Beating women in Islam

[Phoque]

Just out of curiosity (and I'm being serious), are these interpretations always done by men, or do women get a say in it? Because the translations and interpretations seem to vary, and I'm wondering how many women are involved in deciding how far you can beat your woman.

God is not a woman or a man. He is God.
There are tons of female religious scholars in the history of Islam; it's not the fault of Islam that the world is sexist.

But to clear Islam's position on women; this verse from the Quran is enough:


Also; I advise you to read the OP because I did say exactly what the argument you make is:

Can you list other female Islam scholars? Thanks.

Also, whatever "argument" you think I was making? You're wrong. I wasn't making one. But nice to know you just assumed you know what's in my mind. If you're just going to assume you know what's in my mind, then don't bother replying with my question about scholars. If you just want to assume you know, then we have no reason to discuss anything. If you do, then you won't actually discuss anything with me, but just decide you already know how and what I think.

Thanks.

[WinterHold]

Can you list other female Islam scholars? Thanks.

Also, whatever "argument" you think I was making? You're wrong. I wasn't making one. But nice to know you just assumed you know what's in my mind. If you're just going to assume you know what's in my mind, then don't bother replying with my question about scholars. If you just want to assume you know, then we have no reason to discuss anything. If you do, then you won't actually discuss anything with me, but just decide you already know how and what I think.

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe...m_scholars

You are welcome.

[Scientia]

@AtlasS33
Since you have the habit to skip posts, I'll repost this one for you:

If your book is so ambiguous and freely interpretable as you say to the point that it generates such violent behaviours, brutal laws, silly practices, unless you properly interpret it, then wouldn't we be better off without islam at all? Look at the big picture, for the greater good of everyone (read as the least amount of sufferance and pain for everyone), if islam can be properly interpreted only by a minority and everyone else is just misinterpreting it, wouldn't it be more functional and practical to just delete it completely? Is it really worth it to keep islam for the proper understanding of a minority and at the cost of many people misinterpreting it and dispensing violence and creating chaos and terror? Is there really any point to keep it at all and not just ditch it?

That book was written by a savage for savages and is not compatible with any civilized country. How do we, ignorant and ungrateful unbelievers, know that we are better off without islam, christianity, induism or whatever religion? Because those things only create confusion, chaos, hatred, violence and what not. The only "positive" message preached by religions could be reached by simply teaching everyone basic concepts such as common sense without further mythical meaning behind them. You don't need to believe in Christ or Allah or whatever in order to understand that killing someone is not functional, useful, practical or natural and only brings you disadvantages in life. You don't need any religion to understand that teaming up with your fellow human can help you both reach greater results, and all these things are easily explained with practical and factual examples and history of civilization. Religions just needlessly complicate something that is simple at its basic level with magical bullshit that is not backed up by any factual evidence.

[WinterHold]

@AtlasS33
Since you have the habit to skip posts, I'll repost this one for you:

If your book is so ambiguous and freely interpretable as you say to the point that it generates such violent behaviours, brutal laws, silly practices, unless you properly interpret it, then wouldn't we be better off without islam at all? Look at the big picture, for the greater good of everyone (read as the least amount of sufferance and pain for everyone), if islam can be properly interpreted only by a minority and everyone else is just misinterpreting it, wouldn't it be more functional and practical to just delete it completely? Is it really worth it to keep islam for the proper understanding of a minority and at the cost of many people misinterpreting it and dispensing violence and creating chaos and terror? Is there really any point to keep it at all and not just ditch it?

That book was written by a savage for savages and is not compatible with any civilized country. How do we, ignorant and ungrateful unbelievers, know that we are better off without islam, christianity, induism or whatever religion? Because those things only create confusion, chaos, hatred, violence and what not. The only "positive" message preached by religions could be reached by simply teaching everyone basic concepts such as common sense without further mythical meaning behind them. You don't need to believe in Christ or Allah or whatever in order to understand that killing someone is not functional, useful, practical or natural and only brings you disadvantages in life. You don't need any religion to understand that teaming up with your fellow human can help you both reach greater results, and all these things are easily explained with practical and factual examples and history of civilization. Religions just needlessly complicate something that is simple at its basic level with magical bullshit that is not backed up by any factual evidence.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-56875-p...pid1874912

You don't know what you're talking about; and  your empty accusations got refuted with a direct link proving that either you are a liar, or ignorant beyond believe; my time is more important than wasting on fighting windmills.

[Scientia]

Indeed you aren't able to respond to my post. Thanks for confirming that. As expected from your likes.

[WinterHold]

Indeed you aren't able to respond to my post. Thanks for confirming that. As expected from your likes.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-56875-p...pid1874912

You don't know what you're talking about; and  your empty accusations got refuted with a direct link proving that either you are a liar, or ignorant beyond believe; my time is more important than wasting on fighting windmills.

[Fake Messiah]

Indeed you aren't able to respond to my post. Thanks for confirming that. As expected from your likes.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-56875-p...pid1874912

You don't know what you're talking about; and  your empty accusations got refuted with a direct link proving that either you are a liar, or ignorant beyond believe; my time is more important than wasting on fighting windmills.

But what about when it comes to other Muslims that firmly believe that Koran orders them to beat women, like this guy





I mean could you dissuade him if you talked to him?

[WinterHold]

https://atheistforums.org/thread-56875-p...pid1874912

You don't know what you're talking about; and  your empty accusations got refuted with a direct link proving that either you are a liar, or ignorant beyond believe; my time is more important than wasting on fighting windmills.

But what about when it comes to other Muslims that firmly believe that Koran orders them to beat women, like this guy

.
.
.

I mean could you dissuade him if you talked to him?

Please; post content that is related to the topic.
Thank you.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems like the issue of magic book telling muslims to beat their wives, and muslims taking magic books word for it, might be relevant, lol.

Beaty beat beat beaty beat pop pop...a bitch.  So sayeth the moongod in his perfect magic book.

[Scientia]

@AtlasS33
You are like a bugged software that can't correctly compute a "what if/else/then function", where the bug is your religion.

I put you in front of two distinct cases:
1) the quran doesn't need to be interpreted, like the muslims I talked to who firmly believe and execute literally the quran's commands
2) the quran needs to be properly interpreted (like you did with the "beating wife with dick")
However the point I made wasn't whether the former or the latter were correct, but if the mis/interpretation and confusion around this book is so big that it causes so much harm, then is it worth it to have it around at all?

If it's functionally, practically and technically more efficient to have a decent behaving population without religion, is it really worth it to introduce something like religion? Let's even assume for a moment that what your book says is true but the confusion it causes brings war and pain, wouldn't it be better to keep it hidden away?

But this is a rethorical question: of course we'd be better off without any religion. Your religion, like any other religion, is just a cancer. It behaves exactly like tumor cells: some cells (people) may ignore them(tumor religion cells) and function properly (unbelievers), some cells(people) will emulate them (believers) and increase the tumor mass.

But it's not like your reply surprised me. It's the same kind of closure I've seen other times where people "aren't worth your time", even though you keep wasting your "precious" time anyways with pointless replies, without realizing that with every quote of that post you just reaffirm what I said.