Originally Posted by britb

Didn't someone raise a point like this before? And didn't I shut it down? And here I was doing my best to lurk quietly. But I'm kinda getting the sense you're trying to use history to justify your anger/dislike of America.

War and/or rebellion/revolution/coup is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION than a surprise attack on the civilians of a peaceful nation (a nation without a war going on in its borders). Also, your big example is 1973. Whether the CIA outright killed him is debated (some witnesses suggest suicide). I dont condone the action at all, but America is not the only country to do this - far from it. Also, only history majors talk about events like that on a daily/weekly basis now. If your going to try to historical argument get better examples.

You can argue everyone has blood on their hands. Americans are no worse, probably better than some even *if anyone the USSR is worse - Stalin alone killed about 30 million people with an enforced famine in the span of a few years... nevermind all the other stuff he managed to do in his 20-25 or so years in power). It doesn't matter anyway because there is NO justification for what happened on 9/11. Innocent people died - the majority of them ordinary civilians who had nothing to do with the FP of the US. Its also totally irrational to blame a country, race or religion for the action of individuals. Hate Bush or Nixon and their staff if you want. Hate bin Laden and his group. But don't hate Americans or Muslims.

You know what, this sort of irrational blaming is what leads to the attacks and the hatred that made them possible.

There are so many things wrong with this post. Where should I start.

I'll work my way up. First, if the USA hadn't a superiority complex there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

I did not say there was a justificiation for the attacks of 9/11.

My statement was this : America has commited far more atrocities than AQ. I did not mention the USSR, I couldn't care less about it right now. The topic was about USA, so let it be about the USA stop using Red Herrings.

A better example ? I thought partition of Korea was one. What about the Shah in Iran ? The fact that USA supports Bahrain's actions towards its people ? The list is big.

A coup and a surpise attack are the same actually. Both are surprise attacks. The end goals may be different but that doesn't matter. The fact is, in both 9/11, innocent people die. Unlike you, I do not affiliate with terrorism. I don't condone neither AQ or the USA.

America a peaceful nation ? Oh please. So peaceful means no war on its borders ? Have you heard about the War on Drugs ?

Eitheir way, your definition of peaceful would have made Japan a peaceful nation during World war 2.

Only history majors talk about 1973 Chilean coup detat? So because onlly historians talk about it, no one should ? What a weak argument.

I am pretty sure if 3000 Canadians died, Americans wouldn't give the same sentiment Canadians are giving right now. But that's just my opinion of a people with a superiority complex.

You seem to think because I critisize USA policies, I must hate it (which is true) and therefore I must hate Americans (which is not true). I don't hate Americans. They are morons. They are not aware of what their country does. They ae too blinded by entertainment and the illusion that their nation is a force of "good".

Originally Posted by I r Babboon

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34

Not demeaning at all.

They were hundreads of scholars explaining this verse and reminding people to read the verse that precedes it. I won't bother explaining, here's a link : http://www.themodernreligion .com/w...4-shafaat.html

EDIT: Google the verse you posted. That translation leads to a lot of Anti-islam websites. Coincidence ?

http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl... =1680&bih=968

Originally Posted by I r Babboon

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34

Not demeaning at all.

My friend i will assume you have not read the Quran nor know how to speak Arabic. The thing about arabic is it is a very complicated language and a very difficult one to master. Have a read through this
http://www.tritebuttrue.com/blog/arc...rse_in_th.html

Originally Posted by I r Babboon

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34

Not demeaning at all.

"Men are protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme." 4:34 Quran, English Sarwar translation.

Just so everyone is clear on this verse, it DOES say you can beat your wife for that particular reason??? Wtf.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

Just so everyone is clear on this verse, it DOES say you can beat your wife for that particular reason??? Wtf.

you need the whole context of that surrah in order to interpret that.
I'm no scholar, but I've always been led to believe that women AND men are punished for the same kinds of things, ex. adultery, theft and such. you'd probably be better off asking MSA on what they think.

as far as I know, islam doesn't condone abuse towards women. those who have affairs and such are punished though, but that also applies to men.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

Just so everyone is clear on this verse, it DOES say you can beat your wife for that particular reason??? Wtf.

It is not a brutal beating(light), some scholars say a small tap is considered a beating. As the Prophet explains it, it should be a tap that leaves no mark. Why ? It's an action that is used as a last resort to save the marriage. Since it leaves no marks, I doubt there is significant pain involved. It is more of a psychological message through a physical one.


Anyways, divorce is permissible. So I don't understand what the problem is. The verse orders the man to stay away and not sleep with her first.

There is people beating their children. I was beaten when I was a child. And not that light beating or a small tap or anything. Belts, spoons, and bread rollers were involved. However, child beating is clearly a sin regardless if it is light or not, yet I don't see any comments regarding Europeans or Arabs beating their children.

Originally Posted by ooburii

you need the whole context of that surrah in order to interpret that.
I'm no scholar, but I've always been led to believe that women AND men are punished for the same kinds of things, ex. adultery, theft and such. you'd probably be better off asking MSA on what they think.

as far as I know, islam doesn't condone abuse towards women. those who have affairs and such are punished though, but that also applies to men.

So you're defense of the quaran's sexist command that women shouldn't be allowed to leave their home without a male because they are to be protected, also includes the idea that they should be beaten? Interesting...

Originally Posted by EngStud

It is not a brutal beating(light), some scholars say a small tap is considered a beating.

Anyway, divorce is permissible. So I don't understand what the problem is. The verse orders the man to stay away and not sleep with her first.

There is people beating their children. I was beaten when I was a child. And not that light beating or a small tap or anything. Belts, spoons, and bread rollers were involved. However, child beating is clearly a sin regardless if it is light or not, yet I don't see any comments regarding Europeans or Arabs beating their children.

Would it be permissible for the female to do the same? Would they be "allowed" to refuse sex? Or beat their husband?

Originally Posted by ooburii

you need the whole context of that surrah in order to interpret that.
I'm no scholar, but I've always been led to believe that women AND men are punished for the same kinds of things, ex. adultery, theft and such. you'd probably be better off asking MSA on what they think.

as far as I know, islam doesn't condone abuse towards women. those who have affairs and such are punished though, but that also applies to men.

I'm posting this from the link that EngStud posted to refute what Amardeep said. It's not taken from an "anti-islamic site". It explains the "beat them" part of the verse, and I think this is horrible.

""Beat them". If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35)."

Originally Posted by EngStud

It is not a brutal beating(light), some scholars say a small tap is considered a beating.

This argument holds no water, because on the other hand an actual beating is still considered a beating. Either way, this topic is getting way out of hand, and let's just stop it all together for the victims of 9/11. RIP.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

This argument holds no water, because on the other hand an actual beating is still considered a beating.

Your 21st century Canadian English, and the English of 10th century England are different.

Now try and translate a 7th century Arabic into a 21st century Canadian English.

Plus, we believe that the Prophet is the role model. Quran gives the orders, but how do we execute them ?

Quran tells us to pray, but how much and how ? The Prophet showed us how.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

So you're defense of the quaran's sexist command that women shouldn't be allowed to leave their home without a male because they are to be protected, also includes the idea that they should be beaten? Interesting...

As a muslim woman, I believe in following the Quran. The Quran outlines a judicial system for men and women and everything that it proclaims is fair, imo, because I believe that God is Just to all His servants and I refuse to question his commandments. I am not a perfect muslim, but that's not your business, or anyone else's. In the end, it's God who judges me for my actions.

We have seen for ourselves how women are attacked in the streets, whistled at, assaulted and raped. The rule on having a mahram to accompany a woman is to keep her safe from that kind of thing, and also to prevent a chance for adultery, or that's what I understand it to be. God knows best.

And for some reason it seems to me that you're implying that Islam says only to punish women and are completely missing the point that men are punished for crimes as well.

Originally Posted by EngStud

Your 21st century Canadian English, and the English of 10th century England are different.

Now try and translate a 7th century Arabic into a 21st century Canadian English.

Plus, we believe that the Prophet is the role model. Quran gives the orders, but how do we execute them ?

Quran tells us to pray, but how much and how ? The Prophet showed us how.

You're not helping your argument. Because if you agree that it is really hard to translate, then how can ANYONE (you, me, scholars, my dog) be sure what is written in the Quran?

Originally Posted by EngStud

The Quran condones apostasy ?

Educate me with your great knowledge, what verse ?

The claim of women not going outside without a mahram is specially for women to be protected.

Women and inventions ? Was it a woman who invented the light bulb, transistor, discovered viruses ? I know about Marie curie and others, but they make the extremely small portion of "inventors" and "well known scientists".

Fresh water and salt don't mix ? Salt and fresh are not even words mentionned in the Quran. I doubt salt had an arabic word at that time. So basically, you belive that whatever some "Muslims" say is what Islam say.

Sayings of Muslim != Sayings of Islam

I think you missed my point, education for women in islamic countries is not at the same level as their male counterparts... no?

And here's the two quotes... there are more, but im too lazy

"He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding wall." (25:53)

Apparently diffusion wasn't allowed by god yet, and nor is leaving islam:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them" (4:89)