Scientific Facts In The Quran

[John]

... So when God says 'except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess.' ...

As opposed to those slaves who enter into slavery willingly?

They are caught captives so they have two options , first to accept marriage to a muslim who has the will to (In case she wants to become a muslim) or to refuse and stay a captive . This is what I understood of interpretations .

But not quite 'free' enough to choose her husband or her freedom eh!

She is not forced to accept marriage and convert to Islam as I think.

Marry me or remain my prisoner isn't much of a choice though is it?

[chaz wyman]

They are caught captives so they have two options , first to accept marriage to a muslim who has the will to (In case she wants to become a muslim) or to refuse and stay a captive . This is what I understood of interpretations .

She is not forced to accept marriage and convert to Islam as I think.

Marry me or remain my prisoner isn't much of a choice though is it?

That's the Islamic version of FREEDOM.

[Khalid]

Marry me or remain my prisoner isn't much of a choice though is it?

When Muhammad started to spread his message , disbelievers didn't let him do so . He was received with strong fight and conflict against him and people who believed in his message . All what he wanted is to let him speak and deliver his message peacefully until there was no choice but Jihad .

So my prisoner is an enemy . If Islam was unfair or a barbaric religion , it would permit men to rape their prisoners . You are in a war and they are your enemy then do what you want and satisfy your lust . You might even have a brother killed in one of the battles , revenge and do what you want , she doesn't deserve anything but pain and humiliation . If Muhammad's religion was barbaric there wouldn't be 1.3 billion of muslims today .

But in fact to give your prisoner the choice to change her life and become your partner in life and religion , or to remain a prisoner is far more fair and just more than hundreds of historical crimes that I read .

[Kayla]

khalid i have no doubt that quran was very progressive for its time - like you know with the no more female infanticide thing

so no raping of female prisoners was progressive for its time too

but it is a bit behind the times now if we treat it simply as a set of explicit commands good for all time - and yes this goes just as much for the bible too

but if we treat the bible or the quran as examples of progressive thinking - progressive in some particular point in history - and learn from that - then we may have something useful

[Khalid]

khalid i have no doubt that quran was very progressive for its time - like you know with the no more female infanticide thing

so no raping of female prisoners was progressive for its time too

but it is a bit behind the times now if we treat it simply as a set of explicit commands good for all time - and yes this goes just as much for the bible too

but if we treat the bible or the quran as examples of progressive thinking - progressive in some particular point in history - and learn from that - then we may have something useful

Do you mean editing the Quran to fit the age we live in ?

[John]

Marry me or remain my prisoner isn't much of a choice though is it?

When Muhammad started to spread his message , disbelievers didn't let him do so . He was received with strong fight and conflict against him and people who believed in his message . All what he wanted is to let him speak and deliver his message peacefully until there was no choice but Jihad .

So my prisoner is an enemy . If Islam was unfair or a barbaric religion , it would permit men to rape their prisoners .

It does permit this. It just stipulates that if you break their will to the point that they agree you can call it marriage and pretend it isn't morally repugnant.

Marriage of imprisonment is not a free choice so the choice is made under duress and it is rape.

I actually find it worrying that you're even defending this sort of thing.

You are in a war and they are your enemy then do what you want and satisfy your lust . You might even have a brother killed in one of the battles , revenge and do what you want , she doesn't deserve anything but pain and humiliation . If Muhammad's religion was barbaric there wouldn't be 1.3 billion of muslims today.

You seem to be making the case for it's barbarity without any help from any one else.

But in fact to give your prisoner the choice to change her life and become your partner in life and religion , or to remain a prisoner is far more fair and just more than hundreds of historical crimes that I read .

Again, it's not a proper choice if it is made under duress.

Anyway, would you say this was acceptable behaviour for a Muslim army fighting a modern war?

[Kayla]

Do you mean editing the Quran to fit the age we live in ?

god i hope you are really cute

no i do not mean that we should edit the quran

progressive morals of our age may well look stupid or barbaric in a few centuries

so any attempt to create a book of complete moral guidance for all time will fail

i am suggesting we use the bible or the quran as a source of lessons not as a source of moral rules

[Khalid]

It does permit this. It just stipulates that if you break their will to the point that they agree you can call it marriage and pretend it isn't morally repugnant.

Marriage of imprisonment is not a free choice so the choice is made under duress and it is rape.

I actually find it worrying that you're even defending this sort of thing.

They were not tortured to say they were under duress . There is a clear verse saying .

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks.And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

So if compulsion in making people believe is forbidden , how forcing a woman to make any specific choice could be permitted ? . They actually were OFFERED . Logically they were offered . None can force a woman to accept marriage and living with a man she doesn't want to . How shall I guarantee they stay loyal for me , how could there be love ?

I just don't know , it's very complicated and illogical to say something like that happened in the time of spreading Islam .

Again, it's not a proper choice if it is made under duress.

Anyway, would you say this was acceptable behaviour for a Muslim army fighting a modern war?

Absolutely not . Big difference between the age , condition and the goal of Jihad 1400 years ago and now . In time of Muhammad conditions were very different . Now the message is delivered and exist for anyone to chose whether to accept it or refuse it . So there is no Jihad in the name of religion now , that there can be female prisoners .

[John]

It does permit this. It just stipulates that if you break their will to the point that they agree you can call it marriage and pretend it isn't morally repugnant.

Marriage of imprisonment is not a free choice so the choice is made under duress and it is rape.

I actually find it worrying that you're even defending this sort of thing.

They were not tortured to say they were under duress.

duress doesn't just mean torture. It also means the threat of imprisonment and the loss of liberty that entails.

If a woman's only choices are to remain in a prison cell or to marry her captor then she has decide which is the lesser evil. Just because she "agrees" to marry her captor doesn't mean she has done so willingly because she would probably have chosen neither of the options if there was a third that offered her freedom.

Anyway, would you say this was acceptable behaviour for a Muslim army fighting a modern war?

Absolutely not . Big difference between the age , condition and the goal of Jihad 1400 years ago and now . In time of Muhammad conditions were very different . Now the message is delivered and exist for anyone to chose whether to accept it or refuse it . So there is no Jihad in the name of religion now , that there can be female prisoners .

Well if that part is no longer relevant for the times we live in why are you so convinced that other parts of it are? does this not at least mean that the Koran should be open to reinterpretation in changing contexts?

[Khalid]

duress doesn't just mean torture. It also means the threat of imprisonment and the loss of liberty that entails.

If a woman's only choices are to remain in a prison cell or to marry her captor then she has decide which is the lesser evil. Just because she "agrees" to marry her captor doesn't mean she has done so willingly because she would probably have chosen neither of the options if there was a third that offered her freedom.

Well if that part is no longer relevant for the times we live in why are you so convinced that other parts of it are? does this not at least mean that the Koran should be open to reinterpretation in changing contexts?

Man , there are many details that I don't know . I don't know how long is the period a captivate stays in prison . I don't know what kind of treatment she used to receive . I don't know if captivates used to be exchanged with other captivates . I don't have a full picture of what was going on to know the exact interpretation of the verse . All what I know , there can't be any kind of oppression of torture cause there are hundreds of good and merciful things Muhammad came with , or he would have been rejected with his message.

[John]

Well if that part is no longer relevant for the times we live in why are you so convinced that other parts of it are? does this not at least mean that the Koran should be open to reinterpretation in changing contexts?

Man , there are many details that I don't know . I don't know how long is the period a captivate stays in prison . I don't know what kind of treatment she used to receive . I don't know if captivates used to be exchanged with other captivates . I don't have a full picture of what was going on to know the exact interpretation of the verse . All what I know , there can't be any kind of oppression of torture cause there are hundreds of good and merciful things Muhammad came with , or he would have been rejected with his message.

I'm not supposing that you do or should know everything. I'm just suggesting that maybe holy books should be taken a little less literally than some people take them and they should be interpreted in the context of the times they were written and therefore reconsidered in new times.

[Kayla]

All what I know , there can't be any kind of oppression of torture cause there are hundreds of good and merciful things Muhammad came with , or he would have been rejected with his message.

AHOOOOGA
AHOOOOGA
FALLACY ALERT
FALLACY ALERT
ALL PHILOSOPHERS REPORT TO BATTLESTATIONS IMMEDIATELY

there more fact that some message has not been rejected does not mean that the message is good

plenty of bad messages have been accepted

the aztec religion had lots of bad things in it such as the human sacrifice thing

but it was a message that was accepted

i do not mean to imply any parallels between islam and aztec religion just that you have a fallacy there

[Khalid]

All what I know , there can't be any kind of oppression of torture cause there are hundreds of good and merciful things Muhammad came with , or he would have been rejected with his message.

AHOOOOGA
AHOOOOGA
FALLACY ALERT
FALLACY ALERT
ALL PHILOSOPHERS REPORT TO BATTLESTATIONS IMMEDIATELY

there more fact that some message has not been rejected does not mean that the message is good

plenty of bad messages have been accepted

the aztec religion had lots of bad things in it such as the human sacrifice thing

but it was a message that was accepted

i do not mean to imply any parallels between islam and aztec religion just that you have a fallacy there

Alright , I will make a deep discussion with a Sheikh to figure out a clear interpretation of "except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. " . That catastrophic mistake in Islam .

[Kayla]

khalid

i think the mistake lies in literal understanding and in thinking you can have a set of moral rules that is perfectly good for all time

the rule under discussion was probably very progressive for its time

perhaps the idea is that muslims should be as progressive for their own time as muhammad was for his

the specific rules are only examples

i do not know how common literal understanding of the quran is in the islamic world

literal understanding of the bible is the norm where i am but the usa and especially texas are a bit of an anomaly

try telling a canadian that the bible should be understood literally and he will probably choke on his poutine

[chaz wyman]

khalid

i think the mistake lies in literal understanding and in thinking you can have a set of moral rules that is perfectly good for all time

But if there is ONE god, unchanging, immortal, omniscient, etc. then there has to be ONE set of perfectly good moral rules devised and set down in THE book written in his words. The trouble is with us not have have complied with His wishes.
On this issue, given the frame of reference it is you that is at fault and not Khalid.

the rule under discussion was probably very progressive for its time

perhaps the idea is that muslims should be as progressive for their own time as muhammad was for his

the specific rules are only examples

i do not know how common literal understanding of the quran is in the islamic world

literal understanding of the bible is the norm where i am but the usa and especially texas are a bit of an anomaly

Not as much of an anomaly as you would like to think. If the Book is the WORD of God then you being religious ought to follow it to the letter. If you don't believe it is the word of god then why the hell are you a Christian anyway? If you can pick and choose , what value is ANY of that Book?


try telling a canadian that the bible should be understood literally and he will probably choke on his poutine

I know a Canadian that does. You are showing prejudice without evidence.