Convict on 4/2/2006 at 02:17
Well the man is the head of the family the Bible says SE.
Anyway I Googled for Koran translation (I couldn't find a Koran translation on or linked in the Muslim Council of GB website) and found: (
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/) which then linked to (
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/4.htm). EDIT: What does your personal copies of the Koran say then SE (mentioned in PM)?
When I went to (Chapter 4: The Women, verse 34) it says:
Quote Posted by Islamicity's translation of the Koran
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance)
I think most Islamic scholars now add "lightly" in brackets to interpret the meaning, and I accept that is what was probably meant. However it is my opinion that we should say that they are wrong.
Gingerbread Man on 4/2/2006 at 02:30
G:)d -- for when you're talking about Happy God
G:mad:d -- for when you're talking about Angry God
G:od -- for when you're talking about Surprised God
G:nono:d -- for when you're talking about Mildly Disapproving God
G:grr:d -- for when God is frustrated by bullshit
Ge:cheeky:ff -- for when you're talking about Cheeky Geoff
(and don't think for a second that the irony of people typing "G_d" and also decrying this Islamic freak-out regarding the pictorial representation of Mohammed hasn't occurred to me.)
SD on 4/2/2006 at 02:31
Convict, you can find this same shit in the Bible. What are you trying to prove by posting it here?
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 02:35
"For example the Qu'ran (Koran) says that husbands can beat their wives (4:34) but IMO we should go into Muslim countries and re-write their laws/constitution to prevent this."
Paz on 4/2/2006 at 02:37
Quote Posted by Convict
Well the man is the head of the family the Bible says SE.
Wait, wait, wait .. is this just your infamous sense of humour kicking in again?
You seem to be saying 'Islam's wacky book of magic seems to excuse treating women badly ... I think that's wrong' (correct!), but then follow it up with 'Christianity's wacky book of magic seems to excuse treating women badly ... oh well, that's the way it is!' (incorrect!)
I mean .. um .. I don't know where to begin, really. Logic classes, maybe, I dunno.
It's all outdated bullshit from a trippy era when women were rated as baby-machines and not much else.
Wyclef on 4/2/2006 at 02:37
Quote:
Also the Uni of Michigan called - they want their gimp back. They said you had it on their site and UoM site is G_d's own truth confirm/deny?
In other words - there are certain documents I wouldn't trust on the web. Anything on a wiki, anything legal and anything relgious unless they are published by an official company/body/government site. UoM Koran translation/interpretation doesn't cut it I'm afriad. Muslim Council of GB and I'm listening again.
Haha, what? You realize that the UoM is a major research institution, right?
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 02:39
Quote Posted by Paz
It's all outdated bullshit from a trippy era when women were rated as baby-machines and not much else.
Actually Jesus was a bit of a feminist (of the moderate sort).
Paz on 4/2/2006 at 02:40
I've got no beef with Jesus. He's a righteous kinda guy.
(Or whoever invented him was)
(Or WHATEVER)
Swiss Mercenary on 4/2/2006 at 02:50
Quote Posted by Paz
I've got no beef with Jesus. He's a righteous kinda guy.
It's just his fanclub that tends to piss me off.
Convict on 4/2/2006 at 02:51
Quote Posted by Paz
I've got no beef with Jesus. He's a righteous kinda guy.
(Or whoever invented him was)
(Or WHATEVER)
Then what about what Paul and others wrote?
