refuting misconceptions:1-women in Islam

[AtheistPhil]

You showed me that there is one interpretation of this verse that is respectful of women, I'll give you that. But the other interpretations aren't completely crazy though, and the way it's written make it possible to interpret it to justify complete control of the husband over their wife's body. What I'm saying is that it could've been written clearer !

the words in arabic cant have other interpretation its so clear

If it's so clear why does Abdullah Yusuf Ali doesn't make it clear in his translation:

2:222 [...]ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.
2:223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah.

A simple "when your wife agrees" would have made it clear. And also, why couldn't they add that "the one who forces his wife shall be punished".

I wished it wouldn't be unclear. But we have to be realistic, right now there are people in muslim countries who do use the "bad" interpretation. Not because they want to abuse their wife but because it is what they've been taught and what they honestly think that the Qur'an says (like the story in the movie "submission"). That's why I doubt that this verse is completely clear in arabic. But if you can explain to me in details what the arabic in this verse means I'll be glad to read it.

And the story of Ayaan hirsi ali and the like tell us that some people actually use today that kind of interpretation.

i have no idea about that plz clarify

Sorry, I was refering to the movie "Submission" by Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which depicts the interpretation of the verses 2:222-223 and the abuses justified by it. It was posted by Paul the human on the first page of this thread.

1-its not another topic am explaining why agressive punishment is for
1-check the link i gave you the main reason of abortion is having sex before marriage

Ok, I totally missed what you had said, sorry. But that doesn't justify stoning people for having sex outside of marriage, because it doesn't lead to abortion per se, because you can use birth control, and you can still force the two people to marry and have the child if there is one conceived outside of marriage. And abortions happens in married couples too!
In any case stoning both of them is certainly not a solution and it's barbaric!
You're trying to tell me that stoning people for an action that could have lead (in not even 1% of the times) to a situation where a decision concerning the life of a foetus has to be made is the right thing to do ?
If people aren't stupid they will just force the couple to have the child. Besides if you stone them you're gonna kill the fucking foetus! If that isn't stupid I don't know what is!

We don't stone people to death for attempted murder in the West, so I highly doubt you'll ever convince us that stoning people having sex outside of marriage is actually ethical.