Turkey |
Thread locked by a moderator or admin. |
|
|
|
|
Harassment of the muslim woman in Turkey
|
| 180. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 12:42 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: azade
regarding post 153.
i also read the fragment from the zakat.
you are right, not all women go to hell (btw, have i said all women?), but the majority.
dont interprete the text wrongly in the defence of religion, the thing is that im not a naive european. i dont buy tricks. |
Please can we just get over with this - naive european  It's nice to share views but if it's going to turn to mockery I'm out.
I didn't interpret it wrongly, in fact I didn't interpret it at all - I just read it over again and checked from which context it is taken.
|
|
| 181. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 12:43 am |
|
Quoting mltm: I think relating stoning directly with Islam is a bit absurd here because in Quran there's not a verse about stoning as far as I know. On the contrary as it's been shown here in the old testament it exists. Could you show the related verse in Quran? |
you are in a right way: which means keep thinking!
islam doesnt not consists of only qu'ran, but ahadiths and sunnas are there to interprete qu'ran.
you're absolutely right: stoning starts right from the old testament. but have you noticed one error in your thinking? nobody, calls the old testament a book of peace! and nobody calls judaism a religion of peace! it would be a hypocrysy, dont you think?
while islam calims being peacefull, but the FRUITS do not witness so!
do you want stories of stoning happened in islam? maybe you think mohammed called everytime jews to execute stoning anytime he wanted capital punishment?
it went offtopic, but its you who questioned stoning.
i hope you wont ask for "stoning" examples in islam?
|
|
| 182. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 12:50 am |
|
Quoting azade:
Please can we just get over with this - naive european It's nice to share views but if it's going to turn to mockery I'm out.
I didn't interpret it wrongly, in fact I didn't interpret it at all - I just read it over again and checked from which context it is taken. |
azade
and whats this?
I checked the excerpt you posted about women going to hell and it means that women who resort to those things mentioned will go there, it doesn't apply to all women. From a strategic pow, it would logically be really stupid to state that all women are going to hell (in the making of a religion).
i dont mind
|
|
| 183. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 12:52 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: allow today a headscarf, hidjab, tomorrow they'll demand a burka, and after this they will want to hang or stone raped girls and then goodbye turkey of ataturk and welcome taliban regime.
allow today a head cover tomorrow you will have this:
EGYPT: FATWA ALLOWS "BREASTFEEDING COLLEAGUES"
(ANSAmed) - CAIRO, MAY 21 - The only way to remain in private with a female colleague in the workplace is to let her breastfeed you, according to a fatwa (Egyptian religious decree) of two theologists from al-Azhar which has sparked scandals and polemics in the Egyptian media over the past days. The Islam bans a person from being in private in one and the same room with a person from the opposite sex - unless they are married or have close relations (parents and children, brothers and sisters, and so forth). The fatwa in question was issued recently by Izat Atiyah and Abd el-Mahdi Abd el-Kader, professors at the Cairo-based al-Azhar University, the world's most important centre of Sunni theology. According to them, a woman can lift her veil and remain in private with a male colleague at their workplace only if she had breastfed him five times already. "Entering a public office you should not be surprised if you one day happen upon a 50-year-old employee who is sucking milk from his colleague," ridiculed the al-Distur independent newspaper. A theologian from al-Azhar judged as "senseless" the discussion of a topic of the kind. "If the al-Azhar Mufti himself said such things, he would be a non-respected person and would be considered crazy," theologian Malika Yussef said, quoted by the independent daily al-Karama. Another al-Azhar theologian, Mabruk Attia, believes that the fatwa in question is a wrong interpretation of a "particular case" from the times of Prophet Mohammed. The latter is believed to have advised a woman to milk her adopted son, already grown up, in order to become his milk mother, after adoption was banned by the Islam. The woman gave him her milk to drink from a container, and not via direct breast feeding.
its not so innocent as it seems... always look beyond and check the past! |
Tantawi(Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar is present, and one of the highest-Azhar Islamic Jurisprudence and academic institutions in the Islamic world) : FATWA breast silly and void and owner referred to the investigation are no differences between Sunnis and Shiites in the fundamentals of Islam should not be attributed errors of judgments are inferior to the religious fatwas.
and he said:I can not prevent anybody from talking, but what I can do is to suggest what was said did talk good and sincere supported by the Shariah of Islam. On the subject of opinion breastfeeding, it is null and owner referred to the investigation, has been dismissed pending the outcome of the investigation. We do not want to make this an anecdotal story on Islam and the Sharia,
|
|
| 184. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 12:59 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: Quoting azade:
Please can we just get over with this - naive european It's nice to share views but if it's going to turn to mockery I'm out.
I didn't interpret it wrongly, in fact I didn't interpret it at all - I just read it over again and checked from which context it is taken. |
azade
and whats this?
I checked the excerpt you posted about women going to hell and it means that women who resort to those things mentioned will go there, it doesn't apply to all women. From a strategic pow, it would logically be really stupid to state that all women are going to hell (in the making of a religion).
i dont mind
|
Femme that's not interpretation  I was talking of the larger picture, why would the prophet state that women are going to hell, that surely wouldn't help him in any way. When I realized that I simply read it again and noted that it says women who do the things mentioned in the excerpt will go to hell. It's not interpretation, that's what it says.
Be constructive please. Not wanting to lecture, but it's a good idea to respect that people have different views than yourself when communicating with someone. Why resort to rudeness? It's clear to see that you think you have the answers for everything, but naturally everyone can't be right all the time.
|
|
| 185. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:11 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: Quoting mltm: I think relating stoning directly with Islam is a bit absurd here because in Quran there's not a verse about stoning as far as I know. On the contrary as it's been shown here in the old testament it exists. Could you show the related verse in Quran? |
you are in a right way: which means keep thinking!
islam doesnt not consists of only qu'ran, but ahadiths and sunnas are there to interprete qu'ran.
you're absolutely right: stoning starts right from the old testament. but have you noticed one error in your thinking? nobody, calls the old testament a book of peace! and nobody calls judaism a religion of peace! it would be a hypocrysy, dont you think?
while islam calims being peacefull, but the FRUITS do not witness so!
do you want stories of stoning happened in islam? maybe you think mohammed called everytime jews to execute stoning anytime he wanted capital punishment?
it went offtopic, but its you who questioned stoning.
i hope you wont ask for "stoning" examples in islam? |
I know stories of stoning done by muslims in the name of İslam or by Yazidis (another religion in Irak), but my point is how right is it to consider it as a rule of İslam while in Quran which is the only real source of Islam it does not exist? To have such an idea makes it worse for the believers because then they'd think that it should be done. I'm not such a religious person but just I'm just looking for the truths.
I found a site who tries to explain that stoning has been misinterpreted by the Suudi, Afgan and İranian regimes. Have a look. http://www.mostmerciful.com/stoning-is-shirk.htm
|
|
| 186. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:13 am |
|
azade,
i thought you were out!
|
|
| 187. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:26 am |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: azade,
i thought you were out! |
 No, that was you interpreting my post. I said if this thread was going to take a bickering and name-calling direction I would be out. Does that mean that you intend not to keep the discussion sober?
|
|
| 188. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:31 am |
|
|
|
| 189. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:40 am |
|
Quoting elham: Tantawi(Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar is present, and one of the highest-Azhar Islamic Jurisprudence and academic institutions in the Islamic world) : FATWA breast silly and void and owner referred to the investigation are no differences between Sunnis and Shiites in the fundamentals of Islam should not be attributed errors of judgments are inferior to the religious fatwas.
and he said:I can not prevent anybody from talking, but what I can do is to suggest what was said did talk good and sincere supported by the Shariah of Islam. On the subject of opinion breastfeeding, it is null and owner referred to the investigation, has been dismissed pending the outcome of the investigation. We do not want to make this an anecdotal story on Islam and the Sharia, |
why are you trying to justify this situation? this wouldnt occur if this didnt happen in the past:
Abu Huthayfa and his wife Sahla, had an adopted son (a freed slave) called Salim, who used to work and live in the house freely. As Salim was like a son to her, Sahla used to rely on him to help in the housework. She could stay with him in the same room without having to cover herself from his looks. When Mohammed cancelled the principle of adoption, Salim became a stranger in the house and could no longer be alone with Sahla, Abu Huthayfa’s wife. The Lady complained to Mohammed who immediately provided her with a genius solution- he asked her to breast-feed Salim, after which she would again be allowed to keep him as a son with her in the house. She said: ‘but Salim is a man and has a beard!’ Mohammed smiled to her and said ‘I know that’.
Mohammed’s wife, Aysha, was very happy to hear the news because she also had problems in allowing men in her house. The new ruling came handy particularly after Mohammed’s death because Aysha needed more flexibility in meeting and talking to men about Islam. Aysha was a strong advocate of this practice; she encouraged the daughters of her sisters and the daughters of her brethren to breast-feed those men whom she (Aysha) wished to allow in her home.
|
|
| 190. |
07 Jun 2007 Thu 01:50 am |
|
A man is not allowed to breastfeed from a woman, it's solely for babies. Where did you get that from?
|
|
|
