You aren’t actually proving shariah is good for humanity, you are just repeating what you have been fed by eastern islamist scholars.
It’s because it came from the creator. The creator knows what’s good for humanity.
Sharia law in action: Jail fear prevents women in Mauritania from filing rape complaints, study find
- Thread starter Steamdevolopment
- Start date
- Status
It’s because it came from the creator. The creator knows what’s good for humanity.
Steamdevolopment
VIP
How did you know that it came from the creator?
Did you see it or are you relying on others judgement?
This is false, an absolute injustice and lie, This is NOT sharia law and has nothing to do with it, another by the lesbian kaafira.
Islam punishes rape very badly. And the conditions are not four witnesses
If a woman claims to have been raped or sexually abused under duress, she will be acquitted of adultery in light of Qur'anic verse 24:33, which states that a woman has not sinned when compelled to commit this crime.[9]
According to Professor Oliver Leaman, the required testimony of four male witnesses having seen the actual penetration applies to illicit sexual relations (i.e. adultery and fornication), not to rape.[10] The requirements for proof of rape are less stringent:
Rape charges can be brought and a case proven based on the sole testimony of the victim, providing that circumstantial evidence supports the allegations. It is these strict criteria of proof which lead to the frequent observation that where injustice against women does occur, it is not because of Islamic law. It happens either due to misinterpretation of the intricacies of the Sharia laws governing these matters, or cultural traditions; or due to corruption and blatant disregard of the law, or indeed some combination of these phenomena.
Islam punishes rape very badly. And the conditions are not four witnesses
If a woman claims to have been raped or sexually abused under duress, she will be acquitted of adultery in light of Qur'anic verse 24:33, which states that a woman has not sinned when compelled to commit this crime.[9]
According to Professor Oliver Leaman, the required testimony of four male witnesses having seen the actual penetration applies to illicit sexual relations (i.e. adultery and fornication), not to rape.[10] The requirements for proof of rape are less stringent:
Rape charges can be brought and a case proven based on the sole testimony of the victim, providing that circumstantial evidence supports the allegations. It is these strict criteria of proof which lead to the frequent observation that where injustice against women does occur, it is not because of Islamic law. It happens either due to misinterpretation of the intricacies of the Sharia laws governing these matters, or cultural traditions; or due to corruption and blatant disregard of the law, or indeed some combination of these phenomena.
I didn’t see it. After all it isn’t logical to rely on your sight as your eyes can easily deceive you.
And no I’m not relying others judgment. Again, I’m not a Darwinists to be relying on other people to feed me information.
Shariah comes from the Quran and there’s clear proof the Quran is from the creator:
Because firstly it says it’s from the creator,
secondly because it contains scientific miracles such as information about embryology before the scientific renaissance.
Thirdly, it contains linguistic miracles, the Quran challenges you to provide a single ayat which is as linguistically rich as those of the Quran.
Fourthly, it has historical miracles which weren’t known to any man at the time of revelation. For example the Quran uses the word pharaoh in the right era unlike other 1000+ year old books.
Also it contains many mathematical miracles which relates back to its linguistically features. For example heaven and hell are mentioned the same amount of times, so are Satan and angels, women and men etc.
The Quran wasn’t authored by a human being. No human is intelligent to author such a book.
The Quran came from the creator and therefore so did the law system of shariah.
Last edited:
Steamdevolopment
VIP
"Because firstly it says it’s from the creator,"
That is called circular logic, and the problem with such a statement is that it brings no evidence to affirms its conclusion. An example would be saying my phone is white and therefore it is the best color, did I in that statement provide proof for my assertion? No, of course not.
This line of argument is flawed and hope you can see that.
Secondly because it contains scientific miracles such as information about embryology before the scientific renaissance.
There is several problems with this assertion.
Firstly, that embryology was described prior to Muhammad by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Diocles and it therefore contains no new information.
Secondly, there is inaccuracies in the embryology example, Quran 23: 14:
"Then We developed the seed into a clot. Then We developed the clot into a lump. Then We developed the lump into bones. Then We clothed the bones with flesh. Then We produced it into another creature. Most Blessed is God, the Best of Creators."
The problem here being that bones and flesh develop at the same time, and not separate as the Quran says.
Thirdly, I recommend you read the following, the first is a thorough analysis of the embryology claim and the second is the aftermath of the refutation by Hamsa Tzortzis, a fellow muslim who formulates some very sharp counter-arguments to the scientific miracles doctrine.
Source:
https://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/does-the-quran-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/
Thirdly, it contains linguistic miracles, the Quran challenges you to provide a single ayat which is as linguistically rich as those of the Quran.
Firstly, the problem with whole test is that it is subjective due to their being no objective standard to measure it to it would therefore merely be an excise of personal judgement. and it is in the vested interest of the believer to denigrates any Ayat that isn't a part of the Quran, otherwise the whole belief system collapses, which makes the test self-defeating also.
Secondly, a linguistic miracles that can only truly be understood by those who understand classical arabic is very limited miracle, if a miracle at all.
Thirdly, there is linguistically impressive texts in other languages such as Guru Granth Sahib, story of Gilgamesh, the story of the odyssey, but that isn't extraordinary proof for their divine status.
Fourthly, it has historical miracles which weren’t known to any man at the time of revelation. For example the Quran uses the word pharaoh in the right era unlike other 1000+ year old books.
Something being historically accurate in of itself isn't proof its divinity, and the counter to this would the fact that the story of Noah, the story of human origin from Adam and Eve run counter to geology and biology, the story of Exodus has no evidence and even the existence of Abraham/Moses is disputed.
Now how historically accurate is the Quran in that light?
It contains many mathematical miracles which relates back to its linguistically features. For example heaven and hell are mentioned the same amount of times, so are Satan and angels, women and men etc.
You're out here claiming to be the eternal word of God, and the best you got is something being mentioned a certain number of times?
I hope this responds encourages you to re-consider some of your deeply held beliefs and to provide better arguments than the ones you have provided.
If y'all would like to provide further support I'd appreciate it @AussieHustler @Shushue @VixR
"Because firstly it says it’s from the creator,"
That is called circular logic, and the problem with such a statement is that it brings no evidence to affirms its conclusion. An example would be saying my phone is white and therefore it is the best color, did I in that statement provide proof for my assertion? No, of course not.
This line of argument is flawed and hope you can see that.
Secondly because it contains scientific miracles such as information about embryology before the scientific renaissance.
There is several problems with this assertion.
Firstly, that embryology was described prior to Muhammad by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Diocles and it therefore contains no new information.
Secondly, there is inaccuracies in the embryology example, Quran 23: 14:
"Then We developed the seed into a clot. Then We developed the clot into a lump. Then We developed the lump into bones. Then We clothed the bones with flesh. Then We produced it into another creature. Most Blessed is God, the Best of Creators."
The problem here being that bones and flesh develop at the same time, and not separate as the Quran says.
Thirdly, I recommend you read the following, the first is a thorough analysis of the embryology claim and the second is the aftermath of the refutation by Hamsa Tzortzis, a fellow muslim who formulates some very sharp counter-arguments to the scientific miracles doctrine.
Source:
https://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/does-the-quran-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/
Thirdly, it contains linguistic miracles, the Quran challenges you to provide a single ayat which is as linguistically rich as those of the Quran.
Firstly, the problem with whole test is that it is subjective due to their being no objective standard to measure it to it would therefore merely be an excise of personal judgement. and it is in the vested interest of the believer to denigrates any Ayat that isn't a part of the Quran, otherwise the whole belief system collapses, which makes the test self-defeating also.
Secondly, a linguistic miracles that can only truly be understood by those who understand classical arabic is very limited miracle, if a miracle at all.
Thirdly, there is linguistically impressive texts in other languages such as Guru Granth Sahib, story of Gilgamesh, the story of the odyssey, but that isn't extraordinary proof for their divine status.
Fourthly, it has historical miracles which weren’t known to any man at the time of revelation. For example the Quran uses the word pharaoh in the right era unlike other 1000+ year old books.
Something being historically accurate in of itself isn't proof its divinity, and the counter to this would the fact that the story of Noah, the story of human origin from Adam and Eve run counter to geology and biology, the story of Exodus has no evidence and even the existence of Abraham/Moses is disputed.
Now how historically accurate is the Quran in that light?
It contains many mathematical miracles which relates back to its linguistically features. For example heaven and hell are mentioned the same amount of times, so are Satan and angels, women and men etc.
You're out here claiming to be the eternal word of God, and the best you got is something being mentioned a certain number of times?
I hope this responds encourages you to re-consider some of your deeply held beliefs and to provide better arguments than the ones you have provided.
If y'all would like to provide further support I'd appreciate it @AussieHustler @Shushue @VixR
The reason I said the Qur’ān claims to be from the creator is because many holy books such as the bible doesn’t t even make the claim that the author is God. Therefore you can’t even argue for or against something that doesn’t even make a claim. That’s the reason I said it, I know it doesn’t proof anything.
With the Quran and embryology thing. In Surah muminun, it talks about settling the nutfah in a place before placing into it into an alaqah. The Alaqah which comes from the verb to clot, agrees with modern embryology that the zygote clots to the placenta. Also if we take the literal meaning of the word alaqah which can also described as a clinging worm, it also agrees with modern embryology in terms of when the umbilical cord develops, the embryo clings and feeds of the mother, similar to how a leech works.
Moreover, you said that the bone is formed before skin/ flesh. The literal translation is that the bone and muscles form and are then covered with skin and flesh. You do agree that your bones are covered with flesh right?
Aristotle and Hippocrates did describe embryology which was then proven to be wrong. They theorised that the sperm contained a miniature version of an embryo and or that they embryo was formed from period blood which is proven to be 100% innaccurate. Whereas in modern embryology, it agrees with the ayats of the Quran which talk about the formation of life.
Furthermore, Hamza Tzortiz, believes you shouldn’t proof divinity of the Quran by using science. This isn’t because the Quran is wrong. But it’s because science isn’t very factual.
A scientific FACT isn’t a true fact, since it can be disproven quickly and so using the Quran which is indeed factual against an unsteady subject would be stupid.
Isolating his opinions to match your agenda is kinda unfair.
Literature in itself is very objective but there are literal techniques and devices which make certain literature better than others. The Quran is unmatched.
Not knowing Classical Arabic shouldn’t be an excuse for your incompetency. In many places people learn languages such as Classical Latin and Greek which is barely spoken anymore. There are many courses that teach quranic Arabic which you could sign up to, if you are so sure that the literacy of the Quran isn’t divine.
But since I’m sure you aren’t going to do that, there were many poets and writers from Arabia, who took it upon themselves to challenge the Quran. This includes people such as Ibn Mukuffa, Al Marri, Al ghazal etc. They all failed.
The Quran does contain historical miracles. You can’t use science which isn’t, as I said before, 100 % factual. It is forever changing.
However an example of a historical miracle would be when no other holy book such as the Torah or the bible were differentiating between the leaders of Egypt and when no one in Arabia knew about ancient Egyptian history like they do in present times, the Quran uses the term king to refer to the rulers of Prophet Yusuf As time but changes when talking about prophet Musa As to Pharoah.
The author of the Quran is the creator. Don’t you agree?
Fels
#trollhunter
Somali should never have sharia law am just gonna say this somalis and sharia doesn't work if you wanna become like saudi arabia be my guest i remeber seeing something about a egyptian guy who got arrested who filmed eating breakfast with a saufi women if you wanna become these xoolos be my guestNot this is RAPE culture, in which the victim carries the burden.
"One case cited by HRW involved a 15-year-old girl who was imprisoned after being repeatedly gang-raped by four men who held her captive for two weeks, because one of the men – whom she knew – said he would marry her."
See this is what a system guarding female sexuality does, let us keep going
"In another case, a prosecutor was reported as asking a rape survivor: “If you didn’t consent, why didn’t you tell your parents?” When the survivor said she knew the man who raped her, the prosecutor said: “All the things you are saying are lies, you did this willingly.”"
It is MUCH easier to use blame the victim tactics in a culture, where the women's chastity is of the highest concern and her safety is secondary
"Life is not easy for many Mauritanian women and girls. The prevalence of female genital mutilation is 67%, some ethnic groups see domestic violence as a sign that a husband loves his wife, and many girls are sent away to “fat camps” in the desert to be force-fed, so that they put on large amounts of weight and fit Mauritanian notions of beauty."
Words fail me on this, now food is being used to abuse us?
Conclusion:
A perfect system made by God wouldn't have these obvious flaws and would be able to contain the flaws of man.
@Knowles @VixR @Shushue @AussieHustler
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/global-...mauritania-from-filing-complaints-study-finds
- Status
