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.
actually it dosn't mattar with me if you buy it or not , you are not muslim after all , i just tell you how muslims themselfs understanding it
Sanspeur video shows that this isn't the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
Why was it translate as such?
i can't understnad the question , can you clarify with more details what do you mean by "as such"
Why are you telling me to not listen to the words of the quran if you are a muslim?
i don't remember anyone said that
It's not hard to understand, the quran says to beat your women and you are saying that even though it says that, you should ignore the words and treat it as "do not cause harm to your wife".
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
don't worry , i will not say that , i prefer to focus on the subject of this thread
You sound like you would if it wasn't OT, should I make a thread about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
yes , these words are not helping my case according to you because you don't hold the same view i a have about it
The view that men are the master and women are the servants will simply not help. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
actually , i incline to agree with you
Then why do you still try to defend it as a last resort? Getting physical with women who will not obey your every command is a cowards way of thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
and please don't tell me that those muslims who hits their wifes are the ones who are devout
Your book, unless(forcefully) interpreted your way allows muslims to beat their wifes and justify it by saying "in this passage allah says it's ok". If you wont deny that there are bad muslims then why deny that bad muslims can say that they are just doing what allah wants? Do you need more examples?
It means that the 'religion of peace' allows Muslims to rape female prisoners of war with the blessing of allah (no praise be upon him).
No the passage of the Qur'an stating that female prisoners of war are allowed for Muslim men was not talking about rape. That passage gave a list of women that Muslim men are allowed or not allowed to MARRY. It was not a list of people Muslims can or can't rape. So, a Muslim man can marry a prisoner of war. What's wrong with that? This is a prime example of people like you taking Quranic quotes out of context and using it to bash Islam. I can be done with the Bible too. For example: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34) Words of Jesus. This quote by itself shows that Christianity promotes violence and not peace. But if we read the entire Biblical passage before and after the quoted statement the real meaning becomes clear. Sure there is violence in the Muslim world. Sure, the rights of women are being violated in many Muslim countries, and not only the rights of women. It does not mean the problem is in Islamic teaching. The problem is of social, economic and political root. There are plenty of Christian countries that are in economic and political ruin, where rights of women are violated, where death squads erradicate any political dissent. Look at many Christian countries in Africa or Latin America. Oh, my bad it must be the bad example because you might be an atheist and thus against both Islam and Christianity. Well, back in the atheist Soviet Union everyones rights were violated. Now, are there death squads and dictatorships in Latin America because most people there are Christian? No. Did millions perish in Gulags back in USSR because the country was atheist? No. Are human rights violated in Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Iraq because the countries are Muslim? No. If you blame the whole thing on a particular religion you are very naive and your view of the world is very simplistic. And don't me that bullcrap that Islam promotes violence and abuse of the rights of women because some Muslim clerics promote it. Just because some clerics misunderstand their own religion or teach a perverted form of it doesn't mean that it is a bad religion. You know there are certain rabbis in Israel that call to exterminate Arabs. Does it mean that Judaism is all that bad? There are certain prominent Evangelical figures who stated that Arabs in Palestine breed like flies. What is it if not a statement suggesting that someone is subhuman? Does that statement represent Christianity? Truth is, there are normal people and wackos in all our religions and among atheists. If a person really wants to he will use any religion no matter how peaceful it is to justify his violence. And if a person really wants to he can use any religion to promote peace and tolerance. It's not the texts, it's us. You might not believe in God but I do. And I believe that God is free of any imperfection. Humans on the other hand are not. Peace.
No the passage of the Qur'an stating that female prisoners of war are allowed for Muslim men was not talking about rape. That passage gave a list of women that Muslim men are allowed or not allowed to MARRY. It was not a list of people Muslims can or can't rape. So, a Muslim man can marry a prisoner of war. What's wrong with that? This is a prime example of people like you taking Quranic quotes out of context and using it to bash Islam. I can be done with the Bible too. For example: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34) Words of Jesus. This quote by itself shows that Christianity promotes violence and not peace. But if we read the entire Biblical passage before and after the quoted statement the real meaning becomes clear. Sure there is violence in the Muslim world. Sure, the rights of women are being violated in many Muslim countries, and not only the rights of women. It does not mean the problem is in Islamic teaching. The problem is of social, economic and political root. There are plenty of Christian countries that are in economic and political ruin, where rights of women are violated, where death squads erradicate any political dissent. Look at many Christian countries in Africa or Latin America. Oh, my bad it must be the bad example because you might be an atheist and thus against both Islam and Christianity. Well, back in the atheist Soviet Union everyones rights were violated. Now, are there death squads and dictatorships in Latin America because most people there are Christian? No. Did millions perish in Gulags back in USSR because the country was atheist? No. Are human rights violated in Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Iraq because the countries are Muslim? No. If you blame the whole thing on a particular religion you are very naive and your view of the world is very simplistic. And don't me that bullcrap that Islam promotes violence and abuse of the rights of women because some Muslim clerics promote it. Just because some clerics misunderstand their own religion or teach a perverted form of it doesn't mean that it is a bad religion. You know there are certain rabbis in Israel that call to exterminate Arabs. Does it mean that Judaism is all that bad? There are certain prominent Evangelical figures who stated that Arabs in Palestine breed like flies. What is it if not a statement suggesting that someone is subhuman? Does that statement represent Christianity? Truth is, there are normal people and wackos in all our religions and among atheists. If a person really wants to he will use any religion no matter how peaceful it is to justify his violence. And if a person really wants to he can use any religion to promote peace and tolerance. It's not the texts, it's us. You might not believe in God but I do. And I believe that God is free of any imperfection. Humans on the other hand are not. Peace.
The initial spread of Islam that was stopped at Tours, France is the true Islam . . . and the Sunna's that describe it's goals and permissible treatment of infidels, apostates, women, etc. and the imposition of Sharia onto to all nations. Islam recognizes no such thing as secular governments except during "truce periods" while gaining sufficient strength and power. The apologists and deceivers under taquiyyah are evil and annoying to those of us who know Islam and its barbarities and treacheries.
It's not hard to understand, the quran says to beat your women and you are saying that even though it says that, you should ignore the words and treat it as "do not cause harm to your wife".
You sound like you would if it wasn't OT, should I make a thread about it.
The view that men are the master and women are the servants will simply not help. Period.
Then why do you still try to defend it as a last resort? Getting physical with women who will not obey your every command is a cowards way of thinking.
Your book, unless(forcefully) interpreted your way allows muslims to beat their wifes and justify it by saying "in this passage allah says it's ok". If you wont deny that there are bad muslims then why deny that bad muslims can say that they are just doing what allah wants? Do you need more examples?
It does not say beat your wife. It uses "Dharaba" which has over 10 uses in the Koran. Thats a Sushi , i mean Sunni, interpretation or something. The Koran in Chapter (Al Noor- The Light) says that even when a spouse has seen his old lady in bed with another man, he has to produce four witnesses. So how can it says to "beat" when its only about some fear(as that verse starts). There are many verses in the Koran that warns about jumping into conclusions and dealing with people before the facts are known.
There is an excellent article about this from a fellow Koranist that expounds on the term "Dharaba" and how its used. Dharaba is literally "strike" so maybe thats why some people translated it that way. When you go on a hunger strike, you are not beating anything are you?
So we must translate the Koran through the Koran and not using Sunni/Shia hadiths. These Sects have their own Islam. The Koran has its own.
O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, in deeds some suspicions are sins. And spy not neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear God, verily, God is the one who accepts repentance, Most Merciful. (49: 12)
It does not say beat your wife. It uses "Dharaba" which has over 10 uses in the Koran. Thats a Sushi , i mean Sunni, interpretation or something. The Koran in Chapter (Al Noor- The Light) says that even when a spouse has seen his old lady in bed with another man, he has to produce four witnesses. So how can it says to "beat" when its only about some fear(as that verse starts). There are many verses in the Koran that warns about jumping into conclusions and dealing with people before the facts are known.
There is an excellent article about this from a fellow Koranist that expounds on the term "Dharaba" and how its used. Dharaba is literally "strike" so maybe thats why some people translated it that way. When you go on a hunger strike, you are not beating anything are you?
So we must translate the Koran through the Koran and not using Sunni/Shia hadiths. These Sects have their own Islam. The Koran has its own.
O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, in deeds some suspicions are sins. And spy not neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear God, verily, God is the one who accepts repentance, Most Merciful. (49: 12)
Just curious . . . how many people actually adhere to this supposed "Quranism" of yours . . . since it bears no resemblance to the Islam that is so prominent throughout the world?
Just curious . . . how many people actually adhere to this supposed "Quranism" of yours . . . since it bears no resemblance to the Islam that is so prominent throughout the world?
It was the dominant form of Islam (Mu'tazila) actually in the begining. There is a small lecture about this by Dr Aisha Musa in youtube. She explains how the Sunni/Shia Islam was actually an innovation that appeared two centuries after Muhammad. Like the Trinitarians appeared later and the Talmud appeared later, the Sunnah appeared later.
Quoting Dr Herbert Berg in his article about hadith and Sunnah and Western historians he writes:
Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur'an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. "The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school." And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:
Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.
Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra'y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur'an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra'y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur'an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra'y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra'y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too "found" hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."
In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths "a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority." Likewise,
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:
In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections."
Quranist the things u wrote is bull>>>>.First,the Quranist thing u r talking about or Mu'tazila Wasn't during prophet Muhammed time.It came after him. So it didn't even exist till after the prophet.
Sunna was during prophet Muhammed life and what we follow is the start of Islam.From THE qURAN :Say :"If you sincerely love God,then follow me :God will also love you and forgive you your sins.God is all- forgiving ,most merciful" All Emran.
Who is Herbert Berg anyway Bring better source please.It is ashamed.And if it was grwoing as u r saying,we would hear about it in other pleaces NOT Just here.
Quranist the things u wrote is bull>>>>.First,the Quranist thing u r talking about or Mu'tazila Wasn't during prophet Muhammed time.It came after him. So it didn't even exist till after the prophet.
Sunna was during prophet Muhammed life and what we follow is the start of Islam.From THE qURAN :Say :"If you sincerely love God,then follow me :God will also love you and forgive you your sins.God is all- forgiving ,most merciful" All Emran.
Who is Herbert Berg anyway Bring better source please.It is ashamed.And if it was grwoing as u r saying,we would hear about it in other pleaces NOT Just here.
I was certain your views did not remotely represent Islam, Quranist . . . this rejection by Assss just confirms it. QED. Islam is a barbaric deen under Dar al Harb as long as Israel continues to exist.
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.
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.
Wrong
, i mean Sunni, interpretation or something. The Koran in Chapter (Al Noor- The Light) says that even when a spouse has seen his old lady in bed with another man, he has to produce four witnesses. So how can it says to "beat" when its only about some fear(as that verse starts). There are many verses in the Koran that warns about jumping into conclusions and dealing with people before the facts are known.
Bring better source please.It is ashamed.And if it was grwoing as u r saying,we would hear about it in other pleaces NOT Just here.
