Does Islam condone domestic violence?

originally posted by: mekhanics
bill oreilly is a f***** wife beater. He must be a Muslim.

Seriously, man. I have seen posts of yours in the past and while you have been extremely apologetic towards Islam and perhaps unhealthy in your criticism of Israel (and yes even Jews at times too). I cannot believe you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent my argument so blatantly. You might not know much about me, but I know a bit about you as a member on this website and you are way more capable than taking such a pitiful jab at somebody simply because their argument offends you.

So, let's not play games. Do you have anything useful to say in regard to the topic?

originally posted by: TonyS
I find OPs like this really puzzling. You do not identify yourself as Muslim. I can therefore assume you are NOT Muslim?

So, assuming you are not Muslim, why ever in the world do you care what the position of Islam is on beating women? The Amish believe women's heads should be covered. I am not Amish, I don't care. Its the Amish business, not mine.

Why concern yourself with what the Muslims may or may not believe if in fact, you are not Muslim?

I am not a Muslim.

I do know and interact with several Muslims on a weekly basis and from just interacting with them alone I have had no issues either way. We can talk about any subject (both ways) and after 3 years we have never even had an argument. We have discussed religion in general and how it's so stupid people fight over religion to this day. They are not religious (and they definitely don't seem to be radicalised at all) but I have NEVER once attempted to question their specific beliefs in regard to Islam. Why? There has been no need to. We get along talking about everything else and have never fought once.

However, if I were to start questioning core beliefs of theirs that hinge on the side of criticism, do you think our interactions from then on would forever be the same?

So what am I to do when I see famous Muslims proclaiming that "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Islam has deep respect for women" and "Only radical Muslims believe in jihad as a violent battle" (then witness non-Muslims in my country applaud and congratulate them for their courage), do some research and discover their holiest texts don't confirm the statements they make in public, but actually endorse the original beliefs? I see ex-Muslims talking about how these are all lies and that radicals are not only using our freedom of speech/freedom of religion laws against us to further their goals, AND at least half of the moderate Muslims around them might be complicit in achieving those goals.

So I cannot talk to Muslim acquaintances in fear of forever losing our enjoyable conversations, I cannot just go by research that is all telling me something within Islamic scripture is excusing these radical beliefs and behaviour, and now people are trying to insinuate I am a closet Islamophobe for bringing the discussion on an internet board?

Yes, I am not being bombed by any Muslims, but are there not concerning signs that something is amiss? That there is a potential threat to the values and way of life of the country in which I currently live? Muslims inside Australia are saying there is an issue with radicalisation behind closed doors. Extremists from the ME claim they will destroy the West, either by infiltration or by force.

Do I just sit back and hope nothing happens?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Does Islam condone domestic violence?

About as much as Xtianity does.
The literalist clueless will find justification for their hateful ignorance.
The ultimate message of all 'spiritual paths' is unconditional Love/Enlightenment.
One in such a state visits no violence on the Beloved!
From Love is ethics;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!" (correct translation)
Rather simple.
But religion is of vanity, the ego (Xtianity or Islam...), and from thence all forms of horror!
Mystics, of any path, transcend the vanity of religion;
"In the future, there will be no religion, we will all be mystics, or we will not be!"

originally posted by: namelesss
About as much as Xtianity does.
The literalist clueless will find justification for their hateful ignorance.
The ultimate message of all 'spiritual paths' is unconditional Love/Enlightenment.
One in such a state visits no violence on the Beloved!
From Love is ethics;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!" (correct translation)
Rather simple.
But religion is of vanity, the ego (Xtianity or Islam...), and from thence all forms of horror!
Mystics, of any path, transcend the vanity of religion;
"In the future, there will be no religion, we will all be mystics, or we will not be!"

I do feel the need to challenge what you have just said. Do excuse me if I do so in a blunt manner, because as an apparently "practising racist" perhaps I am hating you because of your...avatar...colour? (Anybody that doesn't understand WTF I just wrote, this member and I have a history.)

- Anyway, your first statement is true, but only really in a religious context — which is something I have already been arguing.

- Define "spiritual path". It means nothing unless you relate it to the human experience.

- "unconditional love/enlightenment" - is that a force that encompasses everything everywhere? Is it a force that requires an object or subject to be experienced? Do you believe unconditional love is an inherently good or moral thing?

- From love is ethics? (what about wars fought to save those you love, or wars fought to save ones you love that are not near you?) Where does war, suffering, deception and other evils come from? A lack of ethics? What if one adopts an amoral approach, will he or she experience something other than what I mentioned?

- "Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!" - NO, it not so simple at all. What about sadists? What about all the microbes you murdered while typing this reply? Do they deserve to adopt the same mantra? Also, your statement makes no imperative to do anything beneficial or helpful towards others...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Interesting reply. My guess is that something will happen and theres probably nothing you can do about it. Its just the way things go for Western civilizations.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: namelesss
About as much as Xtianity does.
The literalist clueless will find justification for their hateful ignorance.
The ultimate message of all 'spiritual paths' is unconditional Love/Enlightenment.
One in such a state visits no violence on the Beloved!
From Love is ethics;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!" (correct translation)
Rather simple.
But religion is of vanity, the ego (Xtianity or Islam...), and from thence all forms of horror!
Mystics, of any path, transcend the vanity of religion;
"In the future, there will be no religion, we will all be mystics, or we will not be!"

I do feel the need to challenge what you have just said. Do excuse me if I do so in a blunt manner, because as an apparently "practising racist" perhaps I am hating you because of your...avatar...colour? (Anybody that doesn't understand WTF I just wrote, this member and I have a history.)

(I'd leave that 'history' in the bedroom where it belongs!)
I didn't accuse you of anything.
That you bring up your racism surprised me.
As far as I can see, everyone is racist, and I move on.
But that wasn't our conversation, and you just come out sarcastic and swinging.
How about I let you take a free swing, if it'll make you feel better?
Have we not had any fair and respectable conversations?
Why do you think that your racism is relevant here?

Define "spiritual path". It means nothing unless you relate it to the human experience.

Good, moving on..
A 'Spiritual Path' is whatever you think it is, whatever you think it means.

- "unconditional love/enlightenment" - is that a force that encompasses everything everywhere? Is it a force that requires an object or subject to be experienced?

Love is not a 'force'.
Unconditional means that there are no 'conditions'; you cannot earn it, you cannot be worthy of it, you cannot defend against it, you cannot lose it, it is irresistible in it's lack of 'forcefulness'!
In Love
In unconditional (transcendental) Love, all are One, One is Universal, ALL inclusive; there is no 'object' and 'subject'!

Do you believe unconditional love is an inherently good or moral thing?

No.
I host no beliefs.
The vanity of the judgment of 'good/evil/morality' exists in the thoughts of the beholder, NOT in the 'beheld'.
Love does not judge!
All the eye of Love can see is the Beloved.
No one in their right mind judges their Beloved.
Love cannot so judge!
Besides, ALL 'judgment' is 'Self!' judgment!
What sane person judges themselves?

- From love is ethics? (what about wars fought to save those you love, or wars fought to save ones you love that are not near you?)

Yes, from Love comes ethics.
How many people would you kill to save your closest beloved person?
One?
Would you kill one person?
Two?
Ten?
If your Beloved were attacked by ten, would you destroy them all?
How about a thousand? A million? A billion?
How insane are you?
the state of unconditional Love is the perfection of health, mental, physical, emotional, spiritual...

No one ever deliberately harms another unless they host some 'belief' or other.
Some measure of insanity!
Love heals us of such insanity.
"Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."
There is no 'unless' at the end, no 'but'!
That is what 'unconditional' means.
That is why ethics are born of Love.

Where does war, suffering, deception and other evils come from?

'Evil' exists in the vain and judgmental thoughts of the beholder.
War comes from ego, vanity. Ignorance.
Suffering? We need to suffer (allow) pain, to become human, and more.

"Only a Breaking Heart can Love!" - Zen Kahuna

“Suffering is a gift. In it is hidden mercy.”
― Rumi

“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”
--- Rumi

"I say that next to God there is no nobler thing than suffering. Right suffering is the mother of all virtues, for right suffering so subdues the heart, it cannot rise to pride but perforce is lowly." - Meister Eckhart

"The growth of the soul in man is as that of a pearl in an oyster, both being caused by irritation." - Plato

A lack of ethics? What if one adopts an amoral approach, will he or she experience something other than what I mentioned?

Ethics and morality are 180 degrees different.
Morality is the vanity of judging 'good' and 'evil', Pride, the only sin, if you are religious.
But it can be translated beyond religion. Ethics are of Love, unconditional.
Morality is vanity, of the conditional, of life and death.
I opperate Amorally, not IMmorally, but witho0ut regard for the judging od good/evil (not how I see the world).
I had some 'Xtian' acquaintances, once, and all they could think about were 'demons'.
Some say that which is most on our mind is what we 'worship'.

- "Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!" - NO, it not so simple at all. What about sadists?

What about sadists? They are giving pleasure to masochists. Where's the problem?
On the other hand, a 'sadist' that is just indiscriminately harming others is obviously insane, crawling with 'beliefs', and knows nothing of Love or ethics.

What about all the microbes you murdered while typing this reply?

How dramatic!
Need I really reply?
Murdered?
I take full responsibility for all that I harm.
I have killed.
One can kill ethically, meaning quickly, painlessly, etc...
If I was being killed, that was how I'd want to go!
That's ethics.
I still pull the carrot from the ground, let it die, maybe eat it alive.
Love means that We transcend karma, when we consume in a state of Love, prayer, Gratitude, karma is dissolved.
I eat Self!

Do they deserve to adopt the same mantra? Also, your statement makes no imperative to do anything beneficial or helpful towards others...

There is no such 'imperative'.
At any moment, we are who and what we are, and that will manifest in your behavior and words, at the moment!
One moment I might help someone.
Another, I might not.
All depends on who and what I am at that moment.
There's no rule book because there are no choices.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

All three branches of the Abrahamic religion condones domestic violence, just that some tried not to go that route, but yeah if one is a fundi well???

a reply to: Spider879

All three branches have scripture that condone domestic violence, only one continues to do so openly (using that scripture as justification) and in countries that have a majority population of that one branch, more than several of them have social norms that endorse the behaviour and a lack of laws to administer punishment for domestic violence (because the scripture mentioned can be used as justification), and when some of those people from those countries move to other countries where the population is a majority of a different branch, suddenly their beliefs change in words but not fully in action. Then when people of the new country criticise those who do still practice those beliefs by committing domestic violence in this new country, they are called racists, are silenced from further attempts to criticise and the behaviour continues and the issue cannot be addressed.

You know what? I really was a fool for even bringing this up. Nothing to worry about. No potential problems down the road as the population of those from the old country continues to increase. What could go wrong?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Right up, to the sexual revolution and the feminist movement of the 60ts and 70ts it was ok socially and religiously to beat ones wife in Western societies, no cop would respond to a call on domestic violence, as it was regarded a private matter.

True the feminist social revolution have not taken hold in many of these nations, so they are forced to dress and behave conservatively under the threat of a whip according to the norms of that society, but we weren't exactly so far removed from them not too long ago. and if certain fundamentalist elements have their way, our society would be just like them.

originally posted by: Spider879
Right up, to the sexual revolution and the feminist movement of the 60ts and 70ts it was ok socially and religiously to beat ones wife in Western societies, no cop would respond to a call on domestic violence, as it was regarded a private matter.

True the feminist social revolution have not taken hold in many of these nations, so they are forced to dress and behave conservatively under the threat of a whip according to the norms of that society, but we weren't exactly so far removed from them not too long ago. and if certain fundamentalist elements have their way, our society would be just like them.

Is your solution for these other nations to adopt feminism then? I'd support that. Because even though I and others have suggested it multiple times to Western feminists, they tend to want to rather focus on themselves more than helping women in non-feminist countries.

Since we agree on a viable solution, any idea how we can "encourage" those countries to adopt feminism and improve the rights of women living there? I am ALL for that. Or do you think we should just wait it out a little longer because things in those countries are slowly changing?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Spider879
Right up, to the sexual revolution and the feminist movement of the 60ts and 70ts it was ok socially and religiously to beat ones wife in Western societies, no cop would respond to a call on domestic violence, as it was regarded a private matter.

True the feminist social revolution have not taken hold in many of these nations, so they are forced to dress and behave conservatively under the threat of a whip according to the norms of that society, but we weren't exactly so far removed from them not too long ago. and if certain fundamentalist elements have their way, our society would be just like them.

Is your solution for these other nations to adopt feminism then? I'd support that. Because even though I and others have suggested it multiple times to Western feminists, they tend to want to rather focus on themselves more than helping women in non-feminist countries.

Since we agree on a viable solution, any idea how we can "encourage" those countries to adopt feminism and improve the rights of women living there? I am ALL for that. Or do you think we should just wait it out a little longer because things in those countries are slowly changing?

There is always people in those societies aching for change, the problem is in nations where the government is tied to religion, that is going to be an up hill battle, but as long as there can be communications through social media ,although that can be risky, at least it can be a start, with nations that are kinda secular but with fundi tendencies , then full on engagement it took us decades to get where we are at today and don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the frivolous side of feminism, you know men bad women good..next Opera.
NGOs that can look at real issues and come up with solutions, it also do not mean they have go from burka to open butt jeans..costing $1,700 a pop which is now sold out ,and no!! I am not kidding this is a thing.

a reply to: Spider879

I agree, it is not fair to compare a religious theocracy with a secular democracy in equal terms alone. But I am doing so in their interactions with each other. One of those interactions is people coming from those religious theocracies and moving to a secular democracy. I would not expect them to fully agree with such a radical change of political system ad social views outlook, but they DO have an obligation to respect that new political system and social views outlook the moment they step foot on the soil of the secular democracy. The same goes for Western tourists who go to those religious theocracies: they too must respect the political system and social norms outlook the moment they step foot there.

The moral of the story is: if you unwilling to respect the political system and social views outlook of the country you are about to enter AND would expect others coming into your home country to respect your political system and social views outlook, don't go there.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

That we can see eye to eye on.

Islam is a shiit ideology created to filter out all the decent people, and make sure nothing but murderous lying pawns remain.



Pawns of whom? Other murderous liars who got tired of taking the heat for their ritual evils.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I put judaism, christianity, and islam in the same bucket. All of them prescribe terrible ideas and actions equally. Killing people for minor offences, forced marriage to the man who rapes a girl, intolerance and murder for those who do not accept the rules put forth by ancient barbaric tribesmen.

One should never talk about them as separate entities. They are different factions of the same books. Each of them with not enough redeemable qualities.

O.o

Even when one of them is still acting in accordance with believing their most sacred Holy text must be followed fully in the literal sense? Please tell me you are just being cautious as not to come across as Islamophobic...please tell me that at least!

I just said they are all equally rediculous. How is that being cautious? When you find rats in your house, do you really care what kind of rats they are?