by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
so neither one of the verses you've quoted from the Quran actually support mistreatment of women.
Your white washing JD
The point is men are given power over woman in the Islamic faith/culture.
much like the way the JWS subject and have control over woman.
If woman are equal inside Islam, why isn't there any woman Muslim clerics ?
Why are woman subservient to men and their imposed behavioral controls. ?
Imagine a commentary on the crusades using today's touchy-feely PC jargon: 'Christianist millitants have conquered Jerusalem.
Except you wouldn't be allowed to use the word "Christian" and the focus would be on how the killers didn't represent Christianity which was "really a religion of peace and love".
Polls of Christians saying that opposers should be executed and the crusades should continue would be dismissed as a minority extremist view even though they would show +90% support in many Christian controlled countries.
If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them of the teachings of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you you have no right to act against them
So basically, if they get to uppity then give them a slap. You decide what constitutes obeying so you basically get to call all the shots. If they start trying to tell you that they think they should be equal to you then go get the big stick out.
Is it any wonder that there is almost a direct correlation between lack of rights for women and proportion of Muslim influence in a country? The worst a country's human-rights record is, the more chance is that has more Islamic influece.
also @simon
i afraid I still have to disagree. When the crusades began there was no world power, England hadn't colonized the states yet. As far as the known world was concerned, all of civilization was over in Europe. The Kings of Europe were under the power of the pope still. The pope said jump and they asked, how high? When the ottoman empire spread into Spain (against the direction of the Quran I might add), this was at a time when all of Islam was on the offensive. The pope then sent for the Kings to send their armies to fight them back. All Christian men able to fight tried to join the crusade if they were able. It is documented that wives would lock their husbands in a room and not allow them to leave, keeping them prisoner. The church was very successful in recruiting ridiculous numbers into their army to fight Islam. This for me is the difference. The central and primarily (and at the time, ONLY) authority for all Christians in the then known world sanctioned, approved, and encouraged the crusades. They proscribed for their worshippers that joining the army was the greatest calling in the world, and of they did so all sins would be forgiven them. They did not direct this for only a few or a handful, but for all Christians in the known world of the day. This, to me, is vastly different from ISIS and there little handful of radicalized fools.
If the church were to try something like that today, it would not reflect on all Christianity because since then Christians habe splintered into 10s of 1000s of groups. What the Catholics do does not reflect on baptists or Methodists and vice versa. The same is true of ISIS, and other dempnominations of Islam. However, back at the time of the crusades there was only a single Christian denomination. Therefore, since that one denomination sanctioned and approved it, it reflects on all of them at that time and the Catholic Church today.
Atrocities like this, as well as the false teachings of Catholicism, is the reason for the reformation, and the development of all the different Christian groups today. For this reason, because they took action to sever themselves from this past, the crusades no longer reflect on all Christianity. Compared with Islam however, they are already splintered. If there had been other denominations of Christianity around during the crusades then the crusades would only reflect on the ones who took part and sanctioned them. The same should be true of Islam, which does not as a whole sanction and endorse ISIS. This just like the crusades would not reflect on multiple denominations if they had existed, ISIS does not reflect on Islam as a whole.
i feel like this response was long winded, but I'm hoping more words made me easier to understand. I'm not great at articulation.
JD - When you assert that Mo advocates gender equality - apart from the bit where he instructs men to slap their wives - you lose all credibility.
The quran was written in a culture of honour. Wives and daughters were possessions of husbands and fathers. The sexuality of a daughter was a financial asset to be sold for the best price. Girls were severely restricted in order to preserve their virginity including FGM. They were married off as young as possible to minimise the risk of them being defiled. Mo married one of his wives when she was 6 and began raping her when she was 9. Mo was a child rapist.
No wonder countries who the quran seriously are backward and oppressive to women.
Please read Ayaan Hirsi Ali "Infidel" and "Nomad" for somebody who knows better than you do.
When the crusades began there was no world power
There were powers in the known world. Rome? Byzantine? Greece? Persia? There were plenty of powers that controlled much of the known world. Other parts of the world had their own powers too - they just hadn't met yet.
I don't see the lack of one single world power as significant. You were arguing that the Christian Empire sanctioned the crusades a minute ago.
If the church were to try something like that today, it would not reflect on all Christianity because since then Christians have splintered into 10s of 1000s of groups. What the Catholics do does not reflect on baptists or Methodists and vice versa.
It would if the basis for it was the same book. The splintering of Christianity took part after the reformation of the beliefs which is why we don't have people who think ALL the old testament should be followed (besides about 3 people in the Westboro Baptist Church)
The same should be true of Islam, which does not as a whole sanction and endorse ISIS
The studies and polls suggest that they do. If all those people say what their beliefs are and that it's based on Islam then it seems reasonable to believe them.
The practice of Sharia law and treatment of women, minorities gays and others in so many Muslim countries around the world suggest that they do.
The trouble Islam has is that ISIS isn't far enough away from their own beliefs and practices. They just seem to be more devout and dedicated to it than most.
The point is men are given power over woman in the Islamic faith/culture.
This is is true. But I'm not arguing in favor of Islam. As I've said, they don't follow their book. I'm only defending the Quran.
as far as other posts that have been made since my last long one. I don't understand why slapping a person who is mistreating you should be wrong. It's not saying beat the hell out of her, it's saying slap her if she won't listen and stop mistreating you. If that doesn't work it directs the couple to separate so there can be peace.
If I mistreated my wife she would slap me. And I think any who are married here would agree, if we treated our wives like dirt, they would slap us. If my wife mistreated me severely enough (which this is talking sbout) I would slap her. This is normal human behavior being restricted so as to AVOID mistreatment. The directives in the Quran are saying to only go so far to try to stay together. If that doesn't work it says they should divorce.
If we are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt and consider what is really being said, then we can vilify any book and any man of our choosing. If we let it speak for itself however, and consider the social and cultural context around its development, there is nothing evil or vile about this book. the Quran stands as a witness against Islam, and especially ISIS, in the same way the bible does against Christianity, and especially Catholicism. But the books themselves are being almost crucified by society today, and only because of being misrepresented and slandered either on accident or on purpose.
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. - Quran 4:34
If my wife mistreated me severely enough (which this is talking sbout) I would slap her - Jonathan Drake
Stunning!
Conversation over.
Please do not ignore the fact that you have admitted Mo instructed men to slap their wives. Are you really going to justify domestic abuse?
It's not domestic abuse - it's all completely the fault of those women for not obeying well enough remember.
Yes, you can't possibly blame a faith that teaches men to hit women for any women being hit. No connection there whatsoever.
Hey, this "being a Muslim" thing is pretty easy !
