Who could possibly tell a woman such a thing? Muhammad:
"If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460)."
And there is more: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854)."
And of course, Qur'an 4:34's instruction to beat disobedient women sets the precedent for answering supposed "disobedience" with violence. Women in the Muslim world continue to suffer the consequences of these instructions from their prophet. "Silence on spousal sexual assault jarring: Doctors," by Saleha Rauf for the International Herald Tribune, March 10 (thanks to MK):
LAHORE: Gynecologists at several city hospitals have expressed their concerns over the growing number of married female patients who are forced into intercourse.
An outwardly pious, and inwardly sick, broken society:
“The number of marital rape cases keeps going up but no one even acknowledges that the problem exists. We see dozens of patients coming in but they never acknowledge they have been raped; only that they were doing their duty,” says Ganga Ram Hospital consultant gynecologist Dr Shamsa Humayun. Dr Humayun said that she recently treated a mother-of-four, who had lost her pulse, consciousness and lots of blood pressure following a result of her third abortion. “I had warned her not to get pregnant because she had severe diabetes. I told her that her life was at risk but she chose abortion over contraception. Now she is dead,” Dr Humayun said.
Alviah Noor*, who is working on her PhD research paper and recently got married, said that she had severe vaginal infection for the last six months and was heavily medicated to treat an infection caused by her intra-uterine system (IUS or coil). “The coil ruined my health but it was the only contraception I could use without my husband finding out,” she said, adding that doctors had prohibited her from intercourse but her husband refused to listen to her. “I have no choice in the matter. I have to do whatever he tells me,” she said.
Nilofer Raja* complained that her husband had several extra marital affairs and that she had contracted an STD after he forced himself on her. “He abuses me but I cannot refuse him. My family told me that it was my religious duty to do as he demanded and that if I refuse the angels will curse me all night,” she told doctors.
Shirkat Gah representative Fauzia Vikar said “the concept of marital rape does not exist in our society. She is thought to have signed a contract for sex. Even in US, the first marital rape case was reported in 1978. Most reports from battered women reflect that they do not think their spouses are guilty of a crime.” “Most women I have spoken to on the issue simply think that marital rape is natural. We need to educate and economically empower women so that they realise it is not their duty to tolerate abuse,” she said. According to Vikar, most women consider it shameful and a sin to oppose non-consensual sex. “There is almost no local literature available on the subject and not a single reported case to my knowledge,” she said.
Dr Ambreen Ahmad, a clinical psychologist who teaches at Lahore School of Economics said “We need to introduce couples counseling, especially before marriage because women need to know their rights. Many women consider it their ‘religious duty’ to undergo this when there is nothing in religion that condones such assault.”
Non-consensual sex is the logical conclusion of the ahadith quoted above, which, as one victim made clear, are part of the decision-making process.
According to Dr Rabia Ameen of General Hospital said “There is no sex education before marriage. This often leads to women contracting horrible diseases from unprotected sex. I feel terrible when I see young girls dying of reproductory problems because of irrational social expectations.”
Dr Ameen said “On average we deal with five cases of spousal rape every week and 90 percent of these cases occur within the first two weeks of marriage. Young brides aren’t aware that they have the right to put a stop to intercourse and we often see severe tearing and heavy bleeding in young women.” “I have lost count of the number of times I have simply stitched a vaginal tear and prohibited the couple from having intercourse for six weeks. The women almost always come back with the same problem because their spouses refuse to listen,” she said, adding “I now recommend that the woman stay at her parents’ house to be safe.” Dr Ameen said that women seldom know that it is even possible to be raped by their husband. “They think that it is their duty to go along with whatever their husband wants and all we can do is recommend a course of treatment,” she said, adding that doctors often knew that their patients would not be allowed to rest.
Dr Shamsa Humayun, a gynecologist said that patients don’t complain of sexual abuse from their spouses even when the evidence is overwhelming. “I have examined women with severe vaginal tearing, enough that they needed stitches, but they still never admitted they were assaulted,” she said.
According to a gynecologist Dr Asmah Mehmood “Very few women in Pakistan actually have a healthy sexual relationship with their spouses. Abuse is common and so is violence.”...
"“He abuses me but I cannot refuse him. My family told me that it was my religious duty to do as he demanded and that if I refuse the angels will curse me all night,” she told doctors."
defender of islam seen nodding in approval..
Rape victims denied justice in Pakistan
http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/08/rape-victims-denied-justice-in-pakista.html
There is nothing wrong with a man raping his wife.
The fact that you oppose men having relations at their will (the man's will) with their women shows what a pro-women's rights scumbag you are.
The fact that the man, her lord (biblically), did not want her to use contraceptive and she did anyway, and you think that is fine, shows that you are garbage that should be excised from... any country (Marisol).
In fact, in the Bible, the Holy Book of my religion, even if a man rapes an unbetrothed girl virgin (and yes, it indeed uses the word for boy/girl/young, so a young female), she must then be his woman, he pays the father 50 silver (in sheckles that is about 600 US dollars today, back then it was no more than the price that say a roman payed for his bread for two months: so if you can eat you can afford this), and he shall not send the girl away all his days.
In a previous law it talks about a man returning to his house to be with his betrothed: so that suggests a betrothed girl basically was married to the man, he just didn't get around to having actual penetrative intercourse with her yet. Perhapse he played with her in other ways. This is still how it is in rural afghanistan where the full force of Islam has not yet penetrated (they still follow the older customs)
Also what is translated as husband in deuteronomy, actually is the word ba'al: master. What is translated as wife is simply the word woman. Women call the men lord and master.
They obeyed them in all things.
And men had young girls as wives and there is an explicit law that says they have the option of just seizing a cute young girl virgin.
--MikeeUSA--
Deuteronomy 22 28-29.
Passage mechanically translated from hebrew:
[quote]if he-meets man girl(hebrew word here means boy/girl/young) virgin who not being-pledged and-he-forces-her and-he-lies with-her and-they-are-discovered then-he-shall-pay the-man the-one-lying with-her to-father-of the-girl fifty silver and-to-him she-must-be as-wife(hebrew word is:woman) because that he-violated-her not he-can to-divorce-her all-of days-of-him[/quote]
NIV english translation:
[quote]28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl\u2019s father fifty shekels of silver.[c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.[/quote]
Though the hebrew seems even more pro-men as it says the girl shall be the man's. There's no ambiguity as to weather she is forced to stay with him: she is. The man wanted some young female to own and he got what he wanted.
Word study: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1775059&postcount=2
If anyone ever gets rid of you pro-women's rights people, even if it is at great cost, atleast there will be that.
pulsar182:
defender of islam lives in a bubble with three foot thick kevlar walls. What's truth got to do with it anyway? A muslim, when he says, "I am a muslim" wilfully commits mind and conscience suicide, and that's the way these four-balled tomcats like it.
WUI
To put it succinctly, muslims have chosen balls over brains.
"..Dr Rabia Ameen of General Hospital said “There is no sex education before marriage. This often leads to women contracting horrible diseases from unprotected sex. I feel terrible when I see young girls dying of reproductory problems because of irrational social expectations.”"
I smell a future fatwa on the head of Dr. Ameen.
From a poem I wrote:
"Between the heads is the heart"
Muslims are missing the upper two thirds.
This is within the context of this story.
The Muslim religion does not allow Muslims to have fun, to have physical pleasure, to enjoy life. This whole side of life is cancelled, because it has been crowded out and replaced with another side of life: The exhilaration felt in a man's ego when he knows he has achieved dominance and control over others. That domination of the stronger ego over the weaker ego is the Ethic of the pretended religion of it's founder Muhammed. When a a rapist is raping, he's not feeling physical sexual pleasure, instead he feels the ecstasy of being in a position of absolute unchallengable superiority in relation to some other person or persons. And of course his victim is not feeling any pleasure either, but rather fear and loathing etc. So, if you want Islam, forget about fun and the normal satisfactions of living life to the fullest, because it has been countermanded and forbidden by those in charge of everything.
You are sick, and you are banned.
May a merciful God show you the error of your ways before your local police have to.
What can we expect from the religion of the Muhammad...
"A woman may be likened to a sheep (even) a cow or a camel...for all are ridden."
Tafsir al-Qurtubi v.15, p.172
This is Muhammad, this is Islam, this is Allah, this is Satan.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html
I think it was a bishop in Pakistan who said about Pakistanis: "They treat each other like animals. They are not even at the beginning of civilisation."
From Betsy Udink's book, Allah and Eve.
But there is couples counselling and sex education in Muslim society. It's conducted by the male head of each family and it's taught and coordinated in every Mosque. The Islamic counselling and education is exemplified in the two ahadith quoted near the top of the article, along with other ahadith with a similar message. Islam has everything, lacks nothing. How dare some kafir "psychologist" say otherwise!
Thank you Marisol. You saved probably quite a few of us from wasting time on this clumsy and amateurish attempt at moral equivalence from this troll.
You are a Third Country National using a translation program. BFD. Translate that.
WOW, was that Mikail?? aka Mikey? If so he's really deteriorated since the last time he got banned.
Thanks Marisol, what a vile post.
Thank you, Marisol. Sick indeed.
"You are sick, and you are banned.
May a merciful God show you the error of your ways before your local police have to."
Great. Unbelievable to even read something like that. More than sick - evil.
i can’t see what difference it makes that it was allowed in the old laws, that’s 2000+ years ago. even the most orthodox Christians or Jews would not want treat women like that.
there are a whole list of practices that civilized man (and women) have quite happily left behind.
public slaughtering of animals
slavery
child and multiple brides
physical punishments for offenses to a god
something really bothers me, if there is no genetic difference between muslim and nonmuslim, do we all have this misogynistic, pedophile sadist buried within us, that can be released just by accepting allah as god?
all of which is why pack rapes are nothing to these "men"
islam is an evil sex cult. a sadists paradise. and a pecking order where the "strong" (money, social status as well as cruelty, boasting, ak-47's, throwing rocks and running away, stirring up violence and tension, buring buildings etc are all strengths to mohammedians) have to prey on the weak and defensless. or they will be preyed upon.
and if, like 99% of muslim men, youre not rich or powerful, then the home is your own little kingdom where you can take out your frustrations at being a nobody everywhere else. you can hate in comfort. the boys grow up seeing their fathers berate their mothers (their cousins) and the grandfathers doing the same. so they do it to their sisters. and each others sisters. pedophilia is rampant. honor killings, underage marriage, and a perverse lust and disrespect towards western women.
many muslim women routinely persecute non muslim women and "housemaids" because they have been raised as warped as the men.
still, id like to see 2 things happen simultaneously. women all over the muslim world ralley and strike for equal rights, and an alternative to oil come to the fore. kaboom. their whole society disappears.
this sums it up.. and may be of interest to Robert.
OT:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/news/cathay-union-says-female-flight-attendants-are-at-risk-in-saudi/story-e6frezi0-1226019067389
"Dr Ambreen Ahmad, a clinical psychologist who teaches at Lahore School of Economics said “We need to introduce couples counseling, especially before marriage because women need to know their rights. Many women consider it their ‘religious duty’ to undergo this when there is nothing in religion that condones such assault.”"
Nothing? (Islam critic Abul Kasem quoted this from the Hedaya, a major book of Islamic fiqh)
“Here is what Hedaya (ref. 11, p. 141) writes:
“One can enjoy a wife by force”
“But not if she be refractory.”
“If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband's consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force.””
--------------
To the moron above who thinks that the bible prescribes men to treat women like cattle... I'd just like to let you know that the talmud in tractate kesubos states explicitly that if someone rapes an unbetrothed girl, it is HER CHOICE to marry him out of shame, and if she wishes not to, she doesn't have to. Also I'd like to let the neanderthal know that the talmud says in tractate nedarim, which is also codified in jewish law, that it is FORBIDDEN for a husband to have intercourse with his wife against her will.
Sincerely,
A keeper of the book
In case the pervert who commented above is reading, the Bible tells men to give themselves up for their wives, to sacrifice themselves for their wives and for a man to love his wife as he loves his own body. The way these men in this story treat their wives by raping them, even to the point of causing them physical harm, is totally unbiblical.
Dr Ambreen Ahmad, a clinical psychologist who teaches at Lahore School of Economics said “We need to introduce couples counseling, especially before marriage because women need to know their rights. Many women consider it their ‘religious duty’ to undergo this when there is nothing in religion that condones such assault.”
............................
This is so common, where even decent, well-educated Muslims such as Dr. Ahmad seem incapable of really looking at Islam.
They are either ignorant of the tenets of their own religion, and believe to to be more decent than it is; or they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what Islam actually is; or they simply hope they can convince others to act in a more civilized manner without actually having to confront the horrors of Islam.
The vile me.yahoo.com/a/6YYB7BoUnuANuYL4jv.Hp_vQ5ZkI wrote, among other evil things:
This is still how it is in rural afghanistan where the full force of Islam has not yet penetrated (they still follow the older customs)
............................
The idea that Afghanistan—one of the most fully Islamic countries on the face of the earth—owes its vicious misogyny to its *being insufficiently Islamic* is utter madness. What could be more Islamic than the Taliban, who stoned women in the streets?
That he is presenting this as Jewish and Christian is ludicrous. This sort of religiously-sanctioned rape goes on in Islam, not in Judaism of Christianity.
Thanks for banning this vicious bastard, Marisol.
In dar al Islam, Eros has been swallowed up by Thanatos.
Rape (often followed by, or amounting to, murder: how many of these vilely abused women are dying, that nobody ever hears about, out in the villages?) has become the paradigm for sex.
And all other relationships collapse into murder.
For the ultimate expression of amoral power, the ultimate refusal to recognise and respect a boundary between the self and another, is to MURDER that other and cause him or her to cease to exist.
And speech collapses into lies and then into curses and subverbal gibberish (we see that, in some of the specimens from Mr Spencer's Hate Mail Bag).
Dante's Inferno may be read it not as a portrayal of Hell in the conventional sense, but as a diagram or analysis of the process of corruption and disintegration of the human soul, and of the City.
And being that, it also reads, eerily well, as a map of what Islam does to the city and the soul.
Conor Cruise O'Brien, in an article in the Times of London, 11 May 1989:
"Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive...
"It looks profoundly repulsive because it *is* repulsive...
"A westerner who claims to admire Muslim society, whilst still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus or a bit of both.
"At the heart of the matter is the Muslim family, an abominable institution".
Or, more succinctly, as apostate-from-Islam Wafa Sultan puts it, in her book "A God Who Hates" - 'allah hates women'.
Pakistani hospitals see epidemic of marital rape: "If I refuse the angels will curse me all night"
...........................
Imagine a "religion" where a woman can *wind up in the hospital with a torn vagina*, and still believe that "the angels" will curse *her*, and not her savage assailant.
God, I hate Islam.
By way of contrast, here are some perspectives on the marital relationship as envisaged by practising Jews. All sensible Christians do well to reflect on the practice and thought of our dear Elder Brothers and Sisters.
First, from a book review under the title "The Importance of Ringing True", that appeared in the Jerusalem Post, some years ago.
"we have been blessed with a remarkable new Hebrew volume of wedding homilies, "Re'im Ha'ahuvim", [that is] Beloved Friends, which were delivered by the late Rabbi Shagar (Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), the rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Siah Yitzhak in Efrat, and his co-rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Yair Dreifuss, at the weddings of their own children and students.
"The book has been published based on notes from these weddings, in a lovely album format, with extensive footnotes detailing the sources (biblical, rabbinic, Kabbalistic and Hassidic) upon which the sermons are based. The collection contains 13 homilies from Shagar and 11 from Dreifuss, as well as one longer article of each pertaining to marriage and relationships...
"IN THE homily Seven Circles, Shagar addresses the custom that the bride encircles the groom seven times at the beginning of the ceremony, a custom which has been attacked by some feminists as representing the wife's subservience to her husband.
"Shagar begins by pointing to other examples of ritual encircling in Judaism - on Succot we encircle the synagogue reader's desk with the lulav and etrog (seven times on Hoshana Raba), and on Simhat Torah we circle with the Torah scrolls. Joshua encircled Jericho seven times before conquering the city, and the official expansion of the holy city of Jerusalem also involves encircling.
"Thus, he concludes, encircling is an act of defining or expanding sacred space.
"Since the huppa represents the future home of the couple, it begins with circles that mystically define the holy domain of the new couple.
"While it is the groom who actually consecrates the marriage by presenting the ring to his bride, this act is preceded by her demarcation of the sacred space within which they will build their future home.
"As Shagar writes, the marriage ceremony thus begins by the bride defining a space and sanctifying the couple's territory.
"It is the bride who weaves this space of the home around the groom - at first only virtually, but nonetheless a very real announcement of intent.
"Shagar then (based upon the writings of the famous mystic Rabbi Yitzhak Luria) compares these circles with an embracing which is also identified with the succa that envelopes the Jewish people in a special state of intimacy with the Divine Presence.
"Finally he quotes Jeremiah 31:21, "the female will surround the man," **which according to Kabbala is a future vision of equality between man and woman, between the sun and the moon and in some sense between God and humanity** {my emphasis - dda}.
"In this future reality of harmonious cooperation, each partner will gaze into the face of the other,
" as opposed to the current reality of inequality and alienation, a reality of polarization in which one is ashamed to directly meet the gaze of the other and therefore turns away in embarrassment, as explained by the Italian kabbalist Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato.
"The huppa, concludes Shagar, receives its special holiness from that future fully redeemed world, and thus we bless the couple with achva, shalom v'reut (fraternity, peace and companionship)."
And from Matthew Wagner, also writing in the Jerusalem Post, an article entitled "Don't scream 'My God!' but Sex is a Mitzvah':
"...it is not prurience, but a desire to help fellow Jews better serve God, that has motivated Knohl to plumb the depths of human sexuality.
"After all, as he explains in A Guide to Marital Relations From a Torah Perspective - a slim booklet recently translated into English - having conjugal relations is a mitzva.
"Judaism obligates the husband to provide his wife with sexual pleasure," Knohl said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post last week.
"This obligation emanates from the biblical commandment to 'love thy neighbor like thyself.'...
"Judaism is surprisingly open about discussing the most intimate aspects of sex, explained Knohl.
"**The husband is actually obligated to pleasure his wife to the point where she reaches satisfaction before he does. ** {now, if this has been taken seriously down through the ages, it would explain a very great deal about Judaism; and it would encourage, in men, the virtues of humility, patience, self-control and creativity...dda}.
"Based on this assumption, rabbis throughout the ages,
including in periods when talk about sex was strictly taboo,
have devoted much literature to explaining precisely how a husband goes about performing his holy duty."
And, moreover, I am informed (as another poster has already mentioned, above) that rape in marriage is frowned upon, in Judaism:
"According to Jewish law, any form of coerced sexual relations between married couples is absolutely forbidden. (Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 100b: Rami b. Hama citing R. Assi further ruled: “A man is forbidden to compel his wife to the [marital] obligation, since it is said in Scripture: ‘Without consent the soul is not good; and he that hurries with his feet sins’” (Prov. 19:2). (Ba’ailei ha-Nefesh, Sha’ar ha-Kedushah; Code of Jewish Law, Hil. De’ot 5:4; Even ha-Ezer 25:2.)"
A Jewish poster cited this ruling in the comments field at Atlas Shrugs, in the course of a discussion of barbaric Muslim sexual behaviour similar to the one currently taking place here.
The same poster also cited the great Jewish physician and theologian Maimonides, on the topic of marital relations:
"The greatest Jewish legal authority, the Sephardic Maimonides (known by his Hebrew acronym to Jews as the Rambam), rules,
“[Her husband] should not coerce her [to have relations] when she does not desire to do so.
**Rather, [they should engage in intercourse only] when there is mutual desire and pleasure.”** (Maimonides’ Code of Jewish Law, the Mishne Torah, Hil. Ishut [Laws of Women] 15:17.)
The difference between the Jews and the Muslims? = the difference between humanity and deliberate depravity.
Thank you for bring such an eloquent collection.
It has always funny for me having lived in an orthodox Jewish community to hear some of the strange ideas people outside have. stories of holes in sheets so couples body’s don’t touch during sex, absolutely ludicrous.
Those large hatted, black coated wearing men and their oddly wigged wives in long dresses are real party animals.
Some of the happiest couples you will ever meet.
Very good dda, i see you do your research well. As being a longtime reader of jihad watch, but a new poster, i am very familiar with all the intelligent and meaningfull comments coming from you, wellington, etc.
Oh and another contrast of jewish marital law to islamic, depending on the man's profession, there are different laws on how frequent a man must please his wife, however the summation of all this, which is codefied in the shulchan aruch, is that if a man sees that his wife is beckoning for him, he must comply to her desires. Think about that.
Also one of my favorite quotes from the talmud is from tractate kiddushin, which says "ten portions of promiscuity fell into the world, arabia took nine and the rest of the world took one."
Anyone that knows anything about islam and it's keepers knows that they are obsessed with sex.
Sincerely,
A keeper of the book
From the popular Islamic website Islam Q and A (excerpt quoted as it appears, emphasis mine):
"[...] The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated). [...]"
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/22442
I found this when reading Sam Shamoun's article:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
DDA, show us evidence that all muslims are perverts as you claim
if you look at and AIDS/HIV infection rate of people in China, Uyghurs, and ethnic minorities in Yunnan have high AIDS rates, while the Hui region of Ningxia has the lowest. Therefore accusations of muslim sexual perversion is unfounded. the AIDS is spread through drug use, prostitution and unprotected sex, and most likely spreading between Han and Uyghur, since Uyghurs engage in intensive drug use in Urumqi.
Drugs are forbidden among hui, europeans noticed that "tungan" (hui) did not smoke opium or even tobacco.
Secular Hui who became nominally atheist make sure their spouse is converted and the children are registered as Hui, since they are proud of their islamic heritage, and they don't sleep around or rape, in fact, I've never heard of rape cases or any sort of honor killing involving any Hui anywhere in china, taiwan, or thailand.
You keep citing cases where sexual harrasment/rape occur in certain countries, but ignore where it doesn't occur
Have you heard of westerners being sexually harassed by Omanis? Have you ever heard of rapes in Oman?
look, as I noted in the thailand discussion we were having, "some" arabs, like those from the hadraumaut in Yemen are supremacist and when they moved into malaysia they took malay women as wives but refused to allow arab women to marry non arabs, both malays and arabs are muslims and that had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with racism.
Racism should not be hurled back at people when it is leveled at others. Yemeni arabs share a particular extremely mercantile culture, they took up alot of trade in southeast asia and were aggresive, but apparently their commerce skills vanished after british colonization.
Other arabs like Omanis are laid back and friendly to foreigners. They ban all their own citizens, male and female, from marrying non arab non citizens, so its fair both ways, and you probably heard from some westerners who stayed in Oman in this blog since they are known for their hospitality.
and use of the "m-u-h-a-m-m-e-d-a-n" word is extremely offensive, you are abusing the prophets name and you will gain no friends among anyone for using it, you will find that the hospitality of a people like the Omani Arabs will vanish if you hurl that slur at them.
just 3 questions, would an Omani women be able to report rape if she was raped? Can a homosexual be a homosexual and live?
or is it really a matter of, there are no rapes and homosexuals in Oman? I suspect the latter.
"""
To the moron above who thinks that the bible prescribes men to treat women like cattle... I'd just like to let you know that the talmud in tractate kesubos states explicitly that if someone rapes an unbetrothed girl, it is HER CHOICE to marry him out of shame, and if she wishes not to, she doesn't have to. Also I'd like to let the neanderthal know that the talmud says in tractate nedarim, which is also codified in jewish law, that it is FORBIDDEN for a husband to have intercourse with his wife against her will.
Sincerely,
A keeper of the book
"""
The Talmud is not Biblical Law. Deuteronomy states multiple times not to go to the right or the left from this law, not to add not subtract from this law. The Talmud adds and subtracts from the law, it goes to the right and the left. There's a reason they never wrote it down until 2AD (they knew it was forbidden).
Anyway, it's no matter. The "keepers of the book" (what book? the talmud) do not breed very well while those who just lord it over women and girls breed muchly. There is a charm in young virgin girls that mightly attracts men. Submissiveness, obedients, shyness, quietness. Things of value that free women do not have.
""
In case the pervert who commented above is reading, the Bible tells men to give themselves up for their wives, to sacrifice themselves for their wives and for a man to love his wife as he loves his own body. The way these men in this story treat their wives by raping them, even to the point of causing them physical harm, is totally unbiblical.
""
I don't know... Men enjoy having sex, they are treating their wives as they treat themselves when they do so. Anyway what you're talking about is in a New Testament epistle, and is not even the words of Jesus but of one of the apostles. It doesn't measure past the actual biblical law, and it doesn't mean that it is wrong for a man to rape his wife whenever he wishes.
Christianity, however, yes is a pro-women weak religion. I wouldn't totally blaim the Bible for that.
But, you know, either way, men who want young brides, who want to rule over girls... they're out of luck, even if the older texts in the old testament have no problem with this. Doesn't love mean, as we now know, to just obey your wife, and all that jazz.
Honestly, I would not jump infront of a grenade for a woman. Christians would. The New Testament tells men that they are worthless and should die for women. It's very feminist. I don't like it at all. Some mysoginist christian men ignore or forget that... regardless of the rest of the bible... the new testament apostolistic epistle tells men to die for their wives. This is similar to the ancient goddess cults where the (young) husband died for the goddess wife. The New Testament largely undoes what the Old Testament did in those few words.
I'd rather put a bullet through my brain myself than die for a wife. I would not make a human sacrifice of myself to her (the "goddess"): which is what Christianity demands. She is not worth more than I (but in the eyes of the Christian trinity... apparently she is). I like the Old Testament God better. I really don't like the New Testament at all, and I do not like the Talmud either.
Really though, I do not like that I was born into a world where I can never have a sweet obedient young pretty little bride. I think girls should certainly be married off at puberty, I always wanted a sweet little wife (or two etc). I will never have that and I wish I was not born thusly. The Old Testament seems down with all that sort of thing. Husbands are masters, girls are married young. The New Testament starts to undo this (husbands are no longer masters: they are sacrifices... which is degrading to men: he is BELOW the value of the woman. There is NO denying that), then the Talmud (written down in 2AD: after the christian gospels and epsitles) finishes what the New Testament Apostlitic writing on wives started.
The only likely solution to women's rights is nuclear war: women can then rule over dust and bones and the "perverts" will all be dead and nolonger tormented by false visions of good young girls as obedient shy subserviant brides to men.
On a camel she mustn't complain,
When her hubby can hardly refrain.
Muslimah so grumpy,
But he needs some humpy.
She's back in the saddle again.
You are nothing but a misogynistic paedophile, you creep. Convert to islam quickly. It will provide you with the spiritualism-devoid-pleasures that you seek
Wow another moron, I think the verse which you are trying to quote is from deuteronomy ch. 17 verses 9-11 which says you should not stray left or right from what THEY tell you, which is refering to the rabbinic authority of the time. For a mohammedan that always whines about taking things out of context, your pretty funny.
Anyone who knows anything about judaism knows that the talmud is what us jews call the oral law. It is not just made up of the subsequent amoraic discussion, but is essentially an explanation of the mishna which was written down by Rebbi, a contemporary of the Roman emperor Antoninos Pius.
The oral law is explanation of the written law, and a guide to biblical exegesis which was passed down from moses himself. Many ambiguous concepts in the bible only have an explanation through the oral law (one example are phylacteries which are mentioned in deuteronomy with no explanation, in comes the oral law and describes exactly what they are). The oral law wasn't allowed to be written down, and was passed down orally.(Hence the name oral law). Not until people started forgetting it was it allowed to be written down. This is discussed in tractate gittin. Maimonides also has a brief history of the oral law in his preface to the mishne torah.
Whoa, I don't even know why I'm trying to engage a plundering, sex obsessed mohameddan in intellectual discussion! Better stop before he starts hollering, or kills someone, or burns down some embassy.
Oh and let me briefly describe the history of your religion for you.
Once upon a time, there was an arabian who was a sad sick case of a man who couldn't take care of himself. So he decided to marry a rich widow who was much older than he so he would be financially secure. Now this arabian man realizing that he was a sorry worm of a human being, decided to try to commit suicide by dropping himself off a mountain, but instead he heard voices in his head, which really happened to be his sick delusions of grandeur manefesting itself in his psyche, and discovered that he was schizophrenic.
Down the mountain he went, not sure of himself until his dumb friend convinced him that he spoke to the angel gabriel. So this man, who's name by the way is Mohammed, now convinced that his hallucinations are real tries to convince the surrounding populace, arab, jew, and christian alike, that he is some kind of messenger of G-D and the ruling authority of the world. At first he tries to do it nicely, using all the fascinating stories of the bible and talmudic lore he heard from jewish merchants, (even though most of the time he totally confused and distorted the facts that he heard from time to time), to sway the opinion of everyone in his favor.
This method failed. Everyone called him crazy and laughed at poor mohammed, the town fool. But Mo would not give up! His hallucinations and those voices in his head reassured him that he wasn't crazy. He was just coming about this all wrong. "You're too nice," said the voice. "Time to kill, maim, rape, pillage and plunder in the name of your pitiful ego allah."
The rest is history.
Maimonides summed up mohammed in one word in his letter to the jews being persecuted by the Almohads. Insane
"Other arabs like Omanis are laid back and friendly to foreigners."
Just like Turks...harassing the tourists is bad for business. Americans are good to foreigners too. What's your freaking point.
And harassment does happen in all mohammadan countries and OUTSIDE of those mohammadan countries by mohammadans.
My first taste of islam was at university back in the 80's and going toe to toe with the most disgusting, vile, ugly, mysoginistic, rude, uncultured, ill mannered, racist, sexist and all around douchey mohammadan OMANI students.
And, mohammadan is indeed appropriate. Buddhists emulate Buddha. Christians emulate Christ, Maoists/Mao and you mohammadans emulate the most vile piece of human excrement to ever foul the earth: mohammad.
It looks like MikeeUSA has slipped back in after being banned. That in itself is grounds for banning.
MikeeUSA appears to be a Muslim troll putting on some kind of show.
He writes: "I'd rather put a bullet through my brain myself than die for a wife. I would not make a human sacrifice of myself to her (the "goddess"): which is what Christianity demands. She is not worth more than I (but in the eyes of the Christian trinity... apparently she is)."
The "Christian trinity"? What was that you said, MikeeUSA? What does the Christian trinity have to do with with "goddess[es]" and females having an elevated status? Are you one of these people [like the fictional character "Allah" in the Quran] who thinks Mary is one of the three in the trinity?
"Are you one of these people [like the fictional character "Allah" in the Quran] who thinks Mary is one of the three in the trinity?"
Yeah, I picked up on that too, KoK. Only mohammadans believe that the trinity is God, Jesus and Mary because of mein kuranmpf 5:116
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
allah wasn't too omnipotent was he?
Other arabs (sic) like Omanis are laid back and friendly to foreigners. They ban all their own citizens, male and female, from marrying non arab non citizens, so its (sic) fair both ways, and you probably heard from some westerners who stayed in Oman in this blog since they are known for their hospitality.(sic)
and use of the "m-u-h-a-m-m-e-d-a-n" word is extremely offensive, you are abusing the prophets name (sic) and you will gain no friends among anyone for using it, you will find that the hospitality of a people like the Omani Arabs will vanish if you hurl that slur at them.
You repeat yourself, equus. The quote above is nearly verbatim from one of your earlier posts.
I have to agree with what Istanbul_Chick writes about Islam and the label “Muhammedan.”
If the term "[M]-u-h-a-m-m-e-d-a-n" offends you and offends other Muslims also, too bad. When Muslims threaten people with death for the mere use of the word or for an insult to Islam or the prophet, they make an idol of Muhammad and Islam itself, and therefore, "Muhammedan" is closer to the truth of Islamic practice. Let the truth be offensive. "Obey Allah and his messenger," the Qur'an drones ad nauseum.
Variations of the phrase, “Allah and his messenger,” occur often enough in the Qur’an that the fusion of the two nouns is complete. “Allah,” is inseparable from “his messenger,” making a theological point whether the point is intended or not. As it is, Islamic theology is no surprise given the incoherence of the Qur'an itself. Moreover, as if there were some bizarre Islamic trinity, the Qur'an is part of Muslim idol worship as well. Though it's tedious to re-state the obvious, the Qur'an is inseparable from Allah and Muhammad, thus we have, Allah the brute, Muhammad the brutish messenger of the brute, and the Qur'an, instructions in brutality from the brute and his messenger, or, the messenger and his brute. It makes no difference. The Qur'an is guidance in terror all the same.
The exaggerated reverence Muslims show for the Qur'an as an object, even in translated versions, is just absurd. A few years ago, false reports from Afghanistan about a Qur'an tossed into a toilet sent Muslims across the world into a rage. And last year, when Terry Jones merely threatened to burn a Qur'an, Mulsims reacted with violence based upon an act that never occurred. Well, metaphorically, that is the power of the subjunctive I would say. It's telling that such rage is always so close to the surface in Muslims. To consider Muhammad and the details of his life, is to see that his religion and his Qur'an have no substance worthy of reverence. Could that be why Muhammedans seem to have no skin?
'm a Catholic, not a Muslim. I mentioned the christian trinity because we were contrasting the New Testament with the Old Testament. The idea of a trinity was not developed in the Old Testament. That God stood alone, though he sometimes had angels to walk with him and investigate things. The idea of a trinity comes from New Testament exegis. I'm contrasting these things because many christians basically, in their heart, believe that the God of the old testament was an evil murderous mysoginist, and is basically like a demon or an angry old man we don't listen to anylonger, Jesus is the new head of state (can't get to the father but through him etc) in the NT and he's a nice guy that supports women's rights and is not murderous and mean. Etc.
Judiasm has the talmud, which, when it comes to women, goes the same way (or even furthur), but also goes furthur than the old testament on nationalism etc. I see that with other nationalist groups: they worship the woman as the basis for their nationalism (ain't no buddy gunna touch this white angel!11111).
MikeUSA,
That doesn't explain what you wrote:
"I'd rather put a bullet through my brain myself than die for a wife. I would not make a human sacrifice of myself to her (the "goddess"): which is what Christianity demands. She is not worth more than I (but in the eyes of the Christian trinity... apparently she is)."
Care to explain it to us?
I ask, again: The "Christian trinity"? What was that you said, MikeeUSA? What does the Christian trinity have to do with with "goddess[es]" and females having an elevated status? Are you one of these people [like the fictional character "Allah" in the Quran] who thinks Mary is one of the three in the trinity?
You won't get a cogent answer from MikeeUSA, Kiana of Khaybar. I think that Mikee is posing as a Catholic the way the former JW poster, the Muslim fairuzfan used to do. Have a look at fairuzfan's posts to see what I mean. MikeeUSA is just another Muhammedan. He believes that he is being clever by quoting the Bible with the intent of showing that Christians are as bad as Muslims. He does nothing to really derail the thread and only confirms the underlying theme of the story from Pakistan. Islam is a disaster for women.
As far as I can tell, MikeeUSA has not posted before March 10th. There is no reason to believe him. His is hateful. If he is a Muslim, which he most likely is, he underlines what we know from Islam. His rambling posts are failures. Whatever he is, his views do not reflect Christian teaching - Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. Ms. Seibold banned him as banned as "meyahoo," and I hope that she will ban him as MikeeUSA.
Wow. To expose the perversion of the original, the original needs to be understood.
In the Old Testament/Torah there are several different ways of treating sexual sins. A man who raped a women (illustrated as in the country where no one could hear her cries), the man was to be stoned for the reprehensible crime but nothing was to happen to the women. If adultery happened consensually (illustrated as where she could have screamed for help if she wanted to but didn't) both were responsible. When a (presumably young) couple succumbed to each other and were found out, they were made to marry, the man having to atone to the father for the affront to the family. When a man seduced a woman, he was obligated to marry her and never abandon her (apparently, using women for sex was being forbidden).
The added emphasis in the New Testament was in the in intentions of the heart. Jesus said to lust after someone was to commit adultery in one's heart and to be guilty. It was a call and obligation to have decent thoughts about the opposite sex.
Under Islam, women are made responsible for being harassed, groped, and raped, Muslim men are given license to rape their wives and to beat them for disobeying their husband's wishes, women can be stoned to death on the mere accusation of sexual impropriety and are not even allowed to speak in their own defense, and Muslim men are allowed to have sexual slaves as plunder of non-Muslims. These privileges are incentives to many Muslim men in this life. Mohammad also promised an eternity of sex with 72 virgins and young boys for those men who die in violent jihad. It is all in the Quran and the Haddith/Sunnah, and it is in diabolical contrast to the original.
BTW: The ancient Jews saw the trinity as Father, Mother, and son. The Old Testament referred to the spirit of God's wisdom and referred to wisdom as "she." Jesus talked of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete (comforting intercessor) and told his apostles to baptize those consecrated to God in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible says victory is not by might or power but "by my Spirit says the Lord." Jesus is referred to as the "Word" of God in one place. And, there are many names for God in the Bible, all emphasizing characteristics/aspects of God's nature. One name means the God who heals us, one means all-nourishing mother (El Shaddai), one name means the one who is/who exists (Jehovah/Yahweh),and other descriptive names. Each reference is a glimpse of God for our little human minds so that we can get to know God. Using the differing descriptions of God in the Bible for any other purpose is missing the point.
Good Marisol, please ban the disgusting MikeeUSA. He is obviously a deranged pedophile with seriously sick fantasies.