Violence towards wives and children in Islam

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
You said, "It also implies

You said, "It also implies that if the constitution says to kill all babies, you would accept it because it is in the constitution."

If the quran said to do so, would you?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

Absolutely not. I would throw the Qur'an in the trash if it stated to kill babies.

My morality is not based on what the Qur'an says. It's based on what is decent and just according to logic and reason and I accept the Qur'an and Islam because it is in accordance to those same values.

LogicForTW's picture
Say I am twice your size and

Say I am twice your size and 2x stronger then you. I want to discourage your behavior of picking your nose. I start tapping you when ever you pick your nose. I feel picking your nose is wrong (you are the one that said right from wrong is measured by the eye of the beholder's common sense.) It may not be common sense to you or in your culture but it is in mine.I get to tap that until you stop no matter how unfair you think it is.

My "common sense" also dictates that I tap you pretty hard to get my point across, but it leaves no marks or as far as I can tell, lasting pain. If you do not like it, you have to go through all the challenges a woman in your culture has to face if they want a divorce.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

I never said right and wrong is based on the eye of the beholder's common sense. Those are your words. If you want to know what I said, you can quote my exact words. So it does not invalidate the fact that a tap intending to cause no pain or scars is a just form of discipline.

Algebe's picture
Al-Fatihah: "As stated before

Al-Fatihah: "As stated before, common sense."

So can you define this "common sense" and tell me where it comes from? Is men's "common sense" the same as women's "common sense"? What if there is a clash between different perceptions of "common sense," whose version prevails?

You have a funny notion of rights. The only true rights are negative ones. Examples include the right to not to be robbed, or attacked, or imprisoned without due process of law, and of course the right not to be married to an old man at the age of six. Rights that limit or violate the negative rights of other people, such as your right to "tap" women, are false.

You're right that the United States should be ashamed of hate crimes and segregation. But I don't think those things were sanctioned by the US Constitution, but rather violated it. But I'm not American, so I'll leave Americans here to talk about that.

As I said before, my moral compass is based on the rule of treating other people as I would want them to treat me. I assume you don't want to be "tapped." I certainly don't, so I wouldn't "tap" another person other than in self-defense. Does that conflict with your "common sense."

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

The very fact you need a definition of common sense and its origin highlights the moral deficiency and absurdity of atheism. Truth is consistent and consistency is based on what is common. In order for any two people to agree, there also has to be logic that is common between them. The fact that you can comprehend what I write and vice versa proves that there is a sense that is common. It cannot be subjective. So common sense is rational thought that every sane person is born possessing. There is no superior common sense. It's equal in everyone. Just like 2+2 is 4. Not because I say so, or you say so, or anyone says so but because it is based on common sense or rational thought that EVERY sane person is born possessing, regardless of what anyone says.

You also just stated that your "moral compass is based on the rule of treating other people as I would want them to treat me". So you just proved my point that it's based on what you do not like and as such, supports the fact that tapping is a just punishment because a punishment is not supposed to be liked.

Furthermore, since your moral compass is based on your own subjectivity, then what you think or feel is right or wrong means absolutely nothing because no one is obligated to do what you say or feel is right, including "tapping" someone. Since it is subjective, then tapping is not wrong. It is only wrong to you. By that logic, someone can slap you if he or she wants and while that may be wrong to you, it's right to them. Hence, the moral deficiency of atheism as it leads to a society of chaos since there is no common sense or objective morality.

Algebe's picture
@Al-Fatihah: "So common sense

@Al-Fatihah: "So common sense is rational thought that every sane person is born possessing."

So why do need Islam if you were born possessing such a perfect morality?

Do you know the real meaning of "common"? It means shared by everyone. Your "common sense" that you have the right to inflict punishment is not at all common where I live. In fact, it would be considered immoral and criminal. There are human societies based on polygamy, polyandry, patriarchy and matriarchy. Male dominance is by no means universal. But you seem to think that your version of "common sense" is somehow universally and exclusively right. Where do you get that idea from?

A society of people who each thinks his own "common sense" is the only rule sounds like a recipe for chaos to me.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

The question itself is not valid. Everyone by definition is born into Islam because Islam means submission to the will of Allah. So since no one birthed their self but originate from the will of Allah, including all creation, then it is not a case of us needing Islam but that we are born in into Islam.

Secondly, where you live means absolutely nothing for right and wrong is not based on "where you live" and even where you live, not a single person is in prison for tapping someone. So where you live just made my point. What is common where you live and where all people live is that whether you like it or not, no reasonable people puts a person in jail as a criminal or call it immoral for tapping.

A society where no one has common sense or objective morality but feel that their way is the morally right way is chaos.

Algebe's picture
@Al-Fatihah: "not a single

@Al-Fatihah: "not a single person is in prison for tapping someone"

Your word "tapping" is a euphenism for punching, hitting, slapping. You may do it gently (or think you do), but others do not. The fact that so-called "tapping" is approved by your deluded religion opens the doors to escalating domestic violence. Where I live, every coward arrested for hitting his wife whines "I didn't hit her that hard." So again, there are two subjective perceptions of the force of the tap, that of the tapper, and that of the person who is tapped. Which prevails?

Islam is not a basis for universal common sense. It's a religious delusion not shared by the majority of mankind. It spread over a large area of the world through violent conquest and maintains its grip through oppression and violence today. What's the punishment for apostasy?

"originate from the will of Allah, including all creation"

Prove it.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

Where you live, there is still no one locked up for tapping someone, so you continue to refute yourself and make my point. However, there are people locked away for insane thoughts and since thinking a tap is a crime is clearly insane, you've only helped to demonstrate the delusion known as atheism. Not Islam. Where I live, such delusion is treated with a straight-jacket, while only those who brutally beat their wives or women are cowards who think a tap is abusive and barbaric.

Atheism is a deluded concept full of people with low morals since there is no objective morality, people insult their own granparents by claiming they were once ape-like who use to throw their feces at each other, and deny God exist not because they have logical reason to do so but becauae God does not do what they want. So you have no moral or logical high ground, especially over Islam.

Algebe's picture
@Al Fatihah: "insult their

@Al Fatihah: "insult their own granparents by claiming they were once ape-like who use to throw their feces at each other"

LOL. Some of us have evolved beyond that stage. Others still squat in the dark quivering at imagined spooks and sky-fairies. Enjoy your delusion.

Pijo's picture
I just want to drag you back

I just want to drag you back to this sentence you used above:
"Adults have the right to inflict whatever punishment they like, provided it is just and equal to the crime or act that is committed, which is ecactly what a tap that leaves no pain or scars does."

This is not just. This is not justice. This is vigilantism, tooth for tooth, eye for an eye, feuding. Exactly the kind of shit that is going on in many Muslim countries. People killing others for all kinds of real or perceived wrongs. Though this practice predates Islam, the Islamic law is based on similar principles with the harsh punishments for thieves and adulterers.

In a well functioning society, people do not exact revenge on each other, but instead we have a justice system with courts and police who steer people to follow the law and punish those who don't. But the punishments are not Hammurabian. He may have written the first laws, but we have progressed since.

Harry Truman's picture
"My godless morality tells me

"My godless morality tells me it's wrong to initiate any kind of violence for any reason other than self-defense."

But taxation is fine? I can't help but notice how statheists employ the same fallacy of special pleading for the state as theists do for their 'God.' Just something that stuck out to me.

watchman's picture
@ Al-Fatihah....

@ Al-Fatihah....

Just a couple of points....

"A tap is a punishment to someone who cannot subdue you. No one can subject their self to being tapped repeatedly and the annoyance of such tapping is the punishment since they cannot subdue you to prevent it."

You seem to be arguing that "might is right"..... SOoo I'm assuming that you consider each time an Islamic nation gets the crap kicked out of it by a western aggressor... that that's OK.... it being a form of punishment....?

Point 2...

There is no such thing as an "objective morality" ..... circumstances ALWAYS alter cases..... ANY emergency situation demonstrates this point.

Point 3...

This Allah you speak of...is this the same Allah that was one of the 350 ish idols housed in the Kabba in Mecca before the advent of Islam .... was he the one with the 3 daughters....(3 cranes) ... and possibly the one son.
Is this the Allah to which you refer.?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Watchman

@Watchman

No one said "might is right" so that whole strawman failed and if morality is not objective than there can also be know objective truth which shows that by your logic, 2+2 can be 60 and killing babies can be a great thing to do. Once again exposing the sheer indecency and absurdity of atheism.

As for Allah, I'm referring to the originator of all of creation, including the universe and life itself.

Harry Truman's picture
First of all, atheism is

First of all, atheism is merely the rejection of religion- the lack of a claim cannot be false. If I don't claim that there is a unicorn iny backyard, that isn't a fallacy, it is the lack thereof.

Secondly, how does there being a magical man in the sky translate to morality being objective? By the very definition of objective, if there is objective morality, it must exist separate from any supreme being.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

So you admit to evolving from a grandmother, who was ape-like and threw her feces at others.

My point exactly. The sheer delusion known as atheism.

Algebe's picture
@Al-Fatihah: "So you admit to

@Al-Fatihah: "So you admit to evolving from a grandmother, who was ape-like and threw her feces at others."

Grandmother? LOL. Are you even aware of the age of the Earth and the timeline of human evolution? The ape-human evolution occurred over thousands of millennia, not three generations. And by the way, the shit-throwing behavior occurs when primates are kept in inhumane conditions in zoos.

Lucy was your ancestor as well as mine. You should show more respect. I'm sorry that your religious delusion blinds you the wonders of nature and science.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Algabe

@Algabe

The feces throwing grandmothers are also the ancestors of atheists since you acknowkedge evolving from them. Only in atheism is it okay to hold such deluded beliefs that you'll degrade your own grandparents to make a point.

watchman's picture
@ Al-Fatihah....

@ Al-Fatihah....

I confess to being very disappointed with your "answers"

You replied ,"No one said "might is right",

Correct ! .......

and indeed I did not say you said that.

What I actually said was ,"You seem to be arguing that "might is right" .... see that.... "seem".... it appears it is you not I that is dealing with "strawmen"....

Again ,on point 2 .... you came back with ,"if morality is not objective then there can also be know (NO) objective truth".

Well done..... again correct...... there can ,indeed be no objective moral truth. As I said before....CIRCUMSTANCES ALWAYS ALTER CASES....

Consider.... in your world view.... it is always going to be wrong to allow some one to die by your inaction...it is always going to be wrong to kill someone....... regardless of consequences.

Now consider the seamen in charge of lifeboats..... do they hold off from attempting to rescue struggling survivors or do they "go in" and attempt to pick up survivors.....but risk having to "despatch" any who threaten to swamp the lifeboat....

What do you do? with your objective stance.....Hold off or go in prepared to kill anyone who threatens the boat..... a fairly binary choice.

then finally.... on point 3 you seem to have attempted a "side step" to avoid nailing your colours to the mast......I asked if the Allah you referred to was the same Allah that was one of the 360 idols worshiped at the Kabba prior to the advent of Islam....

Now ,it seems to me .. you have 3 choices for an answer......
1....Yes
2.... No
3.... I do not know

Perhaps you could now answer ?

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Watchman

@Watchman

If I never said "might is right", then it cannot possibly "seem" I said it. So your strawman still fails.

Secondly, if there is no objective morality, there can be no objective truth so by your own logic, 2+2 can be 60 and killing innocent babies can be a great thing. Once again highlighting the indecency and moral deficiency of atheism.

As for Allah, you were given an answer. That answer is Allah is the originator of all of creation, including the universe and life itself.

watchman's picture
Al-Fatihah

Al-Fatihah

"it cannot possibly "seem" I said it" ..... indeed not..... however.....I did not say that it seem you said it..... if you get a grown up to read what I posted... they will tell you that what I sais was.... " it seems that you were arguing....." your understanding seems to be somewhat limited..... perhaps its a language thing..... what is your first language ?

Secondly...just another unsupported assertion...... you may not have come across this axiom before.... "what is presented without evidence can be disregarded without evidence"... if you wish to be taken seriously ...you really need to "up your game."

No....you gave no answer...... read the question again .... answer the question that was asked... not what you wanted to be asked.....

By the by... are you Sunni , Shia or Ahmadiyya ... just for my curiosity.....

Al-Fatihah's picture
@Watchman

@Watchman

And it cannot possibly "seems that I am arguing" might is right because neither the words or anything synonymous to it is mentioned. So the strawman still fails.

And the evidence is clear that morality is objective because if you can accept that 2+2 is 4 is objectively true than so is morality once you apply the same objectivity. Otherwise, if there is no objective morality than killing babies can be a great thing, which exposes the indecent nature of atheism.

Your question was answered. Whether you like the answer or not is your problem. So once again, Allah is the originator of all creation, including the universe and life itself.

I am Muslim who follows the Qur'an and Sunnah. I don't belong to any sect as there are no sects in Islam.

LogicForTW's picture
@al-fatihah

@al-fatihah

Few questions for you:

How old do you think this planet is?

Why does your god create everyone with his morality, expect everyone to follow his rules, but only had a tiny percentage of people that ever lived actually follow it? Less then 1 in 20 people currently alive and have ever lived he creates actually follow his rules, believes in him etc? Does your god intend a 95% critical failure rate?

Why is your god so hidden? Why does he talk to and perform miracles for a very very! select group of people long ago, in a very select area geographically? Then just expect everyone to follow a book and religious leaders among men without any testable proof of your god?

Why does your god demand prayer and worship without any sort of reward until the supposed afterlife that no one can verify?

Why do you believe in your particular god but not others? Why do you dismiss the idea of the god: the flying spaghetti monster? The flying spaghetti monster has just as much evidence existing as your god does.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

Deleted.

CyberLN's picture
Al-Fatiha, you said, "At no

Al-Fatihah, you said, "At no time on history has there ever been an oppression of men by women. Always the other way around. This shows that men by nature are less sensitive and more inclined to fight than women so it is better to prescribe a man to be in charge when it comes to protection and provision of the family."

That seems to come awfully close to "might makes right", or at least, "might makes the boss".

Al-Fatihah's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

Not at all. Nothing says or comes close to "might is right"since neither the words or its synonym are there.

watchman's picture
Members of the forum.....

Members of the forum.....

you may remember a couple of weeks ago.....

we were treated to the presence of a Christian who ,it turned out ,was not a Christian.....

Now ,I may be wrong ,but I'm definitely getting the feeling that what we have now is a Moslem who is not a Moslem ....

any thoughts ...?

Algebe's picture
@watchman: "I'm definitely

@watchman: "I'm definitely getting the feeling that what we have now is a Moslem who is not a Moslem ...."

I'm observing the same pattern of repetitious dogma with little attention to our arguments, followed by the same sudden lapse into incoherence and name-calling. I think Al-Fartihat may be a sock puppet or troll or whatever.

I also wonder if he might be the person to talk to about Islamic fortune-telling, black magic, and love problem solutions in Hyderabad or Mumbai, etc.

Al-Fatihah's picture
@LogicForTW

@LogicForTW

I'm not concerned about how old is the Planet.

As for your questions, you've asked many so if some are not fully addressed, perhaps it's better to ask one at a time.

The purpose of this life is to be tested with good and evil and be rewarded in the hereafter based on such deeds. This test was agreed upon by all humans, including yourself. Meaning prior to being born, we were in another spiritual state and was asked whether we wanted to earn the reward of paradise by being tested in this world. You could have said "No". Yet you, like every other human chose to say "Yes". As a result, the memory of this agreement was washed away and you were born human into this world. Now the test begins.

To earn Paradise requires that you Worship Allah alone, and the greater your good deeds are in this life, the greater the reward in Paradise. This sums up the reason for evil in this world and why we must worship Allah.

As for how do we know Allah is the true God and not the flying Spaghetti Monster or anyone else, we use firsthand observable, testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. The following below explains how this applies to knowing that Allah is the true God and the Qur'an is the true word of Allah:

Part 1 PROOF GOD EXIST

Premise: A REPEATING PATTERN CAN ONLY ORIGINATE FROM CHOICE

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:

Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: You claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

Part 2 PROOF GOD IS ALLAH

The only way to prove God is Allah is if Allah told us or told someone, which requires proof that whomever he told is telling the truth or if Allah is truthful. That is answered in the Qur'an Challenge.

THE QUR’AN CHALLENGE

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

“Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Qur’an and surely we will guard it from corruption”.

Here we have a test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur’an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur’an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur’an is without error, indecency, and immorality, and it is a guidance to righteousness. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur’an answers this question with the following test. The Qur’an states:

Part 3 PROOF THE QUR'AN IS THE TRUE WORD OF ALLAH

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough followers to help him/her/ them conquer and rule a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to help to conquer and rule a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation for you to rule and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer and rule the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to help him conquer and rule a nation in the same fashion. So since it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s to help conquer and rule a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur’an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur’an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagree, then take the challenge and prove differently.

To sum it up, Part 1 proves the existence of God. Part 2 proves that the Qur'an is true, which means the author is truthful. Part 3 proves the Qur'an is of divine origin as proven by the miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Therefore, since the Qur'an is true and of divine origin and God does exist and originated the universe and life itself, then the Qur'an is reliable in it's claim that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah and Allah is the originator of creation, including the universe and life itself since it is confirmed that the Qur'an speaks the truth.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.