Why do islam hates people?

[popcorn1]

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]

what ever

see all you do is babble on about total shit
i hope all religion gets wiped out
it makes no sense        LOGIC makes sense
you argue and fight over something thats not there CRAZY
and it just happens its the muslims turn now
the jews
the christians
filling peoples heads full of total shit for 2000 years and any sane person is sick ov it all
catholics against protesdants we had in uk for hundreds of years and uk is sick to the back teeth of it all we want to move on

now all you muslims have come over and are trying to start it all over again with some other kind of religion..
so what i say is why don,t you all just fuck off back to your sand land i fuckin hate you all
and the same goes for any religion JUST FUCK OFF YOU STUPID HUMANS

[1714538330]

1714538330

[1714538330]

1714538330

[1714538330]

1714538330

[1714538330]

1714538330

[Wilikon]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?

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

People are debating Christianity, the bible on web sources all the time not knowing how to read Aramaic...

[CoinFoxs]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?

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

Im ready to debate on the basis of Quran but he is non muslim and he dont know a single word about Quran. If he know then he didnt debate here..
And if He  happy with debate on the basis of internet sources.. Im still there...

[BADecker]

    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?

The answer is, of course, that if you arouse women to militant action, they become more responsive, greater fighters than the men. You gotta keep the women down so that they don't overcome the men.

 

[Wilikon]

    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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

[Wilikon]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?

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

Im ready to debate on the basis of Quran but he is non muslim and he dont know a single word about Quran. If he know then he didnt debate here..
And if He  happy with debate on the basis of internet sources.. Im still there...

"... Debate here" as you say is my house. I welcome you to debate on the thread I have created...

 

[CoinFoxs]

    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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

In your religion men and womens are equal??? If yes then give me one quote from your holy book . IF you have a Book and you believe on the Book.
 
Womens witness is less power beacuse women are not so much sensible.

[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

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/

If it is true in certain conditions, but not true in others... Then the status of women under a sharia law based society can be defined as disputed?

[Wilikon]

    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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

In your religion men and womens are equal??? If yes then give me one quote from your holy book . IF you have a Book and you believe on the Book.
 
Womens witness is less power beacuse women are not so much sensible.

"Sensible". Does that mean what they experience as LIFE is not the same as men? They cannot taste the same fruit as men do? They cannot smell the same flower as men do? They cannot appreciate the sound of a river when it flows down to a gentle cascade as men do?

[Spendulus]

-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. ....

That seems to me to be more accurate than a claim of "equality."  I don't think justice and equity are existent either in this context and rule set, but they may have existed some time ago in your culture when women were really little more than cattle.  But that's another, separate issue and I would think things have been/are changing anyway.

[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.

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.

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

[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.

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.

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Your point is gays are treated the same and it does not matter if under sharia laws or countries that does not?

[Spendulus]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

[Wilikon]

Christian woman sentenced to death for 'drinking from Muslim water cup' in Pakistan may not live to face execution after five years' imprisonment has left her with intestinal bleeding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144300/Christian-woman-sentenced-death-drinking-Muslim-water-cup-Pakistan-not-live-face-execution-five-years-imprisonment-left-intestinal-bleeding.html

[popcorn1]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?

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

Im ready to debate on the basis of Quran but he is non muslim and he dont know a single word about Quran. If he know then he didnt debate here..
And if He  happy with debate on the basis of internet sources.. Im still there...

"... Debate here" as you say is my house. I welcome you to debate on the thread I have created...

 

Wilikon
can you CODE
are you very very good at maths if no...... then if you spent that time reading code and maths instead of  reading the Quran your life would be much happier
i see poor kids being made to read the Quran over and over again so they remember word for word from that book..
 if the poor kid was made to read code or maths and made to remember the code book or maths book word for word
he  or she would be no longer poor he would be rich in knowledge and then be rich with cash  
but no you rather the CHILD read the Quran.. which will not help his life in anyway what so ever
its all bullshit
plus if a women muslim does martyrdom does she go to heaven and then get shagged by loads of virgin men
plus is a muslim women aloud to have a sex slave man      
if a muslim women fights....... can she capture a man and shag him every where and when she as had enough of him kill him
A MUSLIM MAN CAN
 DO THE RULES APPLY FOR A MUSLIM WOMEN

[Spendulus]

You guys are debating over Islam on web sources?
Why don't you learn Arabic and go read the Qur-an?

Im ready to debate on the basis of Quran but he is non muslim and he dont know a single word about Quran. If he know then he didnt debate here..
And if He  happy with debate on the basis of internet sources.. Im still there...

"... Debate here" as you say is my house. I welcome you to debate on the thread I have created...

 

I am ready to debate the question "Did Mohammed split the Moon?" and willing to take the position "This is a myth, it did not happen."

   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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

In your religion men and womens are equal??? If yes then give me one quote from your holy book . IF you have a Book and you believe on the Book.
Womens witness is less power beacuse women are not so much sensible.

There is no need to quote from a Book to defend this basic question.  In fact that is a wrong approach, for you to pose the issue based on what "your book" says, asking others to defend the opposite position, based on what "their book" says.

Remember, this is a forum with world wide participants, with many, many different viewpoints.  For example, I defend a position from first premises. Others do it from science, medical or historical views.  And yes, still others will use their favorite Book.

[CoinFoxs]

    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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

In your religion men and womens are equal??? If yes then give me one quote from your holy book . IF you have a Book and you believe on the Book.
 
Womens witness is less power beacuse women are not so much sensible.

"Sensible". Does that mean what they experience as LIFE is not the same as men? They cannot taste the same fruit as men do? They cannot smell the same flower as men do? They cannot appreciate the sound of a river when it flows down to a gentle cascade as men do?

Sensible means that womens are not strong as man.It doesnot mean that womens have less right then man. I just told that womens are not strong in making decision and in other cases as man. IF you got my point then i ll be thankful

[CoinFoxs]

Christian woman sentenced to death for 'drinking from Muslim water cup' in Pakistan may not live to face execution after five years' imprisonment has left her with intestinal bleeding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144300/Christian-woman-sentenced-death-drinking-Muslim-water-cup-Pakistan-not-live-face-execution-five-years-imprisonment-left-intestinal-bleeding.html

Muslim killing in Burma and Muslim killing in Palestine..What is This ?? Is this right ?? Your religion gives you instruction to kill innocent people..??

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+killings+in+burma&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=659&noj=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D8KTVbP5OsuasAH-nZnwDQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Burma

That is right ?? Answer me ??

[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?

Why is there a need to have men and women equal? Is equality between men and women a stigma for society or something else?

Seriously? You are asking why all human beings should be treated as equally valid, irrespective of gender?

What possible reasoning could you cite to declare male homo-sapiens to be 'superior' in such a ways as to render their continued male privilege in general culture justifiable?

Remember, gender is not a measure of capability. Unless, of course, you're one of these dumbasses posting here declaring women to be inferior of mind to men while completely ignoring the plethora of female accomplishments that the poster could only dream of achieving themselves.

[Spendulus]

....
Sensible means that womens are not strong as man.It doesnot mean that womens have less right then man. I just told that womens are not strong in making decision and in other cases as man. IF you got my point then i ll be thankful

The word "sensible" is used wrongly, your translator failed with this word.

I just told that womens are not strong in making decision and in other cases as man. IF you got my point then i ll be thankful

This is your personal belief and sure I get this point.

You are wrong.