditions.
70:29 One condition, i.e. those who preserve their chastity [sex that are morally acceptable] will not be doomed
70:30 Chaste = it is morally acceptable to have sex with wives and slaves [those who their right hands possess], they are not to be blamed, thus will go to heaven ..

Note how Asad is deceptive and twisted the intended meaning of the verses and mentioned only spouses via wedlock and deliberately ignore the 'slave' element.
Pickthall and Y. Ali are correct so is many other translators and Asad is one of the rare exceptions.
Some other translators include 'captives.'

Implications of the above:
1. Believers can have sex with their wives
2. Believers can have sex with their slaves and captives.
3. It is not likely slaves and captives will agree to consensual sex, therefore mostly forced or coerced subliminally.
4. Slavery is immoral
5. Above is taken as God's Law or a generic principle by Muslims and committed by those who want to get as close as possible to God to ensure eternal life in heaven.
6. The above 1-6 do not portray the Quran in good light.
While I am not exceptionally fluent in Arabic I intially read the Qur'an in Arabic and never saw an English translation until after I had accepted Islam, I began learning arabic in 1960 and have continued with it ever since. The dialect I speak is the Darija of Morocco and Algeria, but I also read and write MSA (Moders Standard Arabic)

I personally find the Spanish and French translations being closest to the Arabic meaning of the Qur'an. For English Translations I find Pickthall and Ali to be outdated, their attempt at elizabetian English is out dated and inaccurate. I personally find Assad to be the best modern English translation.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 07-05-2015, 03:03 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
While I am not exceptionally fluent in Arabic I intially read the Qur'an in Arabic and never saw an English translation until after I had accepted Islam, I began learning arabic in 1960 and have continued with it ever since. The dialect I speak is the Darija of Morocco and Algeria, but I also read and write MSA (Moders Standard Arabic)

I personally find the Spanish and French translations being closest to the Arabic meaning of the Qur'an. For English Translations I find Pickthall and Ali to be outdated, their attempt at elizabetian English is out dated and inaccurate. I personally find Assad to be the best modern English translation.
Note my post on the 'Substance versus Form re Spiritual-Religiosity System of Humans'
http://www.city-data.com/forum/40286765-post44.html

When we understand the mechanics of the 'Substance versus Form principle' within the 'Spiritual-Religiosity System of Humans,' we will note Pickthall is very much closer in explaining the Form of Islam [small picture] in relation to the big picture [the Substance and main Spiritual-religio System].

Pickthall [1875-1936] with a novelist background appeared to be more innocent without any personal interest & bias and his use of Elizabetian English is not an pertinent issue, but he made it a point to pick the most relevant words* to represent as close to the intended meaning. *It is troublesome as one has to refer to the dictionary very often, but it does give a good picture of the intended meaning.
IMO, Pickthall attempt to convey the ethos of Islam as it was carried forward from the 7th century.
I find Pickthall translations of Islam as a Form [albeit limited] do fit into the main[Substance] holistic system of the Spiritual-Religio System of Humans in alignment with all other generic human systems.

Asad [1900 -1992] was a Jewish convert appeared to made attempts to give the Quran a moderate & rational look by window-dressing it and deliberating twisting the verses to suit his point. Asad was also embroiled in the Middle East and Islamic politics of his days. Asad's translation can be seen as similar to the view of various current Muslim apologists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad

In any case, where there is doubt one can check the English translations against 51 other translations here.
Qur'an
One will note in most of the verses, Asad's translation is out of place with the others where many are original Arab speakers.

French and Spanish translations??? Who are these translators in the first place? In the same mold as Assad?
If you want a more pleasant Quran translation, check out the Ahmadiyyah and those from certain Sufis. They are goody-two-shoes sort of pseudo Quran and do not represent the original ethos of Muhammad's spirit.

The main point is the critical 'SOME' and most Muslims would not be bothered with Asad's window-dressed sort of translation or expositions.
The reality is, there is a percentile of Muslims who are aligned with the original and martial ethos of the final days of the prophet and revel in the winning ways of Muhammad and Islam. Who is to say they wrong in claiming to be truer Muslims?
Therefore if we strayed away from this reality we will miss out the root causes which are critical and necessary to resolve the terrible evils committed by SOME evil prone Muslims in the past, at present and the future [WMDs!!!!].

Last edited by Continuum; 07-05-2015 at 03:14 AM..
 
Old 07-05-2015, 04:13 AM
 
226 posts, read 123,560 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Since I am Muslim and this is the Islamic forum it does seem to be the appropriate place to give the unabashedly biased view as a practicing Muslim sees it. Yes if a Muslim were to do so in the Judaic forum I would delete their post and give an infraction. This is the forum we can tell our views of Islam

We expect a Muslim to have a certain bias, just as we expect a Christian etc. to have a certain bias. And yes on a Muslim forum you would expect to see the Muslim point(s) of view.

But that doesn't mean you can just ignore reality and promote anything you like.

If you want to deny that religion could ever be a problem; if you want to say something along the lines of, "all the blame is on bad individuals", "it's never the fault of religion", then you need to make some case for that.

If that's really your position, then what defence do you have for it?
 
Old 07-05-2015, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess View Post
We expect a Muslim to have a certain bias, just as we expect a Christian etc. to have a certain bias. And yes on a Muslim forum you would expect to see the Muslim point(s) of view.

But that doesn't mean you can just ignore reality and promote anything you like.

If you want to deny that religion could ever be a problem; if you want to say something along the lines of, "all the blame is on bad individuals", "it's never the fault of religion", then you need to make some case for that.

If that's really your position, then what defence do you have for it?
I do not deny that any ideology, including religion can be used as a tool to spread a violent social movement. But that does not mean the Religion or other ideology is inherently violent.

The causes of violent behavior goes much deeper. Perhaps the basic cause of human violence is a mistaken methodology of self protection from a perceived threat.

In todays world Muslims are becoming paranoid. There does seem to be a dedicated effort to destroy Islam.

Even in this very forum you will find those that are essentially saying "Islam is an evil ideoogy that must be changed or eliminated" we have lost nearly every Muslim member because they feel they are being attacked here in the Islamic forum. There are perhaps 4-5 of us that remain as regular posters. I believe we have one each Sunni, Shi'ite, Ahmadyyat and NOI that post regular. How much longer they will continue to post I do not know. but I am aware some of them do not feel welcome here.

Yet if we look at world violence the vast majority of violent crimes are occurring in the inner cities of "developed" nations. Yes we Muslims are experiencing paranoia and are becoming very defensive. It is also true that people on the defense will often act irrational and strike out with violence. But that is not proof Islam is inherently viollent or teaches violence.

The largest number of Murders are occurring in Developed secular nations. The Muslim Nations do not even make the top 25 lists of violent crimes.


The USA alone averages 12,900 murders per year SOURCE That equals four 9/11 attacks annually. and nobody is phased by them and the comment is "That is different those are not the result of any religious teaching." Using that logic does that not justify a claim "Lack of Religious Teaching" increases violence?

Yes, IS is a very violent movement and it does spread it's violence in the name of Islam. But the majority of Muslims do not accept violence as a means of practicing Islam. If one looks closely it is hard to differentiate IS from the Western Movement in the USA spread under the concept of "Manifest Destiny" yet no one wants to label that as a religious ideology that destroyed Hundreds of indigenous Nations. For a quick view of "Manifest Destiny" look HERE.

How does that differ from IS and why doesn't that not get seen as a teaching of Christianity? The violence of IS is no more a mandate of Islam. It is evil people misusing Islam, the same as "Manifest Destiny" was a misuse of Christianity by evil people.

There are a large number of people that call them self Muslim, that are out to destroy what most Muslims perceive as Islam. World wide the most people killed by "Muslim terrorists" have been Muslims that do not subscribe to their violence.

‘ISIS is enemy No. 1 of Islam,’ says Saudi grand mufti



Yes people have and will misuse ideologies, including Islam to promote violent conquest, but that is not proof Islam is Evil or promotes Evil.

A very dear deceased friend of mine often used the Phrase "A man sees his own fleas as gazelles" I find that to be true. Please do not deliberatly harm my gazelles, if they are not harming you. I will always strive to treat your gazelles with kindness.

Each of us Muslim and non-Muslim must be aware of our biases. There is no need for the world to divide into "Us vs Them" camps. We all need to treat all people as individuals and not as our perception of a Group.

I am Me. I am an individual named Woodrow. . I do not represent anyone except myself. If I do evil it is because I am evil, Treat me by what I do, not by what you think my religion commands me to do.

I do my best to treat all people in that manner and hope they will do the same to me.

I cannot find any proof that Islam encourages or fosters violence, and I do not personally know any violent Muslims.







.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 07-05-2015, 04:31 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 1,650,674 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
What kind of man wants to force himself on a little child of 9 years old? And after speaking to almost 2500 Muslims about this, NOT ONE would say that Muhammed was wrong to do such a thing. NOT ONE!
.
you keep repeating the attack words rape, force .. etc.

it was a marriage
it was accepted by her father
it was accepted by her mother
it was accepted by his enemy
it was accepted by his followers
she was engaged
1400 years ago it was normal


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT-Rh1auG0A
 
Old 07-05-2015, 04:54 PM
 
13,092 posts, read 13,683,396 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth_teller View Post
you keep repeating the attack words rape, force .. etc.

it was a marriage
it was accepted by her father
it was accepted by her mother
it was accepted by his enemy
it was accepted by his followers
she was engaged
1400 years ago it was normal
it is interesting to note, that even in your list you do not include that it was accepted by her
because it was NOT accepted by her
that is what makes it rape; when a girl says no i do not want to have sex with you, that is rape

no 6-year old little girl ever says yes to marry a 50-year old man, no 9-year old little girl accepts to have forced sexual intercourse with a 53-year old pervert.

that is what makes it rape, even by your own admission

and if you don't believe this, do your own research; take a 54-year old man into any third grade classroom and go up to each of the little girls and say "do you want this man to stick his weenie into your pee-pee" or "will you let this man touch your private parts" and see how many say yes. Try it with 50 girls. Try it with 100 girls. Try it with 200 girls. and then get back to us. oh for extra credit let us know the reaction of the teachers in the class room. and the reaction of the parents when they found out about it. how did they feel about it? and when the cops tried to arrest you, what did they have to say about it? why do you think laws even exist to protect little children from this type of violence and abuse?

do you have little daughters? do you have little sisters? do you have nieces? do you have a beloved little girl that you perhaps played with as a child? how do you feel about some 53-year-old pervert forcing himself into her? how about the men you know...are they men who would kill someone who so much as tried to molest their little 7-year-old daughter? or are they men who secretly want to molest children themselves?

and that bullcrap about "it was normal then" no, it was not. even in cultures where couples married young, it was to children of the same age; for instance a 14-year-old girl to a 17-year-old boy. There is a big difference when both are innocent, and both grow up together. For a perverted raunchy lecher to rape and abuse and molest a 6-year-old or 9-year-old child is as disgusting now as it was back then.

And to defend it now is just as disgusting. because it sounds like you do not even know that rape is forcing a girl to have sex
She is the one who gets to decide. Not you. Not her husband. Not her parents. Not the religion. Not the human trafficker who arranged the deal to pay off the family debt. And certainly not some psychopathic killer or his deranged followers.

Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-05-2015 at 05:28 PM..
 
Old 07-05-2015, 05:40 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 768,938 times
Reputation: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
it is interesting to note, that even in your list you do not include that it was accepted by her
because it was NOT accepted by her
that is what makes it rape; when a girl says no i do not want to have sex with you, that is rape

no 6-year old little girl ever says yes to marry a 50-year old man, no 9-year old little girl accepts to have forced sexual intercourse with a 53-year old pervert.

that is what makes it rape, even by your own admission

and if you don't believe this, do your own research; take a 54-year old man into any third grade classroom and go up to each of the little girls and say "do you want this man to stick his weenie into your pee-pee" or "will you let this man touch your private parts" and see how many say yes. Try it with 50 girls. Try it with 100 girls. Try it with 200 girls. and then get back to us. oh for extra credit let us know the reaction of the teachers in the class room. and the reaction of the parents when they found out about it. how did they feel about it? and when the cops tried to arrest you, what did they have to say about it? why do you think laws even exist to protect little children from this type of violence and abuse?

do you have little daughters? do you have little sisters? do you have nieces? do you have a beloved little girl that you perhaps played with as a child? how do you feel about some 53-year-old pervert forcing himself into her? how about the men you know...are they men who would kill someone who so much as tried to molest their little 7-year-old daughter? or are they men who secretly want to molest children themselves?

and that bullcrap about "it was normal then" no, it was not. even in cultures where couples married young, it was to children of the same age; for instance a 14-year-old girl to a 17-year-old boy. There is a big difference when both are innocent, and both grow up together. For a perverted raunchy lecher to rape and abuse and molest a 6-year-old or 9-year-old child is as disgusting now as it was back then.

And to defend it now is just as disgusting. because it sounds like you do not even know that rape is forcing a girl to have sex
She is the one who gets to decide. Not you. Not her husband. Not her parents. Not the religion. Not the human trafficker who arranged the deal to pay off the family debt. And certainly not some psychopathic killer or his deranged followers.
Kindly research your own Rabbinical commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud... Were their conclusions about intercourse and marriage to exceptionally young women considered rape to you? Or is that hatred only reserved for Muslims?

Further research how the age of puberty is affected by climate and socioeconomic conditions. It was perfectly reasonable and normal for a woman in 7th century Arabia to have reached maturity both physically and mentally and therefore could give consent. In 21st century North America, not so much.

Last edited by PDXNative2Houston; 07-05-2015 at 05:51 PM..
 
Old 07-05-2015, 06:42 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,085,728 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
Kindly research your own Rabbinical commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud... Were their conclusions about intercourse and marriage to exceptionally young women considered rape to you? Or is that hatred only reserved for Muslims?

Further research how the age of puberty is affected by climate and socioeconomic conditions. It was perfectly reasonable and normal for a woman in 7th century Arabia to have reached maturity both physically and mentally and therefore could give consent. In 21st century North America, not so much.
You don't sound any better than those Christian apologist who excuse slavery because "it was normal back then."
 
Old 07-05-2015, 06:42 PM
 
13,092 posts, read 13,683,396 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
Further research how the age of puberty is affected by climate and socioeconomic conditions. It was perfectly reasonable and normal for a woman in 7th century Arabia to have reached maturity both physically and mentally and therefore could give consent. In 21st century North America, not so much.
Aisha, a little girl still playing with dolls and swinging on a swing, did not give consent
rape is when a girl is forced to have sex against her will, as Aisha was raped and forced to have sex against her will by a man over 50 years old, who is considered "the perfect human":

"There is no harm if he gets her married while she is less than nine years old, according to the correct opinion. This is based on the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) marrying Aisha without her consent when she was less than nine years old, as is stated in authentic Hadith"

Shaikh ibn Baz's answer on the Q & A site of the Muslim Students Organization of the University of Houston "Is it allowed for a father to force his daughter to marry a specific man that she does not want to marry?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top