Muhammad and sex [Archive]

Ezra

03-18-2002, 08:29 PM

M uch has been spoken about the inhuman treatment of women in Islam. If one wants to know the reason behind this, one has to closely examine Mohammed's personal life. As far as women are conecerned, they were just objects of sexual desire for Prophet Mohammed.

Here I expose the insatiable sexual appetite that Mohammed possessed. This goes to show that among others, one of the main reasons for forming this insidious religion, Islam, was so that sex was freely available to the male followers in the name of Allah. As I have already proved in my article, Wondrous Treatment of Women In Islam, the Quran justifies treating a woman as nothing but an object for sexual desire and sometimes even an ordinary object would be treated better. Suras in the Quran seem to pop up conveniently, so that Mohammed can justify his perverted sexual actions. For example, when Mohammed wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife. When he wanted to stop his wives from quarreling or to accept more wives, he got a quick revelation for it. My above points are illustrated from the verses taken from Sura 33.

(Sura 33:28) "O Prophet! Say to thy consorts: 'If it be that ye desire the life of this world and its glitter then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.'

(Sura 33:30) "O Consorts of the Prophet if any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah."

The prophet's interactions with women, his insatiable lust for lascivious ladies, his lecherous behaviour with his wives and concubines are components that form the model of a true muslim. The prophet is the perfect muslim man for all devout muslims as he is the one whom Allah chose to reveal the Quran to. And because he is the perfect man it is every muslim's duty to follow him. For example, they cannot eat pork because Mohammed disliked it, they have to grow a beard like he had, they have to loot and kill like he did and likewise they have to molest and treat women inhumanly as he did!

The "great" Mohammed, the founder of this "fabulous" faith was married to Khadija Bibi who was his employer and 15 years his senior. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija Bibi's 3rd husband. Khadija Bibi was a rich widow when she married Mohammed. For the first time in his life, Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.

This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.

Khadija Bibi died when Mohammed was 49 years old. Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "great prophet" married at least 11 times.

This shows how he treated the institution of marriage. For him, women were nothing but objects for sexual fulfillment. Marrying at least 11 women in 14 years throws light on his insatiable sexual appetite. Read on about the "greatness" of this prophet.

Among his many other wives Mohammed also married a 6 year old baby, Ayesha. She was his favourite wife.

This marriage is a clear proof that his pedophilic tendency started manifesting itself after Khadija's death, because when she was alive he did not want to offend her because all the wealth belonged to her.

The prophet said that, "the woman can be married for religion, her fortune, or her beauty. So marry one for the religion" (Abu Issa al-Tarmidi, Sunan al- Tarmidi, Medina n.d., p.275, B: 4, H:1092)

Therefore, according to the Prophet the woman is either a creature who will be subjected to brutal conversion to Islam, a golden goose or a sexual plaything. Her virtues, intelligence or personality do not matter. But Mohammed did not stop there. He recommends all muslims to marry "one for the religion". Now what does this mean ? It means that use the institution of marriage to convert people to Islam. Now you know why so many Muslim men marry non-muslims and convert them to Islam. It also shows what high regard Islam has for the sacred institution of Marriage.

In many occasions Mohammed did not even spare women who were originally allotted to other soldiers of his tribe after gaining a victory in War. One such woman was Safia Bint Huyay. This Jewish woman was captured by lecherous muslim invaders after the Jews were brutally murdered by Mohammed. According to a Quranic Sura (8:41) four fifths of any booty or spoil that is won after murdering the non-believers, is distributed to the barbaric invaders. In Islam, women of other religion are also considered as booty, so Safiya bint Huyay was allotted to a soldier called Dahia. But when Mohammed the ascetic heard of her 'incomparable beauty', he sent for Dahiya, paid him Safiya's price and married her. (Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat, pp. 120-123).

Safiya Bint Huyway was just one of the numerous Jewish women who became prey to Mohammed's insatiable sexual desire. Regardless of his participation in these barbaric raids Mohammed was alloted 1/5 of the booty as prescribed in the Quran, Sura 8:41. Rayhana Bint Zayd was another Jewish woman, whom Mohammed captured after her tribe was totally butchered. She was known to be a woman of immense beauty. Mohammed kept her as a concubine. (Ibid., p. 129)

During Mohammed's time a lot of barbaric wars were instigated by the muslims and Mohammed was always the receiver of at least one fifths of the booty. This booty included captured women and children. One can imagine how many women were made into concubines for Prophet Mohammed's carnal pleasure and how many children were his victims.

Maria the Copt from Egypt, was another concubine of Mohammed. She bore him a son, Ibrahim, who died in infancy. The Prophet's desire for Maria was so strong that it led him to violate another of his ideals: "That a man should be just in his dealings with his wives. A man should keep strictly to the rotation schedule and not have intercourse with a wife, even if he so desired."

Hafsa, one of the Prophet's wives, however, caught him having intercourse with Maria in Safiya's room. 'O Prophet of God, in my room and in my day!' fulminated Safiya angrily. Afraid of the anger of his other wives, and especially of his most beloved Ayesha, he promised Hafsa never to touch Maria again if she would keep the incident secret (Ibid., p. 213). But she spoke out, and the Prophet immediately received orders from God to retract his promise to Safiya; he then resumed relations with Maria (Sura 66:3).

Maria's power over the Prophet is best described in Ayesha's words: "I never was as jealous as I was of Maria again. That is because she was a very beautiful, curly haired woman. The Prophet was very attracted to her. In the beginning, she was living near us and the Prophet spent entire days and nights with her until we protested and she became frightened." (Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat, p. 212)

The Prophet then decided to transfer Maria to a more secure dwelling far from his legitimate wives and kept seeing her inspite of their pressure.

Another woman that the Prophet married for satisfying his sexual desires was Juwariya Bint al-Harith who was according to Ayesha's description, 'so beautiful that whoever caught a glimpse of her fell in love with her.' (Ibid. p.117)
Ayesha's jealousy is displayed again from the following quote: "The Prophet was in my room when Juwariya came to ask him about a contract. By Allah, I hated her when I saw her coming towards him. I knew that he was going to see what I saw (her beauty)." (Ibid)

A unique instance of the effect of female beauty on the Prophet was that of Duba Bint Amr who 'was among the most beautiful of Arab women....her hair was long enough to cover all her body.'(Ibid., p. 153) Mohammed asked her son if he could marry his mother, but later retracted when he heard that Duba Bint Amr, although attractive, was aging.

This shows that Mohammed was only interested in physical beauty and not in providing protection for widows or some other charitable cuase as the Muslims have been brain washed to believe.

Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab, daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."

Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws.

Muslim scholar and statesman, Ali Dashti gives the following list of women in Mohammed's life.

Khadija
Sawda
Ayesha
Omm Salama
Hafsa
Zainab (of Jahsh)
Juwariya
Omm Habiba
Safia
Maymuna (of Hareth)
Fatima
Hend
Asma (of Saba)
Zainab (of Khozayma)
Habla
Asma (of Noman)
Maria
Rayhana
Omm Sharik
Maymuna (not of Hareth)
Zainab (third one)
Khawla
Duba

As a fitting punishment for all his heinous crimes against women, it was a Jewish woman who poisoned him in her rightful quest for revenge after the battle of Khaybar. During the last four years of his life, his health declined, epileptic fits became more frequent and his other infirmities increased. After living a life of rape, perversion, destruction and plunder, at the age of 62, Mohammed gasped his last breath on the lap of his 17 year old child bride Ayesha who watched him die a slow , long and horrible death.

Ezra

03-18-2002, 08:42 PM

Lets start with quotes from the "heavenly" Hadiths and the "ocean of knowledge", Koran.

(Al-Hadis, Vol. 3, p. 137) Abu Sayeed al-Khodri reported that Mohammed was talking to a group of women when he said, "... I see the majority of you will go to Hell." The women asked why, to which Mohammed responded, "You often curse and are ungrateful to your companions." He then told them they had a basic defect in their nature, to which they responded, "How?" Mohammed answered, "Is not the attestation (knowledge and witness) of a women only worth half of a man's? And that is on account of her short intelligence."

This quote really brings out Mohammed's "shining" views on women. He automatically condemns the majority of them to hell. According to him a woman's intellectual capacity is only half that of a man and that is why two women are required as witnesses as compared to one man.

He was so scared of women's intelligence that he said, "a man should not walk between two women" (Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 586) as that would mean that the man was taking a risk of being on equal turf according to Mohammed.

(Al Hadis, Vol. 2, p. 692) Ibn Ma`sud reported from the Messenger of Allah who said, "A woman is like a private part (sex organ). When she goes out (walking) the devil casts a glance at her (in lust)."

Well, this clearly gives us an insight into Mohammed's "pure" mind. To him women were nothing but walking vaginas to be used as objects for sexual fulfillment. No wonder he required women to be completely covered from head to toe. He had to have some way to control his lust!

(Koran, 4:34) ...Guard in (the husband's)absence what Allah would have them guard...

This verse is demanding that the women should guard their private parts for the sake of their husbands. Again, this tells us the low opinion that Mohammed held for women-- objects to be used for sexual fulfillment. Nowhere in the Koran or the Hadiths does it say that a man should guard his private parts or abstain from sex in the absence of their wives. A man can even engage in sexual intercourse with young boys/men without much rebuke from Allah. This is supported by the verses stated below:

(Koran 4:15) If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

(Koran 4:16) If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.

As you can see, for women any sort of sexual exploration is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah. Such fairness can only be found in the "holiest of the holiest books", the Koran.

(Koran 4:34) ...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds and BEAT THEM...

Mohammed was an old perverted nutcase. He was so insecure about himself that he thought that showing physical prowess over women would serve as a reminder to him of his manliness. Thus, he encouraged wife beating! In Islam equality between a man and a woman is a far cry. A man needs only to be suspicious to justify the bestial act of beating his wife.

(Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 215) Omar reported from the Holy Prophet who said, "No man shall be questioned for beating his wife."

In the very next Hadith a woman complained to Mohammed that her husband beat her while she prayed. Mohammed told her to change her time of prayer or pray shorter prayers so that her husband could get on with the joy of beating her. (Reported by Abu Sayeed al-Kodri, Attest by Abu Daud)

Could Mohammed degrade women any further? If you are asking yourself this question then surprisingly you have not yet grasped the true nature of this "great Prophet" . He allowed the utterly inhuman practice of circumcision for females. In this type of circumcision a girl's clitoris is carved away, so that she may never experience climax during sexual intercourse and her vulva is sewn shut until it is cut open at the time of marriage! Such "great" practices can only be sactioned by Islam-- the religion for all women to embrace!

(Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 738) Abul Malih reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "Circumcision is Sunnat (required by Islamic law) for males and optional for females."

OK, enough of looking at the negative side of Islam. Now lets look at the positive side of this religion. Mohammed said that a man before marrying a woman has to pay her a dowry. Surely, as the many devout muslims would say, you can't criticize that. Ah, but they are mistaken, then again, that's not anything new. Read the quote below from Al Hadis.

(Al Hadis, Vol. 2, p. 657) Oqbah-b- A`mer reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "The most equitable of the conditions of marriage is that you should fulfil that (dowry) with which you have made private parts lawful."

So, according to Mohammed and his Allah a man has to pay the woman before he can use her private parts. Which means that the man is supposed to treat his wife as a prostitute by paying her before he gets a legal permit for having sex. This implies that the foundation for marriage in Islam is to provide a man with legal sexual gratification and nothing else matters.

Now, hold on! Doesn't Islam say that prostitution is not allowed? Of course, it does! It's right there in Sahih Muslim Hadith:

(Sahih Muslim Hadith Chapter 619) Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are non-muslims),... are all forbidden.

Here we have a contradiction! But, again, that is nothing new for the Koran. It is full of contradictions. But I digress, a separate article will be devoted to this in the coming weeks.

Back to the dowry issue. Mohammed was not a man who would have people speculate on what he has said. He had to specify what he meant by dowry and specify he did in Al Hadis, Vol. 2, p. 659 (57). He said that, "a handful of barley or dates is enough."

Not only are the wives supposed to be treated as prostitutes, but as prostitutes who only deserve "a handful of barley or dates".

Another quote from the Hadith gives total control of women's lives to men.

(Al Hadis, Vol 2, p. 651) Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "No woman shall give a woman in marriage, nor shall a woman give herself in marriage. Verily, the fornicatress is she that marries by herself."

Here Mohammed takes away the right of a woman to choose her husband. She has no right to decide how to live her life. This basic right is snatched away from her and given to a man. Furthermore, this implies that a widow has no final authority over her daughter in Islam.

As if men didn't already have the legal freedom to control and degrade women's lives that they were granted further control to degrade women.

During a Jihad expedition (holy war) Mohammed's men came to him very frustrated. As seen in the quote below:

(Al Hadis, Vol. 2, p. 686) Ibn Masud reported, "We were fighting with the Messenger of Allah, and our wives were not with us. We asked the Messenger of Allah, 'Should we castrate ourselves?' The Holy Prophet forbade us from that, and then he allowed us Muta (temporary) marriage. So, we all married wives for a fixed time (usually three days) for the dowry of a piece of cloth."

Here Mohammed clearly tells the muslims to forget about the prostitutes they had purchased for a handful of dates back home and to have fun with these new victims who come even cheaper. They can be bought and violated for only a piece of cloth. Allah is truly merciful! Praise be to Allah!

In other civilized countries this is called rape--plain and simple. The mullahs happily approve this dastardly deed by quoting from the Koran. (Koran, 5:87): "...Make not unlawful the good things Allah hath made lawful for you." Thus this heinous crime is still committed by muslims as attested by the Indo-Pak war, Arab-Israeli war, Iraq- Iran war, Iraq-Kuwait war, etc.

Sometimes Mohammed's lust was so great that he conveniently forgot all the Koranic verses invented by him and did not have time to come up with an ammendment. One instance of this is noted when he married Safiya, a Jewish girl, after killing her father and her betrothed husband. He did not want to go through the long laborious procedure of finding a sponsor, paying the dowry, sending out invitations, or preparing a wedding feast. In fact, Mohammed skipped over the usual law of waiting until her next monthly was passed. He consummated his "marriage" to her on a sand dune with the blood and gore of Jihad still covering him, even Safiya's father's blood, no doubt. This is another case of rape, but for Mohammed it was just a beautiful marriage sanctioned by the All Perverted Allah!

It is sickening to read the Koran and the Hadiths and the low and inhuman opinion that this so called despicable Mohammed has on women.

Right defender

03-19-2002, 03:17 AM

Mr Ezra

you agian prove your malice to islam and muslims ....

coz islam is the fasting growing religion on the earth , and this is the fact you're trying to change ,,,
and of course it's painful to you

we know well that many people feel malice to islam and muslims and this was mentioned in quran ..
and you're mr Ezra on of them . you hate islam ... and this is fact ...

this article is only a piont of view of a person , and of course it's not real , and the writter had to change the words to prove his nonsence words. ..

and i must ignore these words coz i read many article from mad people like this . but it's normal , these malicious people are nothing to care for their words ...

i don't know why you fool ezra try to change facts ...

why didn't you mention the whole facts instead of concentrating on one point and ignore the others , why you always change the words and the meaning of words .....

the real hadith of mohammed is " the woman ( generally for muslims and non-muslims ) can be married for her fortune and her wealth and her religion ( manners and morals ) , so win the woman of leligion , coz she's the best wife ...

second : mohammed didn't need to marry too much , if he wanted the desire as you say ,,
coz in this era before islam sex and fornication were too much and without marriage one can have many women ....

so these words are nonsense words ,

you say that look to the woman as nothing
and of course this was not true, coz before islam the woman was nothing

all the people before islam felt shame if they got a girl and they used to bury any new girl a live in the sands ...

and the woman were slaves to the people , they were like an instrument for sex , and the service of the leaders of " Quraish " and caring for the statues they adore

by the coming of islam , islam gave the woman her natural rights and raised it to the peak , and the woman was like a god to her husband ,

so islam is innocent from what it was accused ...

third , islam allows muslims to marry 4 women in one time , and there're many reasons for that ... but if you read these verses [ al- nessa ( the women ) ] - 3- 5

[3] If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
[4] And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.
[5] To those weak of understanding make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice

you'l find that islam urges people to marry one only no one can be just with the 2 women , and any one to marry more than one he'll have to bear the resposibility of fair and just with them

the fair means that one doesn't prefer any woman than the other , even in rights and even in kisses and feelings

mohammed's marrige was equalized , and by the confess of all mohammed's wives , he was Treating equally between them , and they all loved to marry him , and there was no obligation , vice verra , they exposed the marriage to mohammed coz they found in him the loyality , love , fair , ....

mohammed's death was horrible to Aisha only but , mohammed's death was not slow as you say , when he died a simle appears on his face , and his face became more shining , and mohammed expected to die so soon and he gave the last speech to muslims and it was ended by

" this day i have completed you my religion and i have completed you my Amen graces

peace be upon you mohammed the best creature of Allah ...

Right defender

03-19-2002, 03:23 AM

Islam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever the topic of Islam is brought up among Westerners, it has been my experience that the first objection that immediately springs into their minds is: "But women are so extremely oppressed in Islam."
And, "But women are second class citizens in Islam." For example, they see that Muslim women usually observe modest standards in their clothing and they automatically equate their modesty with oppression.
They appear to feel that freedom is in some way directly proportional to how little clothing one wears, and that oppression is directly proportional to the degree of modesty one exhibits in their clothing. Although this topic does not directly relate to the main topic of this book, still it seems inevitable to touch on this subject even if only very briefly due to it's importance.

The problem is twofold: First of all, those people who make such objections usually only have a very superficial knowledge of what the true teachings of Islam, and secondly, they do not realize what The Biblerequires of all believing women.

I was once passing through Canada with my parent's in law and their family. As we walked down the street a Canadian Christian girl (in her late teens to early twenties) passed by us with a group of her friends. She looked at my mother in law who was dressed in modest clothing and had a large scarf wrapped around her head such that only her face was showing. She then stopped my mother in law and said words to the effect of: "Why do you allow your men to oppress you?. Why do you wear these clothes?."

Now, my mother in law is a university graduate, a straight A student, highly respected by her peers, and gainfully employed as an inspector of the public educational system back in my home country. My mother inlaw has also distinguished herself in her study of the English language and it's grammatical structure.
However, she did not have an extensive working knowledge of American and Canadian pronunciation and slang, and thus, she missed the tone with which this question was delivered to her.

I decided to move a reasonable distance away and let her handle this situation herself. My mother in law wasvery happy to answer this girl's question and went on to explain to her about our religion and customs and how we prefer to dress modestly, and that Allah Almighty requires us to do this. However, this was not the answer this girl was looking for so she retorted: "Thanks for sharing!," then spun around and stormed off.

Now, in my home country, our elders are quite used to being highly respected by those who are younger than them and being served by them. For this reason, it did not even occur to my mother in law that this question could have been anything more than a young girl respectfully asking an innocent question of a trusted elder, and I hated to tell her otherwise. I would have hated for her to leave Canada thinking that all Canadians or all Christians speak this way to their elders since I know that this is not the true case. However, this episode did indeed sadden me.

Many non-Muslims feel sorry for any Muslim women they see adorned in their modest clothing. They feelthat they are deprived the freedom to roam around in more scant and revealing clothing. Anyone who lives in a manner other that which they have become accustomed to is seen by them to be oppressed and forced to live in this manner. There are certain tribes in the Amazon jungle, in Australia, and in Africa which have become accustomed to walking around in a simple g-string around their waist. What would the people of the West say if these people were to condemn the Western habit of "forcing" their women to wear "excessiveamounts of clothing" and to demand that all women in the west immediately stop wearing anything but the simplest g-string around their waist? What if they were to say that the Western society should immediately stop unjustly persecuting their women and preventing them from freely roaming the streets wearing only a pair of socks? They would say that the people making these demands have no morals or shame. Philosophers would have a field day with such a question.

What if someone were to claim that it was immoral, discriminatory, and unjust to separate men and women indifferent public bathrooms just as it is not just to do so with blacks and whites. What if this person were to then call (in the interest of equality, fairness, and constitutional freedom of course) for a merging of men and women's bathrooms into one "unisex" or "equal-opportunity" bathrooms for both men and women? Once again, the philosophers would have a field day. Anyone who follows the news will see that this may indeed be where the USA is now headed. In the New York Post (31 Aug. 1994 or a little before) it was reported that women have now won the right to appear topless in the New York subway system. Where will the USAbe a few years from now? That is anyone's guess.

Who has the power to determine what is decent and modest clothing? Who is to determine what is decent
and modest behavior? Muslims assign this right to God alone. This is the essence of "Islam." "Islam" means "The submission to the will of God." What God commands, a Muslim does. They do not demand that God justify his commands before they accept them. Once they have verified that a command is indeed from God then they abide by it without hesitation.

Right defender

03-19-2002, 03:31 AM

We can indeed find this lesson in the story of Adam. In the Islamic version of the story of Adam (slightly different than that of Judaism/Christianity), Adam and Eve were created by God, educated, clothed, and then allowed to inhabit heaven. They were told by God that they could have anything their hearts desired except they must not eat from the tree. Out of envy, the devil encouraged them to eat from the tree and told them that it's fruit would make them angles or immortal. They ate from the tree and immediately, their bodies wererevealed to one another, so they took to scooping up the leaves off the trees in order to cover themselves. This is when Allah sent them down to earth. What mankind learned from this lesson is that just because a person does not know the wisdom behind a command of God, and others tell him to disobey it, then if theydo not abide by it, by the time the reason for the command is made apparent to them it may be too late.

Example of dress worn by a Christian nun.
Compare it with how Muslim women dress today

Well then, what is the Biblical view on these matters? Actually, even in this day and age there still remains traces in Christianity of the common ancestry with Islam with regard to the accepted norms of modest dressfor Christian women as ordained by her Creator. In the above figure we have an example of the sort of dress codes observed by Christian nuns. We are strangely amazed to find that it is almost the striking similarity it bears to the sort of outfit which most Muslim women wear. Why is that? Well, although there are quite a number of very pronounced differences between Biblical and Qur'anic laws in this regard, let us start with the

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical view:

What the New Testament has to say:

1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

1 Corinthians 11:5-10: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovereddishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

1 Corinthians 11:13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God (with her head) uncovered?"

What the Old Testament has to say:

Genesis 3:12-16 "And the man (Adam) said, The woman (Eve) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and heshall rule over thee."

Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

Ecclesiastics 7:26-28 "And I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all".

Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

Right defender

03-19-2002, 03:33 AM

2.Women should not teach.
3.Women should not have authority over men but should remain silent.
4.Adam and Eve were not equal in sin. Adam was not deceived but Eve was.
5.Women are commanded to be under obedience to men. God ordained that men shall for all time rule over women
6.Women must keep silent in Churches. It is shameful for them to open their mouths therein. If they have a question they should ask their husbands before going to church and then their husbands will ask for them in the church.
7.A woman should neither pray nor profess with her head uncovered.
8.If a woman prays with her head uncoveredthen she might as well shave her head.
9.Man was created in the image and glory of God, and Woman was created in the glory of Man, thus Man must have power over her.
10.Any woman who delivers a male baby shall be unclean for one week. But any woman who delivers a female baby shall be unclean for TWO weeks. Thus, females make their mothers DOUBLY unclean as compared to males.
11.While it is possible to find one upright man in every thousand, it is impossible to find even one single upright woman in every thousand
12.Woman is a snare, her heart is a trap, and her hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but she will ensnare the sinner.
13.If a woman had her period and touches a chair or a bed or anything else then that item immediately becomes unclean. Anyone who then touches those things shall also become unclean. They must then bathe themselves and wash their clothes because they have touched an item that a menstruous woman has touched.

What the canonized saints of Christianity said about women:

"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise"
(St. John Demascene)

"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls" (St. Cyprian)

"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent" (St. Anthony)

"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon" (St. Gregory)

St. Tertullian, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said, "Do you not know that
you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessitylive too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil wasn't valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man." Once again, St. Augustinewrote to a friend, "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective, "As regards the individual nature,woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfectlikeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence." (all these quotations can be found in Karen Armstrong's book, The Gospel According to Woman, London: Elm Tree Books, 1986, pp. 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, tch-Hunters, and Other Sexists Philadelphia: Westminster Press pp.28-30.)
Orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite "Blessed be God King of the universethat Thou hasnot made me a woman." The women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for "making me according to Thy will" (Thena Kendath, "Memories of an Orthodox youth" in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist, New York: Schocken Books, 1983, pp. 96-97)

According to the Jewish Talmud, "women are exempt from the study of the Torah." In the first century C.E.,Rabbi Eliezer said: "If any man teaches his daughter Torah it is as though he taught her lechery" (Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism: the Status of Women in Formative Judaism, Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow Press, 1976, pp. 83-93)

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in hisbook 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free (Psychosocial Perspective, Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986, p. 239). He quotes some famous ancient Rabbissaying, "It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman
since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity" (Ibid., pp. 316-317. Also see Swidler, op. cit., pp. 121-123). Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman wasn't always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It, also, represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband (24. Ibid., p. 139). It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..." Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that require women to cover their heads in church (Clara M. Henning, " Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes" in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974, p. 272.).

Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiledto the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God" : The same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament (Donald B. Kraybill, The riddle of the Amish Culture, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,1989, p. 56.)

Russian Orthodox women are expected to wear a head covering when in the church. Most don't outside of itin America, but many in Russia and many other eastern Orthodox women all over eastern Europe, Greece, and the middle east do wear scarves on their heads all the time when in public

These are only a small sampling. For many more similar quotations please obtain a copy of the 70 page book"Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth & The Reality," By Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem, World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Continuing, according to the Old Testament, a childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married and regardless of her consent, so that she might bear a child from him (Genesis 38).

Further, according to the Bible:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are
discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives"

Deuteronomy 22:28-30

Right defender

03-19-2002, 03:34 AM

***************************
Please do not post entire articles

You may include a link.

- Moderator
***************************

Ezra

03-19-2002, 06:54 AM

More to come! Very soon!

The sexual life of Muhammad..

From the Islamic sources

Ezra

03-19-2002, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Right defender
second : mohammed didn't need to marry too much , if he wanted the desire as you say ,,
coz in this era before islam sex and fornication were too much and without marriage one can have many women ....

HAHAHAHAHAHA... THANKS ALOT FOR ILLUSTRATING MY POINT!

YOU CALL 23 WOMEN "NOT TOO MUCH"? HAHAHAA...

Right defender

03-19-2002, 09:42 AM

only 9 times

Ezra

03-19-2002, 12:37 PM

Probably you are weak in math.. Here are them:

1- Khadija
2- Sawda
3-Ayesha
4-Omm Salama
5-Hafsa
6-Zainab (of Jahsh)
7-Juwariya
8-Omm Habiba
9-Safia
10-Maymuna (of Hareth)
11-Fatima
12-Hend
13-Asma (of Saba)
14-Zainab (of Khozayma)
15-Habla
16-Asma (of Noman)
17-Maria
18-Rayhana
19-Omm Sharik
20-Maymuna (not of Hareth)
21-Zainab (third one)
22-Khawla
23-Duba

Comming soon the VERY interesting circumstances for each marriage of them

allah akbaar

04-12-2005, 12:00 PM

1st of all ..Islam said to us {The haven is under The foot of ur Mathers}

that mean if u want to go to haven u have to treat woman in good way respect and love ..ISlam had given women many rights ..

1.No one can touch or have sex with any women only in the case of marrige ..
not like u people ..u meet any woman and from the first time u can have sex with here and if u dnt like here u just leave ..and what the woman get nothing ..but in islam u cant do this.

2.can u tell me how ur children will treat u when u get old ...no one will ask about u ..but in islam Quran says that we have to treat them nicelly and take care of them when they get old like when did they to us when we where kids ..

3.Islam says dnt even say (offff) to Them when they aske u to do somthing ,can u see offff..this small ward u cant say it to them (Mather and father )

4.One man come to the Prophet Mohamad and said which one of my perante shoud i be more with ..the Prophet says ..ur MOther then ur mother then ur mother then ur father ...

i hope i cuold say more than this ..

KettleWhistle

04-12-2005, 12:47 PM

Seems to me that it can be interpreted whichever way one would like.

tandem

04-12-2005, 02:14 PM

andak01

04-12-2005, 08:58 PM

I'm sorry- could you give us an account of the sex life of Solomon (SAW) as well? How many wives did he have? And when you have finished dragging all those religions through the mud, perhaps you will allow yourself a moment to ponder how far you have dragged yourself away from God and how little you have accomplished in the world of men.

Ariksan

04-12-2005, 09:17 PM

Very good example Andak. The bible itself and Jewish commentary deals very criticly of King Solomons 'recreational activites' and his excess spending on pomposity.

So if you want to compare King Solomon with Mohammed, can you point us to Islamic literature that is taking Mohammed's deeds to task?

andak01

04-12-2005, 09:17 PM

Therefore, according to the Prophet the woman is either a creature who will be subjected to brutal conversion to Islam...

This is rich. Do you know what the Prophet was doing when Kadijah, his wife became the first convert to Islam? He was under the covers crying and shaking in fear after having encountered the angel Gabriel. Brutal conversion is the only kind that a hateful person can imagine. Can't you imagine that a person is driven forward by a love of God that is stronger than any fear that man can inspire?

andak01

04-13-2005, 06:29 AM

I don't always have the time or energy to expose people like yourself who willingly post lies without checking them out, but here goes.

Your original post contains this:

Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "great prophet" married at least 11 times.

But you have no aversion to posting a list of every wife ever ascribed to him by sources reliable or not. And you do so without ever mentioning the contradiction in your words. Didn't read carefully enough?

Next, sexual appetite within the confines of a marriage is no sin. In fact, it is a virtue. Not having it is cause for divorce even in our own society.

Muhammad (SAW) married some of his wives for political reasons and others as an example to his followers. Divorced women in his day were untouchable and never were married or supported afterwards. He married a divorced woman to show that there was no sin in that.

We have already discussed Ayesha (RA) at length. She was given into marriage by her own father, who was delighted by the event. The various accounts don't concure on the age, but she waited three years before going to live with him. This shows it for the political marriage that it was. Not only that, but she devoted her life to memorizing his words, not a typical action from some victim of abuse. And she is one of the most respected Muslims that ever lived- again, that would be highly irregular if she was connected to some scandal.

It is not surprising that your hadiths when searched, only come up on hate sites, not on hadith search engines. In fact, a good number point right back to your own post.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Abu+Issa+al-Tarmidi%2C+Sunan+al-+Tarmidi%2C+Medina+n.d.%2C+p.275&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ibn+Saad%2C+al-Tabaqat%2C+pp.+120-123&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Al-Hadis%2C+Vol.+3%2C+p.+137&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Al+Hadis%2C+Vol.+1%2C+p.+586&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

And as is typical, you cut out pieces of verses out of context to prove your lies, telling us what they mean instead of letting the reader read.

Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and ...
(Koran, 4:34) ...Guard in (the husband's)absence what Allah would have them guard...

And you describe it...
This verse is demanding that the women should guard their private parts for the sake of their husbands.

WHAT RELIGION DOESN'T DEMAND FIDELITY IN MARRIAGE??? OF MEN AND OF WOMEN??? I suppose you are aware of the sharia and Biblical punishment for adultry? Do men get off lightly?

How about we complete the verse:

4:34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
http://ishwar.com/islam/holy_quran_(yusuf)/sura004.html

So, if a man is inclined to beat his wife, he can't do it in anger, and he can't even do it the same day, or after he has warned his wife once or if she listens to him. And sharia defines the "beating", even in that case as a tap with a stick no larger than an index finger. I suggest you get a stick of that size and beat yourself with it. Wife beaters beat their wives despite any scripture, and we find women's shelters dotting our own Christian country. I wonder how many of those women would have been beaten in the first place if their husbands were forced to sleep on it by religious conviction, not to mention the number that end up in shelters because of their husbands' substance abuse, something forbidden in Islam.

Aviva

04-13-2005, 03:29 PM

So, if a man is inclined to beat his wife, he can't do it in anger, and he can't even do it the same day, or after he has warned his wife once or if she listens to him. And sharia defines the "beating", even in that case as a tap with a stick no larger than an index finger. I suggest you get a stick of that size and beat yourself with it. Wife beaters beat their wives despite any scripture, and we find women's shelters dotting our own Christian country. I wonder how many of those women would have been beaten in the first place if their husbands were forced to sleep on it by religious conviction.

There's no excuse whatsoever under any circumstances for a man to beat his wife. It's completely barbaric.

andak01

04-13-2005, 08:51 PM

I have never beaten my own wife or struck her, nor have any intention to do so. But, if I were ever tempted to strike her in anger, the above verse would forbid me from doing so. Our hospitals and shelters are full of victims of husbands that follow the "religion of love". I presume they never required a Quran to abuse their wives. Wife beaters don't understand God's message, which is a message of love regardless of your religion.

Static

04-14-2005, 03:23 PM

Wow, there's a whole lot of stupidity on this thread....

Ariksan

04-14-2005, 03:33 PM

andak01

04-15-2005, 06:11 AM

I'm still waiting for you to provide the Islamic literature that is taking Mohammed's evil deeds to task just as the Jewish commentaries deal with Solomon's dark side...

If it doesn't exist maybe you want to take back your ridicoulus comparsion?

It's your own interpretation that sees Muhammad (SAW) as an evil man, not mine. It wasn't the habit to free slaves or to marry divorced women, he did both and encouraged others to do likewise. I would have to buy into your interpretation before it would bother me that the Prophet isn't chastised. On the other hand, as I've said before- there are examples of where the Prophet made mistakes. In the case of Muta'a (marriage by gift), it was revealed to him that the practice should be henceforth forbidden. That appeared in three or more ahadith, while the one you cite is unique. Bin Laden the liar didn't mention those when allowing his own troops to indulge the practice. Another example of a mistake that I have mentioned was when he spoke crossly to a blind man for interupting him. This action was criticized by a verse in the Quran. It is very clear that Muhammad's (SAW) message was that God is the perfect one, not any man. And not all of Muhammad's actions are to be followed as part of Fiqh. For example, he had the Quran revealed to him. Is it impingent upon all Muslims to do likewise? No.

peaceall

05-03-2005, 04:49 PM

For example, when Mohammed wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife.

your hate astonishes me. however i shall clear up the lies that you have said. Zaid had divorced his wife before she married again.

they cannot eat pork because Mohammed disliked it, they have to grow a beard like he had, they have to loot and kill like he did and likewise they have to molest and treat women inhumanly as he did!

lol justify this statment.

The "great" Mohammed, the founder of this "fabulous" faith was married to Khadija Bibi who was his employer and 15 years his senior. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija Bibi's 3rd husband. Khadija Bibi was a rich widow when she married Mohammed. For the first time in his life, Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.

This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.

not at all. she proposed to him

throws light on his insatiable sexual appetite. Read on about the "greatness" of this prophet.

lol if his appitite was so great he would have married young virgins wich he didnt.

Among his many other wives Mohammed also married a 6 year old baby, Ayesha. She was his favourite wife.

A lot of misconception is circulating about the age of Aisha at the time of marriage.There is a hadith which states that she was only nine but this is not accurate according to many scholors.

A more authentic hadith lists the names of the earliest believers in Islam. Amongst them is Aisha rd. Now how old does someone have to be before they can mentally accept some ideology or belief? 5, 6,7 or 8?

Let's take the smallest number just for proof. Let's say she was 5. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh, spent 13 years in Makkah. They were married in Madinah. Her age must have been AT LEAST 18 (13+5).

Here is more info:
http://www.islamonline.net/JamalBad...a/12/L44_02.ram
http://www.understanding-islam.com/...uestion&qid=375

Now what does this mean ? It means that use the institution of marriage to convert people to Islam. Now you know why so many Muslim men marry non-muslims and convert them to Islam. It also shows what high regard Islam has for the sacred institution of Marriage.

wrong again. it means marry the more pious person.

During Mohammed's time a lot of barbaric wars were instigated by the muslims and Mohammed was always the receiver of at least one fifths of the booty. This booty included captured women and children.

support you points from the hadith. Either Bukhari or Muslim. other sources are not authentic.

But she spoke out, and the Prophet immediately received orders from God to retract his promise to Safiya; he then resumed relations with Maria (Sura 66:3).

this verse is often taken by people who hate islam to refer to this false allegation. this is not the meaning of the verse. the verse in surah Tahreem refers to the Prophet eating honey. after this his wife joked to him that it made his breath smell bad. he then said he would never eat honey again. the revalation was revealed that he should not prohibit something for himself that was allowed.

Maria's power over the Prophet is best described in Ayesha's words: "I never was as jealous as I was of Maria again. That is because she was a very beautiful, curly haired woman. The Prophet was very attracted to her. In the beginning, she was living near us and the Prophet spent entire days and nights with her until we protested and she became frightened." (Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat, p. 212)

if you want to quote incidences. quote from the hadith. bukhari or muslim.

Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab, daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."

i see no souce. once again it is just trash.

Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws.

she divorced Zayed. then she married the Prophet.

Mohammed gasped his last breath on the lap of his 17 year old child bride Ayesha who watched him die a slow , long and horrible death.

your hate sickens me. its disgusting to see people like this. ignorance.

i dont have the time to argue with people like you.

the reply to these baseless statments that are widly posted by ignorant people who just hate islam can be found here.

http://bismikaallahuma.org/

http://www.understanding-islam.com/

peace all.

KettleWhistle

05-03-2005, 07:06 PM

Why do you equate disagreement with Islamic doctines with hatred?

wonderBoy

05-10-2005, 06:32 PM

The Post is totally biased! and full of garbage & corrupted facts! & it shows an ignorent mind with jealous & toxic motives!!! No wonder why even the bibles were corrupted! it's in the hands of people like these who can't think and see over their noses, over the short-term, nor over their toxified emotions and glorified blind desires to corrupt facts as to show, make and prove self-fulfilling interpretations!!!!

The prophet did not marry as many women for sex or pleasure! He married them for protection! There were many wars and battels against the muslims at that era as Islam was a threat to the unbelivers as it was shaking their habits and traditions. Many males died as a result of these wars. Males from muslims and unbelievers!!! There were many women without a man to care for them! and The prophet himself took the task to provide them with such care and thus marry them. It worked also as to unite between tribes and hence dissiminate Islam.

If he married them for sex! then why would he marry in the first place? why not just have sex with any woman? Isn't the rightful 4 in islam enough for pleasure??? Why make pleasure marriages that were popular at that era illegal and illicit? Why mary many women knowing that by marrying the women would benifit from your wealth!??

Islam when came! made women equal to men based on their nature! Women can't do tasks where their nature goes against! and so are men! you can interpret this as inaquality! but It is actually a form of equality with precision and accuracy!
Before islam men would kill their children if they were girls! when Islam came! that tradition was immediately stoped! Another proof for the equalisation between men and women in Islam is very clear with the miraculous number of citation of the words "man" & "woman" in the Holy Quran which are both equal to "24". Also there is a whole chapter in the Quran named "The Women"!!! As well as many verses in the Quran which aim to protect and pprtray women in a positive light!!!

Learn something from this video:
http://www.harunyahya.com/download/download.php?id=16303

Next time you should examine your interpretations before opening your mouth! and if you know what's true and you change it knowing it! then know that you re responsible for it and responsible for any other person you corrupt!! whatever self-fulfilling exuses you provided for yourself to make you do so!

KettleWhistle

05-10-2005, 06:40 PM

SteveMetch

05-11-2005, 12:31 PM

Polygamy has been practiced in form or another in most ancient cultures. The last ancient culture to do so in modern times is Islam. The stark differences in progress between the modern worlds current monogamy traditions, represented by Western/Judeo/Christian, Asian/Confucianism/Buddhism, and India/Hinduism traditions, and the Islamic world’s practice of polygamy is directly related to its backwardness.

Mohammed simply legitimized the practice of Arabic polygamy in the Koran and Hadiths. This is further evidence that the Koran is not from God but a collection of 7th century Arabian sensibilities. Add to this the obvious attempts at legitimizing murder, violence and theft from people that were not part of his grand Amway pyramid wealth redistribution scheme. Then add religious rituals associated with the worship of the Meccan Moon God “Allah” which also surprise surprise surprise happened to be Mohammed’s clan’s primary pagan God, one of many in Mecca hence is strong monotheism stance in order to eliminate the competition, and you have the bulk of all you need to know about Islam.

KettleWhistle

05-11-2005, 12:37 PM

Mohammed simply legitimized the practice of Arabic polygamy in the Koran and Hadiths. This is further evidence that the Koran is not from God but a collection of 7th century Arabian sensibilities.
How so? Ancient Hebrews practiced polygamy, and as far as I know, nothing in either Christian or Jewish scriptures condenms it. It's just not compatible with our lifestyle, where having one wife and two children can be a burden, and having 3 wifes and 12 children, a financial suicide.

And again, why does any of this matter?

wonderBoy

05-11-2005, 01:36 PM

You can call it backwardness or whatever you like! But it is always better to have rightful polygamy, than marry and cheat on your wife!!!! which is very occuring and frequent in the contemporary times!!! Add to your knowledge there are rules that has to be met before marrying more than one wife and it's hard for anyone to meet those rules! A person who is interested in Polygammy because of his strong natrual desires for sex or whatever reason, must meet those rules and thus must attain an extraordinary character by the powers of actions, wisdom, and motives... This person must be then very effective in society! In addition, he can't marry more that one wife without his wife's consent....And if polygammy was wrong at that time yet were not noticed as wrong by the musilms or arabs and other societies who were aiming to develop the world in every aspect of life, how are we to know now that we are not wrong right now in doing the same for monogamy???

About the Quran, if the Quran was written by Mohammed? then why is it so miraculous? why and how does it talk about a lot of scientific truths with ultimate precision and accuracy?? why did it predict the future that became past now which happened as stated in the Quran with accuracy? how is it so high in the level of Arabic? how is it so balanced? between the warnings for pain and desiring for pleasure? Why is the miraculous mathematical numbers of citation between similar and opposite words? why, how is the word "Land" in the Quran is repeated 33.33% compared to the word "Land" which is the exact percentage of the geological Land nad Sea on the earth!!!? how is the first Verse in the Quran that was read by Mohammed say like: "READ, READ, READ, IN THE NAME OF YOUR LORD THE CREATOR", Why was Mohammed so scared after his first Encounter of revelation, as his wives and most who saw hhim decribe??? How can a modest, thruthful person with extraordinary integrity lie on something so huge? for fame? for followers? what does he have to gain by writing the Quran and saying it's from God??? shouldn't he be scared that he's doing something wrong according to the Quran itself? or to the other holy books you think he looked at??? Why come an tell jews and the worlds that Jesus was the true Massiah sent to jews and also that he was not crucified as it seemed to them, which fulfills the prophecy???

How is this all, and Mohammed was an ILLETRATE!!!!! with absolutely no scientific, hystorical, mathmatical ... and litteral backgrounds !!!
many of the arabs at that time, where Arabic was as its ultimate unsurpassed pinnacle, converted to Islam just because of the high Level of Arabic Language presented in the Quran! They didn't need a proof nor had an atom of doubt because it was clear just from the language!!!!

If it was from Mohammed (an Illterate) then write something that surpass it!?? Just write something like it!!! Call as many people, as many Devils, use Vodoo, use supernatural powers, everything you have!!!! just write something like it!!!
It's amazing how you can't! and yet you keep saying it was written by a man!
There were a highly literate Arabic writer called Mutannabi who actually took the challenge and tryed to write something that challenges the Quran, and at the end of it, his writings looked like a joke! many jews and probably christians too, took the same challenge! and the result is the same whatever they wrote is a joke, they should be embarassed about! which just proves the authenticity of the Quran and contributes to the growth of Islam! which is the last thing they wanted! in fact it's what they didn't want!
The Quran proves itself to be the only word of God that exists in our world today. (with the knowledge that the Bible and Tohra were also authentic, it's just that they got corrupted overtime at the hands of people who alegedly were taking care of them)

About the moon, Arabs did not worship the moon. They worshiped Idols (stones and statues) before Islam!
Allah is the Arabic word for God. It's the same as Elohem in Hebrew. Arabic Jews and Chrisitians says Allah too for their Gods. The chrisitians however use sometimes Rabb which is parallel to Lord. "Allah" refers to the one only god. That's it! it's not a different God or the moon or whatsoever!!!!

What amazes me is the saying that Islam is the only religion that accepts the practice of polygamy! knowing that Abraham had two wives! now wasn't Abraham a jew as jews believe? wasn't he Christian as Chrisitians believe?? This really shows two things! Either there is a level of hypocrisy from the jews or chrisitians or both when attacking Islam by talking about islam and polygamy which they think is a low point to criticise! Or that they had in fact changed their relgions which shows that, in fact, the facts they had, were subject to corruption and thus got corrupted! As their traditions, views, and facts have changed! and probably still changing...or worse, both!!

KettleWhistle

05-11-2005, 01:45 PM

You can call it backwardness or whatever you like! But it is always better to have rightful polygamy, than marry and cheat on your wife!!!!

No, not really. Actually it's much better, and way more convinient to not marry at all. But anyway, would tell me why we should care for any of this? Or do you expect us to just rush to sign up to your religion because you say that Muhamad was a prophet?

wonderBoy

05-11-2005, 04:36 PM

I haven't said that you care or you should or that anyone should! you're the only person that does!!! And Nobody cares that you care or that you don't care! or that you rush and join any religion! nobody even feels that you exist or that you're any significant!!!! you're the only person that does! that's it!!

KettleWhistle

05-11-2005, 04:50 PM

Well, goody then.

Mediocrates

05-11-2005, 06:27 PM

What about Mohammed and Sax?

peaceall

05-11-2005, 06:48 PM

if anyone really would like their misconceptions about islam answered and seriously is looking for answers rather than just posting baseless stuff that can be found on anti islamic web sites then this is a really good forum to get your questions answered.

http://www.islamicboard.com/

there are a lot of openminded and knowledgable people there who can clear up any misconceptions. or if debating is your style there are people who will debate as well.

peace.

SteveMetch

05-12-2005, 11:38 AM

How so? Ancient Hebrews practiced polygamy, and as far as I know, nothing in either Christian or Jewish scriptures condenms it. It's just not compatible with our lifestyle, where having one wife and two children can be a burden, and having 3 wifes and 12 children, a financial suicide.

And again, why does any of this matter?

I said “Ancient” Societies except the last remaining Ancient Societies which is Islam.

The ability to separate sex from procreation is a very recent human “innovation”. For most of human history though, sex and procreation, were tightly interwoven. Since the success of any civilization is held together by the thin thread that binds one generation to the next the importance of have productive offspring is a central component of human social evolution and ultimately cultural Darwinism. Modern societies evolved towards faithful monogamy as the preferred system for male/female relationships over time because cultures that encouraged this tended to do better overtime than alternative arrangements.

The reasons for this are many but here are some:

First are the resource and time pressures associated with having a high child to parent ratio. This is why, even in ancient cultures, polygamy was general practiced by only the wealth who could afford to pay for all kinds of support personnel.

Second what to do with all the unmarried males. Females and families have always had a strong civilizing effect on males. Societies composed of a lot to unmarried males are very unstable and unproductive.

Third marital fidelity is an important social compact for males since there is no absolute guarantee of paternity were as maternity is always guaranteed (that is until in-vitro came along). This social compact between all males and all females in the social order is very important for the next reason.

Fourth: competition for the most progeny among males is wasted energy better directed at building families and protecting the social order. A group of cooperative males can easily destroy a single male harem social system.

Now let’s take look at Muslim societies with regards to the above:

The explosion of wealth directed as some males in the Oil rich countries have removed the financial pressures associated with polygamy. Interestingly though the Male time pressure is at an all time high. This is one of the main reasons why so many Muslims Males have a warped self-image, OBL was a product of just such environment. Woman are very poor at bring boys into true manhood.

The proliferation of unmarried males is a natural result of widespread polygamy combine this with the murder of female infants and you have the at least two bad things happen.

The first is rampant prostitution (Islam calls these temporary marriages) I call it prostitution with more paper work. In fact if you look at Islam’s teachings on marriage and divorce vs. Christian concepts it’s hard to call any Islamic marriage a marriage at all.

The second result has been the need to channel natural un-married male frustration (No Female) and dissociation from society (No Family) outward towards fictional enemies. The Islamic schools have served in this capacity very well with America and Israel the primary targets.

With so much of Islamic society either treated as second class citizens (Females) and so many Males disenfranchised for society no wonder this culture is so far behind every other culture.

The central reason for this is that Islam legitimized both polygamy and prostitution based on the edicts of a false god.

The problem with the Middle East is that it’s full of Muslims.

Mediocrates

05-12-2005, 11:57 AM

Does anyone care? I know I don't. Islam isn't the problem - their broken down countries are the problem and I say leave them to their broken down fate.

Justcurious

05-12-2005, 11:58 AM

Not only Muhammad and sex, but also Islam and sex are completely forbidden subjects in Islam. Only a few days ago I was banned, this time permanently, from taking part in the discussions of the Ummah forum (www.ummah.com).

Another member mentioned that Muhammad had as many as 12 wives during his life and I added a comment about another past practice where women could use men other than her husband, if she didn't become pregnant.

What has been done in the past should be something that can be discussed, although we may not accept that practice now.

Former Outsider, then Justcurious and Stillcurious has plenty of material for a book, and I'm afraid everything is not very positive about Muslims' ability to debate.

KettleWhistle

05-12-2005, 12:04 PM

I don't really care about Islam, or what Muslims believe about Muhamad's sex life. It is true that most can't debate and start screaming "persecution" any time anyone's says something critical about it. I don't really care about that. My concern is them advocating blowing people up over it. The "gee, Westerners have it better than us, so we must become terrorists and shoot them, and then do what we can to convert them" attitude is the issue.

Mediocrates

05-12-2005, 01:04 PM

Not only Muhammad and sex, but also Islam and sex are completely forbidden subjects in Islam. Only a few days ago I was banned, this time permanently, from taking part in the discussions of the Ummah forum (www.ummah.com (http://www.ummah.com/)).

Another member mentioned that Muhammad had as many as 12 wives during his life and I added a comment about another past practice where women could use men other than her husband, if she didn't become pregnant.

What has been done in the past should be something that can be discussed, although we may not accept that practice now.

Former Outsider, then Justcurious and Stillcurious has plenty of material for a book, and I'm afraid everything is not very positive about Muslims' ability to debate.

I know from experience that's a fastpath to eternal bannation over @ Ummah - jeez they're practically American prudes over there :p (and yes that is the oral smiley)

SteveMetch

05-12-2005, 01:44 PM

Does anyone care? I know I don't. Islam isn't the problem - their broken down countries are the problem and I say leave them to their broken down fate.

First of all Islam is central to the problem for the above reasons of my last post. The Koran, Hadiths and Islamic law deal with sexual relations frequently and to a depth not seen in other religions. Second, these broken down countries generate broken down individuals who fly plane loads of innocent people into buildings containing innocent people. Apparently 3,000 murdered Americans isn’t enough for you. Don’t worry, their long term plan is to plant WMD in our country and murder us by the millions, initiating an Armageddon type world to scary to even think about.

The dysfunctional Muslim culture is every bit our concern just as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia were our parents and grandparents legitimate concern. Appeasement and ignorance of these problems will only generate suffering many fold in the future over embarking on a solution to these problems today.

The problem as in the past is that the courage to confront problems will always be trumped by wishful thinking of people like yourself. It was no different in the past as the Nazis slaughtered Jews or as Sudanese Muslims murder Christians and Animist today. What business is of mine if Hitler wants to murder Jews right? Beside we can't prove it? Sound familiar Mediocrities?

It easy in hindsight to point the finger at those complicit in the murder Jews by holding back the hand of those like myself who would pursue a more active approach now to solving these problems now before they grow worse.

Now that our generation is experiencing a similar Hobsonian choice between bad and worse it brings into a better light of what has happened throughout human histories struggle against good and evil.

JM Penfold

05-12-2005, 08:35 PM

Sexual depravity of Mooslims is nothing new, considering that their religion and habits derive from various ancient monkey, cow, and pig worshipping. Their Moon-God Allah is nothing more than a proverbial reincarnation of their ancient god, the Arab monkey-god Moloch. Of course, we know that he was nothing other than satan himself (or one satan's demons), and this false god was also known as Marduk and Baudabir (one of 23 pig-demons that the Arabs used to worship before they morphed all these rituals into the cult of Moongod Allah.) This monkey-pig demon would also appear to the sunburned Egyptians in the form of a goat-pig hybrid Khnum or the demon known to them as Anubus, Anpu, Anupu, or Inepu. The later has a head of a hyena, and since its father is not known, we can only assume that he came to being from a satanic ritual of breeding between humans, demons, and hyenas: http://img34.echo.cx/img34/3807/anubis7xy.jpg

The Mooslims still bear this depravity in their culture. In fact the Arabs often attempt to have their donkeys, Saluki dogs, and camels bear their children. While they hide these secret sexual orgies during the day, those are resumed at night when nobody would pay much attention a moaning camel, horse, or jackrabbit.

Mediocrates

05-13-2005, 06:00 AM

Now that our generation is experiencing a similar Hobsonian choice between bad and worse it brings into a better light of what has happened throughout human histories struggle against good and evil.

Meaning what? Stating categorically that a religion is at its heart, evil, is I think wide of the mark and probably a waste of effort. We use phrases like "cycle of repression and radicalism" which I think capture the unique blend of relgion, politics, economics, culture, ignorance, etc. that we (all) are confronted with.

Mediocrates

05-13-2005, 06:01 AM

MGB8

05-13-2005, 07:42 AM

Judaism and Christianity all have many elements of the Pagan in them. So what?

That, IMO, has little to do with what is going on now.

The banning from the "Ummah" forum, and what it to me symbolizes, however, does. In Islam, Mohammed is supposed to be the perfect example. When actions are ascribed to him that are not acceptable by todays standards, it seems that Muslims have only two options: (1) pretend that those actions did not happen/do not talk about it, or (2) embrace that behavior as propper. There is also the propaganda element of "selling Islam" which sometimes drives option #1.

But, regardless, with sex this isn't a big deal, really. But with violence, on the other hand....

Muslims need to figure out an option #3 - but that, by necessity, means saying either (1) that Muhammed IS NOT the perfect example, or (2) he was the perfect example for THAT TIME, but he would be a different person (same values, different behaviors) today.

nuttie

05-13-2005, 09:34 AM

The above proves that history matters little in this case. As Andak rightly says, nobody of any religion comes out clean if you quote ancient sources.

The real question, in my view, is present day attitude to women in various cultures. It seems to me that in recent history the worst were the Taliban of Afghanistan. Otherwise, various groups of all religions may restrict women to various degrees. To judge by what I hear from some Arab women in Israel, they suffer more unjust restrictions than most in this society.

Mediocrates

05-13-2005, 09:55 AM

That may be true but it may also be a case of what we pay attention to. Do women in rural India or Burma or Kazhakstan fare any better? Do fewer African woman get raped or die in childbirth? We point to Arab countries notr because of what they do but because of what they should be ashamed of.

SteveMetch

05-13-2005, 11:48 AM

Meaning what? Stating categorically that a religion is at its heart, evil, is I think wide of the mark and probably a waste of effort. We use phrases like "cycle of repression and radicalism" which I think capture the unique blend of relgion, politics, economics, culture, ignorance, etc. that we (all) are confronted with.

True Islam is beyond a doubt evil at its heart. The fact that there are good people that call themselves Muslims has to do with their adherence to an ala carte version of Islam that allows them to live happily in the modern/non-islamic world.

The other religious systems of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduisms are not confronted with the same foundational structural problems with modernization as Islam. They have all demonstrated an ability to remain focused on their central tenets while at the same time are accommodating of others belief systems.

Their are three important concepts that separate our thinking.

One: You believe the Islam has been hijacked by radicals. I believe these radicals are actually fundamentalists. Meaning they practice the true and unvarnished version of Islam.

Two: You believe Islam can be reformed and modernized like the other major religions have. I believe a reformed and modernized Islam will not be Islam anymore unlike all other major religions.

Three: You, what does it matter all religion is evil. I believe that religion can be a strong force for good if it encourages the mammalian part of our brain while keeping the reptilian part at bay. Islam does the exact opposite by the way. Point of fact the Atheistic system of Communism is responsible for more violent human death than all the deaths caused by Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism combined.

For some American’s like yourself it’s going to take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before you realize the true nature of the enemy we face. What scale of attack is necessary before we take the gloves off? If only the Muslims understood just how vengeful the United States would become. WWIV is just one stupid Muslim away.

Mediocrates

05-13-2005, 12:34 PM

One: You believe the Islam has been hijacked by radicals. I believe these radicals are actually fundamentalists. Meaning they practice the true and unvarnished version of Islam.

All fundamentalists are radical foundationalists. All religions are subject to them from time to time. All true believers believe the same thing.

Two: You believe Islam can be reformed and modernized like the other major religions have. I believe a reformed and modernized Islam will not be Islam anymore unlike all other major religions.

No what I said years ago was Islam is a house divided and perhaps the time is ripe for its own protestant revolution as it were. You know for centuries Christians said Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus but of course that is nonsense too.

Three: You, what does it matter all religion is evil. I believe that religion can be a strong force for good if it encourages the mammalian part of our brain while keeping the reptilian part at bay. Islam does the exact opposite by the way.

No what you mean probably is that fundamentalism resents the world so much that it explodes.

Point of fact the Atheistic system of Communism is responsible for more violent human death than all the deaths caused by Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism combined.

So has malaria and famine. So?

For some American’s like yourself it’s going to take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before you realize the true nature of the enemy we face.

Well as someone who personally attended three funerals in my extended family from 9-11 and who watches everyday people who never were and probably never will be touched by terrorism tell me what I'm destined to be afraid of, I'd have to differ with you on that. Look, no one should be so stupid to proclaim themselves New Quakers and permanent pacifists. That would be impossibly foolish. But the idea that it is inevitable that we'll suffer horribly and all we're waiting for is a chance to say "See? I told you they were bad, let's go blister their continent" is really about our failure to come up with creative solutions than it is about their failure, which is something we all more or less expect anyway.

What scale of attack is necessary before we take the gloves off? If only the Muslims understood just how vengeful the United States would become. WWIV is just one stupid Muslim away.

What scale of attack? Let's review. 9-11 resulted in one war in Afghanistan and and one war and police occupation in Iraq. It's resulted in a repeated and recurring string of failures not successes across the fundamentalist radical Islamic movement. Radicals in Yemen and Libya are receeding, Syria will probably collapse soon, Lebanon is thawing out. And in the total body count clearly they have massacred more of their own and each other than anyone else.

Yeah yeah they hate us, Yanqui go home, burn some flags, blow up a store, kill some innocents. I swear it's part of the scenery at this point. Even their criticisms and placards of 'end the occupation' ring hollow at this point. I mean after we've told ourselves that theirs is a culture of clan and tribe and honor and revenge - true or not - why would it amaze anyone that the 90% of the army we didn't kill in the initial fighting actually rose up and started killing people using techniques they learned from every post colonial civil uprising that ever was since 1945. What should amaze everyone is that they're using the same techniques that were employed in Vietnam and we seemingly have learned nothing from the fact that 50% of all American casualties in VN were caused using the same terrorist tactics.

See the problem is that you have to understand their motives. Not the ones we think we'd have if we were them. They want the spread of fundamentalism. They want to spread radical violence as a tool to do that. They don't want the Great Satan crippled just for the sake of gobsmacking us. They want to replace us with their Bronze Age Fanaticism - and the way to do that, according them is to foment some kind of world wide revolution where all the faithful rise up and crush the infidel-jew-devil as a precursor to their victory for all the Ummah. They know that any such WMD attack has to be a one-shot deal. It can only be. It will either work and they will see their great holy war or it won't and a thousand years from now schoolchildren will take daylong bustrips to the glassy crater of Mecca (or fill in whatever appropriate apocalyptic image you prefer).

SteveMetch

05-13-2005, 06:14 PM

No what I said years ago was Islam is a house divided and perhaps the time is ripe for its own protestant revolution as it were. You know for centuries Christians said Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus but of course that is nonsense too.

For the first 500 years of history, Christianity was a counter cultural movement against the violent pagan hedonism of Rome. As such it tended to deal with things outside of the world of secular governance and power. This is why fundamentals of Christianity are inherently peaceful and individual salvation focused. It could be characterized as the world’s first self-help book if the divine appeals to authority were removed. Importantly all of the Christian foundation concepts were set well before its ascension to secular power.

Therefore the reform of “Christianity” required the removal of all the “Non-Christian” concepts that had accumulated after it filled the power vacuum left by the collapse of Roman Empire.

In contrast Islam’s foundation doctrines were set during its period of total power. As such the religious and secular domains are interwoven so tightly as to be indistinguishable.

To use an analogy, reform of Christianity was like the removing cancer where as reform of Islam will require removing its skeleton.

Big difference.

peaceall

05-14-2005, 10:50 PM

The first is rampant prostitution (Islam calls these temporary marriages) I call it prostitution with more paper work. In fact if you look at Islam’s teachings on marriage and divorce vs. Christian concepts it’s hard to call any Islamic marriage a marriage at all..

temporary marrieage is forbiden in islam. this is just another of the pointless hatefull arguments brought up by ignorant people. you are refering to muatah marriages and the Prophet saw forbid them.

anyways i see that this isnt the best place to discuss islam. if anyone is interested drop by

http://www.islamicboard.com/

peace all

SteveMetch

05-16-2005, 10:50 AM

temporary marrieage is forbiden in islam. this is just another of the pointless hatefull arguments brought up by ignorant people. you are refering to muatah marriages and the Prophet saw forbid them.

anyways i see that this isnt the best place to discuss islam. if anyone is interested drop by

http://www.islamicboard.com/

peace all

Actually, here is an Islamic source for the practice of temporary marriage. I'll assume the Islamic teacher, in addition to being ignorant hates Islam as well. By the way Mohammed’s continuous oscillation on fundamental teachings and concepts in Islam does not inspire confidence.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/

This is in fact a good place to review Islam because you are dealing with people that haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. I find the best place to review Christian concepts and beliefs are on Jewish web sites. If you want to be proficient at something you have to be challenged. Simply chatting amongst fellow Kool-Aid drinkers gets you no where.

I tried an Islamic forum once. I even played nice. The problem is that Muslims in general have a very contorted and conflicted view of the world not unlike the Koran and Hadiths. Rational discussion is generally impossible with them. The pattern goes something like this

Source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...le.asp?ID=18001

Excerpt

"Me: The Qur’an teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know hadith.

Me: The Hadith teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know Islamic law.

Me: Islamic law teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. And Muslims today don’t pay attention to these ancient laws.

Me: Modern-day jihad terrorists cite Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law to justify violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. Most Muslims see these things differently.

Me: Great. How will they refute the jihadist exegesis and so end jihadist recruitment among Muslims?
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. I am not going to speak with you about this any more."

And that’s what Islamic apology is all about Charlie Brown.

CLL1709

05-16-2005, 10:37 PM

The Mooslims still bear this depravity in their culture. In fact the Arabs often attempt to have their donkeys, Saluki dogs, and camels bear their children. While they hide these secret sexual orgies during the day, those are resumed at night when nobody would pay much attention a moaning camel, horse, or jackrabbit.

I think you are just crazy

What the heck was that! Here I was having a good read wondering how a Muslim defends the indefensible and up pops 'Mooslims' and now I can't stop laughing over Mediocrates droll response.

I have a question about Islam that maybe someone can give an opinion on. Considering Mohammad's, shall I say, changeable representations of what 'Allah' conveyed to him, and the fundamental interputations of the Koran by jihadists, how does Islam ever become a religion that can peacefully coexist with the rest of us?

Then to say that the Koran is the only word of God because the johnny-come-lately Mohammad says so I find to be offensive. They don't seem to have any problem blaspheming anyone elses religion, yet demand we respect theirs.

As an example how the MSM treats Islam these days my local newspaper recently had a front page article on the wonders of Islam relayed to us by a young woman who had been so obviously brainwashed it infuriated me, and I wrote a not so nice missive on Islams subjugation of women. Islam can dress it up how ever they want, but a pig is still a pig. Mohammad and sex equals repression and subjugation of over half the Arab population. I seriously doubt it is going to catch on here.

MGB8

05-17-2005, 07:35 AM

Its not so hard. In fact, it has already happened on several occasions. Suffisim, for example, is very tolerant of the outside world.

It is a matter of interpretation. If Muslims allow, like Jews and Christians have, less literalist and more contextualized interpretation of their religion - then everything is fine. Jihad can become an intra-personal struggle for enlightenment, and not a war on the infadels. Mohammed can be seen as a person "perfect" for his time, but not a perfect example for our time, and also seen as a man with flaws, like any other man. Inconsistencies within the writings of the religion can be accepted as human error - which may mean that Islam is "less perfect" than it is forced to try to be right now, but, doesn't negate that it "came from G-d."

Islam has text and examples that make it more prone to religious violence and imperialism than other religions. But every religion always has to check itself to prevent itself for being used a justification for violence. Muslims just need to work harder at it, but, instead, Muslims, especially Muslim nations, but also opportunist individuals, have taken the easy route to PROMOTE the violence as a way of appeasing cultural pride/vanity.

wonderBoy

05-17-2005, 08:56 AM

MGB8

05-17-2005, 09:02 AM

There is no jealosy.

We were talking about theologic basis for violence. What Jesus said and did versus what Mohammed said and did, etc.

Meanwhile, you claim about Christian violence is exagerated. There has been a ton of violence by Christians, but most of it was not "in the name" of Christianity. You have the Crusades and Inquisition, really, and then intra-Christian wars (akin to wars between Shiites and Sunnis). You may argue colonization, but Christianity was never a driving force. There were missionaries, and certainly a large coversion drive and desire to "Christianize" the land - but that wasn't why the western nations were originally there - in the Americas or Africa or Asia.

Islam, on the other hand, spreads as much (or more) because of the prescriptions of Islam as it does due to economic/exploratory impulses. And then the issues of Dar Al-Harb/Dar al-Islam...and, well...

CLL1709

05-17-2005, 09:35 AM

This is by far the most stupid ignorant time wasting forum I have ever visited! happens to be jewish! :D and I haven't seen any evil and idiot talk like on this culture&Religion forum not even on racists sites!!!! :o What culture is this??? Einsitein once said that stupidity is infinite! It's definitely exprimentally true...
lol Arabs worshiped the moon lol said Dr. shay! The expert in theology and world history :D
...The blood shed in the name of alledeged Christianity is a giant compared to that of alledged islam. Yet when it comes to christianity the focus is on what Jesus said! when it comes to Islam the focus is on what the aledged muslim person did! it just shows a kind of sterotyping and prejudice probably driven by jealousy! the only people that read your baseless insights on a religion you know nothing about is you! or other ignorant people like you! ignorant enough to go with your rotten flow!... you guys want to change Islam! you wont! you can't! you changed your religion but this is not your religion! you won't be able to change islam! even if you were smart! but unfortunatuelly you're not even smart, so the odds are zero!!!! sorry! go check buddhism it's also above number 14, if that's what drives your jealousy!!! I am outta of here! keep rottening your place!

Oh for pitys sake wonderBoy, get a hold of yourself. You remind me of an article by P. O'Rourke in Rolling Stone written 20 years ago regarding the Islamic mentality, the jist of which centered around the fact that there is not a lot of maturity in Arab reaction, and while individually you might be a great guy, enter Islam, and the mob mentality takes over, and hysteria reigns. Certainly Christianity has a bloody PAST when politics had more to do with the church than the teachings of Jesus Christ. His teachings arm us with the hope of a better future for EVERYONE through ethical growth. I fail to see what your hysteria will accomplish for Islam. Will it persuade me that Islam has some merit? Does Islam allow for development and growth as a religion? If you are an example, I believe there is little hope for it.

Get a grip and give me some reasoned arguements, not some insinduary Wahabi rhetoric.

SteveMetch

05-17-2005, 10:32 AM

What the heck was that! Here I was having a good read wondering how a Muslim defends the indefensible and up pops 'Mooslims' and now I can't stop laughing over Mediocrates droll response.

I have a question about Islam that maybe someone can give an opinion on. Considering Mohammad's, shall I say, changeable representations of what 'Allah' conveyed to him, and the fundamental interputations of the Koran by jihadists, how does Islam ever become a religion that can peacefully coexist with the rest of us?

Then to say that the Koran is the only word of God because the johnny-come-lately Mohammad says so I find to be offensive. They don't seem to have any problem blaspheming anyone elses religion, yet demand we respect theirs.

As an example how the MSM treats Islam these days my local newspaper recently had a front page article on the wonders of Islam relayed to us by a young woman who had been so obviously brainwashed it infuriated me, and I wrote a not so nice missive on Islams subjugation of women. Islam can dress it up how ever they want, but a pig is still a pig. Mohammad and sex equals repression and subjugation of over half the Arab population. I seriously doubt it is going to catch on here.

The short answer is no. Islam cannot be reformed and still be Islam. Fortunately most Muslims in the west practice Islamy. Islamy is a watered down version of Islam that keeps a lot of the cultural ritual and practice but ignores the violent aspects of true Islam. Unfortunately, in an era of WMD Islamy provides aid and comfort to real Muslims. Real Muslims are required to kill people who will not submit to the will of the Meccan Moon God Allah.

Here is another young woman’s take on Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5301

I doubt that the self-hating press will ever print this story.

SteveMetch

05-17-2005, 10:50 AM

This is by far the most stupid ignorant time wasting forum I have ever visited! happens to be jewish! :D and I haven't seen any evil and idiot talk like on this culture&Religion forum not even on racists sites!!!! :o What culture is this??? Einsitein once said that stupidity is infinite! It's definitely exprimentally true...
lol Arabs worshiped the moon lol said Dr. shay! The expert in theology and world history :D
...The blood shed in the name of alledeged Christianity is a giant compared to that of alledged islam. Yet when it comes to christianity the focus is on what Jesus said! when it comes to Islam the focus is on what the aledged muslim person did! it just shows a kind of sterotyping and prejudice probably driven by jealousy! the only people that read your baseless insights on a religion you know nothing about is you! or other ignorant people like you! ignorant enough to go with your rotten flow!... you guys want to change Islam! you wont! you can't! you changed your religion but this is not your religion! you won't be able to change islam! even if you were smart! but unfortunatuelly you're not even smart, so the odds are zero!!!! sorry! go check buddhism it's also above number 14, if that's what drives your jealousy!!! I am outta of here! keep rottening your place!

Why do live in the infidel west? Why not go back to your beloved Muslim world if it is so great and wonderful wonderboy?

I’ll tell you why since you lack the clear thinking to answer. Because Islam is a form of brainwashing that removes rational thinking. Throughout history this has always been a necessary first step before violent ideologies can form and grow. Teaching irrational hatred and condoning murder against strangers who only want to go about their lives unmolested is the pinnacle of evil.

“We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

President Bush, State of the Union Address Feb 2, 2005

Mediocrates

05-17-2005, 11:21 AM

Bush wasn't speaking on Islam generally.

SteveMetch

05-18-2005, 10:45 AM

Bush wasn't speaking on Islam generally.

How is Islam different than totalitarianism?

KettleWhistle

05-18-2005, 11:43 AM

It isn't centralized, for the large part. Other than that, I can only refer people to this post: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=8078

andak01

05-19-2005, 12:01 PM

I have a question about Islam that maybe someone can give an opinion on. Considering Mohammad's, shall I say, changeable representations of what 'Allah' conveyed to him, and the fundamental interputations of the Koran by jihadists, how does Islam ever become a religion that can peacefully coexist with the rest of us?

I could ask the same of Christianity, where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can't even agree on Jesus' last words. How does a religion of peace (presumably Christianity) become the blast furnace of hatred during the Rwandan Genocide, during the Nazi error, in Uganda with the Lord's Resistance Army today, in Bosnia? And yet, remarkably, Jews and Muslims and Hindis do manage often to live in peace together. If you start from the premise that it can never happen, you will never see your way clear to a solution.

Then to say that the Koran is the only word of God because the johnny-come-lately Mohammad says so I find to be offensive.

I would imagine that Jews have much the same problem with the New Testament, and Christians with the Book of Mormon. Stating that you believe yourself to be on the right path isn't as much the issue as going around telling people that don't want to hear it that they are on the wrong one.

They don't seem to have any problem blaspheming anyone elses religion, yet demand we respect theirs.

Respect merely assumes that you don't tell us what to believe and don't incite hatred against innocent people. You should expect the same in return. For my own part, I'll see that you get it.

KettleWhistle

05-19-2005, 12:09 PM

I would imagine that Jews have much the same problem with the New Testament
No, Jews don't find it to be offensive. Maybe off-the-mark but Jews have always been respectful of other people's traditions, and really never cared for what or how others worship.

andak01

05-19-2005, 07:19 PM

There is no jealosy.

We were talking about theologic basis for violence. What Jesus said and did versus what Mohammed said and did, etc.

Hardly a fair comparison. The Roman world of Jesus was much safer and more organized than the world Muhammad (SAW) found himself in. Jesus (SAW), spreading his same message in 6th century Mecca would have lasted about the same time that Muhammad did before being forced to flee for his life. It's entirely possible that he (Jesus) did flee during the middle period of his life. Almost nothing is known about that.

SteveMetch

05-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Respect merely assumes that you don't tell us what to believe and don't incite hatred against innocent people. You should expect the same in return. For my own part, I'll see that you get it.

Why are there Mosques in Rome and Jerusalem and no Churches or Synagogues in Mecca or in Saudia Arabia for that matter. The simple fact is that true freedom of religion will destroy Islam. No woman of free will would ever choose to be a Muslim or marry a Muslim. 1 Billion Muslims to 0 in one generation now that's progress.

andak01

05-28-2005, 10:43 AM

1 Billion Muslims to 0 in one generation now that's progress.

Sounds like you have thouroughly engendered the very things you claim to hate.

Justcurious

05-28-2005, 01:35 PM

It appears to be difficult for Muslims to accept that Muhammad had 11 or 12 wives. That was in the past. Do they still want to have that many? What do the women say?

andak01

05-28-2005, 02:14 PM

According to the Quran, we can't have more than four. Outside of Muslim states, we shouldn't have more than one. Doing so puts those who do in a position of hiding from the law which doesn't benefit anyone. Marriage is supposed to benefit both the man and the woman. It can hardly do so when a social stigma is attached to it. The intention of the Prophet in some of his marriages was to show that women who in other times would have been disposed of by their society (divorcees, older women and war widows) could be brought into a home, loved and provided for. If Muhammad (SAW) had wished to compose a harem the size of Solomon's, he certainly had the power to do so. He simply never did any such thing, nor is there any evidence that he wished to. Muhammad's marriages were never about sex to any greater degree than any marriage is. Sex is part of a marriage, but not the sole basis of a healthy one.

CLL1709

05-28-2005, 04:59 PM

I could ask the same of Christianity, where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can't even agree on Jesus' last words. How does a religion of peace (presumably Christianity) become the blast furnace of hatred during the Rwandan Genocide, during the Nazi error, in Uganda with the Lord's Resistance Army today, in Bosnia? And yet, remarkably, Jews and Muslims and Hindis do manage often to live in peace together. If you start from the premise that it can never happen, you will never see your way clear to a solution.

I would imagine that Jews have much the same problem with the New Testament, and Christians with the Book of Mormon. Stating that you believe yourself to be on the right path isn't as much the issue as going around telling people that don't want to hear it that they are on the wrong one.

Respect merely assumes that you don't tell us what to believe and don't incite hatred against innocent people. You should expect the same in return. For my own part, I'll see that you get it.

So just what is your point? Do you maintain these atrosities you list were committed in the name of Jesus Christ and based on His teachings? Is that the odeous Islamic justification for it's proposed slaughter of everyone that does not accept Islam? (One you missed is the persecution of French Huguenots by the Roman Catholic Church for which they have been apologizing for over three centuries and it still was as much politically based as theological.) Does anyone seriously believe Hitler was a Christian that was killing off the European Jewry in the name of Jesus Christ? It is necessary to view history in all aspects when understanding, what was done and why, then take into account the fallibility of mankind to not follow the well known, endlessly discussed JudeoChristian Ethic, the premise of which is based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do not blame Christianity for mankinds failings.

And while I am at it. Apparently I need to bone up on the history of India. Now I read the Muslims are trying to claim the Taj Mahal as they say there is an Islamic mosque under it. Maybe in line with that thought, they will give back the Temple Mount as there are TWO Jewish temples sites there somewhere under all the mosques. So to the Islamics I say, put up or shut up. (Is this like Arafat claiming the Palestinians desended from the Cananites?)

It is splitting hairs regarding the last words of Jesus Christ. Better perhaps remember the verse Luke 11:52, then to quibble over alleged inconsistencies. The point is that He died for our sins and THAT WAS THE PLAN. I don't like the Plan, I'd rather He had lived a long life writing volumns of His teachings, but apparently God didn't think that would be enough to show us how much He loves us. But, we go with what we have, and that really is enough to put us on the right path.

It is lovely to know your philosophy of tolerance, but I don't read tolerance in either the Koran o