| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
This segment of my Blogging the Qur'an series at Hot Air tells the story of how it came to be that Islamic law requires four witnesses to establish crimes of a sexual nature.
Note that every Q-Blog post at Hot Air contains multiple links, mainly to the texts of the verses themselves but also to other material. I am not taking the time to reproduce them here, but please note that toward the end of this post at Hot Air there are links to stories about the jailing of rape victims in Pakistan and the Islamic opposition there to attempts to change the way rape is prosecuted.
This Medinan sura was revealed after the Muslims’ defeat of a pagan Arab tribe, the Banu al-Mustaliq. Much of it is preoccupied with one of the most notorious events in early Islamic history: the rumors that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, had committed adultery – an incident that has repercussions for Muslim women down to this day. Verses 1-10 lay down general laws for adultery: adulterers are to receive a hundred lashes (v. 2); a man guilty of adultery may only marry a woman guilty of the same crime or a non-Muslim (v. 3); four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4); husbands can establish charges of adultery against their wives if they testify four times under oath (v. 6) and invoke Allah’s curse on themselves if they’re lying (v. 7); a wife so accused can head off being punished by testifying four times that her husband is lying (v. 8) and likewise calls Allah’s curse on herself if she is lying (v. 9).Lashes for adultery? Then why do some Islamic states sentence adulteresses to be stoned to death? Because of a hadith that says that the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out. Umar, the second successor of Muhammad as caliph, the leader of the believers, explained: “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed.”
Umar didn’t want to see that happening, so he lent his own weight to the legitimacy of stoning for adultery: “Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle [that is, Muhammad] carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
In verses 11-20 Allah furiously castigates a group that has “brought forward a lie” (v. 11) against a chaste woman, without producing four witnesses (v. 13). The deity scolds the believers as well, for crediting this obvious slander (vv. 12, 16). This is a most serious matter (v. 15), but the Qur’an doesn’t tell us what it’s all about. This hadith fills in the details. Allah had recently ordered the veiling of women (a command that is transmitted in v. 31), so Aisha, when she accompanied Muhammad to a battle, was carried in a curtained howdah on the back of a camel. The caravan stopped and Aisha got out to answer “the call of nature.” While returning she lost her necklace, and stopped to search for it. Meanwhile, her attendants, forbidden to look at her or speak to her, loaded the howdah back onto the camel without realizing that she wasn’t in it. “At that time,” Aisha explains, “I was still a young lady,” and what’s more, “women were light in weight for they did not get fat.”And so the caravan left without her, and Muhammad’s favorite wife was stranded. Presently a Muslim warrior who was traveling behind the army came along, and was considerably started to find Aisha alone. “I veiled my face with my head cover at once,” Aisha insisted, “and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’” – a prayer spoken in times of distress. The warrior carried Aisha on his camel to the Muslims’ camp – and almost immediately the rumors started. Even Muhammad was affected by them. Aisha explains: “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the usual kindness from Allah’s Messenger which I used to receive when I got sick.”
Aisha was deeply distressed: “I kept on weeping that night till dawn, I could neither stop weeping nor sleep, then in the morning again, I kept on weeping.” Ali bin Abi Talib, who later became the great saint and hero of the Shi’ite Muslims, ungallantly reminds Muhammad that there are “plenty of women” available to the Prophet (Aisha never forgot or forgave this, and after Muhammad’s death, warred against Ali herself.) But Ali also advises Muhammad to ask Barira, Aisha’s slave girl, if she has seen anything, and Barira maintained that Aisha had done nothing wrong. Muhammad left the matter in Allah’s hands, telling Aisha: “I have been informed such-and-such about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness, for when a person confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.”
Muhammad then received a revelation from Allah, as Aisha watched: “So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the Statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, ‘Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.’” Allah had revealed vv. 11-20.
Aisha, however, was still angry: “My mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him.’ I said, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him and I will not thank anybody but Allah.’” Yet she was amazed by the revelation: “By Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal in my favor a revelation which would be recited, for I considered myself too unimportant to be talked about by Allah in the Divine Revelation that was to be recited.”
But she was. And the false accusations against her brought about the requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or related indiscretions. Islamic law still requires the testimony of four male witnesses to establish sexual crimes (v. 13).
Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape. When the Musharraf government instituted measures removing the crime of rape from the sphere of Islamic law and establishing that it be judged by modern canons of forensic evidence, a group of Islamic clerics were furious. They demanded that the new law be withdrawn: it would turn Pakistan into a “free-sex zone.” Clerics thundered that the new law was “against the teachings of Islam,” and had been passed only to appease the West.
Next week: Women receive the order to veil themselves.
Posted by Robert at May 5, 2008 7:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This, so I heard, is the classic forerunner of the "the dog ate my homework" explaination: a goat ate "the verses of Rajam.
Posted by: John C![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 5, 2008 8:03 AM
Why must there be four witnesses to establish rape and adultery?
What I want to know is, why did the "four witnesses" rule protect women in the beginning, but now it protects men?
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at May 5, 2008 8:03 AM
"Why must there be four witnesses to establish rape and adultery?"
bragging rights..
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 8:37 AM
l can see the logic with muslims love of stones, since they love to cirle the black stone of mecca
and daily bow down to the black stone of mecca. its a stone age cult.
at May 5, 2008 8:40 AM
Once again, we see Allah intervening in the personal affairs (pun intended) of his prophet. How can you read the Qur'an and NOT realize that it was written by human beings and not a divine source?
You would think that Allah would be busy with cosmological matters and would not interfere with Aisha's difficulties.
"By Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal in my favor a revelation which would be recited, for I considered myself too unimportant to be talked about by Allah in the Divine Revelation that was to be recited.”
at May 5, 2008 8:41 AM
The women are raped and convicted of adultry, but the men do not get convicted of adultry.
Robert, Mohammad took Safiya and Zainab and others but did not have to wait the prescribed three months to have sex with her. Only one menses.
Does anyone ever question that he broke that rule?
Did Mohammad have any children after Kahdija? Other than the one son with Mary the slave girl.
What happened to Aisha after Mohammad died? What happened to his other wives?
He divorced quite a few women. How do muslims explain he actions? Especially two who died right after turning down his offer of marriage.
And if no one was allowed to speak to his wives, how did all these stories get told?
I know you were not there! But your best researched opinion, please.
Posted by: Borg at May 5, 2008 9:02 AM
"... the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out"
Doesn't this mean that the Qur'an (as we have it) cannot be the undistorted, complete rendition of Revelation?
Posted by: Occupant at May 5, 2008 9:08 AM
Borg:
Robert, Mohammad took Safiya and Zainab and others but did not have to wait the prescribed three months to have sex with her. Only one menses.
Does anyone ever question that he broke that rule?
He didn't break any rule. With Safiya, she was a war captive. According to Islamic law (to this day), the marriage of a woman who is a war captive is immediately annulled. No waiting period needed. Re Zainab, Allah married her to Muhammad -- special circumstances.
Did Mohammad have any children after Kahdija? Other than the one son with Mary the slave girl.
No, just Fatima by Khadija and Ibrahim by Mary.
What happened to Aisha after Mohammad died? What happened to his other wives?
Aisha was prominent among the opponents of Ali and even led battles against what came to be known as the Shia. His other wives were not as prominent, but all were revered as his wives.
He divorced quite a few women. How do muslims explain he actions? Especially two who died right after turning down his offer of marriage.
What's to explain? Divorce is not forbidden in Islam. And as for the women who died, no Muslims suggest foul play, if that's what you mean, but it wouldn't trouble them if he had had them killed, since after all, he had other people killed -- Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, etc.
And if no one was allowed to speak to his wives, how did all these stories get told?
There was no rule that no one was allowed to speak to them. They could speak to other women and male relatives. Thus the stories got told.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 5, 2008 9:13 AM
Occupant,
Doesn't this mean that the Qur'an (as we have it) cannot be the undistorted, complete rendition of Revelation?
From a believing Muslim's perspective, maybe Allah willed that these verse drop out.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 5, 2008 9:15 AM
All those wives and no children. Aisha didn't have any children? Strange. Coitus interruptus? or impotence, maybe?
So the children of captives could be the dead husband's child if no waiting period is observed.
Maybe that is where Ibrahim by Mary came from.
The divorce question was in regard to the women he divorced because "she was too old" and two had leprosy. So many times I see muslims who say 4 wives was so that the women would be taken care of but his actions belie that statement.
Thanks, Robert, for all you do to enlighten us.
at May 5, 2008 9:23 AM
Those are good questions Borg. In Aiesha's description of Mohammad's physical condition while he was receiving this revelation, she mentioned his profuse sweating, and hardening of his body.
It could be that Mohammad was faking to get this revelation, but there is one fatal flaw in that argument. You can't make yourself sweat on command.
At least I can't, and don't know anyone that can.
He may have been having a petite mall seizure. Aiesha indicated a recovery time. She does not say how long it took. It's interesting that he maintained his chain of thoughts. Usually there is confusion, and it takes a while for the afflicted to
even know where they are. It is possible to have his symptoms and remain lucid. I have seen psychotic epileptics remain conscious during a seizure, and think they were having a spiritual experience.
None of them could sweat on command either...
at May 5, 2008 9:36 AM
>>When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, ‘Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.’” Allah had revealed vv. 11-20.
My opinion of this event, since in no way did "Allah" speak to Mohammed since there is no Allah, is that Mo knew that Aeisha was innocent, but she couldn't be publicly exonerated until Allah said. So, Mo had one of his "convenient" revelations and voila she's cleared.
What is Aeisha's comment on Mo's "convenient" revelations? "How my Lord (Allah) hurries to do your business," - something like that. No fool, Aeisha!
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 9:39 AM
Darcy:
Aisha said to Muhammad: "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.311
Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2008 9:48 AM
It might be helpful if I learned to spell Aisha...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2008 9:50 AM
Aisha's story is worthy of a movie. She was intelligent and had spunk. Her opposition to Ali and Shia, could make a movie plot in itself. Ali wanted to be the first Caliph, and tried to claim it, but Aisha said she had been with Mohammad the whole time and he never mentioned Ali as his successor to her.
And as we know, her dad got the job. It's all there, every element of a great movie. Intrigue, betrayal, murder, lust for power and money, and Allah willing every bit of it...Allah likes a good movie too, thats why he invented popcorn...
at May 5, 2008 10:13 AM
The Day of Enlightenment
That day will be a day of enlightenment for all of us, the day when Robert Spencer after having done such a deep research will also declares that the Holy Quran is a Divine Book sent by the God Almighty for the whole of mankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); The Quran which is the Last Book of revelation sent to complete the religion so selected by God Almighty. Quran is a solution and Guidance for the mankind which supersedes, validates and confirms all the old true earlier teachings of various prophets; and that those teachings were the stepping stones to achieve the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam.
---------
Adabarez
at May 5, 2008 10:18 AM
She was probably guilty (wouldn't you be?), but he didn't want to give up his underage sweetie. Pedophile.
Posted by: CGW at May 5, 2008 10:26 AM
Why must there be 4 witnesses to establish rape and adultery?
For the same reason that voting instructions for black americans in Mississipi circa 1965 were written in Chinese.
at May 5, 2008 10:26 AM
Robert,please answer the troll above.
This troll is one you previously banned under a new name.
Posted by: CGW at May 5, 2008 10:30 AM
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
Great! Thank You, RS. I've copied this passage so I won't have to inquire again.
Again, no fool Aeisha! She saw through Mohammed's charade!
duh_swami - do you realize what would happen if the West began making a movie about Aeisha? Good God - the Mohammedans would run amuck. And much more so than what has transpired over the Mo'Toons. That's what I think, anyway. Run amuck or Run amok, whichever spelling you favor: (Run) in a violent, frenzied, uncontrolled manner. Yep, that's it!
at May 5, 2008 10:32 AM
To one Adabarez: LOL! LAUGH OUT LOUD at Allah, Mohammed and Islam! Oh, and at the Qur'an, too. LOL!
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 10:36 AM
husbands can establish charges of adultery against their wives if they testify four times under oath (v. 6) and invoke Allah’s curse on themselves if they’re lying (v. 7); a wife so accused can head off being punished by testifying four times that her husband is lying (v. 8) and likewise calls Allah’s curse on herself if she is lying (v. 9).
So how did any wife ever get convicted? One spouse will lie four times and the other will tell the truth four times. What does it get anyone? Unless the wife is caught in the act, it's no more than he said, she said.
Posted by: PMK at May 5, 2008 10:38 AM
he didn't want to give up his underage sweetie. Pedophile.
Posted by: CGW at May 5, 2008 10:26 AM
I thought of that, too, CGW. So, in order to retain her, he had to perform his "Allah Shazam" thingy.
at May 5, 2008 10:41 AM
Adabarez...I think the fires will go out in Allah's furnace on the day Spencer declares the Quran to be a Holy revelation from God. It has been made clear however that you think that's what it is.
Do you break out in a sweat while reading this superior wisdom and guide from Allah? Has Allah taught you yet how to sweat on command? Mohammad seems to have been able to do it, unless he was sick and delusional when having these revelations.
You can't get the truth out of a delusional man, Prophet or not. Do you ask a delusional man for advice? Do you ask him how to live your life?
If you ask a delusional man a question, what kind of answer would you expect? If you accept the delusional answer, then you are sharing the delusion with him, and you yourself have become delusional.
That's Mohammadism, and Islam...
at May 5, 2008 10:42 AM
the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam - by Adabarez
Pepsi = A Zionist Plot - some ME sheikh
What's wrong with this picture?
The adult hood of conscious(?) is calling a product invented when most Americans couldn't find Israel on a map (because it didn't exist!)a Zionist plot?.
If Islam is the summit, I'll remain in the valley of Christianity, thank you. The valley has its own beauty.
Posted by: PMK at May 5, 2008 10:44 AM
"Summit?" LOL, try "Nadir." Islam is the nadir of man's intelligence.
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 10:54 AM
That's Mohammadism, and Islam...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2008 10:42 AM
"How dreadful are the curses Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!" --Winston Churchill
at May 5, 2008 10:59 AM
In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 5, 2008 11:10 AM
"
"In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
Posted by: 3812Michelle"
while watching the rape, instead of helping the woman, they were probably shouting; "I'm next, I'm next"
did you ever notice the four "witnesses" never pull the Muslim moron off the woman, but they are there to watch..maybe it is a school field trip and they are learning...yeah ...learning the ways of Allah.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 11:14 AM
Darcy,
I'd let Islam remain at the summit. Most summits are barren, devoid of all life. Even the trees are puny. The valley is where almost everything grows, where man is nourished.
at May 5, 2008 11:34 AM
Hello, Robert. I'm a muslim and i'd just like to point where you have gotten things wrong.
1. The subject of stoning- Recitation abrogated, practice was not. Proof:
And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201)
In the verse whose recitation has been abrogated but its ruling remained, and it has happened what Umar feared. A tribe from the Khawarij or most of them and some of the Mu'tazilites rejected the stoning.
And it was reported by Abd al Razzaq and Al Tabari from another view that Ibn Abbas said that Umar said "There will come a people that will lie (or disbelieve) in the stoning" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Hublah min Zana Eezha Ahsanat, Commentary on Hadith no. 6328,
I'm sure Robert, you are aware of who the 2 scholars i have cited as proof, are.
2. 4 witnesses for Rape:
Rape victims, do not require 4 witnesses in order to prove their Innocence.
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=72338&ln=eng
Although i've not entirely used these websites to prove my point, they are what i've been already been told by scholars that i know.
I'm sure you can dig a little deeper if needed, to find out the correct Islamic postion on the matter.
But in any case, you are wrong on the matter.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 5, 2008 11:54 AM
Adabarez is a troll? I thought that he was comic relief?
I have heard Mr. Spencer once say, "I will not submit."
Do you know what else? I will not submit either.
Posted by: dentalque at May 5, 2008 12:04 PM
In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
Posted by: 3812Michelle
__________________________________________________
I'm sorry you think this way. I think you have very little understanding about Islamic Teachings on how Muslims are meant to behave. Perhaps you do not want to, because you think the behavior of muslims you read or see in the media is the result of what Islam teaches.
In the case you are refering to, that would not be it at all.
No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong.
I'm sure you're aware of the story last year about a group of Police man that raped a Sunni woman? The terrorists then hunted these people down and killed them because they dishonored one of their sisters and they offered to marry her.
Now, i'm not condoning what they did, because it wasn't even proven that it was them who did it, but the story proves what i am refering to.
Could you people at least try to be a bit more open-minded and not make such snide remarks about Muslims based on your ignorance of the Islamic faith and its teachings.
Islam is a complex religion and way of life. We muslims ( those that can be bothered that is) spend a great deal of time learning it from Scholars, their books & lectures.
Do not assume that just because a person is a muslim, every aspect of his behavior which you see is in accordance with Islamic teachings.
Not every muslim out there even spends their time learning about Islam. At best, many will just have a basic level of knowledge about it.
Thank you.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 5, 2008 12:08 PM
Phoenix,
You wrote: "No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong."
But wait, the Qu'ran says "four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4);"
So, should I believe you or the Qu'ran?
Posted by: Mo Foe at May 5, 2008 12:16 PM
From a believing Muslim's perspective, maybe Allah willed that these verse drop out.In that case, wouldn't Umar reinstating that rule contradict Allah's will? Moreover, wouldn't the mere existence of Umar's rule contradict the Muslim idea that Sharia isn't man-made law, it's divine law? It sounds to me more likely that there never were such verses, but Umar couldn't add that law himself because it would be a man-made law, so he lied about the missing verses to justify adding it. Posted by: aynrandgirl
at May 5, 2008 12:38 PM
O.K., Phoenix, so, if, as you state, many Muslims have only a rudimentary knowledge of their religion, why do so many of them riot when faced with criticism of their religion? I personally believe that Mo was a demented idiot, but that is my opinion. However, I have a right to believe it and you have no right whatsoever to be offended by my belief. Islam is about as complicated as any other male invented religion. If one were to comply with all of the 623 mandates in the Jewish one would not have much time to do anything else. Do you have any idea how many "laws" there are in Islam and how many of them you are expected to comply with on a daily basis? And, yes, I can easily conceive of Muslim men standing around to watch a rape, especially if they were relatives of the rapist.
Face it, Phoenix, Islam is a misogynistic, bigoted, abomination. It was designed by 7th and 8th century camel herders and tribesmen to control their enemies and to give themselves the benefit of every doubt. There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in either the Qu'ran nor any of the ahadith nor in Mo biographies which have any small intimation of "do only that unto your neighbor which you would have him do unto you." Nope, just odes to rape, ravage, and murder. Oh, and no usury but charge any fees you can get away with.
Posted by: spinoneone at May 5, 2008 1:21 PM
"because you think the behavior of muslims you read or see in the media is the result of what Islam teaches."
Posted by: Phoenix
It is odd that all the Muslims seen in the news reports and in the film clips the Muslims put out with their own cameras and reports are always quoting some verse from the Qur'an or other Islamic religious texts as justification for the violence their followers have just inflicted upon someone somewhere.
I believe the Muslims are following exactly what Islam preaches.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 1:29 PM
I wonder if the reports on Aisha demonstrate the first (inadvertently) documented case of Stockholm Syndrome. Dragged away from her dolls to begin sexually servicing a man old enough to be her grandfather, her parents protesting only weakly if at all, Aisha shows an interesting set of responses over time. Sometimes wryly critical, sometimes abjectly afraid, sometimes vain and pompous,she seems very human.
Yet in the end, she became as spiteful, vicious and inhumanly violent as Mohammed. It would make a hell of a story, if one wouldn't get one's throat cut over writing it.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at May 5, 2008 2:26 PM
FYI: Adabarez is definitively identified as the banned bloviater,A Khokar.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2008 3:15 PM
Dear All,
The extremely painful incident referred to in the subject verses took place when on the return from the expedition against Bani Mustaliq in 5 A.D., the Muslim Army had to halt at a place, at a short distance from Medina. In the early hours when the caravan moved out, Hazrat Aisha (as), the distinguished wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was left out because she had gone away for a natural call. Any how she was rescued by the person, Safwan from the rear guard party and obviously she reached next last bound- Medina with the rear party late. Some hypocrites of Medina sought to make capital out of it that these elements are always there in all the societies; they tried to spread out a malicious scandalous rumour about Hazrat Aisha (as) to blemish her character. Any how those who had taken part in fabrication and spreading the accusation were punished and injunctions were revealed by God Almighty to deal effectively with scandalmongers and their evil design and activities.
The commandment of 4 witnesses is set just to curb the rumours and put a stop to suspicion and slander-mongering. Islam takes a serious view of spreading and circulation of false accusation as that of crime against chastity.
The commandments condemned and prescribed, punishment for both the crimes for scandlemongring; even a severer punishment since it is calculated to produce more grievous consequences as for as the prevalence of sexual immorality in a community is concerned than the stray act of sexual misconduct. If scandal mongering is allowed to be indulged in community, it will come to lose all sense of horror and abhorrence at the commission of immoral act with the result that immorality will become rampant thus shaking the whole moral foundation.
We can also recall the case of ‘Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman’ as described in Luke chapter 7:36-50. This should be borne in mind that Prophets are the teachers and are there to set the examples for us and be seen that they are the saviours of the people from all walks of life; pious or even the sinful. But we have seen that there has never been a dearth of Hypocrites that even today; they are all out to malign the prophets and even many a thrilling and scandalous movies are being circulated around.
------------
Adabarez
at May 5, 2008 3:17 PM
Phoenix,
You wrote: "No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong."
But wait, the Qu'ran says "four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4);"
So, should I believe you or the Qu'ran?
Posted by: Mo Foe
__________________________________________
To that i say, you do not understand the verse.
The verse speaks of those that slander chaste women. If the accuser cannot prove what he is saying, then he will be lashed, his testimony will be rejected forever.
If he does produce 4 people, each one of them will be interogated to see if they are telling them truth.
This verse has absolutely nothing to do with Rape and never has.
I've certainly never seen any scholar or Fatwa issued on the subject of rape, ever refer to that verse.
at May 5, 2008 3:28 PM
From a believing Muslim's perspective, maybe Allah willed that these verse drop out.
In that case, wouldn't Umar reinstating that rule contradict Allah's will? Moreover, wouldn't the mere existence of Umar's rule contradict the Muslim idea that Sharia isn't man-made law, it's divine law? It sounds to me more likely that there never were such verses, but Umar couldn't add that law himself because it would be a man-made law, so he lied about the missing verses to justify adding it. Posted by: aynrandgirl
________________________________________________
Hi.
You're wrong there. I made a post responding to Robert's post but it hasn't come up yet, because it has to be approved as it was my first post.
But i'll say here what i did there.
From the commentaries of the hadith that have been written, it has been shown that the verse was never meant to be written down in the Qu'ran.
The recitation of the verse was abrogated but the practice remained.
Here is a referance:
Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that" Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 6327)
at May 5, 2008 3:33 PM
spinoneone
O.K., Phoenix, so, if, as you state, many Muslims have only a rudimentary knowledge of their religion, why do so many of them riot when faced with criticism of their religion?
_____________________________________
I think that question has already been answered. Lack of knowledge or they let their emotions over rule their senses and therefore they behave in the manner you've seen on the news many times.
---------------------------------------------
I personally believe that Mo was a demented idiot, but that is my opinion. However, I have a right to believe it and you have no right whatsoever to be offended by my belief. Islam is about as complicated as any other male invented religion.
----------------------------------------------
Thats fine with me, you can believe what-ever you like, that is your right. It does not bother me if you hate Islam.
-------------------------------------------------
And, yes, I can easily conceive of Muslim men standing around to watch a rape, especially if they were relatives of the rapist.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, well then they're not exactly model citizens or muslims because they're not following Islamic teachings and are just inhuman monsters/
_______________________________________________
There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in either the Qu'ran nor any of the ahadith nor in Mo biographies which have any small intimation of "do only that unto your neighbor which you would have him do unto you."
_____________________________________________
That is not true. Regardless of how you may think the Qu'ran speaks about Non-muslims, it does not say what you claim.
The rights of neighbours and dealing with non-muslims is covered in the Qu'ran and Hadith.
Example:
Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, 'Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
112. Ibn 'Abbas told Ibn az-Zubayr, "I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'A man is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbour is hungry.'"
Mujahid said, "I was with 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr while his slave was skinning a sheep. He said, 'Boy! When you finish, start with the Jewish neighbour.' A man there exclaimed, 'Jewish? May Allah correct you!' He replied, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recommend that we treat our neighbours well until we feared (or we thought) that he would order us to make them our heirs.'"
(Bukhari- Al Adab, Al-Mufrad)
Now, i could have posted ones that just said neighbour, but i chose ones that mentioned those that were not muslims, to prove Islam teaches you must treat everyone nicely, be they muslim or not.
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:8
There are plenty more.
Thanks for your reply.
at May 5, 2008 3:46 PM
It is odd that all the Muslims seen in the news reports and in the film clips the Muslims put out with their own cameras and reports are always quoting some verse from the Qur'an or other Islamic religious texts as justification for the violence their followers have just inflicted upon someone somewhere.
I believe the Muslims are following exactly what Islam preaches.
Posted by: pulsar182
__________________________________________________
I'm sure you're aware, when it comes to religious scripture, you can use verses to justify anything if you interpret to mean something totally opposite to what it means.
That is the importance of having knowledge about something. That way, you know when someone is right when they're quoting something or when they're wrong.
The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches.
Thanks and regards
-Phoenix
at May 5, 2008 3:51 PM
Concerned Citizen,
Is this your credential that, who so ever comes up with a different view on JW are not admitted and be seen banned…on some pretext or the other?
What a fixation of a pie in the sky… by you and your high held apex in the freedom of speech and Expression?
CC; Do you hate diversity of opinion on this website and seek that only yes men are seen on the line?
--------------
Adabarez
at May 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Dear Adabarez,
You should know TWO things about these sites: FIRST, that these are privately-run forums with the stated purposes of describing and confronting JIHAD as a religious imperative inimical to the interests of the non-Muslim world; and SECOND, comments posted here must follow a clear set of rules congruent with these purposes. Thus, digressing from the topic given, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, insincerity and incivility, posting patently offensive matter, and acting in bad faith will surely and inevitably cause the offender to be banished.
Free speech, yes; but a private forum, like a parliament or legislative assembly anywhere on Earth, has rules of decorum and rules to preserve that legislature's integrity and further its purposes.
Posted by: John C at May 5, 2008 4:44 PM
Adabarez,
"The Day of Enlightenment
That day will be a day of enlightenment for all of us, the day when Robert Spencer after having done such a deep research will also declares that the Holy Quran is a Divine Book sent by the God Almighty for the whole of mankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); The Quran which is the Last Book of revelation sent to complete the religion so selected by God Almighty. Quran is a solution and Guidance for the mankind which supersedes, validates and confirms all the old true earlier teachings of various prophets; and that those teachings were the stepping stones to achieve the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam. "
If your Koran is so great, why is it that the number one best selling book of all time ( #1 ) is the Holy Bible? Could it be because the Holy Bible is a TRULY DIVINE INSPIRED BOOK and gives HOPE to those who read it? The Holy Bible is not only God's LOVE LETTER to humanity but also God working in the lives of others. It not only teaches and guides humanity but proves the LOVE of God towards this same humanity.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 5, 2008 4:44 PM
Khokar,
No, I just want to see people post something other than pontificating essays that they have cut and pasted from other websites on issues not even related to the current thread, resulting in "madhattery". I want to see people not start spouting again the same "opinions" previously refuted on another thread as though the presentation of facts on the prior dialogue never occurred. I want to see people post things that are actually TRUE rather than falsehood or spin, especially Ahmadi spin as though it applied the entire ummah, and not some fantasy ummah. I want to see some dialogue, and admission that the problems MIGHT, just MIGHT, relate to your CORELIGIONISTS having the exact same opinions about Islam as most of the JW posters, and what YOU are going to do about it, rather than spouting about as though there were no problem except Islamophobes.
Write an essay about THEM, or are you scared?
Oh, and stop the da'wa. This is a non-sectarian site. If you proselytize, expect to get it back until we both get banned.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2008 4:45 PM
"the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam - by Adabarez"
If that be so, why was a former Muslim baptized on the eve before Easter in Rome by Pope Benedict XVI? Could it be that he simply wanted to make the journey home?
I would rather go to the true summit of faith, Christanity myself.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 5, 2008 4:55 PM
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity..It appears to me that the Muslim clerics by their lack of action approved of the activity..such is the way of Islam.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 5:06 PM
oh did I forget?..there were four witnesses and many more and that they were ordered to be there by the Muslim clerics..
Even with four witnesses the Muslim female is still F***ed.
So much for womens rights in Islam.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 5:09 PM
To Phoenix - you have been deceived by con man Mohammed. There is no "allah" - except for the pagan moon deity worshipped as the chief god in pre-Islamic mythology. "allah" doesn't exist.
Your "prophet" fabricated a new religion in the early 7th century AD which has NOTHING to do with Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING. Mohammedans are never mentioned in the Bible. Your Terrorist Manual called the Qur'an in no way "supersedes" the Bible, which is real. Your religion is fake. As Mohammed was, is, a fake prophet.
We are not "ignorant." In fact, YOU are the ignorant sheep following a fake religion and a fake prophet. You're to be pitiedfor your ignorance and indoctrination by a Warlord who claimed prophethood only to gain power.
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 5:13 PM
Mujahid said, "I was with 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr while his slave was skinning a sheep. He said, 'Boy! When you finish, start with the Jewish neighbour.' ......
So when he finished with the sheep, he skinned his Jewish neighbor!
(Good thing he wasn't having relations with the sheep, or Jewish folks would have to worry about alot more than suicide bombers and Kassams!)
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at May 5, 2008 6:23 PM
Dear John C,
Thanks a lot for your kind post. John; have you noticed how flagrant people can be found in the choice of their vocabulary and its usage; when they address the Holy Prophet of Islam and all other scholars and cleric, etc on this site? I hope they only know as in Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,….?'
Although my endeavour to keep on coming on this site is to look for the common grounds and make sure that people see Islam; in its right prospective (which I feel is every body’s future). You may not find a single reviling or cursing, blasphemous word (God forbid) about God Almighty, the prophets, Holy Scriptures or any one on this web site that I would have ever uttered in my entire submissions; however rude my addressee was.
We learn from each other and it will be my earnest desire that we all find our tomorrow; a better day than today!
----------------
Adabarez
at May 5, 2008 6:38 PM
The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches. - posted by Phoenix
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity Posted by: pulsar182
Sounds like these guys need some more in-service training to identify and utilize best practices for muslim behaviour.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at May 5, 2008 6:47 PM
"the Holy Prophet of Islam" --Adabarez
That's your opinion. NOBODY has to consider Mohammed either "holy" or a "prophet." Indeed, the LAST thing Mohammed the Mass-Murdering Warlord is is "holy" and he is certainly NOT a "prophet" - in fact, he's a fraud. If you want to believe in your Islamic "prophet" that's your right, but NOBODY ELSE has to buy into that bull.
I couldn't care less if you think I'm "rude." I think the mass-murder of over 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001, was rude, don't you? Indeed, that's just the utter height of rudeness, wouldn't you agree?
Your Islamic "God Almighty" (Allah) is NOT, let me repeat, NOT, the Jewish or Christian God Almighty. Do you understand that? Islam, invented in the early 7th century AD, has NOTHING to do with the already-established religions of Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING.
OH, we are seeing Islam in it's "right perspective" - no need to worry about that. No matter how many meaningless platitudes you utter.
Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2008 7:02 PM
People, read the gang-rape story of Pakistani woman Mukhataran Mai (2005):
http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2005/06/islamic_mysoginy_in_pakistan.php
at May 5, 2008 7:05 PM
Khokar,
Although my endeavour to keep on coming on this site is to look for the common grounds
As I've said before, our "common ground" begins with 1) vocabulary free of doublespeak and 2) an understanding the concept of "peace" means ONLY vigilant perpetual egalitarian coexistence, not the establishment of worldwide hegemony of dar-al-Islam.
and make sure that people see Islam; in its right prospective[sic]
Why not start with its realistic, actual current perspective, instead of some Ahmadi dreamland.
which I feel is every body’s future
and if that includes violence, rapes and mutilations, as you've said before, "do you bring your enemies flowers?"
You may not find a single reviling or cursing, blasphemous word (God forbid) about God Almighty, the prophets, Holy Scriptures or any one on this web site that I would have ever uttered in my entire submissions; however rude my addressee was.
Well, good for you. Except, when you declare Allah to be God, I find that blasphemous. When you declare Jesus' divinity to be blasphemous, I find that blasphemous. When you call Mohammed uswa hosana, al-insan al-kamil, I find that blasphemous. When you call the morally repugnant Qur'an and Sunnah to be more excellent than the JudaeoChristian scriptures, I find that blasphemous. And I know you don't follow the ten commandments, but you lie near constantly.
By the way, if an "epithet" is by definition true, it is not an epithet, it is a descriptor.
Like pedophile, murderer, robber baron, gold-digger, rapist, double-crosser, wife-stealer, etc., for Mohammed. It's not blasphemy, it's the truth.
If you come here pontificating and confabulating about your pretend Islam, and you knowingly say something false, you're a liar. That's not "name-calling", it's the truth.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2008 8:12 PM
"Well, good for you. Except, when you declare Allah to be God, I find that blasphemous. When you declare Jesus' divinity to be blasphemous, I find that blasphemous. When you call Mohammed uswa hosana, al-insan al-kamil, I find that blasphemous. When you call the morally repugnant Qur'an and Sunnah to be more excellent than the JudaeoChristian scriptures, I find that blasphemous. And I know you don't follow the ten commandments, but you lie near constantly." --Concerned Citizen
Oh Yeah. Tell it, Tell it, CC!
at May 5, 2008 8:20 PM
To take Jesus as God is surely a Myth and a conjuncture because no Scripture of God supports it neither Jesus claimed that he be worshiped as a god? So to kneel or bow in front of any one else, other than the God does not arise.Posted by: A Khokar at May 2, 2008 5:23 AM
There's got to be at least 6 blasphemies in there from my perspective.
at May 5, 2008 8:47 PM
Darcy,
Thanks for reminding us the above category of Islamic rape*. This would, I suppose complete the categories of:
Spousal rape (Muslim on Muslim, no pun intended)
"Defensive" wartime rape (Muslim on Infidel)
Judicial rape (Muslim on Muslim)*
Slave rape (Muslim on Infidel)
Pedophilic rape (Muslim on Muslim or Infidel)
Incestuous rape (Muslim on Muslim)
Prosecutable rape (Muslim on Muslim) --this is the kind that HAS four sane, adult, pious, male, Muslim witnesses to the actual penetration. All of the others above are almost always condoned or ignored.
Did I leave out any?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2008 9:12 PM
Adabarez,
I, too, believe in striving to overcome differences, or to understand and accept differences. I would not directly insult or offend you, but you would find many things I say to be dissmissive or contemptuous of Islam's Prophet, traditions, and of Sharia--sometimes outrageously so. I react to these as affronts, as I see them, to Reason and to Truth, which I see as God's Attributes
I am glad that you choose to read Jewish and Christian scriptures for yourself, and I understand that you read these as a pious Muslim.
For myself, I will try to keep the channels of dialog open, and avoid unnecessary and gratuitous abuse of that which Muslims hold sacred.
That said, I must say that I hold little regard for Sharia, as it does not protect women's inherent rights and dignity; in this example, it provides no protection against rape or remedy for the pychic injuries of rape. It is simply barbaric in its applications, and irrational and regressive--that modern forensic science and the testimony of an authoritative medical examiner have no weight or place in Sharia courts clearly proves this, not to mention the IMPOSSIBLE and LUDICROUSLY IMPROBABLE standard of proof for a rape victim, who thus has no legal recourse or relief.
The All-Knowing, the Almighty and the Merciful cannot possibly be the Source for such irrationality and cruelty.
at May 5, 2008 10:23 PM
Typo: I misspelled "dismissive," above.
PS: With best wishes for you, John C
Posted by: John C at May 5, 2008 10:31 PM
Khokar,
I appreciate John C's comments above, and I believe he has a good heart. I myself have had some mutually beneficial, protracted dialogues with Muslims at this site, including some that I wish could have gone on further.
On the other hand, when you come hear with your pretend pious platitudes, your contemptuous and confrontational dismissiveness of fundamentals of Christianity, your selective whitewashes of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and your feigned unawareness of sacralized malignant teachings rampant throughout the Muslim world, well, no amount of warm, fuzzy da'wa can make up for that.
When you do that, I solemnly promise to you that I will make each visit as uncomfortable, revealing, and embarrassing to you as I possibly can, may God and many others help me.
So, when you are prepared to
1) recognize and confront the real problems within the ummah and not blame them on imaginary externals like "Islamophobia", Palestine blah, blah, etc.,
2) jettison the disgenuous apologetics, spin, obfuscation, and doublespeak, by becoming conscious and repressive of your tendencies toward entendre, elision, and egocentrism, and by committing to using consistent, plain, perspicuous meanings of words,
3) recognize with comfortable resignation that some part of the earth will NEVER be part of Islam,
4) use simple, linear, unitary logic and ethics, and
5) quit insulting us by dumping pre-written, endless, pontificating essays that are only on topic by virtue of a limited shared vocabulary, which weren't even written for the site, much less the thread,
THEN, we might be able to begin an actual dialogue, and then you might earn respect. THEN we can attempt to find "common ground" (it won't be theological). You've already burned up some goodwill, however, so you're a bit behind.
Here's the clue. This is JihadWatch. You're being examined here. Play defense, but play fair.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 12:11 AM
Robert notes: “...But Ali also advises Muhammad to ask Barira, Aisha’s slave girl, if she has seen anything, and Barira maintained that Aisha had done nothing wrong.”
It is perhaps noting the manner in which Burayra was "asked":
Ishaq, p. 496. “As for Ali, he said: “Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying, “Tell the apostle the truth” …”
at May 6, 2008 12:52 AM
Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2008 9:36 AM
duh_swami, I was 24/7 caregiver for a friend who died of cancer few years ago. He had a personality disorder and I witnessed "pseudo seizures" that suddenly overtook him. These are very real seizures, but they are called "pseudo seizures" to differentiate them from epileptic seizures. Frankly, I haven't seen anything in any bio of Muhammad that leads me to believe he actually had epilepsy. I have, however, read much to cause me to think he suffered from a personality disorder caused by early childhood circumstances.
My friend was brilliant with an IQ off the charts, but he was also delusional. He re-experienced certain early childhood events which caused paranoia and panic attacks and I've often thought that in another day and age he would have been another Muhammad.
Posted by: Connie at May 6, 2008 12:53 AM
excuse me, the above should say "perhaps worth noting..."
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at May 6, 2008 12:53 AM
And so many of the West's "leaders" believe that we can have a reasonable dialog with these 7th century throwbacks? That we must negotiate with them? Just be nice to them and all the bad stuff will go away...every way of life they have is contrary to civilized people everywhere. They are insane, murderously dedicated to their cult of bloodshed, mayhem and violence. Insane, and so are those of the West who think they can tame them. Haven't these fools seen enough of the ultraNazis' behavior thru the years?
Posted by: protozoah at May 6, 2008 2:10 AM
Posted by Darcy:
To Phoenix - you have been deceived by con man Mohammed. There is no "allah" - except for the pagan moon deity worshipped as the chief god in pre-Islamic mythology. "allah" doesn't exist.
Your "prophet" fabricated a new religion in the early 7th century AD which has NOTHING to do with Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING. Mohammedans are never mentioned in the Bible. Your Terrorist Manual called the Qur'an in no way "supersedes" the Bible, which is real. Your religion is fake. As Mohammed was, is, a fake prophet.
We are not "ignorant." In fact, YOU are the ignorant sheep following a fake religion and a fake prophet. You're to be pitiedfor your ignorance and indoctrination by a Warlord who claimed prophethood only to gain power.
_________________________________________________
You see Darcy, this is your view, which you clearly base on your own religious beliefs.
What makes you think the God in your Bible is the true God?
What proof do you have to suggest Christianity is even a true successor to Judaism? Does the fact that the people who created it were Jewish and followers of the Jewish scripture and that it orginated out of Palestine/Israel make it as legitimate as Judaism?
And lets not get started on the things Prophets did in the Jewish scriptures.
Good day to you.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 3:49 AM
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon
[The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches. - posted by Phoenix]
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity Posted by: pulsar182
Sounds like these guys need some more in-service training to identify and utilize best practices for muslim behaviour.
________________________________________________
Ok first off, what Tribal councils do are not based on any religious law at all- it is their own tribal based laws which they follow.
Secondly, Fatwa against rape have already been issued many times and on issues relating to it.
And just how do you know none ever did issue one after this?
Do you read or speak Urdu, did you scour the Pakistani media to see?
Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,
Therefore if practices like that are going on, it is the fault of the government and the scholars, that have influence, for not helping to stamp it out by making people more aware of it.
at May 6, 2008 4:03 AM
That said, I must say that I hold little regard for Sharia, as it does not protect women's inherent rights and dignity; in this example, it provides no protection against rape or remedy for the pychic injuries of rape. It is simply barbaric in its applications, and irrational and regressive--that modern forensic science and the testimony of an authoritative medical examiner have no weight or place in Sharia courts clearly proves this, not to mention the IMPOSSIBLE and LUDICROUSLY IMPROBABLE standard of proof for a rape victim, who thus has no legal recourse or relief.
The All-Knowing, the Almighty and the Merciful cannot possibly be the Source for such irrationality and cruelty.
Posted by: John C
-------------------------------------------------
That is not true at all. Medical & Forensic evidence can be used and is used, like in Saudi Arabia for example.
*sigh*
It is a shame, so many people have been taken in by this nonsensical idea of women needing 4 witnessess to prove their own Innocence, they never bothered to find out for themselves but instead, take the word of people that are not even qualified in Islamic Law and the media as their only guide.
at May 6, 2008 4:08 AM
'phoenix'
the sins of certain figures within the Hebrew scriptures are NOT generally viewed by believers as examples to imitate, but rather as cautionary tales, examples of the types of conduct one must AVOID.
For example: King David committed adultery and murder; but these were NOT APPROVED OF. They are named as SIN. David himself collapsed in a heap and 'owned up' to it, when confronted by Nathan. No Jews or Christians think that David's sins should be imitated!
If you're thinking of Lot, Abraham's nephew - first, neither Jews nor Christians regard him as a prophet, anyway. Only the foolish Muslims do that. And what he and his daughters got up to is reported; it is NOT praised, indeed, one gets the general impression that it was severely disapproved of.
Abraham is the ancestor of the Hebrew people.
Lot, Abraham's NEPHEW, not his descendant, is not Hebrew; he is seen as the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
That's just a couple of cases that Muslim spin-doctors have tried to throw at us, in the past, by way of a feeble attempt at tu quoque when we criticise the deplorable behaviour of Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga, called by Muslims 'mohammed'. Sorry, the tu quoque falls completely flat.
And as for the difference between 'allah' and YHWH - allah is a capricious slavemaster of terrified, cringing slaves; YHWH is loving, faithful, forgiving, patient, and holy, and relates to His people as a father to children, or as a loving husband to a beloved wife.
If I were an atheist I would still say that Christians and Jews have a faith that - because it teaches the Golden Rule in a particularly clear and vivid manner, and encourages forgiveness, honesty [with oneself and others], patience and willingness to compromise - makes in general for more psychologically healthy human beings, and social orders, than does Islam, which does NOT teach the Golden Rule, and which actively fosters fear, deception, paralysis and aggression.
The fruits of following YHWH and the fruits of following 'allah' are radically different.
Me, I prefer what grows from faith in YHWH. Despite our many failures and follies, among Jews and Christians there does seem to be a self-renewing energy of life and love that is - tragically - simply not matched within the Muslim world [though I freely acknowledge that there have been individual Muslims who have been truly decent human beings, not in obedience to Quranic Islam, but in despite of it!].
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 6, 2008 4:26 AM
Phoenix, it was a very simple question.
Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews.
BTW, Judaism and Christianity are supported by archaeology and parabiblical accounts (even hostile ones) supporting the supernatural claims within it. They are internally consistent, though they span millenia. The ceremonial observations and personal restrictions changed from Judaism to Christianity, but the moral codes did not. Real life metaphors became spiritually significant through type:antitype paired revelations. The dominant theme throughout is man's inability to please an infinitely holy God through his own effort, requiring atonement.
The largest difference is that there is no atonement in Islam. The moral code of Islam is indifferent to and in many respects antithetical to that in the JudaeoChristian scriptures. Islam is ahistorical and amoral, having spontaneously generated in the seventh century, and is tied to its claimed predecessors by neither geneology, geography, nor geniality.
BTW, you are a long way from "proving" there is an Islamic Golden Rule toward infidels. The burden of proof is on you. 1.2 billion Muslims say you're wrong; that's a lot. However, I do hope you will continue your efforts, and that you will focus upon teaching it to your coreligionists.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 8:12 AM
In answer to your above questions, Mr. Phoenix --Oh, please.
Jesus is God.
Allah is Not.
The Qur'an has 2 active characters in it - Mohammed and Allah. Mohammed, a man, and "Allah" a malevolent moon deity. No females. Of course.
The Bible, both OT and NT combined, is filled with hundreds of thousands of active people - hundreds of thousands. Both males and females. Including many prominent and heroic females such as Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Deborah, Judith, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. In addition, there are over 40 authors of the Bible, all telling a similar story.
Unlike the Qur'an, upon which all of it's legitimacy and credibility resides in one -one- man, who happens to be a Warlord (!) and a mass-murderer beheader of Jews and Christians, a caravan-raider booty-lover thief, a torturer, a rapist, a slave-owner, a pedophile and a polygamist. Yeah right - that's a "Prophet of God!" LOL! Yeah sure - Mohammed was receiving revelations from a pagan moon god. Right.
Now, using your common sense (!), which Book is the real deal? Hello.
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 8:51 AM
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
bwahahahahahaha.
at May 6, 2008 9:23 AM
"Therefore if practices like that are going on, it is the fault of the government and the scholars, that have influence, for not helping to stamp it out by making people more aware of it.
Posted by: Phoenix "
it is the fault of the Muslims who live there and who follow the Qur'an "religiously". They do not want to stamp it out and the people there are acutely aware of the ways of Islam. Painfully aware.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 6, 2008 9:27 AM
In answer to your above questions, Mr. Phoenix --Oh, please.
Jesus is God.
Allah is Not.
The Qur'an has 2 active characters in it - Mohammed and Allah. Mohammed, a man, and "Allah" a malevolent moon deity. No females. Of course.
The Bible, both OT and NT combined, is filled with hundreds of thousands of active people - hundreds of thousands. Both males and females. Including many prominent and heroic females such as Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Deborah, Judith, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. In addition, there are over 40 authors of the Bible, all telling a similar story.
Unlike the Qur'an, upon which all of it's legitimacy and credibility resides in one -one- man, who happens to be a Warlord (!) and a mass-murderer beheader of Jews and Christians, a caravan-raider booty-lover thief, a torturer, a rapist, a slave-owner, a pedophile and a polygamist. Yeah right - that's a "Prophet of God!" LOL! Yeah sure - Mohammed was receiving revelations from a pagan moon god. Right.
Now, using your common sense (!), which Book is the real deal? Hello.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that still doesn't prove your religion to be true or that the God you believe in to be the real one. It is your faith and belief that Jesus is God.
at May 6, 2008 9:41 AM
I knew you had no common sense! LOL.
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 9:50 AM
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
bwahahahahahaha.
Posted by: pulsar182
--------------------------------------------------
I see you laughing, which must therefore mean, you clearly think that isn't the case. Care to explain why you think i'm wrong?
Are you one of those people that think a Muslim country = one ruled by Shariah or a muslim country that has elements of Shariah makes it an Islamic country?
__________________________________________________
it is the fault of the Muslims who live there and who follow the Qur'an "religiously". They do not want to stamp it out and the people there are acutely aware of the ways of Islam. Painfully aware.
Posted by: pulsar182
__________________________________________________
I think it is quite clear to me now, that you do not have any understanding of what it means to Follow the Qu'ran or Islam "religiously"
Pakistan is run by an incompetent government. It is full of corruption and they simply cannot be bothered to bring about changes to tackle these matters.
Most of these backward practices you see in Pakistan like Honor killings, Acid attacks etc are down to their own backward tribal beliefs they've held for many centuries, long before Islam came there.
Not to insult anyone here, but i don't think you people would know a "religious practicing muslim" if he was standing right infront of you.
Your definition of a good muslim is one that is Violent and behaves like a savage.
I'm starting to think it was a big mistake for me to even post here. You cannot deal with people who think they know it all about Islam already.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 9:56 AM
'phoenix'
the sins of certain figures within the Hebrew scriptures are NOT generally viewed by believers as examples to imitate, but rather as cautionary tales, examples of the types of conduct one must AVOID.
For example: King David committed adultery and murder; but these were NOT APPROVED OF. They are named as SIN. David himself collapsed in a heap and 'owned up' to it, when confronted by Nathan. No Jews or Christians think that David's sins should be imitated!
If you're thinking of Lot, Abraham's nephew - first, neither Jews nor Christians regard him as a prophet, anyway. Only the foolish Muslims do that. And what he and his daughters got up to is reported; it is NOT praised, indeed, one gets the general impression that it was severely disapproved of.
Abraham is the ancestor of the Hebrew people.
Lot, Abraham's NEPHEW, not his descendant, is not Hebrew; he is seen as the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
That's just a couple of cases that Muslim spin-doctors have tried to throw at us, in the past, by way of a feeble attempt at tu quoque when we criticise the deplorable behaviour of Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga, called by Muslims 'mohammed'. Sorry, the tu quoque falls completely flat.
And as for the difference between 'allah' and YHWH - allah is a capricious slavemaster of terrified, cringing slaves; YHWH is loving, faithful, forgiving, patient, and holy, and relates to His people as a father to children, or as a loving husband to a beloved wife.
If I were an atheist I would still say that Christians and Jews have a faith that - because it teaches the Golden Rule in a particularly clear and vivid manner, and encourages forgiveness, honesty [with oneself and others], patience and willingness to compromise - makes in general for more psychologically healthy human beings, and social orders, than does Islam, which does NOT teach the Golden Rule, and which actively fosters fear, deception, paralysis and aggression.
The fruits of following YHWH and the fruits of following 'allah' are radically different.
Me, I prefer what grows from faith in YHWH. Despite our many failures and follies, among Jews and Christians there does seem to be a self-renewing energy of life and love that is - tragically - simply not matched within the Muslim world [though I freely acknowledge that there have been individual Muslims who have been truly decent human beings, not in obedience to Quranic Islam, but in despite of it!].
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
__________________________________________________
Yes i am already aware of what you wrote, and i was not using the actions of Biblical Prophets as an attack against anyone.
I am merely showing how they're not exactly got a clean image either with their actions, and they're still considered Prophets.
The situation here is, you seem to think Muslims are supposed to imitate everything our Prophet did. As far as you are concerned, a Muslim raping, murdering, looting etc is just following how he was, whilst completly ignoring everything about Islam teaches.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 10:07 AM
Darcy,
Could you please ask him my question? He's not answering me.
Thanks.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 10:07 AM
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
the Pakistani census data indicates that 96% of the population are Muslims,[64] (nearly 77% are Sunni Muslims and 20% are Shi'a Muslims).
While the Government of Pakistan does not officially put "Sharia Law" on its documents, it is a fact the "Sharia Law" or Islamic Law is what guides the everyday lives of most of its Inhabitants. Just travel anywhere you choose in Pakistan, ask the people who live there "do you follow the law of the government or do you follow Islamic Law (aka Sharia law), the answer will be Sharia Law. The lives of the Pakistani are ruled by Sharia Law whether or not it is official.
99.9% of incidents occurring in Pakistan you will find some Muslim cleric or Muslim official citing Sharia Law as the justisfication for the action taken. Sharia Law is the law of the land--it is just not official yet.
at May 6, 2008 10:16 AM
"Most of these backward practices you see in Pakistan like Honor killings, Acid attacks etc are down to their own backward tribal beliefs they've held for many centuries, long before Islam came there."
Funny - Honor Killings (daughter-slaughter) occur in EVERY Islamic/Muslim country. Not just Pakistan. In Jordan alone there were 47 documented events last year of Muslim girls/women murdered by their families. And, of course, there were more that escaped the statistics. So, I guess that means that ALL Islamic/Muslim countries are "backward" (your word). In addition, the West is now experiencing the "backwardness" of Honor Murders, as recent cases in Canada and Texas demonstrate. Isn't that just great? Mohammedans immigrate and bring their numerous "backwardnesses" with them.
As for the acid attacks, it's true I've only ever read about these evil abominations performed in Pakistan. The "Land of the Pure People" - Yeah, right. Acid attacks by Muslim males against Muslim females ("spurned suitors" is the usual motivation) are so depraved, so corrupt, so perverted - Allah would definitely approve.
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 10:17 AM
Sorry, but i'll have to get back to you on your question. "The Pact of Umar" is not something i've ever come across inmy studies. I'm going to have to research it before i can say anything.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 10:23 AM
"...and they're still considered Prophets."
Yeah, the Biblical Prophets PROPHESIED!
Something your Con Man would know nothing about! Indeed, Mo never prophesied anything. Including his own death at the hands of a Jewish woman who poisoned his goat stew after he had all of her male relations beheaded. Real Prophets ALWAYS prophesy their own deaths. Like, for example, Jesus. The Prophet of Prophets. REAL Prophets, not dissembling, power-mad bedouins.
at May 6, 2008 10:23 AM
"Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews."
Hi CC. Here are your two questions.
Phoenix answered you above. He doesn't know anything about the Pact of Umar, he says. How believable is that? Would a real Muslim already know about the Pact of Umar?
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 10:29 AM
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
the Pakistani census data indicates that 96% of the population are Muslims,[64] (nearly 77% are Sunni Muslims and 20% are Shi'a Muslims).
While the Government of Pakistan does not officially put "Sharia Law" on its documents, it is a fact the "Sharia Law" or Islamic Law is what guides the everyday lives of most of its Inhabitants. Just travel anywhere you choose in Pakistan, ask the people who live there "do you follow the law of the government or do you follow Islamic Law (aka Sharia law), the answer will be Sharia Law. The lives of the Pakistani are ruled by Sharia Law whether or not it is official.
99.9% of incidents occurring in Pakistan you will find some Muslim cleric or Muslim official citing Sharia Law as the justisfication for the action taken. Sharia Law is the law of the land--it is just not official yet.
Posted by: pulsar182
_________________________________________________
Pakistan is a Democracy, or what it it Intends to become. No one intends for the country to be ruled by Shariah.
Are you Pakistani? Have you ever been there? Have you met or spoken to the average Pakistani?
The lives of Pakistanis are not ruled by Shariah.
Everyone implements some aspects of Islam into their lives, but to say Islamic Law dictate their daily lives is very far off the mark.
Shariah Law or as close as you'll get is what you see in Saudi. Pakistan never has been ruled by Shariah nor will it any time soon, judging by the way the way the new government that is in power.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 10:34 AM
I'm starting to think it was a big mistake for me to even post here. You cannot deal with people who think they know it all about Islam already.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 9:56 AM
Suggestion: Watch 1. "Submission," a film by Theo Van Gogh (murdered by a "savage" Mohammedan) and Ayyan Hirsi Ali. 2. "Islam - What the West Needs to Know," a film by Robert Spencer and other intellectuals, both non-Moslem and ex-Moslems. 3. "Fitna," a film by brave Geert Wilders of The Netherlands. For this film, he stands a chance of also being murdered by savage Mohammedans, like Theo Van Gogh. Yet, he stands fast.
All of these documentaries truthfully present Islam. They are IslamoRealism.
Remember that important word, Phoenix - IslamoRealism. Say it again: IslamoRealism. Roll it trippingly off your tongue - IslamoRealism.
Thanks!
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 10:40 AM
Funny - Honor Killings (daughter-slaughter) occur in EVERY Islamic/Muslim country. Not just Pakistan. In Jordan alone there were 47 documented events last year of Muslim girls/women murdered by their families. And, of course, there were more that escaped the statistics. So, I guess that means that ALL Islamic/Muslim countries are "backward" (your word). In addition, the West is now experiencing the "backwardness" of Honor Murders, as recent cases in Canada and Texas demonstrate. Isn't that just great? Mohammedans immigrate and bring their numerous "backwardnesses" with them.
As for the acid attacks, it's true I've only ever read about these evil abominations performed in Pakistan. The "Land of the Pure People" - Yeah, right. Acid attacks by Muslim males against Muslim females ("spurned suitors" is the usual motivation) are so depraved, so corrupt, so perverted - Allah would definitely approve.
Posted by: darcy
_________________________________________________
Honor Killing occur in India as well by Hindus and Sikhs. They're at least dealt with by the Law. That is clearly not the case in places like Jordan or other countries where it happens, because of how their government and law system is set-up and therefore do not deal with it properly unfortunately.
Honor Killings are by no means Islamic. They are no means justifiable under Islamic Law or teachings.
Honor killings are all about saving face when faced with the prospect of humiliation.
Acid attacks are not a muslim exclusive act either. It is the action of some idiots that get rejected by a woman they want and therefore decide to ruin her life because of it.
I think if you understood the concept of Marriage in Islam and how you go about proposal, you'd understand it.
Alas, i feel you people are not interested in what the real Islamic stance on the matter is. You only seek to blame Islam for every action commited by a Muslim, because you do not understand it yourself.
at May 6, 2008 10:47 AM
Please read, people:
"Pakistan's acid-attack victims press for justice":
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1908/
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 10:52 AM
"Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews."
Hi CC. Here are your two questions.
Phoenix answered you above. He doesn't know anything about the Pact of Umar, he says. How believable is that? Would a real Muslim already know about the Pact of Umar?
Posted by: darcy
_________________________________________________
I never said i didn't know anything, i said i do not know much about it because i've never read much about it. I do not claim i know it all. I am merely a student who keeps on learning.
________________________________________________
Suggestion: Watch 1. "Submission," a film by Theo Van Gogh (murdered by a "savage" Mohammedan) and Ayyan Hirsi Ali. 2. "Islam - What the West Needs to Know," a film by Robert Spencer and other intellectuals, both non-Moslem and ex-Moslems. 3. "Fitna," a film by brave Geert Wilders of The Netherlands. For this film, he stands a chance of also being murdered by savage Mohammedans, like Theo Van Gogh. Yet, he stands fast.
All of these documentaries truthfully present Islam. They are IslamoRealism.
Remember that important word, Phoenix - IslamoRealism. Say it again: IslamoRealism. Roll it trippingly off your tongue - IslamoRealism.
_________________________________________________
I do not intend on watching anti-Islamic propaganda by these Individuals thank you. I've seen "What the west needs to know" for one.
All these things have in common is they want everyone to distrust muslims because they are religiously allowed to Lie if it furthers Islams cause and apparently, all muslims know about this concept. Oh and that we're trying to take over the world and out-breeding the westerners etc
I do not need to learn anything about my religion from people like Mr.Spencer, who interpret religiou texts their own way, and that is pretty evident in this Topic because he clearly didn't have any idea what he was talking about.
Because 1. He didn't know the correct Islamic postion on Adultery in the Qu'ran and the so called missing verse and 2. The so called "You need 4 witnsses to prove rape which he derived from a verse that does not even speak about rape"
No offense to any of them, but i believe they are heavily biased in how they present what they say and i do not believe for a second they Intend to accurately portray what Muslims really believe.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 10:57 AM
If the Muslims want to kill a Muslim man or a Muslim woman by stoning them to death for commiting a common and classical sin I have no problem with that. To me it is a classical case of rats killing rats to satisfy their thirst for blood.
Rats should never even accuse human beings (non Muslims) of any thing let alone killing them.
at May 6, 2008 11:01 AM
Please read, people:
"Pakistan's acid-attack victims press for justice":
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1908/
Posted by: darcy
_______________________________________________
I'd advise someone such as yourself, to at least visit a few Large Islamic Forums, and get the view of the Muslims about Honor killings and acts of violence against women.
You will ususally find the more knowledgeable Muslims there, as they go there to learn more from one another.
I'd hope you and others here could at least make an honest effort to do that.
I'm not asking you to love Islam or change your views on how evil you think it is, but just to ge honest answers from Muslims about views they hold about matters such as this.
Thanks and good day for now.
I've spent the best part of 2 hours responding to posts here and its a little tiring.
at May 6, 2008 11:04 AM
Phoenix,
Ours is a common understanding of Islam. Common to at least 20-30% of Muslims worldwide, and the ones that make the most headlines. Robert merely reports on how Islamists justify their actions based on the Qur'an. It is not his role to devise new interpretative schemes to excuse, negate or minimize their stance.
Instead of seeing us as adversaries, I would hope you could use us as "debate partners" as you develop some themes over time, assuming your intent is reform. I am impressed so far in your willingness to engage, and especially by your willingness to admit areas needing further study and reflection.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 11:06 AM
"Oh and that we're trying to take over the world and out-breeding the westerners etc" --Phoenix
Yep. These two go hand-in-hand, as you well know. Without doubt, statistics prove, Muslims are "out-breeding Westerners." And majority rules.
In addition, there have been many Muslim leaders in the past who have made comments such as "In the womb of our Muslim women lies the triumph of Islam," for example. Help me out, people - what Muslim leader said that - wasn't it some Mohammedan at the U.N. in 1961 or thereabouts who said that?
at May 6, 2008 11:16 AM
Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974 ("we will conquer you through the bellies of our women").
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 11:17 AM
Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974 ("we will conquer you through the bellies of our women").
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 11:17 AM
THank You, CC, that's it. 1974.
So, ya see, Phoenix - your sarcasm about world domination and Muslim demographics is completely wrong - or is it taqiyya?
Posted by: darcy at May 6, 2008 11:25 AM
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
--Mohamed "Houari" Boumedienne
Algerian President, 1965 - 1978
at May 6, 2008 11:32 AM
"Pakistan never has been ruled by Shariah nor will it any time soon, judging by the way the way the new government that is in power.
Posted by: Phoenix "
well, not officially...besides the "new government" is weak and has a great number of Sharia Law sympathizers within its ranks..Sharia Law is closer to becoming official than you let it on to be...
at May 6, 2008 12:10 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)