refuting misconceptions:1-women in Islam

[Minimalist]

Actually, I've never watched South Park.

At 60 I'm too old to start.

[Shell B]

Actually, I've never watched South Park.

At 60 I'm too old to start.

I'll probably get boo'd for saying this, but it isn't all it's cracked up to be, anyway. I've seen a few funny episodes, but generally it doesn't entertain me.

[Dotard]

BoOoOOooOOoo............

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Actually, I've never watched South Park.

At 60 I'm too old to start.

Oh,you poor old thing.



I watched the first dozen or so,then one occasionally but none for the last couple of years;

I loved:Mr Hanky The Christmas Poo,Cartman's anal alien probe,when he began shooting flames out of his arse, the episode about Paris Hilton, ('Spoilt Rich Whore') Jesus and Santa having a fist fight and of course the boys building a tower so they could visit Kenny in heaven. (they were after his candy)

[Violet]

Apparently some women just don't learn. Right?

Hey... it's true. Some women are just plain fucking stupid. v_v

---

Actually, I've never watched South Park.

At 60 I'm too old to start.

I'll probably get boo'd for saying this, but it isn't all it's cracked up to be, anyway. I've seen a few funny episodes, but generally it doesn't entertain me.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

*Crowd makes 'Booooo!'ing noises and angry uproar*

[Purple Rabbit]

jotted down and collected by many after him

do some searches in that as its not true. the Quran was written as a whole in the life of muhammed(pbuh) by different companions what happened later is making more copies from the original(just after 2 years more copies madefrom the original. the original was written in his life)
its not like what happened with the bible thats why you never hear about Quran different versions am sorry that i cant get u evidance and links now(as am preparing for the next misconception) but maybe i will get to this later

Have you done the research? If so than present me hard evidence that there is a copy of the quran that can be dated back to the seventh century. Such evidence is lacking. Moreover amongst scholars there is considerable doubt and skepticism on the historicity of the texts now in the quran. Basically there are two schools of thought: a non-scientific traditional school claiming authenticity, perfect compilation and divine inspiration, and a skeptical school of thought that from available historical evidence argues for a process of collection from multiple sources spun out over a considerable time after the death of the prophet.

And guess what? The traditional school of thought departs from the notion that the quran is the word of god revealed to Muhammad, so it must have been preserved to perfection throughout the ages since its deliverance. Of course this is circular. Now where have we seen that before?

Muslim orthodoxy holds that the Quran we now possess goes back in its text and in the number and order of the chapters to the work of the commission that Uthman appointed. Muslim orthodoxy holds further that Uthman’s quran contains all of the revelation delivered to the community faithfully preserved without change or variation of any kind and that the acceptance of the ‘Uthmanic quran was all but universal from the day of its distribution. None of this can be supported by the historical evidence.

The rigid stance the modern muslim orthodoxy chooses on the authenticity of the quran has even been doubted by earlier muslim commentators. As-Suyuti (died 1505), one of the most famous commentators of the quran, quotes Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab as saying: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available’".

Canonization of texts took considerable time after Muhammad. But even under the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935) seven versions were left transmitted through various lines:

1. Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun
2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul
3. Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dakwan
4. Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi
5. Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr
6. Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad
7. Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al Duri and Abul Harith

The seven versions refer to actual written and orally transferred text, to distinct versions of quranic verses. Generally in an apologetic context the seven versions are explained (away) as modes of recitation. But in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter.

More and more the analogy with the canonization of the bible emerges from unbiased historical research.

[mo3taz3nbar]

@ Arms when you have a book claiming to be a divine from god u have to analyse the book itself not to start assuming stuff about someone who lived 1400 years ago (especially when you dont assume credability of the history and i also prefer not to depend on history books in the begining of looking to any religion) you have the book that you can prove from wether this is from god or not.
(thats not the subject)

---

Have you done the research? If so than present me hard evidence that there is a copy of the quran that can be dated back to the seventh century. Such evidence is lacking. Moreover amongst scholars there is considerable doubt and skepticism on the historicity of the texts now in the quran. Basically there are two schools of thought: a non-scientific traditional school claiming authenticity, perfect compilation and divine inspiration, and a skeptical school of thought that from available historical evidence argues for a process of collection from multiple sources spun out over a considerable time after the death of the prophet.

i have done that research and i will present it later as for now am preparing to talk about jihad in islam
as i think a lot of you have the wrong idea about this especially after 9\11 after i finish this i will let you guys decide what the next thread be about. so plz strict to the subject i will get to every point in islam that you guys want to know about or have a misconception about it

And guess what? The traditional school of thought departs from the notion that the quran is the word of god revealed to Muhammad, so it must have been preserved to perfection throughout the ages since its deliverance. Of course this is circular. Now where have we seen that before?

lol dont worry i will not prove to you that Quran is preserved by something you dont believe in the first place

[Caecilian]

Actually, there are at least parts of the koran the have been dated to the late seventh century- the Sana'a_manuscripts. Unfortunately for orthodox islam, they aren't identical to the relevant passages of the accepted 'modern' version of the text. What a surprise!

Gerd Puin, a German academic who has been investigating the Sana'a manuscripts for years, has the following to say about the koran:

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.

Source: excellent Atlantic Monthly article on the koran.

However, even if the koran was a single, unified text with a traceable history (and lets be clear: it isn't), it would still be open to multiple interpretations. Mo3 seems to think that islam and the koran can somehow be seperated out from the rest of culture; that a 'pure' interpretation of the koran is somehow possible. This is a nonsense, an illusion, self-deception. Religion is part of culture; the koran always has been, and can only be, interpreted through a cultural lens.

This leads me back to an earlier point. What really matters is what muslims do in the name of their religion. Female genital mutilation, for example, is a pre-islamic practice that is not discussed in the koran. But it has been, and sometimes still is justified in religious terms. I've posted this before, its written by the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars:

---

Wa`alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister, we are very pleased for the great confidence you repose in us and we really commend your apparent interest in having a better understanding of the teachings of Islam and the rulings of this great religion in all matters. In fact, Islam is a religion that encompasses all aspects of life and secures guidance and light for all mankind.

Before delving deep into the question of female circumcision, we would like to make it clear that "female circumcision" means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.

As for the Shari`ah stance on female circumcision, it’s a controversial issue among the Muslim scholars and even doctors.

In response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents.

However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands". The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris.

Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.

As for male circumcision, it is one of the obligatory practices in Islam. Scholars even hold that whoever finds that some Muslims have stopped practicing male circumcision should force them to revert to this Sunnah that characterizes the Muslim nation.



Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satel...z0pboBkshW

---

Child marriage/ rape has a much clearer islamic connection. Iirc, mohammed married aisha when she was 6 or 7, and started raping her when she was 9 or 10. Isn't that right, mo3?

[downbeatplumb]

If the quran isnt so repressive why does every muslim country act as though it is.
And some of the interpretations of sharia law beggar belief.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/Br...-Islam.htm

Which seems to imply that in order for a woman to stay in the same room with a man without sin he must suck her tit!!

Well I'm all for that but it seems a little silly, but on a more serious note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5217424.stm

Here we have the story of a teenage Iranian girl who was executed for being repeatedly raped. Yes you read that right SHE was raped and SHE was killed for it.

You can find stories like this from almost all Islamic countries.

Maybe the quaran doesnt encourage it, but it certainly looks like it might.

[mo3taz3nbar]

@Caecilian ok i will answer every point in details but for now i cant answer questions out of the subject as this will get us all confused and getting to an arguments without end all the MISCONCEPTIONS you have i will get to it later but now we are talking about women in islam according to the Quran not according what some people do(am not talking about different cultures it has nothing to do with religion) tommorow i will start another thread about jihad in islam so if you want to prepare questions go on and good luck

---

@downbeatplumb ok my friend i will just tell you my opinion on what you are doing thats not the best way to know about any religion you are opening your brain to people talking without evidence they are just talking saying anything. if your researches in religion based on that you will find what you want wether its the truth or not. i think you have to read the books people claiming its from god and start asking question on every little thing in this books until you find that there is questions with no answers at all. there is no powerful evidence more than getting what the book(of any religion) says but if you start getting your information from the internet and the news you will never get to anything you will not even be an atheist as your reasons will be based on wrong information.am just telling you my opinion and what i have done when i was searching in different religions