What Is ISLAM?

[Abdülmecid I]

Osama bin Laden's crystal clear reasonings that are purely geopolitical and not religious. At all. even the tiniest little bit.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
....
The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms and finance. More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children.

Indeed, it's really interesting to observee how bin Laden frames the question into an exclusively geopolitical context, without ever citing a religious text to justify his hostility to the US, despite the fact that he spends a lot of ink to explain why jihadists are more motivated than regular soldiers, because of their religious fervour. Of course, it should also be noted that a public letter written in 1996 cannot possibly refer to the 11/9 attack, due to chronological contradictions, but his reasoning behind the declaration of war was also largely reflected upon the manifestos he later released to take credit for the unexpectedly successful hits against the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

[sumskilz]

Except it doesn't mean "to beat" in that form. It's like the difference between "strike" and "strike out" where you have the same word but in a totally different meaning given the context and form. That word, in fact, is used countless times throughout Quran, but with different meanings based on context and form.

I'm aware of the modernist apologetic. For modern liberal Muslims who believe the Quran is a legitimate revelation, it makes sense to believe it means something else, but that isn't supportable from a historical linguistic perspective. The literal meaning of the root (ḍ-r-b) is "to beat", and certainly that is the plain reading. The non-literal meanings derive from the same notion of striking or stomping. The most plausible modernist claim is that it means "to leave", derived from the sense of putting one's foot to the ground, yet this is still unlikely due to the missing element listed here under Etymology 1 number 12. Plus, it requires accepting that the author had a complete lack of foresight to an absurd degree.

[PointOfViewGun]

I provided links to support everything I said, while you a merely have made unsipported assertions. If you dispute what I wrotd, you too can provide facts to back up what you said, instead of just complaining what I said.because you found the truths I said uncomforable.

I didn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan because unlike the Muslim attacks they were not religioisly motivate. The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistannwere not intended to kill Muslims, they were change the regimes running those countries. Any civilians killed were a.regrettable and unintended byproduct. In contrast the killing of men, women and children by Muslims was intentional, innocent children and women and men were intended target. The Muslim killigs wers just to satisfy an insatiable lust for.killing non Muslims. They served no military obkjective, and bombing churches of a religious minority was not going to change the Sri Lankan government. It was just to kill non Muslims, Christians in particular, a goal you seem to support.

Also, Muslim.terrorist killed far more Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq than the US did in those countries. Iran, in particular through its surrogates killed.far more civilians in Iraq than the US ever did. If you really cared about Muslims or anybody you would stop supporting these Muslim groups.

And my response was definitely warranted. His post demostrated exaxtly what is wrong with Islam, and why terrorism and groups like ISIS and tragedies like Syria are some.prevalent in the Islamic world. The arrogant, conceited, bigotted and false belief in the superiority of Islam is exactly what is wrong with the Islamic world, but the poster and Muslim like him don't see it. You are not going to make changes if you think you are better than everyone else. The poster thinks that Muslims are the victims where thr truth is the opposite, everyone else is the victim of the Muslims.

He believes that women are better off in the Islamic world than elsewhere when again the truth is opposite. Saudi women only just got the right to drivs a car, 20 of the 28 countries with the lowest literacy rate are Muslim countries, the 5 worst countries for women are Muslim, yet the poster thinks women are better off in Islam.. Unfortunately, with thst kind of attitude things won't improve and a lot of Muslims think that way, even in the West, and the majority worldwide. That is scary.

Have ever read the Koran? Just try to read it without being told what a passage meant and without cherry picking a verse here or there? Just start reading what.is basically the first chalter of the Koran, Sura 2, and nust a few verses into it stsrtig with verse 6 it starts criticizijg an condemning non-Muslims, threatening thrm with dire fates, and calls.liars and fools and continues this way for the nexf couple pages until verse 20..


PS - There.are.a few places like Myamar, which Burma, where innocent Muslims are being attacked. And Muslims have been victims of some very viscious riots in India, such as the Gujareet Riots in 2002. But these are local events, involving just locals, while Muslim terrorist attacks involve Muslims from around the world.

Most terror activities by Muslims stem from political motivations. Osama's main beef was USA's involvement in Saudi Arabia. His major goal was to kick USA out of his country. Terror groups governed by Muslims often stem from political conflicts.

Oh wow, you're going as far out to claim that I support killing of non-Muslims. What an idiotic statement to make. I don't need to carry on reading a single more sentence of your post. Clearly, the merits of your position and arguments are not well enough for you not to lie about the personality of others based absolutely no information. No need to point out the falsehoods you're propagating. Carry on with this idiocy. Please.

If you believe there is an ambiguity about that, the best thing you can do is to look how this particular passage is interpreted by muslims, especially leading islamic scholars...like those is Saudi Arabia who like to specify the tools allowed in wife beating.

Oh, no. That's not how it works. By the same logic, you'd do wonders with the word "gay" I guess... Followers dictate practice, but they can not dictate nature... Saudi Arabia? Saudi's Wahhabism would be the last place to look for any intelligent thought.

I'm aware of the modernist apologetic. For modern liberal Muslims who believe the Quran is a legitimate revelation, it makes sense to believe it means something else, but that isn't supportable from a historical linguistic perspective. The literal meaning of the root (ḍ-r-b) is "to beat", and certainly that is the plain reading. The non-literal meanings derive from the same notion of striking or stomping. The most plausible modernist claim is that it means "to leave", derived from the sense of putting one's foot to the ground, yet this is still unlikely due to the missing element listed here under Etymology 1 number 12. Plus, it requires accepting that the author had a complete lack of foresight to an absurd degree.

I'm sure Allah had the foresight that people wanted to insert their own culture into his religious texts through any means necessary, whether its by Arabs that wanted to maintain their hold on women, or whether its by people trying to disparage Islam. It gave people a brain to use. How they use it is up to them.

If you're so fond of historical takes on it though, then you're out of luck as well, as that part of the verse was often interpreted as a symbolic gesture rather than domestic violence.

[Sar1n]

Most terror activities by Muslims stem from political motivations. Osama's main beef was USA's involvement in Saudi Arabia. His major goal was to kick USA out of his country. Terror groups governed by Muslims often stem from political conflicts.
Oh, no. That's not how it works. By the same logic, you'd do wonders with the word "gay" I guess... Followers dictate practice, but they can not dictate nature... Saudi Arabia? Saudi's Wahhabism would be the last place to look for any intelligent thought.

That's exactly how it works. For whom is the word of supposed god more important than its followers? The nature of a religion, or any ideology for that matter, is what its followers make it. Which is why the Saudi Arabia, UAE or Iran, in practical terms all muslim theocracies, are the most important examples for this discussion.

Speaking of Bin Laden...he might not cite any religious texts directly, but his manifesto is charged with religion, intentionally invoking the feeling that muslims and Islam are under attack. You might speculate if it was just a tool for him or his genuine belief, but it does not change the fact that it suckered a bunch of fanatics into suicide attack in Allah's name.

[Infidel144]

The "lightly" is not in the original Arabic text. You probably are using the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation, and he does that a lot, adding words that were not in the original text that slightly alters the meaning of the verse, usually to put Islam in a more positive light. If you look at your translation, you see that "ligbtly" will be in parenthesis.

That is what I said ( me: "note that the parentheticals indicate an addition, not in the original").
I was not using any translation, Fardin graciously supplied the quote, which does seem to be from the Yusuf Ali.

[Infidel144]

Start another thread in these topics and we'll discuss about these matters in there. These issues require a broad discussion that leads to a departure from the main discussion.

You brought them up here, if you do not wish to discuss them here, where you brought them up, well, c'est la vie...

people who embrace Islam.

Thank you.

I do not know if this is really a question or what?
But we simply can say people's inclination towards political groups that oppose the ruling party is always dangerous for the government.

What will these people (those who turn to Islam and Islamist politicians) do that is dangerous to or for the government?

I didn't get the point of the question again!

According to you, unlike other religions, Islam does not accept oppression ("Unlike religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism, which accept oppression, Islam does not accept oppression and do not allow the abuse of superpowers.").
I want to know what or whom Islam does not accept the oppression of. Of anyone or anything? Of a particular group?

[PointOfViewGun]

That's exactly how it works. For whom is the word of supposed god more important than its followers? The nature of a religion, or any ideology for that matter, is what its followers make it. Which is why the Saudi Arabia, UAE or Iran, in practical terms all muslim theocracies, are the most important examples for this discussion.

Just because people thought Earth was flat didn't make it to be. It's not how it works. Ideologies, especially ones that come with a book and a claim to be unchangeable, do not get defined by whatever their followers cook up. By your logic, if I can somehow get enough Muslims to believe that Trump is the Muslim god, then in Islam Trump is Allah. No. Logic doesn't work that way.

[Infidel144]

Speaking of Bin Laden...he might not cite any religious texts directly, but his manifesto is charged with religion, intentionally invoking the feeling that muslims and Islam are under attack.

Yes, and as can be seen from the writings I provided in post 30, Bin Laden does directly cite religious texts.
And notice his first, the 1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"
The purely "geopolitical" desire to have the US out of Saudi Ara... er the Land of the Two Holy Places. Yeppers, just geopolitical. Purely secular...

Or the third from 2002 his 'letter to America', that Abdulmecid framed above (post 41), whether dishonestly or ignorantly, as "Declaration of War against the Americans".
It starts off quoting the Quran:
"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]
"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

And when responding to the second question that bin Laden says was being asked:
"What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"
The answer is: "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."

You might speculate if it was just a tool for him or his genuine belief, but it does not change the fact that it suckered a bunch of fanatics into suicide attack in Allah's name.

There could be speculation, but that is not what is being done. Rather, there is a pretense that bin Laden, a devout muslim, would actually recognize a difference between 'geopolitical' and 'religious'.

You can see an example of what I mean a few posts up, where Fardin, who is being honest, notes that the inclination of a people (muslims) towards a political group (Islam) can be dangerous for a government. There is no separation.

[Sar1n]

Just because people thought Earth was flat didn't make it to be. It's not how it works. Ideologies, especially ones that come with a book and a claim to be unchangeable, do not get defined by whatever their followers cook up. By your logic, if I can somehow get enough Muslims to believe that Trump is the Muslim god, then in Islam Trump is Allah. No. Logic doesn't work that way.

Earth is a tangible object within reality. Everyone's mental image of Earth can be compared to the real object, and adjusted accordingly.

Ideologies and religions do not work that way. They are purely mental constructs. Oh you might try to argue about holy books and such, but those are, in the end, also mental constructs, interpreted differently by every reader. That is apparent from the number of various christianic and islamic sects based on same holy texts.

If you'd succeed in convincing muslims that Trump is Allah, you'd get interesting dynamics. But since any god is, by definition, unprovable and there definitely isn't any actual Allah available to which we could compare Trump, your attempt at analogy falls flat.

[PointOfViewGun]

Earth is a tangible object within reality. Everyone's mental image of Earth can be compared to the real object, and adjusted accordingly.

Ideologies and religions do not work that way. They are purely mental constructs. Oh you might try to argue about holy books and such, but those are, in the end, also mental constructs, interpreted differently by every reader. That is apparent from the number of various christianic and islamic sects based on same holy texts.

If you'd succeed in convincing muslims that Trump is Allah, you'd get interesting dynamics. But since any god is, by definition, unprovable and there definitely isn't any actual Allah available to which we could compare Trump, your attempt at analogy falls flat.

Ideologies or religions are not much different. They're dependent on tangible texts. Their analysis is not exactly a matter of opinion. Sure, there are many people like you who want to treat just like that so that they can pull it to whatever they want but that doesn't change the fact of their nature. Your inability to come up with any tangible counter arguments to what I'm saying is a testament to that. From those texts we can easily determine what is and what isn't with respect to Islam, including Allah not being Trump. However, based on your position, whether Trump is Allah or not, whether Muslims can eat pork or not, or basically every single basic point that can be found on Quran can be changed if enough Muslims believe in them.

[Sar1n]

Ideologies or religions are not much different. They're dependent on tangible texts. Their analysis is not exactly a matter of opinion. Sure, there are many people like you who want to treat just like that so that they can pull it to whatever they want but that doesn't change the fact of their nature. Your inability to come up with any tangible counter arguments to what I'm saying is a testament to that. From those texts we can easily determine what is and what isn't with respect to Islam, including Allah not being Trump. However, based on your position, whether Trump is Allah or not, whether Muslims can eat pork or not, or basically every single basic point that can be found on Quran can be changed if enough Muslims believe in them.

Tell me, have you read, say, Lord of the Rings trilogy? Seen more than one adaptation? If not, or you've seen an adaptation before reading the books, we can use another example, but this one should serve. When you read the book, you construct a mental image corresponding in your mind to the book's contents. That's your interpretation. But if you look at, say, Minas Tirith, from how you imagined it first time you read it, and how you can see it in various adaptations and artworks (if they're from pre-Jackson trilogy time, because that kinda set the tone), you can see that from same text, various people construct vastly different mental images.

That is an inherent feature, and sometimes a failing, of natural languages and how they transmit. Long linguistic debate aside, the book is only an imperfect medium for transmitting an idea from one person to another. In case of religions, it's from a writer who lived in vastly different time and culture, used and understood the language, even if it is earlier development of same one as used today, differently. There's always a huge grey area, potential for different interpretations. And that's before we include all those mental hoops people do, consciously or not, to make the text fit their idea of the world, and other external factors. The discussion earlier in this thread on one specific sura proves this point.

So what you really have, no matter how much you analyze the text, is your interpretation, and those of other people. Now how do you determine objectively who's right, of anyone? Attempts to ask Allah or Muhammad directly haven't met any measurable success so far.

[PointOfViewGun]

Tell me, have you read, say, Lord of the Rings trilogy? Seen more than one adaptation? If not, or you've seen an adaptation before reading the books, we can use another example, but this one should serve. When you read the book, you construct a mental image corresponding in your mind to the book's contents. That's your interpretation. But if you look at, say, Minas Tirith, from how you imagined it first time you read it, and how you can see it in various adaptations and artworks (if they're from pre-Jackson trilogy time, because that kinda set the tone), you can see that from same text, various people construct vastly different mental images.

That is an inherent feature, and sometimes a failing, of natural languages and how they transmit. Long linguistic debate aside, the book is only an imperfect medium for transmitting an idea from one person to another. In case of religions, it's from a writer who lived in vastly different time and culture, used and understood the language, even if it is earlier development of same one as used today, differently. There's always a huge grey area, potential for different interpretations. And that's before we include all those mental hoops people do, consciously or not, to make the text fit their idea of the world, and other external factors. The discussion earlier in this thread on one specific sura proves this point.

So what you really have, no matter how much you analyze the text, is your interpretation, and those of other people. Now how do you determine objectively who's right, of anyone? Attempts to ask Allah or Muhammad directly haven't met any measurable success so far.

Of course, I have read Lord of the Rings. Since its Sunday I will not report that as an insult... That is a very good example. The books has no reference to Gandalf's staff being broken by the Witch King. The movies has a scene showing just that. Does it mean in the LoTR mythology Gandalf's staff was broken by the Witch King? Absolutely not. There is no automatic ambiguity on how to translate a particular phrase. We're not discussing abstract art. We're discussing 7th century Arabic instructions on how to deal with conflict between spouses.

[Sar1n]

Of course, I have read Lord of the Rings. Since its Sunday I will not report that as an insult... That is a very good example. The books has no reference to Gandalf's staff being broken by the Witch King. The movies has a scene showing just that. Does it mean in the LoTR mythology Gandalf's staff was broken by the Witch King? Absolutely not. There is no automatic ambiguity on how to translate a particular phrase. We're not discussing abstract art. We're discussing 7th century Arabic instructions on how to deal with conflict between spouses.

It doesn't specifically say it held, either. And there's no reference to Gandalf's staff since that passage (yes, I checked...e-book and little ctrl+f). So there's room for that, and if you consider Jackson's trilogy as something akin to hadith...there is plenty of room to interpretation.

What might appear as cracks to you might become chasms in someone else's interpretation, or be glossed over entirely. That's the nature of language. And it applies to religions just as well as to fantasy stories (some would say there's no difference between those two). That much is obvious if you look at how many interpretations of same religious texts is there, and they keep popping up...especially in US, where you can't throw a stone without hitting a TV preacher or some minor church.

The sura in question is another example. It's been over 1300 years, and people are still discussing it. If there was an objective, unambiguous analysis, you'd think people would find it already....

So back to my question. How do you determine objectively which interpretation is right, or at least more right?

[PointOfViewGun]

It doesn't specifically say it held, either. And there's no reference to Gandalf's staff since that passage (yes, I checked...e-book and little ctrl+f). So there's room for that, and if you consider Jackson's trilogy as something akin to hadith...there is plenty of room to interpretation.

What might appear as cracks to you might become chasms in someone else's interpretation, or be glossed over entirely. That's the nature of language. And it applies to religions just as well as to fantasy stories (some would say there's no difference between those two). That much is obvious if you look at how many interpretations of same religious texts is there, and they keep popping up...especially in US, where you can't throw a stone without hitting a TV preacher or some minor church.

The sura in question is another example. It's been over 1300 years, and people are still discussing it. If there was an objective, unambiguous analysis, you'd think people would find it already....

So back to my question. How do you determine objectively which interpretation is right, or at least more right?

Sigh... You are stretching common sense a little too much. With such an obvious there is no point in discussing any issue as everything is subjective. You determine how a translation is right the way how you determine whatever is right. Exhaustive analysis using science related to the issue. In this case, that's linguistics. When I pointed out that "beating" does not exist in that verse I did not argue for a particular interpretation. We need to realize that distinction.

[Sar1n]

Sigh... You are stretching common sense a little too much. With such an obvious there is no point in discussing any issue as everything is subjective. You determine how a translation is right the way how you determine whatever is right. Exhaustive analysis using science related to the issue. In this case, that's linguistics. When I pointed out that "beating" does not exist in that verse I did not argue for a particular interpretation. We need to realize that distinction.

You did argue for a particular interpretation. What you wrote is that the word, in form used in text, does not mean "beat". You never provided the alternative, or reasoning for it, as there are accepted translations that use "beat", "beat (lightly)" or "scourge". It's a 1300 years old text. I've read texts in my mother tongue that are half that old where words and grammatical elements had shifted meaning or form compared to modern language, that's why there are so many different interpretations, as translators try to infer precise meaning in modern language from varied sources.

There's a lot of subjectivity in such interpretation. Sciences, especially "hard" ones, get their objectivity from one thing. Feedback. It's applying the science and seeing that it works that gives it real objective meaning. Repeated experiments, peer review, engineering...those are all part of this feedback. Now how do you want to get this feedback when analyzing a 1300 year old text?

[PointOfViewGun]

You did argue for a particular interpretation. What you wrote is that the word, in form used in text, does not mean "beat". You never provided the alternative, or reasoning for it, as there are accepted translations that use "beat", "beat (lightly)" or "scourge". It's a 1300 years old text. I've read texts in my mother tongue that are half that old where words and grammatical elements had shifted meaning or form compared to modern language, that's why there are so many different interpretations, as translators try to infer precise meaning in modern language from varied sources.

There's a lot of subjectivity in such interpretation. Sciences, especially "hard" ones, get their objectivity from one thing. Feedback. It's applying the science and seeing that it works that gives it real objective meaning. Repeated experiments, peer review, engineering...those are all part of this feedback. Now how do you want to get this feedback when analyzing a 1300 year old text?

Feedback within the context of linguistics is how that particular phrase is used elsewhere. That's your feedback. I already pointed at linguistics, did I not?

[Sar1n]

Feedback within the context of linguistics is how that particular phrase is used elsewhere. That's your feedback. I already pointed at linguistics, did I not?

Nope, that is data point. You make the analysis from those, not applying the analysis on them and seeing if it sticks, because that would be circular reasoning.

Feedback for the particular phrase would be something like going back 1300 years, listening for the phrase and using it there to see if you get proper response, or asking Muhammad or Allah directly.

Go ahead, try doing that, and show us proof how it worked.

[Axalon]

"What Is ISLAM?"

Well, if I were to answer to that question it would be something like....

A). Koran + hadiths = Islam

Or...

B). A bunch of lies...

Or...

C). All of the above... As in, the Koran (a bunch of lies) + hadiths (yet even more lies) = Islam (a pack of lies).


Personally, I would suggest that alternative C is the most accurate here. While alternative B is the easiest to remember and A is the most diplomatic answer of the bunch. Then again, one probably needs to be a "kafir" (unbeliever and/or infidel) to accept any of this - much in the same way one probably needs to be a believer in Islam first, in order to accept many (if not most) claims of the OP.

- A

[Axalon]

I want to know what or whom Islam does not accept the oppression of. Of anyone or anything? Of a particular group?

Probably all and everything that is not part of Islam somehow. That would be my guess. After all, the only thing Islam can truly tolerate is Islam. The Koran is rather clear on that... Btw, all this raises a valid question... If Islam can't or won't accept and respect anyone as willing "kafirs" (unbelievers) - why are that very same people (the kafirs. Your average secular Europeans, for instance...) still expected to accept and respect Islam all the same? Inconsistency and hypocrisy much? It sure does not add up much, now does it...?...

- A

[Common Soldier]

Most terror activities by Muslims stem from political motivations. Osama's main beef was USA's involvement in Saudi Arabia. His major goal was to kick USA out of his country. Terror groups governed by Muslims often stem from political conflicts.

That is.simply not true, unless by political motivatuon you mean establishing Islam'd dominance by force and killing.

The Easter Church bombings in Sri Lanka, as I already showed were not politically moivated. And what is the pomiticsl motivation of kidnapping of Christian school girls in Nigeria? The actions of ISIS and the aftions of Muslims around the world was not politically motivated, it was religiosuly motivated. When around a million Armenians were massacred in the Armenian Genocide, that was politically motivated since the equally non-Turkish but Muslim Turks dis not suffer the same fate as.the Armenians.

While some Muslim violence is politically motivated, much of it is not. The Orlando Night Club shooting was not politically motivated. And even when there is a political element to the attacks, the does not mean there isn't also.a religious element as well. Bin Laden's choice of targets was religiously motivated by his Islamic faith.as political. Had it not been for his Islamic faith, it would have concentrated on just military targets such as the Pentagon instead of also targeting innocent people. Thr World Trade Centers included peope from othet countries who had influence.on US policy and could have included people acivrly opposed to US policy

Oh wow, you're going as far out to claim that I support killing of non-Muslims. What an idiotic statement to make. I don't need to carry on reading a single more sentence of your post. Clearly, the merits of your position and arguments are not well enough for you not to lie about the personality of others based absolutely no information. No need to point out the falsehoods you're propagating. Carry on with this idiocy. Please.

Again, what did I say that was false? Defending Muslim terrorist acts by making excuses for them is in a sense supporting the killing of non-Muslims. Claiming Muslims terrorist attacks are just politically motivated when attacks like the Sri Lanka Easter Church bombing and the Orlando Night Club shooting are clearly not is lying, is again.suplorting such killings. When have you condemned the killing of non-Muslims by Muslism? And youndo exactly the same, lying about thr personality of others when you don't know them. I hage provided specific examples to back up what I have said, you just make.unsupported accusations.

Although I appologize for my words. I would not have spoken so if you hadn't accused with providing any support for your accusations. My comments about you supporting the killing of non Muslims is rather harsh, but by continuing.defending and making excuses for them is supporting their actions of killing non Muslims. And I have provided a number of specific facts to back up what I have said, you haven't provided any at all tonsupport your accusations against me.

I'm sure Allah had the foresight that people wanted to insert their own culture into his religious texts through any means necessary, whether its by Arabs that wanted to maintain their hold on women, or whether its by people trying to disparage Islam. It gave people a brain to use. How they use it is up to them.

It is the very words of Allah that supported the inferior treatment of women. In multiple verses of the Koran the rape of women is sanctioned - surah 23: 1- 6, 70:22-30, 33:50. Hadiths from Islam's most trusted sources such as Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 makes it clear that it is rape talking about. It Islam itself that shaped Muslim societies that makes Muslims countries thr worst for women, not the other way around.

When a Buddhist or Christian has a crisis of faith, and become active in their faith, they often renounce violence and sometimes join a monastary. When a formerly indifferent Muslim becomes more religious, they often become a Jihadist and goe around killing innocent men women and children in the name of Islam. You see can see this in the life of ths Boston Marathon bomber. When the brother was not a particularly active Muslim, he killed and harmed no one. He only killed innocrnt children, women and men only after he become more religious and active in Islam. Islam inspire him to kill.

Those countries where the people are the active in Islam are the most intolerant and have thd.worst civil rights recorda, not those with the religious Islamic faith. The 13 countries that have the death penalty for apostasy are among the countries with the strongist Islamic faith, not the least. Coincidence? I think not.

If you're so fond of historical takes on it though, then you're out of luck as well, as that part of the verse was often interpreted as a symbolic gesture rather than domestic violence.

Again you are either ignorant or dishonest. In al-Bukhari 7:6:715, he relates the story of the wife of Abdur-Rahman showing Aisha how her skin had changed color from the beating she received, and Aisha herself said "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing woman". When the wife complained to Muhammad, he did not tell the husband to stop.


From Islams own most trusted sources it shows that Sura 4:34 beatings are physical nor are they light. Islam sanctions domestic abuse.


Here are some more examples: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam.