What is wrong with Islam?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

1. No, not that I know of. Violence is severely looked down upon. Wives are told to be submissive, but husbands are not allowed to beat them. I think of 1 Peter 3:7

The leader of Christian Voice is allegedly a wife-beater who doesn't believe in marital rape. There are also folks in the U.S. who think it's okay to beat their wives and that wives should be totally submissive - i.e. slaves - to their husbands. So yes, it's there. I'm willing to bet there are also plenty of televangelists who tell their viewers it's okay to beat their wives. Look at the attitudes on display on the second link. How abhorrent.

3. In Islam the only way to know you are going to heaven is by dying in battle. Christians know they will go to heaven, so they do not actively seek to die in battle. Big difference.

True but martyrdom is viewed as God's plan to build up his Church. Stephen received a vision of Christ and the Father before he died. With that in mind, is martyrdom not a fast ticket to Heaven?

 

[interminable]

Sleep well!

About beat of women

U should consider that in that verse God says first men should advise women that they fear arrogance then if they persist forsake them in bed and finally beat them.
It's established in jurisprudence that if a man beats his wife and her skin's color changed he has committed sin and should pay some amount of money to her.
So it's not true that men can beat their wives according to their desires

 

[Rival]

The leader of Christian Voice is allegedly a wife-beater who doesn't believe in marital rape. There are also folks in the U.S. who think it's okay to beat their wives and that wives should be totally submissive - i.e. slaves - to their husbands. So yes, it's there. I'm willing to bet there are also plenty of televangelists who tell their viewers it's okay to beat their wives. Look at the attitudes on display on the second link. How abhorrent.

I never did consider those Protestants Christians, but I did say 'not that I know of'. In any case I don't think the 'NT' calls wife beating alright and it's not exactly what Jesus would do.

 

[Rival]

About beat of women

U should consider that in that verse God says first men should advise women that they fear arrogance then if they persist forsake them in bed and finally beat them.
It's established in jurisprudence that if a man beats his wife and her skin's color changed he has committed sin and should pay some amount of money to her.
So it's not true that men can beat their wives according to their desires

But beating your wife is never okay it doesn't matter what

 

[interminable]

But beating your wife is never okay it doesn't matter what

Even I read in some researches that women consider this kind of beat as a sign that their husbands still love them
Beating them in their views is kind of consideration and women think still their husbands care about them

I'm surprised about this fact
Seems I need to ask women myself

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I never did consider those Protestants Christians

Careful, that's the same sort of behaviour we see when Muslims say 'Sunnis/Shias are not true Muslims'.

but I did say 'not that I know of'.

I know. I didn't think you were concealing it from me. Now you do know

In any case I don't think the 'NT' calls wife beating alright and it's not exactly what Jesus would do.

It maybe doesn't implicitly say that wife-beating is alright but it does call on women to be submissive to their husbands in everything. I agree though that domestic violence is not Christ-like.

 

[Gmcbroom]

Scots,

It also calls for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. How did Christ love the love the church? He died for the church. So you see it's not at all like Islam. Context is key read the whole verse.

 

[icehorse]

Existence which it is assumed intellectually can be either necessary or possible. intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent can't be assumed to be a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause. If all causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being. In other words an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Therefore an infinite series of causes must be compelled to terminate in an existent that isn't an effect of any other existent for example necessary existent.

Let's just start here. If the foundations of your argument are bad, then everything built on top of those foundations are suspect...

I bolded a phrase from above, why do you say that "a possible existent(sic) always needs a cause" ?

(It's starting to feel as though we need to start up a thread in the philosophy forum, but maybe we can wrap this up here?)

 

[icehorse]

Even I read in some researches that women consider this kind of beat as a sign that their husbands still love them
Beating them in their views is kind of consideration and women think still their husbands care about them

I'm surprised about this fact
Seems I need to ask women myself

No emotionally healthy person would fall into this category. This is just bull****e. (I'm sidestepping the S&M crowd, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.)

 

[Rival]

(I'm sidestepping the S&M crowd, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.)

Definitely not. Even I, who identify as a strong masochist, can see the appalling nature of the statement you quoted. Any woman who for some reason allows her husband to beat her because it means 'he cares' imo needs therapy and probably has previous trauma issues.

 

[interminable]

Let's just start here. If the foundations of your argument are bad, then everything built on top of those foundations are suspect...

I bolded a phrase from above, why do you say that "a possible existent(sic) always needs a cause" ?

(It's starting to feel as though we need to start up a thread in the philosophy forum, but maybe we can wrap this up here?)

Simply because causality implies that
When something is possible it means it's not a necessary existent and I will prove later that two necessary existent can't be existed so we have just one necessary existent and everything except for first cause is possible existent .

 

[icehorse]

Simply because causality implies that
When something is possible it means it's not a necessary existent and I will prove later that two necessary existent can't be existed so we have just one necessary existent and everything except for first cause is possible existent .

It seems to me that you're arguing some variation of a deist philosophy which is okay. My personal philosophy is some variation on utilitarianism, and as such I'm happy to admit that my philosophy requires me to make a basic assumption that I cannot prove. In my case the assumption is that "improving the well being of conscious creatures is 'good', and diminishing the well being of conscious creatures is 'bad' ".

I can't prove this, but I believe it. And I can use this single assumption to help me know how to live my life.

What I'd like to know is what your basic assumption is?

 

[azim24]

Your arguments here depend on believing in Allah. Since I don't believe in Allah, your arguments are meaningless to me. Can you make your arguments based only on logic and evidence?

Here is a verse.How Quran knows before 1400 years ago this information?
And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah , who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do.27:88

 

[icehorse]

Here is a verse.How Quran knows before 1400 years ago this information?
And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah , who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do.27:88

For the sake of discussion, I will agree that some percentage of the time, the Quran appears to be predicting the future. So what? Over time, many people have claimed to be able to predict the future, and if you make enough predictions, you're bound to get a few of them correct. Nostradamus made lots of predictions and got a few of them correct. Do you think we should start calling Nostradamus the last and final prophet? Of course not.

As a counter-example, the Quran says that salt water and fresh water don't mix, and now we know that they do in fact mix.

 

[Rival]

I dreamed that Trump would win and he did. Wrote it down in my diary and everything, so I guess that makes me a prophet.

 

[interminable]

It seems to me that you're arguing some variation of a deist philosophy which is okay. My personal philosophy is some variation on utilitarianism, and as such I'm happy to admit that my philosophy requires me to make a basic assumption that I cannot prove. In my case the assumption is that "improving the well being of conscious creatures is 'good', and diminishing the well being of conscious creatures is 'bad' ".

I can't prove this, but I believe it. And I can use this single assumption to help me know how to live my life.

What I'd like to know is what your basic assumption is?

I didn't expect to read such things
Anyway
I used the simplest argument to prove the existence of God and this is very clear that everybody can understand. God will punish human being by ignoring this very simple fact

There are thousands religions and ideology and philosophy . Can their adherents say to god we had our own philosophy????
Won't God say didn't I give u reason to understand? Was it hard to understand causality????

U told me prove the existence of God by logic and I did.I just can assume that your answer is merely pretext .

 

[icehorse]

I didn't expect to read such things
Anyway
I used the simplest argument to prove the existence of God and this is very clear that everybody can understand. God will punish human being by ignoring this very simple fact

There are thousands religions and ideology and philosophy . Can their adherents say to god we had our own philosophy????
Won't God say didn't I give u reason to understand? Was it hard to understand causality????

U told me prove the existence of God by logic and I did.I just can assume that your answer is merely pretext .

It would be very inefficient for me to guess what your underlying assumption is. It could be that you base your logic on the assumption that there is a god? (BTW, it's totally fine to build logic on top of an assumption, but it's considered fair play to state your assumptions.) In other words, it might well be that you "proved" the existence of god. But you did it within a certain, limited context. Until you share your assumption, you cannot claim to have produced a universal proof.

I've shared my base assumption, what's yours?

 

[Rival]

Seems I need to ask women myself

I am a girl lol. Don't know if you knew.

 

[YmirGF]

I am a girl lol. Don't know if you knew.

Well, hopefully some male will bond with you and beat you when you are being too arrogant or thwart his superior knowledge as the leader of your household - just to show you how much he really cares.

 

[Rival]

Well, hopefully some male will bond with you and beat you when you are being too arrogant or thwart his superior knowledge as the leader of your household - just to show you how much he really cares.

I can't wait.