ThunderJam Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 I was on my comcast.net home page and saw a video link about some islamic cleric talking about how to properly beat your wife accorind to the Quaran. Unfortunately this computer's sound and video are screwed up so I just ran a search hoping I'd find a article about the same guy, but instead turned up dozens of similar cases. Heres on: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40276 Friggin crazy. And it's called a religion of peace. He tries to justify it saying that women WANT to be controlled by men. Another one of the articles I found said how they should be more considerate beating their wives then children of animals, which it even said was ok... Some guy in 2004 was publishing manuals on how to properly beat your wife without leaving incriminating marks. I'm disgusted, especially to think that some of you have compared me, as a Christian to them.
masscarnage Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 1 psycho doesn't speak for an entire religion, you like to contradict your self alot tj, there are some forms of christianity were they beat their wives http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/Home.html, its all on the guy christian, muslim, athiest, what ever if hes an ignorant !@#$%^&* and beats his wife or a loving husband who treats her equally. really now tj over generalizations thought u were better than that
SeVeR Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 Some Christian priests have raped choir boys. Does this make all Christians pedophiles? Do we have any evidence that Christianity drove them to pedophilia? No, and no. It's a well known fact that Christianity a few centuries ago wasn't so different to Islam today. Even so you're talking about one man's opinion. It's a pretty low blow to come out with lines like "And it's called a religion of peace", when your incrimination of Islam is both generalised and hypocritical.
JDS Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) fail thunderjam i see your point, but there is no need to think you are better than they are, and mock what they believes while you try to act all high and !@#$%^&*ing mighty Edited November 5, 2007 by JDS
ThunderJam Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) 1) Wasn't one case, i said i searched for it and founds TONS of similar cases. The one that was on comcast.net was just a recent one.2) It's not some guy being sick on his own, they have all said that what they are doing is in the quaran and justified by it, etc. I can't say whether or not that is true because I don't read the Quaran. 3) It's different frmo a catholic priest abusing some kid because they aren't passing it off as part of their religion. They are a human being who let their desires get ahead of them, obviously still wrong, but we're talking a whole different level. 4) So when I was saying you have compared us, I mean all the times I have seen it said "Radical Christians are just as bad as radical islamists." At least we're (if you count me radical or not, im refferring to Christians as a whole, and im not even catholic, but im standing for their priests on this one) not beating our wives and saying its part of our religion to do so. Edited November 5, 2007 by ThunderJam
Bak Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) they have all said that what they are doing is in the quaran and justified by it seems like you're saying that it's silly to take something written in some book hundreds of years ago as an absolute truth. Edited November 5, 2007 by Bak
ThunderJam Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Posted November 5, 2007 Hmm bak, im struggling as to how to word my response. It's more of the fact that they would live by a book that teaches them to beat their wives. If the Bible taught me to beat my wife, I wouldnt be a Christian. Islam claims fo be a religion of peace but their holy scripture tells them to beat their wives and kids? I knew that their culture as a whole is somewhat oppressive of women, but I had no idea their friggin scripture instructs them to beat their wives. How their women can stand to believe in a religion that teaches that they themselves should be beaten, I simply can't comprehend. seems like you're saying that it's silly to take something written in some book hundreds of years ago as an absolute truth.I don't just take any old do!@#$%^&*ent to be truth. If found issues in the Bible that I thought were completely wrong and inconsistent, I wouldn't hold it to be true, but that's not the case in my opinion.
SeVeR Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The point is that you can interpret the Quran in a sexist way in the same way you can interpret the Bible in a sexist way. It doesn't take much in either book to go from sexism to wife-beating. 1 Corinthians 113 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Ephesians 5:22 - 24* 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15* 9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; What religion does that last quote remind you of? 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Peter 3:1 -316. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Ecclesiastes 7:26 26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. Edited November 5, 2007 by SeVeR
WongKonPow Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) It's all about context, with both. The bible may say that women should let their husbands be in control, but back then, that was only out in public. In public, the man was in charge, but the home belonged to the women. So in the home, the woman was above the man, but in public, the man was above the woman. The bible also says that men need to treat women as the weaker vessel(as in physically not as strong as men), so as men we MUST take care of them and treat them with respect.But, if the qaran specifically says to beat your wife, then that is just wrong, but I would like to see the context behind it. In the bible it says to stone adulterers. The context has to be taken into thought. Edited November 5, 2007 by WongKonPow
SeVeR Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The bible may say that women should let their husbands be in control, but back then, that was only out in public. In public, the man was in charge, but the home belonged to the women. So in the home, the woman was above the man, but in public, the man was above the woman. I don't think the Bible says anything about women being the boss of the home, and i don't think this is common in the history of Christianity either.... maybe post-war America/Western-Europe, but that's about it. But you're right, both books were written in more sexist times, and both books can thus be interpreted in sexist ways that can culminate in wife-beating. TJ: One case or 50 cases, it doesn't matter, Christianity has more than one case also. When you interpret the Bible or the Quran in a particular way you can justify it. Edited November 5, 2007 by SeVeR
Aileron Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 There is still a difference though. Subordination is different than "he has the right to beat you". I mean, most people have bosses at work, but bosses aren't allowed to beat their employees. I actually think its different here. I think that in our modern society, people don't learn about religion nor the differences between religions. Ask yourself, if you didn't learn enough about politics or history, would you guys criticise China for instance now? China doesn't really look evil, but we can tell because they are communistic, and communists have a flawed political ideology which leads to human rights violations which are covered up. I am beginning to wonder that maybe Islam is the same way, and people aren't educated enough about religion to know that. They do have "Jihad" as one of their pillars...the obvious interpretation is "wage war against other religions", though college professors are too PC to use that interpretation. However, I know that Christianity and Judeism do NOT have anything similar in the Commandments, Bea!@#$%^&*udes, etc. I mean, if you look at the deeds of Moses and the deeds of Jesus vs. the deeds of Muhammed, its huge. Moses lead his people away from their oppressors. Jesus sacrificed himself for the good of others. Muhammed conquered and killed anyone around him who disagreed with him, a trait which is also common among pagans and polytheists.
ThunderJam Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The point is that you can interpret the Quran in a sexist way in the same way you can interpret the Bible in a sexist way. It doesn't take much in either book to go from sexism to wife-beating. 1 Corinthians 113 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Ephesians 5:22 - 24* 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15* 9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; What religion does that last quote remind you of? 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Peter 3:1 -316. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Ecclesiastes 7:26 26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.First off like ail said theres a difference between subordination and beating. And I haven't read the Quaran so I cant say authoritatively here, but the people were not acting like the Quaran was interpretted for beating, they talked as if it TOLD THEM to beat their wives. Like verbatim said how to beat their wives and when, etc. All of the corinthians quotes you said are ineffectual do to the context. The church in corinth had been started by paul and after his departure the women turned to a lot of pros!@#$%^&*ution and ill behavior within the church (I can't remember specifics, we had a series of sermons on Corinthians in my church a while ago tho), among a ton of other problems due to lack of leadership. Paul wrote back in letters instructing them to overcompensate by !@#$%^&*uming a very meek role. 1st Timothy saying dress modestly: is there something wrong with dressing modestly? The references to specific jewelry and stuff are to fight against pros!@#$%^&*ution. Obviously certain things were scandalous then that aren't now. When your a parent, if you are, won't you probably tell your daughter not to go out dressed like a pros!@#$%^&*ute? As for being haughty, that is a main point in christianity, not just applicable to women. Humility = a virtue. And like you said yourself, its written in a more sexist time, The bible saying that the man is the head of the household is typical of the time, and of a lot of places now. Beating your wife as a part of religion i dont think was normal then, and definitely isn't normal to still be following now. Even if you are arguing that Christians treated the man higher, we've also evolved and changed a lot. They are still beating their wives apparently. And interesting wat ail said about Jesus vs Muhammed. Edited November 5, 2007 by ThunderJam
Falcoknight Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 So this is basically a somewhat juvenile little "My religion is better than yours! LAWL!" thread?
SeVeR Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) Hmm, well i don't know who's defending Islam. I'm saying both religions are as bad as eachother. There is still a difference though. Subordination is different than "he has the right to beat you". In both religions subordination can be interpreted as "he has the right to beat you". Can't you see how telling a man that a woman is inferior to him would lead to the man beating the woman in some cases? Until you produce one scrap of evidence that the quran says "you can beat your wife", then i'm going to assume both religions are as sexist as each-other, and that this sexism is what leads to wife-beatings in both religions. They do have "Jihad" as one of their pillars...the obvious interpretation is "wage war against other religions" The obvious intepretation? What about this intepretation makes it obvious? I mean, i know there has been alot of media attention for this word since 9/11... did you just suck all that up along with "Saddam = evil" and "atheists aren't patriotic"? I'm absolutely !@#$%^&*ing astounded. Moses lead his people away from their oppressors. Jesus sacrificed himself for the good of others. Muhammed conquered and killed anyone around him who disagreed with him Yea i think thats true. TJ: Beating your wife as a part of religion i dont think was normal then, and definitely isn't normal to still be following now. I'm pretty sure it's not normal in Islam either. I've already explained how sexism in a holy-book can lead to the beating of women; in the same way "thou shalt not kill" leads to Christians killing abortion doctors, or the way homosexuals are treated. If you can't see how mild, carefully-written, disgust of a group of people within a holy book can manifest into full-blown hatred with a justification for violence, then it's probably because you don't want to understand it. Edited November 6, 2007 by SeVeR
AstroProdigy Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 Muhammed conquered and killed anyone around him who disagreed with him' date=' a trait which is also common among pagans and polytheists.[/quote']Pagans and polytheists were and are surprisingly much MUCH more tolerant than Christians, Jews, or Muslims. The Romans were happy to live in peace with the Jews as long as the Jews didn't rebel. Then Christianity hit the empire and the Jews became public enemy #1. Sounds real tolerant to me.
ThunderJam Posted November 6, 2007 Author Report Posted November 6, 2007 So this is basically a somewhat juvenile little "My religion is better than yours! LAWL!" thread?Actually I didn't intend to make this a christian v islam thread... somehow that last sentence in my first post just kinda squirmed its way inthere..
Aileron Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 You know, saying that Christianity is the same as Islam or Paganism would be like saying that due to my lack of knowledge about brewing, that fine wine is an equivolent beverage to ethanol or rubbing alchohol, because in all of them the primary ingredients are water and alcohol. Knowing a little about the chemical makeup doesn't make one an expert on the essence of the substance. Our society has only a basic understanding of religion and it is hurting us now because our society first off has a poor sense of morals resulting in increasing economic differences, and a poor sense of the spirit resulting in an inability to eliminate terrorism despite their ludicrous vulnerability. We for instance can't put a stop to crime because we have a weak moral structure. We can't recruit qualified individuals to stop it, we can't prevent criminals from recruiting talented persons, and we aren't agressive enough when pursuing justice. Terrorism is similar. We can take out their nests and capture their members, but so far we have not taken two steps towards crushing the spirit which is drivng them foward. To be honest, we can't even comprehend what is driving them foward because most people haven't identified the differences between Islam and our own culture. And our society will just keep weakening until we can learn this lesson: Religion is important. It is important to understand the differences between religions. Astro, the Romans were pretty much the only people writing at their time - ofcourse they weren't going to call themselves oppressive. Besides, are you trying to argue that the Roman treatment of Queen Budica wasn't a case of gender discrimination?
SeVeR Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) You know, saying that Christianity is the same as Islam or Paganism would be like saying that due to my lack of knowledge about brewing, that fine wine is an equivolent beverage to ethanol or rubbing alchohol, because in all of them the primary ingredients are water and alcohol. Knowing a little about the chemical makeup doesn't make one an expert on the essence of the substance. I'm saying that both religions are KNOWN to possess sexist holy-books that have resulted in a belief of inferiority towards women. This is a fact, and is the only similarity i'm claiming. You can try to exagerate my claims with poorly written analogies, but what i'm claiming is a well-known fact. If you like analogies then: "fish and red-meat both contain alot of protein, but you don't see cows swimming in the ocean". Christianity is not the same as Islam, but they certainly do share a few similarities. Based on the similarity i'm claiming, do you have any evidence to the contrary? In other words, is one religion drastically more sexist than the other? Religion is important. It is important to understand the differences between religions. A non-believer has a position of objectivity, by not belonging to a religion. He is free to evaluate all religions from a position without any bias. A Christian or a muslim starts with the !@#$%^&*umption that their religion is right and the other is wrong. A religionist is more likely to attribute positive attributes to their religion, and therefore surely, a lack of religion is what is important to understanding the differences between religions. Am i wrong? To be honest, we can't even comprehend what is driving them foward because most people haven't identified the differences between Islam and our own culture. Very true, i'm glad you agree an understanding of these "terrorists" is needed. Unfortunately they get labelled by governments and the media as "insane", "evil", or "irrational", and that's the end of it. Edited November 6, 2007 by SeVeR
Falcoknight Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 An atheist has a position of objectivity, by not belonging to a religion. He is free to evaluate all religions from a position without any bias. Agnostic* An atheist believes there is no God or anything else that has to do with religion, so it would be impossible for an atheist to view religion without bias and still be a true atheist, as the core of the atheist's beliefs would be that all the religions are false.
Russky Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 well i was taught to never hit girls when i was raised so im safe
Aileron Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 There are plenty of differences between the treatment of women by Christians vs. Muslims. At the same time England was crowning Queen Elizabeth, the Caliphs had given up the practice of marriage in favor of creating harems, which for the uneducated is a collection of female slaves which the caliph could all have relations with. Also, Islam has of yet not given up mainstream polygamy. (No, I'm not counting polygamy cults in Utah as 'mainstream' enough, as they are the outcasts of outcasts of outcasts, and people keep coming up with excuses to put them in jail.) Even the darkest day of the dark ages had knights who praticed a code of chivalry towards women, while in the brightest day of the Golden Age of Islam women are either property, one of twelve wives, sex slaves, or walking blankets. In Christian culture, if a man rapes a woman, the man has commited a felony. In Islamic culture if a man rapes a woman, the woman is considered a !@#$%^&* and executed - I will note that they are making progress here after the US invasion of Afghanistan, instead of executing the woman they now simply brand her a !@#$%^&* and convince her to commit suicide. Islam believes in practicing what they call 'female cir!@#$%^&*cision' at the age of around 10 or so, which is a proceedure which serves no benefit, and makes any and all sexual activity painful to the woman for life. Heck, they even plan on abusing women in the afterlife...they plan on getting their 72 virgins to abuse. Yes, I'm counting polygamous relationships as abusive in and of themselves. The plural side will always not have their emotional needs met. All in all, don't tell me there's no evidence, because there is lots of evidence. Now, back to my point. Just because somebody doesn't know enough about neither Christiany nor Islam to know of the evidence that they are different in, say treatment of women, does not imply that said evidence doesn't exist. This lack of understanding leads to crude generalizations which are just false.
SeVeR Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 Caliphs, like kings of all the lands in the world, have always indugled in having multiple lovers/wives. Even so, that doesn't mean they're treated harshly... in any of the relevent cases. Polygamy has a use. Men who are rich enough to support multiple wives might as well do so in poor countries. Not all men in poor countries can support a woman, polygamists pick up the slack, and i think thats the right thing to do. Again, none of this means the women are treated harshly. Does a man with three wives treat them any different than if he had one? Polygamy isn't an argument. while in the brightest day of the Golden Age of Islam women are either property, one of twelve wives, sex slaves, or walking blankets. Again, nothing is wrong with polygamy if it benefits society. When you say walking blankets i assume you mean something like: "Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array". That's from the Bible. Muslims obviously take it a bit more seriously, but none of that means women are treated badly. With the sex-slaves argument, i guess you're talking about caliphs and sultans again, hardly "mainstream" as you'd put it. Rape:"Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside marriage, including flirting, kissing, and even holding hands. Therefore rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion, is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist." http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/Rape-Islam.htm The plural side will always not have their emotional needs met. Incredible... since the woman still AGREES to marry the man whether he has no wives or five wives. All in all, don't tell me there's no evidence, because there is lots of evidence. Plenty of evidence, but none of it's particularly relevent or accurate.
Recommended Posts