so where it can be self contradictory ? **
They’re fanatical maniacs! So what the girls are wearing or not is more important than saving their lives! Boo Hiss!
Hello!
That it is my definite observation, should be a understood. I’m stating the obvious–you have no centralized teaching Church like Catholicism does. This lack of coherence has led people to interpret the Koran differently. There’s really nothing to argue there, because we all know it happens.
There is much evidence that it did happen, so much that it is unreasonable not to consider it. But whether it happened is not my point. I can give other examples of my point: The differing beliefs of the Taliban. My point stands–without a coherent, centralized teaching Church, so many misinterpretations lead to bad things. Your Egyptian proverb makes a nice story, but doesn’t actually detract from my point.
This actually makes my point further. You would probably say that you are a more proper Muslim than a member of the Taliban. If you’re both only studying the Koran, it looks like the Koran isn’t enough to guide you both.
Sure it is good to preserve original texts. The requirement, according to my Muslim source, is that it be read in Arabic, which many Muslims don’t do, because they can’t. You forgot to address this. You haven’t acknowledged that some Muslims believe very different things from one another–and they both get their beliefs from the same book, the Koran.
Your mere statement.
No, as I’ve demonstrated, it does happen. You, or the Taliban–Who is right? The Koran hasn’t done its job, and can’t do it alone, obviously.
I have read some, but the point remains, that interpretations differ widely in what is proper treatment of wives. Abuses can happen, when people don’t have a guide to help them balance the different messages in the Koran. Not all of them even seem to know that they should be following the better example of Mohammed and his wives. These people truly think that they are right, and that your interpretation is wrong and evil. They are killing, in the name of Allah, people like you who do not agree with them. They really do believe that they are doing God’s will when they do this. Yet, you say they are wrong. See what happens, when you don’t have a Church for a guide? Do you think this kind of division is what God intended? I thought Islam taught that the teachings, and therefore the truth, should be simple. Apparently, it is not simple at all, or else there would not be so many different opinions within it–all in the name of Allah. You may call these other types of Muslims, bad Muslims, but they think the same of your style of Islam. They read many different things into Islam than you do, all in the name of Allah.
meedo said:
Truth is absolute. Something is either the truth, or it isn’t. But don’t be distracted by this tangent, for now.
Except when the woman is left with a huge debt, and is all alone–in fact that is a good reason that many women are trapped and cannot divorce even if they want to do so. Also, when you speak of women regarding these laws, you seem to assume that ALL of them either have inheritances, OR are going to marry someone again really soon, in order to be taken care of. This is not true. These laws are simply not practical.
–Unless she doesn’t have any money of her own, for reasons that are not even her own fault.
You’re assuming it’s a perfect world where all women have their own money. Why?
You make two mistakes here: 1.) Western does not equal Catholic. You wouldn’t want me to confuse your culture with your religion, would you? Be intellectually honest, and don’t make the same mistake. 2.) You assume that equality and fairness were NOT already taught in Catholicism, and think that the lack of a specific rule about women’s inheritance demonstrates this. It does not. It’s always been acceptable by the Church to allow women to have inheritances. Because a certain “Western” culture didn’t normally practice this, does not mean that the Church taught us to deny women inheritances! If religion taught us how to be fair and charitable to one another, then do we NEED a rule like this: “Do not blow your nose on your wife’s dress”? The basic teaching of equal human dignity between the genders is not foreign to Christianity–it is a part of it. We come to know more and more as our faith matures, how we should be applying it.
I say again, this is not a call for agreement among two equal persons, though. Of course divorce is bad. Islam still allows many loopholes in order to give up on a marriage, which is not good, especially for a religion that values women so much less than men. Discouraging divorce is an inadequate way of handling the impracticality of the problem, which is ROOTED in Islam’s teaching’s of inequality between men and women. You have these rules BECAUSE of how Islam distorted the meaning of marriage–to try to cover the fundamental problem of inequality, with a Band-Aid. Not because it is truthful and good.
Of course God holds us accountable for evil motivations. Islam FAILS as much as any other religion in MAKING people be good. People exercise their free will. Yet Islam makes it too easy to divorce for evil reasons, by actually allowing divorce.
No, I gave you a full “truth” there. It’s not a half-truth just because I didn’t mention another “truth”. The woman has to marry and divorce another guy first, before she can remarry her original husband.
Very good, if you say so. But don’t deny that it doesn’t happen, because Muslims know that it does happen. My point is that it makes no sense for the woman to have to marry another man before she can go back to her husband. All this does, is tempt people to have these “temporary marriages”. Good laws should have a point, or they have an origin other than God.
My source is an ex-Muslim. I spoke nothing false in my understanding that came straight from someone who was a practicing Muslim and theologian. My aim is to show a false religion for what it is, not to slander it on false pretenses. Do not judge my intention.
I answered this in another post a little while ago, in this thread.
I listed plenty of problems that are due to the lack of one coherent, unequivocal Muslim teaching–which results in many interpretations of one book. I demonstrated that the Koran is simply not enough, in doing so. The Catholic Church’s teachings present no such ambiguity.
They didn’t have to get burned themselves. They stopped firefighters and other authorities from helping the TRAPPED girls.
You know what, it’s amazing that you are so skeptical that any Islam nation does bad things, out of their understanding of Islam. Why is it so threatening?
Teach all you want about how YOU understand Islam. The point you are refusing to acknowledge is that there are many interpretations of this non-divinely inspired book.
There is one Catholic Church. I am a member of this Church. Protestants are different. Our Catholic church continues to guide us with infallible doctrine, and we follow the teachings of this Church, not the Protestant’s or any other Christians, just because they also believe in Christ. The Protestants do not follow our Church. I am talking to you as a Catholic, not as a member of all Christianity, because Christianity is very broad. I could do the same to you, by comparing you to every other non-Christian religion on the planet. Do I do this? No, I do not.
You are EXACTLY RIGHT there, because Catholics do not believe that the Bible ALONE is enough! When will you admit that the Koran is not enough, then? Catholics follow the Church that Jesus specifically established, in order to teach us, and to carry on the traditions of the apostles (not everything was written down, and the apostles did hand down traditions orally, which were much later put into writing). In fact, there wasn’t even a Bible, until the Church logically deduced, which writings were divinely inspired, and which were not. Protestants are unlike us, and are like Muslims in at least that little way, because they do think that the Bible is enough. See, you cannot argue these things against “Christianity” when you are really arguing with a Catholic. Catholics know that the Bible is infallible, but that the Church teachings are also necessary.
I am not certain, that you are not “cherry picking” now. A quote by Ibn Taymiyyah: “The Arabic language itself is a part of Islam, and knowing Arabic is an obligatory duth. If it is a duty to understand the Qur’an and Sunnah, and they cannot be understood without knowing Arabic, then the means that is needed to fulfill the duty is also obligatory”. Muslims are also obligated to pray in Arabic even if they do not understand a single word they are saying. This is according to my ex-Muslim source, and I am not bringing up anything that I know to be false in my understanding.
That is reasonable, but contradicts what serious Muslim scholars say.
So does it take care of all of the contradictions in the Koran? Logically? I listed quite a lot of them. I would expect a better answer to the contradictions from a truthful religion, other than “Because Allah says so.”
meedo said:
The prayer was accepted in one quote, and he was told to go about righteousness. Later, in telling the same story, he was drowned. What are you not understanding? Of course this is a contradiction.
Which has, what to do with the contradiction in those verses, exactly, if I may ask? That seems like something random that you just threw out there for a distraction.
“We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established THE PROPHETHOOD and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he is verily among the righteous”.
History was “changed” in Muslim tradition, though. Many Muslims today claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the “righteous” son the Abraham almost sacrificed. Hence, the idea many hold that they are decendants of Ishmael, and the idea that the Jews lost favored position to the Muslims, who were transformed into “apes and swine”. Although the birth of the righteous son would be miraculous, what is miraculous about Hagar being 24 years old when she gave birth to Ishmael? There are strong leanings in Islam to interpret the second verse quoted about Ishmael in the Scriptures, to indicate to many Muslims that they are descendants from him, and not from the others. Suddenly, the other prophets in the house of Israel don’t seem to count anymore. Do you agree with this interpretation? If not, there are many other contradictions in that list, and historical inaccuracies. One is the belief that Alexander the Great was a Muslim, when he actually wasn’t even a monotheist. The story about Moses and Aaron in Pharoah’s court mentions crucifixion, when crucifixion wasn’t even invented yet–it was invented much later–by the ROMANS. In Sura 20:90, a Samaritan is said to have helped the Israelites to build a Golden Calf. It is established historical fact that Samaria DID NOT EXIST prior to the existence of Israel. There are man-made teachings by Muhammed, which come from his travels to Christian places, not understanding them, and making up his own.