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)

Originally Posted by TedMosby

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)."

Yes the light beating should be done by moral husbands (in Islamic standards : Not drunk, or abusive).

The problem is this. Your view of beating is what gangsters do in the streets or what a drunken husband does to his wife.

The Islamic beating is like a small tap that leaves no mark. Only to be done as a last resort to save marriage and not make the children take different trips to visit their parents .

What is it is the husband who is immoral ? Than the wife MUST divorce. And if the husband persists than the state shall deal with him.

I don't udnerstand what is so complicated.

Originally Posted by ooburii

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.

It's certitude of religious ideology like that statement above that enabled the deaths of 3000 people...

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

"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)[font=Verdana][size=2]

Apparently diffusion wasn't allowed by god yet


[/i]

LOL this is talking about diffusion in your opinion? Your intelligence astounds me, you scientist, you. You continue to spit nonsense without bothering to do an ounce of research to prove your point...

http://www.islamicedfoundati on.com/water.htm

If the word "Islamic" in the url is displeasing to you, here's a wikipedia link for your enjoyment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackish_water

Going to leave this argument because I feel that it's a lost cause.
From the beginning, there has been a tone of attack, and it's just pointless to waste time explaining things when it's clear that there was never any goal except to have an argument. >__>

peace.

Originally Posted by EngStud

Yes the light beating should be done by moral husbands (in Islamic standards : Not drunk, or abusive).

The problem is this. Your view of beating is what gangsters do in the streets or what a drunken husband does to his wife.

The Islamic beating is like a small tap that leaves no mark. Only to be done as a last resort to save marriage and not make the children take different trips to visit their parents .

What is it is the husband who is immoral ? Than the wife MUST divorce. And if the husband persists than the state shall deal with him.

I don't udnerstand what is so complicated.

I think what's so complicated, is some of us find it a little disgusting that anyone could justify wife beating as, just a small tap that leaves no mark... but I ask you again, is it okay for a women to do the same to their husband?

Originally Posted by EngStud

The Islamic beating is like a small tap that leaves no mark. Only to be done as a last resort to save marriage and not make the children take different trips to visit their parents .

Sorry sir, but if the beating is only meant to be a "tap", then it would be translated in modern day English as a "tap" and not a beating. But it's not.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

It's certitude of religious ideology like that statement above that enabled the deaths of 3000 people...

my last point, because I can't believe I just read this:

wow, you have basically just linked the entire religion of islam to the world trade center attacks, thus making you no better than the other hateful bigots who cant seem to understand that this tragedy was the work of EXTREMISTS who twist the words and ideas of a religion into their own twisted logic.

the quran and islam encourage peace and prohibit the killing of innocent people.

Originally Posted by ooburii

my last point, because I can't believe I just read this:

wow, you have basically just linked the entire religion of islam to the world trade center attacks, thus making you no better than the other hateful bigots who cant seem to understand that this tragedy was the work of EXTREMISTS who twist the words and ideas of a religion into their own twisted logic.

the quran and islam encourage peace and prohibit the killing of innocent people.

Did you even read what he said?

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

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)

Let me comment on the last point you are failing to make.

Renegades ? So basically the verse is saying, oh apostates are not to be taken as allies. If they then become rebels (fighting force) than fight them.

Pretty reasonable.

And it is not two kinds of waters, it is talking about bodies of water. You clearly don't know what happens when the Nile flows into the Medditerean sea. Read about estuaries realy.

Originally Posted by dsalvatore

LOL this is talking about diffusion in your opinion? Your intelligence astounds me, you scientist, you. You continue to spit nonsense without bothering to do an ounce of research to prove your point...

http://www.islamicedfoundati on.com/water.htm

If the word "Islamic" in the url is displeasing to you, here's a wikipedia link for your enjoyment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackish_water

The verse makes no disctinction based on geography. Your interpretation of the verse suggests it means one thing, but the quote is not talking about one specific location, it's saying that there are two types of water (which isn't true), and that one is sweet the other is salty and they don't mix...
If i take a cup of salt water and a cup of non salt water, they will mix, other factors go into your two examples, but to suggest that salt water and nonsalt water don't mix is wrong...

Originally Posted by TedMosby

Sorry sir, but if the beating is only meant to be a "tap", then it would be translated in modern day English as a "tap" and not a beating. But it's not.

Holy....


Okay, let me spell it out for you. Tap is not a word in Arabic. Quran was written in A. R A B I C in 6th Century.

So what did people do when they heard about a verse, they asked the Prophet and explained it to them.

Simple.

Originally Posted by EngStud

Holy....


Okay, let me spell it out for you. Tap is not a word in Arabic. Quran was written in A. R A B I C in 6th Century.

So what did people do when they heard about a verse, they asked the Prophet and explained it to them.

Simple.

Then when it was translated into modern English for everyone to understand, it would have been translated as "tap", because there IS a word for tap in English. But it wasn't. Simple.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

The verse makes no disctinction based on geography. Your interpretation of the verse suggests it means one thing, but the quote is not talking about one specific location, it's saying that there are two types of water (which isn't true), and that one is sweet the other is salty and they don't mix...
If i take a cup of salt water and a cup of non salt water, they will mix, other factors go into your two examples, but to suggest that salt water and nonsalt water don't mix is wrong...

The verse doesn't say two types of water. It clearly says two bodies of water. However you get your shitty translations from Islam hating websites. That is why every argument you have brought , I have destroyed.

Originally Posted by TedMosby

Then when it was translated into modern English for everyone to understand, it would have been translated as "tap", because there IS a word for tap in English. But it wasn't. Simple.

The translation is word for word. It is not a Hadith (sayings of Prophet) translation, it is a Quranic translation into English.