The United American Committee has this week put up a billboard on the Detroit-Toledo expressway. As you can see, it says “Sharia Law Threatens America.” You can see it for yourself in Luna Pier, about 10 miles north of Toledo, 20 miles south of Detroit on I-75.
Just in time for the Thanksgiving traffic!
Bravo, UAC.
So, what fraction of drivers do you suppose will even know what a "sharia" is? Is this a little like "Repent, for the end is nigh?" (I don't mean to be snarky, but I fear that to some it might sound like that). The good news is that it didn't overplay the message, like some church bulletin boards announcing that "Mohammad = Devil" (no offense to those who believe he is, but in the real world to be effective you have to pitch your message in a way that will be heard by your intended target audience).
If you take time to visit their web site, Wafa Sultan explains Shari'a.
I feel really good that the movement is building up against Islam and Shari'a. But it isn't enough. We need to inform everyone about this ideology that will kill our societies and us as free human beings if we don't resist.
Lets do it!
Oh dear Mildred, look at that typical anti-Obama billboard trying to tell us sharing the wealth is a threat to America...
I'd like to think that people who don't know what Sharia is, would look it up, somewhere. It's on a billboard, and it "Threatens America".
I would be curious enough to know what Sharia was.
LOL... Certain people are going to be hopping mad!
Way to go, UAC!
Great how about some Allah says bill boards?
I will donate to that effort.
The curious ones will explore more about sharia, and it might seem like a trickle, but the avalanche of knowledge will result in knowing more about islam and sharia, that little nag in the back of your head, that little bit of knowing something was not right about islam will come out with facts that prove your instincts were right all along! Islam is a dangerous death cult that needs to be conquered and sent back to an early death from our world.
If you take time to visit their web site, Wafa Sultan explains Shari'a.
Sure, but how many drivers who even noticed the sign will remember the web address after they're back home?
----
Great how about some Allah says bill boards?
I will donate to that effort.
Posted by: Mr.Fitnah
No argument here. Maybe the Medinan verses should be laid out? People who won't remember a web address will surely remember something that says "take not unbelievers for friends".
Or maybe something along the line of I have to fight for Allah until everyone worships him?
That's a message people will understand.
EXCELLENT!
Act for America is Brigitte Gabriel's project. Gabriel's AfA was also behind the deluge of phone calls that hit the Tyson plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee, when they tried to pacify their Somali employees by substituting a Muslim holiday for Labor Day. pressured Tyson’s foods not to give in to jihad
Jamie Glasov interview at FPM
Wouldn't it have been better to say:
"Sharia law threatens the Constitution" ?
That way it would be clearly slowing that the struggle is pitting legal system against legal system. The current wording is going to be conflated by CAIR and their useful idiots to mean "Muslims threaten America".
Sharia law does threaten America, but it threatens America because it threatens your constitution.
It is much easier to argue like vs. like, ideology vs. ideology. The current wording appeals to base instincts and allows fuzzy, nebulus and vague notions, like national identity, historical rights and such, into the debate. The problem is, when you say "X threatens America," you have to define what exactly America is and different groups have different ideas of what America is. Native Americans, Californian Mexican-Americans, Deep South African-Americans might not all have the same vision of America, and they might not all feel threatened by Sharia. But if you say the "Sharia threatens the Constitution" there is no debate about what the constitution is, so direct comparisons can be shown. This gives much less slither-room for the pro-Sharia camp.
Tziona,
Great point! Maybe UAC is saving this particular big gun, the Constitution, for a future billboard. If not, they should be!
How about a billboard that says "Islam Threatens America?"
The billboard will not educate the uneducated.
What it does is puts the word Sharia in their heads, and associates it with danger to America.
Thus in the future when they hear or read the word 'sharia', they are already conditioned, and will relate back to the billboard, and danger to America.
The billboard, 'Dhimmitude', had the same idea. Had it said 'a danger to America', it would have been more potent.
'Stealth Jihad', a danger to America'...Now there's another timely billboard.
Tziona, excellent point on "threatens the Constitution" vs. "threatens America".
You should e-mail your post, lock-stock-and-barrel, to Brigitte Gabriel directly, and to the United American Committee. Maybe they're planning more locations and/or future billboards.
I like how Darcy put it.
A billboard does not change the world, but better it be there than not.
Simply putting the phrase SHARIA LAW before the public raises awareness to a significant number of people unfamilar with it. Those with curious minds might take the next step and discover with some "research" what exactly Sharia is.
As an experiment I googled "sharia law."
On the first page of 10 hits, the following articles were included BY TITLE display rather clearly:
- American Thinker: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
- SHARIA-UK - New York Post
IS Britain heading straight for disaster?
- Why Sharia Law Must Be Opposed
- Muslims Against Sharia
I didn't review every linked article and a few are probably favorable. But at least the list includes articles that the truly curious reader
would look into to find out what the fuss is all about.
That, my friends, has got to be, a good thing.
Oh dear Mildred, look at that typical anti-Obama billboard trying to tell us sharing the wealth is a threat to America...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 23, 2008 6:47 AM
Right on the nose!
Signs that said:
"Obama is the most liberal, radical candidate"
didn't wake the sleeping, stupid masses.
Signs that said:
"Obama is a radical racist Marxist"
didn't phase people.
This sign is good, but as you noted, most will ignore the warning until they are in the clutches of the monster.
Side note, I have to sign in 2 times to get my comment posted. aarrggghhhh
3 times this time.
Definitely a step in the right direction. I hope the day will come when the vast majority of Americans will have the same purely negative reaction to the word "Sharia" as many who post here at JW already do.
Of course, American nationalism, popular sovereignty, and secular law are all unIslamic, and observing an infidel national holiday like Thanksgiving is haram.
Here's a better billboard. More to the point:
Kill non-Moslems wherever ye shall find them.
Allah commanding mass murder in the Koran
I also have had trouble with TypePad today, too. Had to keep signing in to be able to post. And checking off the "remember me" box did nothing; I kept having to sign in (twice, or more) each time I posted today.
I just googled 'sharia' and this page came up as the 10th result. The billboard was put up by UAC, not ACT, just for the record, in the spirit of credit where it's due. They're both fabulous organizations.
Here's an 'Allah says:'
Allah says rape your daughters, rape your sisters, rape your bought sex slaves (wives), and rape you slaves (your abducted sex slaves), and do it whenever or however you want, so long as they're not menstruating, because women are filthy animals and menstruation is a disease. (K 2.223) But raping your retarded six-year-old niece is best, and advocate that others do the same at every opportunity. This is sunna.
Or how about this one:
Blacks and Turks and people wth flat faces and small eyes all go to hell, so enslave, castrate, rape, and kill them and their children.
Or this one:
Allah says: "kill any Jew who comes under your power."
Or this one:
Allah says: Jesus (Esau) is a Muslim, is not the son of God, and his mother, Miriam, is a whore, and he faked his dying on the cross. Christians are polytheists.
With all due respect JDAMN, I don't know where you got those quotes - if they are "Allah says" or your own - but the only service they do to our cause is to discredit it. Muslims and their apologists can point to such invective and attribute it falsely to the efforts of Robert Spencer.
There is enough that is despicable about Islam within the realm of fact without engaging in such gratuitously vicious polemics.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/01/eleven-reasons-to-reject-sharia-in-any.html
Try this for size.
I might have said, SHARIA LAW IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUION.
Either way, it forces the American Muslim community to prove that the Sharia does NOT threaten us.
I'm with you here, Cornelius. The enemy (Islamic supremacism) can make mistakes left and right and they will be glibly ignored by Muslims and non-Muslim apologists for Islam as they move on to their next mendacious assertion. But those who see through Islam and understand it for the invidious ideology that it is must be scrupulous in their criticisms of Mo's creed in order to be taken seriously by the, as yet, uninformed. It's a greater burden to bear to be sure, but one that has to be paid to insure that a very large majority of those in the West eventually come to realize that Islam is inimical to such things as true freedom, tolerance, democracy, women's rights and, last but not least, beer.
Anything that threatens America, threatens the West.
Bravo and let this be the beginning of the fight back. Amen.
We need many more of these signs posted all over the country warning the people of sharia, sharia compliant financing and Islam and what it would mean to the freedom and liberty we enjoy.
We must not allow our country to become as infected with Islam and sharia as Great Britain and the other Eurabian countries.
I tried posting this before but it didn't work, probably because I put too many links in it, so I will put the links in a separate post:
Cornelius, what did I write that was even arguably untrue, unfair, uncalled-for, or unjustified? Granted, I may have attributed some of Mo's statements to "Allah," such as "kill any Jew who comes under your power," which is from the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, but these are all core tenets of Islam and "Allah" is Mo's displaced narcissistic personality and raising it to the level of anything else constitutes nothing short of undignified groveling, particularly since Perv Mo couldn't even keep them straight. Any time it says "Say:" in the Koran that is an instance in which Mo spoke "as Allah" in the first person.
Koran 2.223 tells men that they can rape their daughters, sisters, wives, and slaves. Nobody would argue that Islamic marriage is anything but sex slavery. In fact, "marriage" and "sex slavery" are the same word. "Incest" and "child molestation" are also the same word: they're all called 'nikah.' "Marriage" is business transaction between two men regarding money and a vagina ("women" are "vaginas" in Arabic), carried out under physical duress and constituting the passage of ownership from one to another, giving the buyer the right to rape the "vagina" indefinitely and with impunity.
“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (K 2.223)
Ayesha Ahmed's note regarding this passage (she's native speaker of Arabic)
[Note: Allah uses the word “nisa” meaning “women“ and not wives (zawaj) as some apologists translate to hide the true intention of Allah to appease their western masters. Thus Allah says, your women are your properties and you can have sex with them in any way you want.] Sisters are the property of their mahram just as much as daughters, so that's not really arguable either.
Muslims, if they follow the sunna, must advocate that others practice pedophilia too, since Perv Mo did:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 16:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.
By 'young girl' he means toddler-aged, like his retarded 6-year-old niece Aisha, and by 'play' he means 'rape.' Are you really going to argue that that's not what that ahadith is about? Really? Or are defending Aisha's mental faculties? The girl who played with dolls at nine, believed Mo when he told her that women have wet dreams and who let a goat eat the Koran? Or are you claiming that the sexual assault of one's brain-damaged 6-year-old family members doesn't constitute rape?
Because he did supposedly sexually assault her when she was a six-year-old toddler (I think he was impotent, but that the official story):
Mohammed placed his penis between the thighs of Aisha and he messaged it to orgasm since he could not have sexual intercourse with her until she was nine.
As for menstruation, it's a disease in Islam:
Koran 2.222
PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
And Muslims are to kill Turks and people with flat faces and small eyes:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
And as for blacks, according to Abul Kasem:
Allah says in verse 10:26 that He will reward the doers of good with paradise and much more; their faces will be radiant‑stained. They will never be humiliated. Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of this verse says that there will be no blackness or darkness on their faces. In contrast, the faces of the non‑believers will be stained with dust, blackness, and darkness. On the Resurrection Day Allah will remove His veil and show His face to the dwellers of paradise. He will make the believers’ faces white. In verse 76:11 Allah repeats His promise that He will shed a light of beauty and joy over the believers.
It is clear from the exegesis of the above verses that Allah likes white people, and distastes the black people, so much so, that even when a Black Muslim is entitled to enter Islamic Paradise he will not enter it until Allah has turned him into a white‑skinned person.
I doubt you're arguing with the Koran's twisted Jesus stories. Nobody would dispute that, not even Abdullah Mikhail, except to argue the meaning of "Muslim." It's offensive to me to call Jesus and Moses Muslims. I can't think of a more horrible thing to call someone.
I retract nothing and stand by everything Allah and I wrote.
And the links:
Ayesha Ahmed's note
If you Google the exact text of the billboard, "Sharia Law Threatens America" you get a whole slew of useful sites.
Some of the other suggestions in this thread have been good, but remember billboards must be read while you are passing them at 55-miles-per-hour (or faster, let's be honest) on the freeway.
"Sharia Law Threatens America" is concise and to the point. I hope it gets a lot of people thinking.
I apparently messed up the "thighing" link: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha#.22Thighing.22_Aisha
I wonder how loud the muslims are screaming to have this billboard removed. Wouldn't surprise me at all if it gets shot full of holes or otherwise vandalized and if it can be accessed without special equipment, it probably won't remain intact for long. Too many muslims will see it and their inherent, chronic rage will be exacerbated by the sight, resulting in apoplectic eruptions and possible malicious vandalism in defense of islam.
But it is a great idea and a good location. Washington, D.C. could use a sign or two; maybe some of our stupid politicians would notice them. On second thought, they would probably deem them "racist" or "islamophobic" and demand their removal.
JDAMN,
You're out of control.
JDAMN: "Because he did supposedly sexually assault her when she was a six-year-old toddler (I think he was impotent, but that the official story)"
"Or are you claiming that the sexual assault of one's brain-damaged 6-year-old family members doesn't constitute rape?"
RESPONSE: By all accounts, Muhammad didn't consummate his marriage until Aisha was 9. This still qualifies as pedophilia, but get your facts straight man.
Secondly, by what standard is Aisha "retarded" or "brain damaged"? Because she played with dolls when she was 9? Good Gos man!
And since when is "radiant" a code-word for "white"?
You're the type that gives the anti-Jihad a bad name.
jdamn,
I agree with Cornelius. There's no need to exaggerate in illustrating the problems in Islamic doctrine. While Ayesha Ahmed's articles are humorous and Abul Kasem's articles are often informative, both authors are prone to overstatement, and both sometimes add their own interpretations to Islamic scripture. Unfortunately the editorial policies at Islam-Watch and Faithfreedom are far too lax in these respects.
You write:
"Here's an 'Allah says:'
Allah says rape your daughters, rape your sisters,"
The Quran doesn't say that at all. At most, it fails to rule it out. To my knowledge the incest taboo regarding immediate family members was still in place in 7th century Arabia, though marriage to cousins was allowed (Muhammad's first wife was a cousin).
"...rape your bought sex slaves (wives), and rape you slaves (your abducted sex slaves),"
It is implied (not by 2:222-2:223) elsewhere in the Quran (4:24, 23:5-6, 70:29-30) that a Muslim man can legally have sex with his wives and his slave girls. From the Hadith and Sira it becomes clear that the men were permitted to have sex with the slave girls by force (i.e., rape). Islamic law (Hanafi) permits Muslim men to have sex with their wives by force (rape). Again, though, the Quran ("Allah") does not say this, and does not order it.
"...and do it whenever or however you want,"
Again, the Quran does not say this. In Islam, there are only two permitted contexts of sexual intercourse for the Muslim male: Sex in the context of marriage, or sex in the context of master-slave. The Quran does not give permission beyond this.
"...so long as they're not menstruating, because women are filthy animals and menstruation is a disease. (K 2.223)"
The Quran does not refer to women as filthy animals. It does refer to menstruation as a disease or illness, and women are regarded as unclean during menstruation. The Hadith also contains some terrible statements about women.
"But raping your retarded six-year-old niece is best, and advocate that others do the same at every opportunity."
Not to quibble, but Aisha was 9, according to the Hadith, when Muhammad "consummated" the marriage. (I agree that that is rape). He married her when she was 6. To my knowledge, the Hadith overall do not indicate that Aisha was "retarded." I also think that Aisha was not biologically Muhammad's niece--he referred to Abu Bakr (Aisha's father) as his "brother in religion"--though I could be wrong about that. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.
"This is sunna.
Or how about this one:
Blacks and Turks and people wth flat faces and small eyes all go to hell, so enslave, castrate, rape, and kill them and their children."
Neither the Quran nor the Hadith say this. Those two sources are clear enough that anyone who accepts Islam and follows its orders and avoids the major sin-crimes will not go to hell. A hadith does prophesy fighting against people who have flat faces, but that is not on account of their flat faces. Rather, people are to be fought until they submit to either Islam or Islamic rule.
Islam (Hadith and Islamic law) permits killing of children when it cannot be avoided.
"Or this one:
Allah says: "kill any Jew who comes under your power.""
Muhammad, not Allah, is quoted as having said that in the Sira.
"Or this one:
Allah says: Jesus (Esau) is a Muslim, is not the son of God,"
True; the Quran does say those things.
"and his mother, Miriam, is a whore,"
It does not say that.
"and he faked his dying on the cross."
As I recall, it doesn't say Jesus faked it.
"Christians are polytheists."
Yes it does imply that at least some of them (those who believe God had a son, who would today comprise the majority of Christians) are polytheists.
kinana and Cornelius are right, jdamn - please take a deep, deep breath and count to ten before you post.
If you can be caught out in a sweeping inaccuracy - for example, Aisha probably suffered from Stockholm Syndrome or the usual problems of children who are exposed to abuse at an early age, but the outline of her biography doesn't exactly suggest she was retarded (see Mr Spencer's observations on her character, in his review of the awful Sherry Jones novel), and the Islamic sources clearly say she was bedded at nine, not at six - you do give Mr Spencer's detractors a potential weapon.
Also, it might help to give references for the way you're translating some of the terms: refer us to an entry or two from William Lane's classic dictionary of Arabic, for example.
And as Kinana has pointed out, it's useful to specify whether something comes from Qur'an and/or Sira and/or Hadith, and where, exactly.
We want new visitors to this site to be able to check our statements about the content of Islamic sources - chapter and verse - or about Islamic practice.
For example: we don't just want to say 'many Muslim men beat their wives' - we want to quote Qur'an 4: 34 verbatim in a couple of versions, and maybe link to a report that cites Muslim clerics speaking in favour of wife-beating, and a news report or two on actual cases of dv in Muslim communities.
Dude, seriously? OK, maybe you can defend Aisha's mental faculties, but you're reaching with Inspector Gadget's arms. She lived to be 63, never did a damn thing, and still never learned to read. You can watch her grow up through the scriptures. She reacts to everything in the same way as my mom's cat who was born to a feral mother but who never went feral because she never had any instinct for self-preservation. She was the runt of her litter and has never been quite right, like she's not scared when she should be scared. My mom has had a feral colony for years and only that one cat dared to just walk in the house and not be scared of people and she was way too old to not have gone feral. Aisha reminds of that cat. I think it's fair to assume that anyone who takes anything at face value from the age of 11 to the age of 18 is necessarily brain-damaged, and she NEVER questioned anything. Those are referred to as one's "formative years" because that is the time in one's life when any reasonably intelligent human being questions absolutely everything and comes to one's own conclusions about it all. Clearly, the fever that caused Aisha's hair to fall out left her retarded. Women having wet dreams? Female ejaculation in genitally mutilated women? Wife-beating's a-ok? She never questioned any of it. You're entitled to your opinion, but I will never be convinced that Aisha wasn't brain-damaged. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the village idiot was the only one who was present during any of Mo's "revelations."
And while there was a taboo regarding incest in ancient Arabia, Muhammad pretty much did away with that. Yeah, Arabs were pretty decent, if barbaric, people back during jahiliya. That's why he needed special dispensation from Allah to marry Zaynab. That was regarded as marrying one's own daughter, just like marrying Aisha was considered marrying one's own niece. He needed special dispensation for that too. No, they were not blood-related. It's still incest. If my father had sex with my adopted cousin I would have him prosecuted for incest and he would go to prison, not that my father would do that, but I have a father and an adopted cousin (actually 3), so I do have some perspective on this. Is having sex with your stepbrother OK? No. It's incest, just like having sex with your niece. Is it ok to have sex with your adopted daughter? No. It's incest. Blood relations are irrelevant. Furthermore, raping one's daughters is the rule, not the exception, among Muslims, at least according to Cassandra. Not just daughters, either. She warns women that if you marry a Muslim man that he WILL sodomize your children and use the Koran to justify it. I realize that she is not an Islamic scholar, but she knows how Islam is practiced at home better than any of us do.
Cornelius: By all accounts, Muhammad didn't consummate his marriage until Aisha was 9. This still qualifies as pedophilia, but get your facts straight man.
OK, so sexually assaulting (i.e., thighing) a 6-year-old doesn't constitute rape to you? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's rape to me. A man would be prosecuted for rape, or at least sexual assault, if he did that in the Free World today, thank God.
And, yes "go to your tilth as ye will" does mean "rape them whenever, however you want." And yes, "your women" does mean "your wives, your slaves, your daughters, and your sisters." Those are a man's property under Islam. They are halal to rape. They are "his women." He owns them. That's why it says that they are a "tilth" to be plowed. Because they are property, like land. And yes, Islamic marriage is nothing more than institutionalized rape. That's why 'sex,' 'rape,' 'marriage,' 'child molestation,' and 'incest' are all "nikah." It's all the same thing in Islam. This is not just scripture. This is Sharia. This is how Islam is practiced.
Kinana: Again, the Quran does not say this. In Islam, there are only two permitted contexts of sexual intercourse for the Muslim male: Sex in the context of marriage, or sex in the context of master-slave. The Quran does not give permission beyond this.
Where does the Koran say that? 2.223 is unabrogated, as is the entire Sura, in any event. That verse clearly makes it halal for men to rape their daughters and sisters. If it didn't it would say "wives" (zawaj), not "women" (nisa), and maybe have a clause for slaves. "Nisa" covers all "your women." All women live their entire lives as sex slaves under Islam. It's amazing that that's news to anyone in here. First, their brothers and fathers have "divine" sanction to rape them, and then they pimp them off, usually to a much older family member, always for money. Granted, they're usually just sodomized, since the pedophilic Islamic obsession with virginity would lead to a much lower john fee should they be deflowered and then they would have gone through the trouble of raising a girl for nothing if they can't get a nice price for her. And ALL Islamic law permits men to rape their wives, Kinana. They are bought and paid-for. They are halal to rape. That IS Islamic "marriage."
Muslims have no concept of "rape." That's why it's always the woman's fault if she gets raped. It's always legal because Muslims have no concept of consent, hence the pedophilia and the buying and selling of women as chattel, plus the equivalence of doing so to "marriage." Nowhere in the Muslim World can a woman take her husband to court for rape, even if she has four witnesses because there is no such thing as 'rape' in Islam, let alone in Islamic sex slavery (marriage), unless an infidel rapes a Muslim woman, and even then it's likely to be regarded as "zina." And the only differences between bought sex slaves ("wives") and abducted sex slaves are that "wives" must be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, they must have the permission of the owner (mahram), the buyer must pay a john fee (dowry), they can't beat them about the head, and each slave-slave is not entitled to her own house like wife-slaves.
I just cited a Koranic passage (2.222) that explicity says that menstruation is a disease ("illness"). That is not arguable. And I would argue that, since women are "deficient in intellect" that yes, they are in fact subhuman under Islam, hence their having half the legal rights in court, in inheritance, etc. If they were people they would be regarded as equals in terms of intellect and legal rights. And how are women to not be regarded as animals when, all throughout the Muslim world, the john fee ("dowry") frequently consists of animals? Waris Dirie, for example, was to be sold into sex slavery ("marriage") for 2 camels before she escaped. And what invalidates prayer? Oh yeah, the passing of a dog, an ass, or a womam. But women aren't animals in Islam? And yes, they are regarded as "filthy," actually dirtier than dirt, since Muslims are to rub themselves with sand or dirt when water is not available should they come in contact with a woman.
"kill any Jew who comes under your power." I conceded that I should not have said that Allah said that since it is from the Sira, not the Koran. Big difference. Mo posing as Allah and Mo being Mo.
Blacks and Turks and people wth flat faces and small eyes all go to hell, so enslave, castrate, rape, and kill them and their children."
Ok, it does not say to castrate people. It just implies that people will be castrated, since women don't have to veil themselves around eunuchs. There are tons of Koranic verses and ahadith that say to enslave, kill, rape, torture, plunder, and mutilate people. I was only pointing out the racism in Islamic scripture. I assume you're all aware of it. It does say to kill Turks.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
And Mo's reaction to killing infidel children: "They are of them," i.e., their lives are worthless. Of course they are to avoid killing infidel children. It's not profitable to kill them. Per Islamic law women and children are to be attacked while unarmed in unprovoked night raids, then raped, enslaved, and sold. But if a few die, eh, "they are of them," so don't go out of your way to not kill them.
Muslims do believe that Jesus faked his death:
Isa did not die on a cross
Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)
I am not 100% certain about this, but the impression I have is that if Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, which they don't, then they necessarily believe that Mary just got knocked-up out of wedlock. I could be wrong and this could be more twisted Islamic logic whereby two contradictory ideas both hold true, like humans are made from clay, from water, and from a blood clot.
And Muslims believe that Christians are polytheists. They think that because they believe in the Trinity that they worship three Gods. The Christians whom Mo encountered in Arabia had the Trinity wrong and thought that Mary was part of it. Khadija's sister was one of these heretical Christians and she actually performed their marriage. Muslims defend this belief and say that the Bible is corrupted if you suggest otherwise.
DDA, all Aisha did at the Battle of the Camel was say "get 'em, boys." She's hardly General Patton for having done so. That does not constitute evidence of any intellect whatsoever. Can somebody show me any evidence of Aisha reacting to any situation like an indivudal with all of her mental faculties? Cheese and rice. She's the perfect alibi and you guys are buying into it. The village idiot was the only one who ever saw Mo have any of his 'revelations.' He made it up and she was the perfect alibi. Of course Khadija never witnessed it, but Aisha the idiot sure did and she was amazed. "I see not what you see!" The village idiot, who claimed to have never seen Mo naked, is the source of any and all claims regarding his sexual exploits. He was impotent and she's the perfect alibi. And Stockholm Syndrome does not account for her lack of a formative period. Retardation does. I don't think she was retarded when he bought her. I think that the fever that caused her hair to fall out was severe enough to have left her brain-damaged. There is plenty of evidence that she was an idiot, admittedly none of it definitive. There is no evidence that she was intelligent enough to cross the street by herself or to cut her own food. I don't think she was capable of doing either. If anyone can show me anything that points to her ever having demonstrated even a single glimmer of intellect I will gladly take it into account.
DJAMN: "OK, so sexually assaulting (i.e., thighing) a 6-year-old doesn't constitute rape to you?"
On what basis do you ascertain Aisha's age to be 6 when this "thighing" occured? By all accounts, Aisha was brought to Muhammad at the age of 9, when, according to the Hadith, she said "[nothing surprised me more than when the Prophet came to me in the forenoon]".
To reiterate, this IS pedophilia. But you can't get your facts straight about Aisha's age anymore than you can about anything else.
Meanwhile, your evidence of Aisha's "retardation" is as pathetic as the entirety of the rest of your presentation.
Since most of the others here are too diplomatic to speak the obvious, I will:
You sir are a caricature of the anti-Jihad, "acting out" in a wide-eyed hysteria. Better calm down and re-evaluate your entire approach. As things are, you're not going to convince anybody of anything.
Yes, Conelius, but cut her some slack. Her animus against Islam is heightened by personal trauma and endangerment.
Islam: religious sanction for victimizing others since 622 A.D.[C.E.]
Pardon, "Cornelius."
Cornelius, I ascertain that this took place on the basis of the fact that Khomeini asserted that it did. He did and said a lot of horrible things, but he got to where he did by being one of the most reputable scholars of Islam of his lifetime. I therefore consider him to be authoritative.
As for the prophet, thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=9808&page=2
Mo may not have even been "married" to her when this took place, judging by the wording. She could have been 5 by the lunar calendar. She may also have been his 'fiancee' because the 'marriage' hadn't been consummated at that point. In any event, she would not be nine for several years, lunar or solar, when he began sexually assaulting her.
And please don't call me 'sir.' I'm a woman. I get that a lot online, though, so I won't take it personally.
I apologize for confusing you for a man.
J: “Dude, seriously? OK, maybe you can defend Aisha's mental faculties, but you're reaching with Inspector Gadget's arms.”
K: I’m not stretching, nor am I defending Aisha’s mental faculties per se. I just have no basis for believing your claims. The only reason I address this issue is that it stood out to me as suspect, not supported by evidence. I’m challenging your claim that Aisha was “retarded,” a claim for which you do not provide adequate supportive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I think it is prudent to believe, for the moment, the statistically more probable scenario that she was within the range of normal intelligence.
J: “She lived to be 63, never did a damn thing, and still never learned to read.”
K: I’m not sure that Aisha, if she existed, “never learned to read.” If she attempted to learn to read and was not successful, that would not necessarily mean she is “retarded” (your term).
J: “I think it's fair to assume that anyone who takes anything at face value from the age of 11 to the age of 18 is necessarily brain-damaged, and she NEVER questioned anything.”
K: Are you sure? Her saying to Muhammad “I see that your Lord rushes to meet your desires,” strikes me as rather astute, if cynical. (Also see below).
J: “Clearly, the fever that caused Aisha's hair to fall out left her retarded. Women having wet dreams? Female ejaculation in genitally mutilated women?”
K: Can you provide any reasonably sufficient evidence to support these claims?
J: “Wife-beating's a-ok? She never questioned any of it.”
K: Are you sure she never questioned it? Her statement that she had “never seen any women suffering as much as the believing women,” after a Muslim woman came to her and Muhammad complaining of being beaten and showing bruises, should at least make you somewhat more careful about making the sweeping categorical statement that she “never questioned any of it.” It sounds to me like she was, at the very least, complaining.
J: “You're entitled to your opinion, but I will never be convinced that Aisha wasn't brain-damaged.”
K: I try to keep my opinion strictly tied to the evidence. I’m just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion in the first place. Can you cite examples from the Hadith and Sira that suggest she was “brain damaged”?
J: “I also don't think it's a coincidence that the village idiot was the only one who was present during any of Mo's "revelations."”
K: Can you cite evidence that that is the case?
J: “And while there was a taboo regarding incest in ancient Arabia, Muhammad pretty much did away with that. Yeah, Arabs were pretty decent, if barbaric, people back during jahiliya. That's why he needed special dispensation from Allah to marry Zaynab. That was regarded as marrying one's own daughter, just like marrying Aisha was considered marrying one's own niece.”
K: Was Aisha his niece? I don’t think so; I'm taking it as a tentative assumption that she wasn't. But if you can provide evidence that she was his niece, either through blood relation or legal relation, or through adoption, then please do.
J: “It's still incest. If my father had sex with my adopted cousin I would have him prosecuted for incest and he would go to prison, not that my father would do that, but I have a father and an adopted cousin (actually 3), so I do have some perspective on this. Is having sex with your stepbrother OK? No. It's incest, just like having sex with your niece. Is it ok to have sex with your adopted daughter? No. It's incest. Blood relations are irrelevant.”
K: Again, do you have evidence that Muhammad was Aisha’s uncle, by blood, law, or adoption of some sort?
J: “Furthermore, raping one's daughters is the rule, not the exception, among Muslims, at least according to Cassandra.”
K: Besides what Cassandra says, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that “raping one’s daughters is the rule, not the exception, among Muslims”?
J: “Not just daughters, either. She warns women that if you marry a Muslim man that he WILL sodomize your children and use the Koran to justify it. I realize that she is not an Islamic scholar, but she knows how Islam is practiced at home better than any of us do.”
K: Can you provide any evidence that it is generally true (not just some exceptions) that “a Muslim man WILL sodomize your children”?
J, you ask Cornelius: “OK, so sexually assaulting (i.e., thighing) a 6-year-old doesn't constitute rape to you? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's rape to me. A man would be prosecuted for rape, or at least sexual assault, if he did that in the Free World today, thank God.”
K: Cornelius is just asking you to be accurate and to not make unsupported claims. I’ve read about the “thighing” issue in an article by Sam Shamoun, but the commentaries are very obscure. Yes Khomeini commented on it. In any case, the Quran (interpreted in light of Hadith) assumes no lower age limit on marriages (65:4), and the Hadith of Bukhari states what the marriage contract entails (i.e., permission to engage in sexual intercourse), so why not cite those sources, which mainstream Muslims regard as reliable, to support your claim?
J: “And, yes "go to your tilth as ye will" does mean "rape them whenever, however you want."”
K: It doesn’t say that specifically. There are ahadith associated with the “tilth” verse and they do not give permission to rape. In the Quran with Sunnah, rape is permitted within the context of marriage and slave ownership, but the “tilth” verse doesn’t address that directly.
J: “And yes, "your women" does mean "your wives, your slaves, your daughters, and your sisters." Those are a man's property under Islam. They are halal to rape. They are "his women." He owns them. That's why it says that they are a "tilth" to be plowed. Because they are property, like land. And yes, Islamic marriage is nothing more than institutionalized rape. That's why 'sex,' 'rape,' 'marriage,' 'child molestation,' and 'incest' are all "nikah." It's all the same thing in Islam. This is not just scripture. This is Sharia. This is how Islam is practiced.”
K: No it isn’t all the same thing. And to my knowledge, there is no verse in the Quran or report in the Hadith that says Muslim men can rape their daughters and sisters. There is however a verse that explicitly forbids sex with daughters and sisters (see below).
J, you quote Kinana: Again, the Quran does not say this. In Islam, there are only two permitted contexts of sexual intercourse for the Muslim male: Sex in the context of marriage, or sex in the context of master-slave. The Quran does not give permission beyond this.
And then you ask, “Where does the Koran say that?”
K: I already cited the verses in my previous post (23:5-6; 4:24; 70:29-30).
Here’s one example, with a bit more context (from Yusuf Ali trans.):
23:2. Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
23:3. Who avoid vain talk;
23:4. Who are active in deeds of charity;
23:5. Who abstain from sex,
23:6. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame,
23:7. But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;
J: “2.223 is unabrogated, as is the entire Sura, in any event.”
K: I didn't claim that 2:223 was abrogated. It is not simply true that the “entire Sura” (i.e., any or all of its content) is regarded as unabrogated. Many scholars view 2:219 as abrogated. Some also view 2:256 as abrogated, though in modern times it is more common for scholars to say it is not abrogated. Verse 2:62 is also viewed by some as abrogated by 3:85.
J: “That verse clearly makes it halal for men to rape their daughters and sisters.”
K: It doesn’t say that. It is not a plausible reading in light of the rest of the Quran and Hadith, and in light of the incest taboo in regards to sex with immediate family members. The Quran supports the incest taboo here:
4:23. “Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster mother who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your step daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gone in - but there is no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allah is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.”
About this verse, Ibn Abbas comments:
“He said: (Forbidden unto you are your mothers) your blood mothers, (and your daughters) your blood daughters, (and your sisters) your blood sisters, whether from both parents or from either one of them, (and your father's sisters, and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters) the daughters of your blood brother whether he is a full brother or half brother from the father or the mother (and your sister's daughters) and the daughters of your sister whether she is a full sister or half sister from the father or mother, (and your foster mothers) who suckled you within the first two years, (and your foster sisters, and your mothers-in-law) whether you have consummated the marriage with their daughters or not: in both cases you are forbidden from marrying them, (and your stepdaughters who are under your protection) who are brought up in your homes ((born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in) with whom you are married and consummated this marriage (but if ye have not gone in unto them) if you have not have consummated the marriage with their mothers, (then it is no sin for you) to marry their daughters after you divorce their mothers (and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins) your sons who are born in wedlock. (And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together) whether they are free or slave sisters, (except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past) before Islam. (Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving) of that which ensued from you in the pre-Islamic era, (Merciful) regarding that which ensues from you in Islam, provided that you repent.”
J: “If it didn't it would say "wives" (zawaj), not "women" (nisa), and maybe have a clause for slaves. "Nisa" covers all "your women." All women live their entire lives as sex slaves under Islam. It's amazing that that's news to anyone in here.”
K: The Quran is often unclear. Verses must be read in light of what the whole Quran says (and the Hadith and Sira). It’s not news to any regular readers here that Islamic doctrine and classical sharia discriminates against women to the point of permitting Muslim men to rape their wives and female captives. It would be “news,” in the sense of new reports of facts, if you could show us evidence to support your assertions about “all” Muslim women.
J: “First, their brothers and fathers have "divine" sanction to rape them, and then they pimp them off, usually to a much older family member, always for money. Granted, they're usually just sodomized,”
K: I can’t accept this unless you provide evidence that this is what Muslims “usually” do, and that there is clear sanction for this in the Quran and Hadith.
J: “since the pedophilic Islamic obsession with virginity would lead to a much lower john fee should they be deflowered and then they would have gone through the trouble of raising a girl for nothing if they can't get a nice price for her. And ALL Islamic law permits men to rape their wives, Kinana.”
K: Regarding the latter assertion, I cited the Hanafi school. Can you cite the others? Otherwise, how can you say all Islamic law permits this? I’m not saying I’d be surprised if all the major schools did support it. I’m saying you need to demonstrate this, especially to people who are much more difficult to persuade than me.
J: “Muslims have no concept of "rape."”
K: Worded in the present tense, I can’t agree with that as a categorical statement. I think that statement is partly correct as applied to early Islam, but I don’t entirely agree with it. Islam’s conception of rape in the Hadith is clouded by issues pertaining to fornication and adultery. The Muslim woman is absolved of responsibility or “forgiven” if she is forced to commit illegal sexual intercourse. (That view is of course deficient). However, Muslim men are permitted by Islamic doctrine to rape (modern Western definition) their wives and slave girls. So Islam permits rape under some conditions for some people (Muslim husbands and masters/owners), but not for other people under other conditions.
J: “That's why it's always the woman's fault if she gets raped. It's always legal because Muslims have no concept of consent,”
K: Again, I can’t agree with these sweeping categorical statements. Yes, there are elements of truth to what you are saying, but a woman is not “always” regarded as at fault for rape. It is not true that Muslims have “no concept of consent.” Effective critiques of Islam’s treatment of rape and its inadequate notions of consent can be made without resorting to this kind of hyperbole.
I will try to respond to the rest of your post in another posting.
J: “Dude, seriously? OK, maybe you can defend Aisha's mental faculties, but you're reaching with Inspector Gadget's arms.”
K: I’m not stretching, nor am I defending Aisha’s mental faculties per se. I just have no basis for believing your claims. The only reason I address this issue is that it stood out to me as suspect, not supported by evidence. I’m challenging your claim that Aisha was “retarded,” a claim for which you do not provide adequate supportive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I think it is prudent to believe, for the moment, the statistically more probable scenario that she was within the range of normal intelligence.
J: “She lived to be 63, never did a damn thing, and still never learned to read.”
K: I’m not sure that Aisha, if she existed, “never learned to read.” If she attempted to learn to read and was not successful, that would not necessarily mean she is “retarded” (your term).
J: “I think it's fair to assume that anyone who takes anything at face value from the age of 11 to the age of 18 is necessarily brain-damaged, and she NEVER questioned anything.”
K: Are you sure? Her saying to Muhammad “I see that your Lord rushes to meet your desires,” strikes me as rather astute, if cynical. (Also see below).
J: “Clearly, the fever that caused Aisha's hair to fall out left her retarded. Women having wet dreams? Female ejaculation in genitally mutilated women?”
K: Can you provide any reasonably sufficient evidence to support these claims?
J: “Wife-beating's a-ok? She never questioned any of it.”
K: Are you sure she never questioned it? Her statement that she had “never seen any women suffering as much as the believing women,” after a Muslim woman came to her and Muhammad complaining of being beaten and showing bruises, should at least make you somewhat more careful about making the sweeping categorical statement that she “never questioned any of it.” It sounds to me like she was, at the very least, complaining.
J: “You're entitled to your opinion, but I will never be convinced that Aisha wasn't brain-damaged.”
K: I try to keep my opinion strictly tied to the evidence. I’m just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion in the first place. Can you cite examples from the Hadith and Sira that suggest she was “brain damaged”?
J: “I also don't think it's a coincidence that the village idiot was the only one who was present during any of Mo's "revelations."”
K: Can you cite evidence that that is the case?
J: “And while there was a taboo regarding incest in ancient Arabia, Muhammad pretty much did away with that. Yeah, Arabs were pretty decent, if barbaric, people back during jahiliya. That's why he needed special dispensation from Allah to marry Zaynab. That was regarded as marrying one's own daughter, just like marrying Aisha was considered marrying one's own niece.”
K: Was Aisha his niece? I don’t think so; I'm taking it as a tentative assumption that she wasn't. But if you can provide evidence that she was his niece, either through blood relation or legal relation, or through adoption, then please do.
J: “It's still incest. If my father had sex with my adopted cousin I would have him prosecuted for incest and he would go to prison, not that my father would do that, but I have a father and an adopted cousin (actually 3), so I do have some perspective on this. Is having sex with your stepbrother OK? No. It's incest, just like having sex with your niece. Is it ok to have sex with your adopted daughter? No. It's incest. Blood relations are irrelevant.”
K: Again, do you have evidence that Muhammad was Aisha’s uncle, by blood, law, or adoption of some sort?
J: “Furthermore, raping one's daughters is the rule, not the exception, among Muslims, at least according to Cassandra.”
K: Besides what Cassandra says, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that “raping one’s daughters is the rule, not the exception, among Muslims”?
J: “Not just daughters, either. She warns women that if you marry a Muslim man that he WILL sodomize your children and use the Koran to justify it. I realize that she is not an Islamic scholar, but she knows how Islam is practiced at home better than any of us do.”
K: Can you provide any evidence that it is generally true (not just some exceptions) that “a Muslim man WILL sodomize your children”?
J, you ask Cornelius: “OK, so sexually assaulting (i.e., thighing) a 6-year-old doesn't constitute rape to you? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's rape to me. A man would be prosecuted for rape, or at least sexual assault, if he did that in the Free World today, thank God.”
K: Cornelius is just asking you to be accurate and to not make unsupported claims. I’ve read about the “thighing” issue in an article by Sam Shamoun, but the commentaries are very obscure. Yes Khomeini commented on it. In any case, the Quran (interpreted in light of Hadith) assumes no lower age limit on marriages (65:4), and the Hadith of Bukhari states what the marriage contract entails (i.e., permission to engage in sexual intercourse), so why not cite those sources, which mainstream Muslims regard as reliable, to support your claim?
J: “And, yes "go to your tilth as ye will" does mean "rape them whenever, however you want."”
K: It doesn’t say that specifically. There are ahadith associated with the “tilth” verse and they do not give permission to rape. In the Quran with Sunnah, rape is permitted within the context of marriage and slave ownership, but the “tilth” verse doesn’t address that directly.
J: “And yes, "your women" does mean "your wives, your slaves, your daughters, and your sisters." Those are a man's property under Islam. They are halal to rape. They are "his women." He owns them. That's why it says that they are a "tilth" to be plowed. Because they are property, like land. And yes, Islamic marriage is nothing more than institutionalized rape. That's why 'sex,' 'rape,' 'marriage,' 'child molestation,' and 'incest' are all "nikah." It's all the same thing in Islam. This is not just scripture. This is Sharia. This is how Islam is practiced.”
K: No it isn’t all the same thing. And to my knowledge, there is no verse in the Quran or report in the Hadith that says Muslim men can rape their daughters and sisters. There is however a verse that explicitly forbids sex with daughters and sisters (see below).
J, you quote Kinana: Again, the Quran does not say this. In Islam, there are only two permitted contexts of sexual intercourse for the Muslim male: Sex in the context of marriage, or sex in the context of master-slave. The Quran does not give permission beyond this.
And then you ask, “Where does the Koran say that?”
K: I already cited the verses in my previous post (23:5-6; 4:24; 70:29-30).
Here’s one example, with a bit more context (from Yusuf Ali trans.):
23:2. Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
23:3. Who avoid vain talk;
23:4. Who are active in deeds of charity;
23:5. Who abstain from sex,
23:6. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame,
23:7. But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;
J: “2.223 is unabrogated, as is the entire Sura, in any event.”
K: I didn't claim that 2:223 was abrogated. It is not simply true that the “entire Sura” (i.e., any or all of its content) is regarded as unabrogated. Many scholars view 2:219 as abrogated. Some also view 2:256 as abrogated, though in modern times it is more common for scholars to say it is not abrogated. Verse 2:62 is also viewed by some as abrogated by 3:85.
J: “That verse clearly makes it halal for men to rape their daughters and sisters.”
K: It doesn’t say that. It is not a plausible reading in light of the rest of the Quran and Hadith, and in light of the incest taboo in regards to sex with immediate family members. The Quran supports the incest taboo here:
4:23. “Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster mother who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your step daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gone in - but there is no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allah is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.”
About this verse, Ibn Abbas comments:
“He said: (Forbidden unto you are your mothers) your blood mothers, (and your daughters) your blood daughters, (and your sisters) your blood sisters, whether from both parents or from either one of them, (and your father's sisters, and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters) the daughters of your blood brother whether he is a full brother or half brother from the father or the mother (and your sister's daughters) and the daughters of your sister whether she is a full sister or half sister from the father or mother, (and your foster mothers) who suckled you within the first two years, (and your foster sisters, and your mothers-in-law) whether you have consummated the marriage with their daughters or not: in both cases you are forbidden from marrying them, (and your stepdaughters who are under your protection) who are brought up in your homes ((born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in) with whom you are married and consummated this marriage (but if ye have not gone in unto them) if you have not have consummated the marriage with their mothers, (then it is no sin for you) to marry their daughters after you divorce their mothers (and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins) your sons who are born in wedlock. (And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together) whether they are free or slave sisters, (except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past) before Islam. (Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving) of that which ensued from you in the pre-Islamic era, (Merciful) regarding that which ensues from you in Islam, provided that you repent.”
J: “If it didn't it would say "wives" (zawaj), not "women" (nisa), and maybe have a clause for slaves. "Nisa" covers all "your women." All women live their entire lives as sex slaves under Islam. It's amazing that that's news to anyone in here.”
K: The Quran is often unclear. Verses must be read in light of what the whole Quran says (and the Hadith and Sira). It’s not news to any regular readers here that Islamic doctrine and classical sharia discriminates against women to the point of permitting Muslim men to rape their wives and female captives. It would be “news,” in the sense of new reports of facts, if you could show us evidence to support your assertions about “all” Muslim women.
J: “First, their brothers and fathers have "divine" sanction to rape them, and then they pimp them off, usually to a much older family member, always for money. Granted, they're usually just sodomized,”
K: I can’t accept this unless you provide evidence that this is what Muslims “usually” do, and that there is clear sanction for this in the Quran and Hadith.
J: “since the pedophilic Islamic obsession with virginity would lead to a much lower john fee should they be deflowered and then they would have gone through the trouble of raising a girl for nothing if they can't get a nice price for her. And ALL Islamic law permits men to rape their wives, Kinana.”
K: Regarding the latter assertion, I cited the Hanafi school. Can you cite the others? Otherwise, how can you say all Islamic law permits this? I’m not saying I’d be surprised if all the major schools did support it. I’m saying you need to demonstrate this, especially to people who are much more difficult to persuade than me.
J: “Muslims have no concept of "rape."”
K: Worded in the present tense, I can’t agree with that as a categorical statement. I think that statement is partly correct as applied to early Islam, but I don’t entirely agree with it. Islam’s conception of rape in the Hadith is clouded by issues pertaining to fornication and adultery. The Muslim woman is absolved of responsibility or “forgiven” if she is forced to commit illegal sexual intercourse. (That view is of course deficient). However, Muslim men are permitted by Islamic doctrine to rape (modern Western definition) their wives and slave girls. So Islam permits rape under some conditions for some people (Muslim husbands and masters/owners), but not for other people under other conditions.
J: “That's why it's always the woman's fault if she gets raped. It's always legal because Muslims have no concept of consent,”
K: Again, I can’t agree with these sweeping categorical statements. Yes, there are elements of truth to what you are saying, but a woman is not “always” regarded as at fault for rape. It is not true that Muslims have “no concept of consent.” Effective critiques of Islam’s treatment of rape and its inadequate notions of consent can be made without resorting to this kind of hyperbole.
I will try to respond to the rest of your post in another posting.
sorry for the double post. something strange is happening with typekey over the past day or so.
Just imagine this exchange, be it on TV, radio or whatever. M is Mohammedan apologist, and I is 'Islamophobic' critic, let's say Jdamn.
Does anyone think that by seeing the exchange, an Infidel member of the audience will say, oh, he did it at 9? and she wasn't retarded? Well then, that makes it okay!I think that any attack that forces Muslim spokespeople to go on the defensive is good, even if it is countering overstated points. If they genuinely state the facts, the audience is unlikely to be impressed, and if they lie, it becomes a 'he said she said' routine, where the audience member is forced to check out what the record is. Which is why I don't agree with those who say that Jdamn ends up discrediting the anti-Islam movement.
P.S. Jdamn, your style of writing is very male, I too thought you were a male until you said otherwise.
Jdamn,
I suspect my further responses will be tedious for many readers, so I’ll summarize my view that you need to refrain from hyperbole and sweeping categorical statements, and back up what you write with appropriate evidence before you write it. You’ve obviously read a great deal on Islam, but I think you need to expand your sources. I would also suggest that you read what knowledgeable Islam apologists have to say about many of these issues, not just Islam critics such as those mentioned earlier. I’ll try to restrict myself now to a few points of issue or possible misunderstanding.
J: “But women aren't animals in Islam?”
K: I said the Quran didn’t say that. The Quran does describe non-Muslims as animals, like animals, and worse (lowest of the low), but does not say this about women. Most of the ahadith I’ve seen about women are bad (some are horrendous), but some seem to be good. I don’t dispute that Islamic doctrine (including the Quran) and law treat women as inferior to men.
J: “And yes, they are regarded as "filthy," actually dirtier than dirt, since Muslims are to rub themselves with sand or dirt when water is not available should they come in contact with a woman.”
K: Yes, but it’s not as simple as that. Muslim men can certainly make contact with their wives and slaves. Muslim men have to ritually clean themselves before prayers, particularly in regards to any actions or thoughts pertaining to sex. Muslim women also have to ritually clean themselves regarding sexual contact (though off the top of my head I don’t know that this is in the Quran explicitly in reference to women). Non-Muslims (men and women) in the Quran generally are regarded as unclean. Of course that is nonsense; don’t assume I’m defending any of this. I’m just trying to give some perspective and points that are likely to be raised by apologists.
J: “"kill any Jew who comes under your power." I conceded that I should not have said that Allah said that since it is from the Sira, not the Koran. Big difference. Mo posing as Allah and Mo being Mo.”
K: Okay, but that’s not how you presented it originally; I responded to the original statement which had “Allah says” or something to that effect.
J: It does say to kill Turks.
K: An overall reading shows that it does not matter that they are Turks, or whether they live in huts, or whatever. What matters is whether or not they are Muslims or the right kind of Muslims. It matters if they are Jews (i.e., non-Muslims), but that is a different hadith.
J: “Per Islamic law women and children are to be attacked while unarmed in unprovoked night raids, then raped, enslaved, and sold. But if a few die, eh, "they are of them," so don't go out of your way to not kill them.”
K: The jihad policies are bad enough; there’s no need to insert unsupported claims. Yes, the women and children are not protected by Islam or the dhimma, which is worth criticizing. But Islamic law does not permit women and children to be attacked “unprovoked.” It is permitted to kill them as collateral damage in the greater cause of jihad. The cause of jihad is worth criticizing. That mere words of insult or criticism against Islam from those women and children may be considered by some scholars to be “provocation” and grounds for killing them is certainly worth criticizing.
Of the Quran’s portrayal of Jesus, you wrote:
J: "and he faked his dying on the cross."
And I responded, K: As I recall, it doesn't say Jesus faked it.
You say (or quote):
J: Muslims do believe that Jesus faked his death:
Isa did not die on a cross
Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)
K: I maintain that the Quran does not say that Jesus faked his own death. It suggests that Allah made it appear, to Jesus’s would-be killers, and others, that he was killed. According to Ibn Abbas and al-Jalalayn, Allah made it appear as though Jesus died, when Allah actually took him up to heaven. Someone else, who Allah made to look like Jesus on this occasion, was put in his place and killed.
Ibn Kathir (4:157) writes:
“`Isa performed other miracles that Allah honored him with, yet the Jews defied and bellied him and tried their best to harm him. Allah's Prophet `Isa could not live in any one city for long and he had to travel often with his mother, peace be upon them. Even so, the Jews were not satisfied, and they went to the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars. They told him that there was a man in Bayt Al-Maqdis misguiding and dividing the people in Jerusalem and stirring unrest among the king's subjects. The king became angry and wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest the rebel leader, stop him from causing unrest, crucify him and make him wear a crown of thorns. When the king's deputy in Jerusalem received these orders, he went with some Jews to the house that `Isa was residing in, and he was then with twelve, thirteen or seventeen of his companions. That day was a Friday, in the evening. They surrounded `Isa in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, "Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise'' A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, "Well then, you will be that man.'' Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep.”
The Quran and the ahadith, upon which Ibn Kathir and others apparently base their commentary, suggests that Allah did the illusion/trickery/fakery, not Jesus.
K: "The Quran does describe non-Muslims as animals, like animals, and worse (lowest of the low), but does not say this about women."
That is, it doesn't say women are described as animals because they are women. Rather men and women who are disbelievers are animals, etc., because they do not accept Islam.
The remainder of what I forgot to post:
J: “I am not 100% certain about this, but the impression I have is that if Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God,”
K: Right, mainstream Muslims definitely do not believe Jesus was the son of Allah because in their view that would be polytheism, which is in the category of worst crimes in Islam.
J: “which they don't, then they necessarily believe that Mary just got knocked-up out of wedlock. I could be wrong and this could be more twisted Islamic logic whereby two contradictory ideas both hold true, like humans are made from clay, from water, and from a blood clot.”
The important thing about wedlock in Islam is that it is approved by Allah. Remember, sex with slaves out of wedlock is approved by Allah. Allah impregnating Mary via the angel was approved by Allah, therefore in Islamic value system there is nothing to worry about. Indeed, one should not even question it or criticize it in mainstream Islam.
According to the Jalalayn, Quran 19:21 regarding Mary’s impregnation states:
“He said, ‘It, the matter in question, of creating a boy from you without a father, shall be so! Your Lord has said: “It is easy for Me, in other words, by Gabriel’s breathing into you, by My command, so that you become pregnant with him — since what has been mentioned is meant as a reason, the following [statement] is added as a supplement thereto: and so that We may make him a sign for mankind, of Our power, and a mercy from Us, to whoever believes in him. And it, the creation of him, is a thing [already] decreed”’, according to My knowledge. So Gabriel breathed into the opening of her shirt, whereupon she sensed the formed foetus in her womb.”
Infidel Pride,
You got it wrong. The question of Aisha's age is a question of accuracy, nothing more.
It's Jdamn calling her "retarded" and "brain damaged" that in my opinion is over the top.
IP,
You write:
“Just imagine this exchange, be it on TV, radio or whatever. M is Mohammedan apologist, and I is 'Islamophobic' critic, let's say Jdamn.
I: Mohammed thighed a 6 year old retard Aisha: that's the root of the divine sanction of pedophilia in Islam.
M: You Islamophobe, he didn't thigh her at 6, he thighed her at 9, and she wasn't a retard.
Does anyone think that by seeing the exchange, an Infidel member of the audience will say, oh, he did it at 9? and she wasn't retarded? Well then, that makes it okay!”
The thought had occurred to me that this was quibbling or would be seen as such. However, I suspect that an Islam apologist in front of an audience of naïve non-Muslims would respond by unscrupulously jettisoning any such problematic ahadith or commentaries about “thighing” with the ever-handy “weak hadith” and “marginal commentator” dismissals. If this is not in the Quran or the mainstream Hadith, the Islam critic would be left high and dry.
The issues with jdamn’s post, to which Cornelius and I responded initially, contained some pretty egregious errors that would be easily refuted by an apologist. We were responding to comments like this:
J: “Allah says rape your daughters, rape your sisters,”
And another one that really caught my attention was this:
J: "But raping your retarded six-year-old niece is best, and advocate that others do the same at every opportunity."
I mean, come on. From the standpoint of accuracy, I’d say J’s statement immediately above contains at least two errors and two unsupported assertions (niece, and “retarded”—the latter of which just makes jdamn come across as mean). How do you think a naïve audience is going to respond to that, when there is some slick smooth-talking politically-correct apologist there who can dance around and deny and deflect and counterattack?
The billboard should read:
ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW
THREATENS AMERICA!
Guys, I have to go to class, so I will respond quickly. 2.223 is an unabrogated verse. Ask Robert. Yes, Islam apologists do try to play it down, hence the pervasiveness of its mistranslation. You have to concede that it justifies non-consentual sex (i.e., rape). It does apply to "your women." It does not say "your wives and your slaves." That is intentional. I'm sure that the modern ulema try to reinterpret it because it is quite problematic for Islam, but they also try to act as if slavery never existed in Islam, when it's actually foundational to it and one of its core tenets, even according to "moderates" like Taha.
It would be impossible to gauge the extent to which Muslim children are raped at home because they live under physical duress, don't report it (and if they do the stats are buried in Muslim countries), it's not a crime in Muslim countries so no charges can ever be brought, and even in the States the charges get dropped because the kids don't want to be killed, as in the case of Amina and Sarah Said, who went to the cops claiming that their father was raping them and then dropped the charges. Muslims are known to have raped corpses for crying out loud, hence the tradition of Hindu widows throwing themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. Poisoning oneself would be much easier, but then the Muslims would have raped their corpses. You would be crazy to put either pedophilia or incest past any Muslim, since these actions are sacralized by Perv Mo.
Women are animals to be traded in Islam. That is why they are possessions, "toys," to be bought, sold, used, abused, and raped. "WOMEN ARE LIKE DOMESTIC ANIMALS TO BE ENJOYED" Tabari IX:113. So there you go. Women are equated with animals (they invalidate prayer in the same way) by ahadith. They actually "like domestic animals" according to the Sira. Finally, they are treated, if anything, worse than farm animals.
She makes a great case as to how Arab women are treated worse than farm animals. In what capacity does Islam raise women to a higher status than animals? WHen? How? Sure, they're supposed to actually receive their own dowry, but that is simply not how Islam is practiced. In fact, in South Asia they have to pay their owner-to-be. Otherwise the parents take it. Just like women are entitled to choose their own husbands, except that if they don't agree to marry whoever their parents pimp them away to they get killed, lawfully.
If you name cite a more authoritative scholar than Khomeini who said that Mo didn't thigh Aisha at 6, I will gladly take it into account, but they will likely be one of the ones who claim that she wasn't 9 when he "consummated" their "marriage," despite endless authoritative ahadith that say otherwise. I consider Khomeini to be authoritative and that's what he said. I have never heard anybody challenge his scholarship, only talk trash about Sh'ism more generally.
I will never believe that Aisha wasn't retarded unless I see some evidence to the contrary. Noticing a nasty bruise and Mo's opportunism are not evidence of intelligence. They are evidence of being alive. Next time you read Islamic scritpure just keep the possibility that she could have been left brain-damaged by that fever in the back of your mind and her behaviors and reactions to things will make more sense.
And, yes I do think that it is not a coincidence that the only witness to Mo's revelations was Aisha the village idiot:
Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755: Narrated 'Urwa from 'Aisha:
The wives of Allah's Apostle were in two groups. One group consisted of 'Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah's Apostle. The Muslims knew that Allah's Apostle loved 'Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah's Apostle, he would delay it, till Allah's Apostle had come to 'Aisha's home and then he would send his gift to Allah's Apostle in her home. The group of Um Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Um Salama should request Allah's Apostle to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife's house he was. Um Salama told Allah's Apostle of what they had said, but he did not reply. Then they (those wives) asked Um Salama about it. She said, "He did not say anything to me." They asked her to talk to him again. She talked to him again when she met him on her day, but he gave no reply. When they asked her, she replied that he had given no reply. They said to her, "Talk to him till he gives you a reply." When it was her turn, she talked to him again. He then said to her, "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." On that Um Salama said, "I repent to Allah for hurting you." Then the group of Um Salama called Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle and sent her to Allah's Apostle to say to him, "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms." Then Fatima conveyed the message to him. The Prophet said, "O my daughter! Don't you love whom I love?" She replied in the affirmative and returned and told them of the situation. They requested her to go to him again but she refused. They then sent Zainab bint Jahsh who went to him and used harsh words saying, "Your wives request you to treat them and the daughter of Ibn Abu Quhafa on equal terms." On that she raised her voice and abused 'Aisha to her face so much so that Allah's Apostle looked at 'Aisha to see whether she would retort. 'Aisha started replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet then looked at 'Aisha and said, "She is really the daughter of Abu Bakr."
Abu Bakr was Mo's brother, since they were both adopted by the same woman. Aisha, therefore, is Mo's niece. He claimed that she wasn't because they were not blood-related:
In his commentary Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn Abi ‘Aasim reported via Yahyaa ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Haatib from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent Khawlah bint Hakeem to Abu Bakr to ask for ‘Aa’ishah’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr asked her, ‘Is she right for him? Because she is the daughter of my brother.’ Khawlah went back and mentioned this to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He told her: ‘Go back and tell him: “You are my brother in Islam, and your daughter is right for me.”’ She went back to Abu Bakr and told him, and he said: ‘Call the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).’ So he came and the marriage was performed.” (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OHT9hg07OogJ:www.islamqa.com/en/ref/726/doc+abu+bakr+brother+in+religion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us)
All that "you are my brother in religion and the Book" is Mo's trying to dispel the fact that they are actually brothers because they were raised by the same woman, butnot by blood, hence the claim that they were not brothers. That may fly with Muhammadans, but they were brothers in my eyes and in the eyes of free-world law.
Read what Arlene Peck, who, btw, endorses Cassandra's book, says about women being treated worse than farm animals: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/peck2b.htm
And yes, I do write like a guy. I've analyzed my own speech and it is very masculine. It's also very Italian, what with the long sentences :).
Jesus (Esau) -jdamn
The Jesus of the Koran is "Isa."
"Isa" is "Esau." "Jesus" would be "Jeshua/Yeshua," depending on how one chooses to transliterate.
How can Jesus be Esau, he whom God hated? Who gave up his birthright for a bowl of soup?
Obviously Jesus can't be Esau. Islam's invariable references to Jesus by the name "Easau/Isa" are just one of the many, many ways in which their faith is unarguably false. Clearly, they didn't know who Esau was, or really Jesus for that matter. They also call Mary 'Miriam.' Miriam was, of course, Moses' sister.
Jdamn,
I think some of these issues have already been dealt with above so I’ll try to move this along. I don't anticipate progress in this discussion unless you (a) provide evidence for the assertions that Muhammad and Abu Bakr were brothers by virtue of being legally adopted or otherwise parented by the same mother figure for a significant span of their childhoods, such that Aisha would be regarded as Muhammad's niece; and (b) provide clear evidence in support of your claim that Aisha had "brain damage" and intellectual impairments.
I didn’t claim 2:223 was abrogated, so that’s not in dispute. The verse does not give permission to rape sisters, daughters, etc. Regarding treatment of women like animals, in addressing your assertions I was referring to the Quran, not Tabari.
J:“If you name cite a more authoritative scholar than Khomeini who said that Mo didn't thigh Aisha at 6,”
K: I already accepted for the sake of argument that Khomeini said it. I’m not that concerned from an Islamic authenticity standpoint whether or not Khomeini said it. Muslim leaders say all sorts of things. What would be needed are mainstream accepted sources (Hadith or sayings etc., or Sira), perhaps found in the Shia traditions about Muhammad, from which Khomeini derived this statement.
J: “I will never believe that Aisha wasn't retarded unless I see some evidence to the contrary. Noticing a nasty bruise and Mo's opportunism are not evidence of intelligence.”
K: Statistically, normal intelligence is more probable than significantly impaired intelligence. I think noticing Muhammad’s opportunism is consistent with normal intelligence. I cited the bruise incident in addressing a different point, where you claimed that Aisha never questioned wife-beating.
"Obviously Jesus can't be Esau."
Right. Which is why the Mohammedans call Jesus "Isa," not Esau.
Oh my! This is Islamophoebia in America. Nonetheless, where do I send my cheque? There ought to be more signs like this around the civilized world
Darcy, "Isa" is Arabic for "Esau," not "Jesus." Again, "Jesus" is "Yeshua" in Arabic. Yes, they made an error that grave, they did it again with Mary, and they did it all over the place. This is one of the reasons why I have to believe that the Koran was largely constructed during Mo's lifetime. Nobody with any degree of editorial control would have allowed that to happen.
Kinana, we're going to have to agree to disagree, but I have to say that yes, statistically it is more likely that she was of average intelligence. It is also statistically more likely that a child who had a fever or whatever it actually was that was so severe as to cause all of her hair to fall would die or be brain-damaged than survive it unscathed.
I am not 100% certain about this, but the impression I have is that if Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, which they don't, then they necessarily believe that Mary just got knocked-up out of wedlock.
This may be a buzz-kill for the Sunday morning crowd, but many historical scholars do think that Mary just got knocked-up out of wedlock.
Is it ok to have sex with your adopted daughter? No. It's incest.
More buzz-kill, if you're Woody Allen. LOL. Ok, it was his wife's adopted daughter.
You arguers and back-biters are probably all asleep by now, but come on! Let's stick with the point and that is that the BILLBOARD IS PHENOMENAL! I sure will donate to help anyone and everyone place billboards like that all over our country!
angryamerican,
The billboard is indeed phenomenal. It's great work by the United American Committee.
I don't like to see threads get derailed either. I usually hold back instead of addressing off-topic claims that are controversial. But sometimes differences of opinion arise, in the larger context of Islam criticism, that ought to be addressed regarding questions of fact, accuracy, standards of evidence, and presentation. In this case, there was some arguing among people with a common cause. But there was no back-biting between the arguers here.