(December 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Amine Wrote:

---

(December 13, 2015 at 11:10 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:  it talked about compulsion, and compulsion has many forms, and yes you have to accept it by "believing yourself that it's the truth", in other words this verse stands as a strong pillar in the face of anybody claiming that Islam calls for "forcing people by the sword to accept the faith".

About what you call "violent verses", it's something called "self defense". or would you like us to stand still while being butchered ?

Since the earliest days of Islam, one corner rule was that "an eye for an eye, though forgiveness is highly appreciated by God". 
I see it clearly, that if somebody declared war against me, it will be so allowed and valid for me to do the same.

---

Quote:Even if I totally accepted your self-defense defense, that still wouldn't even touch things like the horrible attitude toward women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus didn't go around saying men should rape their wives and their sex slaves when they please. Things like that.

Jesus was kind of queer.  He never recommended marriage or even getting the hots for members of the opposite sex.  He thought cutting off body parts was better, even to the point of self-castration.  He did think it was a good idea to marry your older brother's widow.

(December 14, 2015 at 3:14 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: No, actually you missed that I'm an Arab (yes; Arabic is my native tongue  ) So my translations are quite literal.
As a small Arabic lesson : slave in arabic is written "Abd = عبد". While the verse speaks about "Molk al yameen = ملك اليمين".

I have been trying to find where you are getting your definition of molk al yameen and what limited information I find pretty much all says it is concubines or slaves, "that which the right hand possess". As for "guarding their private parts", I don't see a significant difference anyway, like I said.

Quote:Hello ? we're speaking about 1400 years ago ? people with no homes ? poor people who got overrun by raiders and gangs of cutthroats ? 
In the modern era, you have the homeless and...let's say millions of Africans ?

Or you're saying, that it's an unethical thing to agree with a homeless man to protect him from the cold and from hunger, in exchange of his service (maybe helping me organizing my office or watch an estate I posses?

Actually, think about the differences between this, and slavery.

You really didn't address what I wrote. What about their coming from prisoners of war? You've instead come up with this manipulative example of saving a poor homeless person from the cold and hunger. I find this to be rank apologism at this point.. if not dishonesty. I mean come on. Where to even start with this? If I wanted to help a homeless man, first, I wouldn't say I "possessed" him. I could "hire" him maybe. That would signify that this is a voluntary arrangement that he can leave whenever he wants. Apparently there are numerous verses in the Quran that clearly state that these "molk al yameen" are indeed lesser, unequal beings, who can be bought and sold (and apparently women are another naturally unequal category of their own). They are slaves. I don't care if he sort of encouraged good treatment and occasional ransom or freeing. Slavery is endorsed by the Quran, period. And yes, men were allowed to have sex with them, even if they were married already. Forcible sex. If there was ever any doubt, Muhammad himself owned slaves. And he married a 6 year old. Maybe they just had great conversations, I dunno.

Quote:It can also refer strongly, to the allowance of the "banging act" at all times, including (for example) the holy month of Ramadan ? why does your mind jump immediately to rape ?

And please, quote the previous verse so the context becomes clear.
Actually it says : stay away from sex during menstruation, after that, your wives are tilth unto you, so approach your tilth whenever you want to.

( Sura 2 222 )   And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves."
( Sura 2 223 )   Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.

So in other words, honey bunny want to "tootoo" with me. But she's full of menses. So I'll tell her : dear, keep out for now, it's nasty even though I'm a vampire (if you get my meaning :p) . After her menses is over, it's fine to eat her private parts all year long ^_^. mmmm I don't see rape ?? Rather, a lovely description for women ?? , and a verse that prevents sexist from calling their wives names because of the menstruation. If you miss it, a lot of men used to view women as "lesser & filthy" due to menstruation.

I'm sorry but you have got to be kidding me. Why does my mind immediately jump to rape? Calling women "tilth" is a start. And, perhaps, the enormous problem of rape and pedophilia in Islam? Or the aforementioned facts about Muhammad? How on Earth would my mind not jump to rape? Even WikiIslam states right upfront: "There is no equivalent term for ‘rape’ in the Qur'an. Likewise, there is not a single verse in the Qur'an which even remotely discourages forced sex. In contrast, there are several verses in this book which give the green light to rape and other sexual crimes against women."

"Whenever you want to."

A lovely description of women? Tilth? A place for you to sow your seed?
Prevents sexism???????????????

---

(December 14, 2015 at 4:00 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 1:20 am)Amine Wrote: Yeah, and then you ignored the 2 reasons I gave as to why it isn't really cherry picking.

Except that in a book filled with contradictory verses, choosing one which contradicts another is, by definition, cherry-picking.

It is the same cherry-picking done by Christians and Jews, and for the same reasons: the believer chooses those verses which best compliment the believer's outlook.

Sigh. Are you really not reading my post or something? First I explained how there isn't even a contradiction. Then I explained that even if there was, there is an explicit rule that if there ever is a contradiction, the later verse trumps the earlier one. Jeez.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Amine Wrote: [hide]

Jesus was kind of queer.  He never recommended marriage or even getting the hots for members of the opposite sex.  He thought cutting off body parts was better, even to the point of self-castration.  He did think it was a good idea to marry your older brother's widow.

Um no sorry, someone refraining from a relationship does not make them gay. There are BOTH heterosexuals and gays who refrain from sex or dating simply because even if only temporary, simply don't want the hassle. I am 49 and I don't date. Been there done that been married too.

Religion does however, demonize gays and that is bullshit.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:31 am)Amine Wrote: Sigh. Are you really not reading my post or something? First I explained how there isn't even a contradiction. Then I explained that even if there was, there is an explicit rule that if there ever is a contradiction, the later verse trumps the earlier one. Jeez.

You




































the point

(December 14, 2015 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 10:22 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: And by which evidence did you go, exactly ?
the same sources that Sunnies and Shia use to justify their crimes ?

I mean where can you run from this verse in the Quran :

( Sura 2 Verse 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

I mean, this is the doctrine and constitution of Mohammed; how did he expand religion by the sword if his own constitution included this ?

Please, don't throw the acts of Sunnies and Shia on Mohammed. The Islamic conquests took place after Mohammed's death.

Though, I do agree with you on that Jesus would never call for crusades, He too -Jesus- believed that there shall be no compulsion in the acceptance of the religion.

Jesus condemned whole towns to hell fire because they didn't believe in him.  When he returns he will torture everyone, destroy the environment, kill all life, and blow up the Earth.  And if you didn't believe in him he will throw your butt into the lake of fire.  

He's not a nice guy at all.

No, that wasn't really Jesus, that's just a jerky faction of his followers - yeah, that's it!

Amine Wrote:

Irrational Wrote:Yes, you have us all figured out, do you? And no atheist here is defending Islam. And no one here AFAIK is being PC. I'm all for shitting on Islam and its doctrines but at the same time, be real and keep things in perspective and don't harm good Muslims with hateful words.

I don't know what the difference is between shitting on its doctrines and harming good Muslims with hateful words. What about saying they idiotically believe in some blood thirsty imaginary friend cooked up by a 7th century barbarian who raped a 9 year old?

For one thing, Shia put Asha in her late teens to early twenties when her marriage was consummated. Sunni have a vested interest in her being as young as possible so it will seem more miraculous that she transmitted the Koran.

Brian37 Wrote:

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:Jesus was kind of queer.  He never recommended marriage or even getting the hots for members of the opposite sex.  He thought cutting off body parts was better, even to the point of self-castration.  He did think it was a good idea to marry your older brother's widow.

Um no sorry, someone refraining from a relationship does not make them gay. There are BOTH heterosexuals and gays who refrain from sex or dating simply because even if only temporary, simply don't want the hassle. I am 49 and I don't date. Been there done that been married too.

Religion does however, demonize gays and that is bullshit.

I think he meant queer as in 'strange'.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Amine Wrote: [hide]

Jesus was kind of queer.  He never recommended marriage or even getting the hots for members of the opposite sex.  He thought cutting off body parts was better, even to the point of self-castration.  He did think it was a good idea to marry your older brother's widow.

In fairness, this idea applied to a culture where a widow's situation was so bleak that an available single man who cared about his brother and her husband would not normally feel decent about not marrying her.

If you were that brother in that culture, then this would not stop you from marrying who you like. Monogamy became an ideal in Judaism since the Jews returned from Babylonian exile, but it was not enforced and probably would not be expected in such a situation.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:16 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Jesus condemned whole towns to hell fire because they didn't believe in him.  When he returns he will torture everyone, destroy the environment, kill all life, and blow up the Earth.  And if you didn't believe in him he will throw your butt into the lake of fire.  

He's not a nice guy at all.

All countries in the world, promise you their versions of the "lake of fire" if you defy them.
F16 and drones, anyone ?


Amine

Quote:I have been trying to find where you are getting your definition of molk al yameen and what limited information I find pretty much all says it is concubines or slaves, "". As for "guarding their private parts", I don't see a significant difference anyway, like I said.

Actually, the Quran mentions this about having sex with a person who is considered "Molk Yameen" :

::::
(Sura 4 Verse 25 )   And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of your believing girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
::::

The verse is long, but I highlighted the important parts.

So, first you must acknowledge that you and them are from one another; i.e you're all brothers and sisters in the faith and all just the same.
Second, you must ask their people "family" for a permission; and of course you cannot just ignore the opinion of the girls ?? 
Third, you must "pay" them (the girls) the amount of money they ask.

I don't think that describes "rape" or even describing a "slave". Since when permission & payment were asked before having sex with slaves ??

Quote:You really didn't address what I wrote. What about their coming from prisoners of war? You've instead come up with this manipulative example of saving a poor homeless person from the cold and hunger. I find this to be rank apologism at this point.. if not dishonesty. I mean come on. Where to even start with this? If I wanted to help a homeless man, first, I wouldn't say I "possessed" him. I could "hire" him maybe. That would signify that this is a voluntary arrangement that he can leave whenever he wants. Apparently there are numerous verses in the Quran that clearly state that these "molk al yameen" are indeed lesser, unequal beings, who can be bought and sold (and apparently women are another naturally unequal category of their own). They are slaves. I don't care if he sort of encouraged good treatment and occasional ransom or freeing. Slavery is endorsed by the Quran, period. And yes, men were allowed to have sex with them, even if they were married already. Forcible sex. If there was ever any doubt, Muhammad himself owned slaves. And he married a 6 year old. Maybe they just had great conversations, I dunno.

The above verse contradicts you when it says : 
"You believers are of one another". I made the line bold in the verse.
So the Quran directly says to you, that they are equal to regular Muslims and not under any case : lesser. And again, women too are included with this sentence.

If women are inferior to men according to the Quranic concept, it will be a shame for its writer to say : "You believers are of one another".

About the example I chose, yes, it's not a rare example; actually who would agree to become "Molk Yameen" but the poor, homeless & people without income ??
As for prisoners of war, again you fall to Sunni/Shia Hadiths about Mohammed enslaving the enemy.

The verse contradicts you again when it says that they must be chaste and not engaged in a relationship already.

About marrying a 6 year old, again you fall to Hadiths.

Quote:I'm sorry but you have got to be kidding me. Why does my mind immediately jump to rape? Calling women "tilth" is a start. And, perhaps, the enormous problem of rape and pedophilia in Islam? Or the aforementioned facts about Muhammad? How on Earth would my mind not jump to rape? Even WikiIslam states right upfront:"There is no equivalent term for ‘rape’ in the Qur'an. Likewise, there is not a single verse in the Qur'an which even remotely discourages forced sex. In contrast, there are several verses in this book which give the green light to rape and other sexual crimes against women." 

"Whenever you want to."

A lovely description of women? Tilth? A place for you to sow your seed?
Prevents sexism???????????????

I'm sorry but it's a biological reality. Actually, all people were born when their fathers planted his seeds in the tilth (their mothers). So am I.
At least it's better than the term "creampie" and more civil.
A beautiful description of reality. 

Or, would you like us to become feminists ? you know, Lacy Greene style ?? 
Denying a biological fact, is never an argument. 

I wouldn't use "WikiIslam" if I were you. You'll end up looking ignorant. Actually, if it's forbidden in Islam to have sex without a contract, and without paying the lover as the contracts says, then how in hell would rape be allowed ?

And after all, here's a verse telling you about the punishment of a rapist :

(Sura 25 68 )   And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.
( Sura 25 69 )   Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

So yes, rape is not mentioned, but if spend 5 minutes reading the book, you'll realize that a rapist will :
1-meet hellfire in the afterlife
2-might meet the penalty of 100 lashes with a fine grained whip; if arrested. He can't refuse the punishment, if the raped woman wanted him to get punished.

If every muslim renounced Islam would allah show himself?