|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Unlike theistic belief, which is couched in a mandate to believe, Atheism is a single statement of belief that makes no claim of a universal truth, nor is there a demand to believe or to entice followers with promise or threat.
Freedom of religious practice is crucial to the evolution away from such belief as, even now it's influence wanes in the wake of scientific advancements. That man is now doing things and answering questions that were once only in the domain of a god measures that movement. In order for a society to be free there can be no religious mandate and too, there can be no mandate barring religious practice.
A free society is not measured by it's scientific advancements, but whether an individual is free to express and to practice his own conscience. In that freedom, condemnation of others and the belief held by others should not be included as an inherent part of Freedom of Religion, as there is no freedom to condemn. This would be a difficult line for the theist to adhere to, as often such condemnation is a mandate to a belief in a particular god.
Should such a line be obeyed that too, would hasten the further decline of religious belief. The black and white line of a godly defined good and evil would blur even more diminishing a universal truth or constant.
"A free society is not measured by it's scientific advancements, but whether an individual is free to express and to practice his own conscience."
And yet that freedom is impossible to measure or even define. Consider the loss of freedom to:
Erect monuments and icons to personal Gods on public land, using public funding
Teach the young the beauty and wonder of God
Avoid those that violate God's will, such as homosexuals
Require or even expect others to respect/participate in public displays of worship (although the rash of foot washing/worship stations going up around the country makes one wonder).
The problem, of course, is the old saw about freedom to swing one's fist - an inevitable one when people live in close proximity to each other.
Yes, this is where all things begin to fog over. And to your point of religious icons on public property and foot washing stations; is one being used to over shadow or replace the other in the push for a political correctness--by government?
With regard to your comment on homosexuals, shall we force integration as we did with civil rights and again violate the the 1st Amendment and one's freedom of association?
The belief in gods will fade and that is inevitable. The question, I think, is what will seep into the void. People, generally speaking, are not strong enough to live individually, but require a 'faith' of deliverance, meaning and purpose in their lives and if not a god what? Can government replace the gods and provide that purpose and meaning? I would not think so, as government tends to be as religions self servicing. Does government then become the state religion omnipotent and all-providing. So many questions and so little time.
This is sad really. It's just another case where a believer is unable to understand how anyone can live without a parent figure telling what to do and when to do it, so they assume all others think the same. Sorry, I'm an adult and no longer need a sky daddy to tuck me in at night. I have purpose and direction in my life and wish more were able to mature into adulthood as well.
The government doesn't have to replace any Gods, it's job is to protect you and your rights.
Do you really feels your rights were violated during the civil rights movement? Do you feel integration should not have been forced. Should people of colour be forced to the back of the bus?
You've confused religion ~ with spirituality.
No, I've not done that. Why would you make that comment in light of the comment I was responding to. Why didn't you ask him to clarify his position on homosexuality and racism. Those things should not be confused with religion or spirituality and yet you tell me I'm confused?
Did you not read his opinion that humans require a belief in God? He made no mention of spirituality. You do realize that you don't have to believe in any God to get the feeling associated with spirituality right?
That's right. But many people might be pointing to a spiritual 'fact' when they use the word "God".
What does the word "word" have to do with this conversation and why did you not speak to the apparent homophobia and racism?
I have corrected that reply. That was a typo. I meant "God".
What you have called 'homophobia' and 'racism' ~ can be explained as 'spiritual aberrations'. It mostly occurs when we are not perceiving reality as it actually 'is'.
So what I thought was homophobia and racism was simply a spiritual departure from the norm. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that if I saw things as they actually are I'd understand that homophobia and racism is the spiritual norm?
People perceiving an (unfiltered) reality ~ generally do not feel the urge to 'harm' any sentient being (including 'other' lifeforms).
Generally speaking, the tendency for (all kinds of) tortures are the actions of a person who is under the influence of 'illusions'.
I'll have to agree with you. Have you been reading alone with the conversation with cjhunsinger and actually giving me that lecture?
All that talk about about people under the influence of illusions harming others and people who can see an unfiltered reality not wanting to harm anything (which I completely agree with) and you have nothing to say to someone under the illusion that their religious and or political views are hurting others in a very profound way? Or are you speaking passively to them? Do you believe all peoples should be treated equally as long as they are not hurting others?
It becomes difficult to 'mind' what someone else thinks and speaks unless we are having an active conversation with them.
In my opening I did not address you by name or accuse you of possessing such a weakness. The great majority of the worlds population does suffer from this ailment. Not everything said is directed at you or about you.
You are right in that the government does not have to replace the gods, but it will, as that is the historical nature of the beast. To your questions, yes, yes and no. A question for you. Who are people of color? Are you saying that Caucasians are colorless, invisible perhaps?
Wow, I'm speechless. You seem to be more concerned about your rights than your fellow American who was forced to sit at the back of the bus and use separate washrooms. Are you upset because African Americans were forced upon you by allowing them to sit next to you and be your equal in the eyes of the law? And just how is allowing homosexuals to marry and be equal in the eyes of the law effecting your rights?
Are you offended by the term "people of colour" because it excludes you? I'm not really fond of African American because they may also be equally European American as well.
"Wow." For the most part of your response, you assume to much and are poised to attack rather then to ask for clarification, which I was hoping you would do.
The term, 'people of color' is to say that some are not and that is exclusionary, racist perhaps. Do you think that by spelling the word color to colour that it brings a different connotation? As too, African American; I am of direct German ancestry, but I am an American, no more no less. I do not feel the need for further identification to quantify or mitigate my allegiance, nor the need for a greater purpose, which only divides.
I am of the conviction that my ancestry can be traced to Africa and that the all of humanity is defined as homo sapiens-sapiens. I believe in equality under the law and that the Civil Rights Act did more harm than good. I never mentioned same sex marriage and are you putting words in place that have not been spoken?
Right, you simply don't want integration with African American (or whatever term you'd like to us) or homosexuals. And you did bring up the integration of homosexuals.
"With regard to your comment on homosexuals, shall we force integration as we did with civil rights and again violate the the 1st Amendment and one's freedom of association?"
In other words you are not concerned with the rights or equality of others or and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, are you simple not happy with the way equality was given?
You are right I did bring it up, Maybe it is I who is in the attack mode.
I have a problem when the government tells me that I must associate with those, who I would not necessarily have association with. To presume that I am racist or anything else because of that position is wrong. Because I do not associate with drug addicts, should I be forced to? Does it violate their rights.
The integration of schools was a correct path and many other public arenas, forced busing was wrong.
If my rights are violated to the benefit of others, what has been accomplished?
I will continue later or tomorrow. This is an important issue and look forward to more dialogue.
Sorry, but you sound racist when you equate associating with someone with darker skin than yours with associating with drug addicts.
Anytime that the government can justify forced association between people, they can justify any association between any segment of society--for the common good.
I would hold that it is racist when one identifies according the their skin tone. That is if skin tone denoted a race and according to my information there is only one human race.
Certainly, Man is much more than his skin pigmentation and to identify with that, as the primary factor, leaves one wondering as to the motivation.
I have no use for such people. They are the racists, whether one is darker, lighter more yellow, round eyes or slanted, if such is their primary focus. We are a unique life form, not due to skin tone or any such feature, but due to our capacity to reason, which I feel is the 'essence' of human life. Any other description, except for medical reasons, diminishes the human structure and clouds the future.
Before I am an American or Atheist or of direct German dissent or like all others, out of Africa, I am a reasoning being, a sapien. I cannot be more than that, but I can be less if I ignore that great talent and focus on the trivial.
If one is looking for a common denominator to bring humanity together, should it not be that which we all share. Perhaps, this is a bit altruistic and maybe a high standard, but should we seek out the lowest common denominator and reduce humanity or the highest and elevate?
Physical or emotional attributes or characteristics.
Why again do you not what to associate with a particular group of dark skinned people?
Why do you want to group people by skin tone? If you accept people as individuals and judge them as individuals, by their actions and formed bonds accordingly you would not be so obsessed with a false claim of race. The individual cannot be judged, as compatible to your personality by skin tone.
Did not stop to think that you may be British and colour there is color here. Sorry about that if you are a Brit. Old English and all that. Could be wrong again though.
Is, "Freedom of Religion", an acceptable principle for an Atheist?
The Atheists only want freedom of religion for themselves, they are not tolerant enough to allow it to others, generally.
Actually what they want is your Religious ideas to stop impeding in their lives. Simple really.
To tolerate opposing ideas is called tolerance. Humans are social, everybody effects everybody.
Like how the religious oppose gay marriage? And in doing so affect and hurt others?
rad usually has his own agenda and normally it has nothing to do with the topic.
No, it's on topic because it's shows how some religious people interfere in the lives of others by imposing their religious views.
That is called difference of opinion. That will always exist where there are human beings and freedom of thought is allowed as a civil right.
If Atheists people are not with 0 % tolerance, then they should tolerate it.
LOL, sure we should just tolerate your religious beliefs forging inequality? I suppose the Christians living in the middle east should just tolerate the higher taxes they pay for being a Christian in a Muslim state? The should just tolerate Sharia law. Gay people should just tolerate the hated and inequality bestowed upon them because of your religion.
As an Atheist I would support much of paars sentiment.
You think us Atheists should simply tolerate Christians ideas made into laws that suppress our own freedoms. Would you simply tolerate Sharia law?
You are a very one dimensional and foolish individual.
There is no Sharia Law mention by Quran/Islam/Muhammad. If suppose there is one; you should be able to reason it out. No justification for being intolerant.
Ba ha ha ha ha. The intolerance of Sharia law on those who leave Islam is death, We should tolerate death for leaving a religion to show respect for that religion? And it would be the person being put to death that is intolerant? There are places that because of religious and cultural beliefs practice female circumcision which results in un-pleasurable sex for those women. Would it be intolerant of the women who don't want that done to not get it done or is it intolerant of those promoting it?
The origin of sharia is the Qu'ran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. The etymology of sharia as a "path" or "way" comes from the Quranic verse Quran 45:18.
Please quote from Quran with the reference.
Do I really have to school you on Islam?
"[Quran 45:18]: "Then we put thee on the (right) Way of religion so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not." Malik Ghulam Farid in his Dictionary of the Holy Quran, believes the "Way" in 45:18 (quoted above) derives from shara'a (as prf. 3rd. p.m. sing.), meaning "He ordained". Other forms also appear: shara'u[Quran 45:13] as (prf. 3rd. p.m. plu.), "they decreed (a law)"[Quran 42:21]; and shir'atun (n.) meaning "spiritual law"[Quran 5:48].
In contemporary Islamic literature, sharia refers to divine law of Islam as revealed by prophet Muhammad, as well as in his function as model and exemplar of the law.
There are two sources of Sharia (understood as the divine law): the Quran and Sunnah. The Quran is viewed as the unalterable word of God. It is considered in Islam as infallible part of Sharia. Quran covers a host of topics including God, personal laws for Muslim men and Muslim women, laws on community life, laws on expected interaction of Muslims with non-Muslims, apostates and ex-Muslims, laws on finance, morals, eschatology, and others. The Sunnah is the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah's importance as a source of Sharia, is confirmed by several verses of the Quran (e.g. [Quran 33:21]). The Sunnah is primarily contained in the hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions and his demeanour."
I could if you like and if I have the time go into each area of Sharia law and show you where from the Quran they came.
At some point, the vast, vast majority of laws will suppress somebody's freedom. The acceptability of that state usually depends on several things (and by acceptability, I mean how acceptable it is deemed by a majority of people), including but not limited to the psychological, ethnic and religious makeup of the society and the affluence of the society. Societies that view the cohesion of the mass as the best shot at survival don't tend to gripe about "loss of freedom," in fact they usually define "freedom" a bit differently. And in societies that are under a lot of stress (say from economic depression, war, or even just widespread food insecurity) there tends to be more emphasis on cohesion and homogeneity (having everyone think as much alike as possible) in order to ensure the survival of the group.
I'm not saying that these laws and rules don't need to be revisited. They absolutely do. But to say that religious ideas enacted into law will oppress freedom is to imply that anti-religious ideas enacted into law will not oppress freedom, and that is simply not true. It's especially true, and increasingly so, in many cultures today that a lot people seem to think that the only way to ensure that people who are not particularly religious have freedom is the literal suppression of all religious observance, and the revision of history to go along with it.
Okay, lets look at gay marriage as an example. We have religious laws being put into practice that prohibit homosexual marriage. These laws are designed to force society to adhere to particular religious values. Should homosexuals simply tolerate those religious values or should the religious people tolerate homosexuals and except them as equal citizens? Who in this case is being intolerant?
In another example what happens if a particular neighbourhood becomes populated with the majority of another religion and they demand that your child show tolerance in school by praying to Allah with them 4 times a day? Would that be a fair request?
According to the shifting values of the general society, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of homosexual marriage. To answer your question more directly, which group is being intolerant is not quite as straightforward as you think. First of all, remember that the push for homosexual marriage has happened very quickly in historical terms. When I was in my 20's and even my 30's, there really was no demand for the right of gays to get married. I mean, there was some but it was very small and considered fringe by almost everyone. Anne Landers was on record as saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thought leaders among homosexuals were sometimes still calling monogamy an invention of the straight community meant to oppress gays. Not everyone said this, of course, maybe not even a majority, but some of the louder voices did (including the gay lover of John Shelby Spong.) So the change has taken a lot of people by surprise. And today's progressive is tomorrow's reactionary. Those who say that opposition to gay marriage is intolerant today will in all likelihood be just as guilty of intolerance of something tomorrow. That having been said, I realize that gay marriage is coming, no matter what anyone says. It's only a matter of time.
The point is, is it right to say that Atheists are intolerant of religious laws or religiosity when the very laws are not tolerant of others? In other words, we can of course tolerate what people do that don't effect or hurt others, but when they do effect and or hurt others it's them who are being intolerant.
Fair enough. So when religious organizations want the right to hire people who don't openly work against their beliefs, and laws are passed that require them to do so, is it the religious organization (wishing to prevent the chaos that inevitably comes from having such open dissent in the ranks, sometimes sown by people who joined specifically to create such chaos, which in a non-religious organization would never be tolerated) or the lawmakers (operating on the theory that true freedom means the individual gets to do what they want, whether the organization agrees with it or not, even though in practice they would not adhere to that within their own organization) that is intolerant?
Would you mind rephrasing that because I'm having trouble understanding what you are getting at.
Is it right to say that religious organizations are intolerant when laws are designed to be intolerant of them?
Laws are intolerant of religious organizations? Really, like being tax exempt? Can you show me those laws that are specifically targeted towards religious organization and I'm not talking about polygamy.
That's good because I try never to discuss polygamy, especially while I'm eating, before I've eaten, after I've eaten, or whenever I'm twelve hours or less away from eating again.
I just read something about Canada passing a law that would prevent polygamists from immigrating to Canada. Is that religious persecution or what? That's why I brought it up and it's why our countries have secular laws. Personally, why would anyone want more than one wife telling them what to do and when to do it?
Polygamy is not the issue. Unless you have truly reached a point where literally all religions blur into one for you, I really can't believe you brought up polygamy. And if you've reached that point, then that's really the end anyway. That I've spent this long discussing it is just a time-suck. The issue I raised is that secular laws, (and please, forget polygamy for this conversation) some of them are meant to force religious groups to work in ways that they find unacceptable, which I don't for a second believe was an unintentional consequence. If Catholic institution are forced to provide abortions, that is an example. And there's no way that everyone framing that law honestly didn't see the problem. I don't think that all, and probably not even most, of the people who were in favor of the law actually thought "Goody!" about that but I'm sure some did. And many weren't bothered by it.
Wow, you sound angry and I'm not sure why. I brought up polygamy as a side note, but it's still practiced and we have laws against it. I gave you an example of secular laws infringing upon religion. The mormons were into polygamy and slavery, sometimes the secular laws have to override bad ideas. Don't you agree. I'm just exploring ideas here and attempting to learn something. No need for anger.
I'm unaware how a Catholic organization would have to preform abortions. Please explain. Are the Catholics involved in hospitals down there? Is so that would be problematic. In a few african nations Christian have made homosexuality illegal, in one of the countries affected by ebola a bishop came forward and blamed ebola on homosexuality.
My point is if religions are given the chance that will enforce laws that will effect everyone, so we need secular laws to protect people from religion. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia could use a few good secular laws. In Saudi Arabia polygamy is the norm and women can't drive and homosexuality is illegal.
If I sound angry I apologize. However, polygamy IS a side issue in this conversation. I don't mean to deny how serious it is in real life, but for the purposes of this particular conversation it really is just a diversion.
Yes, some hospitals in the US are run by Catholic charities and even have nuns as a large part of the staff. In the past, this was sometimes the only way that hospitals were put up and run at all. How problematic it is depends on your point of view. But yes, then Catholic institutions would be forced to provide abortions, and some people do actually feel that this is a good thing. But using African culture, customs and history to explain why churches in America are bad is a dodge, not an explanation. And the laws that protect us 'from religion' today (and your bias betrays you) will 'protect' us from other freedoms eventually, and in all likelihood sooner rather than later. I'm not sure about Canada, but this has pretty generally been the case in the US.
Okay, well, hospitals up here are publicly funded. I personally think it's creates conflict to do otherwise. But both our countries have secular laws for a reason, to protect us from what happens without them. That's why I brought up countries that don't have secular laws as an example of what happens without them. It's to protect of from people like Joseph Smith who was an acknowledge liar who invented a religion that would allow him to have multiple wives and slaves. I've read recently that one of his wives left when he told her that God told him he should have sex with one of his maids. Mind blowing stuff really.
History has shown that we need to keep religions (Catholics) away from the job of dealing with unwanted pregnancies and the children that are the result. I think it was in Ireland a few years back they were forcing these girls to give birth and remain with the children for 3 - 5 years and then sending the children to the US. Many of the mothers never recovered and many of the children were abused. We no longer need their help thanks very much.
While I agree that the Irish situation should never have happened, I don't agree that it's a good example of why "all religion" should be kept out of the 'unwanted pregnancy' business. The whole topic of pro-life is a deeply complicated one and although I am more than willing to discuss it, right now all I'm going to say is that picking one bad example and creating an entire blanket judgement out of it is really little different than saying that because one Italian immigrant bombed a building on Wall Street, all Italians are bad people and should be kept out of the country.
Agreed. For the record I'm not in favour of abortion, with the exception of course of some situations. That being said more than one book can be written on the mistreatment of pregnant women and orphans by religious organizations. Perhaps they mean well, but they need proper supervision.
1. It is not one of the prime or core beliefs of Muslims to have more than one wife. It is not a must for a Muslims to have more than one wife.
2. Catholics should not be forced for abortions.
3. Public funded hospitals are different; they should follow the secular law of the country.
1. But they can?
2. That's why all hospitals should be publicly funded, and/or if they are not then they have to live by the rules of the country, if they means they have to hire someone who will perform tasks they don't want then so be it. Does the hospital also get to say they don't perform surgery on homosexuals?
3. Don't you think all hospitals should follow the secular laws of the country?
Muhammad upheld the principle of "freedom of religion" all his life.
The Atheists instead of supporting Muhammad they support Meccans who persecuted Muhammad and his followers.
They should support Muhammad .
Mohammad was a war general who allowed people of other faiths to exist (and married a 7 year old girl and only waited a few year before consummating the marriage), but said they should be taxed excessively. Tell us what the punishment for leaving Islam is?
Please quote from some reliable sources.
1. Muhammad was a prophet/messenger of G-d like Moses and Jesus etc. He was never trained to be a soldier even, not to speak of being a General.
2. Muhammad did not tax others excessively.
3. There is no punishment for leaving Islam in this world.
Muhammad was a peaceful person and upheld right of freedom of religion the most. All his life was full of struggle for that.
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17
He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
— Quran 16:106
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
—Qur'an, [Quran 9:29]
Muhammad spent his last ten years, from 622 to 632, as the leader of Medina in a state of war with pagan Mecca.
Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad. It is only accepted if it does not differ with Quran. Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of Muslims whatever the denomination.
Well, I gave you a few quotes from the Quran as well. It appears many Muslims and Muslim countries agree with these quotes. Here are a few more.
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Need I continue?
Have you read Quran from cover to cover? Just for information.
With a view that you must have chosen the strongest verse that supports your viewpoint at number one; I give the verse with the verses in the context:
The Holy Quran : Chapter 2: Al-Baqarah
[2:215] Do you think that you will enter Heaven while there has not come over you the condition of those who passed away before you? Poverty and afflictions befell them, and they were violently shaken until the Messenger and those who believed along with him said: ‘When will come the help of Allah?’ Yea, surely the help of Allah is nigh.
[2:216] They ask thee what they shall spend. Say: ‘Whatever of good and abundant wealth you spend should be for parents and near relatives and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer. And whatever good you do, surely Allah knows it well.’
[2:217] Fighting is ordained for you, though it is repugnant to you; but it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you like a thing while it is bad for you. Allah knows all things, and you know not.
[2:218] They ask thee about fighting in the Sacred Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a greattransgression, but to hinder men from the way of Allah, and to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque, and to turn out its people therefrom, is a greater sinwith Allah; and persecution is worse than killing.’ And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can. And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next. These are the inmates of the Fire and therein shall they abide.
[2:219] Those who believe and those who emigrate and strive hard in the cause of Allah, it is these who hope for Allah’s mercy; and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[2:220] They ask thee concerning wine and the game of hazard. Say: ‘In both there is great sin and also some advantages for men; but their sin is greater than their advantage.’ And they ask thee what they should spend. Say: ‘What you can spare.’ Thus does Allah make His commandments clear to you that you may reflect.
[2:221] Upon this world and the next. And they ask thee concerning the orphans. Say: ‘Promotion of their welfare is an act of great goodness. And if you intermix with them, they are your brethren. And Allah knows the mischief-maker from the reformer. And if Allah had so willed, He would have put you to hardship. Surely, Allah is Mighty, Wise.’
[2:222] And marry not idolatrous women until they believe; even a believing bond-woman is better than an idolatress, although she may highly please you. And give not believing women in marriage to idolaters until they believe; even a believing slave is better than an idolater, although he may highly please you. These call to the Fire, but Allah calls to Heaven and to forgiveness by His command. And He makes His Signs clear to the people that they may remember.
[2:223] And they ask thee concerning menstruation. Say: ‘It is a harmful thing, so keep away from women during menstruation, and go not in unto them until they are clean. But when they have cleansed themselves, go in unto them as Allah has commanded you. Allah loves those who turn to Him and loves those who keep themselves clean.’
[2:224] Your wives are a tilth for you; so approach your tilth when and how you like and send ahead some good for yourselves; and fear Allah and know that you shall meet Him; and give good tidings to those who obey.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=216
Now please prove your viewpoint from the verse you quoted and the verses in the context.
Do you really think posting that is helping your cause?
Rather than comment on each verse I posted you post your own post which doesn't help your cause.
"even a believing slave is better than an idolater"
Is that message from Allah? "Even a believing slave is better…" Are slaves less than?
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
This would be off-topic.
We are talking freedom of religion. One quoted a list of verses, we will first finish discussion it, then we could discuss other .
If one is keen one could start another thread, where everybody would participate to understand the new topic one intends to discuss.
@ RAD MAN
Now please prove your viewpoint from the verse you quoted and the verses in the context given in the preceding post.
Paarsurrey, are you a women, I've gotten that impression and I apologies if I'm wrong. That said, do you believe a women's value and word half that of a man?
Is, "Freedom of Religion", an acceptable principle for an Atheist?
Muhammad upheld the principle of "freedom of religion" all his life.
One could observe starting for the 53 years of his life spent Mecca.
The Atheists instead of supporting Muhammad they support Meccans who persecuted Muhammad and his followers.
They should support Muhammad .
Freedom of Religion is what we find in secular societies. It's mandated in my country, it's the law. It has to be because Toronto is the most diverse city in the world. Respect is given to everyone and it's expected by everyone.
We do not find Freedom of Religion in Muslim countries especially those who use Muslim laws as the law of the land. Mohammad taxed none Muslims excessively, made them none citizens and treated women like they are worth half of any man.
Is this what you belief is Freedom?
by Thomas M D Hemsley2 months ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by Wayne K. WIlkins22 months ago
What does religion mean to you?With so much evidence supporting science these days and countless discoveries disregarding religion and proving it wrong, what does religion mean to you? Religion means nothing to me,...
by Eric Dierker2 years ago
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?It seems like the notions that there is a God or there is not a God, are both founded in belief because there is not proof either way. Well there is proof,...
by JonTutor8 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. ...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.