While what i'm saying is off topic, but its worth mentioning that the Quran doesn't say women are inferior and of minor value compared to men.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Florida church plans to burn Korans on 9/11 anniversary
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
While what i'm saying is off topic, but its worth mentioning that the Quran doesn't say women are inferior and of minor value compared to men.
jonman122
Active Member
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other. ... So good women are the obedient. ... As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.--4:34
- It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
- Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
- Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
- Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
- A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
- "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four." 4:3
- Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
- Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
- You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
- Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
taken from Women in the Quran
This is going to be off topic, but i will answer because i made the first irrelevant post.
002.187 Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments.
The verse is long, but this is the part you're referring to. Whats your problem with this?
Menstruation is something that happens to women, and during that time they shouldn't do certain things, and they are also exempt during that time from certain rituals. Nowhere is it said that it is a sickness.
Yes, and? This is assuring or telling men that they are free and not restrained to a certain limit, it doesn't mean women are forced to oblige. Its just an assurance to men to be comfortable in approaching their wives.
The verse is addressing divorce issues, and it states that both men and women have the same rights, then it says the degree part, which there are many interpretations for. I can't say which one for sure, but the one that it isn't, is that its not that men are better than women.
It doesn't say anything anyway near that. Its talking about business transactions, and certain things about it. It says in a part that two men are required as witnesses, and if not then one man and two women, you can deduce from that what ever you like. In the end, its a deduction, the verse doesn't say so, and it is explained by some scholars that this was the case because women back then weren't at all familiar with business transactions, so it was preferable to have 2 men as witnesses.
This neither says that women are inferior to men, or that men are better than women, this explaining very specific cases where a man could marry more than one woman, because during wars for example a lot of women become widows, and a lot of kids become orphans, so this is a chance for them to have someone to help them and take care of them. And there are some very strict conditions too.
Because men are required to support their wives and their kids, while a women is not. A woman is free to do what she wills with her money, she is not obliged in anyway to put one cent of her money in the house, its all for her to spend on herself, unlike the man.
This is irrelevant to the claim i made, not to get into much details, this is a particular case when certain things happens, and there is more to it than whats presented. Whats your point though?
No that is completely false.
004.019 O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
I hope its clear what the verse is saying. Its actually in favor of women.
004.020 But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong?
This is again actually in favor of women. This is not as wife swapping, or simply exchanging wives, its talking about when and if they separate, men shouldn't take back what they gave, not even the least bit of it.
002.187 Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments.
The verse is long, but this is the part you're referring to. Whats your problem with this?
Menstruation is something that happens to women, and during that time they shouldn't do certain things, and they are also exempt during that time from certain rituals. Nowhere is it said that it is a sickness.
Yes, and? This is assuring or telling men that they are free and not restrained to a certain limit, it doesn't mean women are forced to oblige. Its just an assurance to men to be comfortable in approaching their wives.
The verse is addressing divorce issues, and it states that both men and women have the same rights, then it says the degree part, which there are many interpretations for. I can't say which one for sure, but the one that it isn't, is that its not that men are better than women.
It doesn't say anything anyway near that. Its talking about business transactions, and certain things about it. It says in a part that two men are required as witnesses, and if not then one man and two women, you can deduce from that what ever you like. In the end, its a deduction, the verse doesn't say so, and it is explained by some scholars that this was the case because women back then weren't at all familiar with business transactions, so it was preferable to have 2 men as witnesses.
This neither says that women are inferior to men, or that men are better than women, this explaining very specific cases where a man could marry more than one woman, because during wars for example a lot of women become widows, and a lot of kids become orphans, so this is a chance for them to have someone to help them and take care of them. And there are some very strict conditions too.
Because men are required to support their wives and their kids, while a women is not. A woman is free to do what she wills with her money, she is not obliged in anyway to put one cent of her money in the house, its all for her to spend on herself, unlike the man.
This is irrelevant to the claim i made, not to get into much details, this is a particular case when certain things happens, and there is more to it than whats presented. Whats your point though?
No that is completely false.
004.019 O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
I hope its clear what the verse is saying. Its actually in favor of women.
004.020 But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong?
This is again actually in favor of women. This is not as wife swapping, or simply exchanging wives, its talking about when and if they separate, men shouldn't take back what they gave, not even the least bit of it.
Here is a whole thread about this one, in it is presented a couple of possible of interpretations. None of them proposes what you might conclude, that men are better than women.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/100207-six-translations-quran-4-34-can.html
On the other hand, here is a verse where men and women are addressed in a way that shows how they are viewed in the Quran and in god's eyes:
033.035 For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.
Most of those verses you are discussing seem to be basically a recognition that (at the time, at least) it was the husband's role to provide sustenance and take certain responsibilities.
It is misleading to describe them as sexist, when we thought much the same until perhaps the 1970s. In some respects we have to catch up still.
That is not to say that those verses are necessarily still valid and progressive, mind you. And I certainly won't say that they are not used to justify unfair situations, although that might more legitimaly be called abuse.
It is misleading to describe them as sexist, when we thought much the same until perhaps the 1970s. In some respects we have to catch up still.
That is not to say that those verses are necessarily still valid and progressive, mind you. And I certainly won't say that they are not used to justify unfair situations, although that might more legitimaly be called abuse.
Exactly, also whats between his quotes are not the actual verses, except the last one, the rest are like short modified versions of it.
These verses might not of course represent your mentality or the mentality of many other people, but they are so for muslims, with putting in mind the difference between now and back in the time of these verses of course.
Some of them are used to justify abuse of course, but they do not promote so in anyway. Its just misusage of it, by some people. like many good things are misused.
Badran :yes: you handled that with grace and respect. kudos to you. i can't frubal you, but if i could, i would.
you too Luis.
it's always convenient to quote 1/2 of a verse to prove a point.
it's always convenient to twist a verse to say what you want it to.
have you read the Bible lately? if i quote 1/2 verses from it, it's rather misogynistic as well. stick to the point.
burning books is stupid, and i have every right to be upset by it...but i wouldn't get violent; that's giving too much recognition and respect to a bunch of morons.
you too Luis.
it's always convenient to quote 1/2 of a verse to prove a point.
it's always convenient to twist a verse to say what you want it to.
have you read the Bible lately? if i quote 1/2 verses from it, it's rather misogynistic as well. stick to the point.
burning books is stupid, and i have every right to be upset by it...but i wouldn't get violent; that's giving too much recognition and respect to a bunch of morons.
jonman122
Active Member
2:222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
didn't you just claim that the qur'an doesn't say it's a sickness? which is the same as an illness?
didn't you just claim that the qur'an doesn't say it's a sickness? which is the same as an illness?
Jonman, I don't know how Muslims interpret that verse these days, much less how homogeneous that interpretation might be. But please note that words change meaning both along time and through cultures.
I think we atheists should take care not to demand Abrahamists to be "truer" to their scriptures, anyway. Literalism is not a good thing and it is less then proper for those who reject them to demand it from those who accept them, IMO.
I think we atheists should take care not to demand Abrahamists to be "truer" to their scriptures, anyway. Literalism is not a good thing and it is less then proper for those who reject them to demand it from those who accept them, IMO.
While this doesn't address my original claim, here is two other translations:
222. They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.
And they ask thee concerning menstruation. Say: ‘It is a harmful thing, so keep away from women during menstruation, and go not in unto them until they are clean. But when they have cleansed themselves, go in unto them as Allah has commanded you. Allah loves those who turn to Him and loves those who keep themselves clean.’
In Arabic, this is the word used to describe menstruation: اذى
look it up and tell me if it means sickness or illness. It basically means harmful, or hurt. What is meant in this verse, is that men shouldn't approach women during menstruation. Its not said, nor implied that its a sickness, and its not taken as such.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed, delicious s'mores can be made over the fire from burning any kind of books - even ones which promote superstition and misogyny.
When i said "my original claim", i didn't mean that this is the topic of the thread, i meant that it was not what i said. However these off topic posts are my mistake. Sorry for derailing your thread.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
fatima_bintu_islam
Active Member
Did anyone ANYONE noticed this specific sentence in the article ?
It made my day
It made my day
It made my day
Yeah me too. I can't see how it is remotely possible to make us question our beliefs and supposedly convert, by seeing them burning something very important to us.
Demonic Kitten
Active Member
awww... and here I thought it was the only way to get one to convert from one religion to another.
(This is my poor excuse of a joke...>_<...I'll stop now. )fatima_bintu_islam
Active Member
awww... and here I thought it was the only way to get one to convert from one religion to another.
Thank you for stopping ( thats my poor attempt for a joke
, sorry lol)
Let me phrase this very carefully, because I want to be clear:
1) I can entirely see your point. If anything, such a stupid act will make any people who might be in doubt more determined to remain Muslims, or even convert to Islam out of sheer (justified) indignation.
2) That said, I can only think of two realistic possibilities for just why they say such an incredibly inane thing. Either they truly expect to scare people to their faith (which implies a depressingly poor level of religious achievement for the whole lot of them) or they are doing that out of sheer self-interest, to feel powerful and daring. Which is still not at all laudable, but at least is a bit less insane.
Yes i see what you're saying. To be honest, i'm more inclined that they're simply lying in that claim, but then again its rather childish to assume its the same motive for all people involved in this incident. So, what you said is very likely to be the motive for many people involved in this, i don't think thats the motive for the guy who is the head of the church. He clearly has a serious problem with muslims and homosexuals, but again, it just might be possible that he was actually honest in his claim that he thinks or hopes that this incident would make muslims convert and see Islam for what it supposedly is in his eyes.