If you're going to quote a translation out of context, you should condemn Jews especially for what's in Leviticus but also Christians as well such as murdering those who wear clothes of the wrong kind.
-
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!
Rape under Shariah
- Thread starter Raymann
- Start date
If you're going to quote a translation out of context, you should condemn Jews especially for what's in Leviticus but also Christians as well such as murdering those who wear clothes of the wrong kind.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
He will only condemn Muslims...
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Yes, we've already established that. He can choose to ignore what his god allows and/or commands. He risks going to hell, but that's his choice.
Take verse 9:111 for example. It says that Allah has purchased the lives of Muslims in exchange for entry into heaven. Their part of the bargain is that they are expected to fight for the cause of Allah - to kill and be killed. Again, their choice.
As well as ignoring the contradictions in various parts of the Quran. And even more importantly, treating something out of context and IGNORING WHAT MUSLIMS SAY ABOUT 9:29
i'm not going to paste the wikipedia entry. Any who care can read it there or stay in ignorance. At-Tawba 29 - Wikipedia
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
A Muslim can choose to fight with truth and not weapons. They can speak up against war and destruction
But it seems like you only see the option where Muslims choose weapons and not peace.
Are you sure you are not yourself wanting Muslims to do wrong so you can blsme them?
You say you want to expose evil, but are you doing that by writing 99,9 % bad about Muslims? Are you at all any better than most Muslims?
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
It was not out of context. It was a direct rebuttal to an incorrect assertion made by @Shadow Wolf.
This thread is about Islamic law. Start a different one if you want to get into whataboutism.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Nope. I condemn Islam. I give individual Muslims the benefit of the doubt until they act badly based on the Qur'an's directives.
Bigots are those who look for specific verses but choose to ignore the opposite verses elsewhere. It is the equivalent of the terrorists taking those verses and praising them ignoring context except that instead those verses are condemned.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Honestly it does not look that way, and I seen you post A LOT about how bad muslims are.
Do you really think your posting here help?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
i read your post wrong.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Good ploy. The more vague the criticism, the more difficult it is for me to respond. Care to give any examples? I didn't think so.
Yup, be sure to throw in an "out of context" for good measure.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
To be someone who critique others i have to say you handle criticism poorly man...
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't you paste it? Here it is:
Al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), on this occasion quoted an early exegetical authority, Abū Rawq (d. 140/757), who explained that this verse was not a unilateral condemnation of all Jews and Christians, but those "who do not heed the prescriptions contained in the Torah and the Gospel, respectively". Similarly Al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) "did not read into Qurān 9:29 a wholesale denunciation of the People of the Book as an undifferentiated collectivity".[33]:278[35] Modern Muslim scholars like Muhammad Abduh shared similar views, agreeing that this verse was revealed on the occasion of the military campaign in Tabuk, and this verse specifically deals with the People of the Book", and also that "the only kind of legitimate war on which there is unanimity among Muslim scholars is the defensive war when proclaimed by the Imām in the event of an attack upon Muslim territory". The Grand Imam of al-Azhar from 1935 to 1945, Mustafa Al-Maraghi, notes that 9:29 means: "fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what led to Tabuk."
So, my question to you is - why didn't Allah mention any of the above in the Qur'an? He used 6,236 verses to make his wishes known. It is illogical to assume that he would leave out information and/or explanation that is critical to the understanding of the Qur'an. It is even more illogical to believe that scholars who lived well after Mohamed were needed to clarify the Qur'an. That implies that Muslims who read the Qur'an for the first few hundred years were getting it wrong.
Bottom line - if Allah didn't explain the context, then you don't need to know it. If it says, "Fight those who .......", then that is EXACTLY what it means.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Then you should have no problem providing an example.
The only time I refer to Muslims acting badly, it is ALWAYS in the context of them obeying the Qur'an and/or copying Mohamed's example. EVERY...SINGLE...TIME.
You can not prove me wrong.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Such as .........?
I'll even help you out (I'll have to check my notes first because I can't think of the verses off the top of my head, so I'll get back to you), but there are two, maybe three verses that you could have provided if you had even the slightest knowledge of the Qur'an.
And yes, of course there are contradictions in the Qur'an because it was authored by a mere mortal rather than a perfect god, which is why you have to look at it in its totality. The number of verses that demand bloodshed number in the dozens, AND they all came well into the later, militaristic period of Islam's creation. Volume and timing defeat your arguments.
Sorry, mate, but "those verses" are the cause of Islamic terrorism no matter how badly you want to pretend otherwise.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
What criticism? Gratuitous denial and vague insults do not amount to reasoned and fact-based critique.
I assume you're going to ignore my challenge to provide examples to back up your accusations.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
A Muslim follow Allah, word of Allah is the Quran. The Quran is Islam.
When you critique Islam the way you do, you both put yourself above Allah and every Muslim.
And when a Muslim reply to you, you do not listen to their understanding of their own faith and belief.
You just say but but but....
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I don't have to give you examples because 99.9 % your replies to Muslims are negative critique so you know that you are biased
Raymann
Active Member
No, not in Sweden, I think I started the paragraph by saying the following:
I mentioned Adultery because usually rape and adultery go hand in hand in an Islamic court.
A woman who accuses a man of rape has a very good chance of being accused of adultery herself.
It's called Shariah law, go figure.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Any law is man's law only.
As earths law O planet is one. Heavens one. Is not human owned. Laws of created creation only.
Nature owns two of every one species as natural law and is human non arguable. As you see living as the human to know.
One in law.
Man woman in law first are only a brother and sister....as natural law. The teaching one.
Sex the adult union a marriage by law was to gain a human baby...one sex male one sex female. Non contestable.
Father Mother owns son and daughter brother and sister.
The law in family then changes. Brother is now not allowed to have sexual intercourse marriage with sister. Laws second position.
A humans historical teaching only.
The law stated brothers were not allowed to touch nor have sex with his brothers wife. Considered as rape....adultery.
Meaning by adults a mans choice.
As law never owned pre consideration of rape if you used intellectual property as your original mind. As origin of natural law...is first only.
Baby life became a secondary law.
Men knowing afterwards of one life sacrificed that men tried to claim sexual rights with his sister as parents first law. Once sought to protect them.
Wrote new human law.
Married girls at puberty a new law yet protected them as a father brother until of correct adult martial age for sex. Married girl stayed a virgin in their brothers care. In marriage.
Said the documentation actually.
A man who retaught one said in law the man rapist should be stoned to death as a woman. As men had lost their minds when the angel fell in ark science causes. The thinking man said now he was a woman.
Law said woman to blame was womb maths zero...man's choice science.
As the changed bio brain of man began to rape women.
So you've misread your own old quotes.
Men changed the law of stone then thought self a woman.
Natural man's mind hence changed...as he changed as a man the laws of stone. Non laws he hence said rape as the women's science fault maths womb zero...as man's cause should be stoned to death himself as a woman.
Was the reading quotation.
No man can claim he is innocent of rape as he enters the woman's body by force.
Men prove after mind changed by occult science temple pyramid angel fall. They tried to claim innocence for acts of choice as evil.
Stating only men were innocent.
The actual teaching said as man used a fake mother space womb theory to proclaim his innocence...as he wasn't science he was proven guilty. Only innocent of not being the act science.
Shifting mountains mass. Temple science.
For some reason you wanted to claim man was only ever innocent.
He was taught he was guilty of the angels fall to the mountains fall.
As earths law O planet is one. Heavens one. Is not human owned. Laws of created creation only.
Nature owns two of every one species as natural law and is human non arguable. As you see living as the human to know.
One in law.
Man woman in law first are only a brother and sister....as natural law. The teaching one.
Sex the adult union a marriage by law was to gain a human baby...one sex male one sex female. Non contestable.
Father Mother owns son and daughter brother and sister.
The law in family then changes. Brother is now not allowed to have sexual intercourse marriage with sister. Laws second position.
A humans historical teaching only.
The law stated brothers were not allowed to touch nor have sex with his brothers wife. Considered as rape....adultery.
Meaning by adults a mans choice.
As law never owned pre consideration of rape if you used intellectual property as your original mind. As origin of natural law...is first only.
Baby life became a secondary law.
Men knowing afterwards of one life sacrificed that men tried to claim sexual rights with his sister as parents first law. Once sought to protect them.
Wrote new human law.
Married girls at puberty a new law yet protected them as a father brother until of correct adult martial age for sex. Married girl stayed a virgin in their brothers care. In marriage.
Said the documentation actually.
A man who retaught one said in law the man rapist should be stoned to death as a woman. As men had lost their minds when the angel fell in ark science causes. The thinking man said now he was a woman.
Law said woman to blame was womb maths zero...man's choice science.
As the changed bio brain of man began to rape women.
So you've misread your own old quotes.
Men changed the law of stone then thought self a woman.
Natural man's mind hence changed...as he changed as a man the laws of stone. Non laws he hence said rape as the women's science fault maths womb zero...as man's cause should be stoned to death himself as a woman.
Was the reading quotation.
No man can claim he is innocent of rape as he enters the woman's body by force.
Men prove after mind changed by occult science temple pyramid angel fall. They tried to claim innocence for acts of choice as evil.
Stating only men were innocent.
The actual teaching said as man used a fake mother space womb theory to proclaim his innocence...as he wasn't science he was proven guilty. Only innocent of not being the act science.
Shifting mountains mass. Temple science.
For some reason you wanted to claim man was only ever innocent.
He was taught he was guilty of the angels fall to the mountains fall.