Islam and killing young girls [Archive]

Ezra

03-15-2002, 02:10 PM

This is a very interesting incident that occured in Sudia Arabia (where Islam is applied as IT IS).

Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1874000/1874471.stm

Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

About 800 pupils were inside the school in the holy city of Mecca when the tragedy occurred.
According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out.

"Lives could have been saved had they not been stopped by members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," the newspaper concluded.

Relatives' anger

Families of the victims have been incensed over the deaths.

Most of the victims were crushed in a stampede as they tried to flee the blaze.

The school was locked at the time of the fire - a usual practice to ensure full segregation of the sexes.

The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

L@mplighterM

03-15-2002, 03:48 PM

Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

Nice guys.

They had some graphic pictures in the paper here today showing what their brothers the Taliban did to women.

One specialty was/is dipping the whip in poison so the sites of impact becomes infected. Another thing is that when u look at pictures of women from those countries u sure see a lot of noses that have suffered breakage.

Nice religion.

mete

03-16-2002, 12:19 AM

:eek:
This Saudis are crazy.
----------------

ibrodsky

03-16-2002, 02:37 PM

Mete,

I hope my friends will stop condemning all of Islam.

In my opinion, Turkey is a good model for Islamic societies.

The enemy is not Islam, but militant Islam (also known as "Islamism").

Can you tell us more about how Islam is practiced in Turkey? I hear some Moslems complain that Turkey does not permit religious freedom. Yet these same people do not complain about human rights abuses in places such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

L@mplighterM

03-16-2002, 03:17 PM

Perhaps Turkey has different copies of the Koran.

Ezra

03-17-2002, 10:20 AM

GUYS… TURKEY IS secular secular secular !

What Islam are you talking about??? They have just banned Islamic Political parties, they prohibit wearing scarves on heads for school girls, …etc..

Turkey is NOT an Islamic country.. Since Kamal Atatork, the "khelafah Osmaneyya" has ended and the new constitution has been formed stating that Turkey is a secular country..

Turkey is an Islamic country by HISTORY.. Not anymore..

ibrodsky

03-17-2002, 04:27 PM

Yes, Turkey is a secular state, but that doesn't mean the people have no religion. (The U.S. is also a secular state.) 99% of Turks are Moslems.

They have obviously decided to interpret Islam in a more modern manner.

mete

03-18-2002, 08:13 AM

hi!
Sorry for late reply, i forgot here. :)
I have came here once, to ask question about trip to israel, and i took a look at other threads and then i have encountered one, which was with the name of 'truths about islam', then i have noticed that there is a general fondness to interpret muslims as enemies of israel. But i knew that very well, eventhough sometimes they are upset when Israel Government is too 'falcon' against palestinian civilians, Turkey and Turks in general have good sights and faith against Israel and Israelis. So i wanted to post my own opinion about that subject, that the conflict is not muslim-jew problem, its rather politic between Israel and Arabic states. Then someone critisized Turkey for being violent against Kurds, but i have tried to explain this too, that Kurds are living equal and in comfort, but the problem is with PKK terrorists which is supported by foreign powers, for political reasons. Anyway, and then the discussion went on a way that, i didnt want to involve anymore. Cuz as i said before too, i wasnt in aim of comparing religions or books. But i have viewed ths discussion sts. Ezra made lots of quotes from Koran, with alleging that its ordered by book to fight against non-muslims. i have studied Koran in my teens (im 22 now) , and since i dont understand Arabic, i have read the Turkish translations and it didnt write sth like that as i remember. Nor i was taught sth like this, in my religion lessons. It was the opposite, to respect others beliefs.
This Saudi or Iran kind of Islam is shariah, which is strictly prohibited in Turkey.It orders to cut the hand of thief, or some simular bloody punishments for sins.
As Ezra said, since 1923 Turkey is a secular state and religion and state affairs are seperated. Islam is individual in Turkey, no one can try to impose his ideas to others.
And Turkey sometimes has to take some extreme precautions, which is looking against human rights. Like banning Islamic parties or prohibiting head scarves in state buildings. But this is not so simple neither. Cuz, for example in Austria, a few times ago EU banned Heiderns party, which was racist, and in Germany building a National Socialist party is banned. Or last events happened in Holland.. England has the same problem too. Shortly i want to say, sometimes when u want to protect democracy, u have to be un-democratic. Cuz this parites are like 'pissing in the pool that they are swimming in'. In Turkey there is a saying, which intellectuals using too often: 'our democracy is threating our republic' That means, there are some extremist groups, like Kaplancilar (located in Germany) or Naksibendi, some others too, which want to destroy the democracy and make an islamic state. And they are supported by Arabs and Iran. They are only little groups, most of the muslims in Turkey are favorable with government. So, Turkey bans people to build up religious communities, cuz then they wud try to convert people to Iranic or Arabic model.
Briefly, Turkeys problem is not with islam, with islamic models out of Turkey. They are trying to export their ideology to Turkey and young Turkic Republics of mid-Asia. But even the reverse can happen but not this.

And about practising islam in Turkey, its totally free, as long as u dont have any political goal. My father is 'very' muslim, and everyday he is going to mosque or doing whatever it needs to do. And no one is interfering with him cuz he has no other aims, and he never complains of government applications. Cuz he is secular and he knows secular system is giving him the right to worship as how he wants. And most of the people thinks the same so Turkey is just defending the rights of majority.
Turks modernized the islam, and now it should spread, to open the peoples eyes.

Lehitraot&Good bye, see you.
:)

water

09-07-2006, 06:38 PM

the question I ask is why when a peoples god fails them they then call the female body evil and make all who are born not male suffer.

[QUOTE=Ezra]This is a very interesting incident that occured in Sudia Arabia (where Islam is applied as IT IS).

Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1874000/1874471.stm

Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue

andak01

09-08-2006, 03:56 AM

Ask the Indians, who have aborted 10 million of their female babies. The practice of burying females alive was common in Arabia prior to Islam. It is the Quran that strictly and clearly forbids it. Don't assume that because Saudi Arabia claims to be an Islamic government that its people all behave Islamically.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1968.html

Aviva

09-08-2006, 04:10 AM

It is the Quran that strictly and clearly forbids it. Don't assume that because Saudi Arabia claims to be an Islamic government that its people all behave Islamically.

That makes no sense.

How can the Koran forbid something that is totally accepted in Islamic society? And if it forbids things that are openly accepted, what moral code do Muslims actually follow?

andak01

09-08-2006, 04:45 AM

It's your own perverted sense and your hatred of Muslims that tells you that killing girls is accepted in any society. There are girls murdered in every society and too often in the third world, the murderers are not brought to justice. That is not to say it is accepted. Do you imagine that the parents and families of Muslim girls don't mourn when they are killed?

The sad fact is, girls and women are subject to a host of injustices throughout the world, sex slavery, inequal pay, wife abuse, child abuse.

Aviva

09-08-2006, 04:56 AM

It's your own perverted sense and your hatred of Muslims that tells you that killing girls is accepted in any society. There are girls murdered in every society and too often in the third world, the murderers are not brought to justice. That is not to say it is accepted. Do you imagine that the parents and families of Muslim girls don't mourn when they are killed?

But Muslim girls are killed by their own families in honour killings. How could a father or brother stab a girl to death and then mourn for her?

The sad fact is, girls and women are subject to a host of injustices throughout the world, sex slavery, inequal pay, wife abuse, child abuse.

You haven't answered my question, Andak01.

varian

09-08-2006, 01:32 PM

I file this in the "All Men Are Pigs" folder (at least that is what I told my daughters). In a patriarchal society men always like to blame women for bringing out the basest, perverted, and most immoral behavior of men. It's the males in those societies that should be whipped and scourged for their immorality and perversion instead of the women. But then given the bent of some males, they may begin to like it and demand such treatment from their women. Wham, patriarchal society to dominatrix society!! Then the women could put all the male Saudi whack jobs in the male equivalent of the gunny sack they want their women to wear. Beating on women is not my gig personally, besides my wife has a "concealed carry" permit and owns a Glock 19!!!:D

andak01

09-09-2006, 05:11 AM

Hmm. Answered your question... let's see.

That makes no sense.

How can the Koran forbid something that is totally accepted in Islamic society?

That's a statement, not a question. And it is based on an erroneous assumption. Killing little girls isn't "totally accepted" in Islamic society.

006.151
Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.

042.049
To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills (and plans). He bestows (children) male or female according to His Will (and Plan),

081.008
When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -
081.009
For what crime she was killed;

016.058
When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!
016.059
With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?
016.060
To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil: to Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

005.032
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 17:
Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit:

who took part in the battle of Badr and was a Naqib (a person heading a group of six persons), on the night of Al-'Aqaba pledge: Allah's Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, "Swear allegiance to me for:
1. Not to join anything in worship along with Allah.
2. Not to steal.
3. Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse.
4. Not to kill your children.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.013

And if it forbids things that are openly accepted, what moral code do Muslims actually follow?

Your second "question" is also based on the first erroneous assumption. Since killing little girls is actually forbidden by both our systems, it follows that your moral code and ours aren't that far apart. I do remember reading this story some two years ago or so. Of course, there was no follow up to see if the tabligis were subject to any lawsuits or censure. Did the families sue these men? Was justice served? Did they weasel out as some do in our own society? We'll probably never know.

nbarzelay

09-09-2006, 06:35 AM

Andak01,

You can quote all the Quranic verses you want, but the 'pre-Islamic tribal honor code' which produced the practice of "honor killings" is incorporated into the Islamic religion as is the term 'Allah' which is the deviation of the moon-G_d "Al-ilah". Hence the "Allah is the greatest" creed (not "Allah is great"), separating Islam from the previous pre-Islamic polytheistic/pagan religion previously inhabiting and up to the times of Christianity's advent in the Saudi Arabian peninsula and throughout the area. Prophet Mohammed just cut out all the other g_ds, such as the sun g_d, the moon g_d's wife, and their daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. Just look at the practices of sacrifices, fasting, and ceremonies all based around the phases of the moon, not to mention all the crescent moon symbols on Islamic nation flags. Makes you wonder.

As with most Quranic verses, there are contradictions throughout as with the treatment of women, as there is a whole chapter under the name in the Quran, and with the treatment of non-Muslims or 'kaffirs'. One could always find 'positives' of the rightful treatment of women or even Jews, Christians and especially Hindus (seen as less than the worth of dirt due to their polytheistic practices).

Do find it questionable that the all powerful prophet in Islam married Aisha, a girl of 6 years old, at the same time supporting women's rights, as you say. Well, at least he waited until she was 9 years old to consummate his marriage with her. In other words, he had sex with a 9 year old girl.

Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.” Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.”

Tabari VII:6 “In May, 623 A.D./A.H. 1, Allah's Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha.”

Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.” This is how it happened:

Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

When women are seen as mere tools, the inhabitants, by majority, in Hell, and subhuman (relative to males) by the prophet, I do not find this treatment of 'honor killings' to be far-fetched. Even if there was no actual adultery involved in certain cases, the mere suspicion was enough to arouse an "honor killing".

On top of this, the light punishments handed out by Islamic nations in regards to "honor killings" or the glossing over and not handing out a punishment at all goes further to support that the pre-Islamic tribal practice of "honor killings" is deep-rooted in Islam itself since the religion itself is a derivative of these practices in the first place.

CanDo

09-09-2006, 07:31 AM

016.058
When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!
016.059
With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?

I could not believe that Islam viewed, with such contempt, the birth of a female child. I looked it up myself. You are right! Islam considers a baby girl as bad news and shameful and even "suggests" that the baby girl be buried in the ground.

This passage truly incites cruelty, prejudice, hatred and disgust towards the female gender.

"Shall he retain it ... or bury it ..."

It???

And here I thought that only Christians, Jews and Hindus were hated by Muslims.

Aviva

09-09-2006, 07:51 AM

That's a statement, not a question.

Erm, how? It was most definitely a question, since it was an interogative that was followed by a question mark. I can't see how you could suggest it was anything else.

And it is based on an erroneous assumption. Killing little girls isn't "totally accepted" in Islamic society.

Except with honour killings, which happen regularly. What is the Muslim community doing to stop such killings? That was a question, by the way.

Your second "question" is also based on the first erroneous assumption. Since killing little girls is actually forbidden by both our systems, it follows that your moral code and ours aren't that far apart.

Not really because there's no tradition whatsoever in Judaism about killing girls as a punishment for dishonouring the family. It doesn't exist and never has done. In the Torah, I can think of examples of the rapist of a girl getting murdered, not his "dishonoured" victim, (I'm referring to the story of Dinah in Genesis).

CanDo

09-09-2006, 08:10 AM

Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

Her mother placed her six year old girl (otherwise known as it) on the bed, on Muhammad's lap, and then everyone left the room. Let's speculate on Muhammad's reasons for having a little, six year old girl sit on his lap and have everyone else leave the room.

Hmmmm!? He wanted to play house? Don't think so, do you?

Hmmmm!? He wanted it's advice on how best to pillage, rape and plunder another community of innocent civilians? Don't think so, do you?

Hmmmm!? Did the great Muhammad really want to sit in bed with a six year old girl and play pattycake with her? Don't think so, do you?

Hmmmm!? What could this pedophile really want from a six year old girl sitting on his lap in bed? Why would he want all adults out of the room?

Then the Quran states that Muhammad consummated his marriage with her when she was a child of nine? There was three years of foreplay with a young girl from age six to age nine?

Digusting, isn't it! What religion did you say published this kind of child pornography?

andak01

09-09-2006, 02:39 PM

I could not believe that Islam viewed, with such contempt, the birth of a female child. I looked it up myself. You are right! Islam considers a baby girl as bad news and shameful and even "suggests" that the baby girl be buried in the ground.

Except that the passage is saying that the justice of Allah will come both to the victims and to people who kill their children. You knew that didn't you?

Killing female children was a custom in pre-Islamic Arabia. It is again the custom in modern India where, with the advent of sonic identification of fetuses, we find over 10 million abortions of females.

Female Infanticide
There is no doubt that Arabs committed infanticide before Islam. It was not a new thing nor was it limited to one group of tribes. Young girls were usually the victims of this dreadful practice, however, young boys may have also been killed once there were no more girls left. It was said proverbially, "The dispatch of daughters is a kindness" and "The burial of daughters is a noble deed." (Nicholson, p. 90) In Arabia, as among other primitive people, child-murder was carried out in such a way that no blood was shed, the infant was buried alive. Often the grave was ready by the side of the bed on which the daughter was born. (W. Robertson Smith, Kinship & Marriage in Early Arabia. London, Adam and Charles Black, 1903, p. 293) Although the practice of infanticide had once been general, it had nearly died out by the time of the prophet, except among a few tribes, such as the Tamim.

Female infanticide was usually prompted by one of two reasons: fear of poverty or fear of disgrace. The first reason is associated with the frequent famines caused by lack of rain and the fear of poverty that would result from providing for girls who were viewed as less productive than boys. Fathers were afraid that they would have useless mouths to feed, since daughters were considered mere "ornaments," as pointed out in the Quran:

... if any of them is given the glad tiding of [the birth of] what he so readily attributes to the Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger: What! [Am I to have a daughter-] one who is to be reared [only] for the sake of ornament? - thereupon he finds himself torn by a vague inner conflict...(43:15-19)

The Quran admonishes the Arabs against killing their children for fear of poverty and promises sustenance for them:

...
The advent of Islam brought profound changes to the Arabian society in general and to women in particular. Islam reversed or abolished the repressive and cruel practices committed against women such as female infanticide. Where women's rights were taken away or ignored, Islam restored them, and where women enjoyed any degree of freedom, Islam reinforced and enhanced it. Islamic teachings emphasized the fact that the general principles of equality, freedom, independence and rights of women are not to be confined to or defined by social or cultural norms, but that they are ordained by God.

http://www.zawaj.com/articles/women_preislamic.html

CanDo

09-09-2006, 02:56 PM

Except that the passage is saying that the justice of Allah will come both to the victims and to people who kill their children. You knew that didn't you?

You left out the main point of my post. How careless of you!

This was my main point: This passage truly incites cruelty, prejudice, hatred and disgust towards the female gender.

Are you saying that it is OK for the Muslim culture to treat females barbarically because the score will be eventually evened by Allah. The only problem with this is that the females only receive justice AFTER they are dead. Big whoopdee doo! In the meantime, Muslim males can freely brutalize females for decades and they only get punished AFTER they are dead. Big whoodee doo! You can whip a corpse for months and it never feels any pain or has any remorse.

andak01

09-09-2006, 03:08 PM

Erm, how? It was most definitely a question, since it was an interogative that was followed by a question mark. I can't see how you could suggest it was anything else.

You seem to have trouble phrasing questions in a way that doesn't insult the intelligence. Is that because you are a fool?

That's an example of what I'm talking about. Is that a yes or a no? C'mon, interogative followed by a question mark.

In your question, I'm giving the option of saying that the Quran allows infanticide, which it most certainly does NOT, OR that infanticide is totally accepted in Islamic society, which it also is not.

Except with honour killings, which happen regularly. What is the Muslim community doing to stop such killings? That was a question, by the way.

For one thing, people are arrested and put in prison. Sometimes they are executed. Coming from a society myself where people are killed for sneakers and sunglasses and our general murder rate is geometrically higher per capita, I'm less likely to throw stones.

The brutal murder of Huang Chen, 18, who was killed when delivering food for his parents' Chinese restaurant, seems to have been motivated by Air Jordan sneakers. Nayquan Miller and Charles Bryant, both 16, with other suspects, ordered $10 of food, then robbed Chen of $49 then beat and murdered him,

For 15-year old Michael Eugene Thomas, it definitely was the shoes. A ninth grader at Meade Senior High School in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Thomas was found strangled on May 2, 1989. Charged with first degree murder was James David Martin, 17, a basketball buddy who allegedly took Thomas's two week old Air Jordan basketball shoes and left Thomas's barefoot body in the woods near school.

DETROIT _ A Southfield, Mich., teenager died Wednesday night after being shot twice by someone who demanded his designer sunglasses.

Lenell Caffey, 17, died at Providence Hospital in Southfield at 8:11 p.m.

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/02/16/murdering_for_sneakers.php
http://www.chucksconnection.com/articles/ConverseArt08.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-7877021

Not really because there's no tradition whatsoever in Judaism about killing girls as a punishment for dishonouring the family. It doesn't exist and never has done. In the Torah, I can think of examples of the rapist of a girl getting murdered, not his "dishonoured" victim, (I'm referring to the story of Dinah in Genesis).

The crime of rape is punishable by death in Sharia. There is no Islamic tradition of honor killing. There may be local cultural traditions and there are weak infrastructures in some third world countries where such crimes don't make it to court. But a murder is a murder regardless of the motive or of the religion of the murderer. Family murders aren't more or less aweful simply because the murderer is Muslim, and plenty of family murders take place outside of Muslim society.

andak01

09-09-2006, 03:12 PM

You left out the main point of my post. How careless of you!

This was my main point: This passage truly incites cruelty, prejudice, hatred and disgust towards the female gender.

I not only didn't ignore your main point, I posted an article explaining why you are wrong, you know it, and you deliberately continue to post wrong information.

Are you saying that it is OK for the Muslim culture to treat females barbarically because the score will be eventually evened by Allah.

No. That's why I posted a quote from the article that includes the fact that Islam reformed the practice of killing female infants. The article explains the same quote I sited to mean exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

CanDo

09-09-2006, 03:26 PM

I not only didn't ignore your main point, I posted an article explaining why you are wrong, you know it, and you deliberately continue to post wrong information.

No. That's why I posted a quote from the article that includes the fact that Islam reformed the practice of killing female infants. The article explains the same quote I sited to mean exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

016.058
When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!
016.059
With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on?

Nonsense! Passages 016.058 and 016.059 are still part of the Quran. They are hideously against females. If, indeed, Islam has reformed in it's view against females, those digusting, pornographic passages would be removed from each and every Quran and certainly not contained in any new printing of the Quran. The fact that Islam continues to include those passages in the Quran means that it is acceptable for Islam to incite cruelty, prejudice, hatred and disgust towards the female gender.

"Shall he retain it ... or bury it ..."

It???

Why do Muslims insist that these passages continue to desecrate the Quran?

andak01

09-09-2006, 03:34 PM

You can add these to your list of "ethnic cleansing". And you can ignore all non-religious reasons for a demographic shift in those places two. In fact, most of those Arab Jews ended up in Israel with tax breaks and government subsidized property, or in excellent positions in Europe with opportunities not afforded by the countries they came from. This isn't ethnic cleansing, it's opportunity.

Countries with Decreasing Jewish Populations

· South Africa - now between 88,000 and 65,000, down from a peak of 120,000 or possibly more. Immigration primarily to: Sydney, Melbourne, Atlanta, Toronto, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Israel and to a lesser degree London, Manchester, Perth and New Zealand.

· Argentina – Leaving for Mexico City, Miami, Spain and Israel. However, the vast majority of Argentineans are staying put.

· Russia – Population beginning to stabilize due to a developing economy and the Israeli security situation. However, together with all CIS countries, still experiencing emigration. Largest current exodus is to Germany, followed by Israel and the USA.

· Ukraine – Represents the biggest immigrant group to the USA over the last 10 years.

· Mexico – Steady immigration to the States. However, replenished by immigration from other Latin American countries to Mexico. Those leaving are much wealthier than those coming, though immigration to Mexico has positively impacted on its Judaism. Most Klei Kodesh in Mexico today are from Argentina.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm

Theodikritis

09-09-2006, 04:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

Khalid

09-10-2006, 12:29 AM

Nonsense! Passages 016.058 and 016.059 are still part of the Quran. They are hideously against females.you're the one speaking the nonsense, or perhaps are simply uninformed of the meanings behind such verses. men who do feel shame for having a daughter are infact "those who believe not in the Hereafter".

lets frame that for you:

016.060 To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil: to Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

CanDo

09-10-2006, 08:16 AM

you're the one speaking the nonsense, or perhaps are simply uninformed of the meanings behind such verses. men who do feel shame for having a daughter are infact "those who believe not in the Hereafter".

lets frame that for you:

016.060 To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil: to Allah applies the highest similitude: for He is the Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

I could agree with you that the Quran speaks against the killing of female babies, but, once again, that wasn't my point.

Quran verses 016.058 and 016.059 specifically state that it is expected that Muslim men feel grief and shame from the birth of a baby girl. The chapters don't say that Muslim men should not feel grief and shame. The chapters don't say that Allah decreed that the birth of a baby girl is good news.

The meaning behind the verses say that, even if Muslim men have the great misfortune of suffering the grief and shame of having a baby girl, they should not kill it.

The Quran continues it's trivialization of females by asking the following question: "Shall he retain it ... or bury it ..."

In other words, the clear meaning of the Quran is that, if Muslim men have the extreme misfortune of having a baby it, Muslim men should not kill this baby it. This is inciteful hatred towards females and it certainly causes Muslim men to act out against Muslim females, whether babies, girls or women. There is significant and widespread mistreatment of females in the Muslim culture and the incitement against females in the Quran probably has a lot to do with it.

I'll guarantee you that if the roles were reversed and the Quran stated that the birth of a male child caused grief and shame, but do not kill this male it, Muslim men would not be too pleased, would they?!

andak01

09-10-2006, 08:49 AM

For your information, the original Arabic doesn't have the word "it", because there is no equivalent in Arabic! Words are either masculine or feminine. There is no neuter, and for third person reference, only huwa for "he" or hiya for "she" are used. In fact, as far as I can tell, the word translated to "it" doesn't appear as a separate word in the original, but rather as a grammatic inference.

If a translator is confronted with a masculine word that has a non-masculine conotation, they might translate "it" instead of the original literal translation. For example, French: "La table, elle est bleue." wouldn't translate to "The table, she is blue." but rather "The table, it is blue."

CanDo

09-10-2006, 09:12 AM

For your information, the original Arabic doesn't have the word "it", because there is no equivalent in Arabic! Words are either masculine or feminine.

Your explanation seems to make it worse. That means that the Muslims who converted the Quran from Arabic to English had the choice between using the phrase "Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust?" deliberately chose the term "it" for the baby girl, rather than saying: "Shall he retain her on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury her in the dust?"

Dehumanizing a female to "it" rather than "she" is one more example of how cultures descriminate and incite against others, whether those others be Jews, Armenians, Christians, Hindus, females or even Muslims.

andak01

09-10-2006, 09:32 AM

We are, after all referring to a man contemplating the live burial of a child. Is that man treating the child as a being, or as an it? You've chosen deliberately to ignore the fact that the act is referred to as a disgrace in the eyes of Allah. Still, the fact is, the term it doesn't exist in the original.

So, let's recap where we've come from. Originally, your stance was that the Quran encourages infanticide. When this proved not to be so, you went after the word "it" in a translation to prove that we think of girls as "its". Now we are down to blaming the translators! What next? I can hardly wait.

CanDo

09-10-2006, 09:52 AM

So, let's recap where we've come from. Originally, your stance was that the Quran encourages infanticide. When this proved not to be so, you went after the word "it" in a translation to prove that we think of girls as "its". Now we are down to blaming the translators! What next? I can hardly wait.

The Quran encourages infanticide. The Quran incites Muslim men against females. I have never changed my position on that.

Why did the translaters change the Quran from "bury her in the dust" to "bury it in the dust"? It makes me think that perhaps the original Arabic Quran did have some term for "it".

You chose to totally ignore the demeaning, hateful language against females in verses 016.058 and 016.059 of the Quran. This type of language incites Muslim men to kill women, either babies, or girls or women. Muslim men with a higher education, who can get past the hateful, inciteful language, are a minority in the Muslim world. Your common, ordinary, backward Muslim is going to act out against females based on the hateful, inciteful language of verses 016.058 and 016.059!

How would you like it if hateful verses or slogans were used against your family, but the verses said at the end, but don't kill them? They might deserve killing, but don't kill them.That is how the Quran treats females.

andak01

09-10-2006, 11:37 AM

Can you find one Muslim living or dead that ever used that verse to justify infanticide??? Of course not!

And of course you know that this is so. Why don't you just make up verses? Your hatred is so thick it doesn't allow for reasoning.

Here is the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir for Sura Nahl from whence that verse comes.

He explains the whole passage with: The Idolators' Abhorrence for Daughters

That is, the Idolators of the Arabian penninsula prior to the Muslims, not the Muslims. This is precisely what I said and what the article I posted before said.

And again:

Shameful daughters ?

In fact, the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon as a female is born. For example the Bible states that the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible does state explicitly that "The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Sirach 22:3) In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise, "A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3) A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father "Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she doesn't make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame."(Ecclesiasticus 42:11)

It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice "When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?"(16:59) It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia if it were not to the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first," To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what he wills. He bestows female children to whomever he wills and bestows male children to whomever he wills"(42:49)

http://shahadah.tripod.com/womenin.htm

Khalid

09-11-2006, 01:41 AM

Quran verses 016.058 and 016.059 specifically state that it is expected that Muslim men feel grief and shame from the birth of a baby girl. The chapters don't say that Muslim men should not feel grief and shame. The chapters don't say that Allah decreed that the birth of a baby girl is good news.lol..that's just your base less opinion and i'm not even going to argue with such a visonless creature, you're indeed a great proof that some are truely blinded for their hatred. I just spite the fact that such visonless creatures on both sides have divided believers.

Khalid

09-11-2006, 01:51 AM

Andak,

that's a very pointless thing that you do, I'm sure there are many here on this site that will truely enjoy and learn from your constructive debates, unfortunately Cando is not thirsty for your based on fact opinions, but more so anxious for clash and rejection.

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 02:17 AM

I know the source of Cando's views - 'The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca'. :D

Aviva

09-11-2006, 02:47 AM

You seem to have trouble phrasing questions in a way that doesn't insult the intelligence. Is that because you are a fool?

No, it's called sarcasm. If I'm insulting your intelligence it's because you're insulting mine.

That's an example of what I'm talking about. Is that a yes or a no? C'mon, interogative followed by a question mark.

In your question, I'm giving the option of saying that the Quran allows infanticide, which it most certainly does NOT, OR that infanticide is totally accepted in Islamic society, which it also is not.

Andak, don't get annoyed with me just because I'm asking for an explanation regarding this matter. And don't start changing the subject and going off at tangents. You're the person who knows about the Koran but getting a straight answer out of you isn't easy. This won't stop me asking the questions, though, will it.

For one thing, people are arrested and put in prison. Sometimes they are executed. Coming from a society myself where people are killed for sneakers and sunglasses and our general murder rate is geometrically higher per capita, I'm less likely to throw stones.

Again - don't change the subject. We were talking about families murdering their own daughters and sisters for "dishonouring" them, not murder in general.

There is no Islamic tradition of honor killing.

That simply isn't born out by the facts.

andak01

09-11-2006, 03:45 AM

Aviva, I hope that wasn't to harsh. I see you took it in the spirit it was intended.

Honor killings. Yes, there are such a thing. Culturally, some parts of the Middle East tend to have these kind of murders. And Indians have caste killings, and Americans kill for sneakers. These are concepts that don't travel often. However, the point is that it's family violence ending in a death. And the point is whether it receives proper justice or not. As I said, the victim isn't more dead because they were killed by a Muslim relative.

In the American case, we are blessed with a well trained police force, CSI, etc. and the culprit often gets caught and sentenced. In Jordan, in Pakistan, in Somalia and in rural India, there is little chance for government justice to intervene, and we are left with tribal justice which is the very distillation of local culture.

Even in those places however, the murderer is often apprehended and sentenced to prison. And recall that in our own system, murder is, in reality, about an eight year actual sentence on average. So if these people do eight years in a Jordanian prison (much harsher than our own), they are receiving at least the same justice as they would in this country.

If they don't receive any sentence, that is cause for us to do something, but the question is what? Would you be accepting of an Arab saying your own legal system is deficient for such and such reason? No, of course not, in fact; the very first thing you would do is say: "Look at yourself!"

The best way to combat honor killing is to create an environment where all family violence is reduced, and that starts with how we raise our kids. And I can tell you, it is perfectly possible to employ Islamic values to teach family members to treat each other with respect.

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 04:45 AM

That simply isn't born out by the facts.
It's like claiming that domestic violence in Israel is a Jewish tradition.

They are 2 seperate phenomenon; religious belief and social practices.

Some people find it convenient in some instances to conflate the 2.

Aviva

09-11-2006, 05:09 AM

It's like claiming that domestic violence in Israel is a Jewish tradition.

They are 2 seperate phenomenon; religious belief and social practices.

So, if that's the case then Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries like Pakistan will have examples of honour killing in their culture because it's a social practice in those countries?

Womble

09-11-2006, 06:00 AM

It's like claiming that domestic violence in Israel is a Jewish tradition.
No it isnt similar at all. Jewish tradition is virtually never sited as a justification or a motivation behind domestic violence here. In the Muslim states and among Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, religious motives are the primary motives behind honor killings.

Roland

09-11-2006, 06:12 AM

So, if that's the case then Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries like Pakistan will have examples of honour killing in their culture?
Honour killing is a pre-islamic practice of pakistani et al. archaic tribal societies.
It is still spread there, unlike an infection but more like a genetic mark in the society's code.
Just living there won't make your familiy practise honour killing but integrating and mixing with the locals probably would.

Aviva

09-11-2006, 06:27 AM

Honour killing is a pre-islamic practice of pakistani et al. archaic tribal societies.
It is still spread there, unlike an infection but more like a genetic mark in the society's code.
Just living there won't make your familiy practise honour killing but integrating and mixing with the locals probably would.

Muslims claim that honour killing is pre-Islamic and that Islam doesn't actually teach these values. However, Islam DOES teach violence against females as wife beating is acceptable under Sharia law. I can't see the difference between the two concepts - both of these "social customs" are violent and misogynistic.

Also, in pre-Christian Britain, human sacrifice was commonplace amongst the Druids. However, it's not practiced anymore in the UK. Everyone in Britain would consider it to be a horrific idea. So why does Islam allow previous social practices like honour killing to remain in the culture? Why hasn't it stamped out this kind of barbarism?

Mediocrates

09-11-2006, 07:06 AM

I don't know. I would guess that in poor backwards countries that 'honor killing' is much like any other form of murder. And in other societies more advanced there is 'honor killing' all the time - because well, they're enlightened. In South America they have something similar culturally, but they don't call it that. For instance in Brazil (or Houston, Tx for that matter) it's pretty much not illegal to murder your cheating wife. Oh there are laws on the books but no one really pays them much mind. In Mexico teenage girls are murdered all the time for either having sex or having sex with the wrong guy. Same thing still goes on in Sicily.

Iran murders adulterers, gays, and just about anyone else charged with 'indecency'. Nigerians like to stone women to death. Sub saharan Africa has made gang rape of minors practically legal. It's so enormously prevalent that whole countries have abandoned the notion of 'parentage'. That is, where they aren't dying like flies from AIDS transmitted by rape.

This must be earth. I recognize the muffled screams.

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 08:18 AM

No it isnt similar at all. Jewish tradition is virtually never sited as a justification or a motivation behind domestic violence here. In the Muslim states and among Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, religious motives are the primary motives behind honor killings.
This example is from a Jewish domestic violence help group,

She married at the age of 17. D.'s husband was known in the community as a problematic and violent young man, even before their marriage, but this fact was concealed from her. At an early stage in the marriage, she says, she saw the first signs of his tyranny. He used to take out sacred texts and show her that they said that the husband rules over his wife and that he is allowed to hit her. Later on his domineering behavior was expressed in religious restrictions. He forbade her to open her mouth in front of a man, and used to check whether the clothes she bought were sufficiently modest.

People often try to justify their actions through religious means. In this context, I'm sure you have no trouble understanding that.

Womble

09-11-2006, 08:33 AM

This example is from a Jewish domestic violence help group,

She married at the age of 17. D.'s husband was known in the community as a problematic and violent young man, even before their marriage, but this fact was concealed from her. At an early stage in the marriage, she says, she saw the first signs of his tyranny. He used to take out sacred texts and show her that they said that the husband rules over his wife and that he is allowed to hit her. Later on his domineering behavior was expressed in religious restrictions. He forbade her to open her mouth in front of a man, and used to check whether the clothes she bought were sufficiently modest.

People often try to justify their actions through religious means. In this context, I'm sure you have no trouble understanding that.
That's not at all a common occurance, nor will you find any Jewish theologist worth his salt who would endorse such a thing. Moreover, there's another qualitative difference from honor killings- this case is an individual gone nuts. Honor killings are, as a rule, collective actions endorsed and carried out by the family of the victim (usually father and brothers, I believe).

Mediocrates

09-11-2006, 08:33 AM

She married at the age of 17. D.'s husband was known in the community as a problematic and violent young man, even before their marriage,

sounds like a garden variety nut.

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 12:00 PM

That's not at all a common occurance, nor will you find any Jewish theologist worth his salt who would endorse such a thing. Moreover, there's another qualitative difference from honor killings- this case is an individual gone nuts. Honor killings are, as a rule, collective actions endorsed and carried out by the family of the victim (usually father and brothers, I believe).

There was more on the case of D.,
Today she is 40 years old, and is angry that the community considered her to blame for her situation. The worst was her mother, who is a marriage counselor in the community, who told her in response to her description of the daily beatings that "it's normal."
"In cases where there is violence toward the woman, rabbis pressure the couple to preserve shalom bayit, but behind this concept hides the assumption that both of them are equally to blame," says D.
The problem of preventing violence is much more serious. "According to the halakha, a husband who doesn't respect his wife cannot be honored in anything related to the community, such as being called up to the Torah, and all the more so is it forbidden for the community to defend him," says D. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Shas, spoke in favor of the Haredi shelter about a year and a half ago, but Rozenfeld says that there is no other rabbi or posek halakha (arbiter who makes halakhic decisions) who will get up and declare publicly that there is a halakha that forbids a husband to beat his wife

But of course Womble, your argument is correct.

It would be a mistake to confuse social practice with religious doctrine. You see this clearly with Judaism.

Yet when it comes to Islam, you seem to suffer from 'The Elders of the Protocols of Mecca' syndrome.

Womble

09-11-2006, 12:57 PM

There was more on the case of D.,
Today she is 40 years old, and is angry that the community considered her to blame for her situation. The worst was her mother, who is a marriage counselor in the community, who told her in response to her description of the daily beatings that "it's normal."
"In cases where there is violence toward the woman, rabbis pressure the couple to preserve shalom bayit, but behind this concept hides the assumption that both of them are equally to blame," says D.
The problem of preventing violence is much more serious. "According to the halakha, a husband who doesn't respect his wife cannot be honored in anything related to the community, such as being called up to the Torah, and all the more so is it forbidden for the community to defend him," says D. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Shas, spoke in favor of the Haredi shelter about a year and a half ago, but Rozenfeld says that there is no other rabbi or posek halakha (arbiter who makes halakhic decisions) who will get up and declare publicly that there is a halakha that forbids a husband to beat his wife
WTF? Who makes up this tripe? There's definitely no shortage of rabbis here willing to speak up against domestic violence. There's no shortage of Haredi organizations on the subject, either.

And why would there be? Unlike Islam (in which one can, if so inclined, support the pro-beating position with direct quotes from the Qur'an like the infamous 4:34) Judaism has no scriptural basis whatsoever for defense of wife beating and plenty of textual support for the opposite.

A man must be careful never to speak slightingly to his wife because women are prone to tears and sensitive to wrong (Talmud, Bava Metzia 59a).

"The cry of the daughters of our people has been heard concerning the sons of Israel who raise their hands to strike their wives. Yet who has given a husband the authority to beat his wife?" (Rabbi Peretz ben Elijah)

"For it is the way of the Gentiles to behave thus, but Heaven forbid that any Jew should do so. And one who beats his wife is to be excommunicated and banned and beaten." (Rabbi Rothberg)

There are halakhot that the marriage of a woman who suffers abuse can be declared null and void on her first demand, and her husband must be fined in her favor on top of whatever money he already owes her due to the marriage contract. Hell, forget beating, the husband can't even punish his wife by withholding sex! (Anyone seen Yent?). It is known, it is discussed all over the media,

Yet when it comes to Islam, you seem to suffer from 'The Elders of the Protocols of Mecca' syndrome.
You're beginning to sound like a broken record. Soummoud.

And didn't your name have a different spelling in your previous incarnation here?

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 01:12 PM

WTF? Who makes up this tripe?
The Awareness Center, Inc. - is the Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault

And why would there be? Unlike Islam (in which one can, if so inclined, support the pro-beating position with direct quotes from the Qur'an like the infamous 4:34) Judaism has no scriptural basis whatsoever for defense of wife beating and plenty of textual support for the opposite.

A man must be careful never to speak slightingly to his wife because women are prone to tears and sensitive to wrong (Talmud, Bava Metzia 59a).

"The cry of the daughters of our people has been heard concerning the sons of Israel who raise their hands to strike their wives. Yet who has given a husband the authority to beat his wife?" (Rabbi Peretz ben Elijah)

"For it is the way of the Gentiles to behave thus, but Heaven forbid that any Jew should do so. And one who beats his wife is to be excommunicated and banned and beaten." (Rabbi Rothberg)
Yes, I agree.

But now you have an idea of what andak has to put up with.

Womble

09-11-2006, 01:20 PM

The Awareness Center, Inc. - is the Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault
Next time give a link, don't make people waste time on searches. It's polite.

They are a good organization, yes, but as is the case with many such groups, their research on the broader claims they make sucks at times.

Yes, I agree.

But now you have an idea of what andak has to put up with.
I HAVE an idea of what he has to put up with. It doesn't validate your attempt to equate the domestic abuse in Israel with the honor killings in Muslim societies one yota. Nor does it prove that honor killings are not religiously motivated.

Soummoud

09-11-2006, 01:32 PM

.They are a good organization, yes, but as is the case with many such groups, their research on the broader claims they make sucks at times.
You mean at times like this, when their otherwise good work becomes slightly inconvenient.

I HAVE an idea of what he has to put up with. It doesn't validate your attempt to equate the domestic abuse in Israel with the honor killings in Muslim societies one yota. Nor does it prove that honor killings are not religiously motivated.
I hadn't the slightest intention of equating anything. Quite the opposite.

Only wanted to show how easy it is for you to understand that an individual claiming to act with religious instruction on their side, may not at all represent the religious tradition that they appeal to in an attempt to justify their acts.

andak01

09-12-2006, 04:19 AM

So, if that's the case then Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries like Pakistan will have examples of honour killing in their culture because it's a social practice in those countries?

The population of Pakistan is over 90% Muslim. Statistically, more criminals in Pakistan are Muslim and more criminals in the US are Christian. There are somewhere between 18 to 20 thousand homicides each year in the US. In 2001, there were 85 murders in Pakistan. Even assuming hundreds of unreported honor killings, the general homicide rate in Pakistan doesn't begin to approach our own.

Once again, I ask, what is the plan? Musharraf is our ally in the war on terrorism and is already under pressure from a number of sides. Should we encourage regiem change? Democracy? Civil war? Preemptive invasion?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/pds2001/list_diseases.html

Aviva

09-12-2006, 04:35 AM

nbarzelay

09-12-2006, 11:23 AM

Honor killings. Yes, there are such a thing. Culturally, some parts of the Middle East tend to have these kind of murders. And Indians have caste killings, and Americans kill for sneakers. These are concepts that don't travel often. However, the point is that it's family violence ending in a death. And the point is whether it receives proper justice or not. As I said, the victim isn't more dead because they were killed by a Muslim relative.

In the American case, we are blessed with a well trained police force, CSI, etc. and the culprit often gets caught and sentenced. In Jordan, in Pakistan, in Somalia and in rural India, there is little chance for government justice to intervene, and we are left with tribal justice which is the very distillation of local culture.

Even in those places however, the murderer is often apprehended and sentenced to prison. And recall that in our own system, murder is, in reality, about an eight year actual sentence on average. So if these people do eight years in a Jordanian prison (much harsher than our own), they are receiving at least the same justice as they would in this country.

If they don't receive any sentence, that is cause for us to do something, but the question is what? Would you be accepting of an Arab saying your own legal system is deficient for such and such reason? No, of course not, in fact; the very first thing you would do is say: "Look at yourself!"

The best way to combat honor killing is to create an environment where all family violence is reduced, and that starts with how we raise our kids. And I can tell you, it is perfectly possible to employ Islamic values to teach family members to treat each other with respect.

Still awaiting a response to my previous post. Pre-Islamic tradition is interlaced with Islamic tradition, and this includes honor killings. See previous post for this.

Also honor killings and the killing of unwanted babies is generally considered to be manslaugter in the 1st or premeditated murder and carries a sentence of 15 year to life, rather than crimes of passion which carries lighter sentences.

It's the tradition of honor killings which has to be separated from Islam.

Where do you get this idea that the government isn't involved in cases of honor killings? This simply isn't so, unless these cases occur in very sparsely and isolated areas. Often light sentences are given to those who stand accused.

Inf

nbarzelay

09-12-2006, 12:03 PM

The population of Pakistan is over 90% Muslim. Statistically, more criminals in Pakistan are Muslim and more criminals in the US are Christian. There are somewhere between 18 to 20 thousand homicides each year in the US. In 2001, there were 85 murders in Pakistan. Even assuming hundreds of unreported honor killings, the general homicide rate in Pakistan doesn't begin to approach our own.

Once again, I ask, what is the plan? Musharraf is our ally in the war on terrorism and is already under pressure from a number of sides. Should we encourage regiem change? Democracy? Civil war? Preemptive invasion?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/pds2001/list_diseases.html

Interesting how this total reported murder cases of the ENTIRE Pakistan is only below 100. There hasn't been a major jump since 2003 even with Pakistan's support of bin Laden and his henchmen (a general even remarked that if bin Laden were in Pakistan, he would not be arrested or even detained). Even one of the safest spots in the world, Austria, doesn't even have such a low murder rate.

Check out the numbers yourself for 2002-2003 for Pakistan broken up into categories (http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/newsviewsdetails.php?newsid=225).

Under Musharraf, nothing has changed except the increase of paying lip-service to fighting this 'global war on terror', the Pakistani secret services actually being involved in numerous terrorist attacks, both financially and providing arms/transport/training, in India and Kashmir.

Also, a whopping 68% of ALL rapists in Denmark (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html) are committed by peretrators from an ethnic minority, the majority of which are Muslims. This is also a problem since a mufti in Denmark stated that women not wearing headscarves are just asking to get raped. This isn't much different elsewhere in the world with sizeable Muslim populations.

Not trying to vilify all of Islam, but as the religion hasn't changed it's stance against non-Muslims/kaffirs, then there is a problem in the core of Islam itself.

Mediocrates

09-12-2006, 12:16 PM

Before Israel was founded, thousands of Jews lives in Arab lands. Why haven't they picked up honour killing as a cultural habit?

We've never accepted such a thing anywhere at any time. That's why. Even in the US wealthy Jews were rarely slaveowners. It's simply not done.

Khalid

09-12-2006, 01:25 PM

Honor killings are no where to be found in the Quran or even the Hadith.

Now do the "Islamic nations" have a big problem to work at? Yes.

Khalid

09-12-2006, 01:30 PM

chaver4u2

09-13-2006, 02:59 AM

In 2001, there were 85 murders in Pakistan. [/url]

What an absolute nonsense.
In Islamabad News (April 2005) a report on the horrendous increasing murder rate appeared. Reference was given to official Pakistani government data.
Total homicides reported: 66,195 in 2003. That brings Pakistan with 40.36 murders per 100,000 inhabitants to the 3rd spot as the most murderous country, after South Africa (75.31) and Columbia (59.00), before Russia (21.40).

If we would use the pathetic 85 homicides quoted by you, Pakistan would be the safest country on earth with a mere 0.05 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 5 times safer than Luxembourg (0.23 murders per 100,000 inhabitants), a real safe country with real statistics.

By the way: Israel isn't doing that "bad" in the world statistics with 2.31 per 100.000 inhabitants (2003); mind you, half of the murders were committed in suicide assassinations by our peaceloving neighbors.

andak01

09-13-2006, 04:08 AM

Also, a whopping 68% of ALL rapists in Denmark (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html) are committed by peretrators from an ethnic minority, the majority of which are Muslims. This is also a problem since a mufti in Denmark stated that women not wearing headscarves are just asking to get raped. This isn't much different elsewhere in the world with sizeable Muslim populations.

Denmark ranks #37 in the world with 497 rapes. That's a little over 1/2 of 1 percent of the 89,110 found in the US.

If 100% were committed by Muslims, that would mean that 1/3 of one percent of Denmark's 160,000 Muslims were rapists. As it is, it's some % less than %68 percent of 497 or 338. Given our own high rape statistics, an American reader might be led to assume that this wave of rapes numbered in the tens of thousands. Our own death row is crowded with minority rapists after all, not Muslims, but blacks and Hispanics.

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/Denmark_islam.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm

Not trying to vilify all of Islam, but...

Kind of distills all of what you've been spouting.

Mediocrates

09-13-2006, 04:50 AM

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita#rest

You will see that the problem is that many countries under report or don't report at all.

andak01

09-13-2006, 04:56 AM

That's true, but underreporting is more likely in countries without good law enforcement and infrastructure. Denmark has excellent infrastructure and one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Mediocrates

09-13-2006, 05:14 AM

Maybe yes maybe no. The US may or may no underreport for instance. With the highest raw numbers of reported rapes its hard to know how good that number really is. In fact culturally it's hard to even tell what people think rape 'is'. For example in NC last year a 14 year old boy was convicted of a 4th degree sexual felony for bra snapping a girl in high school. Moreover we have the whole - forcible vs. statutory distinction that varies from country to country. It's a bit of chicken & egg I'd say that if you don't think such and such IS murder you're not likely to report it as such.

Marjeyoun

09-13-2006, 09:06 AM

Denmark ranks #37 in the world with 497 rapes. That's a little over 1/2 of 1 percent of the 89,110 found in the US.
Lying with statistics.
Very bad comparison. Denmark only has 5 million people, about 1.5% of the US population. About that of Chicago.
Your above is not only irrelevant it is deceptive.

If 100% were committed by Muslims, that would mean that 1/3 of one percent of Denmark's 160,000 Muslims were rapists. As it is, it's some % less than %68 percent of 497 or 338. Given our own high rape statistics, an American reader might be led to assume that this wave of rapes numbered in the tens of thousands. Our own death row is crowded with minority rapists after all, not Muslims, but blacks and Hispanics. Half of Americas prison population is Black-- Many of them-- Muslims.
Not all rapists but busy with other wonderful crimes.

As they are in Denmark where Rape is not nearly the only problem.

Something Rotten in Denmark?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/450

Kind of distills all of what you've been spouting.and what you've been spouting.

Mediocrates

09-13-2006, 09:23 AM

Marjeyoun

09-13-2006, 09:27 AM

Is there a point in there?
We ARE talking about Muslims in this string, not general US crime stats akhmed.

Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way

(Note: Updates to this post here: The Norwegian Government - Covering Up Immigrant Rapes and here: Rapes: Nothing to do with Islam?)

Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police.

In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years:

According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower.
And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos.

The true and ugly balance at
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

andak01

09-14-2006, 04:05 AM

Most people in prison in the US are not muslim. Most people in prison in the US are there because of mandatory sentencing for non violent drug felonies. Nationally the number is more than half. State to state it can be as high as two-thirds. Moreover there is no such thing as parole, really in the US. Most states have adopted a no parole philosophy where most convicts are held for at least 6/7ths of their sentence. So we have more people in prison for longer.

I think Medio, if you explore frontpagemag and LGF, where these folks get their information, you'll find articles that imply that Muslims are the largest group in prisons next to the ones that say we worship the moon. And they do it all with very real looking statistics that don't tell the real story. The point of these articles isn't to prevent rape in Malmo or Copenhagen, it is to instill fear of Muslims.

There is no more proof that Muslim mothers teach their sons to go be rapists than there is that black and Hispanic mothers teach their sons to be killers. I would love to know if any of these people that write these articles donate to women's shelters in those countries or if they simply want to cycle fear.

Anyway, here's my research (short this time) into Muslim women's groups. Some months ago, I was able to discover that almost every country in the world contains such groups. Sometimes they come into conflict with the local government. It should be encouraged that they build shelters, employ councilers and promote proper behavior and constructive sharing within the communities they represent. Marginalizing Muslims in the west out of misplaced fears is not only not going to solve these problems, it plays directly into the hands of extremist recruiters.

http://www.mwlusa.org/news/news_helsinki.html
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=339
http://www.mwlusa.org/activities/beijing_wrkshp.html

nbarzelay

09-14-2006, 04:16 AM

Lying with statistics.
Very bad comparison. Denmark only has 5 million people, about 1.5% of the US population. About that of Chicago.
Your above is not only irrelevant it is deceptive.

Half of Americas prison population is Black-- Many of them-- Muslims.
Not all rapists but busy with other wonderful crimes.

As they are in Denmark where Rape is not nearly the only problem.

This game of statistics that he's trying to play here is blowing up in his own face.

The one thing you are right with is that many of the African Americans and other African/Caribbean nations are Muslims, but many of these Muslims have converted to Islam whilst in prison. So it gets somewhat confusing. Imams and muftis realize that US prisons are a major training grounds for Islamic religious extremism and are really milking the cow in this arena.

andak01

09-14-2006, 04:48 AM

And your solution to increased rape in Denmark and Sweden would be??? Do you really care?

nbarzelay

09-14-2006, 04:56 AM

And your solution to increased rape in Denmark and Sweden would be??? Do you really care?

Not really talking about solutions here are we.

However, since you mention this, and yes, I do care, the solution would be to kick out these immigrant rapists and murderers. Maybe there should be the Islamic practice of cross-amputation imposed rather than sticking these people into a prison which is heaven compared to the lives they ran away from.

Pretty stupid question.

Mediocrates

09-14-2006, 06:07 AM

Even Frank Gaffney says it's no more than 20% state to state of which 87% are black. At the Federal level its estimate to be 5.8 - 7.6% though these numbers are at least 4 years old.

http://www.google.com/search?q=prison+population+by+state+muslim&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-28,GGGL:en&start=20&sa=N

Khalid

09-15-2006, 08:16 AM

Half of Americas prison population is Black-- Many of them-- Muslims.
Not all rapists but busy with other wonderful crimes.

where they Muslim before entering the jails or committing their crime?

I think Not.

Did they convert to Islam in the prison?

Yes.

P.S. before they became Muslim they were thought that all evil and sin is the same, everyone is evil. de facto, man who kills the innocent and them lollypop thief's are all the same.

nbarzelay

09-15-2006, 08:49 AM

where they Muslim before entering the jails or committing their crime?

I think Not.

Did they convert to Islam in the prison?

Yes.

P.S. before they became Muslim they were thought that all evil and sin is the same, everyone is evil. de facto, man who kills the innocent and them lollypop thief's are all the same.

Not saying that are ALL evil and ALL the same. Prisons are a major training ground for Islamic extremism as there are a lot of Wahhabist imams involved in the US prison systems spreading their extremist and jihadist ideologies. I'll get a few articles pertaining to this very subject.....there are a bunch, just have to sift through some older articles, so I'll respond again in the coming hours.

There are Muslims in US prisons, such as the notorious father-son duo who got put away for sniping/terrorizing American citizens not too long ago (their names elude me). Don't make too many unfounded assumptions and statements.

Khalid

09-15-2006, 08:56 AM

Not saying that are ALL evil and ALL the same. Prisons are a major training ground for Islamic extremism as there are a lot of Wahhabist imams involved in the US prison systems spreading their extremist and jihadist ideologies. I'll get a few articles pertaining to this very subject.....there are a bunch, just have to sift through some older articles, so I'll respond again in the coming hours.that I agree, but that has nothing to do with the initial crime commited, which happened when the person wasn't a muslim at all, but from some other faith.

There are Muslims in US prisons, such as the notorious father-son duo who got put away for sniping/terrorizing American citizens not too long ago (their names elude me). Don't make too many unfounded assumptions and statements.
of course there are muslims who commit crime in the states, but their numbers are nothing compared to the non muslims who commit crimes.

nbarzelay

09-15-2006, 11:08 AM

that I agree, but that has nothing to do with the initial crime commited, which happened when the person wasn't a muslim at all, but from some other faith.

of course there are muslims who commit crime in the states, but their numbers are nothing compared to the non muslims who commit crimes.

The form of Islam that a substancial number of Muslims follow, more the case in Europe than in the US, gives them the indication that non-Muslims are seen as subhuman to them. As is the case in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, for example, where they feel that there actions towards non-Muslims, such as raping those who don't wear scarves (as an well respected imam mentioned in one of his sermons in Denmark is not considered a crime in Islam), cannot be judged over their religious ideologies. Hence these Islamic fanatics/extremists are more inclined to commit criminal acts (acts considered criminal in the countries they reside in) towards non-Muslims and even Muslims that they feel are not abiding by Islamic law (Muslims who drink, don't routinely go to mosque, pray, etc.).

It is not a coincidence that there are large numbers of Muslims in European/US prisons. The overall comparative numbers should not be considered by the relative percentages of those who commit the crimes, as the link posted earlier by a Danish newspaper site adequately shows. Large increases in annual crime and the strong correlation to Islam exists whether you want to admit it or not.

Khalid

09-15-2006, 11:22 AM

nbarzelay

09-15-2006, 01:05 PM

you're shifting the argument here, I wasn't talking about Denmark, nor sweden, we'll get to that enshallah, what i was talking about is the fact that most muslim prisoners convert to Islam in their jails, not before they commit the crime, but after they commit the crime, almost all the crime commited in the states is done by non-muslims.

Obviously most of the crimes in the US are not committed by Muslims if they only account for 1% of the total US population. This is a given.

Denmark and Sweden are useful test cases and used for examples since due to the smaller total populations and the substancially larger influx of Muslim immigrants, one can see a quicker reaction and effects of Islamic extremism. The US will see these effects at a slower pace.

There isn't a shifting of any arguments here due to the fact that this thread is about Islam worldwide, not only restricted to the US. In fact, you're trying to elude the readers of this thread away from the actual threat of Islamic extremism/fanaticism towards a country where the threat hasn't seen any substancial effects to the 'original' societies as they are slowly taken over by this actual threat.

Sweden, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands, with their relaxed immigration policies, which are quickly getting tighter and more regulated, do see these threats and have had, and still are, experiencing a more than normal increase in minor and violent crimes committed by Muslims. This increase also is a multiple of the number of Muslim immgrant population growth, before you try to excuse this on this reason. These test case countries have been a part of a slew of studies in how Islamic extremism/fanaticism is a threat to Western societies. One cannot ignore the obvious.

It should tell you something though that Islamic extremists/fanatics seek those who are in prisons to convert to Islam for potential terrorist operatives, supporters, and/or sympathizers. These are primarily Wahbbist converts as well. Can't say that Sunnis are more violent than tes, but then again there a quite a bit more Sunni Muslims than Shiites.

All in all, there is a direct and strong correlation between the increasing extremist/fanatic Muslims and the increase in crimes, both minor and major. This was the basic initial premise that was stated here, not the argument you're trying to 'shift' to here.

nbarzelay

09-15-2006, 01:18 PM

Also, you would be interested to know that in Saudi Arabia, in Mecca and Jidda, there has been a decree passed banning the sale of dogs and cats since this is a "This is blind emulation of the infidels." and "a sign of Western influence".

This is all enforced by "religious police, known as the Muttawa".

Saudi religious police outlaw cat, dog sales (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060909-122954-8643r.htm)

Funny little snippet of information, eventhough in the article it says that your prophet mohammed liked cats.

Khalid

09-15-2006, 09:16 PM

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 01:13 AM

you're the one changing the arguments here, I didn't respond to the france, denmark, or finland or what ever country because i choose not to, there's just not enough time at hand to respond to so many posts here, hence i choose to respond to your argument which was false and I corrected you on that, here's what you said:

which wasn't true at all, you ignored the fact that most muslim's in the American prison convert to islam in prison, and that's before they commit any crime.

Ah, ok, so you choose to ignore these countries since it definitely does NOT help your argument, whatever your argument really is.

In fact, the immigrants, mostly illegals but also legals, from North and sub-Saharan African countries are predominately Muslim. These people make it to Europe and the US via a well-organized mafia organizations. With this influx, thousands a week in the case of Spain which just lets them into the country once they make it to the Canary Islands, crime and terrorist activities increase dramatically each year both in Europe and the US. The increase in Islamic radicalism/extremism and the moderate apologists who excuse the extremists/radicalists has everything to do with Islam.

Interesting article, although a bit long:
Out of Africa - Illegal Immigrants, Crime, Terrorism, Polygamy And Aids (http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=vermaat82906.htm)

You can keep talking in circles here or you can choose to actually respond to what I've written.

Khalid

09-16-2006, 02:52 AM

Ah, ok, so you choose to ignore these countries since it definitely does NOT help your argument, whatever your argument really is. No, I just don't have time for useless arguments, so when i see one, i pick, and so I argue, you made false claims, hence i corrected you.

andak01

09-16-2006, 04:42 AM

Also, you would be interested to know that in Saudi Arabia, in Mecca and Jidda, there has been a decree passed banning the sale of dogs and cats since this is a "This is blind emulation of the infidels." and "a sign of Western influence".

Forgive me, but just who is trying to sell dogs and cats in Mecca? Muslims I know who own dogs and cats have a difficult time because if the owners touch a dog, they have to bathe prior to praying. It's highly inconvenient, but they usually keep the pet outside and play with it at certain times. However, imagine the turmoil in Mecca and Jidda (the airport city where pilgrims arrive) where you have an influx of two million plus pilgrims, and all of a sudden, pilgrims wishing to pray outside are using extra water washing off dog and cat poop and seeking empty showers where there are none. So this is a practical law based on its location. You wouldn't open up a family playground next to a nude gay beach for the same reason. The effective zoning of the area makes pet sales impractical. It's the wording of the decree that needs some work, not the fact that it exists.

Note that if the sentiment of the decree were true, then it would extend to the entire Arabian penninsula.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 05:45 AM

Forgive me, but just who is trying to sell dogs and cats in Mecca? Muslims I know who own dogs and cats have a difficult time because if the owners touch a dog, they have to bathe prior to praying. It's highly inconvenient, but they usually keep the pet outside and play with it at certain times. However, imagine the turmoil in Mecca and Jidda (the airport city where pilgrims arrive) where you have an influx of two million plus pilgrims, and all of a sudden, pilgrims wishing to pray outside are using extra water washing off dog and cat poop and seeking empty showers where there are none. So this is a practical law based on its location. You wouldn't open up a family playground next to a nude gay beach for the same reason. The effective zoning of the area makes pet sales impractical. It's the wording of the decree that needs some work, not the fact that it exists.

Note that if the sentiment of the decree were true, then it would extend to the entire Arabian penninsula.

Jeez what an argument. So you're telling me that pilgrims arriving in Jidda roll around in dog and cat poop? Firstly, cats poop in isolated areas, not in the middle of the street, and usually cover it up as they do in their litter boxes. Secondly, watch where you step. Lastly, there are many airports around the world that have adjoining cities or are in the middle of cities, London (Luton, Hithrow) and NY (JFK, LGA) and you don't see the inhabitants there covered in cat and dog poop.

Regardless, prior to each prayer, 5 times a day, one has to clean oneself anyways and remove any footwear. I do find it quite hilarious picturing a whole swath of pilgrims hosing themselves off with a garden hose in someone's backyard. Don't you?

The idea here is to have animal control, just like in any other place in the world. I'm sure Saudis have such controls and also shoot these animals on sight.

These laws are in place, if you even bothered to read this article (lazy lazy), for the Saudi monarchy/society to disassociate themselves from what they view as a practice of the 'infidels'.

Never thought you could actually think of getting away with such weak weak arguments.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 05:53 AM

No, I just don't have time for useless arguments, so when i see one, i pick, and so I argue, you made false claims, hence i corrected you.

Too bad you used the claims made by someone else to fabricate an argument against me.

This is a topic of the rising numbers of Muslims in prisons worldwide, which is also the case in US prisons (along with the conversions of those already in prisons, which you don't have a prolem with either) but to a lesser degree as seen in European nations. Salafism, the more anti-integration, dhimmitude enforcing, viewing all non-Muslims as sub-human (especially enemy #1 Shiites, Hindus and Buddists), etc. form of Islam is what these extremists/fanatics are converting to. This is definitely one of the biggest problems facing every European nation and US state.

If you want to refute any of these claims I've made backed up by copious amounts of sources, then please make the effort instead of outright saying that I'm making 'false claims', which is a habit amongst Islamic apologists/moderates.

Once again, these aren't 'useless arguments', they just happen to blow your far-fetched assumptions out of the water.

andak01

09-16-2006, 06:22 AM

Jeez what an argument. So you're telling me that pilgrims arriving in Jidda roll around in dog and cat poop? Firstly, cats poop in isolated areas, not in the middle of the street, and usually cover it up as they do in their litter boxes. Secondly, watch where you step. Lastly, there are many airports around the world that have adjoining cities or are in the middle of cities, London (Luton, Hithrow) and NY (JFK, LGA) and you don't see the inhabitants there covered in cat and dog poop.

Those airports don't have millions of pilgrims arriving every year for one. And for two, just touching a dog requires a muslim to bathe prior to prayer. It's more for the dogs than for the cats, but I can see that this would cause a lot of practical difficulties. Every area where a dog walks would have to be cleaned before someone could pray there. In most Saudi cities, that's just an inconvenience, but in Jidda and Mecca???

Regardless, prior to each prayer, 5 times a day, one has to clean oneself anyways and remove any footwear. I do find it quite hilarious picturing a whole swath of pilgrims hosing themselves off with a garden hose in someone's backyard. Don't you?

Multiply that by 2.5 million or so and it isn't funny, it's chaos.

The idea here is to have animal control, just like in any other place in the world. I'm sure Saudis have such controls and also shoot these animals on sight.

That's excellent, men armed with rifles following dogs through a crowd where there is already danger of trampling. Sounds like a plan. NOT!

These laws are in place, if you even bothered to read this article (lazy lazy), for the Saudi monarchy/society to disassociate themselves from what they view as a practice of the 'infidels'.

The Saudis have a gift for taking a practical argument and turning it into something political and offensive. That's why I have no love for the Saudis.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 06:32 AM

Those airports don't have millions of pilgrims arriving every year for one. And for two, just touching a dog requires a muslim to bathe prior to prayer. It's more for the dogs than for the cats, but I can see that this would cause a lot of practical difficulties. Every area where a dog walks would have to be cleaned before someone could pray there. In most Saudi cities, that's just an inconvenience, but in Jidda and Mecca???

Multiply that by 2.5 million or so and it isn't funny, it's chaos.

That's excellent, men armed with rifles following dogs through a crowd where there is already danger of trampling. Sounds like a plan. NOT!

The Saudis have a gift for taking a practical argument and turning it into something political and offensive. That's why I have no love for the Saudis.

Holy , how much more idiotic can you get?

Jidda is not on the list of busiest airports, check out this listing just so you understand:

World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_international_passen ger_traffic)

World's busiest airports by passenger traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic)

Also, the brunt of these pilgrims do not come in on planes and neither can many afford to.

If you don't want to bathe or wash after touching animals or even women for that matter (your wife and daughters included, you can confirm this in the Quran yourself), then don't touch them. Also, the washing is obligatory prior to any prayer, so regardless you have to have these facilities available. This is just the same for cities preparing for the Olympics and other large festivals.

Dogs and cats are shot throughout the year in Saudi Arabia, just as in Iran as my Persian friends can confirm. I didn't imply anywhere that this happens during Hajj, Ramadan, etc. I know you wouldn't have love for the Saudis, many Kuwaitis don't. There is something we can agree on.

You're making this way too easy.

andak01

09-16-2006, 06:37 AM

No, it ONLY handles ALL of the passengers arriving by air to Mecca. There aren't any other flights to that terminal! Anyway, even 3 million travellers per year isn't significant compared to other airports I'm sure (and as bourn out by your own link).

The Hajj Terminal, the one used by Muslim pilgrims, is estimated to be, at five million square feet (465,000 m²), the world's second largest air terminal, after Hong Kong International Airport's terminal. It sits over 100 acres (405,000 m²) of ground area, and it is known for its tent-shaped roof. Terminal 3's roof is not actually a tent, but a white colored fiberglass. This terminal has a mosque, and it can accommodate 80,000 travelers at the same time.

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

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 06:49 AM

No, it ONLY handles ALL of the passengers arriving by air to Mecca. There aren't any other flights there!

The Hajj Terminal, the one used by Muslim pilgrims, is estimated to be, at five million square feet (465,000 m²), the world's second largest air terminal, after Hong Kong International Airport's terminal. It sits over 100 acres (405,000 m²) of ground area, and it is known for its tent-shaped roof. Terminal 3's roof is not actually a tent, but a white colored fiberglass. This terminal has a mosque, and it can accommodate 80,000 travelers at the same time.

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

Great that you're actually using sources now. However, this airport is still not listed as one of the busiest airports in the world, regardless if it's only being used for Hajj.

So the busiest airports don't have passengers complaining of being covered in poop. Even if these passengers aren't muslims, nobody wants to be covered in poop.

So where's you're point here? Oh yeah, you don't have one.

Try again.

andak01

09-16-2006, 06:58 AM

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 07:02 AM

What did I say about being covered in poop? All of the travellers to Jidda are there for one purpose. They want to get off the plane and pray, walk in the street and pray, pray next to the taxi, everywhere. They don't want filthy animals tracking urine over their prayer rugs.

Let me state again, as you didn't seem to understand this point I've stated half a dozen times already, other more busy airports don't have this problem with passengers being covered in poop.

Also, animal control, animal control, animal control. Easier than banning animals altogether. Your prophet also liked cats, so the Saudis are a little screwed in this new law.

When are you going to throw in the towel and stop being so infantile.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 07:03 AM

Holy , how much more idiotic can you get?

Jidda is not on the list of busiest airports, check out this listing just so you understand:

World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_international_passen ger_traffic)

World's busiest airports by passenger traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic)

Also, the brunt of these pilgrims do not come in on planes and neither can many afford to.

If you don't want to bathe or wash after touching animals or even women for that matter (your wife and daughters included, you can confirm this in the Quran yourself), then don't touch them. Also, the washing is obligatory prior to any prayer, so regardless you have to have these facilities available. This is just the same for cities preparing for the Olympics and other large festivals.

Dogs and cats are shot throughout the year in Saudi Arabia, just as in Iran as my Persian friends can confirm. I didn't imply anywhere that this happens during Hajj, Ramadan, etc. I know you wouldn't have love for the Saudis, many Kuwaitis don't. There is something we can agree on.

You're making this way too easy.

My daughter now, I swear is next to me, and she is reading your post, will she said, I will go to pray, and I kissed dad, she has a dog and a cat and a horse, she said the dog I have to wash myself after I touch, but the rest, no I can continue my daily prayers as I wish.

And she said, is Mosses a killer, because he killed the Egyptian guy.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 07:07 AM

My daughter now, I swear is next to me, and she is reading your post, will she said, I will go to pray, and I kissed dad, she has a dog and a cat and a horse, she said the dog I have to wash myself after I touch, but the rest, no I can continue my daily prayers as I wish.

And she said, is Mosses a killer, because he killed the Egyptian guy.

Then once again, you're not abiding by all the laws in the Quran. Once you touch any female, even your own wife or daughter, you have to wash yourself, even with DIRT if there is no water available. I have some respect for you that you don't consider your daughter as negatively as the Quran does and that you're a reformist to some degree.

Also, killing the Pharoah of Egypt was G-d's doing. Do you disagree with G-d as well?

andak01

09-16-2006, 07:07 AM

Your daughter is Muslim? Does she share our beliefs? Because otherwise, she'd want to be clean prior to prayer. Otherwise, she does as she pleases.

As for the Quran and how I raise my daughter, they are in accordance.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 07:09 AM

Your daughter is Muslim? Does she share our beliefs? Because otherwise, she'd want to be clean prior to prayer. Otherwise, she does as she pleases.

You are pretty slow in the head. Pretty good entertainment, but growing tiresome.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 07:18 AM

Then once again, you're not abiding by all the laws in the Quran. Once you touch any female, even your own wife or daughter, you have to wash yourself, even with DIRT if there is no water available. I have some respect for you that you don't consider your daughter as negatively as the Quran does and that you're a reformist to some degree.

Also, killing the Pharoah of Egypt was G-d's doing. Do you disagree with G-d as well?

My Grand father is an Imam, in fact a very good one, he said hijab is a choice,

Trust me she said, Pharaoh was not near Mosses before he kill the Egyptian Guy, why can not you answer this, did Jesus kill himself, is Mosses is a Killer?

Now, I say I am from a very religious family, and a very highly educated also, I believe religion is a choice, and I learned that I can not force my daughter to wear hijab if I want her to be Muslim because this will be her choice. We have in Quran this.

i do not have to wash myself if my doughter touch me, nor my wife, nor my sister, correct your information.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 07:39 AM

My Grand father is an Imam, in fact a very good one, he said hijab is a choice,

Trust me she said, Pharaoh was not near Mosses before he kill the Egyptian Guy, why can not you answer this, did Jesus kill himself, is Mosses is a Killer?

Now, I say I am from a very religious family, and a very highly educated also, I believe religion is a choice, and I learned that I can not force my daughter to wear hijab if I want her to be Muslim because this will be her choice. We have in Quran this.

i do not have to wash myself if my doughter touch me, nor my wife, nor my sister, correct your information.

What kind of logic are you following here?

It wasn't Moses that struck down the Pharoah. The gist of the story goes that the Pharoah and his army followed Moses and the Israelites. G-d split the sea to which Moses and the Israelites passed through, the Egyptians tried to follow and the sea swallowed them up. Please tell me at which point G-d isn't involved in aiding Moses to split the sea, Moses obviously didn't have the power to do this.

Please try to explain this story to your daughter since she doesn't have it right and neither do you.

Jesus the Christ was killed by the Romans and was a Jew from birth until death. Jesus didn't break any of the Jewish laws of the time (quite the opposite since he belonged to a sect called the Qumranians which was strict in following Talmudic law), so he was not considered to be any sort of traitor. Again, quite the opposite since he opposed the Romans. The Romans saw Jesus as a potential trouble-starter in stirring up revolution amongst the masses, which was on level with what Jews in general wanted. You have this wrong as well. Also Islam thinks that Jesus the Christ didn't die in the cross which is at the center of Christian belief.

Not correcting anything here which I didn't say. The Quran strictly commands those to wash after touching animals, oneself or women, even with dirt if water is not available. This is also goes for wearing a hijab:

"Why Should I Wear Hijab?" (http://www.muhajabah.com/whyhijab.htm)

Quranic verses:

“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)

Once again, you are a reformist to a certain degree since you don't enforce and follow ALL of the strict Islamic codes/laws, otherwise you would follow the aforementioned rules and regulations in Islam.

Lastly, correct yourself on the assumptions you make. Obviously you're not reading the replies I make. Make an effort.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 08:18 AM

You said “It wasn't Moses that struck down the Pharoah. The gist of the story goes that the Pharoah and his army followed Moses and the Israelites. G-d split the sea to which Moses and the Israelites passed through, the Egyptians tried to follow and the sea swallowed them up. Please tell me at which point G-d isn't involved in aiding Moses to split the sea, Moses obviously didn't have the power to do this.”

Mosses, before God help him and lead him to Sinai, he killed an egyptyion, or didn’t he? This is her question. Very simple, she is assumunig that she do not believe in Mosses, my doughter here is talking about logic, if you want to pick on my relgion I can to pick on yours. Also those Israelites do not worth God help or you agree that they worth, and the Cow story, lost in the desret …… etc.

You said “Please try to explain this story to your daughter since she doesn't have it right and neither do you.”

My daughter know her and your relgion better than you do.

You said “Jesus the Christ was killed by the Romans and was a Jew from birth until death. Jesus didn't break any of the Jewish laws of the time (quite the opposite since he Qumranian which was strict in following Talmudic law), so he was not considered to be any sort of traitor. Again, quite the opposite since he opposed the Romans. The Romans saw Jesus as a potential trouble-starter in stirring up revolution amongst the masses, which was on level with what Jews in general wanted. You have this wrong as well. Also Islam thinks that Jesus the Christ didn't die in the cross which is at the center of Christian belief.”

Again picking on Christians, from my belif I think he killed himself.

I hate picking and I have a huge amount of information to pick from, but logic say it’s not of my business to pick on nobody.

You said “The Quran strictly commands those to wash after touching animals”

Show where in Quran, Animals, if you mean dogs and pigs, yes I agree, the rest show me where in Quran.

You qouate this from Quran ““O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.”

Is it ok if I walk naked in your street, dose the law in your country allow me to walk totally naked.

You also qouate “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”

He is addressing to the believeing women, why are you bothered about that, look at it again, is he talking to the Jewish ladies?

Again “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful”

I will say “Allah is ever forgiving, merciful” I want to pick this one and leave the rest. Do not blame me I am just doing like you.

Aviva

09-16-2006, 08:24 AM

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 08:28 AM

Moses killed an Egyptian who was beating a slave to death.

Killing, is a cime, right, in todays laws, Mosses is a criminal. i am not against Mosses Aviva, the idea is i can pick

Aviva

09-16-2006, 08:32 AM

Killing, is a cime, right, in todays laws, Mosses is a criminal. i am not against Mosses Aviva, the idea is i can pick

In Jewish law, a Jew is obligated to save a person from a persuing murderer (a rodef) who is trying to kill someone. A Jew can't just be a bystander to a criminal act like this.

Therefore, according to the law of his own people, Moses was doing the right thing in protecting the slave from being brutally murdered, even if it ultimately meant the loss of life of the potential murderer in the process.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 08:40 AM

In Jewish law, a Jew is obligated to save a person from a persuing murderer (a rodef) who is trying to kill someone. A Jew can't just be a bystander to a criminal act like this.

Therefore, according to the law of his own people, Moses was doing the right thing in protecting the slave from being brutally murdered, even if it ultimately meant the loss of life of the potential murderer in the process.

Aviva, come on, Osama also is doing his own law.

As a Muslim, I believe Mosses the only one in the world who talked to God, I believe him, again I am trying and pick, on the jewish people and show you that I can if you want and pick on mine

Aviva

09-16-2006, 08:47 AM

Aviva, come on, Osama also is doing his own law.

What are you talking about Osama for? The law I quoted was according to Maimonides, who was a medieval Jewish commentator and philosopher. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

As a Muslim, I believe Mosses the only one in the world who talked to God, I believe him, again I am trying and pick, on the jewish people and show you that I can if you want and pick on mine

As a Muslim, surely you believe that Mohammed had a greatest divine revelation.

You can pick on Jews as much as you like. I genuinely believe that Jews know more about their religion that Muslims know about theirs anyway.

nbarzelay

09-16-2006, 08:48 AM

Mosses, before God help him and lead him to Sinai, he killed an egyptyion, or didn’t he? This is her question. Very simple, she is assumunig that she do not believe in Mosses, my doughter here is talking about logic, if you want to pick on my relgion I can to pick on yours. Also those Israelites do not worth God help or you agree that they worth, and the Cow story, lost in the desret …… etc.

You said “Jesus the Christ was killed by the Romans and was a Jew from birth until death. Jesus didn't break any of the Jewish laws of the time (quite the opposite since he Qumranian which was strict in following Talmudic law), so he was not considered to be any sort of traitor. Again, quite the opposite since he opposed the Romans. The Romans saw Jesus as a potential trouble-starter in stirring up revolution amongst the masses, which was on level with what Jews in general wanted. You have this wrong as well. Also Islam thinks that Jesus the Christ didn't die in the cross which is at the center of Christian belief.”

Again picking on Christians, from my belif I think he killed himself.

I hate picking and I have a huge amount of information to pick from, but logic say it’s not of my business to pick on nobody.

You said “The Quran strictly commands those to wash after touching animals”

Show where in Quran, Animals, if you mean dogs and pigs, yes I agree, the rest show me where in Quran.

You qouate this from Quran ““O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.”

Is it ok if I walk naked in your street, dose the law in your country allow me to walk totally naked.

You also qouate “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”

He is addressing to the believeing women, why are you bothered about that, look at it again, is he talking to the Jewish ladies?

Again “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful”

I will say “Allah is ever forgiving, merciful” I want to pick this one and leave the rest. Do not blame me I am just doing like you.

Oh the assumptions you make. Try to speak english a bit better and maybe people will understand you. When you say "Pharaoh" and then "the Egyptian" after this, you're referring to the Pharaoh, not "an Egyptian". If you know the story when you would know that he killed a slave master who was brutally beating his slave. To save the slave, he killed the slave master who turned on him when Moses first intervened. MOSES Biography (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Mo-Ni/Moses.html)

Above is a condensed version of a biography. Might help your english too.

I find it quite curious of you, since you yourself are Muslim, that you bash Moses so even though in Islam he's considered one of the highest prophets. Also, you judge Moses while you don't judge your prophet Mohammed who pillaged, raped little girls (marrying a 6 year old Aisha, and having sex with her when she was only 9!), murdered unarmed merchants (ALSO during the month in Islam where no war or murder is permitted, unless in self-defense), and enslaved hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims.

Find it strange that you judge Moses for defending a helpless slave.

You just contradicted yourself about 'believing women', which would imply MUSLIM WOMEN. So you've adequately stated what I've been saying all along: that Hijabs are mandatory in Islam for Islamic women, and ALL women who visit Islamic countries who follow Islamic law. This you will see when Christian news reporters visit places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, etc.

As for the Quranic verses you asked for:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html

004.043
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath-- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Once again, such as the US prisons discussion, you pick and choose and ignore the FACTS which contradict what you're saying. This has been seen to be stereotypical (look the word up) of numerous Muslims. There is this problem with a large portion of Muslims who are incapable of adequately rebutting and discussing anything.

I've answered all your concerns and ridiculous statements, so try to answer/rebute some (if not all) what I've mentioned.

This might be a shock to you, but judging by your rather infantile method of arguing and logic, I think you should've waited on becoming a father since this might be detrimental (look the word up) to your daugher's development.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 08:50 AM

What are you talking about Osama for? The law I quoted was according to Maimonides, who was a medieval Jewish commentator and philosopher. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

As a Muslim, surely you believe that Mohammed had a greatest divine revelation.

You can pick on Jews as much as you like. I genuinely believe that Jews know more about their religion that Muslims know about theirs anyway.

your opinion, and i do not share it

yes Osama is son of B***h, i agree, the idea, is mosses was on an Egption land under the egyption law, so he killed him becuase of his own law, in todays law he is like Osama.

we muslims justify the Killing of the egyption

Aviva

09-16-2006, 08:51 AM

your opinion, and i do not share it

Jewish law isn't my opinion, DareDevil. It's a fact of Jewish life.

DareDevil

09-16-2006, 09:00 AM

Oh the assumptions you make. Try to speak english a bit better and maybe people will understand you. When you say "Pharaoh" and then "the Egyptian" after this, you're referring to the Pharaoh, not "an Egyptian". If you know the story when you would know that he killed a slave master who was brutally beating his slave. To save the slave, he killed the slave master who turned on him when Moses first intervened. MOSES Biography (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Mo-Ni/Moses.html)

Above is a condensed version of a biography. Might help your english too.

I find it quite curious of you, since you yourself are Muslim, that you bash Moses so even though in Islam he's considered one of the highest prophets. Also, you judge Moses while you don't judge your prophet Mohammed who pillaged, raped little girls (marrying a 6 year old Aisha, and having sex with her when she was only 9!), murdered unarmed merchants (ALSO during the month in Islam where no war or murder is permitted, unless in self-defense), and enslaved hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims.

Find it strange that you judge Moses for defending a helpless slave.

You just contradicted yourself about 'believing women', which would imply MUSLIM WOMEN. So you've adequately stated what I've been saying all along: that Hijabs are mandatory in Islam for Islamic women, and ALL women who visit Islamic countries who follow Islamic law. This you will see when Christian news reporters visit places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, etc.

As for the Quranic verses you asked for:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html

Once again, such as the US prisons discussion, you pick and choose and ignore the FACTS which contradict what you're saying. This has been seen to be stereotypical (look the word up) of numerous Muslims. There is this problem with a large portion of Muslims who are incapable of adequately rebutting and discussing anything.

I've answered all your concerns and ridiculous statements, so try to answer/rebute some (if not all) what I've mentioned.

This might be a shock to you, but judging by your rather infantile method of arguing and logic, I think you should've waited on becoming a father since this might be detrimental (look the word up) to your daugher's development.

all what i see is picking, i will stop here, i have better job to do, picking on my english my religion on myself on my daughter, on islam

woow what a life you living, so hard, man i am not like you, i love, i forgive, i do not pick on no body