Why do islam hates people?

[jaysabi]

Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math.

False association fallacy.

That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method.

Theism isn't knowledge.

 

Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese.  He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it.

Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it.  Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work.  Those things can be debated.

What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed.  If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war.

This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam.  To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd).  It requires  the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math.  If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. 

If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers".  There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages.

So, Greg.  You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38?

I am curious.

I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration.

Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time.

He did help win a war before the chemical castration. If a sharia laws based society fighting for its survival was attacked and needed a solution to win, turing would have never been solicited in that context, nor even still be alive if openly gay.

What a fine way to reward a war hero. 'Hey, at least we didn't kill you!'

[1714541101]

1714541101

[1714541101]

1714541101

[jaysabi]

Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math.

False association fallacy.

That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method.

Theism isn't knowledge.

 

Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese.  He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it.

Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it.  Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work.  Those things can be debated.

What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed.  If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war.

This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam.  To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd).  It requires  the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math.  If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. 

If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers".  There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages.

So, Greg.  You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38?

I am curious.

I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration.

Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time.

I beg to differ.    Yes it's a sordid story, but the very point is that he wasn't killed off by a crazy religious environment and he was allowed to do his work.

This isn't about being nice to people.  It's about whether they are allowed to live or die.

Your case-in-point about why our culture was superior to an Islamic one was about a guy who, granted, was not murdered for who he was. He was merely threatened with prosecution and jail, or allowed to avoid jail by "voluntary" chemical castration.

This does not showcase moral superiority. It shows more in common with the society you criticize than a differentiation of it.

[Wilikon]

Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math.

False association fallacy.

That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method.

Theism isn't knowledge.

 

Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese.  He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it.

Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it.  Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work.  Those things can be debated.

What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed.  If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war.

This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam.  To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd).  It requires  the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math.  If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. 

If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers".  There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages.

So, Greg.  You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38?

I am curious.

I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration.

Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time.

I beg to differ.    Yes it's a sordid story, but the very point is that he wasn't killed off by a crazy religious environment and he was allowed to do his work.

This isn't about being nice to people.  It's about whether they are allowed to live or die.

Your case-in-point about why our culture was superior to an Islamic one was about a guy who, granted, was not murdered for who he was. He was merely threatened with prosecution and jail, or allowed to avoid jail by "voluntary" chemical castration.

This does not showcase moral superiority. It shows more in common with the society you criticize than a differentiation of it.

What does a judeo-christian/atheist world culture have in common with the concept of honor killings? (post #2)

[Spendulus]

Muslims have done such great things for the world in the areas of science and math.

False association fallacy.

That they were Muslim did not lend anything to mathematical or scientific advancement. Application of logic and the scientific method did that. Being Muslim is what they did when they weren't using logic or the scientific method.

Theism isn't knowledge.

 

Alan Turing was a math whiz who pretty much single handedly won World War II, by leading the team that broke the crypto codes of the Germans and the Japanese.  He largely originated the "turing machine" concept, eg the programmable computer as we know it.

Turing was homosexual, and didn't hide it.  Maybe people of that era didn't like it - maybe they put up with it until he'd completed his work.  Those things can be debated.

What is not debatable is that in a Muslim society, he would not have been allowed to do his creative work and would likely have been killed.  If Britain had been Muslim, the Germans would have won the war.

This is not a "hate Islam" argument but a refutation of your assertion of Great Math and Great Science Advances in Islam.  To have these great advances requires tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people (which math wizards are often pretty odd).  It requires  the 50% of humans known as "women" to be allowed and encouraged to go into science and math.  If a culture does not, then it will be retarded. 

If not for Turing (unless of course his ideas were discovered later by someone else) we would not be conversing on these "computers".  There would be no "bitcointalk.org" because there would be no bitcoin because of a lack of crypto in electronic usages.

So, Greg.  You want to stand by your comments of your post of 6:38?

I am curious.

I don't think Turing is a good example to show the superiority of the non-muslim culture or to show our "tolerance and appreciation for a great many odd types of people." Unless by being tolerant and appreciative, you mean prosecuting for being different and forcing a war hero into chemical castration.

Not the moral, feel good story I think you were going for about how much better our society was than an Islamic one at the time.

I beg to differ.    Yes it's a sordid story, but the very point is that he wasn't killed off by a crazy religious environment and he was allowed to do his work.

This isn't about being nice to people.  It's about whether they are allowed to live or die.

Your case-in-point about why our culture was superior to an Islamic one was about a guy who, granted, was not murdered for who he was. He was merely threatened with prosecution and jail, or allowed to avoid jail by "voluntary" chemical castration.

This does not showcase moral superiority. It shows more in common with the society you criticize than a differentiation of it.

First of all, the recent movie does not accurate depict a lot of the story, and some things are blatantly wrong.  But the full story is readily available.  You entirely miss my point.  My point is not at all related to Turing and "human rights", either then or now, or of now viewing then in retrospect.  Rather, the point is the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it.  Right away that would subtract more than 50%, say 60% by the time you add up all the total oddballs, gays, infidels and such.  That's quite obviously going to hold that culture back.   Probably way, way, way back.

Turing did contribute, and was appreciated greatly for his work.

[omegaflare]

Seriously, all in seriously: FUCK RELIGION! ALL OF THEM! FUCK IT! We don't even need it. Egh - it's sickening!

[CoinFoxs]

Thank you for explaining to me how just and merciful your true religion is (NOT).

Please explain one other thing which is troubling me.  I know during Ramadan you all must fast from dusk to dawn?

What would you do in the Arctic?

Please ask logical thinks. Donot ask irrelevent things.
Blessings of ramadan
As the blessed month of Ramadan approaches, it is time to warm up and get ready. ....<<deleted stuff unrelated, typical religion talk>>

What would you do in the Arctic?  Would you fast from dawn to dusk?

Yes or no please.

Muslims in countries like Arctic and countries where dawn and dusk are not clearly distinguishable...

Dusk and dawn are clearly distinguishable in the Arctic.

No ducking and dodging please.

You have two choices -

You would break Mohammed's rule.

Or you would obey his rule and starve.

We follow Muhammad's SAW rule and we have to follow Muhammad's SAW rule. Islam is not the religion of strickness.
Question –  I live in a place where there is polar night. We have daylight now for 22 hours and the sun barely sets, so there is no distinction between day and night, because obviously the nights are like days. Some people fast 22 hours and they have only 2 hours before suhoor. How should people deal with this?

Answer

Fasting during Ramadan is mandatory on believers, and if one does not fall into the exceptions given in the Qur’an (sickness, travel or hardship), then he or she must keep their fasts during Ramadan.

“..prescribed for you is the Fast..” (2:183), “

“..and that ye fast is better for you..” (2:184)

“..And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month..” (2:185)

The above statements are clear that fasting is mandatory, however if one finds fasting very difficult, then according to Qur’an, such a person also has the option of ransoming the fast by feeding a poor person.

“..And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] – a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]…” (2:184)

If a person has the ability to keep a fast for a long period then he should fast, however if he feels hardship in this and is unable to fast for such a long period then the rule of “fidya” of feeding the “miskeen” applies to him.

So it is up-to an individual to judge his own situation and see which rule is workable. God has given options in the Qur’an, and the one relevant to the person’s individual situation should be selected. If one is unable to fast due to hardship, then for each fast missed, the equivalent days food should be given to a “Miskeen” or indigent person. That food should be of same value that one consumes according to his or her own status (Reference 5:89). The above will apply in those geographical locations where sunset and sunrise are distinguishable in twenty four hours.

http://kashifshahzada.com/2015/02/15/fasting-during-polar-night/

So there are authoritative sources that guide the behavior of all muslims? 

What do these sources say about Sayyid Qutb?  Do they say he is Muslim or apostate?  What do they say about Hamas and Isis?  Are they Muslim?

I am sure you understand that I would prefer to hear the answer from an authoritative source than just an unknown person posting on the Internet.

Hamas (Arabic: حماس‎ Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah Islamic Resistance Movement) is a Palestinian Islamic[10] organization, with an associated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[11] in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East including Qatar.[12] Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union,[13][14] Canada,[15] Israel,[16] Japan,[17][18][19][20][21] and the United States.[22] Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.[23][24] The organization is banned in Jordan.[25] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran,[26] Russia,[27] Norway,[28] Switzerland,[29] Brazil,[30] Turkey,[31] China,[32][33][34][35] and Qatar.[36]

Based on the principles of Islamism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded sometime in 1988[37] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,[3][4] which in its Gaza branch had been non-confrontational towards Israel, refrained from resistance, and was hostile to the PLO.[38] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[39][40] The group has later stated that it may accept a 10-year truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and allows Palestinian refugees from 1948, as well as their descendants, to return to what is now Israel.[41][42][43][44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
 
ISIS is not an Islamic organization so plz dnt ask me about ISIS. They are not Muslims.

You have answered my question first with a wikipedia reference, secondly with a personal opinion.

I have asked for an answer based on an "authoritative source", such as was provided for the issue of Arctic fasting.  I believe that you understand what I mean by an "authoritative source."

I gave you answer related  to fasting in Arctic region. If you have time then read the previous post.
Council Of Senoir Islamic Scholar issued a fatwa on this issue..
The Council of Senior Scholars in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued a statement on the determining of the times of prayer, determining the start of dawn each day, and the end of the dawn in Ramadan, in countries such as yours. This is what it said:

After studying, researching and discussing the matter, the Council decided the following:

Whoever resides in a country where the night can be distinguished from the day by the onset of dawn and the setting of the sun, but the day is extremely long in the summer and extremely short in the winter, is obliged to perform the five daily prayers at the times known in sharee’ah. That is because of the general meaning of the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“Perform As‑Salaat (Iqamaat‑as‑Salaat) from mid‑day till the darkness of the night (i.e. the Zuhr, ‘Asr, Maghrib, and ‘Ishaa’ prayers), and recite the Qur’aan in the early dawn (i.e. the — Fajr morning prayer). Verily, the recitation of the Qur’aan in the early dawn (i.e. the morning — Fajr prayer) is ever witnessed (attended by the angels in charge of mankind of the day and the night)”

[al-Isra’ 17:78]

“Verily, As‑Salaah (the prayer) is enjoined on the believers at fixed hours”

[al-Nisa’ 4:103]

[BADecker]

Seriously, all in seriously: FUCK RELIGION! ALL OF THEM! FUCK IT! We don't even need it. Egh - it's sickening!

You are seriously in need of help. Most guys want to f*** women. You want to do it to religion. Why not seek the help you need so you can get back to women?

[CoinFoxs]

Why do islam hates people?
 because islam hate there own wifes .... they keep throwing dust sheets over there heads
so if they hate there wifes they hate anyone

Who told you In islam people hate their wife. Islam give rights to womens.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” [al-Tirmidhi, 3895]

[BADecker]

Why do islam hates people?
 because islam hate there own wifes .... they keep throwing dust sheets over there heads
so if they hate there wifes they hate anyone

Who told you In islam people hate their wife. Islam give rights to womens.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” [al-Tirmidhi, 3895]

LOL!

Nobody can ask a Muslim woman for the truth of how free she is. Why not? She would answer just as her husband wanted so that she wouldn't say something that would get her beaten or killed.

[CoinFoxs]

Why do islam hates people?
 because islam hate there own wifes .... they keep throwing dust sheets over there heads
so if they hate there wifes they hate anyone

Who told you In islam people hate their wife. Islam give rights to womens.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” [al-Tirmidhi, 3895]

LOL!

Nobody can ask a Muslim woman for the truth of how free she is. Why not? She would answer just as her husband wanted so that she wouldn't say something that would get her beaten or killed.

Open your eyes. R you drunk LOL
He said that Islam hate their wifes then i sais the above statement. Dear first read the post then comment LOL

[BADecker]

Why do islam hates people?
 because islam hate there own wifes .... they keep throwing dust sheets over there heads
so if they hate there wifes they hate anyone

Who told you In islam people hate their wife. Islam give rights to womens.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” [al-Tirmidhi, 3895]

LOL!

Nobody can ask a Muslim woman for the truth of how free she is. Why not? She would answer just as her husband wanted so that she wouldn't say something that would get her beaten or killed.

Open your eyes. R you drunk LOL
He said that Islam hate their wifes then i sais the above statement. Dear first read the post then comment LOL

Wasn't commenting about his post. Was responding to your misguided quotes... from the other direction.

[CoinFoxs]

Why do islam hates people?
 because islam hate there own wifes .... they keep throwing dust sheets over there heads
so if they hate there wifes they hate anyone

Who told you In islam people hate their wife. Islam give rights to womens.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” [al-Tirmidhi, 3895]

LOL!

Nobody can ask a Muslim woman for the truth of how free she is. Why not? She would answer just as her husband wanted so that she wouldn't say something that would get her beaten or killed.

Open your eyes. R you drunk LOL
He said that Islam hate their wifes then i sais the above statement. Dear first read the post then comment LOL

Wasn't commenting about his post. Was responding to your misguided quotes... from the other direction.

Ok tell me the misguided quote from the other direction   Let me know your point of view. I will give you an answer and solve all your queries. Ask me??  He said about the status of wife in Islam Isn't

[Wilikon]

Status of women's testimony in Islam



The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed.

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in terms of testimony.[1]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[2][3][4][5] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[6][7] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two women witnesses against one male because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that woman's testimony is half in other cases.[8] Ibn al-Qayyim also argues that the verse referred to relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[9] It is also argued that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[10]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[11] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

[Spendulus]

Status of women's testimony in Islam



The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed.

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in terms of testimony.[1]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[2][3][4][5] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[6][7] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two women witnesses against one male because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that woman's testimony is half in other cases.[8] Ibn al-Qayyim also argues that the verse referred to relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[9] It is also argued that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[10]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[11] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

So women are on an objective basis, unequal, but then one simply claims they are equal, and that the term equal means treatment as they get, and they are then equal.

That's called in an another world, lying?

[Wilikon]

Status of women's testimony in Islam



The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed.

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in terms of testimony.[1]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[2][3][4][5] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[6][7] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two women witnesses against one male because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that woman's testimony is half in other cases.[8] Ibn al-Qayyim also argues that the verse referred to relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[9] It is also argued that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[10]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[11] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

So women are on an objective basis, unequal, but then one simply claims they are equal, and that the term equal means treatment as they get, and they are then equal.

That's called in an another world, lying?

Obviously I am waiting for the input of our muslim scholars here and tell us why this wiki entry is a lie. It must be... Or "badly translated in english..."

[Spendulus]

Status of women's testimony in Islam



The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed.

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in terms of testimony.[1]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[2][3][4][5] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[6][7] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two women witnesses against one male because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that woman's testimony is half in other cases.[8] Ibn al-Qayyim also argues that the verse referred to relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[9] It is also argued that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[10]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[11] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

So women are on an objective basis, unequal, but then one simply claims they are equal, and that the term equal means treatment as they get, and they are then equal.

That's called in an another world, lying?

Obviously I am waiting for the input of our muslim scholars here and tell us why this wiki entry is a lie. It must be... Or "badly translated in english..."

I would either call them scholars, or suggest that any of them would call themselves scholars.  That word means a lot in their community.  Some are simple straw puppets.  Others are just doing a job.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-quote from wiki-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

So women are on an objective basis, unequal, but then one simply claims they are equal, and that the term equal means treatment as they get, and they are then equal.

That's called in an another world, lying?

    A) I am of the opinion that Islam does not deal with men and women in terms of equality because Islam is not a religion which advocates equality but justice and equity.
    Equality means that all persons should be dealt with equally, irrespective of their needs, abilities, responsibilities, rights and strength or weakness. In other words, an Equality Bannered Society is one that places equal responsibilities on and gives equal privileges and authority to its members regardless of gender or any other kind of discrimination.
    Justice means that a person should be dealt with on the basis of what he deserves. Simply put, a Justice Bannered Society is one that places responsibilities on and gives privileges and authority to its members according to their abilities and qualities and also keeping in perspective the specific characteristic of each gender.
    Islam has based its teachings on the irrefutable basis that all human beings are not equal as far as their physical attributes are concerned, though they are equal in so far as they are humans in their individual capacity. Therefore, all humans are equal in the context of respect etc but they cannot be treated equal in the practical daily activities of life. Islam allows differentiation among individuals, but this is not based on the gender discrimination of the individuals rather their inherent abilities - inner potential. Islam wants to develop a sound social environment. It is possible only through strengthening the family set up i.e. the basic unit of society. Islam wants the family to become a well governed institution. Allah has created man and woman in such a way that they complement each other. In short, they are of the same genre yet are distinct from each other; they are two interconnected poles or two units of a pair, to be more precise.
    Hence, the difference in their mental, physical and emotional qualities decides for them different spheres of activities in the family.
    According to the Qur’an, a husband should be the head of the family. For this, it presents two arguments:
    i) Men have been given the responsibility of earning livelihood for the family i.e. to strive for the provision of the financial requirements of the family.
    ii) Men are given more suitable mental, physical and emotional qualities for this purpose. On the other hand, women are given certain qualities that make them more suitable for responsibilities in other spheres. So, it is only in the particular relationship of husband and wife that Islam gives a degree of authority to man over woman. Beyond this sphere, both are considered equal. So, it would be wrong to say on this basis that Islam gives women lower status in the social set up as compared to men. In fact, Islam gives different rights and assigns different responsibilities to men and women according to their inherent abilities.
    B) Now, I come to the other part of my proposition i.e. ‘should a witness borne by a lady be considered half in comparison to that of man?’ My critique on this view is based on the views of Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.
    First of all, I want to clarify that there is no verse anywhere in the Qur’an, which directs a court of law to consider a woman’s witness to be half reliable as that of a man. As for the verse 282 of Al-Baqarah, which is presented to substantiate the viewpoint in question, it has quite a different meaning and implication than what is construed from it. The conclusion drawn from this verse is not more than a logical fallacy, in my humble opinion. For my thesis, a close analysis of the verse is submitted here.
    The above quoted verse is presented by the proponents of this view. They stress that women are deficient in terms of intellect. This conclusion derived from this verse is absolutely erroneous. In fact the real context of the original verse itself does away with this misconception.
    Actually this verse addresses the common man. It does not relate to the law and thus gives no directive regarding judicial matters. In other words, it does not call upon the state, the legislative council or the legal authorities. This verse just invokes the common man’s attention for taking precautionary measures in case of a particular situation of conflict. It is a piece of advice to a common man in a matter far beyond the jurisdiction of law and order unless conflicts somehow arise to make it a point of law; but this is entirely another scenario.

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Julrefl12y4.html


You may also want to read http://www.renaissance.com.pk/septrefl12y2.html about the witness thing.

[CoinFoxs]

Status of women's testimony in Islam



The status of women's testimony in Islam is disputed.

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in terms of testimony.[1]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[2] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[2] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[2][3][4][5] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[6][7] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two women witnesses against one male because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that woman's testimony is half in other cases.[8] Ibn al-Qayyim also argues that the verse referred to relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[9] It is also argued that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[10]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[11] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

Q. Why are two witnesses who are women, equivalent to only one witness who is a man?

Two female witnesses not always considered equal to one male
witness
There are no less than three verses in the Qur’an which speak about witnesses
without specifying man or woman.

a) While making a will of inheritance, two just persons are required as
witnesses. In Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 106, the Glorious Qur’an says:
“Oh you who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take)
witnesses among yourself when making bequests,– two just persons
of your own (brotherhood) or others from outside if you are journeying
through the earth and the chance of death befalls you.” [Al-Qur’an 5:106]
b) Two persons endued with justice in case of talaq.
“And take for witness two persons from among you, endued with
justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah”. [Al-Qur’an 65:2]
c) Four witnesses are required in case of charge against chaste women
“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce
not four witnesses (to support their allegations) flog them with eighty
stripes; and reject their evidence even after: for such men are wicked
transgressors”
[Al-Qur’an 24:4]

Two female witnesses is equal to male witness only in financial
transaction
It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only
one male witness. It is true only in certain cases. There are about five verses
in the Qur’an that mention witnesses, without specifying male or female. There
is only one verse in the Qur’an, that says two female witnesses are equal to one
male witness. This verse is Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 282. This is the
longest verse in the Qur’an and deals with financial transactions. It says:
“Oh! ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions
involving future obligation in a fixed period of time reduce them to
writing and get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not
two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses
so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.” [Al-Qur’an 2:282]


https://zakirnaikqa.wordpress.com/tag/status-of-women-testimony-in-islam/

[cryptodevil]

    Islam has based its teachings on the irrefutable basis that all human beings are not equal as far as their physical attributes are concerned,

So why doesn't it base the value of human beings to perform certain tasks on their actual ability to perform certain tasks and not, as it does, on their gender?

There are women who are stronger and fitter than many men.

There are men who are better a being a parent than many women.

 . . .and so on.

Gender is not a measure of capabilities outside those that are biologically obvious, so why create sociofamilial rules which are based primarily on gender?

[Fullbuster]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?

Why don't you learn Arabic and go read the Qur-an?