| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
The never-ending quest to find something, anything, anything but Islam, to explain Islamic violence, Islamic supremacism, and -- in particular here -- the oppression of women in Islam continues. This one is particularly egregious: it's all about oil, you see, which is why Texas oilmen all have their women in burqas. It was oil that led all this and more to be written into the Qur'an many centuries before oil was discovered in Arabia:
1. The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
2. The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
4. It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
5. Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
6. It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
But it's all because of oil, you see, and that's why wife-beating and child marriage are legal in Texas also!
"Study: Oil, not Islam, responsible for oppressed women," by Nick Juliano in The Raw Story (thanks to all who sent this in):
A new study upends the prevailing belief that women in the Middle East are oppressed because of their societies' adherence to hard-line Islamic teachings. Far more significant in predicting how women will fare in a given country is that nation's oil wealth.Political science professor Michael Ross argues in a new paper (.pdf) that oil booms put more men than women into the workforce and decrease women's political representation.
"As a result, oil-producing states are left with atypically strong patriarchal norms, laws, and political institutions," writes Ross, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles.
Ross argues that strong oil economies put women at a disadvantage because the sectors most in need of employees, especially construction, favor men, while textile and other manufacturing industries that traditionally preferred female employees become less vital in the import-rich nations. Ross's paper, "Oil, Islam, and Women," was published in February by the American Political Science Review. The Washington Post reported on the paper Monday:
Ross's insight is that this realignment punishes women, because low-wage manufacturing jobs -- especially in the textile industry -- have long been the entry point into the workforce for millions of poor women across the world. Oil booms cause these jobs to vanish. By contrast, the boom in construction helps men, because the industry is heavily male-dominated. Oil booms do create retail jobs, but in many countries these are also closed off to poor women, either because they are uneducated or because traditional mores frown on women interacting with strangers.The loss of jobs has profound consequences on women's political engagement and power. Several studies show that across the world, leaving home and entering the workplace produces greater political awareness and participation among women. These, in turn, help produce egalitarian family and inheritance laws, and increased voting, economic and legal rights.
"Patriarchal norms are often very deeply embedded in society, and it takes a very powerful force to begin to break them up," Ross said. "Women's employment in these industries has historically been that powerful force, that foot in the door, that first rung on the ladder."
Posted by Robert at March 10, 2008 12:53 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
It must be true! Israel, err, I mean the Zionist Entity, has no oil and the women have equal rights, career and clothing opporunities. Damn, that's good research and analysis. [sarcasm off]
Posted by: perpster![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 10, 2008 1:25 PM
This sounds like a good reason to keep the oil drillers out of ANWR. We don't want those Inuit beating their wives, you know.
Posted by: Bigfoot at March 10, 2008 1:46 PM
You folks realize that Pol Sci is smack dab in the politically correct movement that permeates our university system and that it colors whatever comes out of it?
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that the good professor would blind himself to the role Islam plays in the lack of women's rights.
Posted by: waltc at March 10, 2008 1:56 PM
The study is flawed . It doesn't seem to understand the way in which Islam is tied to those "strong patriarchal norms, laws, and political institutions" that oppress women. It defines Islam only as a variable that measures the Muslim fraction of each country’s population, and using analysis claims that the countries Muslim percentage isn't as important as oil wealth in oppressing women.
By defining Islam as one simple variable it was impossible to come up with any view other than the one it published.
Posted by: Jerry M at March 10, 2008 2:01 PM
I blame Global Warming, which is also a Zionist plot!
Posted by: Grafted at March 10, 2008 2:02 PM
And what was it exactly before man knew of oil that suppressed women, pray tell?
I know it's hard to clearly see Gaza or the West Bank anymore for all the oil drilling rigs and derricks there but please try anyway.
Posted by: Sounder at March 10, 2008 2:02 PM
I did not read all of what Michael Ross wrote because I do not have to eat the entire apple to find out that it is rotten. I can think of three things that have truly given women their freedom, oil, the automobile, and the self starter.
If women were truly appreciative of the benefits of the inventions of industrious men, they would erect a monument to Vincent Hugo Bendix.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 10, 2008 2:11 PM
It just goes to show you how uneducated Jed Clampet of the Beverly Hillbillys really was. He had all that oil money yet he did/could not control Granny or EliMae.
Posted by: getrealnow4 at March 10, 2008 2:21 PM
I always wondered why my Underware never had a made in Saudi Arabia tag.
Well documented opinion says it is a lack of Trans Fats in their Diet.
May the Carbon Signature from this Book be as small as the Authors...
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 10, 2008 2:22 PM
OK, I did hold my nose and read some more. Why did he give it the title "Oil, Islam, and Women." A better title would have been "Religion, Industry, and Women."
The actual title suggests a stipend from a Middle East oil producer.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 10, 2008 2:23 PM
I blame Global Warming, which is also a Zionist plot!
Posted by: Grafted
I think Ban Ki-moon already blamed terror on Global Warming. I've heard Muslim rampages in Europe were caused by "warm weather". Now oil is oppressing women.
Well this is great news...no more cause for alarm, Islam is peace, "experts" have saved the clash of civilizations !
Stupidy multiplied by infinite
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 10, 2008 2:27 PM
I never knew that Pakistan had oil.
Posted by: Silvester at March 10, 2008 2:27 PM
Sheesh!
Is there a special place these people go to half their brains removed, or is it something anyone can do at home with their own tools?
Posted by: Tziona at March 10, 2008 2:35 PM
I always wondered why Females couldn't purchase a pack pf chewing gum in Saudi Arabia unless they are accomponied by a Male relative.
Now I know. It was oil all the time.
Thank you, Mr. Ross!
Posted by: rational at March 10, 2008 2:36 PM
Scary, one can only speculate what the free and gender equal Afghanistan and Pakistan would have turned into if there had been oil.
Posted by: Engelbrekt at March 10, 2008 2:40 PM
This study is clearly flawed; by the fact that there is no oil in Syria, or Gaza and several other (coincidentally Islamic) countries where women are oppressed.
The one common denominator that links all countries that oppress women is the presence of SAND. When a country has a large percentage of sand/desert in its geologic makeup, the women cannot plant crops to feed their families, so they are dependent upon men to earn money for food/survival.
International Women's Rights Organizations should strongly condemn the presence of so much sand in the Middle-East, and should demand a global plan to replace all sand with tillable top soil.
Posted by: Xero G at March 10, 2008 2:48 PM
Xero G, It's the presence of sand plus the absence of rain. We need to send them some rain. However, we in the Souheast don't have any to spare.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 10, 2008 2:56 PM
I wonder if Prof. Ross has applied his theory to other large oil producing countries like the United States, Canada, the UK, Venezuela, the Netherlands, and Russia.
Can he produce an example of a non Muslim country in the developing world that has had an oil boom? Has he compared the status of women in non-Muslim oil boom countries to those in Muslim oil boom countries? Without such an example his theory is not testable.
Posted by: Johan Amedeus Metesky at March 10, 2008 3:15 PM
"Political science professor Michael Ross argues in a new paper that oil booms put more men than women into the workforce and decrease women's political representation.
"As a result, oil-producing states are left with atypically strong patriarchal norms, laws, and political institutions," writes Ross, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles.
Ross argues that strong oil economies put women at a disadvantage because the sectors most in need of employees, especially construction, favor men, while textile and other manufacturing industries that traditionally preferred female employees become less vital in the import-rich nations. Ross's paper, "Oil, Islam, and Women," was published in February by the American Political Science Review.
-- from the article above
In the annals of idiocy, has there ever been anything quite like the various attempts, each more comical than the next, to "find the real killer" -- that is, the "root cause" of Muslim terrorism by attributing such terrorism to everything under the sun except to the ideology of Islam? And as part of those annals, has there ever been anything as idiotic as the misattribution, to something other than the ideology of Islam, of Muslim mistreatment of women, or Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims.
Here we have a Professor Ross, who has discovered, so he thinks, that it is "oil" and not Islam that explains the mistreatment of women. He fails, in the first place, to notice the most obvious thing of all: that in most cases, given the very high proportion of oil states that are also peopled by Muslims (10 of the 11 members of OPEC are Muslim or, in the case of Nigeria Muslim-dominated, states).
But here are two other questions that Professor Ross, or "Professor" Ross, failed to consider, and they were the most obvious ones.
The first question he ought to have asked is: Are there any oil states where women are NOT mistreated? That is, are there any oil-producing countries, or oil-producing countries within countries, where women are treated well? And if so, do they share some distinguishing feature? Yes, there are such places, and the distinguishing feature they share is that none of them is a place where Islam rules.
There is, of course, Texas. There is Scotland which, when the North Sea Oil boom was in full swing (and the menfolk were out there enjoying work, while the women presumably did not) nonetheless saw no worsening in the position of women. There is Alberta, in Canada, where roustabouts and workers of every (male) kind, can now find work, but curiously, no change in the status of women has been detected. There is Norway, a state that is taking in a fortune from its oil deposits -- same failure to observe any change in the status of women. There is Russia, ditto. There is Ecuador, which when it was an oil-producer did not experience any sudden mistreatment of women. Clearly, the experience of non-Muslim oil states suggests that "oil" does not explain the mistreatment of women.
The second question Professor -- or "Professor" --Ross ought to have asked himself is: Are there any countries, or regions within countries, where the position of women is noticeably bad, as bad as it is in the oil states, or rather in the Muslim oil states. And yes, there are.
The most obvious such place is Afghanistan, where girls and women are forced still to wear burqas, and routinely denied education (despite the best efforts of the Americans and the other NATO troops, schools for girls are routinely burned down and teachers at such schools threatened or killed). And the reason for this mistreatment of Afghan women is Islam, and not oil, for there is no oil in Afghanistan. And the worst mistreatment takes place wherever those who take Islam most to heart as a Complete Regulation of Life, that is members of the Taliban, rule, or at least can make their power felt.
Another such place is Pakistan, like Afghanistan a Muslim country without oil, and a place where the condition of women may not quite,be as bad as it has been in Afghanistan, but it is certainly bad by any reasonable Western standard.
And another such place is Bangladesh, a Muslim-dominated land that has no oil, and a place about which Taslima Nasreen has written so eloquently, and for her pains, has been threatened with other kinds of pains, including that which accompanies decapitation.
Yet another such place is the Sudan, which may now be producing oil, but until recently could not have been called an oil state. And it is in the Muslim parts of the Sudan where women are treated, or mistreated, most disturbingly. And the same is true in Nigeria. In the southern lands, where Christian Ibos and smaller tribes live, and the Shari'a does not apply, women live as equals to men. But in the Muslim north, where the Muslim Hausas dominate, women are mistreated, legally, and mistreated most in those states that have decided to impose the Shari'a.
And if one went systematically through a list of the Muslim states, and separated out the oil-rich states from those that have no oil, one would find that the same kind of mistreatment can be observed in both kinds of states. To the extent that local conditions have enabled the local government to constrain Islam -- as Kemal's reforms did in Turkey, or as Bourguiba's reforms did, to a lesser extent, in Tunisia -- then, to the same extent as to which Islam has been tamed, women are mistreated less severely, and accorded equality before the law that, while it may not always be honored, remains the ideal.
Still a third question proposes itself, which is: what were all these places like before the oil bonanza, a century ago, or two centuries, or three? And the answer is: the condition of women was, by Western standards, awful in all of these Muslim countries. The fact that women in the West had not yet achieved the full legal equality they now enjoy, does not mean that they were not already on the path of such achievement, or that their condition ever was akin to that of women in Muslim lands. Professor Ross seems to have no notion that he needs to conduct a diachronic as well as synchronic study, to see through history how women have been treated, in Muslim and in non-Muslim lands. He does not possess a historical sense, and appears to believe that this this is acceptable, this lack is not a defect, and he need not study, or account for, the evidence that the past provides in such rich profusion.
Ross asked none of the most obvious questions: what is the position of women in non-Muslim oil states (fine)? What is the position of women in Muslim non-oil states (terrible)? What was the position of women in Muslim lands before oil was discovered and how does it compare to the position of women, in the same centuries, in non-Muslim lands?
It's what social scientists mean when they say that so-and-so's "methodology is flawed." Yes, Professor Ross's methodology is flawed.
"
Posted by: Hugh at March 10, 2008 3:23 PM
OK, then what about before the existence of the oil economy. How do you explain the same behavior then?
Oops.
Nice to be a professor where being horribly wrong isn't punished.
Posted by: Beagle at March 10, 2008 3:33 PM
Reason #445 from the new Book
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 10, 2008 3:33 PM
"The first question he ought to have asked is: Are there any oil states where women are NOT mistreated?" ....from Hugh's post
It's true that there are now a low more abused and burkah'd women in oil-producing Norway than there were before, but the men who own these women are in the welfare-cheat business, not the oil business. This ross ass-hat has managed to totally take the 'science' out of poly-sci. Wonder who funds his research?
at March 10, 2008 3:36 PM
Another breakthrough from my alma mater.
Political science and the rest of the fuzzy studies are on the north side of the campus, where group think and self-congratulation are what passes for "education." All of the science majors are on the south side and often joke about the ease and lack of intellectual seriousness of the northsiders. This is yet another example.
Posted by: PRCalDude at March 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Don't worry, I'm sure that any day now, we'll see Canada and Norway ramping up the stonnings, honor killings, and FGM.
Posted by: Abu Allah at March 10, 2008 3:48 PM
"Likening women to a field" is such a gentle way to put it, when Mohammed and/or Allah literally called women dirt.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at March 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Abu Allah, you forget Hugo 'Inshallah' Chavez's Venezuela - they are now on a jihad against Columbia with Ecuador. Maybe we're watching them pick up in South America what the Arabs did in the 7th century.
This is also one of the confluence points of Islam and Marxism - blame Oil i.e. Chevron, Shell, Unocal, Valero et al for the oppression of women, and watch the NAGs get on it (in a manner of speaking).
I'd love to see what happens when the day comes that the NAGs are brought face to face against Islam. NOW vs CAIR, ACLU vs MSU, et al should be as fascinating to watch as Hitlery vs Osa.., er Obama.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2008 5:03 PM
So if it's the oil and not islam, then why were the two teenage girls, Amina and Sarah Said, killed by their father for dating?
They lived here in the USA and were killed in Texas.
Maybe the political science professor from UCLA ought to read Robert's article.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329
[sarcasm]
Oh wait, Texas has oil. I almost forgot. Maybe the professor is really onto something?
[/sarcasm]
at March 10, 2008 5:05 PM
No, it's the camels, dude! The dromedaries made them do it.
Posted by: special_guest at March 10, 2008 5:05 PM
The sad reality is that this type of idiotic reasoning will be embraced and lauded by the majority of 'our' 'great' educators and poo-fessors. It just seems like anything that excuses absolutely inexcusable behavior by our enemies is accepted as fact by the left regardless of obvious truth. They then disseminate this leftish trash to the lazy masses who are too complacent to investigate the truth for themselves. And I used to wonder how the great Roman Empire could be breached by illiterate barbarians!
Posted by: CJK at March 10, 2008 6:16 PM
I just started scrolling up through the comments when I hit Xero G's and tripped the laugh reflex muscle somewhere in my gut. Excellent.
Posted by: CJK at March 10, 2008 6:27 PM
Oh my not-so-brilliant-yet-so-insignificant god...
[sarcasm on... ]
Venezuelans and Brazilian women are sooooo opressed!! They have no rights... oh dear nuts!
Imagine, if Somalia had Oil or any muslim country in africa, they would be soooooo opressed, wouldn't they? Ayaan Hirsi Ali can tell us how free women are in Somalia because they don't have any oil!
[sarcasm off]
*talking to myself*
Oh...patience my friend, there are "dr."'s who actually buy the title, calm down my friend...calm down, this is a joke, he must have written to one of those spoof news websites and somehow, someone mistook the spoof-news as real...
Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at March 10, 2008 6:34 PM
"because traditional mores frown on women interacting with strangers"
I think he's onto something here, but he doesn't pursue.
What societies have really strong "mores" around keeping women away from strangers? What is behind these mores that help relegate women to 2nd hand citizenry in these countries? How do these get continued and enforced with the strength of a religion in these areas, while not in others?
I wonder what it might be? Could it possibly be their religion (sometimes the straightforward obvious answer is right)?
Oh, nevermind, I re-read the title. I guess not. Must be something else entirely that has "traditional mores" that are enforced, unbroken, and have the staying power of a religion.
Sadly I'm coming up with a blank as to what that is... anyone willing to give me a hint?
Posted by: gekkobear at March 10, 2008 6:49 PM
Note that the "Open Society Institute" sponsored this paper an dprovided a "genorous" grant. The Opne Society Institute is of course, one of George Soros' organisations... http://www.soros.org/
Posted by: Haidon at March 10, 2008 9:37 PM
"Of course, oil wealth does not NECESSARILY harm the status of women. Seven countries have produced significant quantities of oil and gas, but still made faster progress on gender equality than we would expect based on their income: Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Syria, and Mexico. The first three countries are probably exceptions to the general pattern because of reasons implied by the model: since women already had a large presence in the non-traded sector (thanks to the size and diversification of these economies), rising oil exports did not crowd them out of the labor market. The two Central Asian states were strongly affected by many years of Soviet rule, which promoted the role of women through administrative fiat; this may have inoculated them against oil-induced patriarchy.
Perhaps the most interesting exceptions are Syria and Mexico: women in both states may have benefited from many years of rule by secular left-of-center parties that showed an interest in women’s rights. Mexico also gained from its proximity to the U.S. market, which allowed it develop a large, low-wage export-oriented manufacturing sector along the border – which pulled women into the labor market despite the flow of oil rents. These cases show that both good fortune, and a committed government, can sometimes counteract the perverse effects of oil on the status of women."
- an excerpt from the last page of "Professor" Ross's study, quoted in a posting above
So Ross does, finally, mention some oil states that "don't NECESSARILY harm the status of women." It's a kind of brief afterthought, a mere two confused and confusing paragraphs, on the last page of his apparent 27 pages of text (there are another 23, apparently of notes, bibliography, and so on). By the look of it, that paper that could have been whipped off in a day, but Ross no doubt received all kinds of money. from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who is not making the ghost of Karl Popper proud by his funding of all sorts of apologetic and distracting nonsense about Islam) no doubt made it appear to be the fruit of deep research (oh, was there by any chance extensive travel to some of these places required by "Professor" Ross, so that he could study, in situ, the position of women now in this country, and now in that? You know, I'll bet there was some -- don't you agree?).
So he offers a list of seven countries -- "Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Syria, and Mexico" -- which studiedly includes both Muslim and non-Muslim lands. And all of these, he claims, are well-known producers of oil and yet, in all of these, the situation of women is not bad.
These two paragraphs raise many other questions. To offer some (carefully crafted) counter-evidence to your own thesis, but on the very last page, and to confine your rebuttal to your own raising of a foreseeable objection, but to do it in a way that is so weak and confused a fashion so as not to provide a real challenge, but rather to attempt to pre-empt, or rather prevent, that real challenge from being made, is an obvious rhetorical and argumentative trick by Ross, who is both essentially stupid, and yet like many essentially stupid people, not devoid of cunning when it comes to shoring up his own position.
The list starts, unremarkably, with Norway. True enough, Norway has large deposits of oil, and Norway is a country in which women possess legal equality, and have long possessed such equality. Then comes New Zealand. But while New Zealand possesses some oil,it does not have large reserves and production is below 40,000 barrels a day. Natural gas reserves are larger, but still very far from causing anyone to describe New Zealad as a country rich in fossil fuels. And the same goes for Australia, the third on the list. Last on his list is another non-Muslim country, Mexico. The condition of women has, he admits, not deteriorated during the period of Mexico's oil wealth. So why doesn't he say a bit more to distinguish these cases? The answer is, in fact, that he cannot offer a single example of a non-Muslim country, possessing significant amounts of oil (or natural gas), where the condition of women has deteriorated. Not one. And why did he limit himself to such small producers such as New Zealand and Australia, when he might have listed two large oil producers, Great Britain and, still developing ways to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands, Canada? Or what about tiny Ecuador which was once a member of OPEC and would have offered a Latin American example of a non-Muslim oil state where women are not mistreated?
Why does Ross, instead of offering this strange and haphazard list, not do as he ought to have, and systematically list the two dozen largest oil-or-natural-gas producing countries, starting with the dozen in OPEC, and tell us briefly about the condition of women in each, and whether that condition has, while those countries have received revenues from exploitation of their oil and gas reserves, stayed the same, improved, or deteriorated? It would not be hard to do. But he didn't do it. He instead provided the equivalent, with a list like the one discussed here, of throwing sand in the faces of potential critics who might point out the shortcomings -- the logical howlers -- in his preposterous work.
The list does include three countries that Ross, not a man for detail or for distinctions, describes as "Muslim": Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Syria. "Muslim" is not enough. Just how Muslim are they? The first two stans, as former Soviet republics, endured in the late 1920s and 1930s, a ruthless Soviet campaign against Islam, and during the so-called Basmachi Revolt, the Soviets destroyed mosques, fired imams, closed madrasas, and subjected Islam to the same anti-religion campaign that all faiths suffered, and the practice of Islam, like the practice of Judaism and Christianity and Buddhism, and even shamanism in Siberia, were the object of attempts to forbid them, to stamp them out. In Central Asia, that created quite untypical conditions, and the improvement in the condition of women began in the 1930s, as the power of Islma receded, and at least in Uzbekistan, where the government attempts to suppress growing support for Islam, the governmentr remains secular. In Turkmenistan, the former Communists continue to reign, and Islam has not conquered the state, so that women retain the rights they won decades ago, under Soviet rule. Syria, which has now run out of oil, cannot be described as a "Muslim" state because, though Sunni Muslims constitute 70% of the population, the government has for the past forty years essentially been in the hands of the Alawites, whose cult of Mary is only one element in their syncretistic faith which orthodox Sunni Muslims do not recognize as being real Islam. And the very large communities of Christians -- Greek Orthodox, Maronites, and especially Armenians -- in Syria, who under the French were so favored, are still significant, in numbers and, protected by the Alawite government for its own reasons, continue to withstand steady pressure from the Muslim Arabs who surround them, and who, were it not for the Alawite-run army, might well do great harm to those Christians.
This is the kind of detail that the confusing and terminally confused "Professor" Ross leaves out. He doesn't know enough. He doesn't know quite how to handle such a topic, and it is clear he has produced something on the level of an eighth-grader, an only-slightly-above-average eighth-grader.
George Soros, who through his Open Society Foundation, funded this study, might begin to ask himself what he thinks Karl Popper would have made of Islam, how Karl Popper would have reacted to the threat to the West's science and art, and its political and legal institutions, that Islam, that Muslims, threaten, and threaten now directly, not through terrorism, but through deployment of the Money Weapon, and campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
Would that Soros would stop sharing the assumptions made by the man he most loves to hate, George Bush, who blandly assumes that "all religions want the same thing"), and would learn about Islam, acquaint himself with the texts and the tenets, and the attitudes and the atmospherics, of this Total Belief-System, and put his money not into ventures such as this "study" by Ross, but into the real thing, the thiing which Karl Popper, where he alive, would recognize as a necessary weapon in the war of self-defense being waged, rather badly, confusedly, and ineffectually, by the West, or by the Rest, against the forces of Jihad that wish to remove all barriers to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- a duty imposed on them by Islam itself, and that they must, in one way or another, if they are to be true Believers, fulfill.
at March 11, 2008 12:50 AM
Usual left wing fantasy. It's all the fault of industry.
Posted by: Ian at March 11, 2008 4:53 AM
Someone should tell that to the folks in Alberta, Canada.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 11, 2008 11:22 AM
Boy oh boy, Robert Spencer, I think it's my lucky day. How many birds can I kill with one stone here lets see... 6!!! Let's see how you wriggle out of this one.
1. The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Qu'ran is referring to the woman's vagina (tilth)
The Jews at the time of Prophet pbuh, used to say to the Muslims, that they could not have sex with their wives from the back (not anal), otherwise the offspring will come out cross-eyed. So God revealed this verse to reassure the Muslims, that they could have sexual intercourse with their wives, however they desired, with the exception of anal sex, which is not allowed.
2. The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
These testimonies are regarding cases where men generally excel above woman. At least in Islamic societies.e. financial court cases. For cases where woman excel in knowledge, then the man's testimony is worth half of the woman's.
This not to say woman are forced to say at home in Islamic law. If they wish they can go out and work and study... whatever, as long as they find a nanny to look after the children and the home and pay her fairly as well.
3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
It does not encourage men to marry more than one wife, but merely permits it. If they can't be equally just and fair to their wives then marry one. Does your bible say that?
It does talk negatively about woman last time I checked?
As for the captive marry her, if she is willing. There's no hint of sex outside of marriage or a sex slave.
4. It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
A man under Islamic law, has to ensure that not just his wife but his children and his extended family are well looked after. If he fails without trying, he will answer to God.
The woman on the other hand can do with their inheritance whatever they wish. If they want, they can spend it on themselves and still expect the husband to provide. They can set it aside or give it away in charity.
It's the man's duty to provide, hence more inheritance.
5. Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
Yeah with a blade of grass. I remember answering this one a few months ago and not one person objected, you all kept silent about it. What is defined as a beating is not what you think is a beating. Your obviously forgetting that well before the gruesome blade of grass act is performed, the situation will in most cases have been rectified.
After all else fails, beat her with a blade of grass. It's the act itself, not the force of it, which will have any believing woman realising how serious the situation is. As for obedience, that is only reserved for God. If your obedient to your husband, you are obedient to God. If your obedient to your parents you are obedient to God. As long as the obedience does not ask for you to commit disbelief i.e. don't pray.
6. It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4)
Well please tell us what it says Robert Spencer.
“As for the women who have reached menopause, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months. And as for those whose menstruation has ceased, and those who are already pregnant, their interim is until they give birth. And anyone who reverences God, He makes his matters easy for him.” (Quran 65:4)
I can't see where you got your belief from, after reading the translation.
This verse is regarding divorce. We can agree on that. It's basically stating that a believing man must ensure that his wife is not pregnant before he can divorce her.
Shall we discuss the bible and the Torah in depth and see if it's possible to correct common myths?
It's about time you banned me Robert Spencer as I'm severely damaging your cause.
Hugh- it took woman to jump under the hoofs of horses to get their rights mate and even that wasn't enough. Before that they couldn't do anything a man could do and it all comes from your Bible. No inheritance at all, never mind half, none!! Stop the jealousy because Islam was light years ahead when it came to woman's rights, you've only now started to catch up. You won't be able to surpass Islam, unless woman go onto control men in your society. Don't come up with cases from the modern 'Muslim' world because thats not Islam.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 11, 2008 1:09 PM
Islam "light years ahead" of Christianity? Ha. Jesus the Christ showed by His actions and His word what the treatment of women should be. He addressed women and spoke in public to them, a big no-no throughout the mideast of His time on earth. He touched and allowed Himself to be touched by those that would have been though ritualistically unclean; the woman with the 12 year hemorrage, the stooped woman who could not straighten her spine until healed by Him, the dead girl he raised, (I love His words "now get her something to eat" so Jewish!) Most especially He showed that a woman was RESPONSIBLE for her own relationship to God the Father. Many of today's touchy feely, I'm okay, You're okay Christians remember Christ saved the adulteress from stoning but forget His all important words to her: "Now go and sin no more." She is responsible for her actions and the state of her soul. No blaming "society" or haranguing the Sanhedrin to make adultery "safe, legal and rare".
In every way, right up to and including Easter morning when He appears first to Mary Magdelene-- who surprise, surprise the apostle (guys) think is hallucinating, exagerating, being emotional ---Jesus is elevating the status of woman to where it was intended to be since Genesis (Adam's rib from his SIDE not his skull nor his foot but his SIDE the bone that protects the beating heart and the breath in the lungs).
at March 11, 2008 1:27 PM
@thesaracen. This is great: "Don't come up with cases from the modern 'Muslim' world because thats not Islam."
We should judge muhammedanism on some kind of theory about its possible outcome in the past and judge the rest of the world on what it actually is today or in its worst days.
Yes, that will do the trick.
If its good we will call it muhammedanism, if it is wrong we say its not muhammedanism.
Yes, the word muhammedanism is saved. Congratulations.
at March 11, 2008 2:49 PM
"1. The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Qu'ran is referring to the woman's vagina (tilth)
The Jews at the time of Prophet pbuh, used to say to the Muslims, that they could not have sex with their wives from the back (not anal), otherwise the offspring will come out cross-eyed. So God revealed this verse to reassure the Muslims, that they could have sexual intercourse with their wives, however they desired, with the exception of anal sex, which is not allowed. "
So the koran refers to women as a "vagina", how forward thinking, how progressive.
He revealed the verse, they were so stupid they couldn't have intercourse without a verse. Perhaps God should have revealed a biology text book.
"These testimonies are regarding cases where men generally excel above woman. "
Need I say more, how progressive, dressing up your bigotry as equality, you should join the communist party.
"as long as they find a nanny to look after the children and the home and pay her fairly as well."
Oh, and they don't go out for a coffee with a male who isn't a relation, and then, well you know the rest.....
"It does not encourage men to marry more than one wife"
Allowing it doesn't encourage it? What a sick semantic slyness.
"A man under Islamic law, has to ensure that not just his wife but his children and his extended family are well looked after."
That's why there's no poverty in Islamic countries, they're all so rich they don't need to emigrate. Hang on, no wait a minute. Justifying inequality by vague references to some non existent after life, ludicrous.
"After all else fails, beat her with a blade of grass."
A blade of grass? Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Mad as a fucking hatter.
If that fails, Oh yes, just kill her, for the family honour.
"I can't see where you got your belief from"
He can't deny that God's representative on earth, "the exemplar of male conduct now", well, liked his pussy hairless, so makes vague references to the Torah and the Bible. Without pausing to consider that those cultures are gone, and the people have moved into the modern age.
Only Islam and Allah remain buried in a literal past, justifying the unjustifiable, blaming everyone else for their ills, and when cornered pointing to some mythical place that one day will come, if only we could just chop of enough clitoris's to build a stairway too heaven.
End of history anyone? No my mistake, that was Marx, blood soaked tyrants, they all have the same philosophy in the end, strange isn't it?
at March 11, 2008 3:17 PM
So much for thesaracen if that's the best he can do
Posted by: Ian at March 11, 2008 3:21 PM
FransG- You can highlight these isolated incidents, which is what they are, if you wish. But they do not give an accurate portrayal of Islam.
Just because someone is a Muslim, that does not mean he is incapable of breaking Islamic law. There is a difference.
You obviously, no doubt are aware of this. So what you do, is try and find where honor killing and mistreatment of woman is called for in Islamic Law.
You've tried that, and I've just shown you above, it does not exist. Islamic law does not place woman below men, just accept it.
The time of the Prophet pbuh and the subsequent caliphs, was the most perfect example of equality. This was because Sharia law- without any trace of culture or tradition was in place.
Over the centuries slowly but surely Islamic influence has gradually weakened to the point where now, not one Islamic nation exists. By this, I mean the governments do not enforce authentic Sharia Law. This allows these crimes to take place as people have warped back in time to the era of the Quraysh.
So no, what happens in today's world is not an example of Islam. You're more than welcome to use these incidents that your media highlights, but what are they other than an example of common criminals?
Having said that, the vast majority of Muslims are good people, who try their best to adhere to the rules of the Qu'ran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammed pbuh.
Unless you have the power to look at every single Muslim household on this earth, how do you know if woman are not given their rights?
You can only assume based on a few stories.
at March 11, 2008 3:30 PM
thesaracen,
I know this may come as a shock to you, but around here we want evidence, not just assertions.
So when you say women are to be scourged with "a blade of grass", where do you get that from? It certainly isn't the Qu'ran.
And my translation (Dawood) says, as part of 65:4, "If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstrating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstrated."
I know I'm just an ignorant infidel, who can't read the Qu'ran in it's glorious Arabic, but that sounds like pre-adolescent girls to me. Also, RS never said it "encouraged" marriage to more than one woman, just that it is allowed.
Plus, Mo himself had numerous sex slaves, at least one of whom he forced himself on just after having her Jewish husband killed.
Finally, the 2002 UN Arab Human Development Report, put together by Arabs, found the Arab world is far behind the west economically, educationally, and in gender equality. Oops, the "inferior" infidels exceed the Arabs in every category! Sorry to hurt your supremacism!
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 11, 2008 3:31 PM
Thesaracen wrote"
"Islamic law does not place woman below men, just accept it."
I bring your attention to 2:228 "Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, ALTHOUGH MEN HAVE A STATUS ABOVE WOMEN."
(emphasis mine, and probably the male Islamic world, too.)
Um, you can read your own holy book, right? The one with the immutable, final word of Allah? Because the way I read it, according to Allah, men are put above women. See?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 11, 2008 3:38 PM
Oh here we go another nutter.
Please tell me why is it you're incapable of just debating properly. When you know your in a corner, you come up with some rubbish, that had nothing to do with what I said. You're exposing a weakness by doing just that.
No one wants to impress you. If you don't like what I had to say, don't reply. Grin and bear it, that would be better for you.
What's emigration got to do with a man providing for his family or inheritance?
If you don't like Muslims, we're here to stay. Grin and bear that as well. Or do something about it.... if you can...
at March 11, 2008 3:41 PM
Mo foe, where's your hero???? I would have thought your hero, would speak for you first before you spoke, but hey you've bought up a few 'tough' questions. Lol.
You seem to have a problem with just one issue (65:4) which indicates you agree with the rest of what I had to say right?
You bought new questions and verses, as further proof you agree with what I had to say.
If I give you proof (when usually a few words against Islam is enough for you), how will it change your thinking about Islam? Because I do not want to waste my time with cynics?
Right now you believe what God says in the Qu'ran, normally you reject it, why is that?
My translation!!!! Like you have a copy of the Qu'ran, don't lie to yourself, you've never touched a Qu'ran, let alone read it.
I will provide the evidence from the hadiths, just show me your willing to take it in and get a better understanding.
at March 11, 2008 3:58 PM
To thesaracen
I'm a nutter?
You post a long post condoning pedophilia, inequality, beating women(with a blade of grass, right), claim that just a few Muslims the world over are causing mayhem, when we all know it's quite a lot actually, everyday.
Point to some mystical never never land that used to exist never, and never will, while your blood soaked barbaric creed, backward in literature, art, medicine, science, well actually is there anything it does excel at? It can't even make the explosives to blow other people up with. It's like saying it isn't communisms fault that every time it's tried the grave pits just get deeper.
It's the koran that's the problem, with the people like you and your disgusting morality a close second.
I don't like Islam much, and I don't like muslims much either, just as I don't like Stalinists and National Socialists.
You can point at backwardsness and call it progress for all you're worth, but it's still backwardness, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
at March 11, 2008 4:02 PM
Ian- AND????????? Why are you telling me?
You hate Islam and Muslims good for you. Just not making much sense in why you hate them.
I couldn't care less anyway, tell it to someone who cares.
You seem like your pissed off about something, but I don't know what it is.
You can take it out on the Muslims on your road if you want. You need an outlet to vent all that anger. I wouldn't advise it though. So keep your thoughts to yourself is my best advice to you.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 11, 2008 4:13 PM
Well the thesaracen, I wouldn't do that. My culture doesn't think much of killing for the sake of it. An example, if I tied some explosives to myself and blew myself up in a mosque, my neighbours wouldn't all go into the street and jump up and down and fire guns in the air and burn a flag. They wouldn't then all rush down to the local church and burn it to the ground. It's not like Islam you see.
What pisses me off is your lies, dissembling, and the cruddy little fascist creed you follow, which differs not one wit from the Catholic Church in its heyday, or the National Socialism, or Communism, or The Spanish Inquisition. It's just everyone else has moved on, but Islam hasn't. So, support pedophilia, wife beating, hate homosexuals and jews, think you're God's chosen one, stick your face in the floor and your ass towards Allah as many times a day as you like. But your religion is still an nasty intolerant festering sore, a blot on civilised values, a throw back to barbarism. That's why its followers (and this is the big surprise) are so barbaric.
at March 11, 2008 4:28 PM
To thesaracen,
I'm just not sure I have the patience to deal with you point by point, like my hero, especially since you seem incapable of dealing with what I had to say.
"You seem to have a problem with just one issue (65:4) which indicates you agree with the rest of what I had to say right? You bought new questions and verses, as further proof you agree with what I had to say."
Um, what? Again, I ask you if you are capable of reading, because I have lots of problems with what you said.
I have a problem with your assertion that Islam doesn't put men above women. (2:228 flatly says men have superior status)
I have a problem with your assertion that men are to use "a blade of grass" to scourge their wives.
Where did you get this? It ain't in my copy of your "holy" book. Yes, I have a copy. I put it on the bottom shelf, eat pork while reading it, slopping bacon grease on it sometimes, and I've written in it, too!
"Right now you believe what God says in the Qu'ran, normally you reject it, why is that?"
I absolutely, without equivocation, do not believe what's in the Qu'ran! I'm just reporting what I found there, because I thought you believed it, and it clearly says to beat your wives and that men have superior status. You have denied this, so have you rejected it now?
I have asked for proof, so let's see it. I'm willing to listen, at least.
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 11, 2008 4:36 PM
Islam is a human is it? Where can I find him?
Your talking a lot of rubbish. You want to do something about these terrorists then do it, don't rant and rave on a website.
You think just because you use a jet fighter and a tank, what your doing is different?
Still killing people aren't you?
A lot of them haven't done shit to you. Even when you can see these people, you still kill them. Why?
Then ask me why terrorists are blowing themselves up.
Terrorists don't speak for Islam. Someone blowing himself up is no different to a fighter pilot bombing a house.
You're chatting a lot of shit that came from the media, you don't know know what you're saying. Same as the suicide bombers. Someone told them it's Ok to blow themselves up.
Are you a member of the BNP? Sounds to me like you are. Be honest now.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 11, 2008 4:43 PM
thesaracen
New you'd just stop attempting to answer points in the end, well done.
Tanks and planes, which Allah has unaccountably failed to give to Muslims, how can this be?
Of course those tanks and planes are being used to bomb Hindus and Sikhs and Christians aren't they, hang on a minute, no they're not, why would that be?
Fact is, it's Muslims, quoting the koran (accurately) who are blowing themselves up and killing and oppressing they're fellow Muslims included. Yes someone did tell suicide bombers to blow themselves up, Imams in thousands of Mosques all over the world quoting the koran, and old Mo's example.
Kill lots of people and you get a heavenly orgy they say to people they can't even bother to teach to read and write.
There's hope, Islam can crawl out of the gutter and join the civilised world, it would just have to crawl out of the sewer first.
No I'm not a member of the BNP, but as far as it goes, as least it's committed to democracy, and unlike Islam isn't rabidly antisemetic.
Islam does teach the hatred of jews doesn't it. It is in the koran isn't it?
Come on, be honest now.
at March 11, 2008 5:08 PM
To thesaracen,
Here's another choice nugget from your holy book. I don't think it'll change your opinion, but at least I demonstrate my sources:
4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other."
And I understand this if from the Hadith, but I don't know the exact citation:
"After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."
So, just to review, according to the Qu'ran:
-Men can marry more than one wife
-Men can marry "women" who have yet to menstrate.
-Men are encouraged to "beat" or "scourge" their wife (or wives).
-Women are a "vagina" (your word!) to use as men will.
-Men have a status above women
-Men are in charge of women, and excel over them
And finally, from Mo himself:
-Women are a "harmful affliction."
Tell this unbeliever again how mistreatment of women has nothing to do with Islam.
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 11, 2008 5:21 PM
"The time of the Prophet pbuh and the subsequent caliphs, was the most perfect example of equality. This was because Sharia law- without any trace of culture or tradition was in place.
Over the centuries slowly but surely Islamic influence has gradually weakened to the point where now, not one Islamic nation exists."
You would think that a perfect law and a perfect society would have a little bit of staying power, wouldn't you? I would think that if this law and this society were truly perfect, that this law's influence would strengthen over time rather than weaken as the Saracen himself asserts.
Also, I wonder when and which state was the last "Islamic" state to exist in Mr. Saracen's mind. The answer he would give, if honest, would likely surprise anyone who has been foolish enough as to be fooled into thinking that this Saracen fellow or those who think like him are "moderates," simply because he at times offers some vague, apologetic, condemnation of 'Terrorism,' almost always accompanied by the caveat '...but what the West does is just as bad.'
at March 11, 2008 6:15 PM
Mo Foe
First of I have not denied what is in the Qu'ran; only denied your interpretation of it.
By telling me what you do with the Qu'ran doesn't really have the effect on me you desire. It's between you and God. You will regret saying that when your stand before God.
So are men superior to woman in Islamic Law?
Absolutely not.
And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (2:228).
Men are above them in responsibility not in rights. What does the previous sentence say? Equal rights.
Read what I had to say on inheritance in my first post and you will realise men indeed have a greater responsibility in their families than woman do. Not only that, men are naturally above woman in physical terms.
The man is expected to provide, doesn't matter if it's Islamic law or not. Do you expect your wife to provide for you? She doesn't have to in Islamic law. Therefore as a man you have greater responsibility than she does.
The word "beating" is used in the verse (Surah An Nisa (4:34), but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) defined it as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark".
He further said that the face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush. Either way, it does not harm the wife.
'The Prophet never once in his life struck a female, even the light tapping of the arm I mentioned was something he discouraged.'
"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)
Regarding Surah Al-Talaaq(65:4); It's funny why you have stuck to one translation (Dawood), why not use the others? At the same time you defend the translations saying the Qu'ran is not a special book that cannot be translated. Do you have a problem with the translations as well as the Qu'ran? Me on the other hand I'm aware the translations are only translations and not the Qu'ran itself. Therefore I can look at a translation and interpret it properly.
I'll leave you to mull over your inability to decide on something. I take it that you are asking me a question regarding child marriage and Islam's take on the issue? And you're using (65:4) as a basis for the question.
Well (65:4) has nothing to do with child marriage.
Woman from time to time miss periods and especially do so when they are pregnant. My knowledge isn't that great on the issue but thats what I always thought. Surah Al-Talaaq is only saying if divorce is the only option then you have to wait to ensure your wife is not pregnant. If she is you have to wait until she gives birth. When a woman misses a period it can be a sign that she is pregnant. 'if she has not menstruated yet' - wait to find out if she does. If not, then seek the divorce.
For woman who have reached the age of menopause then wait three months, if there is any doubt regarding your wish to divorce them.
This verse has nothing to do with child marriage. You can hold on to that belief based on a particular translation, thats totally up to you.
For one verse you will find many different translations. Just because you have a particular translation that does not mean it is correct. The authentic source is the Qu'ran, what you and I have quoted are translations of it. Refer to the Quran if you want to find contradictions or inequality, not the translations, which obviously differ from person to person.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 11, 2008 6:35 PM
'if she has not menstruated yet' - wait to find out if she does. *If not, then seek the divorce.*
If she does menstruate then seek a divorce. If not then wait to see if she is actually pregnant.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 11, 2008 7:04 PM
thesaracen,
Thank you for providing some evidence. I really appreciate it. However, you did not prove anything about a "blade of grass" being the correct instrument for beating your wife.
The thing that still gets me about this verse (and it's in all the other translations I looked at) is that the wife can be so punished because the husband merely "fears" disobedience. Even if it's supposed to be as light as you claimed, there's not even a shred of evidence needed, just a man's fears.
As for your claim about child marriage, I still read "if she has not menstruated yet" as being about a girl too young to do so. So, even if the verse is about divorce, it assumes that the wife might be too young to have had her first menstruation.
Plus, the Ayatollah Khomeni, said something to the effect that it's good to marry your daughters and get them out of your house "before their first menses." Did he just pull this out of his hat, going against "true Islam?"
Also, the fact that Muhammad married many women (and Aisha at 6 years old!) and had sex slaves is problematic for people today, especially since he is supposed to be the "perfect man", whose example all good Muslims are supposed to follow today.
Oh, and by the way, I found the source for my "harmful affliction" quote:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."
Finally, you wrote: "I'll leave you to mull over your inability to decide on something."
I have to tell you that I don't understand what you mean here at all. What have I not decided?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 11, 2008 8:59 PM
Dear Friends,
The basic teachings of Judaic, Christianity and Islam remain the same. Previously when the Follower of Moses required a reformation, God Almighty sent Jesus with Bible to steer put the defiant Israelite on tracks. But Jesus was not lucky enough to achieve his set goals; rather he was given a death sentence to die on the cross.
Later Christianity took a start till it was superseded by the final word of God for the whole of mankind in the Holy Book of Quran, revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
It is very strange to note that most of the followers of older denomination knowing the above mechanism evolved to be true (as such), tend to defy the newer revelations and try to ignore the fact by devising and pursuing some kind of monopolizing myths and start erecting fences round it. These concocted myths and defiance is very much visible in the older denominations which has ever since taken a heavy toll of mankind in many forms; vicious massacres, destructions and deprivation.
In Chapter 5:19; Allah says; ‘The Jews and the Christians say, 'We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones.' Say, 'Why then does He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are mortals from among those He has created.' He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases. And to Allah belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him shall be the final return.’
And Quran declares in Chapter 14:2; ‘ Alif Lam Ra. This is a Book (The Holy Quran)which We have revealed to thee(Muhammad)that thou mayest bring mankind out of the depths of darkness into light, by the command of their Lord, to the path of the Mighty, the Praiseworthy’--
One wonders that why the intellectuals employed on this website fail to recognise the ‘Truth of Quran’ which is so vivid and visible before them and rather they are seen waging a useless war against the ‘Will of God’.
It certainly needs some deep soul searching?
-----------------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
at March 11, 2008 10:38 PM
Islam (piss be upon it) is what Islam (piss be upon it) does. That simply says it all knucklehead. Anyone who knowingly defends evil IS EVIL, is a fool, and really does't even deserve this answer.
Posted by: CJK at March 11, 2008 10:59 PM
Mo Foe
It doesn't really matter what instrument is used as long as it does not harm the wife.
The fear doesn't come from nowhere. Something must happen for that fear to be ignited. I'm not going to accept my wife being around other men, who I don't know. She won't accept it, if I was around other woman that she didn't know.
If I see her doing that, then I'm going to fear that she may be cheating on me. Same for her.
Accept for her, it will be even worse.
It's only natural to feel this way. If I see this happen, then straight away, I'm going to fear she's cheating on me. On the other hand fear can be built up over time i.e. constant refusal of reasonable requests etc can lead to fear of disloyalty.
So the husband has to be rational. He can't just accuse her of something without sufficient proof from her behavior and so on.
Having said that, the wife is not the property of the man, she also has rights over him. Similar to these and more.
(65:4) Has nothing to do with child marriage. It's about divorce. Can woman miss a period even if they are not pregnant? Yes. Then wait and make sure of pregnancy.
Why would someone marry a child who obviously cannot give birth?
Girls naturally mature faster than men, which may go someway to explaining why Aisha (ra) was so young when she married the Prophet pbuh. The Prophet pbuh was engaged (betrothed) to Aisha when she was 6 and then married her when she was 9. Aisha (ra) despite her young age, was mature enough to marry and both sides where happy with the marriage. If you can show me evidence that Aisha (ra) was effected badly by marrying the Prophet at such a young age, then I will not say anything. However she went on to become one of the greatest scholars in Islamic History and her name is held in high regard.
Best I can do on this subject, which even I lack knowledge on, is to give you this link.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showpost.php?p=312174&postcount=95
I'm going to read it myself. After I'm done reading it, you won't have a chance to come back at me with claims about the Prophet pbuh. So here's your chance to read on the matter properly, from a Muslim, who is not an apologist either. You'll see.
Who are these sex slaves you are talking about? It's pure blasphemy what you are saying. Your merely speculating off another website, which is easy for me to find and refute.
Ayatollah Khomeini does not speak for me, nor does he for Islam. He's a Shi'a and a heretic.
The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."
A man has a strong sexual desire, which is a characteristic of virtually every man on this earth. Woman are harmful to him in that they can tempt him into sin. The woman doesn't even have to do anything and has no blame whatsoever. It's just the fact that men are born with a strong sexual desire, that makes woman harmful to him.
By looking at the woman, he will start getting impure thoughts and at that point, is under the spell of Satan. Hence why in the Qu'ran men and woman are both ordered to 'lower their gaze' around those who are of the opposite sex and who are not marital relations or family.
Now tell me how hard is it for a young man, not to stare at a woman especially those who do not cover up like the Muslims? Virtually impossible.
It's not the woman's fault that man was created with this characteristic and this hadith is only warning men to ensure they resist the whisperings of Satan regarding woman.
Regarding your final point. I don't think made
much sense but the point is, I'm finding hard to understand how you can reject the Quran so profoundly, yet quote it's translations with such conviction.
Either you reject it or believe in it, which one is it?
Then again you only believe in it when it appears to suit your goal, which is to discredit Islam.
at March 12, 2008 12:23 AM
thesaracen wrote:
"I'm finding hard to understand how you can reject the Quran so profoundly, yet quote it's translations with such conviction.
Either you reject it or believe in it, which one is it? Then again you only believe in it when it appears to suit your goal, which is to discredit Islam."
Islam discredits itself every day. It doesn't need me. (The inferiority of Islamic countries, the "say we're peaceful or we'll kill you" threats, the constant taqiyya; all that does is discredit Islam in the eyes of more and more kuffars every day.)
But, one more time, since you didn't get it before, I, as a proud unbeliever, reject the Qu'ran, the Hadith, and especially the repressive mental slavery that is Sharia.
However, since you say it's the word of God, and you believe it, I'm pointing out, um, problematic passages vis a vis the treatment of women. I haven't even touched on the ideas in the Qu'ran about killing the infidels, and how the kuffar should be be treated. That judgmental, intolerant, supremacist B.S. is the MAIN reason I reject Islam.
Then, you wrote: "Who are these sex slaves you are talking about? It's pure blasphemy what you are saying."
Once again, I reject the notion of blasphemy here because I have freedom of speech, and neither you nor I have the freedom from being offended.
But, again, here's the Qu'ran (and if this verse says what I think it says, then your holy book has committed blasphemy):
33:50
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of THOSE WHOM ALLAH HATH GIVEN THEE AS SPOILS OF WAR... (emphasis mine)
It seems to me that Muhammad took women from his vanquished foes for his own purposes. That would make them sex slaves.
In Sirat p. 466, after the Muslims had killed all the men of the Banu Quraza, it says: "Muhammad had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa, and she remained with him until she died, in his power."
She's a SEX SLAVE. Don't you get it?!?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 12, 2008 4:38 AM
Oh I almost forgot. You wrote:
"Why would someone marry a child who obviously cannot give birth?"
And then you bring up Aisha.
OOOPS!
at March 12, 2008 4:42 AM
Mo Foe- Look at you act like you got me on something. Have you read the link. Looks to me like you haven't.
Typical of your weak knowledge of Islam. You abandoned everything else, put all your eggs in one basket, and are trying to make it seem as if Prophet Muhammed pbuh has done something wrong. Even in your culture the Prophet hasn't broken any laws.
But since when was your culture so morally superior. In my culture you become a adult once you hit puberty. Think about that and then come back with child remarks.
Next time you quote from a website Moe Fo, don't take credit for it. I gave you a chance to admit it, but instead you claimed you had a book. Fine.
The address escapes my mind (critical....) but you also got the Ayatollah Khomeini excerpt from there.
Even though he's a heretic he's far, far better than you.
We don't discredit ourselves at all. We didn't start the war.You did. You invaded without reason, kill thousands of people, then incite a war between two sides, so they don't attack you. How evil is that. But yeah focus on the Muslims who weren't committing suicide bombings before the invasion.
Why are you going to bring to up another verse when you have been destroyed in every single one you've brought up so far. There is a logical answer for everything you bring up. Be aware that many times your comrades have been in this same high-mighty position, only for me to show them what was in their minds before is no longer there.
In all honesty I've already backed you into you corner and now your desperately throwing the uneducated Prophet Muhammed claims.
If a bunch of verses you read from someone else are stopping you from looking at Islam with an open heart, then I don't see whats the point of me answering anything you ask. Live in your life the way you want to live it, Muslims aren't threatening that, but in your moment of superiority over the Muslims you think freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want to them. I don't think so.
What started off as an insult, is only a few incidents away from an all out war. You don't want that, I don't want.
Now Mo Foe, you little rat, you seriously don't want to continue debating. Now run off behind someone else.
You all write in the same way; he's using taqqiya- when you don't even know what Taqqiya is.
'I reject Islam because it's being forced on me,' my rights will be taken from me. 'I want to resist Islam.'
You can reject and resist all you like, it will for a certainty rule the world, it is ordained and you will surely stand before God and made to answer why you turned away in arrogance.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 12, 2008 10:51 AM
To the saracen,
You wrote: "Even in your culture the Prophet hasn't broken any laws."
Marrying a 6 year old is against the law, and so is having sex with a 9 year old in my culture. I also personally find it disgusting.
You wrote: "Next time you quote from a website Moe Fo, don't take credit for it. I gave you a chance to admit it, but instead you claimed you had a book. Fine."
I thought you didn't want me to only go by my Dawood translation, so I went to the USC-MCA Compendium of Muslim Texts for a different translation. If you must know, the Dawood version of 33:50 actually uses the phrase "slave-girls whom God has given you as booty."
Having slave-girls is one of those things that sounds bad no matter how you say it.
So, I answered your question abut Mo having sex-slaves. I noticed you didn't respond. I mean, since you said it was pure blasphemy coming from me, then, since the Qu'ran mentions it, that would mean that the Qu'ran was blaspheming too. I think that would be a problem for you.
You wrote: "The address escapes my mind (critical....) but you also got the Ayatollah Khomeini excerpt from there.
Even though he's a heretic he's far, far better than you."
I disagree.
You wrote: "We don't discredit ourselves at all. We didn't start the war.You did. You invaded without reason, kill thousands of people, then incite a war between two sides, so they don't attack you. How evil is that. But yeah focus on the Muslims who weren't committing suicide bombings before the invasion."
First of all, in our discussion up to now I have not mentioned suicide bombers or any invasion. So how, exactly have I focused on them?
Secondly, apparently you are unaware of Muslim history. Muslim have invaded without reason country after country going back to the days of Mo himself, killing hundreds of millions.
You wrote: "Why are you going to bring to up another verse when you have been destroyed in every single one you've brought up so far. There is a logical answer for everything you bring up. Be aware that many times your comrades have been in this same high-mighty position, only for me to show them what was in their minds before is no longer there.
In all honesty I've already backed you into you corner and now your desperately throwing the uneducated Prophet Muhammed claims."
You didn't address the "slave girl" verse at all. I'll patiently await my "destruction" on that one.
You wrote: "Live in your life the way you want to live it, Muslims aren't threatening that, but in your moment of superiority over the Muslims you think freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want to them. I don't think so."
But, the fact is that Muslims are threatening my way of life, every time they demand that authors, cartoonists or filmmakers should be murdered for their creations. They are chilling freedom of expression. Every concession made to Muslims' demands for special treatment whittle away more of my way of life.
You wrote: "What started off as an insult, is only a few incidents away from an all out war. You don't want that, I don't want.
Now Mo Foe, you little rat, you seriously don't want to continue debating. Now run off behind someone else."
OK, here come the insults and threats. Typical Muslim behavior. In one breath you say that Muslims aren't threatening my way of life, but in the very next one, you say I should stop or face "an all out war." Well, I ain't stopping.
You wrote: "You all write in the same way; he's using taqqiya- when you don't even know what Taqqiya is."
First, I do know what it is, and second, I didn't say you were using it.
You wrote: "You can reject and resist all you like, it will for a certainty rule the world, it is ordained and you will surely stand before God and made to answer why you turned away in arrogance."
Thanks for the permission. I will resist Islam every chance I get. How is it going to rule the world, I wonder, when the infidel West is superior technologically, educationally, politically, economically and in every category you can name, when Islam is supposed to be perfect?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 12, 2008 12:11 PM
CONGRADULATIONS; 'Mo Foe'looks to me like you kicked the sorry 'saracens' a*s without even bringing up the profit's (piss be upon him) wicked, despicable, and satanic example. It's pretty hard to defend that satanic system against anyone with half a brain who can still think, but evil decievers will still try. I believe that unfortunately for mankind, Islam (piss be upon it) will conqueor the earth under the leadership of al madhi (the Christian Antichrist). His (al madhi) final destructively evil achievement will be the capture and sacking of Jerusalem. If I understand the prophecies correctly, 45 days later the real Christ will return to destroy Islam (piss be upon it) and throw allah (satan) into prision.
Posted by: CJK at March 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Moe Fo you seriously believe you have me backed into a corner. I love it, when you do this. When your ego goes out of control.
Did I deny Prophet Muhammed pbuh married Aisha (ra) when she was 9 not 6. No. Do you know why he married her at that age? Obviously not.
Find out from the link I gave you and then come back and claim victory. Secondly I have no idea where you get this sex slaves nonsense from. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) Would not commit adultery. No chance. Interpret it properly then come back to me. Find what a Muslim scholar says on it, if he agrees with you, I'll keep my silence.
The Prophet pbuh had so many wives AND???? I will marry as many wives as I am allowed to (4). Just because you say it's wrong. To me that means it's good.
However, if my future wife dictates that I should stay married to her alone, I cannot marry another. Or I should marry one, if I can't fair and just.
Read your bible before you talk about Polygamy.
Marriage to young girls happens to this day in orthodox Christian communities, don't mention that do you. It also happened at the time of the Prophet pbuh, that was normal at that time. It many not seem right now, in your culture, but that does not mean it was wrong for Prophet Joseph (pbuh) to marry Mary when she was 12 and he was 90. I'm sure there was wisdom behind that as well.
If your culture is influenced by Christianity, which it's not, then you would never have bought up any of these claims.
Your talking about subjects you have no knowledge of. But you can try and debate and present yourselves like knowledgeable people. Just re-read some of the things you write to me and then look at what I write and see who is insulting who.
Technology and weapons, are no defence against the will of God. Pharaoh thought he was untouchable and what happened to him? The Quran says of how God will preserve his body as a sign to those who reject faith, where is Pharaoh now... in a Museum, with all his organs still intact. Tell me how you will resist?
How come your not defending the other claims about the Qu'ran as well, is it because you can't find a translation to support you??? It properly is.
There's no point in me debating you, was my point, I wasn't putting up a white flag. If you hate, keep hating. I can't change that. But I will prove you wrong, whether you accept it or not. And so far I have done just that.
You want to continue insulting our Prophet, just be aware we won't allow it to happen.
I can if I wish twist the tables on you, because I've answered what you bought forward. Try and answer what's in the bible you won't be able to. You'll resort to accepting that it has been tampered with, just as the Qu'ran says.
I don't want to do that. So keep your peace with me. As for the Jews, keep your insults to yourselves. I know which ones are Jews and which ones aren't, just by reading how hostile the posts are.
You don't want me to start on your book either, since you probably hide most of it in your top hats.
You haven't won anything Moe Fo, so get down from the perch quietly.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 12, 2008 3:05 PM
[Sigh! Here I go again. It'll probably all be ignored, so why do I do it? I'm not sure at this point.]
To thesaracen,
You wrote: "Did I deny Prophet Muhammed pbuh married Aisha (ra) when she was 9 not 6. No."
True, but you also wrote: "Even in your culture the Prophet hasn't broken any laws."
And in our culture, Mo would be a criminal, charged with pedophilia, or at least statutory rape, so you are wrong on that one.
You wrote: "Secondly I have no idea where you get this sex slaves nonsense from. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) Would not commit adultery. No chance. Interpret it properly then come back to me. Find what a Muslim scholar says on it, if he agrees with you, I'll keep my silence."
I found it in the Qu'ran (to refresh your memory 33:50). Please tell me the proper interpretation of "slave-girls God gave you as booty" or picka any other translation you like.
I also found it in Sirat Rasoul Allah, the earliest biography of Muhammad, by ibn Ishaq, pg 466. This is a pious Muslim biographer. Also, according to you, a blasphemer.
Having slave girls, in my opinion, is something that sounds bad no matter how you say it. And I stick to that judgment.
Now we get to some funny stuff!
You wrote: "Just re-read some of the things you write to me and then look at what I write and see who is insulting who."
You called me a "little rat." I never called you names.
I did question your ability to read, however. For example, when I read "those who have yet to menstruate" it sounds to me like a young girl who HAS YET TO MENSTRUATE, not a mature woman who simply missed one. So, while that may be about divorce, it includes guidelines if you need to divorce your pre-menstrual wife.
Again, I think that's wrong.
You wrote: "Technology and weapons, are no defence against the will of God."
Tell that to the 3 armies Israel defeated in '67!
You wrote: "How come your not defending the other claims about the Qu'ran as well, is it because you can't find a translation to support you??? It properly [sic] is."
I'm not defending them, because you haven't attacked them, so they still stand. See my words above, re: sex slaves and pre-menstrual girls.
You wrote: "There's no point in me debating you."
If your arguments up to now are all you got, I will agree with you there is no point.
You wrote: "But I will prove you wrong, whether you accept it or not. And so far I have done just that."
Um exactly how, again? You haven't addressed what your holy book (and the 1st biography of Mo) had to say about his sex-slaves at all.
You wrote: "You want to continue insulting our Prophet, just be aware we won't allow it to happen."
Another threat?
You wrote: "Try and answer what's in the bible you won't be able to. You'll resort to accepting that it has been tampered with, just as the Qu'ran says."
I don't have to answer for what's in the Bible, because I don't believe it's the immutable, eternal, unchanging word of God, that is relevant to today. But you do think just that of the Qu'ran, so you really should answer for what's in it.
You wrote: "As for the Jews, keep your insults to yourselves. I know which ones are Jews and which ones aren't, just by reading how hostile the posts are.
You don't want me to start on your book either, since you probably hide most of it in your top hats."
This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so confusing. What insults did I have for Jews? And which book is mine? I don't even have a top hat!
You wrote: "You haven't won anything Moe Fo, so get down from the perch quietly."
You first! You didn't win anything. It's clear Mo had sex slaves, would be prosecuted in the West for statutory rape (not to mention murder, owning and trading slaves, inciting genocide, and a whole handful of war crimes), and Islam has something to do with the oppression of women.
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 12, 2008 5:33 PM
I personally feel that Israel's (Gods Chosen) victory over 5 Islamic (piss be upon it) nations in it's 1948 war for survival was actually more impressive than 1967. Notice how the decievers always drag the Old Testament into any arguement over the depravity of their 'religion'. I never hear anyone bring up the queeran to defend the Judaism. Whats written in the Books of Joshua and Judges is irrelevant when discussing the pedophile profit's disgusting behavior.
Posted by: CJK at March 12, 2008 7:09 PM
Mo Foe it's pointless to continue this conversation. If you want answers just ask. You may think you already know, but ask a Muslim, wouldn't that help you?
You already have pre-conceived notions about Islam which makes it very difficult for anyone to make you think otherwise. I've given you a link which will explain your beliefs regarding the Prophet(pbuh) far better than I can. But it's simple to answer.
Firstly the Prophet pbuh did not follow your law. He obeyed God's law (Sha'ria)
Secondly Aisha (ra) regardless of young she was, was not a child when she married the Prophet (pbuh). Woman naturally mature faster then men. It can happen that a 9 year old reaches puberty.
Thirdly the Prophet married Aisha (ra) after her first menstruation. In Islamic LAW (not culture) her book of records started then and she is an adult in the sight of Allah (swt).
In the time of the Prophet (pbuh) this was normal. In some communities, it happens to this day.
She was not a child, plus she had the choice to reject marriage, plus all sides were more than happy with the marriage.
So no, it's not pedophilia. Pedophiles don't marry, they attack and kill children.
A child is not involved, neither was Aisha (ra) attacked or harmed in anyway. Like I said, she went on to be a legendary Islamic scholar.
I can understand it will be very hard for you to comprehend this FACT about the Prophet (pbuh), but it's not your law the Prophet (pbuh) obeyed. It didn't even exist.
I recommend that from now on, you use an Islamic source, because they won't lie. You need to realise how great a sin it is for a Muslim to say something which is not true. I'm fearful that I have said a few things in my time, which are not true. I'm only human.
Now I'm changing my tone towards you because I don't want pride to overcome me. I want to give Dawah and invite people to Islam.
You can make life very easy for me and you and just tell me you don't want to know. I'll be happy with that.
But if you do, then know that most of this negative stuff you believe is not true and I can show you why it's not true. This goes to everyone here.
But to even consider accepting any of my answers to your questions, you need to realise that everything that involves killing innocent people has nothing to do with Islam.
Now you're gonna call me a liar but I leave it up to you.
No need for insults, you can get rid of me. Just say so.
at March 12, 2008 10:36 PM
#1 - I don't care what culture you come from, but a 6-year old is not an adult.
#2 - My sources for Muhammad having sex slaves ARE Islamic (the Qu'ran being one). So I guess they didn't lie, did they? (And you haven't said one more word about that issue, I notice.)
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 13, 2008 1:04 AM
She was not 6 she was 9- It's very important you realise this. Aisha (ra) was engaged to the prophet at the age of 6 but didn't marry him or live with him until the age of 9, whereby she reached puberty probably even midway through adolescence, when she married the Prophet (pbuh). The facts suggest that in hotter climates girls mature faster than in colder climates, much faster. You know how hot it gets in the middle east?
Like I said the Prophet (pbuh) was and is a perfect example of a Muslim. He married Aisha (ra) for a number of reasons.
To signify to the Muslims of the time and future generations of the earliest age they can marry a female (after her first menstruation).
He married Aisha (ra) Because history suggests she was an unbelievably intelligent person, and just look at what she has done as a result of being around the Prophet (pbuh). She married so young because for years after the Prophet's death she guided people to what the Prophet (pbuh) used to say and do and woman in particular benefited greatly from her inside knowledge.
Every marriage the prophet had, every decision he made, everything he did was an example to the Muslims of the time and the later generations. This is what you should do (this is the Sunnah). Now the marriage to Aisha(ra), the Prophet (pbuh) is not saying marry young girls, he was merely giving guidance because at that time, this practice was widespread, throughout that region and among the Semites as well. This is what you are allowed to do under (Sharia).
I didn't mention sex-slaves for a reason. It's not true. You didn't get it from the Quran, you got it from a translation of it.
What other sources have you used?
In other translations I have looked at, the notion you have bought up is a million miles away. But bring the sources that you have used, including the translation.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 13, 2008 11:16 AM
To thesaracen,
I am beginning to suspect that indeed you can't read, because in the link you yourself gave me earlier it says that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammed when she was 6 years old.
I quote:
"cAishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
Of the four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from cAishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abû Hishâm (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim have cAishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahâdîth in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when cAishah was "six years old", but was not consummated until she was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadîth with the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abû Dâwûd. Needless to say, this evidence is - Islamically speaking - overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both."
So, debatable as it is whether she menstruated by the age of consummation, she was 6 when she was married, and I maintain that's not an adult.
You wrote: "I didn't mention sex-slaves for a reason. It's not true. You didn't get it from the Quran, you got it from a translation of it.
What other sources have you used?
In other translations I have looked at, the notion you have bought up is a million miles away. But bring the sources that you have used, including the translation."
You also seem to have a very short memory, because the other source I used was Sirat Rasoul Allah, the earliest biography of Muhammad, by ibn Ishaq, pg 466.
In it, it describes how Muhammad kept one of the wives of the Jewish tribe HE HAD JUST MASSACRED for himself. He wanted to make her one of his wives but she refused (imagine that!) Again, you can debate whether she was a sex slave, but apparently murdering all the men of an entire tribe is a good thing, since Muhammad did it.
(Other good things all of us should emulate: having critics assassinated, owning and selling slaves, robbing caravans, and declaring war on the non-Islamic world. Got it!)
Oh, and that is a very clever trick you just pulled; claiming that I only got it from a translation of the Qu'ran, not the Qu'ran itself. So, the translations:
-"those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"
or
-"those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war"
or
-"slave-girls whom God has given you as booty"
They have absolutely NO RESEMBLANCE to the Qu'ran itself?! Is that what you're telling me?
If that's the case, I really hope you can read Arabic, otherwise you have no idea what's in your holy book. I mean, why bother reading translations of any kind? They don't even resemble the content! Wow!
Therefore, I guess we should just forget the other things we found in the Qu'ran (excuse me; translations):
-Men can marry more than one wife
-Men can marry "women" who HAVE YET to menstrate.
-Men are encouraged to "beat" or "scourge" their wife (or wives) (apparently not so much as to hurt them!).
-Women are a "vagina" (your word!) to use as men will.
-Men have a status above women
-Men are in charge of women, and excel over them
Again, to someone like me who believed that translations can provide a guide to the original, these add up together to provide an instutionalization of gender inequality, and basis for keeping women subservient, home-bound, uneducated, and "barefoot & pregnant."
But now, I realize, since I got them from a translation, and translations have nothing to do with the Qu'ran, I guess I should just believe that the Qu'ran says to love, honor and obey your (one and only) wife, treat her with respect and kindness, and let her decide what to wear, when she wants to go out of the house, and if she wants an education.
Thanks for clearing that all up! Now I know never to rely on something so completely wrong as a translation. Who are these blasphemers, anyway, who have the arrogance to attempt to translate, if there's no point?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 13, 2008 3:13 PM
The more I think about this, the more profound it gets! Thank you, thesaracen for pointing out what should've been obvious this whole time! Namely,
Translations of the Qu'ran are the problem, NOT the Qu'ran itself!
This explains why there are jihadists, because the vast majority of Muslims in the world can't read Arabic, and therefore the peaceful Qu'ran, but are getting translations full of hate for kuffars, gender supremacy, Islamic supremacy, and all kinds of badness.
Islam really is a religion of peace, but the translations are translations of war!
(But, the first imam we find preaching jihad who also reads Arabic kinda blows that theory...)
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 13, 2008 4:06 PM
this is most moronic "analysis" i've ever read!!!! Are you a bible-thumping idiot?? If you are, i suggest you read it!!!! and see what nice things it has to say about women. Precisely the same you quoted from the Koran. Jihad Watch???!?!?! are you for real??? Get a f^%^$%$% life!
Posted by: blackcel at March 14, 2008 1:46 PM
Dear blackcel,
Thanks for coming here and sharing your learned analysis with us. You sure have changed a lot of minds!!
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 14, 2008 1:59 PM
To thesaracen,
You wrote, in one of your first comments: "...Islam was light years ahead when it came to woman's rights, you've only now started to catch up. You won't be able to surpass Islam, unless woman go onto control men in your society."
I'm actually willing to grant you that Muhammad was light years ahead of OTHER 7TH CENTURY WARLORDS, but there have been 14 centuries in the meantime, and we in the West have come a long way since then. Islam, because of the example of Muhammad doesn't wish to move out of the 7th Century.
And, it seems pretty clear that Muhammad accepted and gave women as "gifts" and had female slaves. Now, you wish to deny they were "sex-slaves", but look at what I found on an Islamic site, answering a question about having sex with slaves:
http://www.binoria.org/qaftw/fatwadbview.asp?key=143
"Afterwards it should be known that it is permitted to enjoy slave woman like wives without entering into a wedlock. It has its own solid logic. Unneccessary criticism is a manifst of ignorance and influence of anti-Islam propaganda. Suggestions are made to study books on Islam and slavery to have a crystal clear view of the subject."
So, since Muhammad was the prime Muslim, do you really think he would NOT take advantage of this? Really?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 14, 2008 2:16 PM
*I was writing this last night so it basically deals with the last post you made yesterday*
Betrothed means engaged, consummated means to marry the person after the engagement.
Did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Aisha(ra) when she was 6 or 9? She had her first menstruation before she married the Prophet (pbuh) therefore in Islamic law, she is an adult.
Not many people in today's world would marry a 9 year old, but the Prophet (pbuh) was a human being and he did exactly the same things the people of his time did, except all of those customs or acts which were against Islamic law, or against morality.
This wasn't and still isn't one of them.
The jewish tribe - Your referring to the Banu Qurayza? Well firstly, I don't buy the story that they were massacred and the children and woman were enslaved because that would be totally against Islamic law regarding POW'S. Either give them their freedom or set a ransom for their freedom.
I don't know the full story and why that tribe was attacked but I thought they sided with the Quraish and joined them in the Battle of the Trench, so of course they would incur casualties.
I seriously doubt the Prophet would order their beheading as that once again goes against the Islamic treatment of POW'S. Muslims at the time of the prophet (pbuh) would never attack someone who didn't bare arms against them first.
Whether you like it or not, thats the Islamic Sharia regarding war and taking up arms. Would the Prophet (pbuh) brake any Islamic law. You and I both he never did such a thing.
So your whole sex-slaves claim is based on this hadeeth? Firstly the lady you are referring to has become a widow. By asking her for her hand in marriage, the Prophet is only sparing her from a life of poverty. This is the desert remember, where will she go?
She refused fine. Did the Prophet enslave her, is that what it says? I'm sure it says the Prophet (pbuh) kept her captive against her will, right?
Then again it probably said, the Prophet, smiled, gave her a gift and left her go. Like he did after conquering Mecca. All the people were unharmed despiting them harming the Prophet and companions for years. He could have taken as many captives as he wanted but he didn't.
Other good things all of us should emulate:
having critics assassinated- Like who
Much the opposite actually.
owning and selling slaves- You know thats a lie. Wasn't Bilal a former black slave, whose freedom was bought by the Muslims; who became the first Mu'adhin in Islam? Above all the Arabs the Prophet chose him.
Robbing caravans- I don't know about that but I'll get back to you.
and declaring war on the non-Islamic world- How was that then, by sending messengers to the most powerful kings and inviting them to Islam? Where these messengers sent to give them a choice of accepting Islam or war?
You've taken an exception to what I said about the translations. But I repeat they are merely translations. The Qu'ran was revealed in Arabic alone.
The whole purpose of translations is to allow non-Muslims and non-Arabic speaking Muslims the chance to understand what is meant by the verses. Muslims still have to read the Qu'ran in Arabic, which we are taught from a young age.
They never have these problems in interpreting the Qu'ran as the Qu'ran wouldn't contradict the sayings and actions of the Prophet (pbuh) in the Hadeeths. If we find a problematic verse, we ask and find out. Only to discover the wisdom behind it.
I'm not saying the translations are wrong, but when you consider how vast the Quran is and the total difference between Arabic and English you will begin to understand my statement.
Some words in Arabic have different meanings in English and have a different usage. The task of accurately translating the Qu'ran word for word from one language to another is an impossible task. Be rational here. If you don't trust my answer research it for yourself and you'll see what I'm saying.
"those whom thy right hand possesses (captives) out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"
You are allowed to marry them, if they are willing.
Men can marry more than one wife- So Polygamy is allowed in Islam... but with certain conditions.
Men can marry "women" who HAVE YET to menstruate.
Now your convinced thats what it says, when before you accepted it could be referring to adult woman?
I thought I'd done enough to answer that, but you obviously need some more proof, fine by me.
Men are encouraged to "beat" or "scourge" their wife (or wives) (apparently not so much as to hurt them!).
Encouraged!!! Why would we be encouraged to 'beat' our wives who have done nothing wrong?
Do you know how many options there are before this 'gruesome' tap on the arm is called for??
If you saw your wife doing something you totally dislike, would you tap her on the arm in that moment of rage?
WOULD ANY MAN ON THIS EARTH, TAP HIS WIFE LIGHTLY ON THE ARM after seeing her flirt with another man, only for her to tell him to fuck off?
This verse is a check against domestic violence. Do you not see the wisdom?
Women are a "vagina" (your word!) to use as men will.
The woman's tilth or vagina, not THE WOMAN. Read the verse again and then read my explanation for this in my first post. This verse is regarding sexual intercourse, not abusing woman.
Men have a status above women- In responsibility not in anything else.
Men are in charge of women, and excel over them.
But this is true, is it not? Does your wife run your house? Is she stronger than you? In one or two cases but in general, is this true, yes or no?
If you want we can discuss woman's rights in Islam and see if there's inequality.
I'm not going to speak for what one crazy man done in Egypt or Syria or Pakistan done to his wife or children. I speak only for Islam, which does not include mistreatment of woman.
I never said the translations have nothing to do with the Qu'ran. They are only translations but not the Qu'ran itself.
You claim to have a copy of the Qu'ran at home. Does the front cover read 'THE HOLY QURAN' or does it read 'THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY QURAN'?
Become versed in Arabic read the Qu'ran and then tell me what you think. Robert Spencer is hardly going to tell you is he?
You said:'I guess I should just believe that the Qu'ran says to love, honor and obey your (one and only) wife, treat her with respect and kindness, and let her decide what to wear, when she wants to go out of the house, and if she wants an education.'
It says all that and more my friend and I'll show you if you want.
Regarding 'Jihadis', let me ask you a question since you are human.
If you saw, half or all your family killed, your home destroyed, without a penny in your pocket, what state of mind would you be in?
You will be easily manipulated and you'll think your life is not worth living trust me.
All these so called 'scholars' have to do is read a few verses from the Quran to these poor folks.
I seriously doubt they even do that, because they will know that you can't kill innocent people and kill yourself. All they probably do is to reinforce that hatred and bring back those memories and that's it.
Could it not be possible that these terrorists are either manipulated for a political, evil cause or they feel they have had an injustice done to them. If someone killed your family, your mind would be lost I'm telling you. It's not my job to condemn people. So I'm gonna sit here and say they are going to hell. I'm not God.
But do you think these terrorists read the Quran when they go into a market and kill 100 Muslims with them? Terrorism is not from the Qu'ran? Or Islam.
No verse tells us to kill non-believers who haven't attacked us. If you attack me I have a right to defend myself. That's a human right isn't it? If I done a wrong against you, then Islamic Sharia would have dealt with me before you even needed to retaliate. Either way. This world is not our final abode. If you don't find justice in this world, you'll find it in the next, accept punishments on the day of judgment will be a lot worse than stoning, or cutting off hands.
I honestly did not know what the verse you highlighted meant and it did shock me. I couldn't explain it and thats exactly why you have highlighted, it fair enough.
But I felt the same way about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha (ra).
At first I could not explain that either. It's only a matter of time before I can convince you that even in this verse, there is wisdom. Far from allowing slavery to continue it slowly diminished it. Now this is one of those issues that you will never accept any form of answer to. And I seriously only wish that you would be able to understand Islam more.
I cannot give a strong enough explanation until I have looked deeper into the issue, because God would never impose a law that would harm another human being.
But basically this from what I read so far is the best I can do:
(1) It was permissible, that does not mean it was encouraged, just like Polygamy. You have to remember these are God fearing people, who would fear their meeting with their lord. So mistreating any human being will result in good deeds being taken away from them on the day of judgment. You're thinking of a bunch of soldiers ransacking houses and taking away captives. If you were to really delve into Islamic History you'd find that they were nothing of the sort. I wouldn't be surprised if the captives came willingly.
(2) This was 1400 years ago. If the woman had become widows, where would they have gone? They would have led lives of poverty and most would have probably died. This was a time where there was no hint of the civilisation we see now. No one would have come to their rescue. The Muslims actually saw this as an act of charity and righteousness, since they were saving a human being from near enough certain death. So, I can't accept the Sahaba would take advantage, let alone the Prophet (pbuh).
(3) The verse does not in anyway contradict the Islamic rule of only defending yourselves from attack, so under no circumstances did the Muslims set out for war,provoking people to benefit from this ruling. Particularly at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the subsequent caliphs who were god fearing people.
(4) They weren't treated like slaves and upon pregnancy they were released. If their 'masters' died they would be released. With full rights.
(5) This does not in anyway relate to anything other than a time of war. Woman's rights in any other situation are not affected. Not to say, their rights were being violated by this verse.
Like I said they had no were to go and because of war, the Muslims turned them into widows, when they relied solely on their husbands. Any other army would certainly have raped them and then killed them, but instead the Muslims took them into their homes, sheltered and fed them, looked after them and then released them.
I've got a link. It may explain it better than I can. But like I said Mo Foe. I will God willing, go deeper into this subject. I'll give you this one, since you've exposed my lack of knowledge. But I'm young and I'll always be learning about my religion.
Have a look at the link, if there's anything you want to point out, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you.
I will never accept the Prophet (pbuh) was anything other than a man of superb character and morals.
Posted by: thesaracen
at March 14, 2008 9:24 PM
To thesaracen,
I honestly appreciate your attempts to understand your religion and explain it, as you understand it to me.
But, I think you hit upon a major issue when you said, "I will never accept the Prophet (pbuh) was anything other than a man of superb character and morals."
This means that no matter what historical accounts, translations or other evidence is ever found, if it contradicts your image of Muhammad, then it won't be accepted.
That said, you really should peruse Tabari, and Sirat Rasoul Allah, all pious Muslims, and learn more about Muhammad.
I think you'll find accounts of his involvement in the slave trade, the unprovoked attacks on caravans to acquire wealth and build the Muslim empire, the fact that he the poet Marwan (one of of his critics) assassinated, and a raft of other things that probably shouldn't be emulated today.
Besides, I already gave you a purely Islamic website that said, of course, one can have sex with one's slaves without benefit of marriage. I didn't just create that, you know. They think they're just following The Prophet's logic and example.
Then again, you could ignore all the history, and just remain blinded to the truth...
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 15, 2008 4:53 AM
thesaracen,
I read thru the link you provided and what strikes me is how plainly they deny that Islam allows slavery (let alone sex slavery), when I found several more verses in the Qu'ran that specifically mention slave-girls and (it seems to me anyway) allow men to have sex with them:
004.024
PICKTHAL: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
(This does seem to say you should marry your slaves, so that's good)
023.006
PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
(You don't have to be modest in front of your wifes or slaves.)
(Below is a similar idea from a different verse:)
070.029
PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity
070.030
PICKTHAL: Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;
For a religion that (according to your link) outright disallows slavery, there are sure a lot of talk about them and how they are "lawful for you" and you don't have to guard your chastity around them. I find that mysterious...
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 15, 2008 6:48 PM
I can understand totally what you are saying Mo Foe. However what you need to realise is that slavery is something which is as old as war and civilisation itself.
It is an age old custom and many civilisations have slavery to thank for where they are now. The West no doubt. So the point is Islam didn't start slavery. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was born into a society where slavery was crucial to local and national economy. The Arab society could not function without the slave trade.
Had slavery been banned overnight, that whole region would have been in chaos. People would all of a sudden turn from rich merchants to destitute people. And where would the slaves go? You have to remember that this is 1400 years ago; no one would have spared their lives apart from the Muslims. The Quraysh buried alive female infants, do you think they would care about a hungry slave? Highly unlikely.
So a gradual decline of the practice was more wise than a sudden outlawing of it. So God revealed verses which gave rights to the slaves. The hadiths are full of the Prophet (pbuh) dictating the treatment of slaves to the point that they were as equal as their masters.
You'll find all this in the link I'll give you.
The Prophet (pbuh) also set up a Muslim treasury, which catered for poor and needy people. Had slavery been banned and the slaves released, with no one to feed them, the treasury would have had to step in, but it would not be able to support the influx of poor and needy people.
Leading to ruin.
The release of female slaves would have led to an increase in prostitution as that would be the only way they could survive. Male slaves would beg, and elderly and disabled slaves would most likely die.
So keep them, yes. But do not treat them as slaves was the message. To free them would have led to expiation of some sins, so do you think the Muslims would have not done so? This led to the Prophet (pbuh) granting liberation to 63 slaves and other companions of the Prophet such as Abd Al-Rahm purchased 30,000 slaves and set them free. I'll find you the source.
If you have female slaves, you would have an unimaginable reward if you married them. Teach them, feed them from what you eat, cloth them from your clothes, do not overwork them and do not mistreat them.
If you could free them, it would be an act of charity.
So Islam despite these passages was totally against the notion of slavery. But if you read the Quran, alcohol was also banned in stages. As the Quran itself came in stages, some of the earlier verses strictly limit alcohol whereas latter verses strictly prohibit alcohol altogether.
Just as alcohol was deeply rooted in the Arab culture and would have caused problems banning straight away, slavery was the same.
By setting certain prohibitions, as you will notice from the link, it slowly marginalised the practice of 'slavery' to a point where Muslims could not enslave or take prisoner any man or woman except temporarily in a time of war.
Once the war ended the captives had to be freed as an act of charity, which God rewards, or by negotiating a ransom. Either way, their release was certain.
"So when you meet the rejecters in battle, smite their necks until you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favour or let them be ransomed until the war lays down its armour. That (is how it shall be); and if Allah had pleased He could have punished them (without you), but (He did not do so in order) that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never allow their deeds to be worthless." - Muhammad 47:4
If you look into the history books, you will realise taking captives was a norm at that time and it still is. But would any army treat the captives humanly, shelter them and then release them as the Muslims did? Did any have laws which stipulated their rights and called for their good treatment and eventual release?
Virtually every civilisation at the time relied heavily on slavery. But not one could match the Muslims in their treatment of fellow human beings.
Now these verses you have highlighted are only to instruct the Muslims that they can have sexual intercourse with the captives as was the custom of the time. The Muslims didn't know whether it was lawful or not under Shari'a. These verses are not an open call for Muslims to seek captives in war. In a war their main duties, were to
fight for God.
I honestly tell you that not ONE WAR was instigated by the Muslims if you use the correct sources not one.
So if they couldn't instigate wars as the Quran states, then is Islam calling for slavery to continue? No. Since that was the only case were capturing of hostages was allowed.
Within 40 years all slaves within the Islamic society were liberated and the only ones that existed were captives of war, who would also be released. They were treated with exceptional care, that many embraced Islam.
What Muslim nation now makes use of the slave trade? Not one.
So to sum up, slavery was a part of the HUMAN society THEN.
Islam was against it but gradually sidelined it to very rare occasions (war).
I would go as far as to say that these slaves weren't even slaves. They actually had a right to freedom provided they could look after themselves.
They had a right to good treatment and were granted almost every right a free man or woman was granted. As for the captives, it is only ignorance to call them slaves because even today we have POW's. Their not slaves, they are prisoners.
Does this explain it enough Mo Foe?
This website explains it further:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=3197&sscatid=441
Hope to hear from you soon.
Posted by: thesaracen at March 15, 2008 9:04 PM
thesaracen,
I read thru your link, and I will grant you that the Qu'ran does seem to make slavery a bit better, a couple things occur:
-Slavery is still wrong.
-Muhammad had female slaves, and sexual relations with them were permitted, so it's easy to speculate that Muhammad had "sex-slaves."
If Islam eventually prohibited slavery, how do you account for these facts:
-It was only under pressure from the West that slavery was finally made illegal in Saudi Arabia in the 1960's. The 1960's! Even today, their almost exclusively infidel labor force continue to suffer extreme forms of labor exploitation that sometimes rise to slavery-like conditions.
-There are more actual slaves serving Muslim masters in the world today than there were in the United States at the beginning of the Civil War. Slavery is openly practiced with the full backing and support of the Muslim elite in the Sudan, Niger, parts of Nigeria, and a number of provinces in sub-Saharan Africa.
If Islam really did prohibit slavery, how could these things be happening today?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 16, 2008 7:39 PM
Oh, and one more thing, after Muhammad moved to Medina, they started raiding the caravans of the Quraysh tribe, with Muhammad personally leading many of the raids. (Again from Sirat.)
You can't tell me these caravans started hostilities.
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 16, 2008 7:50 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)