Yeah, and our country (USA) did a fine job of viewing blacks and women of equal value throughout its christian/western value dominated history. Please.

To act as though the "values" of the western world or christian world should be put on a pedestal i direct you to the catholic church and islamaphobia USA.

I think you are the one who needs to research a little more before you speak. The Qur'an says many times that it is not meant to be a hardship on life, but a guide on how to live. This means Muslims can choose to deviate on areas that would make things harder vs happier. The two items you bring up I will discuss below and keep in mind that they can be handled in any other way based on your specific household dynamics.

RE: "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (Quran (4:11))

This is in relation to inheritance, not inferiority. In Islam each party has a primary role to play. Man's role is to be the households religious leader as well as financial support. This does not mean a woman cannot do these roles, its just not expected of her. With this role in mind, it makes far more logical sense that the men in the family receive more of their parents inheritance than the women as the men have far more financial responsibility. However, the Qur'an also enforces a woman's right to own property and a business (first in the world historically to do so), so it must be accepted that woman are equal to men in financial desires and needs from the viewpoint of the Qur'an. Any laws you see in the real world that do not uphold that equality are strictly against the Qur'an and are probably due to that groups local ideology, not Islam.

RE: "and the men are a degree above them [women]" (Quran 2:228)

This is in relation to religious leadership, not being inferior or below each other. Just as  a Priest is above common man in religious leadership in the Church, men, specifically the fathers, are a degree above women in the home. Again, this always brought down to your family's specific dynamics. This is also the reason men are the Imams in Islam as their role is to be the religious leader/teacher. But, this is no different than any religion. Name one female pope or prophet. For right or wrong, men have always been the leaders of religious teaching. It has nothing to do with who is inferior or beneath the other as that does not exist.

In general what you and way too many other people (especially Muslims themselves) did here is take small segments of the Qur'an and bend it WAY out of proportion to fit your desired outcome. This mentality is why Al Queda exists and why the Muslim world is so back-ass-wards. If people followed the Qur'ans advice and individually read it with an understanding that it is to be considered one whole document vs small  individual rules, these issues would not be presented.

This is why as a Muslim, my wife doesn't wear any head covering nor do the women or men in my family feel anything but equal in all things and before all other people. I actually read the Qur'an and realized it says all books of God should be taken as guides to proper human life. That God wants you to use your great abilities in cognitive thinking to not just accept someone else's teachings, but to think for yourself. Islam is a religion of peace and equality first, its just too bad too many others have stolen its teachings for small personal gain.

Hahaha... You made my point for me.

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was the name the inqusition gave the book what did Galieo call it before submitting it?

Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.  (Hence what *he* called it)

They are the same book.  Dialogue of the Ebb and Flow of the Sea was Galieo's original name for the book because it was the central theory in his whole arguement.

Which you'd know if you read the book.  Who's the one being spoonfed here... me who actually knows facts and stuff about the book... or you, who can't even recognize one of the book's original titles, or for that matter... the contents of the book.

From wikipedia "Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.  The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition."

Though I did make one mistake, (as i had just woken up).   Galeio wasn't killed by the Church... for some reason I always make that mistake. 

As for Copernicus... he was argueing vs Ptolmey Geocentrascism.

Not the same theory that was around during Galieo's time.

Galleio was debating against the Tychonic system.(remembered the name.) (Though he did use the ptolmy model as a nice strawman.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system

"Tycho argued that if the Earth is moving, then we should be able to detect a change in our position relative to stars (the technical term is parallax). But he was not able to detect that change in relative position, so he concluded that the Earth is not moving. In fact, our position relative to stars does change, but stars are so far away that the change in angles is so small that it cannot be observed by the naked eye. It was not until hundreds of years later that people built telescopes that were accurate enough to detect stellar parallax. Astronomers of Tycho's time did not realize how far away stars were.  "

The differences between the two were fairly simple.   The Tychonic system explained more, while the Galeio system was simpler but unproven.

The copernican system was observably wrong until we developed stronger telescopes.  Much how a theory about sub atomic particles would of been called crazy until we developed strong enough microscopes.

Coperinican model belief wasn't low because of the church.  It was low because the Tychonic Model did everything the Copernicus system did plus some based on what we could observe at the time.

Though this is another good example of the dangers of fictionalized history.

It's like how everyone thinks Liu Bei was this real noble guy during the Three Kindoms Era due to the Romance of the Three Kingdoms book... when he got his kingdom by freaking stealing it from his own relative.

Liu Bei was just as bloodthirsty as the rest if not more.

In real history "Cao Cao" was likely the "good guy" of the three... if you could even call any of them good guys.

Or the afore mentioned "Middle ages people thought the world was flat"

Paul Revere's midnight ride.

Oh there are tons of them.

Ah good, someone defending Islam who knows more about it then me.

I hate the threads where I have to defend it because i haven't read a Qu'ran in like... 10  years.  

Okay, if you had been from netherlands, france, belgium, germany, uk it would be another thing

but as an romanian you dont know the situation in that countries so please

Yeah, they always find some funny ways to defend quotes like this

i love this "in relation" thing

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them."

"Ohh yeah, thats uhm, you have too read it in the relation you know, uhmm, i mean, everyone knows that the qurans suras are not orders or something like that but you have to read them in relation" (sarcasm)

You're just a fool. Anything you study must be taken in the context of what it fully written. The quotes in the Qur'an that deal with killing people are always in the dialogue of defensive war. Not nonMuslims as is so commonly protrayed.

Its not finding funny ways to defend the quotes, its actually reading the entire verse or page. I can find a ton of quotes in the bible that tell women to wear head scarfs (new testement here), kill babies on rocks, kill entire villages (animals and plants included), women and children must obey husbands (also NT), etc. But I don't because that's not the whole story.

You really need to actually read the whole chapters to the quotes you deem prove Islams cruel and unequal stance. You'll realize you have been misled. There are a ton free online versions that are translated from multiple respected people like http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ as well as others.

^

Sorry mate,the bible and the quran are not the same thing.

most of the violent things in the bible are written historical events, while the 104 orders to kill non-muslims in the quran arent historical events but orders meant to be followed till the end of time.

if you want to understand the quran, you need the hadiths too, because only then you see the historical context.

just read this

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

the most disgustin things start at sura 8

and if you want a comparison of both christianity and islam, read this

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm

comparing jesus and mohammed, and the bible with the quran

1. You are wrong. The orders to kill "nonBelievers" (btw, that is not a Christian or Jew as they are also believers in the Qur'an viewpoint) were during times of war during Islams development. They were just as historical as any killing verses in the Bible.

2. You don't need the Hadiths. In fact the Qur'an forbades the use of any other book outside of "Gods word" and the Hadiths are not Gods words. They are supposed quotes and actions the Prophet did. The Hadiths actually contradict each other and the Qur'an often and they are the reason Islam is the way it is in Muslim world.

The Hadith's were written down generations after the Prophet died and they most definitely do not represent Islam based on what is described in the Qur'an. They are the works of people who simply wanted control and power.

Additionally, they are not the only sources of history on the time period and that website was written so biasly its obvious you need a new source. Try actually reading the various English translations from the link I gave you. By reading a few of them you can determine the best English way of representing the Arabic intent.

Finally, I'm at work at those links are blocked for some reason. Give me the actual surah/verse and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

btw, your Mohommad/Jesus comparison is silly. They came with different purposes and different times/situations. Jesus came into Judaism where Judaism was already popular. Mohommad came with the beleif of one God where that was extreamly unpopular and was taken as an attack on the entire way of life for Arabs in Meccah at that time. Furthermore, your history of Jesus is greatly distorted through years of manipulation by his followers. A study of religious history around Christianity proves that the events in the Gospels are definitely not the full story, have contradictions, and have been written by many authors as well as manipulated over the last nearly 2000 years.