Hey sorry I'm responding super late, I started my reply but just got sidetracked the last several days due to other reasons...
You're just dismissing me too. I don't see how the bible saying that women were excited by men who were well hung and virile is a shocking thing.
I'm not trying to, really, I was just trying to show that it's hypocritical to complain about Islam having bothersome verses when without applying the same measure of criticism to Christianity/Judaism as well. Also because you can't expect me to believe that the Holy Spirit guided someone to write this verse, like that was ALL human right there. Sounds like erotica to me.
The Philistines are NOT the same group as the Palestinians, despite the name. That would be like saying that antifa is anti-fascist because of the name. Palestinians come from nomadic Arabs who were in the Middle East, I don't know where. But reports of Israel show it being mostly deserted, and the Palestinians were NOT there. Even Mark Twain wrote about this. It IS true that the very Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist for the reasons you give. The question of "who has rights to land" are complex. We certainly have our ideas and preferences, but I think ultimately a lot of it comes down to might makes right and possession being 9/10 of the law. That's another story though, I don't know why you're bringing that up. I only brought up the part about Jerusalem to say that the chapter you cite is well known and is not some kooky bit of scripture.
Oh I thought it was just a general attack on Islam/Muslims. I do disagree with the Palestinian sentiment though. While it's true that Arabs came and settled in the region, that does not mean the Palestinians of today aren't descendants of the Philistines. (Some) Arabs simply intermarried with them just as they did with Jews. The etymology for the word "Palestine" came from the Greeks, specifically in Mycenaean Greek. The Greeks (directly across the sea from them) began calling the region as Palestine ("Philistia") once the Philistines had 5 city-states. The word "Palestine" matches "Philistia" in nearly all ancient languages, denoting that they're the exact same people. The etymology for the word itself is what gives us the historical evidence that they're the same people. Antifa really was antifascist once, for example. But you disagree with this, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do make excuses for how people acted in different time periods, and how people evolved over time. I don't judge Muslims based on how barbaric they were in 700 AD, but based on the fact that they continue to be that barbaric today, in a continuous line, while other cultures have moderated. By the way, in war all peoples have killed babies. When we bombed Dresden lots of babies were burned to a crisp. Likewise Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe that isn't as intimate as bashing a baby's head against a rock, I'll agree. But there is a reason for the saying "war is hell", and again, I DO judge ancient cultures differently.
Not trying to get all liberal here, but isn't this indicative of a superiority complex? You're imposing your sense of cultural superiority onto others and are saying "they bad, me good", which is only due to Western hegemony making you think Western principles are greater than others; in other words, your looking at it from a modern Western lens but fail to see how these aren't modern Western people. The first thing you must realize is that because the Deep State hates them, they're going to use negative propaganda about them, even if its Fake News. This by itself is skewing your perception since it occurred before you woke up to mass media dissemination operations. Secondly, you aren't applying fair criticism to Islam as you are others. You just think you are. If there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world (20-25% of the world population), and all of them are following Islam in the way you say they do, then why aren't there more acts of terrorism? This could only mean 1 of 2 things: either the modern Muslim is simply just not following Islam as prescribed (which would mean your criticisms are unfair since, under your own personal beliefs, you don't judge a religion based on what they did during ancient times), or you don't really understand Islam (which would ALSO mean your criticisms are unfair). This is what I mean by hypocrisy. And it's nothing against you personally, but many people do it and try to justify the cognitive dissonance with extreme mental gymnastics.
Believe all the women who are beaten in Islamic cultures. Remember that practice is more important than theory. I also do not agree that the theory is to beat a woman without hurting her according to the scripture, but that's just me.
I am trying to give you a common sense response to a point that you initially brought up. I want you to educate yourself. But I am not trying to wage an ideological battle with you here. I don't gain much from that. I want you to have access to both sides and be able to make up your own mind. If you and I disagree at the end of that, so be it. I don't think there is much I could do to convince you.
In practice the women hit their men more than the reverse lol. But that exists everywhere tbh, it's just not reported (women actually commit domestic violence more than men do, but people don't know about it due to skewed media/societal narratives). But as for it being a toothbrush and not to hurt her, etc., I showed you a source for it and you still refuse to accept it. That's what I meant when I said to check your ego. You aren't being objective because it means you would have to admit to yourself that perhaps you were wrong. If you ever want to be sure to come to the truth, always show some skepticism and critical analysis, but also always be willing to admit that you're wrong, too. The Qur'an itself isn't taken alone as the sole source of Islamic jurisprudence, hadith literature is as well. The way we know that Muslims are told not to beat their wives (don't strike the face, don't leave a mark, no pain, etc.) comes form the hadith literature; according to several hadiths, some Muslims came to Prophet Muhammad SAW when the verse was revealed with same concerns you stated, and this was what they were told. It's not just me making this up out of thin air to "ease the blow" or anything like that. if you go to a mosque and ask about this, they'll tell you the same thing. Go to several, in fact, and you'll be told this.
The original point was a comparison of some ideologies like Islam vs others like Christianity. So from my point of view since the Hadith is influential throughout Islam, I think it's fair game. It may not be as simple as I think, but the proof is in the pudding and the culture from all Islamic countries is more violent overall than Christian countries, and it's directly because of Islam and how it is taught.
I gotchu, just making the distinction between what is and isn't considered holy.
As for what you were saying, I disagree that it's because of Islam. The reason being—why did terrorism never even exist before 9/11? Why did it never exist before there were political motivations for it to exist? Why would "terrorism" occur now that there is no infrastructure that would allow it to even develop in the first place? Islamic countries are completely destroyed right now and are less religious than they were 50+ years ago when they weren't destroyed; yet why are these "terrorist" attacks occurring now when they have less ability to conduct attacks and don't even have the means to teach Islam as well as they used to AND are less religious overall than they used to be? These things don't add up.
You are trying to look for reasons to prove a point rather than see the facts as they are.
I'm not convinced by those ideas, but I agree, let's not digress.
Which was banned by Prophet Muhammad SAW. But of course, people like you don't know that. And like FGM, it's practiced by non-Muslims just as much (or higher) than Muslims in those regions. But, people don't know that either...
I'll have to look into that, though I do believe it possible that it could be an African thing rather than a Muslim thing. But from my conversations with ex-Muslims I do know that Islam is very oppressive to women generally, so maybe it fit in well. Labiaplasty does not remove the ability to have sensation in the genitals while FGM does, from what I understand.
It's not practiced by Muslims everywhere, and many Muslims don't even know it exists. That's how you know it's lcalized to a specific region rather than a doctrine of Islam. Also, Islam isn't oppressive towards women lol they just were made to feel that way because of either familial trauma or liberalism/feminism infecting their minds like here in the West (the latter of which, btw, was meant as a way to destabilize the West so that communism can take over; that's why first-wave and second-wave feminism along with the push towards liberalism during both those eras coincided with the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare).
But that aside, labiplasty is the same procedure as FGM. It's just that there are different levels to it, and labiaplasty typically only refers to the first level. But you can still ask a plastic/cosmetic/gynecologist surgeon to do it and they will; some in the West may be against it but I'm fairly certain most wouldn't mind, considering that transgenderism exists....
Maybe you can, but I can't. I'm not here to just fight with you as I said. I want to put out the other side for you and anybody interested to see. If you do your own homework and come to a different conclusion than me, and maybe we haven't seen the same things are interpreted them the same way, well, that's a shame, but that's about as far as I'll go with it. I don't need to try to make you agree with me.
That's the thing—you aren't presenting the other side. I am. Everything you've stated thus far is apart of the standard narrative and can be easily found by mere surface-level digging. Everything that I've said on the other hand have been things you either refused to believe were true, were in complete denial about, or simply just didn't know (usually some combination of all 3). The stuff I've mentioned goes much deeper than the stuff you've read about. It's akin to thinking Orange Man = bad, and then once you start doing your own research, you realize that Orange Man = good. And now that you've realized that I've done my homework on this matter (on theology and science overall), you now claim that you don't want to continue to argue whereas before you were somewhat overconfident. This is an ego defense mechanism because you've invested a part of your pride into this belief of yours, for whatever reason. Like I said, if you want to come to the truth, you'll need to be willing to admit that you're wrong.
.
As for your other comments (running out of space), I don't believe that this trauma is caused by Islam because I know many men who suffered more than their sisters did due to the parents using Islam as an excuse. Shitty families are gonna be shitty regardless of religion bro, it's just the way it is. My dismissal of "other sources", as you put it, comes from the fact that everything they've said has been refuted before. It's not me dismissing their arguments, it's me noting that all their arguments are the same. I've considered everything you've said and more, but you haven't considered everything that I've said. This is where our differences lie.
Do check out Farid Responds, he addresses everything you mention and more.
Hey sorry I'm responding super late, I started my reply but just got sidetracked the last several days due to other reasons...
I'm not trying to, really, I was just trying to show that it's hypocritical to complain about Islam having bothersome verses when without applying the same measure of criticism to Christianity/Judaism as well. Also because you can't expect me to believe that the Holy Spirit guided someone to write this verse, like that was ALL human right there. Sounds like erotica to me.
Oh I thought it was just a general attack on Islam/Muslims. I do disagree with the Palestinian sentiment though. While it's true that Arabs came and settled in the region, that does not mean the Palestinians of today aren't descendants of the Philistines. (Some) Arabs simply intermarried with them just as they did with Jews. The etymology for the word "Palestine" came from the Greeks, specifically in Mycenaean Greek. The Greeks (directly across the sea from them) began calling the region as Palestine ("Philistia") once the Philistines had 5 city-states. The word "Palestine" matches "Philistia" in nearly all ancient languages, denoting that they're the exact same people. The etymology for the word itself is what gives us the historical evidence that they're the same people. Antifa really was antifascist once, for example. But you disagree with this, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Not trying to get all liberal here, but isn't this indicative of a superiority complex? You're imposing your sense of cultural superiority onto others and are saying "they bad, me good", which is only due to Western hegemony making you think Western principles are greater than others; in other words, your looking at it from a modern Western lens but fail to see how these aren't modern Western people. The first thing you must realize is that because the Deep State hates them, they're going to use negative propaganda about them, even if its Fake News. This by itself is skewing your perception since it occurred before you woke up to mass media dissemination operations. Secondly, you aren't applying fair criticism to Islam as you are others. You just think you are. If there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world (20-25% of the world population), and all of them are following Islam in the way you say they do, then why aren't there more acts of terrorism? This could only mean 1 of 2 things: either the modern Muslim is simply just not following Islam as prescribed (which would mean your criticisms are unfair since, under your own personal beliefs, you don't judge a religion based on what they did during ancient times), or you don't really understand Islam (which would ALSO mean your criticisms are unfair). This is what I mean by hypocrisy. And it's nothing against you personally, but many people do it and try to justify the cognitive dissonance with extreme mental gymnastics.
In practice the women hit their men more than the reverse lol. But that exists everywhere tbh, it's just not reported (women actually commit domestic violence more than men do, but people don't know about it due to skewed media/societal narratives). But as for it being a toothbrush and not to hurt her, etc., I showed you a source for it and you still refuse to accept it. That's what I meant when I said to check your ego. You aren't being objective because it means you would have to admit to yourself that perhaps you were wrong. If you ever want to be sure to come to the truth, always show some skepticism and critical analysis, but also always be willing to admit that you're wrong, too. The Qur'an itself isn't taken alone as the sole source of Islamic jurisprudence, hadith literature is as well. The way we know that Muslims are told not to beat their wives (don't strike the face, don't leave a mark, no pain, etc.) comes form the hadith literature; according to several hadiths, some Muslims came to Prophet Muhammad SAW when the verse was revealed with same concerns you stated, and this was what they were told. It's not just me making this up out of thin air to "ease the blow" or anything like that. if you go to a mosque and ask about this, they'll tell you the same thing. Go to several, in fact, and you'll be told this.
I gotchu, just making the distinction between what is and isn't considered holy.
As for what you were saying, I disagree that it's because of Islam. The reason being—why did terrorism never even exist before 9/11? Why did it never exist before there were political motivations for it to exist? Why would "terrorism" occur now that there is no infrastructure that would allow it to even develop in the first place? Islamic countries are completely destroyed right now and are less religious than they were 50+ years ago when they weren't destroyed; yet why are these "terrorist" attacks occurring now when they have less ability to conduct attacks and don't even have the means to teach Islam as well as they used to AND are less religious overall than they used to be? These things don't add up.
You are trying to look for reasons to prove a point rather than see the facts as they are.
Are you convinced now?
Which was banned by Prophet Muhammad SAW. But of course, people like you don't know that. And like FGM, it's practiced by non-Muslims just as much (or higher) than Muslims in those regions. But, people don't know that either...
It's not practiced by Muslims everywhere, and many Muslims don't even know it exists. That's how you know it's lcalized to a specific region rather than a doctrine of Islam. Also, Islam isn't oppressive towards women lol they just were made to feel that way because of either familial trauma or liberalism/feminism infecting their minds like here in the West (the latter of which, btw, was meant as a way to destabilize the West so that communism can take over; that's why first-wave and second-wave feminism along with the push towards liberalism during both those eras coincided with the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare).
But that aside, labiplasty is the same procedure as FGM. It's just that there are different levels to it, and labiaplasty typically only refers to the first level. But you can still ask a plastic/cosmetic/gynecologist surgeon to do it and they will; some in the West may be against it but I'm fairly certain most wouldn't mind, considering that transgenderism exists....
That's the thing—you aren't presenting the other side. I am. Everything you've stated thus far is apart of the standard narrative and can be easily found by mere surface-level digging. Everything that I've said on the other hand have been things you either refused to believe were true, were in complete denial about, or simply just didn't know (usually some combination of all 3). The stuff I've mentioned goes much deeper than the stuff you've read about. It's akin to thinking Orange Man = bad, and then once you start doing your own research, you realize that Orange Man = good. And now that you've realized that I've done my homework on this matter (on theology and science overall), you now claim that you don't want to continue to argue whereas before you were somewhat overconfident. This is an ego defense mechanism because you've invested a part of your pride into this belief of yours, for whatever reason. Like I said, if you want to come to the truth, you'll need to be willing to admit that you're wrong.
As for your other comments (running out of space), I don't believe that this trauma is caused by Islam because I know many men who suffered more than their sisters did due to the parents using Islam as an excuse. Shitty families are gonna be shitty regardless of religion bro, it's just the way it is. My dismissal of "other sources", as you put it, comes from the fact that everything they've said has been refuted before. It's not me dismissing their arguments, it's me noting that all their arguments are the same. I've considered everything you've said and more, but you haven't considered everything that I've said. This is where our differences lie.
Do check out Farid Responds, he addresses everything you mention and more.