Slashdot Mirror

Wikipedia is the worst possible place for Islamic knowledge, and all articles I've encountered seem to be written by people of lust and those who want to damage society and Islam.

"Misyar" marriage is where a man may give up some of his rights in a marriage, or more commonly, a wife may give up some of her rights (such as a right to her own home).

But this is also banned as it's usually practices by men of desire who wish to demean and mistreat women.

"Mutah" is not permitted in Islam, not sure where you got that from.
In fact it was banned by Prophet Muhammad, after the lewdness that the pagans and idol/people worshippers used to spread.
It's only the Shia (minority) sect which allow this.

Too bad fucking little girls wasn't banned. When your prophet is a pedophile, you are corrupt from the start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Mutah" is not permitted in Islam, not sure where you got that from.
In fact it was banned by Prophet Muhammad, after the lewdness that the pagans and idol/people worshippers used to spread.
It's only the Shia (minority) sect which allow this.

In Islam, God has permitted and even encouraged sex between a husband and wife to increase love and bond within a matrimonial trust, just like Christianity and Judaism.
And yes, sex outside of marriage is a very serious and sick sin as it potentially destroys not only families, but an entire society due to illegitimate children. And children who have no father and mothers are generally worse off in education, health, and society; especially children without father-figures.

Where Islam differs is that God has placed a ban on men to only have ONE wife.
However, as God knows the nature of men and their temptations, God has however permitted more than one wife ONLY in the condition he can bear the financial responsibility and offer safety and equal time to both wives. i.e. to curb prostitution and mistresses; and to help divorced/widowed women (especially with children) who find it difficult to find a husband, etc.

And I also want to clarify that there is not a single Islamic scholar who hasn't spoken against the barbaric, terrorist group ISIS and the corruption they are spreading. In fact, Islamic scholars and imaams have received death threats from ISIS.

More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin .

I'm pretty sure apostasy and blasphemy rank quite higher.

because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years

Judaism is a lot older than that, actually, while Islam is a lot younger.

More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin .

And then there is the inconvenient truth about Islam-prescribed world-order. Whereas (the original) Christianity left sæcular affairs to the contemporary government whoever they are — "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — Islam explains exactly how the government should be structured: a Theocracy with a Caliph at the top. This alone makes Islam incompatible with America's Constitution — but the same Constitution bans us from collectively acknowledging the problem.

Granted, people such as Ray Comfort just give themselves very generous perks from their "ministry". I imagine that other religions would do the same if they wanted to, which again brings us to the fact that removing the tax exemption wouldn't be an issue as they shouldn't have to pay tax if they're actually non-profit.

As for your two examples:
If you tax parking, then you're taxing everyone, and giving the rebate to a specific sector. This already happens. Everyone has to pay sales tax (for example), and the state tends to throw money at organisations they like anyway.
As for halal butchers, surely they're already taxed because they're businesses (at least they are in the UK). Similarly, I imagine Christian bookshops have to pay tax.

The irony is that out of all the religions you could have chose, Islam is the worst. They're [generally] pretty particular about money - for example not being allowed to charge interest, etc. Out of all the religions I'd been concerned about not paying tax, Islam isn't one.

Doing a quick google about Islam and paying tax I came across this nugget - it's not exactly related, but it show's how dodgy some people are and how they'll try using their religion for any reason:
Is it permissible for him to cheat a kaafir government and take money from them? - I'm glad he was put in his place by the people answering.

You can bet there are some 87-year old Muslims out there who would love to take a shoe-bomb if they thought they could get through. After all everyone's 33 years old in muzzie-heaven

yet drinking camel urine is perfectly ok (and still proscribed as a treatment in the Muslim world today!) http://islamqa.info/en/ref/83423

Muslim folks' views on left-handedness demonstrates this very clearly: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120

It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it. As well as beliefs, acts of worship, interactions with others and morals and manners, that also includes our private affairs in which Islam shows us the way that is befitting to man’s noble status and the way in which Allaah has honoured him. That includes the way the Muslim eats and drinks, and so on.

And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”

Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”

Sure, I guess way back when, folks wiped their assess with their bare left hands. However, left-handedness has been proven by science to be a genetic trait, not a matter of faith. But since it has been written in the Koran, that Allah doesn't like people to be left-handed, you've got a bit of a problem there.

So any Muslims can, and do, claim that using your left hand is insulting to Islam . . . as I experienced when signing in to a hotel in Egypt.

So how does Islam handle other cases, where sound science contradicts the Will of Allah . . . ?

For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:

For reference, here is the 6th fundamental practice of Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120

Praise be to Allaah.

It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it.

And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”

Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”

. . . or like, a Fitnah of getting your Embassy stormed by Muslims . . .

So all this talk about if it was the film or Al Qaeda who caused the riot is probably irrelevant: The Muslim folks killed Chris Stevens, because he was left-handed.

Oh, and by the way, being left-handed is also blasphemous in Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120

Does that mean they all masturbate with their right hand? Man that's weird...

Blasphemy is used to Pakistan to settle scores between feuding parties: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262

He should maybe clean that up first, before trying to impose that on the rest of the world.

Oh, and by the way, being left-handed is also blasphemous in Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120

That claim does not survive close scrutiny. Think about it : which standard of proof would you require ?

1) can be reduced into nothing, only depends on the notation you want to use for reasoning : even math does not satisfy this one, only small parts of logic do
2) can be reduced into basic, small axiom sets : basic maths, although only fractions are allowed, no real numbers, no infinite sets. Most calculations are possible with this standard. When working strictly with basic axiom sets and rejecting anything outside of those, Pi does not exist, for it cannot be proven to exist. Also none of the "exact" sciences work like this.
There are variations on 2, of course : which axiom systems ? google constructivism for an example conflict about that. Or "axiom of choice".
3) "works really well in conjunction with those basic axiom sets, but has problems with consistency, though no-one has pointed out blatant conflicts (yet)": doesn't sound all that absolute a standard anymore, does it ? Here we finally have a standard that maths satisfies.
4) reduces into a large set of slightly-conflicting "laws", most of which have been statistically tested in the real world to great accuracy, even though there are obvious contradictions in the laws. E.g. either relativity is true or quantum mechanics. Since they make contradictory predictions, they can't both be true. That's just one well-known conflict, there are others, say thermodynamics conflicts with the standard model. Most "exact" sciences, physics would actually be the only real example.
5) "works really well in conjunction with those 'laws'" : Most "exact" sciences, chemistry, engineering, geology...
Here starts the line that religion, or at least Western religion, ie. Christianity, satisfies
6) things that have been consistently written about as true for years at least : Christian religion, history
7) things that can be observed being part of human behavior, even though human behavior changes quite rapidly : most of the humanities, languages, ...
8) things that are believed to be true by large groups of people : psychology, sociology, biology, ... most other religions
9) things that are simply considered interesting : art

Those are all scientific standards of truth. It is easy to see that there is no simple answer : any religion that tries to have no conflict between science and religion easily satisfies standards 6,7,8 and 9. And things like history are in the same boat.

There's lots of engineers here, who are generally trained to accept a slightly higher standard for truth, but the mathematician in me feels obliged to say that for example religion is "more" true than history, "more" true than any statement in psychology, ...

Also Christianity is relatively unique in that it meshes quite well with science. God and Jesus do not have a direct conflict with science, or at least there are no theoretical problems here. Science does not exclude God's involvement through miracles, and Christians do believe in a mostly mechanical universe (they just claim it's not strictly mechanical). Most other religions, like islam, see the religion as the only valid theory of the world, even where it is obviously wrong (islam claims you can't fire an arrow in the direction of Mecca, just for kicks, I tested that. You definitely can). There are other hilarious conflicts (you could actually buy camel piss in a can last year in Egypt. You know, cans like coke, except with ...). more idiocies.

But this is a general pattern in the religion. The bible is really careful about what claims it makes, and the exact wording of those claims, especially in the original language. There is very little in there that is outrageously and obviously wrong. The bible is quite literally a set of stories with historical significance. In contrast, all

irfi is not authority or influential resource at all. Check out this:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/5000/music

That covers vast amount of music played and almost all national anthems.