Which religion treats women the worst?

[AsMenDclaredWomenTheirInferior]

Untenable
is the idea
you can support a male supremacist ideology
whilst saying you still believe in equality for women and girls.

@Anatidae & @Twofishfingers You are correct in saying that women from all backgrounds are ill treated and abused and Muslim women may not be immune from such abuse. However neither Islam or Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) is to be blamed for the atrocities and injustices. If Muslims carry out atrocities against women they are acting against the teachings of Islam.

Would that your cynicism dear windy extend to the neoliberal warmongering politicians who use the trope ‘oppressed Muslim women’ to further war ambitions on Muslim resource/geopolitically rich nations.

If Muslims carry out atrocities against women they are acting against the teachings of Islam.

I disagree. your own interpretation of the religion is clearly one in which you treat others with respect. But it’s unlikely to be a literal following of your religion. Look at all the Shi’a/Sunni violence in the world, one lot telling the other lot they aren’t proper Muslims and killing them for it. Sufi s seem to get a lot of abuse as well - clearly some Islamic teachings somewhere aren’t adding g up or everyone would be agreeing?

But just as in Christianity, if you are a literalist follower of the religion then you’d be accepting some pretty unpleasant beliefs. All the Isis stuff is justified by them textually. The awful things westboro Baptist church do is justified by them textually. If you follow the bible literally you’d be killing people for wearing mixed fibre clothing for example.

Modern, decent people (like yourself) tend not to be literalists. A sensible Christian knows that the rules set out in Leviticus are probably ok for keeping a war band hygienic and safe in the desert a couple of thousand years ago but not relevant today. Ditto your average sensible British Muslim takes on board the charity/ treating people decently bits of the religion and glosses over the nastier bits. Lot giving his daughters to the mob. Mohammed marrying a child. Infidels to be sword. All rather unpleasant, and not done in today’s world. And of course all things decent Muslims/Christians would be aghast at, but all justified by their texts.

I must say as well that criticism of an ideology isnt criticism of a person holding it. I can say that I disagree with aspects x and y of both Christianity and Islam while still respecting people’s right to hold a belief. I respect yours and your right to hold it, while being very critical of the ideology itself.

Not read thread.

All of them.

Especially the more fundamentalist branches of all of them.

Even when you get some nice groovy cult it always seems to end up being all about men having access to / controlling women and girls.

So maybe all of the ones that have any men in is a better answer.

Kinkrules do you know all my opinions love?

Op is talking crap, she is chopping and changing her story about her non existent friend and just wants to slag of Islam. More and more people are looking for a religious framework and are choosing more orthodox religions, whether it be Islam Christianity or Judaism. Bashing these religions makes zero difference to those who want to follow them. Women are obviously not mistreated given how many women choose to follow then. Granted, some men oppress women, that is the case in all societies all over the world, religion is simply used to justify the crap some men do. Btw Saudi Arabia is incredibly sexist, half of their rules in relation to women have zero basis in Islam, same as the Christians in America who oppress women.

I think you're swathing right across a whole host of issues there Anatidae of which you appear to have limited knowledge, and draw inferences from them to judge Islam from.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'literal' following of your religion...this is problematic due to the Quran being written in classical Arabic and this has not translated well - we only really work from interpretations, from which conflicting views may be drawn from it's use of diction for instance.

It's also quite odd where we find posters with no avowed spiritual life or practice informing those that do how they are mistaken or 'doing it' wrongly i.e. at all. Not that those posters shouldn't have an opinion at all - just expect to be ignored sometimes or certainly hold totally differing views.

I'm off to look up that prof!

The state of women is dire in many Muslim countries and they experience the same kind of discrimination that we do here - but this is not because of Islam but the abuse of power by men, contravening the teachings of Islam.

Apostasy is not a crime punishable by death in Islam- the Quran has rules for those who leave the faith, rejoin, leave again, rejoin ... which clearly would be irrelevant if apostates had been killed. The Quran also states 'there is no compulsion in religion' which really is unequivocal in its meaning. It follows therefore, that blasphemy is not a crime and this is often a charge levelled to settle personal scores or incite violence to a political end. Take Pakistan where Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, Shia Muslims... are with tragic regularity accused of blasphemy and attacked or killed. The idea that God can be offended is a laughable notion pushed by religious clerics to further their own ends. People's religious sentiments can be offended but when they are we are instructed in the Quran to respond by 'saying 'peace'' (25:64)

A literal following being just that. For Christianity it’d be A Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical style approach. Rather than a more allegorical approach. Which is all bonkers anyway given that the contents of the bible were decided on by committee at the council of Nicea. The Koran is different in that the bulk of it has a more singular history (plus the Hadith expansion packs I suppose..)

Telling people ‘they’re doing it wrong’ ... well that’s ironic. Given as it’s the reason Isis use for slaughtering those who feel they don’t follow the ‘correct’ version. I don’t really care what kind of religious belief people follow as long as it doesn’t impose on the legal or societal rights of others. Secularity would be my aim.

I would wonder if it’s true that more and more people are seeking out more fundamental approaches. Data I’ve seen says that as a society becomes more educated and liberal the number of people holding such beliefs drop. There will always be those who struggle with internal definitions of morality (from Satre onwards) and the complexity of life - those people may well seek out a literalist religion where they are told what to think and do.

Apostasy is not a crime punishable by death in Islam

It’s a crime punishable by death in some states where religion and politics are too close. That’s the problem. It doesn’t matter what the Koran actually says about it if you’re in death row in a Pakistani jail or being macheted to death in public in bagladesh for it...

The laws in those countries which say they are based in islam or Christianity or frankly most religions are what affects people’s daily lives, or ends them. Same situation in America - a woman unable to access planned parenthood for a mammogram because religious protesters have closed all her nearby clinics - she doesn’t care that it’s not sanctioned specifically in the bible, only that in her lived experience, she is being negatively affected by Christianity.

Strictly Pann
Hindu men are unable to enter their heaven unless they have a son.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=VGULAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=hindu+killing+daughters&source=bl&ots=UfAHiGv5WZ&sig=JcpgUEBwT0rjTlt_wd0nQG9HUGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdr5rFz9PXAhXML8AKHZYhBdcQ6AEIWzAJ#v=onepage&q=hindu%20killing%20daughters&f=false

"If women become tired or even die, that does not matter.
Let them die in childbirth, that is why they are here."
Martin Luther.

Men use women's resources to get more of themselves into this world.
Do you think men are on a power trip?

In Islam women aren't allowed to work outside the home unless their husbands or fathers agree they can!

So women must go begging to men for their permission.
So what part of that is anything to do with equality?

Men like to see women and girls in that position, don't they?
at men's mercy.
It's a turn on for men, not a turn off.

That speaks volumes doesn't it? ..
All the freedoms and rights the female has are determined on just a males whim .. by whatever he will allow her. .. her freedoms are dictated by him and he believes he has that right to dictate to her.

Females do not need male guidance, they need men to get their boots off their backs and stop oppressing them.

Men are far to vain and self important for that though!
Are we not men of stature, how else can we call ourselves men if we cannot get a victory over unarmed women and girls and corner and cage them in?
Men said to themselves

MumChou
"People's religious sentiments can be offended but when they are we are instructed in the Quran to respond by 'saying 'peace'' (25:64)"

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English is called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers
Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that
"Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad and "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content.
Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes

So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57]

This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.

So Muslims who advise non-Muslims to read the peaceful verses in their Quran so they will achieve an understanding of how Islam is a religion of peace are fully aware those verses they recommend to Non-Muslims to read are actually defunct and mean nothing to Muslims themselves because those verses are abrogated and Muslims are advised by imams to totally ignore them because they are now defunct and are not the teachings of the Quran and not the beliefs of Muslims but Muslims are quite happy to promote the idea those verses are relevant when quite clearly they are absolutely not.!

So if you ever decide to quote one of your peaceful verses to me be aware I am aware you are quoting utter tosh and trying to not only mislead me but every non-Muslim on this plant.

@AsMenDclaredWomenTheirInferior This thread is an opportunity for individuals of all backgrounds to engage in a civil discussion.

Firstly you are not an authority on Islam if Muslim women who know their scriptures are giving clarity on matters relating to Islam this should not welcomed, clearly you seem to be disappointed. @MumChou extended a message of peace (25:64) it is clear that you do not wish to offer peace. Furthermore you distorting and misinterpreting the verses of the Quran.

You are citing the typical allegations against Islam to state that the Holy Quran verses have been abrogated is an utterly baseless claim. The Holy Quran declares itself to be perfect at the outset [2:3] and says again and again that no one would ever be able to compile even a single Chapter like any of its Chapters [2:24 -25]
Furthermore, and so as to leave no doubt on what the Holy Quran itself claims, it says itself that if it was not the Word of God surely there would be many contradictions in it.
[4:83] Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.
The claim made that the Holy Quran has itself declared that some of its verses have been abrogated by others...later verses abrogating earlier ones etc. is totally unsustainable.
The Holy Qur’an clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and the good example of the Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. That sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self-defence against the enemies and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith.

@AsMenDclaredWomenTheirInferior This thread is an opportunity for individuals of all backgrounds to engage in a civil discussion.

Firstly you are not an authority on Islam if Muslim women who know their scriptures are giving clarity on matters relating to Islam this should be welcomed, clearly you seem to be disappointed. @MumChou extended a message of peace (25:64) it is clear that you do not wish to offer peace. Furthermore you distorting and misinterpreting the verses of the Quran.

You are citing the typical allegations against Islam to state that the Holy Quran verses have been abrogated is an utterly baseless claim. The Holy Quran declares itself to be perfect at the outset [2:3] and says again and again that no one would ever be able to compile even a single Chapter like any of its Chapters [2:24 -25]
Furthermore, and so as to leave no doubt on what the Holy Quran itself claims, it says itself that if it was not the Word of God surely there would be many contradictions in it.
[4:83] Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.
The claim made that the Holy Quran has itself declared that some of its verses have been abrogated by others...later verses abrogating earlier ones etc. is totally unsustainable.
The Holy Qur’an clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and the good example of the Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. That sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self-defence against the enemies and for the purpose of establishing peace and security. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith.

Please do not distort the teachings of Islam especially the scriptures of other peoples Faiths.

I make a judgement about people's religion from the actions of the people I meet.
Clearly, from the many Muslim people I know or have known personally over the years, Islam is a religion of peace. They follow their religion in a peaceful way and don't force it on other people, but have been open to questions.
One of the reasons I'm not religious (used to be) is because of the way some people use religion as an excuse to do terrible things.
I am not a scholar of the Qu'ran so feel unable to comment. However, I am aware of hate filled websites claiming to know all the answers. Someone I know put a link to one on Facebook once. Needless to say, I am definitely not friends with that person anymore.

Asmen is an idiot. It's official.

It does not matter which man written book we use as an example, they are all fairy stories used to control people. Some are worse than others - some pointless in 2017 - the Church of England for example. Some are still blighting women’s lives - laws against contraception and abortion for example.

All best ignored and laughed at

Abrogation had a significant impact on the Quran, and is one of the primary reasons the traditional order of the Quran (with chapters arranged from the longest to the shortest chapter) so effectively prevents anyone who doesn't know about abrogation from understanding what it really says.

Only 43 chapters are not affected by abrogation.
This means most of the chapters of the Quran cannot be taken at face value.

Chapter 9:

9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

9:6 Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.)

9:7-9 Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

9:11 Treat converts to Islam well, but kill those who refuse to convert (see 9:5).

9:12-14 Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.

9:23 Don't make friends with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers.

9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

9:33 The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions.

9:41 Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you.

9:42 Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls.

9:73 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.

9:81-83 Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell.

9:85 Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers.

9:111 Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed. Allah will reward them for it.

9:123 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you.

This is Allah's "last word" on tolerance and peace toward non-Muslims.
It is at this point the tolerant verses are abrogated, the verses above makes null an void every last positive verse in the Quran for non-Muslims.

Muslims think itis OK to lie to the Kafir as long as it advances Islam.
This is the nature of Taqiyya

AsMenDclaredWomenTheirInferior

I do not believe that all (you mention 124) verses enjoining tolerance, compassion and peace have been superseded by a single verse because I do not believe that the Quran has been abrogated.
The Quran contains two types of verses: context -independent verses and context-dependent verses; unambiguous principles which can be applied in every situation and context-dependent verses that are specific to particular situations. The Quran warns against picking verses to suit one’s own needs but to take all verses together before making conclusions.
The single verse you refer to from chapter 5 is a context-dependent verse which relates to a specific event in Islamic history-namely the time when the Pagans made and broke a treaty with Muslims. The verses immediately preceding and following make the context very clear- the commandment was directed at only those who had restarted hostilities and broke the treaties made with the Muslims after a 4 month period when no fighting was to take place. The verse following the verse of the sword states, ‘and if any of the idolators seeks protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah, then convey him to HIS place of security.
One of the literal meanings of the Arabic word Islam is PEACE and this is what we hope to achieve in following Islam- personal and societal peace.

Of course it has been abrogated, Mohammed told you himself.

Muhammad was the aggressor (9:2, 3, 5), this passage is an edict for war.
Muhammad gave instructions to his followers to defend if attacked, but to also go out and attack all Pagans once the sacred months were completed.
Muhammad was a truce breaker. The Pagans did not break all the truces.
Muhammad claimed that God gave him a "revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word, i.e. the truces, stated in
9:1: "A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements", and described as
"A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists". The materials state that it was Muhammad who broke all truces except those few he had with specific tribes or individuals for a limited time. When the sacred months were ended, those truces would also end.
Muhammad would now be at war with all polytheistic tribes including those who had been peaceful. Had the Pagans broken the truces there would be no need for Muhammad to get a revelation to break them for they would already have been broken.

Further, the Pagans were weak and demoralised and they were not about to start a war with the mighty Muhammad. Also note that Muhammad did not make an effort to renew the truce with the peaceful tribes, rather he initiated a state of war.

Muhammad used compulsion to force people to convert to Islam: 9:5, "…If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.".
The verse describes conversion to Islam. The Pagans were going to be murdered if they did not convert. People tend to define religious conversion at the point of the sword as "compulsion."
Muhammad commanded murder and terrorism for Islam,
9:5, 6, "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them", described as "one of those whom I have ordered you to kill,"….
Once the sacred months ended it was open season on the Pagans. They were going to be attacked, hounded, ambushed, captured, terrorised, and murdered by the Muslims.

Muslim terrorists today do what this verse commands.

RavingRoo correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that it was certain branches of Buddhism that asserts that a woman who is about to reach enlightenment must first 'become male'. To be reincarnated as a woman is punishment for a man, and only men can reach enlightenment.

To my (very limited) knowledge the wearing of a turban and growing of bodily hair is not a gender specific teaching in Sikhism, yet culture and tradition not related to the ten Guru's teachings has meant that it is typically men who take up the practice.

@AsMenDclaredWomenTheirInferior

The Jews themselves admit that after the Israelites were carried as captives to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib, 653-654). If we study the compilation and history of New Testament in detail, it becomes abundantly clear that there are numerous historical distortions and contradictions, within the Bible.

As a result, it becomes self evident that God would have sent another revelation. For a basic introduction on the compilation of Bible see the book by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, the Bible, the Quran and Science. The full text of the book is available online.

The meanings put on the verse by some translators that certain verses of the Quran stand abrogated is not only opposed to the words of the Quran and the context of the verse, but is also against reason; nor can any authentic saying of the Holy Prophet be quoted in its favour. On the contrary, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) is reported to have said that the whole of the Quran must be strictly followed and he himself acted upon all its teachings throughout his life. Besides this, the Quran itself testifies to its own purity and integrity in several places.

Again, there is absolutely no self-contradiction in the Quran, and therefore no need of resorting to the theory of abrogation. So- called contradictions only betray lack of deep study on the part of those who proclaimed them. When one fails to understand two verses in their true relations, one is inclined to see a contradiction between them and then takes recourse to the convenient theory that one of the two verses must have been abrogated by the other. As soon as they appear to be reconcilable, the abrogation theory becomes uncalled for.