Council of Islamic Ideology proposal
Discussion
Sorry about the Daily Fail link, but really? Do we now have a 4th world country? 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3612356/Is...
Daily Fascist said:
Islamic council proposes allowing men to 'lightly beat' their wives if they do not 'dress as he desires', refuse to have sex, or fail to take a bath after their period
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3612356/Is...
Edited by matchmaker on Saturday 28th May 10:17
This is the problem with folk who think 'God' sent an angel to speak to some bloke in the desert and handed out instructions on how we should live our lives. Of course the counter argument may well be "who in their right mind would take such things literally" which is fair enough however does that mean that the so called God you claim is all knowing and all powerful got it wrong or did the person who claimed an angel spoke to him make it all up in his mind? As someone once said when referring to the virgin birth "which is more likely, that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie"?
However if you still believe in revelation, angels, prophets etc then Chapter 4:34 of the Koran (ie the word of God to many) is pretty clear on this subject and several translators seem to agree.
However if you still believe in revelation, angels, prophets etc then Chapter 4:34 of the Koran (ie the word of God to many) is pretty clear on this subject and several translators seem to agree.
chapter 4:34 said:
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 whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high.
chapter 4:34 said:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
chapter 4:34 said:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
chapter 4:34 said:
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. )
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.034voyds9 said:
Why do gods feel the need to speak in metaphors and parables
Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
There is nothing in either Testament about eating fish on Friday.Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
The is a Catholic penance of not eating meat on Friday; eating fish is an age-hallowed dodge.
voyds9 said:
Why do gods feel the need to speak in metaphors and parables
Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
Ignore those who speak or write in flowery prose.Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
voyds9 said:
Why do gods feel the need to speak in metaphors and parables
Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
The particular religion here is very direct and unambiguous about most things in its core text. There's also a well established tradition of jurisprudence and several different schools of interpretation of the minutest details of the of the texts. None of them are particularly encouraging for women or non Muslims.Gives us it straight at least then we know where we are
ie Eat fish on Friday.
Don't eat pig until technology is good enough that it will not kill you.
Convert people, don't kill them.
Still I'm sure it's only a small minority taking things out of context and misunderstanding the peaceful and tolerant REAL Islam.
BlackLabel said:
This is the problem with folk who think 'God' sent an angel to speak to some bloke in the desert and handed out instructions on how we should live our lives. Of course the counter argument may well be "who in their right mind would take such things literally" which is fair enough however does that mean that the so called God you claim is all knowing and all powerful got it wrong or did the person who claimed an angel spoke to him make it all up in his mind? As someone once said when referring to the virgin birth "which is more likely, that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie"?
To be fair, she wasn't a virgin until, if memory serves, the 9th century and her virginity didn't become 'of faith', i.e. accepted by the church, until well into the new millennium.It is seen as a basis of faith nowadays. So the catholics will say they believe it when, in fact, they don't.
I was reading a booklet by a vicar who stated that he doubted there was a personal resurrection after we, the chosen ones, have died. It was a bit involved, and poorly translated from the original language, and I lost track but he, surprisingly for me, reckoned the virgin birth was true, but with a caveat. His opinion was that for there to be descent from David (who may or may not have existed), which is vital for the christ, meant that Jo had to have a hand in it, so to speak.
'My' religion, methodist, is a little vague on the subject and my Sunday school teacher glossed over the subject, although she said that probably virgin was a mistranslation.
Virgin births are hardly unique to catholicism. It is a common feature of many religions, as is resurrection of course.
A few ago a friend of mines son got into enormous trouble for a spoof website that pretended to sell Burkhas and the like. One of the lines on offer was a torn and "bloodstained" burkha for that "just stoned look" the tag line was something like "hold your head up high in the community as you can produce this as proof your wayward daughter/wife was suitably disciplined whilst you whisk her away via Birmingham International Airport
It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
techiedave said:
A few ago a friend of mines son got into enormous trouble for a spoof website that pretended to sell Burkhas and the like. One of the lines on offer was a torn and "bloodstained" burkha for that "just stoned look" the tag line was something like "hold your head up high in the community as you can produce this as proof your wayward daughter/wife was suitably disciplined whilst you whisk her away via Birmingham International Airport
It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
I don't really see why the hell a satirical website should interest the CID.
techiedave said:
A few ago a friend of mines son got into enormous trouble for a spoof website that pretended to sell Burkhas and the like. One of the lines on offer was a torn and "bloodstained" burkha for that "just stoned look" the tag line was something like "hold your head up high in the community as you can produce this as proof your wayward daughter/wife was suitably disciplined whilst you whisk her away via Birmingham International Airport
It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
Are satirical website now a crime?It didn't go down well with West Midlands CID at the time
Sounds very good to me.
I'm a big fan of http://www.jesusandmo.net
jdw100 said:
It was around 5/6 years ago and the gentlemen who attended were deadly serious as it had been reported as a racial hatred type complaint. To be fair it was around the time that Police in that area seemed to be bending over backwards to accommodate followers of a certain religion. IThere was a feeling amonst several people that the plod were under instruction to do this. Certain parts of the town were known for being untouchable. Its a bit better now but there is still deep mistrust in the area
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff