From an offtopic thread else where.

Any comments ?

yeh there's many of them I think... women in islam that is.

Actually the majority of Muslims are women, and strangely too, the majority of converts to Islam are women. I heard that in the USA women converts outnumber men 4 to 1.

They must just be gluttons for punishment I guess? Love to be oppressed and all.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:

yeh there's many of them I think... women in islam that is. Actually the majority of Muslims are women, and strangely too, the majority of converts to Islam are women. I heard that in the USA women converts outnumber men 4 to 1. They must just be gluttons for punishment I guess? Love to be oppressed and all.

Yep thats right Abu_Rashid, those American women love to be oppressed..

Interesting... no one made mention in this thread of female oppression except abu_rushid and Malik.Shakur.

Why is that gentlemen?

Sappho wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 8:33pm:

Interesting... no one made mention in this thread of female oppression except abu_rushid and Malik.Shakur. Why is that gentlemen?

Because it's plainly obvious by now that Sprint's only intentions in posting anything about Islam is to incite hate against it. So in this case it would be to make it seem as if women are oppressed in Islam.

He's done it before and he's trying to do it again.

Sappho, perhaps if you went and read the other threads from which he was trying to spawn this one, you might have a better idea.

[url][/url]http://www.indonesiamatters.com/648/female-circumcision/

The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims.
                                 And more
It's Indonesia's biggest secret. Most of its women have been subjected to an operation which the World Health Organisation says is unnecessary. Matthew Moore and Karuni Rompies report.
                                 And more
Dhimmitude in Europe advances apace. Hot on the heels of a Swiss court's reinstating Hani Ramadan to his teaching position despite his advocating stoning for adultery, a mosque in the Netherlands has come out with a pamphlet advocating female genital mutilation. From Expatica, with thanks to "Allah.
                                 And finally
Where is FGM Practised?

The majority of cases of FGM are carried out in 28 African countries. In some countries, (e.g. Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan), prevalence rates can be as high as 98 per cent. In other countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya, Togo and Senegal, the prevalence rates vary between 20 and 50 per cent. It is more accurate however, to view FGM as being practised by specific ethnic groups, rather than by a whole country, as communities practising FGM straddle national boundaries. FGM takes place in parts of the Middle East, i.e. in Yemen, Oman, Iraqi Kurdistan, amongst some Bedouin women in Israel, and was also practised by the Ethiopian Jews, and it is unclear whether they continue with the practice now that they are settled in Israel. FGM is also practised among Bohra Muslim populations in parts of India and Pakistan, and amongst Muslim populations in Malaysia and Indonesia.

As a result of immigration and refugee movements, FGM is now being practiced by ethnic minority populations in other parts of the world, such as USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. FORWARD estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year.
Consequences of FGM

So, while we see it crosses religious boundaries, and countries have moved to ban it, the ignorance and barbarity continues, and Islam is one of those ignorant forces behind it's continuance.  


copied with permission from mozzaok

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:16pm:

[url][/url]http://www.indonesiamatters.com/648/female-circumcision/ The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims.                                  And more It's Indonesia's biggest secret. Most of its women have been subjected to an operation which the World Health Organisation says is unnecessary. Matthew Moore and Karuni Rompies report.                                  And more Dhimmitude in Europe advances apace. Hot on the heels of a Swiss court's reinstating Hani Ramadan to his teaching position despite his advocating stoning for adultery, a mosque in the Netherlands has come out with a pamphlet advocating female genital mutilation. From Expatica, with thanks to "Allah.                                  And finally Where is FGM Practised? The majority of cases of FGM are carried out in 28 African countries. In some countries, (e.g. Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan), prevalence rates can be as high as 98 per cent. In other countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya, Togo and Senegal, the prevalence rates vary between 20 and 50 per cent. It is more accurate however, to view FGM as being practised by specific ethnic groups, rather than by a whole country, as communities practising FGM straddle national boundaries. FGM takes place in parts of the Middle East, i.e. in Yemen, Oman, Iraqi Kurdistan, amongst some Bedouin women in Israel, and was also practised by the Ethiopian Jews, and it is unclear whether they continue with the practice now that they are settled in Israel. FGM is also practised among Bohra Muslim populations in parts of India and Pakistan, and amongst Muslim populations in Malaysia and Indonesia. As a result of immigration and refugee movements, FGM is now being practiced by ethnic minority populations in other parts of the world, such as USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. FORWARD estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year. Consequences of FGM So, while we see it crosses religious boundaries, and countries have moved to ban it, the ignorance and barbarity continues, and Islam is one of those ignorant forces behind it's continuance.   copied with permission from mozzaok

How stupid could you be Sprint?

I've already explained this and explained how it's not FGM. Even the World Health Organization agrees with me on this.

Again:

The World Health Organization defines FGM as the following:


Quote:

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types: *Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well. *Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina). *Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris. *Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

All four of these are considered forbidden in Islam and are punishable by death, in particular infibulation.

What is considered 'female circumcision' in the Islamic world at least is the removal or reduction of the clitoral hood to promote cleanliness, it is not harming any of the woman's genitals at all and doesn't take away a woman's ability to have sexual satisfaction. It promotes cleanliness just as male circumcision does and in fact can increase a woman's pleasure during sexual intercourse.

This practice is also done by many doctors in the West including the two following:

http://www.altermd.com/clitoropexy_clitoral_hood_reduction.htm

http://www.drkarenboyle.com/clitoral_hood_reduction_clitoropexy.html

That is not FGM and is acceptable in Islam. Unlike Christianity, Islam encourages sex with ones wife/husband and even to the extent of it being something that one receives blessings from God for.

just keeping things on thread malik.

what another disgusting primitive islamic thing that muslims support fanatically.

Women living under Islamic laws are not allowed to work, travel, go to college, join organizations, or visit friends and relatives without the permission of their father or husband.
They can be legally jailed or executed for violations of Islamic laws, depending on the seriousness the infraction.
Quranic verse 24:31 warns Muslim women not to make eye contact or allow any part of their skin or jewelry to be seen by strangers, "and tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect themselves from illegal sexual acts, and not show off their adornment [to all men] and boys]." As a result of this verse, if an adult girl (9 years and older) is raped by an adult man, she will be considered at fault because she was careless and provoked the attack. Her parents will be expected to severely punish or kill her for dishonoring her family.
If a woman is taken political prisoner, and condemned to death, Islamic law prevents her from being executed as long as she is a virgin because Muslim leaders believe virgins go to heaven. But, according to those same leaders, women involved in politics are "ungodly creatures" who do not deserve to go to heaven. To insure that an "ungodly virgin" does not enter heaven, the woman's captors will treat her as a concubine making it legal for her to be systematically raped.
Islamic justification for raping woman prisoners can be found because Muhammad gave permission for Muslim warriors to rape enemy prisoners "except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you….." Surah 4:24. The key words for the Islamic legal code are "whom your hands possess" and "thus Allah has ordained for you."
Muslim Quranic (bible) verse 4:34 instructs Muslim men to "admonish" and "beat" their wives if they become "rebellious" and that "men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights."
In an Islamic court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to override the testimony of one man. Justification for this legal tradition is found in Quran 2:282.
Muslim women are not allowed equal right to their inheritance (Quran 4:11-12) because they are only worth half of a man's share. In most Islamic countries, women are not allowed to vote and are certainly not allowed to be elected to public office.
According to Islam, most women are inherently evil and their ultimate destiny is Hell fire. Muhammad explained about one of his visions, ". . . I stood at the gate of the Fire [Hell] and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."
When a women asked Muhammad why there were more women in Hell than men, he replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you."
When the woman asked what was deficient in a woman's intelligence and religion, Muhammad answered, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses? This is the deficiency in her religion."
Because Muhammad said, "marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial," polygamy is legal in Islam. A man may marry "four Permanent" and as many "Provisional" or temporary wives as he desires.
Because Muhammad said, "your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish," Islam assumes not only that women are worth less than men, but that they are property who must unquestionable meet all her husband's sexual desires. If she refuses, he has the legal right under Islamic law to deny her food, shelter, and all of life's necessities.
A Muslim woman does not have the right to choose who she wants to marry. She is not permitted to divorce her husband unless she can prove he is impotent or that he does not have sex with her "at least one night in every forty nights" and if he has not provided her with a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the woman would need another witness, because Muhammad said a women's testimony counts only "half of a man's."
If a Muslim women protests any of her treatment, she is reminded that "her husband can divorce her simply by repeating "I divorce you" three times and that her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her" if she continues to rebel.

If a Muslim women protests any of her treatment, she is reminded that "her husband can divorce her simply by repeating "I divorce you" three times and that her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her" if she continues to rebel.
Since Muhammad's time, Muslim women have been made to fear the Hell Fire consequences of disobeying husbands and fathers, but what can the loyal and obedient women expect to find for herself in paradise?
Because Paradise, is described in largely male terms, the exact nature of an equivalent reward for women remains unclear. Married women, who pass the purity test will be reunited with their husbands and children. A woman who married more than once would have to choose which husband she would prefer to join her in the after-life. She, however, remains reserved for her husbands, if one chooses to keep her.
Men who married more than once will remain free to keep all their wives while having the privilege of being attended to by 72 pure, beautiful, dark eyed, lustrous angelic maidens, whose bodies continuously reclaims as "virgins."
Muslim scholars say that Muslim women in Paradise are also rebuilt young and beautiful with perpetual virginity, but that there is no Quranic promise of virgins for women.
Although Muhammad was heard promising that "round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls," Muslim scholars are emphatic that the pretty virgin boys in Paradise are not there for the women.
"I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity . . . Islam believes and promotes only one relationship between male and female and that is the relation of lust . . . I have no explanation on why God denied me everything and made men in charge of me, if there is a God. I don't believe there ever was one."-- Dr. Parvin Darabi, a rehabilitated Muslim woman, author and activist.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/muslim_women.htm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:28pm:

just keeping things on thread malik. what another disgusting primitive islamic thing that muslims support fanatically.

Sprint, you really must be quite stupid here if you are still ignoring what I've written.

The piercing, reduction or removal of the clitoral hood is not FGM, it's completely legal and acceptable, it's done by many doctors in the West and I've shown you two of them.

malik - it is done to 100% of the women in muslim countries.
It is mass female vulva multilation.

Unless they are all so dirty and infected they all medically need it.

we are in the year 2008, not 1008


"AT least eight women and one man have been sentenced to be stoned to death in Iran and may be executed at any time, the lawyers defending several of those sentenced said today.

The eight women, ranging in age from 27 to 43, had convictions including prostitution, incest and adultery.

The man, a 50-year-old music teacher, was convicted of illegal sex with a student.

The last officially reported stoning in the Islamic Republic was carried out on a man a year ago which drew criticism from rights groups, the European Union and a top U.N. official.

Iran's judiciary chief Ayatollah Mohmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi ordered a moratorium on stoning in 2002.

"Our specific and clear demand is to have the stoning sentence stopped by Ayatollah Shahroudi since the defendants are liable to be stoned at any moment," defence lawyer Mariam Kian-Arsi said.

Judiciary officials were not immediately available for comment.

But the Iranian authorities routinely dismiss charges of rights abuses, saying they are acting on Islamic sharia law.

The lawyers issued a list of those facing stoning, saying it numbered at least nine people and urged parliament to remove stoning and other corporal punishments from law books.

"We are trying to have such punishments removed and replaced by different ones so that it would be compatible with the dignity of humanity," lawyer Mohammad Mostafaie said.

According to Iran's Islamic penal code, men convicted of adultery should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests for stoning.

Stones used should not be large enough to kill the person immediately.

Shadi Sadr, another defence lawyer, called on the international community and rights groups to back their efforts.

"We are in close touch with human rights organisations and many of them have supported our campaign," Sadr said.

Amnesty International earlier this year called on Iran to immediately abolish "this grotesque punishment" and said many of those awaiting execution by stoning were sentenced after grossly unfair trials.

Iran responds to Western criticism of its rights record by pointing to what it says are abuses in the West, such as detainees held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay. "



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24048793-12335,00.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Women living under Islamic laws are not allowed to work, travel, go to college, join organizations, or visit friends and relatives without the permission of their father or husband.

Not exactly true.



Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

They can be legally jailed or executed for violations of Islamic laws, depending on the seriousness the infraction.

So can men.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Quranic verse 24:31 warns Muslim women not to make eye contact or allow any part of their skin or jewelry to be seen by strangers, "and tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect themselves from illegal sexual acts, and not show off their adornment [to all men] and boys]." As a result of this verse, if an adult girl (9 years and older) is raped by an adult man, she will be considered at fault because she was careless and provoked the attack. Her parents will be expected to severely punish or kill her for dishonoring her family.

That is completely false, in fact you know for a fact that's a lie and I've explained why that's not the case before. It just goes to show you don't change and your only intention is to incite hate because your a bible thumping Christian who wants to force your religion down everyone elses throat. A girl who is raped is never considered to have deserved it in Islam, and honour killings are a pre Islamic practice that is forbidden in Islam. We execute the rapist and not the victim.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

If a woman is taken political prisoner, and condemned to death, Islamic law prevents her from being executed as long as she is a virgin because Muslim leaders believe virgins go to heaven. But, according to those same leaders, women involved in politics are "ungodly creatures" who do not deserve to go to heaven. To insure that an "ungodly virgin" does not enter heaven, the woman's captors will treat her as a concubine making it legal for her to be systematically raped.

Not true at all. Where is your evidence?


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Islamic justification for raping woman prisoners can be found because Muhammad gave permission for Muslim warriors to rape enemy prisoners "except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you….." Surah 4:24. The key words for the Islamic legal code are "whom your hands possess" and "thus Allah has ordained for you."

Slavery was a practice of the prophets of the Bible too. In fact your own holy book allows it. God allowed it in the old testament and as we know, You believe the God of the old testament is Jesus.

Deutronomy 20:10-15

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.  This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Muslim Quranic (bible) verse 4:34 instructs Muslim men to "admonish" and "beat" their wives if they become "rebellious" and that "men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights."

Not the managers of affairs of women at all, the protectors and maintainers in fact. We are obligated to protect them and provide for them.

You also know Islam's stance regarding the 'beating' issue. So obviously your only trying to incite hate


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

In an Islamic court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to override the testimony of one man. Justification for this legal tradition is found in Quran 2:282.

Not quite, this is regarding business transactions. Not regarding criminal trials. Christianity and Judaism however don't even let women be witnesses.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Muslim women are not allowed equal right to their inheritance (Quran 4:11-12) because they are only worth half of a man's share. In most Islamic countries, women are not allowed to vote and are certainly not allowed to be elected to public office.

Women can be elected into public office and it's not forbidden at all, and they can vote too. Unlike in Christianity and Judaism they had no such luxury.

Islam gives women 50% of the share of inheritance because she has no financial outlays whatsoever, it's the man who looks after his parents, wife and provides for them all. His money is his wifes, and his wifes is only hers. He can't touch it.

Compare that with Christianity and Judaism where women can't inherit anything unless there are NO sons whatsoever. If there are sons then girls get nothing.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

According to Islam, most women are inherently evil and their ultimate destiny is Hell fire. Muhammad explained about one of his visions, ". . . I stood at the gate of the Fire [Hell] and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women." When a women asked Muhammad why there were more women in Hell than men, he replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you."

No, according to Christianity and Judaism women are considered inherently evil because of the Adam and Eve story. Islam doesn't hold this to be the case and doesn't cast judgement on people who haven't been proven to commit a crime. Unlike Christinity and Judaism.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

When the woman asked what was deficient in a woman's intelligence and religion, Muhammad answered, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses? This is the deficiency in her religion."

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of this, it is not referring to a dificiency in the quality of religion and her belief, but a dificiency in the quantity and prayers a woman can do etc.

Unlike Christianity and Judaism we don't judge women based on the actions of women previous.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Because Muhammad said, "marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial," polygamy is legal in Islam. A man may marry "four Permanent" and as many "Provisional" or temporary wives as he desires.

Hmm, The messengers of the Old Testament who were messengers of God had multiple wives, in fact I think most of them did. If you condemn Muslims for this you condemn those messengers and even Jesus because according to you he is the God of the Old testament.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Because Muhammad said, "your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish," Islam assumes not only that women are worth less than men, but that they are property who must unquestionable meet all her husband's sexual desires. If she refuses, he has the legal right under Islamic law to deny her food, shelter, and all of life's necessities.

LOL, not quite true.

Yes, our wives belong to us, as we belong to our wives. The level of ownership relates to ones rights over each other. My wife has rights over me as I have rights over her, those rights no other woman has over me (unless I am married to her) and no other man has those rights over my wife, thus there is a form of possession. But certainly not objectification.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

A Muslim woman does not have the right to choose who she wants to marry. She is not permitted to divorce her husband unless she can prove he is impotent or that he does not have sex with her "at least one night in every forty nights" and if he has not provided her with a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the woman would need another witness, because Muhammad said a women's testimony counts only "half of a man's."

Not true at all. In fact your a complete liar because you know that's forbidden in Islam. Islam forbids forced marriages and no woman can be married off to a man without her permission.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

If a Muslim women protests any of her treatment, she is reminded that "her husband can divorce her simply by repeating "I divorce you" three times and that her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her" if she continues to rebel.

Not true at all. A husband cannot divorce a woman after simply saying I divorce you three times. That's a big misconception even amongst Arabs.

Divorce can be pronounced once and when this happens the woman goes into a waiting period of 3 months, if during this time they reconcile then their marriage can continue. However the 3 divorces is actually a protection for the women to teach men how serious saying 'i divorce you' is, because if he does it three times during their marriage, then their divorce will be final and he cannot marry her again. It is to teach men how serious it is to even pronounce such a thing.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:57pm:

malik - it is done to 100% of the women in muslim countries. It is mass female vulva multilation. Unless they are all so dirty and infected they all medically need it.

I feel sorry for your poor wife if you actually believe that the clitoral hood is the only element of a womans vulva. Obviously you don't know anything about a women's anatomy. The vulva is part of the outside of a womans genitals but the clitoral hood itself being removed will not effect the woman harmfully. The clitoral hood is not the only part of a woman's vulva Sprint. The clitoral hood can be pierced, removed or reduced and that isn't considered FGM. In fact it's some women in the West and the East get their clitoral hood pierced. Many others get their clitoral hood removed or reduced so that it's more hygenic and so that sex is better for them.

Islam forbids FGM

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 11:01pm:

we are in the year 2008, not 1008 "AT least eight women and one man have been sentenced to be stoned to death in Iran and may be executed at any time, the lawyers defending several of those sentenced said today. The eight women, ranging in age from 27 to 43, had convictions including prostitution, incest and adultery. The man, a 50-year-old music teacher, was convicted of illegal sex with a student. The last officially reported stoning in the Islamic Republic was carried out on a man a year ago which drew criticism from rights groups, the European Union and a top U.N. official. Iran's judiciary chief Ayatollah Mohmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi ordered a moratorium on stoning in 2002. "Our specific and clear demand is to have the stoning sentence stopped by Ayatollah Shahroudi since the defendants are liable to be stoned at any moment," defence lawyer Mariam Kian-Arsi said. Judiciary officials were not immediately available for comment. But the Iranian authorities routinely dismiss charges of rights abuses, saying they are acting on Islamic sharia law. The lawyers issued a list of those facing stoning, saying it numbered at least nine people and urged parliament to remove stoning and other corporal punishments from law books. "We are trying to have such punishments removed and replaced by different ones so that it would be compatible with the dignity of humanity," lawyer Mohammad Mostafaie said. According to Iran's Islamic penal code, men convicted of adultery should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests for stoning. Stones used should not be large enough to kill the person immediately. Shadi Sadr, another defence lawyer, called on the international community and rights groups to back their efforts. "We are in close touch with human rights organisations and many of them have supported our campaign," Sadr said. Amnesty International earlier this year called on Iran to immediately abolish "this grotesque punishment" and said many of those awaiting execution by stoning were sentenced after grossly unfair trials. Iran responds to Western criticism of its rights record by pointing to what it says are abuses in the West, such as detainees held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay. " http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24048793-12335,00.html

I never said Iran is an Islamic state, however if these women are guilty of their crimes of adultery, incest and prostitution and it could be proven with eye witness accounts then they certainly are liable for death by stoning as a punishment. Islam forbids these behaviours and I'm not going to apologize for that. I will mention however, as you are VERY well aware, that men are also liable for sucha a punishment if found to be committing the same crimes.

Stop trying to make it look like women only have these punishments.

From the Iran thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/42#42


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 11:44am:

Quote: It was only relatively recently that the middle east stopped selling their women as slaves Are we talking about the middle east, as in the real physical tangible location on planet earth? Or the fictional setting in the writings of the famous orientalists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire)


Quote:

Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society.[1] As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.[2] In Istanbul, about one-fifth of the population consisted of slaves.[3]

I would hardly call that better treatment of women than today. Maybe I am underestimating just how badly women are treated in the middle east right now.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 12:13pm:

From the Iran thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/42#42 abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 11:44am: Quote: It was only relatively recently that the middle east stopped selling their women as slaves Are we talking about the middle east, as in the real physical tangible location on planet earth? Or the fictional setting in the writings of the famous orientalists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire) [quote]Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society.[1] As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.[2] In Istanbul, about one-fifth of the population consisted of slaves.[3]

I would hardly call that better treatment of women than today. Maybe I am underestimating just how badly women are treated in the middle east right now.[/quote]
I have mentioned previously that the Ottoman empire was not perfect and in particular towards the end became quite corrupted. That I won't deny at all. However let's take a look at how some women are treated in Western Countries today shall we?


Quote:

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_2/11_slavery.html Slavery in Europe   Human Traffic   Published: 11-Feb-2003 By: Gaby Rado   Channel 4 News uncovers the modern day slave trade taking place across Eastern Europe. Our correspondent talks to the women in Romania who were literally sold into slavery.   Diana isn't sure of her surname - and she can't read or write. She probably has a mental age of about ten, but not long ago, she even wanted a baby's dummy. She's now safe in a women's refuge in Romania. But just a few weeks ago, she was a slave. We filmed her standing next to a man who was about to sell her – she was asking him if her buyer would beat her. He said her new owner will feed her and give her warm clothes. Minutes later, four hundred dollars is paid for her. She told Channel 4 News: "I was prostituted by force. I was beaten with a chain, I was kept undressed, naked in the cold, outside in the cold, and chained in a dog's cage, a large one. "And after they gave me food, they kept me eight weeks without eating, then I was taken away by men, raped." This is Bucharest, Romania, but it could probably be anywhere on the poorer fringes of the former Soviet empire - Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus. With freedom from communism came the domination of money. And with that, young women with no money became pieces of merchandise. We decided to test how easy it would be to buy a slave - for anyone, at any time. We drove into a run down part of the city, and in less than half an hour, had found someone who said it could possibly be arranged. We were taken round the corner and shown a girl. She's obscured by one of the men. The woman walked back into the courtyard. If we had proceeded, it may have gone something like this. An undercover team went to the house of a man calling himself "Shorty". A young woman appeared, and underwent the most degrading kind of exhibition. The team claimed they would come back with money and left. Two weeks later, they contacted Shorty again, and he said the blond woman had already been sold. Outside, Diana clearly showed her relief at having a new owner. The pay-off for Shorty took place at a nearby park - there's little doubt he was to take a cut as the middle-man. Finally the four hundred dollars in local currency is counted out. Diana is then taken to a women's refuge and the full horror of her story emerges and shows the burn marks on her shoulder, thought to have been made by red-hot chains. She said she had been their slave since she ran away from home in the city of Timisoara at the age of ten after her father had raped her. She's then told she was nobody's property and would have food and a bed to sleep in. Diana, who's in the refuge with eight other former enslaved women, has changed in appearance. Her weight has increased because of "street kid sydrome" the impulse to overeat, caused by former starvation. This is the only refuge of its kind in Romania, where ten thousand women are thought to be trafficked every year. Her story may well be typical. Diana: "I was prostituted by force, I was beaten with a chain, I was kept undressed,naked in the cold, outside in the cold, and chained in a dog's cage. "It was a large one and after they gave me food, they kept me 8 weeks practically without eating, then I was taken away by men, raped, I was forced to do all types of sex." The founder of the refuge says the final amount paid for Diana was actually too high. Had the buyers not posed as foreigners it would have been around $100, we were told. During our filming, by chance, we spotted Shorty the trafficker on the streets, openly talking to policemen. The Romanian authorities say whatever measures they take, corruption does take place. After her unimaginable past, Diana hopes she has a future. She wants to learn to be a cook, and maybe have a family. But for the unknown, un-named young blond woman, she and thousands like her have disappeared into the night, sold at least once, but more likely several times more. Trafficking in women is a growing trade and while poverty and profit-making exist side-by side, it will continue.

what does it say in the koran about women ??

A woman is worth 1/2 a man ?
amongst other nicieties such as the assaination of a mother means as much to mohammad as 2 goats butting heads ??

mohammads bonking of a 9 year old girl.

who would follow that sicko ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:25pm:

what does it say in the koran about women ?? A woman is worth 1/2 a man ? amongst other nicieties such as the assaination of a mother means as much to mohammad as 2 goats butting heads ?? mohammads bonking of a 9 year old girl. who would follow that sicko ?

Where is your evidence that says a woman is worth half a man in the Quran?

You forget, in your own religion that Jesus christ is the God of the old testament who ordered the following punishment:

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

You also forget that Mary, was married to Joseph when she was 12-14 and already pregnant and Joseph was 90 years old and after Jesus was born they had more children and God allowed a 90 year old man to have sex with a little 12-14 year old.

So this all was allowed by God so according to your own logic you are saying that God is a sicko..

How hypocritical..

I smell an olive grove burning Sprint.. You can't help yourself can't you? Your so filled with hate that you actually can't help yourself.

I could expect nothing less from a fanatical Christian bible thumping extremist

I have mentioned previously that the Ottoman empire was not perfect and in particular towards the end became quite corrupted.

In the end? Didn't they have slaves all the way through?

However let's take a look at how some women are treated in Western Countries today shall we?

What exactly do you hope to prove with this? It's a pretty juvenile line of argument, don't you agree?

Quote:

Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society.[1] As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.[2] In Istanbul, about one-fifth of the population consisted of slaves.[3]

Just because wikipedia says it's so, doesn't make it so.

The Ottoman Caliphate banned slave trading long before 1908, so I think that source would have ot be considered dubious.

Also did you notice the European painting in that wiki article? The one of an "Arabian slave market", that had several robed Arab men standing around a naked slave woman? That about says it all regarding the European knowledge of slavery in Muslim lands. It's all based on orientalist fantasies and delusions of harems.

Just because wikipedia says it's so, doesn't make it so.

It doesn't make it wrong either. The article references other sources.

Abu, I'm not sure what your point of discussion is. Are you saying that the slave trade didn't happen during the Ottoman Empire because it was referenced in Wikipedia? Or that the slave trade weren't abolished in 1908?

Acid, I stated in no uncertain terms:


Quote:

The Ottoman Caliphate banned slave trading long before 1908

How is this ambigious enough that it would lead you to ask me that question?

freediver,


Quote:

It doesn't make it wrong either. The article references other sources.

Yeh it references a BBC article about a documentary they made, which itself has no reference for the claim. It's a known fact the Ottoman government abolished slave trading long before this, so such a comment is really irrelevant.


Quote:

As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire

This is about as clear as saying "As late as 2008 women slaves were still being sold in Eastern Europe". However they used the word Ottoman as if to imply the Ottoman Government approved of such an activity at that point in time. When it clearly didn't, as it had banned the practise.

Yes, and Islam has banned FGM.
I am making a run for pope.
Women who say No, really mean Yes.

Any more blinding truths you care to dazzle us with?

I guess anyone who relys on desert dogma to define his reality, should be expected to have trouble discerning fact from fiction.

Funnily enough your, silly putty of a, religion seems to have no qualms about saying one thing, but doing nothing about it's followers, doing the exact opposite.

It goes back to the question I posed a while ago.

Who's in charge?

Any nutjob who claims to have read and understood the koran, can start pontificating on what "real" muslims should do.
Unfortunately for the average muslim, and the rest of us, there are thousands of these nutjobs, and they could not agree if it was night or day.

It's a known fact the Ottoman government abolished slave trading long before this

When?

Unfortunately for the average muslim, and the rest of us, there are thousands of these nutjobs, and they could not agree if it was night or day.

No Mozz, it's American interference that is causing the problems..... If it wasn't for that, the nutjobs would have reached an agreement by now.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:26pm:

Acid, I stated in no uncertain terms: Quote: The Ottoman Caliphate banned slave trading long before 1908 How is this ambigious enough that it would lead you to ask me that question?

I was giving you a chance to further explain your comment which you didn't. Yes, you are being ambiguous. You claim the wiki source is dubious without offering a more "credible" source.

This, in spite of many independent historical references stating that the slave trade went as far as 1908. FD may have quoted from wiki to which you scoffed at. However, wiki is not the only source to say this.

How long was "long before"? What are we talking about here, days, weeks, years, decades, centuries before? What are you basing your comments on. What makes the many validating references invalid?

Are you falling into the same trap as Sprint by quoting only sources (whatever they may be, because you haven't revealed them) that validates one view while ignoring other (scientific, historical and secular) opinions. This is like Sprint's "secret source" in the trench treachery thread which turned out to be a bible-bashing anti-Islam website.

Try to be more accomodating instead of dishing out one line throw away answers. You are not presenting your case well enough nor helping others to understand. To do so gives you no right to cry indignance that people don't understand your faith or culture.

Perhaps it was officially banned on Christmas day in 1907.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 11:27am:

Perhaps it was officially banned on Christmas day in 1907.

;D ;D ;D


Or one week after Ramadan.

;)

Quote:

How long was "long before"? What are we talking about here, days, weeks, years, decades, centuries before?

Capturing of new slaves (which Islam only allows in military conquest) was outlawed by Sultan Mahmoud II in the 1830's. Although isolated cases did occur by some tribes in two wars after the reform, these were isolated instances and the captives were subsequently returned.

Slaves were still owned beyond this time, and traded until the 1850's when trading in slaves was also outlawed under the reforms of Abdul Majid.

There was still the existence of slavery in Ottoman lands after these times, and the authorities probably weren't too strict about it. But it was officially banned.

Source: Islam and the Abolition of Slavery (W. G. Clarence-Smith)

Do many people still own slaves over there?

Ottoman restricted the slave tade in stages.

1847: slave trade banned in Persian Gulf
1857: African slave trade banned
1864: Traffic in Georgian and Circassian child slaves restricted
1867: Programme introduced to help slaves from Russia get their freedom
1887-1880: Conventions against the slave trade signed with Britain
1890: Brussels Act against slave trade signed
1908: Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the end of slave trade

freediver,


Quote:

Do many people still own slaves over there?

Over where? In case you haven't been keeping up with the news, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist some years ago.

acid,


Quote:

1908: Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the end of slave trade

I don't know where you got this little timeline from, but it's not very accurate, the Ottoman Empire certainly was not dissolved in 1908.

But the place still exists. Some rich middle easterners were recently busted in Europe because they brought their slaves with them to a fancy hotel. That seems pretty arrogant and indicates to me that keeping slaves must still go unquestioned and be fairly common in parts of the middle east.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 8:16am:

acid, Quote: 1908: Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the end of slave trade I don't know where you got this little timeline from, but it's not very accurate, the Ottoman Empire certainly was not dissolved in 1908.

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/decline_main.htm

http://www.experiencefestival.com/ottoman_empire_-_dissolution_19081922

http://www.experiencefestival.com/ottoman_empire_-_religion

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

http://www.crystalinks.com/ottomanempire.html

http://historyofottoman.com/index_files/page0006.htm

http://www.discoverturkey.tv/page.php?cid=477&seo=/Dissolution+in+Ottoman+Empire+%281908%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C5%931922%29

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ottoman-Empire#Dissolution_.281908.E2.80.931922.29

http://www.umich.edu/~turkish/links/ottemp_brhist.html

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928737-6.pdf




Are these sources enough for you. Perhaps I should have said that the beginning of the end began in 1908.

freediver,

As usual, I'm not particularly interested in defending what some British-created monarchy in the Middle East has done, and as usual I can't really see the relevance to Islam.


Quote:

That seems pretty arrogant and indicates to me that keeping slaves must still go unquestioned and be fairly common in parts of the middle east.

Those monarchies are setup and backed by the West. They get all their military from the West, and they use it to not defend the people, but to maintain control of the people, and to institute things like slavery over foregin workers, something Islam STRICTLY forbids.

I know that you've got no leg to stand on in this argument, but at least argue something half plausible. Islam allowing enslavement of foreign workers (many of whom are Muslims) is just ridiculous.


Acid,


Quote:

Are these sources enough for you. Perhaps I should have said that the beginning of the end began in 1908.

The dissolution officially occured in 1923, with the proclamation of the Republic. In 1922 the Sultanate was officially abolished, but since no new form of government had been specified, the Caliphate (which is what you call the Ottoman Empire) still existed

You can attempt to claim 1908 is when the "beginning of the end" occured etc. others would use even earlier dates. The fact is the empire still existed and certainly had not been dissolved, in fact it still entered a war after this time, certainly not something a dissolved empire could accomplish. Dissolution is the point at which it ceases to exist, not when decline has reached beyond an unrecoverable state, which is what 1908 could be seen as..  So just admit it was a technicality the site you quoted from missed, and continue with your point.

As usual, I'm not particularly interested in defending what some British-created monarchy in the Middle East has done, and as usual I can't really see the relevance to Islam.

So the fact that they are merely carrying on a tradition which was the foundation of the Ottoman empire and is even today considered by some to be ordained by the Koran is irrelevant? You use some really convoluted logic to blame every problem in the middle east on the west. In fact it was pressure from Britain that contributed to the decline of slavery.

something Islam STRICTLY forbids

Crap. It was only fairly recently that Muslims decided Islam is opposed to slavery and not all Muslims have even progressed that far. I think even Malik believes that slavery is OK in Islam.

Quote:

So the fact that they are merely carrying on a tradition which was the foundation of the Ottoman empire

First you'd need to prove the supposed continuity between the Ottoman Empire, and the British-created Monarchy, to establish this was a state sponsored practice just merely merged into a cultural practise of the people once that state ceased to exercise authority over the region.


Quote:

and is even today considered by some to be ordained by the Koran is irrelevant?

The Qur'an does not ordain the enslavement of foreign workers, and I challenge you to bring any evidence of any Muslim authority claiming this.


Quote:

You use some really convoluted logic to blame every problem in the middle east on the west.

The British created the Emirates, if you dispute this, go take a history lesson.


Quote:

Crap. It was only fairly recently that Muslims decided Islam is opposed to slavery and not all Muslims have even progressed that far. I think even Malik believes that slavery is OK in Islam.

This statement is absolutely useless, as nowhere did I state Islam completely forbids the possessing of captives, on the contrary Ive iterated many times that Islam permits it, but you've so fr failed to grasp this fact.

You keep throwing up pathetic arguments that are completely removed from the reality, and they are continually being shot down.

to establish this was a state sponsored practice

Why would I want to establish that it is a state sponsored practice? I'm trying to do the opposite, if anything. The state aspect is only relevant to the Ottoman empire part because it was an Islamic Caliphate and because Islam is a system of government.

The Qur'an does not ordain the enslavement of foreign workers

Of course not, they would be slaves, not 'workers' and they would have to catch them some other way. I'm not sure why it makes any difference how they end up as slaves, which I think is what you are getting at. You seem to be missing the pont. Islam allows slavery. The fact that the example in the media involves slaves that were obtained in a slightly different manner to the ordained way is kind of beside the point. the problem is slavery, not the correct way to enslave people.

The British created the Emirates, if you dispute this, go take a history lesson.

We are not discussing the emirates. We are discussing slavery. The fact that the British created the Emirates does not resolve the local people of responsibility for their own actions. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but you cannot blame the west for every problem in the middle east. The west did not bring slavery to the middle east. They tried to get rid of it, but it appears they awere not 100% successful.

I think we define slavery differently FD.

How about you tell me what you consider a slave? what are their rights? are they considered human? How can one treat them? etc.

If they don't have the right to simply walk away from the job, they are slaves.

Quote:

Why would I want to establish that it is a state sponsored practice? I'm trying to do the opposite, if anything. The state aspect is only relevant to the Ottoman empire part because it was an Islamic Caliphate and because Islam is a system of government.

You insinuated it was a state-sponsored practise that remained in the culture of the people as the Ottoman control of the region merged into the modern Emirates.

Just so you don't forgot your own words, here they are once again:


Quote:

So the fact that they are merely carrying on a tradition which was the foundation of the Ottoman empire...

Now it's quite clear to anyone who has the faintest inkling about the history of the modern gulf that the evaporation of Ottoman control in the region and the founding of the modern Emirates are very disjointed occurences that are seperated by several decades and involve British domination of the region.

This would appear to render your original claim about "carrying on tradition of the ottoman empire" as absolutely baseless.


Quote:

Of course not, they would be slaves, not 'workers' and they would have to catch them some other way.

I really can't for the life of me work out what this one is about. Care to elaborate?


Quote:

I'm not sure why it makes any difference how they end up as slaves, which I think is what you are getting at.

Of course it makes a difference. You're trying to blame Islam for what the Emirates royals were doing, when it's quite clear Islam forbids what they're doing. That makes quite a difference.


Quote:

You seem to be missing the pont. Islam allows slavery.

Nope not missing the point. And as I stated quite clearly in my last post, I am well aware of this. Why are you still dancing around this?


Quote:

We are not discussing the emirates. We are discussing slavery.

You're talking about the improper actions of the Emirates monarchy, and since the British established that monarchy, then I think it's quite relevant.


Quote:

The fact that the British created the Emirates does not resolve the local people of responsibility for their own actions

I think you mean absolve, not resolve them :)

You are attempting to blame the Ottoman Caliphate and Islam for the actions of that monarchy, and as is quite obvious, the British bear far more of the responsibility for the form and actions of the Emirati Monarchy.


Quote:

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but you cannot blame the west for every problem in the middle east

When it's quite clearly the result of a British action in the region, then I'm quite justified in levelling blame on them. If there's a specific instance when I've blamed them for something, and you wish to challenge the history of their involvement there, then feel free, in this case, it's quite obvious that the British being the founders of that Monarchy should be held responsible for it's actions, certainly far more responsible than Islam.

In effect what you seek to do is blame Islam and the Ottoman Caliphate for the actions of the modern day states in the region, yet the power which abolished the Ottoman Caliphate and Islam and then created those modern day states to supplant Islam and the Ottoman Caliphate  should remain completely free of any blame? I'm sure you can appreciate how unrealistic that is.


Quote:

The west did not bring slavery to the middle east.

Correct they didn't. Slavery existed almost everywhere in the world in times past. To suggest the Muslims are worse for doing it is just the pot calling the kettle black.


Quote:

They tried to get rid of it

After they'd built their empire on the backs of those slaves, yes they attempted to outlaw it to prevent the other European Colonial Powers from competing with them... Let's not kid ourselves about their intentions.

You insinuated it was a state-sponsored practise that remained in the culture

No, I insinutated it was supported under Islam, hence the Caliphate.

Now it's quite clear to anyone who has the faintest inkling about the history of the modern gulf that the evaporation of Ottoman control in the region and the founding of the modern Emirates are very disjointed occurences that are seperated by several decades and involve British domination of the region.

So what? That does not mean you can blame the British for slavery.

This would appear to render your original claim about "carrying on tradition of the ottoman empire" as absolutely baseless.

No it wouldn't. Traditions do not die out in 30 years.

when it's quite clear Islam forbids what they're doing

Islam does not forbid slavery. It is slavery I oppose, not certain emthods of catching slaves.

You're talking about the improper actions of the Emirates monarchy

No, I gave it as an example to indicate that the practice has not been eliminated in the middle east. It was an example, not the entire argument.

When it's quite clearly the result of a British action in the region, then I'm quite justified in levelling blame on them.

But it's not. It's an absurd conclusion that the British are to blame for a practice that was rpesent before they arrived and which they tried to stamp out.

Slavery existed almost everywhere in the world in times past.

But not in 1900.

they attempted to outlaw it to prevent the other European Colonial Powers from competing with them

Crap. They outlawed it because it was wrong. They put themselves ata  disadvantage, not an advantage.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 4:51pm:

If they don't have the right to simply walk away from the job, they are slaves.

Hmmmm. You don't actually know much about slavery in Islam don't you FD? It's considerably different to Western Slavery

Sop Islamic slaves can walk away from the job? Or are you again trying to come up with a triviality to justify something? Like when you thought that requiring witnesses would justify stoning gay people to death?

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:

Sop Islamic slaves can walk away from the job? Or are you again trying to come up with a triviality to justify something? Like when you thought that requiring witnesses would justify stoning gay people to death?

I think you need to firstly find out how they became slaves in the first place.

I'll give you an example of what happens if the slave asks for freedom.

The owner cannot refuse the request and they are encouraged to do so for free if they can afford it. If not then the owner has to set a reasonable price for the freedom (this amount cannot be something which will keep the slave in slavery for years and years and should be reasonable). In that time the owner has to provide food, clothing, accommodation to the slave in addition to putting a wage comparable to that of a free person aside until the slave has finished paying the amount off. After this occurs the slave is given their freedom and the former owner is encouraged to give them a bonus to set up their life in addition to keeping them on as an employee.

If you compare that with the way the West treated their slaves, not giving them any rights, treating them as if they animals and subhuman, beating them and killing them at a whim and certainly not ever giving them the chance of release if they wish. Heck they wouldn't even teach them how to read or write!

Islam forbids that type of slavery and what we consider slavery is different than what you do. Pre-Islamic Arabia treated slaves like this too and Islam forbade this behaviour.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

The owner cannot refuse the request and they are encouraged to do so for free if they can afford it. If not then the owner has to set a reasonable price for the freedom (this amount cannot be something which will keep the slave in slavery for years and years and should be reasonable). In that time the owner has to provide food, clothing, accommodation to the slave in addition to putting a wage comparable to that of a free person aside until the slave has finished paying the amount off. After this occurs the slave is given their freedom and the former owner is encouraged to give them a bonus to set up their life in addition to keeping them on as an employee.

Isn't this akin to Asian women being imported in Oz, their passports taken away, given a debt of X thousands of $$$ and then told they have to sleep with X amount of men a day to pay off their debt before their passport is given back to them and released?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:06pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 5:30pm: The owner cannot refuse the request and they are encouraged to do so for free if they can afford it. If not then the owner has to set a reasonable price for the freedom (this amount cannot be something which will keep the slave in slavery for years and years and should be reasonable). In that time the owner has to provide food, clothing, accommodation to the slave in addition to putting a wage comparable to that of a free person aside until the slave has finished paying the amount off. After this occurs the slave is given their freedom and the former owner is encouraged to give them a bonus to set up their life in addition to keeping them on as an employee. Isn't this akin to Asian women being imported in Oz, their passports taken away, given a debt of X thousands of $$$ and then told they have to sleep with X amount of men a day to pay off their debt before their passport is given back to them and released?

Not quite. You have to look at how people get into slavery first in Islam.

Those women are misled and taken unlawfully into slavery. It's considerably different in Islam.

So, you're saying that people willingly become slaves?

Or, how does one "lawfully" become a slave?

If you compare that with the way the West treated their slaves

Shouldn't you compare how the west treated their slaves with how slaves were actually treated in the middle east, not how you think they should have been treated?

Otherwise it's like saying yes you can marry a prepubescent girl, but don't root her until she hits puberty. Or like judging communism by it's ideals rather than it's practice and comparing those ideas with capitalism in practice.

acid,


Quote:

Isn't this akin to Asian women being imported in Oz, their passports taken away, given a debt of X thousands of $$$ and then told they have to sleep with X amount of men a day to pay off their debt before their passport is given back to them and released?

This is prostitution, it's got nothing to do with Islam. Comparing Islam to this is just ridiculous, at least use sensible comparisons.


Quote:

So, you're saying that people willingly become slaves?

No, the only legitimate means by Islamic law is war captives.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 9:46pm:

This is prostitution, it's got nothing to do with Islam. Comparing Islam to this is just ridiculous, at least use sensible comparisons.

I'm not talking about prostitution. Sensible comparison?

What I've describes is based on Oz's closest experience to slaves (ie: sex slaves). There is no other contemporary Oz cases remotely close. My take on Malik's assertion is that the concept is the same.

According to you, the only legitimate way to become a slave is as war captive. Therefore, they are forced into slavery (because they are captured and forced to a life of servitude against their will). Sex slaves are the same - they are either forced or tricked into prostitution.

You have a slave. The slave says "I want to go free". The owner says "Ok but you have to pay off your debt first". How they pay off their debt... whether its sex or cooking is irrelevant. I'm talking about the concept of paying your debt before you can go free (however long that may take).

Whatever the profession of the slave whether as a cook or a prostitute is irrelevant. It's what they are, not what they do. Don't confuse the issue. I think you and Malik are splitting hairs by trying to differentiate the two.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 9:46pm:

No, the only legitimate means by Islamic law is war captives.

That's correct, you can take prisoners of war as slaves. The reason for that is if people go to war against you and you fight them and beat them, then their possessions are yours as war booty. In that case they'll have nothing to survive on as their was no Centerlink back then and they are taken as slaves so that they can be sustained and looked after, this gave the people captured the ability to continue to survive and rebuild their position in society and not be forced into begging or poverty, slaves had to be fed, clothed and fed at the same standards that their master had.

In the history of Islam there have been many people who were previously slaves that actually ended up ruling the Islamic State and one example is the particular the Mameluke Empire in Egypt, they were all slaves previously. As mentioned before, if the slave wishes to have their freedom their master cannot refuse their request and must provide the ability for them to do so, in fact ALLAH says in the Qur'an:


24:33
And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful

As mentioned in the above verse of the Qur'an, a woman cannot be forced to have sex with or be forced into prostitution by their master. If the woman wishes to keep their chastity it is the master's duty to guard it.

This type of slavery is considerably different than Western slavery like that which was seen used against the African American communities. The West's record with the treatment of slaves is far worse and they treated slaves worse than animals. That type of slavery is forbidden in Islam.

Quote:

According to you, the only legitimate way to become a slave is as war captive. Therefore, they are forced into slavery (because they are captured and forced to a life of servitude against their will). Sex slaves are the same - they are either forced or tricked into prostitution.

It means they were engaging in war against the Caliphate, they weren't just poor people seeking a better life by looking for work in another country.

You do speak some crap Malik.
The scumbag slavers are now, thanks to a little Islamic revised history, philanthropists.

Are you that brainwashed that you honestly cannot see how ludicrous that last post was?
What are we going to hear next, that mohammed was the first man on the moon, take a reality check, if you can even still see reality from your position.
I guess slavery was just like a twenty year internship.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:37pm:

You do speak some crap Malik. The scumbag slavers are now, thanks to a little Islamic revised history, philanthropists. Are you that brainwashed that you honestly cannot see how ludicrous that last post was? What are we going to hear next, that mohammed was the first man on the moon, take a reality check, if you can even still see reality from your position. I guess slavery was just like a twenty year internship.

I'm sorry Mozza, are you going to tell me about Islamic history and act like you actually know anything about it? I think you're about to make a fool of yourself if you're going to consider doing that. You know nothing of Arab culture and tribalism and the way Arab warfare worked. So be very careful about what you say here because you're going to make yourself look more stupid than intelligent.

Furthermore you are criticising Islam for human rights? Are you kidding me? Australia's human rights record is terrible when it comes to that, taking the Aboriginals land and declaring it terra nullis, then hunting the Aboriginal men, women and children for sport, they weren't even considered human and killing They had NO rights whatsoever and killing them was considered completely acceptable and had no consequences in the law. In addition to that taking their children away from them and putting them in foster homes, trying to erase their identity and impose the anglo identity on them. That's genocide. Do you know when Aboriginals were even considered citizens of this country and recognized as true human beings?? It wasn't until 1962 (1965 in QLD) that the states recognized them and gave them the right to vote! And you expect to be considered civilized? Dream on mate!

Australia's human rights record more than 1400 years after the establishment of the Islamic state is far worse than any point of Islamic history. Australia has no right whatsoever to criticize this when Australia's history is far darker and Australians have been far worse to Indigenous Australians than any slave has been treated in the Islamic Empire. It truly shows how backwards this country has been.

Just curious Abu and Malik and hypothetically, in this modern and contemporary world, should Palestine invade and defeat Israel thereby absorbing its boundaries would you acknowledge the captured Israeli citizens if they are forced into servitude? Do you consider such legal (by your definition) practice are justified and relevant in todays enlightened thinking if they are forced into slavery?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 1:20am:

Just curious Abu and Malik and hypothetically, in this modern and contemporary world, should Palestine invade and defeat Israel thereby absorbing its boundaries would you acknowledge the captured Israeli citizens if they are forced into servitude? Do you consider such legal (by your definition) practice are justified and relevant in todays enlightened thinking if they are forced into slavery?

I think you really don't quite understand much about what we consider slavery. People aren't forced into it, they have an option to either accept it or leave the lands without their possessions or stay in the lands if they wished but without any of their possessions. It just brings into question how they would survive without any wealth?

Allow me to further explain it to you below:

If Israel doesn't accept the Arab Peace initiative, which is:

Quote:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well. 2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:        a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.        b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.        c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital. 3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:        a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.        b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

If they refuse the Arab Peace Inititive which is just and fair on all sides and guarantees Israel peace and security and even trade deals and an Islamic State comes about, then the State should again call for the initiative to be accepted and do it's best to convince the Israeli's to accept it, if they continue to refuse than the Islamic State should fight Israel and if necessary, take the whole nation over just as Salahudeen Ayoube did against the Crusaders. In such a circumstance terms may be offered by the Israeli's which are mutually beneficial for both Arabs and Israeli's and Israeli's may be able to keep their wealth, but if no terms are met and they don't surrender then not only should Israel be wholly taken over, but the Israeli's possessions taken from them as reperations for the Islamic State having to go to war (reparations are commonplace after wars, with Germany having to pay reparations after losing WW2 and WW1, Italy after WW2 and Japan after WW2, even after the First Gulf War, 30% of the money for the oil for food program went towards reparations for the West's expenditure) and to compensate the Palestinians for more than 60 years of occupation and oppression where their lands and possessions were taken from them (just as individuals were compensated after WW2 from having to do forced labour). In such a case the Israeli's would have the option of either leaving the State and returning back to Europe where they came from. Staying in the lands, not necessarily as slaves, but it means they'd be without their possessions and wealth and if they don't accept servitude then they'll starve, at least under servitude they'd be able to rebuild their lives. If the West wanted to fund the Israeli's after they had all of their possessions taken from them that would be fine, there'd be no need for any slavery because the Israeli's wouldn't starve.

Acid,


Quote:

Just curious Abu and Malik and hypothetically, in this modern and contemporary world, should Palestine invade and defeat Israel thereby absorbing its boundaries

A few points first need to be clarified before such a question could even be considered:

1) Palestine can't invade Israel, as Palestine is the land that Israel, a military installation of the West, is built on top of.

2) As a Muslim, I no more support an Arab state of Palestine than I would a Jewish state of Israel. Both, in my eyes, are just as wrong as one another. If the Palestinians just want another state called Palestine, then let them beg the Israeli government for citizenship.


Quote:

would you acknowledge the captured Israeli citizens if they are forced into servitude? Do you consider such legal (by your definition) practice are justified and relevant in todays enlightened thinking if they are forced into slavery?

I have no definition. The Qur'an and the Hadith decide what is permissable and prohibited for Muslims, not individual's whims and desires.

You guys are very, very, very deluded.
That anyone can be so blinded by religious dogma, as to try and still justify slavery, in the 21st century, is indication enough of the worth of Islam, if attitudes like you display, are what it produces.

If you guys are content to justify slavery, and any form of violence, against whoever you deem to be oppressing Islam, then you only go to justify the fears of people like Sprint.
As usual, the worst examples of religious people are the ones who take it way too seriously.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 7:51pm:

You guys are very, very, very deluded. That anyone can be so blinded by religious dogma, as to try and still justify slavery, in the 21st century, is indication enough of the worth of Islam, if attitudes like you display, are what it produces. If you guys are content to justify slavery, and any form of violence, against whoever you deem to be oppressing Islam, then you only go to justify the fears of people like Sprint. As usual, the worst examples of religious people are the ones who take it way too seriously.

Again, slaves in Islam 1400 years ago were treated far better than indigenous Australians in a secular Australian society who weren't even considered human beings, counted on the census nor given the right to vote in 1962 (1965 in QLD) so don't come and try the all high and mighty act mate, Australia is evidence that secularism is barbaric.

In Islam slaves are considered more like servants than the Western interpretation ( and application mind you) of slavery.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 2:10pm:

I think you really don't quite understand much about what we consider slavery. People aren't forced into it, they have an option to either accept it or leave the lands without their possessions or stay in the lands if they wished but without any of their possessions.

Well, I think you need to confer with Abu because he just said that a slave can only be taken legally through war (ie: a war captive). How is this not forcing them into slavery?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 6:32pm:

1) Palestine can't invade Israel, as Palestine is the land that Israel, a military installation of the West, is built on top of.

Whatever! Stop arguing the trivialities (you always do that!) You're very pedantic aren't you? That is not the point I'm making. The point of the question is a Muslim force capturing a Jewish force during contemporary times.


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 6:32pm:

2) As a Muslim, I no more support an Arab state of Palestine than I would a Jewish state of Israel. Both, in my eyes, are just as wrong as one another. If the Palestinians just want another state called Palestine, then let them beg the Israeli government for citizenship.

Then why are you arguing in defence of the Palestinians? That's what they are fighting for aren't they?


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 6:32pm:

I have no definition. The Qur'an and the Hadith decide what is permissable and prohibited for Muslims, not individual's whims and desires.

Nicely avoided, but I'll take that as a yes! You are a Muslim. Muslims take their directives from the Qur'an and the Hadith. You, yourself confirm that slaves are considered legal in Islamic law if captured during the course of war. The Palestinians are at war with the Israel.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 2:10pm:

If Israel doesn't accept the Arab Peace initiative, which is: Quote: 1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well. 2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:        a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.        b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.        c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital. 3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:        a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.        b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace. If they refuse the Arab Peace Inititive which is just and fair on all sides and guarantees Israel peace and security and even trade deals and an Islamic State comes about, then the State should again call for the initiative to be accepted and do it's best to convince the Israeli's to accept it, if they continue to refuse than the Islamic State should fight Israel and if necessary, take the whole nation over just as Salahudeen Ayoube did against the Crusaders. In such a circumstance terms may be offered by the Israeli's which are mutually beneficial for both Arabs and Israeli's and Israeli's may be able to keep their wealth, but if no terms are met and they don't surrender then not only should Israel be wholly taken over, but the Israeli's possessions taken from them as reperations for the Islamic State having to go to war (reparations are commonplace after wars, with Germany having to pay reparations after losing WW2 and WW1, Italy after WW2 and Japan after WW2, even after the First Gulf War, 30% of the money for the oil for food program went towards reparations for the West's expenditure) and to compensate the Palestinians for more than 60 years of occupation and oppression where their lands and possessions were taken from them (just as individuals were compensated after WW2 from having to do forced labour). In such a case the Israeli's would have the option of either leaving the State and returning back to Europe where they came from. Staying in the lands, not necessarily as slaves, but it means they'd be without their possessions and wealth and if they don't accept servitude then they'll starve, at least under servitude they'd be able to rebuild their lives. If the West wanted to fund the Israeli's after they had all of their possessions taken from them that would be fine, there'd be no need for any slavery because the Israeli's wouldn't starve.

Nicely avoided as well, but my question is in the context of slavery (which is what we were discussing). As I've said to Abu, I'm asking whether you accept slavery during contemporary times to be legal if they were captured "legally" under Islamic law? I've only used the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as an example.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 11:51pm:

Whatever! Stop arguing the trivialities (you always do that!) You're very pedantic aren't you? That is not the point I'm making. The point of the question is a Muslim force capturing a Jewish force during contemporary times.

Are you kidding? It's hardly something which is trivial, their lands were stolen from them!

I also wonder, why does it have to be a Jewish force that you mention? Do you think that for some reason we have separate rules for enslaving Jews?

In regards to enslavement. From my understanding it is something which is dependant on the situation. I gave an explanation as to how people become slaves. If the conditions I mentioned are applicable then so is slavery.

However, Islam encourages the freeing of any slave possible and that includes not taking them in the first place unless absolutely necessary. If there was some way for the force that were the aggressors against the Islamic State to be sustained by some other party after losing all of their possessions in reparations to the Islamic State for its' expenditure in going to war and in compensation to those affected by the conflict then that's fine, it wouldn't be necessary to take slaves in that case and I couldn't personally imagine a need to keep them, they'd just be more mouths to feed.

So if a third party was willing to either give the aggressors a loan or pay for them to sustain themselves to sustain themselves then it isn't necessary, the same if the aggressors were accepted into a third party's lands and taken care of there.

Acid,


Quote:

Whatever! Stop arguing the trivialities (you always do that!) You're very pedantic aren't you? That is not the point I'm making. The point of the question is a Muslim force capturing a Jewish force during contemporary times.

I've already answered, I say/believe what the Qur'an and Sunnah say. Since you're well aware of what they say regarding this issue, I really can't see the point in asking further questions.


Quote:

Then why are you arguing in defence of the Palestinians?

Why wouldn't I be arguing in defence of the Palestinians? They're Muslims, who've been occupied, oppressed and beseiged for over 60 years now, as a Muslim it's compulsory upon me to argue in defence of them.


Quote:

That's what they are fighting for aren't they?

Some are, yes. Not all. Many of them are fighting for an Islamic state (Caliphate). In fact the largest organisation working for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir, was founded in Palestine by the Palestinian scholar Taqi'ad-deen an-Nabhani.

From a saudi cleric(oh that isn't real Islam);
" Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?"

The previous thread about the perviness of Islamic men, is also brought into question again, with it's figures on slavery, and the more sexual element of it in Islamic history.
Western slavers took two to one males over females, as they were the stonger for working, Islam took two to one female over male, many as concubines, many as extra wives.

Quote:

Western slavers took two to one males over females, as they were the stonger for working

That's right, because you were looking for oxen to build your empire on their backs. And cos you considered them to be sub-human.

An ignorant belligerence to all criticisms of Islamic behaviour is counter productive Abu.
If you do not admit your mistakes, you cannot learn from them.

I would suggest you do, as many earlier twentieth century muslim scholars did, and actually re-appraise Islamic traditions re-slavery, and condemn them, and give a clear indication that you regret the incorrect actions of prior days, and work to see they are not repeated.

The idiotic belief that everything in Islam is, and always has been perfect, because it is directed by Allah, is just too silly, even for the most deluded followers of Islam, to attempt to justify.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

Quote: Western slavers took two to one males over females, as they were the stonger for working That's right, because you were looking for oxen to build your empire on their backs. And cos you considered them to be sub-human.

Or maybe western slavers preferred male company instead of female company  ;D

I really think it's silly though.. Has the West made amends for it's taking of slaves Mozza? Has the West truly changed?

I think not and you wouldn't be able to prove a single iota's worth that the West has changed.

Sprint will be loving this Malik, just sitting back and watching as you paint such a compassiopnate, and understanding, portrait of Islam.
It is a little ironic for someone complaining about his team being demonised, that your views on the west are so extreme.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Sprint will be loving this Malik, just sitting back and watching as you paint such a compassiopnate, and understanding, portrait of Islam. It is a little ironic for someone complaining about his team being demonised, that your views on the west are so extreme.

You still haven't addressed my point.

HOW HAS THE WEST MADE AMENDS FOR TAKING THE SLAVES THAT IT DID?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 3:33am:

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 11:51pm: Whatever! Stop arguing the trivialities (you always do that!) You're very pedantic aren't you? That is not the point I'm making. The point of the question is a Muslim force capturing a Jewish force during contemporary times. Are you kidding? It's hardly something which is trivial, their lands were stolen from them! I also wonder, why does it have to be a Jewish force that you mention? Do you think that for some reason we have separate rules for enslaving Jews?

Again.... as I've said to Abu and now to you, the question relates to slavery and the taking of slaves during the course of war in contemporary and modern times. The example of Palestine and Israel was only an example I chose because it's a current conflict. The conflict itself is not trivial but Abu has avoided the essence of the question by concertrating on the details (which is trivial in the context of what was being asked). You guys can be as bad as the Jews - hypersensitive. Quit looking for attacks from legitimate questions without malice.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:00am:

I've already answered, I say/believe what the Qur'an and Sunnah say. Since you're well aware of what they say regarding this issue, I really can't see the point in asking further questions.

Hence my reply.

"Nicely avoided, but I'll take that as a yes! You are a Muslim. Muslims take their directives from the Qur'an and the Hadith. You, yourself confirm that slaves are considered legal in Islamic law if captured during the course of war. The Palestinians are at war with the Israel."

Now, the next question is do you think that this is appropriate in modern times and if so then can you see why this can be abhorrant to westerners? You can reply in your usual "That's their problem not mine" throw away lines but it won't help your case in helping the west understand your culture (which I assume is why you are here).


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:00am:

Why wouldn't I be arguing in defence of the Palestinians? They're Muslims, who've been occupied, oppressed and beseiged for over 60 years now, as a Muslim it's compulsory upon me to argue in defence of them.

Malik says that there are Jews who are against the Zionist state and parades them as enlightened Jews - as they've stayed true to their beliefs. He has produced a website which I've found very interesting.

However, against your better judgement (because you've said that you don't believe there should be an Arab State of Palestine) you still support the Palestinian simply because they are Muslims. You are the antithesis of this Jewish group.

"Right or wrong, Muslim brothers all the way!"


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:00am:

Some are, yes. Not all. Many of them are fighting for an Islamic state (Caliphate). In fact the largest organisation working for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir, was founded in Palestine by the Palestinian scholar Taqi'ad-deen an-Nabhani.

Some are... Many of them.... What is the ratio of those fighting for an Arab state and those for a Caliphate? Any figures? I thought that the majority of those are fighting for an Arab state - based on rhetoric on Western, Asian and Middle Eastern news media.

Abu, just curious (and you don't have to answer) but Malik has already stated that he is Shia. Are you the same or another. I ask because there seems (to me) subtle differences in opinion and interpretation in issues. I was wondering whether that is personal or (for want of a better word) sectarian interpretation.

:)

Acid,


Quote:

Now, the next question is do you think that this is appropriate in modern times and if so then can you see why this can be abhorrant to westerners?

Depends what you mean by "modern times". Do you somehow think the underlying nature of humanity has changed in recent times, and that we've all of a sudden become these enlightened elevated beings that are above such practises? If so, I hate to break it to you but that reality doesn't exist for everyone in this world, and probably doesn't even exist for the majority of the world's population.

If however you mean that all sides in conflicts agree to abide by certain laws or regulations in warfare, then that's a different issue. The Geneva convention is obviously a joke, and doesn't apply to Muslims captured in combat, but I'm still open to options, what did you have in mind exactly?


Quote:

You can reply in your usual "That's their problem not mine" throw away lines

I think you're judging me a little harshly there.


Quote:

However, against your better judgement (because you've said that you don't believe there should be an Arab State of Palestine) you still support the Palestinian simply because they are Muslims. You are the antithesis of this Jewish group

I shouldn't support my fellow Muslims? That's a kind of strange statement to make isn't it?


Quote:

Some are... Many of them.... What is the ratio of those fighting for an Arab state and those for a Caliphate? Any figures?

I don't have figures, but even many of those who are calling for a Palestinian state, you'll probably find they'are actually calling for an Islamic state, and just see a Palestinian state as a first step. This is certainly true for groups like Hamas, their short term vision is the liberation of Palestine and their longer term goal the re-establishment of the Caliphate.


Quote:

Abu, just curious (and you don't have to answer) but Malik has already stated that he is Shia. Are you the same or another. I ask because there seems (to me) subtle differences in opinion and interpretation in issues. I was wondering whether that is personal or (for want of a better word) sectarian interpretation

I am Muslim and only Muslim, I don't believe in sects, as they are forbidden in Islam in many clear texts.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:12pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 27th, 2008 at 3:33am: Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 11:51pm: Whatever! Stop arguing the trivialities (you always do that!) You're very pedantic aren't you? That is not the point I'm making. The point of the question is a Muslim force capturing a Jewish force during contemporary times. Are you kidding? It's hardly something which is trivial, their lands were stolen from them! I also wonder, why does it have to be a Jewish force that you mention? Do you think that for some reason we have separate rules for enslaving Jews? Again.... as I've said to Abu and now to you, the question relates to slavery and the taking of slaves during the course of war in contemporary and modern times. The example of Palestine and Israel was only an example I chose because it's a current conflict. The conflict itself is not trivial but Abu has avoided the essence of the question by concertrating on the details (which is trivial in the context of what was being asked). You guys can be as bad as the Jews - hypersensitive. Quit looking for attacks from legitimate questions without malice.

I answered the question for you, but I wanted to clarify for you that there was no difference in the treatment between religions on this issue Acid. In fact it has nothing to do with it being a 'Jewish' force at all. I know it may seem quite annoying that I try and clarify all of these but I do not want some people to get the impression that this is only applicable to Jews.

I hope that I did clarify it enough to make sure that you understand that the issue of taking slaves is very complex and it certainly is something which is neither applicable nor practical in every case. Islam dictates that the taking of slaves be done when absolutely necessary. From my understanding it is to ensure that the aggressors who have to pay reparations for fighting the Islamic State do not starve and have a chance to rebuild their lives afterwards.

The truth of the matter is that the slavery that the West has practiced is nowhere near the form that Islam accepts under the circumstances mentioned. In fact the Western form was practiced by the Arabs prior to and at the time of Muhammad pbuh but Islam forbade this and gave slaves right's that had never been seen before. Islam wholly condemns this behaviour and encourages freeing of slaves.  

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:38pm:

In fact it has nothing to do with it being a 'Jewish' force at all. I know it may seem quite annoying that I try and clarify all of these but I do not want some people to get the impression that this is only applicable to Jews.

Yeah, I get that. But I can't speak for other people.

And yes, it is rather annoying but thanks for the effort anyway.
;)

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

Depends what you mean by "modern times".

I think you know perfectly well what I mean. TODAY.



abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

If however you mean that all sides in conflicts agree to abide by certain laws or regulations in warfare, then that's a different issue. The Geneva convention is obviously a joke, and doesn't apply to Muslims captured in combat, but I'm still open to options, what did you have in mind exactly?

The Geneva Convention is a joke? Or, do you mean that certain nations treats the Convention as a joke (ie: the US). I personally think that the Convention is not a joke. How nations and armies treats its enemy combatants, war captives and civilians is serious. This is equally directed to the US and Gitmo and the insurgence decapitating civilian foreigners. That some nations pays no attention to the Covention is equally serious. It's unfortunate that the enforcement of the Convention relies heavily on US support - much to my chagrin. But that is a reflection of nations not the Convention itself.

Recently, the 2nd of 3 Serbian stooges was captured. I am personally happy for my Bosnian friend's family whose elders son was killed in that conflict. The Geneva Convention is what makes their act a crime and they are paying for their injustice.



abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

I think you're judging me a little harshly there.

Possibly, but you have said something to that effect.



abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

I shouldn't support my fellow Muslims? That's a kind of strange statement to make isn't it?

Is it? You seem to have no problems with the Jews Against Zionism. They do not support their fellow Israeli Jews. I'm sure you even applaud them and believe that they are right in their stance (because they stand for what you believe to be true and just etc).

Therefore, why is it strange that you don't support you fellow Muslims (because you said yourself that you don't believe that an Arab state of Palestine is right)?

JWH and GWB are westerners and are whities. Should I support them because I am one as well? Despite the fact that their policies (ie: Gitmo, children overboard, Haneef, Hicks, Iraq, the Sudanese problem in Oz, fake flyers in Lindsay) goes against my beliefs of what is fair and just?

You tell me.




abu_rashid wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 11:31pm:

I am Muslim and only Muslim, I don't believe in sects, as they are forbidden in Islam in many clear texts.

That doesn't answer my question. But that's ok, lets just leave it at that.
:)

Acid,


Quote:

I think you know perfectly well what I mean. TODAY.

I'm well aware of the timeframe you're using, but what I'm trying to clarify is what leads you to assert that today is any different as far as human nature is concerned than 1400 years ago. Is it that you believe the entirety of humanity to have come full circle so to speak, or is it that you believe the enemies of Islam engage in warfare differently today? What is it exactly that makes you consider this practise to be outdated, that's what I don't understand fully.


Quote:

The Geneva Convention is a joke? Or, do you mean that certain nations treats the Convention as a joke (ie: the US).

The US all of a suddent says it doesn't apply, and the world accepts it. That means not just the US treat it as a joke, most of the world do. The ICC, Geneva Convention, UN etc. are all inventions of the imperialists, and they can contort them into whatever shape they like. For this reason, I think all of them are a pathetic joke.


Quote:

How nations and armies treats its enemy combatants, war captives and civilians is serious.

You might think it's serious, the powers that be, don't.


Quote:

It's unfortunate that the enforcement of the Convention relies heavily on US support

This is the same excuse used for ever contravention of international accords, whether it be the environment, human rights, international justice, or whatever, the whole world sits back and allows the US to do as she pleases, whilst this remains the situation, I'm sorry, but I don't have any faith whatsoever in such institutions.


Quote:

Recently, the 2nd of 3 Serbian stooges was captured. I am personally happy for my Bosnian friend's family whose elders son was killed in that conflict. The Geneva Convention is what makes their act a crime and they are paying for their injustice.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. There's been no justice yet. And if you remember correctly these crimes were carried out under the supervision of these same international institutions, so if you want Muslims to all of a sudden embrace them, you're being a little unrealistic.


Quote:

Is it? You seem to have no problems with the Jews Against Zionism. They do not support their fellow Israeli Jews. I'm sure you even applaud them and believe that they are right in their stance (because they stand for what you believe to be true and just etc).

1) They are a tiny little minority which has little or no voice, so I'm not really that concerned with them.

2) I recognise their people would consider them traitors.

3) In this particular case they happen to be standing against injustice, but they're not doing it for that intention I don't think. It is because of a technicality in their prophecy I think.


Quote:

Therefore, why is it strange that you don't support you fellow Muslims (because you said yourself that you don't believe that an Arab state of Palestine is right)?

Believing in an Arab state and supporting my fellow Muslims are two completely seperate things. If you looked at the suffering and oppression the Muslims have endured under the existing Arab regimes, then you'd understand why.


Quote:

That doesn't answer my question. But that's ok, lets just leave it at that.

Well it does in a sense. I know it would be easier for you to just be able to pidgeon hole me into one of those groupings, but the simple fact of the matter is that I do not belong to any sect. I'm not shi'a, I'm not wahabi, I'm not sufi etc. I'm just Muslim. I know outsiders like to be able to furthwer sub-divide that designation and say "ahhh yeh that's why he holds such and such a view, because he's from the such and such sect", nope not me, I just belong to the Muslim Ummah, and I call for the Islamic ideology and way of life, not for any sectarian reinterpretation.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:34pm:

Abu, just curious (and you don't have to answer) but Malik has already stated that he is Shia. Are you the same or another. I ask because there seems (to me) subtle differences in opinion and interpretation in issues. I was wondering whether that is personal or (for want of a better word) sectarian interpretation. :)

I'd just like to clarify here, while I follow on of the shia school's of thought I certainly don't consider myself a shia. I'm a Muslim plain and simple, the school of thought is simply a means to sift through all of the religious duties in a path that's already been mapped out by scholars previously..

We aren't sects like Christianity has.

You guys are so disingenuous.
You show all the humanity and honesty of a PR consultant.

The thing is, if you are trying to shine a more favourable light on Islam, you are failing miserably.

Islam, like most religions is founded on very good and wholesome principles, and followers can do great good in the following of their beliefs.
Yet that is not enough for you, to accept that, and highlight the true positives that are there, because you are always attempting to absolve the religion from any responsibility for the negatives, in fact you deny there are any.

That, on top of evading direct, and relevant, questions unfortunately makes you look shallow, and deceitful.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

I'm well aware of the timeframe you're using, but what I'm trying to clarify is what leads you to assert that today is any different as far as human nature is concerned than 1400 years ago. Is it that you believe the entirety of humanity to have come full circle so to speak, or is it that you believe the enemies of Islam engage in warfare differently today? What is it exactly that makes you consider this practise to be outdated, that's what I don't understand fully.

Let's see, the US once had slaves. The practice was once accepted. In fact there was a civil war over it. The abolition took place and many in the south thought that it would be the end of the world. Ask any southerner now what they thought of the slave trade and they will tell you that it is no longer accepted (and please don't confuse this with what their thoughts on blacks, which is different). This opinion changed in only a 150 years (much shorter than 1400 years).

Outdated? Where it was once the norm worldwide, can you please tell me a country where it is legal to keep slaves under their law? Are there slaves in Iran (a nation which I'm led to believe is the closest to a Caliphate). I'll be surprise if you can find enough for 1 hand, if any.


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. There's been no justice yet. And if you remember correctly these crimes were carried out under the supervision of these same international institutions, so if you want Muslims to all of a sudden embrace them, you're being a little unrealistic.

It's unfortunate that you are cynical but I can assure you that Bosnian victims (my friend, his family and their family still in Bosnia) are not. The mood and feelings in Bosnia is one of relief, jubilation and partial closer. Milosevic was well on his way to being convicted, it was his luck that he died before that happened. You can accuse us of being ignorant of the Palestinian cause but I think you may be ignorant of the impact and hopes of this arrest, impending trial and conviction in Bosnia.


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

1) They are a tiny little minority which has little or no voice, so I'm not really that concerned with them.

Malik tells me that the "majority of Jews" are against a Zionist state. Now you're saying that they are a minority. You two need to get your fact in line.... I'm not sure who to believe.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:52am:

I'd just like to clarify here, while I follow on of the shia school's of thought I certainly don't consider myself a shia. I'm a Muslim plain and simple, the school of thought is simply a means to sift through all of the religious duties in a path that's already been mapped out by scholars previously.. We aren't sects like Christianity has.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

Well it does in a sense. I know it would be easier for you to just be able to pidgeon hole me into one of those groupings, but the simple fact of the matter is that I do not belong to any sect. I'm not shi'a, I'm not wahabi, I'm not sufi etc. I'm just Muslim. I know outsiders like to be able to furthwer sub-divide that designation and say "ahhh yeh that's why he holds such and such a view, because he's from the such and such sect", nope not me, I just belong to the Muslim Ummah, and I call for the Islamic ideology and way of life, not for any sectarian reinterpretation.

Abu, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. I'm trying understand the subtleness between the Muslim sects/tribes (whatever you call them).

But if you both say that you are Muslim then I accept that.

:)

However, there must be some differences in opinion or interpretation otherwise therefore wouldn't be sectarian conflicts between (say) the Shi'ites and the Sunnis.

Quote:

Outdated? Where it was once the norm worldwide, can you please tell me a country where it is legal to keep slaves under their law?

Most countries officially outlaw it now, but in many places it still exists, in the Arabian Gulf the practise is rife. Eastern Europe and other former Soviet Republics also have big problems with slavery.


Quote:

Are there slaves in Iran (a nation which I'm led to believe is the closest to a Caliphate).

I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.


Quote:

You can accuse us of being ignorant of the Palestinian cause but I think you may be ignorant of the impact and hopes of this arrest, impending trial and conviction in Bosnia

I don't think I accused you of being ignorant on Palestine. Perhaps mozza and freediver, but certainly not yourself.

Those people would like to have hope, and I hope their hopes are not misplaced yet again.


Quote:

Malik tells me that the "majority of Jews" are against a Zionist state. Now you're saying that they are a minority. You two need to get your fact in line.... I'm not sure who to believe

From what I remember, he said a majority of Palestinian Jews at the time of the founding of the Zionist movement opposed Zionism. And I think this is correct, the Zionist movement was largely led by Ashkenazim (European Jewry), and Sephardim (Eastern/Arab Jews) had very little role in the founding of Israel, until the brutal Arab-nationalist regimes began oppressing them, and they fled the persecution and found themselves in the Zionist state.


Quote:

Abu, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. I'm trying understand the subtleness between the Muslim sects/tribes (whatever you call them).

Islam is really not as fragmented as the media would have us believe. The vast majority of Muslims belong to the mainstream, which is about 80-90% of all Muslims, they are often mislabeled as "Sunni" but this is an incorrect designation, and one we never really use to describe ourselves. The Shi'a are about the only real major sect (the word Shi'a itself actually means sectarians or partisans), and then there are some smaller groups who are pretty much mainstream Muslims, but perhaps dabble in a little sectarianism, like Salafi (wahabi) and Sufi groups, but they are a tiny minority. There are also some historical sects that are now extinct like the Khawarij, but they thankfully only exist in the history books.


Quote:

However, there must be some differences in opinion or interpretation otherwise therefore wouldn't be sectarian conflicts between (say) the Shi'ites and the Sunnis.

Yes the Shi'a do have some different interpretations about things, mostly historical/political events that occured in the early Caliphate.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 1:16pm:

However, there must be some differences in opinion or interpretation otherwise therefore wouldn't be sectarian conflicts between (say) the Shi'ites and the Sunnis.

Hmmmm..

I hope you know that Muslims of the sunni and shia schools of thought lived together in peace for more than 1400 years in the Islamic State.

This violence came AFTER the West divided our states.

Are you thick or something Acid?
Everyone knows that muslims have always been perfect, and never had any violence or disputes before the evil west conspired to destroy them.

I was told by a Muslim man that Shia's or Shi'ites or whatever are crazy and they hate the Sunni's.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 5:26pm:

I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.

I could be wrong but I was certain that I read Malik say that while it is not perfect Iran is the closest nation that may be considered to a Caliphate. I don't remember where I read it (there are so many concurrent threads on Islam).


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 5:26pm:

From what I remember, he said a majority of Palestinian Jews at the time of the founding of the Zionist movement opposed Zionism.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 2:00am:

The majority of Jews from the Middle East and in particular Palestine rejected the idea of a Jewish State and were against it.

Ok, since you put it that way. I guess I interpreted his comment incorrectly.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 7:04pm:

This violence came AFTER the West divided our states.

That's what I'm trying to find out - what is the point of contention between the Sunni and Shi'ites? Is it religious? Is it a differences in opinion and interpretation? Is it political? What?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

Are you thick or something Acid? Everyone knows that muslims have always been perfect, and never had any violence or disputes before the evil west conspired to destroy them.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe I should pull out my Mensa credentials as well...

;)

Quote:

I could be wrong but I was certain that I read Malik say that while it is not perfect Iran is the closest nation that may be considered to a Caliphate.

Malik is entitled to his opinion on that, but the majority of Muslims would probably disagree on that specific issue. If a state were going to be likened to a Caliphate, they'd want to at least be using the name Caliphate to describe their form of government, not that that would guarantee it was a legitimate Caliphate, but it would at least suggest they were attempting to approximate one.


Quote:

Ok, since you put it that way. I guess I interpreted his comment incorrectly.

I guess it's not exactly clear from his wording that he meant in the past at the time of the creation of Israel. That's what I took it to mean, as it is well known that many of the native Jews did oppose the European invaders also.


Quote:

That's what I'm trying to find out - what is the point of contention between the Sunni and Shi'ites? Is it religious? Is it a differences in opinion and interpretation? Is it political? What?

It is based around a political disagreement over who should succeed Muhammad (pbuh) as head of state. Some Muslims rallied around the idea it should be his family members (perhaps they were still clinging onto some of the Arab tribalism Muhammad had come to abolish), and as the head of state changed two then three times without it passing to his family, tensions began to form. The 4th. head of state was finally from the family of Muhammad (pbuh), his cousin Ali (may God be pleased with him) but unfortunately the family members of the head of state who preceded him also fell victim to the same tribalism that Ali's followers were falling into. Then 2 caliphs later and Ali's son (also Muhammad's grandson) was murdered by the Caliph's army. It was rather quiet after that, but then when some of Muhammad's (pbuh) family finally became Caliph again (The Abbasid Caliphate), the Shi'a who were by now formed into a tight political unit, at first supported them, but then withdrew support when they realised they were not going to adopt the Shi'a partisan ideology. During the Abbasid time there were a lot of upheavels, and in fact the Shi'a grew very large in number, and even controlled the Abbasid state from behind the scenes for a long time, setting up the Caliph as merely a puppet ruler. The Shi'a then split further into sub-sects, and one sect even established a rival Caliphate in Egypt (The Fatimids). Even though they rallied around the idea of Muhammad's family, most Shi'a were actually non-Arabs, and this is even true today, the largest group of them are Persian and they mostly lived close to the frontiers of the Abbasid state as it moved north and east. After the Abbasid time they moved back down into Iraq/Iran and consolidated themselves  and largely remained there, forming their own Empire (Safavid)..

So their belief mainly differs from the mainstream of the Muslims over this political succession and the subsequent civil wars that it caused. I'm sure Malik probably has a slightly different account, and he's welcome to give it, and you can get both sides of the story I guess.

Thanks Abu, that was nice to see an account of Islamic history where at least some of the sugar coating is removed.

I really think that is a far better way for you to counter, what you would call anti-muslim sentiment, with honesty and responsibility, it will always go a long way towards delivering credibility.

To be fair to you, perhaps you have only been exposed to a highly sanitised and biased version of Islamic history, so may be unaware that other scholarly opinion exists, outside of what you have seen.

I think you need to firstly find out how they became slaves in the first place.

Why does it matter how they became slaves? If your POWs etc are as deperate for your protection as you make out, why not employ them on a wage rather than force them to acrue a debt to pay back to you? All you have to do is create a hostile economic situation (eg taking all their land and posessions) and you will have slaves indefinitely.

That's correct, you can take prisoners of war as slaves. The reason for that is if people go to war against you and you fight them and beat them, then their possessions are yours as war booty.

Great, no wonder Islam spread peacefully rather than by the sword....

Australia's human rights record more than 1400 years after the establishment of the Islamic state is far worse than any point of Islamic history.

You can't honestly expect us to believe this Malik. We don't stone people to death for having gay sex. Not keeping accurate records of their crimes against humanity hardly makes the Islamic state a beacon of human rights. It's naive to assume they were based on a lack of evidence.

I think you really don't quite understand much about what we consider slavery. People aren't forced into it, they have an option to either accept it or leave the lands without their possessions or stay in the lands if they wished but without any of their possessions. It just brings into question how they would survive without any wealth?

Exactly Malik. I'm not sure why you present this as some kind of good example. Luckily this sort of thing is against international law and the modern world is taking steps to stamp it out.

Do you somehow think the underlying nature of humanity has changed in recent times, and that we've all of a sudden become these enlightened elevated beings that are above such practises?

Well, we've nearly abolished slavery (except for a few Muslim countries), so that's a good start.

In fact the Western form was practiced by the Arabs prior to and at the time of Muhammad pbuh but Islam forbade this and gave slaves right's that had never been seen before. Islam wholly condemns this behaviour and encourages freeing of slaves.

So why do you acknowledge the improvement in Islamic slavery over earlier versions, but not in the abolition of slavery in the west? Apparently there are some enlightened Muslims who do.

Outdated? Where it was once the norm worldwide, can you please tell me a country where it is legal to keep slaves under their law? Are there slaves in Iran (a nation which I'm led to believe is the closest to a Caliphate). I'll be surprise if you can find enough for 1 hand, if any.

Acid, I think a few African and middle eastern Muslim countries practice slavery.

Abu, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. I'm trying understand the subtleness between the Muslim sects/tribes

Acid the correct term is 'schools of thought'. They don't have sects. Instead, they bomb each other because they belong to different schools of thought. Of course, this can also be blamed on the west....

freediver,


Quote:

Acid the correct term is 'schools of thought'. They don't have sects. Instead, they bomb each other because they belong to different schools of thought. Of course, this can also be blamed on the west...

The Shi'a are a sect, not a school of thought. The schools of thought are Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali & Shafi, and all belong to the mainstream, and I don't remember the last time an adherent of any school of thought bombed another. Perhaps you can provide for us an example? Since you're ovbiously quite informed about the matter.

Sorry, my mistake.

Does Malik think of them as a different sect?

Are wahabis a different sect?

I think I read on wikipedia that there are no 'schisms' in Islam, but it seems that the Shia split is a close analog to the Anglican-protestant split.

mozza,


Quote:

Thanks Abu, that was nice to see an account of Islamic history where at least some of the sugar coating is removed.

*shrug* It's just history, that's the way it was written, not really much for me to sugarcoat. My opinions about later Islamic history are even less "glossier", so you might be surprised. Just because I'm proud of Islamic Civilisation's achievements doesn't mean I am necessarily living in a fantasy land, although that's what would serve you better in argument to suggest I guess.


Quote:

To be fair to you, perhaps you have only been exposed to a highly sanitised and biased version of Islamic history,

As opposed to the open and objective version of Islamic history we can get by reading the tales of orientalists?
Don't you think it's just a little arrogant to suggest that Muslims/Arabs are not capable of recounting their own history by themselves, and that instead they require some outside foreign entity (of course European) to re-interpret it for them? Do you accept our Islamic versions of your (Europe's) history? Are our accounts of the history of European events any less sanitised in your eyes? Or does it only go one way?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 5:26pm:

I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.

I might clarify what I meant by Caliphate here before more questions are raised.. By caliphate I meant the Islamic State.  And we consider the Imam by the same name as our brothers from the Sunni banner would name the Caliph, they are the Amir ul-Mumin'een or Commander of the Faithful.

The Shia school of thought's way of choosing a Caliph is to choose them from the Prophet pbuh's decendents only, it is not simply a matter of a father handing the leadership down to his son and continuing it that way like Muawiyah did to Yazid, but it's a criteria of being eligible to lead the Nation, in Yemen the Caliph used to be elected from amongst the many families who were the Prophet's decendents. It was a form of choosing the best of the Prophet pbuh's family to lead us and upon really thinking about the issue I realised that I would prefer that instead of having someone who is not from the decendents of the prophet pbuh's family.

I do believe Iran is the closest thing we have to an Islamic State, that's not saying that Iran is perfect, instead it's really showing how far the Muslims have strayed.. Iran needs a great deal of work but has made some very positive steps in the last 30 years which I certainly applaud.


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 5:26pm:

Islam is really not as fragmented as the media would have us believe. The vast majority of Muslims belong to the mainstream, which is about 80-90% of all Muslims, they are often mislabeled as "Sunni" but this is an incorrect designation, and one we never really use to describe ourselves. The Shi'a are about the only real major sect (the word Shi'a itself actually means sectarians or partisans), and then there are some smaller groups who are pretty much mainstream Muslims, but perhaps dabble in a little sectarianism, like Salafi (wahabi) and Sufi groups, but they are a tiny minority. There are also some historical sects that are now extinct like the Khawarij, but they thankfully only exist in the history books.

While I subscribe to the Shia schools of thought I do have the utmost respect for Muslims from the other schools of thought and don't hold any animosity at all against them. I certainly don't like Wahabi's but neither do most from the Sunni schools either. The Shia also have an equivelant and it goes to show that extremism in any shape or form is detrimental to Islam.

I will also mention that while the Shia schools are about 20% of the Muslim population of the world, at least 85% of that number are from the Ithnāˤashariyyah school of thought of thought, when considering that the remaining 80% of the Muslims of the Sunni school of thoughts are made up of 4 different schools one would understand that the Ithnāˤashariyyah itself is actually quite a considerable size in comparison.

I will also mention that those of the Shia schools don't formerly call themselves 'shia', they consider themselves to follow the schools of Ahlul Bayt or the Family of the Prophet pbuh. Furthermore from my understanding the etymology of the word Shia is that it can be translated into the words sect, followers, party etc.

Furthermore, I do believe that no one school has it 100% right and all the others are wrong. The schools were the teachings of very pious and educated people may God reward them, but none of them claimed to have the perfect system nor claimed perfection themselves, therefore I believe that it's important for Muslims to continuously work together and accept that there are differences of opinion on this issue and not let it divide us.

I personally believe that when Imam Al-Mahdi reveals himself, he would look at Muslims from all schools of thought and think to himself 'What are these guys doing? That aint right!' and he'll have to direct us to the straight and narrow path again, removing any doubt about any issue that creates division amongst us and making all schools of thought null and void so that we'd all know the correct way God willing.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 7:53pm:

The Shi'a are a sect, not a school of thought. The schools of thought are Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali & Shafi, and all belong to the mainstream, and I don't remember the last time an adherent of any school of thought bombed another. Perhaps you can provide for us an example? Since you're ovbiously quite informed about the matter.

My Sunni friend went to India recently, he said that people from different schools of thought that are under the 'Sunni' banner started killing each other because of their differences so careful there as it does occur.. Also I might add that in the 1400 years of the Islamic State there was not a civil war like that seen in Iraq with people being persecuted due to their school of thought.. I will ALSO further add that those who started bombing places of worship were Wahabi's and then their Shia counterpart started retaliating, if anything it shows that extremism in any form is unacceptable and contrary to the teachings of Islam..

Furthermore, from the Shia I know, they consider their Sunni brothers as just from a different school.

In the Iranian constitution it says:

Article 12

The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school (Ithnāˤashariyyah) [in usual al-Din and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Other Islamic schools, including the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Zaydi, are to be accorded full respect, and their followers are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. These schools enjoy official status in matters pertaining to religious education, affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law. In regions of the country where Muslims following any one of these schools of fiqh constitute the majority, local regulations, within the bounds of the jurisdiction of local councils, are to be in accordance with the respective school of fiqh, without infringing upon the rights of the followers of other schools.


Iran is considerably progressive compared to the Sunni states to it's West, In Sunni dominated states (who are not Islamic States by even the Sunni definition) they tend to oppress their Shia minorities. Iran doesn't oppress it's Sunni inhabitants and in fact as you can see by their constitution they make no mention of Sunni or Shia, they only consider the difference as a difference in school of thought and not as sects which is the true way of the School of Ahlul Bayt.

To make it clear, I say Shia and Sunni to help people here understand better, but by no means would I classify myself as a Shia nor would I classify Abu_Rashid as a Sunni. We are Muslims, plain and simple..

Doesn't Abu reject Shia? Doesn't that make him a Sunni?

warning - graphic images:

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2006_v5_n2/robinson-fgm.htm

The Sunnah (the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammed) contains a reference to female circumcision. According to the Muslim Women's League: "Those who advocate for FGM from an Islamic perspective commonly quote the following hadith to argue that it is required as part of the Sunnah or Tradition of the Prophet: The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." This passage is regarded by many Muslims as having little credibility or authenticity. According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are non-authentic. Many Muslims see passages in the Qur'an which, by implication, oppose FGM. They reason: God apparently created the clitoris for the sole purpose of generating pleasure. It has no other purpose. There is no instruction in the Qur'an or in the writings of the Prophet Mohammed which require that the clitoris be surgically modified. Thus God must approve of its presence. And so, it should not be removed or reduced in size or function. The Qur'an promotes the concept of a husband and wife giving each other pleasure during sexual intercourse. "It is lawful for you to go in unto your wives during the night preceding the (day's) fast: they are as a garment for you and you are as a garment for them." (2:187) ". . . and He has put love and mercy between you." (30:21) Mu, in The Qur'an (An-Nisa': 119) states that Satan will try to trick humans into body modification: "And I will surely lead them astray, and arouse desires in them, and command them and they will cut the cattle's ears, and I will surely command them and they will change Allah's creation."

This might be interpreted as forbidding FGM as well as tattoos, piercing and any other modification that alters the design of the human body as Allah created it. Nawal El-Saadawi, a Muslim victim of infibulation (partial closing/stitching of the vagina), says, "The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in these societies is the reason why female circumcision still remains a very widespread practice despite a growing tendency, especially in urban Egypt, to do away with it as something outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision lies the belief that, by removing parts of girls' external genitals organs, sexual desire is minimized. This permits a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and adolescence to protect her virginity, and therefore her honor, with greater ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the female harem by castration which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female circumcision is meant to preserve the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse." Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, head of the al-Azhar Islamic Institute has stated that the practice is un-Islamic. The Health Minister of Egypt, Ismail Sallam, announced the ban on FGM in 1996. This was upheld by a junior administrative court in Cairo. Sheik Youssef Badri, a Muslim fundamentalist, took the health minister to court. In 1997, an Egyptian court overturned the country's ban on FGM. Eight Muslim scholars and doctors had testified that the ban exceeded the government's authority and violated the legal rights of the medical profession. Sheik Youssef Badri commented: "[Female] circumcision is Islamic; the court has said that the ban violated religious law. There's nothing which says circumcision is a crime, but the Egyptians came along and said that Islam is a crime." The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel interviewed Sheik Badri. He claimed that many Muslim women are pleased with this victory of Islam over its enemies. When it was pointed out to him that parents in Morocco and Algeria do not practice FGM, he replied that the clitoris in Egyptian girls was larger than in those countries and had to be cut back to a normal size. He quoted a French study which showed that circumcised girls are less likely to contract AIDS. He believes that the United States is spreading misinformation on the health risks of FGM. The government appealed the case to Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court. They ruled that the operation is not required by Islam, and that "female circumcision is not a personal right according to the rules of Islamic Sharia (law)." Thus, FGM is subject to Egyptian law. They prohibited the procedure, even if it is done with the agreement of the child and her parents.

What an absolutely abhorrent procedure. Just disgusting.

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil  

The two-eyed look remains too seductive for Sheikh Habadan
A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.

The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair.

Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 5:58pm: yeh there's many of them I think... women in islam that is. Actually the majority of Muslims are women, and strangely too, the majority of converts to Islam are women. I heard that in the USA women converts outnumber men 4 to 1. They must just be gluttons for punishment I guess? Love to be oppressed and all. Yep thats right Abu_Rashid, those American women love to be oppressed..

Yep, they must do.

Soren wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 11:07am:

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil   The two-eyed look remains too seductive for Sheikh Habadan A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye. Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive. The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies. The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair. Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

Inexplicably, my comment has disappeared.. I merely suggesterd that a season of the acclaimed theatrical work The Vagina Monologues would be a great, er, eye opener for the Sheik - or the death of him.

Some posters agreed politely.  Yet it is all gone now, mysteriously.

Does anyone know what might have happened to those earlier posts?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 11:37pm: You do speak some crap Malik. The scumbag slavers are now, thanks to a little Islamic revised history, philanthropists. Are you that brainwashed that you honestly cannot see how ludicrous that last post was? What are we going to hear next, that mohammed was the first man on the moon, take a reality check, if you can even still see reality from your position. I guess slavery was just like a twenty year internship. I'm sorry Mozza, are you going to tell me about Islamic history and act like you actually know anything about it? I think you're about to make a fool of yourself if you're going to consider doing that. You know nothing of Arab culture and tribalism and the way Arab warfare worked. So be very careful about what you say here because you're going to make yourself look more stupid than intelligent. Furthermore you are criticising Islam for human rights? Are you kidding me? Australia's human rights record is terrible when it comes to that, taking the Aboriginals land and declaring it terra nullis, then hunting the Aboriginal men, women and children for sport, they weren't even considered human and killing They had NO rights whatsoever and killing them was considered completely acceptable and had no consequences in the law. In addition to that taking their children away from them and putting them in foster homes, trying to erase their identity and impose the anglo identity on them. That's genocide. Do you know when Aboriginals were even considered citizens of this country and recognized as true human beings?? It wasn't until 1962 (1965 in QLD) that the states recognized them and gave them the right to vote! And you expect to be considered civilized? Dream on mate! Australia's human rights record more than 1400 years after the establishment of the Islamic state is far worse than any point of Islamic history. Australia has no right whatsoever to criticize this when Australia's history is far darker and Australians have been far worse to Indigenous Australians than any slave has been treated in the Islamic Empire. It truly shows how backwards this country has been.

This is arrant nonsense of the most bare-faced kind. You must have real problems passing mirrors.

Anyway, Mohammed had sex slaves.  

1. Will it be allowed under sharia in the caliphate for Mohammedans to haave sex slaves again?

2. If yes, at what point in the implementation process will it become OK to have sex slaves? (ie how much of a priority is it in the scheme of the sharia legal framework).

3. How does a woman become a sex slave under sharia?

4. If not,what iss the justification of not allowing it under sharia.

5. Are there any other instances where Mohammed's example will not be followed?




I hope these are clear and distict questions.

Soren - he also had 10 wifes, including his [mod: this is false, please read about it and try again]

They changed the laws so that one was ok.

he encourgaged his soldiers to take sex slaves.

(Watch for the deflections/deletions on this one !!!)

Quote:

Anyway, Mohammed had sex slaves.

He had maidservants, as did many Biblical prophets... so what?


Quote:

1. Will it be allowed under sharia in the caliphate for Mohammedans to haave sex slaves again?

Perhaps you can track down one of these 'Mohammedans' and ask them?


Quote:

3. How does a woman become a sex slave under sharia?

You wanna sign up? Transvestites are not accepted, sorry.


Quote:

5. Are there any other instances where Mohammed's example will not be followed?

There are several rulings specifically for Muhammad (pbuh) alone.


Quote:

I hope these are clear and distict questions.

I'd say more like loaded and obscure.

Yes, one deletion and a diversion.

Oh - and a personal abuse !!

not really what is expected from a moderator.

He had maidservants, as did many Biblical prophets... so what?

Did he have sex with them?

[al-Ahzab 33:50]  
O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives  
whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your  
right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given  
to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your  
paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts,  
and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the  
daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and
 a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet,  
if the Prophet desired to marry her --  
specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers;  
We know what We have ordained for them concerning  
their wives and those whom their right hands possess in
 order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is  
Forgiving, Merciful.  

[at-Tahrim 66:5]  
Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in  
your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful,  
obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.  

[mod: You're skating on thin ice sprint]

Quote:

Did he have sex with them?

Even if he did, so did Biblical prophets... so what?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:01pm:

Quote: Did he have sex with them? Even if he did, so did Biblical prophets... so what?

Well it would paint Muhammed as a hypocrit for starters. I find it hard to believe that people would still consider him God's prophet while acknowledging that he did this.

Did he have sex with them? If so, wouldn't this create a contradiction between following Muhammed's lead and following his commands? Are regular Muslims allowed to have sex with the babysitter if they get sick of their four wives?

Another deletion, another threat AND another diversion !!

NOTE to mod - this thread is about ISLAM !!!!!!!!!!
remember ???

to answer your query F/D,  on some nights mohammad used to "visit" his WHOLE harem !!
what a way to spread diseases.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:06pm:

Another deletion, another threat AND another diversion !! NOTE to mod - this thread is about ISLAM !!!!!!!!!! remember ??? to answer your query F/D,  on some nights mohammad used to "visit" his WHOLE harem !! what a way to spread diseases.

All four of them?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:01pm:

Quote: Did he have sex with them? Even if he did, so did Biblical prophets... so what?

well isn't this against the ruling that there should be no sexual contact outside of marriage?

he had 12 wives, at least. Plus the sex slaves.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:11pm:

he had 12 wives, at least. Plus the sex slaves.

Is that true Abu?

Anywhere from 9 to 13. Plus his war booty


Here is a salient point.

"Roghieh ùþì¤ Mohammad's daughter was Usman's ö‘õ™ä
wife, she died after receiving lots of beating from Usman ö‘õ™ä.
Mohammad THEN gave Um Kolsoom ôø™óî ô� , his other daughter to Usman."

http://www.humanists.net/alisina/facts.htm

Quote:

Well it would paint Muhammed as a hypocrit for starters. I find it hard to believe that people would still consider him God's prophet while acknowledging that he did this.

Do people (the Jews for instance) not consider many of the Biblical prophets to be God's prophets because they kept maidservants whom they had relations with?


Quote:

Are regular Muslims allowed to have sex with the babysitter if they get sick of their four wives?

No.


Quote:

Is that true Abu?

I think 11, not sure. But not all at once. Also this is one of the things in which Muhammad (pbuh) had a different ruling than others. His marriages were special cases, often linked to making of alliances etc.

sprint,

Provide a historical link for that if you can, otherwise remove it, it is nothing but slander against one of the great companions of Muhammad (pbuh).
Just "humanists.net said so" means little.

If it's actually the case, then surely there must be some documented evidence for it? Otherwise how else would they know?

Abu, why do you think it's an acceptable way to answer a question by continually mentioning what the Christians or Jews do/did? That doesn't answer the question of what Muslims do or believe. Or is it a way to justify revolting behaviour or beliefs by pointing out that others have revolting behaviour and beliefs as well, so it's acceptable? Pretty lame.

When Bible believers are asking the questions, yes, it's quite a valid answer.

No, it's a pathetic answer, and if Islam was so superior, true and moral then you should have no problem answering the question directly.

OK Abu, time to give people back some rights.
Before you demand historical records as proof, reflect that you only believe Islamic records, as you think the westerners just concoct lies, to smear the prophet.
While we westerners, think Islamic records are sanitised, to lessen the contempt for some sexual excesses.

So if you are demanding proof from Islam, then we are unfairly restricted in raising issues which deserve to be addressed.

The link in the thread about anti-islam sites has a precis from a guy who uses historical texts to diagnose mohammed, and if he is even  half right, then it would explain a lot.

I have not read the book, and big claims, demand big evidence, so he may just be trying to cash in on the tide of anti-Islamic feeling to make a buck, but on face value, many of the claims are almost self evident, but one claim is that due to a disease he claims he had, mohammed was physically challenged in the love olympics, and this frustration at not being able to consumate inspired the excesses of his later life.

Like I say, I do not know what basis he has to make such claims, but the psychology would certainly fit the behaviour.

Abu - just answerthe question. Well, any question would be nice !!!!.
Dont deflect. Don't deflect, don't deflect.

If you want to ask ANY questions about the bible, there is a thread in the spiritual forum exactly for that.
I started it long ago, posted another answer there for you last night.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 5:36am:

Quote: Are regular Muslims allowed to have sex with the babysitter if they get sick of their four wives? No. [quote]Is that true Abu?

I think 11, not sure. But not all at once. Also this is one of the things in which Muhammad (pbuh) had a different ruling than others. His marriages were special cases, often linked to making of alliances etc.
[/quote]

Are Muslims allowed to take sex slaves as war booty? Are they allowed to have sex with more than four women under any other circumstances? What if one of your wives dies, can you get another one?

Are Caliph's allowed to take extra wives as a diplomatic gesture?

Are there any other examples of Muhammed demanding 'do as I say, not as I do'?

mozzaok,


Quote:

Before you demand historical records as proof, reflect that you only believe Islamic records, as you think the westerners just concoct lies, to smear the prophet. While we westerners, think Islamic records are sanitised, to lessen the contempt for some sexual excesses.

The only *actual* record that exists is the Islamic one. Anything after that is just someone's spin, whether it be Muslims spin or Westerners spin is irrelevant. What I'm saying is, goto the source that the Westerners themselves used to concoct their spin from. You're saying no only the spin will do.... It's quite obvious who's calling for the objective view here.


Quote:

So if you are demanding proof from Islam, then we are unfairly restricted in raising issues which deserve to be addressed.

The only thing I'm demanding is that you actually refer to the source, not to someones interpretation. Is that such a big ask?


Quote:

but one claim is that due to a disease he claims he had, mohammed was physically challenged in the love olympics

Sprint is claiming he serviced 12 wives and several concubines in one night, and you're claiming he was physically 'challenged'... This is like the argument that Islam is homophobic yet allowed homosexuality in the same time. You're speaking garbage and you either know it, or you don't know it, and I can't decide which is worse.

sprint,


Quote:

Abu - just answerthe question

You've been informed before, I don't take orders from you, especially those that begin with 'just'.


Quote:

If you want to ask ANY questions about the bible

Not particularly. But if I do, yes I know where to come. Thanks.

freediver,


Quote:

Are Muslims allowed to take sex slaves as war booty?

I think we've been over this before haven't we? In this time, no.


Quote:

Are they allowed to have sex with more than four women under any other circumstances?

Yes.


Quote:

What if one of your wives dies, can you get another one?

Of course. Or you may divorce one and marry another. It is a limit of four at one time.


Quote:

Are Caliph's allowed to take extra wives as a diplomatic gesture?

No. Only the Prophets (pbut) have been commanded with special allowances and requirements.


Quote:

Are there any other examples of Muhammed demanding 'do as I say, not as I do'?

Since there's no case of him saying that, no.
However, if, as I suspect you just misworded your question a little, and would like to try again, perhaps we can find an answer for what you might actually have intended to ask..

So, to sum up the answers so far:


1. Yes, there will be sex slaves under sharia in the caliphate for Mohammedans but not for unbelievers.

2. At what point in the implementation process will it become OK to have sex slaves? (ie how much of a priority is it in the scheme of the sharia legal framework).  - answer still under consideration

3. A captured non-muslim woman can become a sex slave under sharia in the caliphate.

4. If not - N/A

5. Are there any other instances where Mohammed's example will not be followed? Yes, details are under consideration.



Would that be a fair summation so far?

Quote:

1. Yes, there will be sex slaves under sharia in the caliphate for Mohammedans but not for unbelievers.

There's no Caliphate and no Shari'ah, so it's a moot point. In the end of the Ottoman Caliphate, there was severe restriction on slavery, and Islamically, it's discouraged to have slaves. So perhaps in any future implementation of a Caliphate, it may not even be an issue. Since the world has officially abolished it, although we know it still goes on, especially in Russia, Eastern Europe and the Gulf states.


Quote:

2. At what point in the implementation process will it become OK to have sex slaves? (ie how much of a priority is it in the scheme of the sharia legal framework).  - answer still under consideration

It is not a priority at all, neither is it a command in Islam to do so, contrary to some claims so far in this thread.


Quote:

3. A captured non-muslim woman can become a sex slave under sharia in the caliphate.

Did. That's about all you can say. Then again all nations took captives in wars as slaves in that time. Why would Islam be any different?

Quote:

Why would Islam be any different?

Because you claim it's superior to all other belief systems, that it is the only truth and that it is the only moral way to live. If it does as all others do, why is it so special?

Yes but it's still just a way for people to live their lives, and it exists in a real world, not in a fantasy land. Islamic rules are realistic.

While few christians consider the bible as a total blueprint for how to live, we have seen the perception, at least, that muslims think very differently about the koran, and allowed the freedom to, would pursue anything that the koran permits.

That is why the anti-islamist sites quote so many iffy koranic verses, because they fear that muslims will interpret them literally, if given the chance, and demand that all respect their right to do so on religious grounds, even if the verses seem cruel and/or perverse.

It is a little like the christian, god moves in mysterious ways bit, where muslims say the koran can only be rightly understood in arabic, and only certain people can therefore truly and rightly interpret it, it allows a ready made excuse for any situation that is indefensible, or inexplicable, and exemplifies why the non-religious so often hold religion in contempt, for it's evasion and lack of accountability.

Quote:

because they fear that muslims will interpret them literally, if given the chance, and demand that all respect their right to do so on religious grounds, even if the verses seem cruel and/or perverse.

We do interpret them literally, we don't consider them just fairytales. But that's got nothing to do with demanding anything. You seem quite hung up on this demanding thing, Muslims demanding this and Muslims demanding that. Sorry, but I've never demanded anything, and doubt I ever would,, unless it was something like my basic right to live. Muslims having halal food etc. is usually done by food companies for their own PROFIT, not for our prophet (pun intended). They accomodate us because it makes good business sense, then bigots like you jump up and down and cry "Why should they have something special???" it's called supply and demand... hmm the word demand has a different meaning there though.

That's the way democratic and capitalist societies work, if you don't like it, I suggest you work out what kind of system you do like, and go find where it exists. This is called the hypocrisy of democracy, it's all good and well whilst it serves your needs, but heaven forbid that it ever serve the needs of Muslims. In that we have to suspend democracy, freedom, capitalism etc. and use emergency laws to put those Muslims back in their place!!

Likewise as I mentioned to you before mozza, probably the only way polygamy will be made legal is when the government decides it's profitable enough, and the ATO demands it, not us demanding it. Muslims do not go around demanding everyone accomodate them, and I challenge you to show where we have.


Quote:

where muslims say the koran can only be rightly understood in arabic

Would you accept the Australian government interpreting the Australian constitution in swahili? Probably not, and why should they? It exists in it's language, in which all the terms and concepts are clear, so why translate it to interpret it?

There's plenty of Western scholars who are also fluent Arabic speakers... So don't feel like it's just a way to remove it from the West's prying eyes.

This is like the argument that Islam is homophobic yet allowed homosexuality in the same time.

Isn't that what you argued Abu?

Not particularly. But if I do, yes I know where to come. Thanks.

If you don't want to ask, why did you ask?

I think we've been over this before haven't we? In this time, no.

So they can only take sex slaves as war booty in times of war, but not in times of peace? I must have forgotten going over this one.

Yes.

Can you list the examples for us?

However, if, as I suspect you just misworded your question a little, and would like to try again, perhaps we can find an answer for what you might actually have intended to ask.

I don't think I misworded the question. Anyway, feel free to reword it in a way that is acceptable to you so that you may answer it.

There's no Caliphate and no Shari'ah, so it's a moot point.

Haven't we been over this before? The fact that sharia law is not implimented does not mean that questions about what sharia law are moot. Or do you suggest people not bother themselves with finding out what it is until they find themselves living under it?

Yes but it's still just a way for people to live their lives, and it exists in a real world, not in a fantasy land. Islamic rules are realistic.

So because immoral behaviour is inevitable Islam allows it in order to be 'realistic'?

jordan484 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 9:42am:

Quote: Why would Islam be any different? Because you claim it's superior to all other belief systems, that it is the only truth and that it is the only moral way to live. If it does as all others do, why is it so special?

Don't you believe that your 'western' beliefs are superior to Islam. You have said so a number of times.

So here you are...attacking Abu and Islam for the very same thing that you have done yourself.

Serious question...do you have a mirror at home?

Lestat wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 11:21am:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 9:42am: Quote: Why would Islam be any different? Because you claim it's superior to all other belief systems, that it is the only truth and that it is the only moral way to live. If it does as all others do, why is it so special? Don't you believe that your 'western' beliefs are superior to Islam. You have said so a number of times.

Yes. One pertinent reason is that there is no sex slavery in western law.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 10:51am:

This is like the argument that Islam is homophobic yet allowed homosexuality in the same time. Isn't that what you argued Abu? Not particularly. But if I do, yes I know where to come. Thanks. If you don't want to ask, why did you ask? I think we've been over this before haven't we? In this time, no. So they can only take sex slaves as war booty in times of war, but not in times of peace? I must have forgotten going over this one. Yes. Can you list the examples for us? However, if, as I suspect you just misworded your question a little, and would like to try again, perhaps we can find an answer for what you might actually have intended to ask. I don't think I misworded the question. Anyway, feel free to reword it in a way that is acceptable to you so that you may answer it. There's no Caliphate and no Shari'ah, so it's a moot point. Haven't we been over this before? The fact that sharia law is not implimented does not mean that questions about what sharia law are moot. Or do you suggest people not bother themselves with finding out what it is until they find themselves living under it? Yes but it's still just a way for people to live their lives, and it exists in a real world, not in a fantasy land. Islamic rules are realistic. So because immoral behaviour is inevitable Islam allows it in order to be 'realistic'?

lol...FD, seriously it is ridiculous posts like this which has caused me to cease taking you seriously long ago...and fair dinkum, Abu should do like wise. Like really, I sometime's wonder whether you are just pretending to be this thick, or your somehow think your funny or something. Either way...really, posts like these tell me that you have the maturity/intellect of a child.

This is especially highlighted by this ridiculous question..

"If you don't want to ask, why did you ask?" He didn't ask you doofus. And thats just it...if/when Abu highlights this, and challenges you to show where 'he asked'...you just move the goal post and carry on. Time and time again, he exposes you and others, and without shame, you just carry one, and a couple of days later...make the same claims, which have already been refuted and exposed, a number of times. Just a cycle of lies/refutations/exposure, and then the same lies again. Its a rather boring pattern to be honest.

You lot remind of animals....absolutely no shame and no idea of how to debate a topic. Time and time again your lies are exposed, and time and time again you just ignore this and continue with your ignorant rants.

I am amazed that Abu has put up with it as long as he has. Though I suspect that this is the idea...silence him with your ignorance and hate. And with the abundance of both that you all posses..you just might succeed. But alas, doesn't matter what you do or say, in the we will have the final laugh....and oh how I will laugh. :)

And don't bother with a response, because, as I said I decided a while ago your nothing but a waste of time.

Quote:

Isn't that what you argued Abu?

I did? I don't think so. Islam is clearly against homosexuality. But please let us not go here again, you've really done it to death. You know Islam prohibits homosexuality, and the claims that homosexuality was allowed in Islamic society was just orientalist propaganda, meant to be consumed by an anti-homosexual Europe (in the past), to justify wars and crusades.


Quote:

If you don't want to ask, why did you ask?

It was a rhetorical question. I know quite well that Biblical prophets did keep concubines and that it was considered quite acceptable in their religion.


Quote:

So they can only take sex slaves as war booty in times of war, but not in times of peace? I must have forgotten going over this one

Sex slaves is not the correct terminology and really doesn't befit the situation that existed. Yes in times of peace it's forbidden to take slaves, and as mentioned in the last days of the Caliphate, it was even forbidden at all to take slaves. It is a practise that existed in the past, but need not exist in the future, and Islamically, it's preferred for it not to exist, hence the great rewards for freeing slaves. Islam came as a mercy to mankind, to free them from their bonds to other men, not enslave them. The discussion of this topic here really does not do the Islamic history any justice whatsoever. You must look at it in it's correct perspective, Islam was a leading force in the decline of slavery throughout most of it's history. Those cases where it wasn't, like the Barbary slave trade for instance, where special cases that were not really sanctioned by Islam. The Barbary states grew out of the Moors who had escaped the inquisition and reconquista of al-Andalus and re-settled in North Africa, and they were seeking revenge for their mistreatment by the Catholics, and so they raided the coasts of the new Catholic Iberia, pillaging what they could and taking them as slaves. It wasn't right... but after what they'd been through, one can certainly see their justifications as having some validity.


Quote:

Can you list the examples for us?

It's what we are discussing now. Concubinage. Or did you mean something other than that?


Quote:

Haven't we been over this before? The fact that sharia law is not implimented does not mean that questions about what sharia law are moot.

It is, because it doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time. Yes as Muslims we should be living under it, but we're not. I most likely won't in my lifetime, so what is the benefit in discussing what it hypothetically would and wouldn't allow? Concubinage is not a requirement of Islam, and therefore speculating that it might or might not be including as a means of dealing with the welfare issues that could arise out of a hypothetical future conflict is just ludicrous. Trends towards the end of the Ottoman Caliphate tend to indicate that it would probably not exist, but can't guarantee that... can you guarantee me democracies or Jewish or christian states would never re-implement it? You can't, and arguing over whether they might is just ridiculous.

But like with everything else, when discussing Islam, anything goes.. True?


Quote:

Or do you suggest people not bother themselves with finding out what it is until they find themselves living under it?

Exactly, ignorance is bliss, so remain in a blissful state for now. Nothing like a surprise is there?


Quote:

So because immoral behaviour is inevitable Islam allows it in order to be 'realistic'?

Immoral is a subjective term.

Soren wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 11:27am:

Lestat wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 11:21am: jordan484 wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 9:42am: Quote: Why would Islam be any different? Because you claim it's superior to all other belief systems, that it is the only truth and that it is the only moral way to live. If it does as all others do, why is it so special? Don't you believe that your 'western' beliefs are superior to Islam. You have said so a number of times. Yes. One pertinent reason is that there is no sex slavery in western law.

So if you believe that your beliefs are superior to others...then don't squeal like a b(tch when others do likewise.

I know Islam is superior to anything you can produce...and unlike you, I don't need to attack others beliefs due to a sense of insecurity. I am confortable with my religon and beliefs...the question is...are you? If so, then why spend more time attacking other beliefs, then actually practising your own?

As Abu has mentioned alreayd, their is no sex slavery in Islamic law....or maybe you can prove me wrong and highlight the Shariah law that you believe pertains to sex slavery.

And bit rich, given that sex and slavery make up two of the largest industries in the western world (the largest being Arms industry). I don't see any porn sites....prostitution rackets being organised in muslim countries...no, almost always they are organised by westerners....just like you!

Quote:

Exactly, ignorance is bliss, so remain in a blissful state for now. Nothing like a surprise is there?

Do you actually believe that, or could you just not be bothered answering the question?

Lestat wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 11:40am:

Soren wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 11:27am: Lestat wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 11:21am: jordan484 wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 9:42am: Quote: Why would Islam be any different? Because you claim it's superior to all other belief systems, that it is the only truth and that it is the only moral way to live. If it does as all others do, why is it so special? Don't you believe that your 'western' beliefs are superior to Islam. You have said so a number of times. Yes. One pertinent reason is that there is no sex slavery in western law. So if you believe that your beliefs are superior to others...then don't squeal like a b(tch when others do likewise.

Superiority is not just in the declaring, Captain. You actually have to be superior. This is the trap for Muslims. Declaring a lot of things don't make them so.  
Declaring the koran the most beautiful book, unsurpassable in its (your favorite hypoerbole here) does not make it true.
Declaring Islam the religion of peace does not make it so.

If your emperor is not exactly starkers, his ar$e is certainly hanging out in the most ridiculous fashion.

Soren wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 11:48am:

Declaring a lot of things don't make them so.

Right back at ya sunshine. Like I said, I'm comfortable with my beliefs, I don't need to justify my own religon and beliefs by attacking others. Sadly same can't be said about you.

I suspect that you know your religon to be inferior, after all, your priests are so sex starved that they revert to playing with little boys. These things obviously nag at you, and when you see all your woman (thousands) flocking to the banner of Islam, its understandable that you feel inferior. However, you hope that by attacking that which is clearly far superior to anything you have ever come accross, and if enough people agree with you, you might be able to convince yourself otherwise. Its called an inferiority complex. Those who are inferior will spend all their time attacking other beliefs...trying to put them down.

THose who are comfortable with their beliefs....will move on and live their lives.

Take Gaybriel for example...I believe that she is Christian, however, unlike you, it appears she is comfortable with her beliefs, hence, she does not attempt to put down others.

You on the other hand.....INFERIORITY COMPLEX!

"If you don't want to ask, why did you ask?" He didn't ask you doofus. And thats just it.

Yes he did Lestat.

I did? I don't think so. Islam is clearly against homosexuality.

But you also argued that it effectively allows it by making a conviction almost impossible unless they do it in the street or something.

Islam was a leading force in the decline of slavery throughout most of it's history.

As far as I can tell the historical facts indicate the opposite. It was the British who were the driving force behind it. The middle east was one of the last places to abolish slavery, and this can be at least in part attributed to western interference.

It's what we are discussing now. Concubinage. Or did you mean something other than that?

OK. Concubines if you prefer. Under what situations does/has Islam permit concubines. Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?

It is, because it doesn't exist, and hasn't for a long time. Yes as Muslims we should be living under it, but we're not. I most likely won't in my lifetime, so what is the benefit in discussing what it hypothetically would and wouldn't allow?

Because it is something that a large number of people are pushing for. We should not wait until they achieve it to consider it. It is a threat to democracy, freedom and human rights. It seems that every time I discuss I discover something new about it that concerns me.

The fact that you are arguing that it shouldn't be discussed just adds to that concern.

Immoral is a subjective term.

Well, you talk about the decline of slavery like it is a good thing.

re: discussing this earlier, I put some stuff in the wiki about polygamy and slavery, but it seems I was unaware that Muslims could have sex with female slaves.

Jordan,


Quote:

Do you actually believe that, or could you just not be bothered answering the question?

Can't get much past the keen eye of Jordan. You're right it is the latter.

freediver,


Quote:

But you also argued that it effectively allows it

I did no such thing.


Quote:

As far as I can tell the historical facts indicate the opposite. It was the British who were the driving force behind it.

Like with most issues, your memory only goes back about 5 minutes.

When Islam was revealed, slavery almost overnight became virtually outlawed. Prior to Islam, slavery was rampant, and pretty much anyone could just capture and slave another, so long as he had the ability to do so. Islam changed this, and prevented it in all cases, except captives during war, who were considered to have forfeited their freedom by waging war against the Islamic State.

Islam also put extremely stringent rules on servitude, that meant you must clothe, feed and house any servants (I am using this word, because the English word slave just doesn't mean the same as what we're talking about here) in the same manner anyone else in your household was to be looked after. In the West, yes even just a few centuries or less ago, they were considered animals, and usually slept in the barn with the other animals. Except for the favourite slave, the "porch n1gger" who was allowed to sleep on the porch with the dog.

Also we have the two independant cases of 'servant kingdoms' arising in the Muslim lands. The Mamelukes of Egypt and the Mamelukes of India (mamlook means possessed). In which servants as an entire class of people rose to such a high rank in society they became the Sultans, not just once, but twice, independantly.

As stated, it was mostly in later years, the last 500, that slavery became very widespread in the Muslim lands, with the rise of the Barbary states, and their situation is a special case, due to to the extreme persecution and genocide they suffered.

Also with the Mongol/Tatar invasions slavery was made quite big in Muslim lands, by the invaders. Prior to it, slavery was very rare.


Quote:

Because it is something that a large number of people are pushing for. We should not wait until they achieve it to consider it. It is a threat to democracy, freedom and human rights. It seems that every time I discuss I discover something new about it that concerns me.

As I asked, can you guarantee Democracy and Christianity won't re-institute it in future? After all, it's clearly written in the Bible...


Quote:

The fact that you are arguing that it shouldn't be discussed just adds to that concern.

You are free to discuss it, just don't think it's as relevant as you make out.


Quote:

Well, you talk about the decline of slavery like it is a good thing.

Yes, it is a good thing. And Islam views it as a good thing too. Don't forget to add that to your wiki... or is it in only the 'juicey' bits that make the cut?

Quote:

Do you actually believe that, or could you just not be bothered answering the question? Can't get much past the keen eye of Jordan. You're right it is the latter.

Glad you can be honest about your laziness, that's a start.

Quote:

As I asked, can you guarantee Democracy and Christianity won't re-institute it in future? After all, it's clearly written in the Bible...

If some group of people started suggesting that medievil Europe was an ideal society and we should return to that, I would be equally concerned.


Quote:

You are free to discuss it, just don't think it's as relevant as you make out.

How relevant do I make it out to be?


Quote:

Yes, it is a good thing. And Islam views it as a good thing too.

Why not just abolish it then? Perhaps the issue goes a bit deeper, as it appears 'necessary' under Islam because Islam permits the taking of everything following a victory in war. That is the bigger problem, and slavery is just aprt of it.


Quote:

Don't forget to add that to your wiki... or is it in only the 'juicey' bits that make the cut?

It's the conflicts between Islam and western values that make it into the section about the conflicts between Islam and western values. If you want to add a page about Islamic recipes, go for it.


Quote:

It's what we are discussing now. Concubinage. Or did you mean something other than that?

OK. Concubines if you prefer. Under what situations does/did Islam permit concubines? Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?

Quote:

If some group of people started suggesting that medievil Europe was an ideal society and we should return to that, I would be equally concerned.

Well Muslims don't call to live by the way things were 1400 years ago, but by the principles of the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh), we don't believe in travelling by Camels instead of cars.. even though camels were mentioned in the Qur'an, it's not compulsory to use them, as it's not compulsory to take captives during war.


Quote:

How relevant do I make it out to be?

You seem to think it's a very present danger that Muslims might be doing this...


Quote:

Why not just abolish it then? Perhaps the issue goes a bit deeper, as it appears 'necessary' under Islam because Islam permits the taking of everything following a victory in war.

And the West are just in Iraq to help improve the people's lives right?

As Lawrence Korb, former US Assistant Secretary of Defence, said in January 1991:

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."

Or US Congressman Stokes (Ohio), 12th January 1991:

"I venture to say that if Kuwait produced bananas, instead of oil, we would not have 400,000 American troops there today."

'Spoils of war' is by no means a purely Islamic concept, it's most likely been in part a motivation for most of the major conflicts mankind has ever engaged in. To suggest otherwise would be utter naivety or outright deception


Quote:

OK. Concubines if you prefer. Under what situations does/did Islam permit concubines? Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?

As mentioned it's a moot point. Go fish for your wiki elsewhere.

Quote:

You seem to think it's a very present danger that Muslims might be doing this...

You mean, keeping women as slaves, like what was reported in the media recently?


Quote:

And the West are just in Iraq to help improve the people's lives right?

We aren't going to move in, if that's what you are worried about.


Quote:

As mentioned it's a moot point. Go fish for your wiki elsewhere.

So, I finally get the question in a form you approve of, and you refuse to answer it? On the grounds that revealing the truth about Islam may paint Islam in a bad light? Surely if it is God's law, you should proclaim it to be so, and we will see the Godliness of the law and live by it.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:11pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 20th, 2008 at 10:01pm: Quote: Did he have sex with them? Even if he did, so did Biblical prophets... so what? well isn't this against the ruling that there should be no sexual contact outside of marriage?

i don't think this was answered

[quote author=Lestat33 link=1216537027/135#149 date=1224554390
Take Gaybriel for example...I believe that she is Christian, however, unlike you, it appears she is comfortable with her beliefs, hence, she does not attempt to put down others.

You on the other hand.....INFERIORITY COMPLEX![/quote]

actually I don't really belong to an religion :P

I believe in god but don't belong to an organised religion. Perhaps one day I will- who knows :P

Gaybriel, most verses referring to legal sexual conduct mention "your wives, and those whom your right hand possesses"

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 10:03pm:

Gaybriel, most verses referring to legal sexual conduct mention "your wives, and those whom your right hand possesses"

can you explain what that means a bit more please?

I dunno why please sounds rude at the end of that sentence- but for some reason it does- lol :P

It means concubines, as mentioned above.

Quote:

legal sexual conduct mention "your wives, and those whom your right hand possesses"

makes me think of the pirates law.
"Take all you can, give back nothing."


images of assassainations, treatment of infidels etc etc etc.

Concubinage is in your own Bible too, and is practised by the Prophets (pbut) who you claim Jesus (pbuh) sent to the world and spoke through...

Does the Bible, and the Prophets (pbut) that Jesus (pbuh) sent make you think of those things too? Or only Islam?

I ask for the mod. to delete his own posting.
repeatedly being offtopic DESPITE being repeatedly requested to stay ONtopic.

What is he scared off ? the truth ?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:37pm:

You do speak some crap Malik. The scumbag slavers are now, thanks to a little Islamic revised history, philanthropists. Are you that brainwashed that you honestly cannot see how ludicrous that last post was? What are we going to hear next, that mohammed was the first man on the moon, take a reality check, if you can even still see reality from your position. I guess slavery was just like a twenty year internship.

Thanks Mozza,

I've been reading so much of this with open mouth amazement. That was beautifully put. Hilarious. 20 year internship indeed. ;D

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 11:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25th, 2008 at 11:37pm: You do speak some crap Malik. The scumbag slavers are now, thanks to a little Islamic revised history, philanthropists. Are you that brainwashed that you honestly cannot see how ludicrous that last post was? What are we going to hear next, that mohammed was the first man on the moon, take a reality check, if you can even still see reality from your position. I guess slavery was just like a twenty year internship. I'm sorry Mozza, are you going to tell me about Islamic history and act like you actually know anything about it? I think you're about to make a fool of yourself if you're going to consider doing that. You know nothing of Arab culture and tribalism and the way Arab warfare worked. So be very careful about what you say here because you're going to make yourself look more stupid than intelligent. Furthermore you are criticising Islam for human rights? Are you kidding me? Australia's human rights record is terrible when it comes to that, taking the Aboriginals land and declaring it terra nullis, then hunting the Aboriginal men, women and children for sport, they weren't even considered human and killing They had NO rights whatsoever and killing them was considered completely acceptable and had no consequences in the law. In addition to that taking their children away from them and putting them in foster homes, trying to erase their identity and impose the anglo identity on them. That's genocide. Do you know when Aboriginals were even considered citizens of this country and recognized as true human beings?? It wasn't until 1962 (1965 in QLD) that the states recognized them and gave them the right to vote! And you expect to be considered civilized? Dream on mate! Australia's human rights record more than 1400 years after the establishment of the Islamic state is far worse than any point of Islamic history. Australia has no right whatsoever to criticize this when Australia's history is far darker and Australians have been far worse to Indigenous Australians than any slave has been treated in the Islamic Empire. It truly shows how backwards this country has been.

Yep, your absolutely correct Malik, That's why we changed and we no longer defend that part of our history as acceptable. Of course we have a right to criticize.

Also, and please correct me if I am wrong, it may just be a popular myth, but wasn't the slave trade an important part of middle eastern economy for centuries.

Sprint, it's on topic. You're a Christian attacking the Qur'an for mentioning concubinage, when your own Bible clearly mentions it.

Cut the hypocrisy please or move along.

lol
malik...  if you get stuck attack with a spurious argument.

locutius...  yes and it wasn't the Islamic Arabs that brought and end to slave trading.   ;D ;D ;D  good point

re sex with slaves and slave trading

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13918&hl=slaves

quite a lengthy discussion

Child of 13 stoned to death in Somalia
31 October 2008
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/child-of%20-13-stoned-to-death-in-somalia-20081031

A girl stoned to death in Somalia this week was 13 years old, not 23, contrary to earlier news reports. She had been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law.

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed on Monday 27 October, by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu, in front of around 1,000 spectators. Somali journalists who had reported she was 23 have told Amnesty International that they judged her age by her physical appearance.

Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander. An al-Shabab spokeperson was later reported to have apologized for the death of the child, and said the militia member would be punished.

At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.
 
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was accused of adultery, but sources told Amnesty International that she had in fact been raped by three men, and had attempted to report this rape to the al-Shabab militia who control Kismayo. It was this act that resulted in her being accused of adultery and detained. None of men she accused of rape were arrested.
She was detained by militia of the Kismayo authorities, a coalition of Al-shabab and clan militias. During this time, she was reportedly extremely distressed, with some individuals stating she had become mentally unstable.

Amnesty International has campaigned to end the use of the punishment of stoning, calling it gruesome and horrific. This killing of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow demonstrates the cruelty and the inherent discrimination against women of this punishment.

That's disgusting.

The article does not mention it - does anyone know what the religion of these militias is? Are they Christians or Jews or animists or what?

soren, I could bring you 100 far worse crimes all committied by people whose religion is Christianity, and?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

soren, I could bring you 100 far worse crimes all committied by people whose religion is Christianity, and?

So a mob's religion has nothing to do with their actions?

That's right. When a mob of Hindus raped a CXatholic nun recently, do you think they did it because Hinduism permits such actions? I don't think so. Likewise Islam does not permit vigilantism, nor does it call for the death penalty for fornicators.

Besides, I've seen some conflicting reports about this story anyway.

So they should stone adulterers to death in a nice orderly fashion rather than in a disorderly mob?

That hardly sounds like vigilantism. Someone was in charge of a very large group of people to pull that off.

Quote:

So they should stone adulterers to death in a nice orderly fashion rather than in a disorderly mob?

Would you like a shovel, so you can fit some more words into my mouth?


Quote:

That hardly sounds like vigilantism. Someone was in charge of a very large group of people to pull that off.

The whole country is in a complete lawless mess, and has not had a proper functioning central government for years. Also there's an army from a neighbouring nation running around making things much worse.

Vigilantism is vigilantism, no matter how many people participate in it.

Either way, I've clearly stated that I, me, Abu Rashid, believe this act to be contrary to Islamic law, and that those carrying it out are murderers and lawless rebels who should be punished. I don't really see what more you want from me... apart from that you want some adversary, so perhaps you want me to support it or something? Out of some sick boredom? If this is the case, then you're the sick one here that really needs to re-evaluate their position on this issue.

Good for you Abu, well said, and thanks for providing an honest and definitive reply.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

That's right. When a mob of Hindus raped a CXatholic nun recently, do you think they did it because Hinduism permits such actions? I don't think so. Likewise Islam does not permit vigilantism, nor does it call for the death penalty for fornicators. Besides, I've seen some conflicting reports about this story anyway.

Well, you should never again mention the religion of jewish settlers or that african microsect you are fond  referring to (Gods revolutionary something or other). If Islam is excused every time a muslim mob does something outrageous, you should be consistent and prinipled and excuse every other religion.


By the way, when muslims are involved, one always hears conflictng stories.

What conflicting reports?


Quote:

Would you like a shovel, so you can fit some more words into my mouth?

Sorry, I thought you did support death by stoning for adulterers, even if they are 13 year old girls.  Yes I know that probably wasn't the case here. We both see this as an injustice, but for very different reasons.

Can a grown Mulism woman marry according to her own will?
No.

Read on, from Islam Q&A
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/97117



Q
Is the marriage valid if the woman says to her fiancée “I give myself to you in marriage” in the presence of her wali?
Will the contract of marriage be valid if the woman says by herself to her fiancée “I give you myself in marriage” in presence of her walee (guardian) who is her father, two fair witnesses, and many of her and her fiancée’s relatives, with eejaab (Proposal of walee) and qabool (acceptance of the fiancée) of this by her walee’s permission and approval?.

A
Praise be to Allaah.

A woman does not have the right to do the marriage contract for herself, according to the majority of scholars, whether her wali (guardian) gives her permission or not. The wali should do the marriage contract himself or delegate another man to do the marriage contract on his behalf, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no marriage except with a wali (guardian).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (2085) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (1839).

Ibn Majaah narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No woman can give a woman in marriage and no woman can give herself in marriage.” Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in Buloogh al-Maraam: the men (of its isnaad) are thiqaat (trustworthy).

It was classed as saheeh by Ahmad Shaakir in ‘Umdat al-Tafseer (1/285) and it was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (1848).

Al-San’aani said in Subul al-Salaam:

This indicates that a woman cannot act as a wali in the case of marriage, whether for herself or for someone else. So she cannot give herself in marriage with the permission of her guardian or anyone else, and she cannot give someone else in marriage as a guardian or deputy. This is the view of the majority. End quote.

It says in Mughni al-Muhtaaj, which is a Shaafa’i book (4/239): A woman cannot give herself in marriage, i.e., she cannot do that in any circumstances, whether it is with permission or otherwise, whether she issues the proposal or accepts the proposal, because it is not appropriate for her to get involved with that, due to what is expected of her of shyness and modesty and because there is no reference to it in the sources.  

And Ibn Majaah narrated: “No woman can give another woman in marriage or give herself in marriage.” It was also narrated by al-Daaraqutni with an isnaad that meets the conditions of the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim). End quote.

Based on this, if the marriage contract was done in the manner asked about, then it is not valid and it must be repeated with the guardian himself or his deputy.

And Allaah knows best.

due to what is expected of her of shyness and modesty

What is expected of a woman in 'shyness and modesty'?

Cross dressing in Islam - is it halal?

"I wear women's clothing
Like my dear papa!"


U.S. Troops Kill Taliban Commander Clad in Woman's Clothing
Saturday, November 29, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan —  Gunbattles and airstrikes by NATO and Afghan troops killed 53 militants in Afghanistan, including a wanted Taliban commander who tried to hide from soldiers under a woman's burqa, officials said Saturday.

The U.S. forces targeting the commander surrounded a house Friday in Ghazni province and ordered everyone inside to leave, a military statement said.

Six women and 12 children left the building, but while soldiers were questioning the women they discovered one was actually a man dressed in a burqa, the traditional all-encompassing dress that most Afghan women wear. The man, later identified as the targeted commander Haji Yakub, tried to attack the soldiers and was killed, the military said.

Yakub allegedly directed roadside bomb and suicide attacks against Afghanistan's government and coalition forces in Ghazni, according to the statement. Three other militants were killed in the operation, it said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459025,00.html

yes it is:

http://www.gayjihadi.com/

Concept of Gender Equality Against Islamic Principles: Panel


ISLAMABAD, DEC 16 (PTI)

Challenging the concept of gender equality, an influential religious panel in Pakistan has said it goes "against" Islamic principles.

The Council of Islamic Ideology, a constitutional body that advises the legislature on whether laws are in line with Islamic principles, has recommended to the government that provisions referring to gender equality should be deleted from laws.

The body made the recommendations in the course of reviewing the working of the National Commission on the Status of Women, Dawn News channel reported today.

The council's recommendations questioned the concept of gender equality in Pakistani laws and described it as "impractical and against Islamic principles".

It also said gender equality is a "vague" term and should be replaced by "equity and justice".


So, equality is impractical and conceptually weak - but still, clearly against Islamic principles. Clarity where it's needed.

Quote:

Koran 4.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

Calanen wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 4:43am:

Quote: Koran 4.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

Quran 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.

So what are your thoughts on that quote Gaybriel?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 11:37am:

So what are your thoughts on that quote Gaybriel?

well- my thoughts are that it's pretty fair within the context of the time in which it was written.

men have certainly been given more strength (physically) than women- and as such I see part of the responsibility of being given that strength is that it should be used to protect those with less strength

and again- when you look at the time of the quran- men certainly were the ones going out and earning the money etc etc- so to say that men are the protectors and maintainers of women is not strange to me at all in that instance

now when it says 'devoutly obedient'- I take that to mean obedience to God (cause of the word devout), which is further enforced by the mention of protecting what God would have them protect when their husband is away. In other words, when the man is not there to protect the woman, she simply protects herself by following the word of God and doing what she would otherwise normally do if the man were there.

now in terms of today's context- does this apply? in some ways yes, I do believe that men have a responsibility towards women- to help protect them physically etc etc (just my experience of going out to bars and clubs etc shows the necessity for that). But as society is changing in terms of women in the workforce etc etc- this does not neccessarily mean that men are the ones maintaining the household (although majority of the time this is still true I believe).

Now even if one partner is financially supporting a household- I do not believe it gives them the right to have complete control over the other person. but as I said I don't think that's what this is suggesting.

I see no problem with a wife being obedient to her husband, however- just as I see no problem with a husband being obedient to his wife. this is of course IN THEORY- because theoretically marriage should be based upon mutual respect and obedience to the other partner. I think the word obedience can be really off putting because it conjures up images of a sort of totalitarian regime whereby one person is giving directives and the other person is completely submissive and unquestioning. I also have this knee jerk reaction to the word obedience- but when I think about it deeper- to me obedience is about acting in a way that respects the boundaries and wishes of another person.

for example- a couple get married and they have certain things they want in the marriage- neither wants the other to be unfaithful, maybe the wife only wants the husband to drink on weekends, maybe he doesn't want her to spend so much on clothes (forgive the stereotype)- now in doing these things for one another, they are obeying each other. and I don't see a problem with that. in fact I think it should be encouraged.

and this is when I think- does this again have relevance in today's society? because so much of the breakdown of the family unit today seems to be because people are so unwilling to forego what they see as their own personal rights (and by this I mean, the right to do whatever the hell they want and who are you to tell me I can't)- people are so invested in their selfish needs and are so concerned with their complete and utter freedom to do what they want and say what they want etc etc- that they completely forget about the other person they are supposed to be living their life for. now to a lot of people the need for flexibility, obedience (as I've used the word here) etc is just self-evident. but for sooo many people it isn't- which is why (I believe) such religious texts exist and give guidance in these matters (but again- do I know which are valid and true? nope! dammit!)


and back to my thing about context- does it apply? in other ways, no I don't think it does. or at least I don't think it will in the future, I think as society is changing and the roles of men and women change, there is not such a need for such clearly designated roles. I think they have their time and place, but do not need to be overriding characteristics of a marriage.


but if I had a guy say to me "I see my role as to protect, provide and care for you"- I wouldn't have a problem with that- because that's how I would see my role towards him.


anyway- all of this is just my interpretation- I have no idea how that correlates or does not correlate to islam.

Quote:

I see no problem with a wife being obedient to her husband, however- just as I see no problem with a husband being obedient to his wife. this is of course IN THEORY- because theoretically marriage should be based upon mutual respect and obedience to the other partner. I think the word obedience can be really off putting because it conjures up images of a sort of totalitarian regime whereby one person is giving directives and the other person is completely submissive and unquestioning. I also have this knee jerk reaction to the word obedience- but when I think about it deeper- to me obedience is about acting in a way that respects the boundaries and wishes of another person.

Obedience is doing what you are told to do.

A dog is obedient to it's owner, a slave is obedient to his master, and a good Muslim wife obeys her husband.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:08pm:

Quote: I see no problem with a wife being obedient to her husband, however- just as I see no problem with a husband being obedient to his wife. this is of course IN THEORY- because theoretically marriage should be based upon mutual respect and obedience to the other partner. I think the word obedience can be really off putting because it conjures up images of a sort of totalitarian regime whereby one person is giving directives and the other person is completely submissive and unquestioning. I also have this knee jerk reaction to the word obedience- but when I think about it deeper- to me obedience is about acting in a way that respects the boundaries and wishes of another person. Obedience is doing what you are told to do. A dog is obedient to it's owner, a slave is obedient to his master, and a good Muslim wife obeys her husband.

right- well I've given an alternative interpretation of it which obviously you haven't considered at all.

that's your only response to what I wrote?

I don't know why I bother

Your alternative 'interpretation' is merely an attempt to redefine obedience so that the Koran does not seem quite so abhorent. You tried to equate it with the mutual respect on which the modern, enlightened concept of marriage is based. When you say you see it that way, you are seeing marriage the way it should be, while ignoring what is actually written. It is wishful thinking, nothing more.

That is why my response was so simple. I was just pointing out what obedience actually means.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

Your alternative 'interpretation' is merely an attempt to redefine obedience so that the Koran does not seem quite so abhorent. You tried to equate it with the mutual respect on which the modern, enlightened concept of marriage is based. When you say you see it that way, you are seeing marriage the way it should be, while ignoring what is actually written. It is wishful thinking, nothing more. That is why my response was so simple. I was just pointing out what obedience actually means.

it's not wishful thinking- it's my interpretation- which you asked for.

if you don't want MY interpretation then don't waste my time by asking for it.

Sorry I meant to ask your thoughts on what it actually says. I did not mean to ask you to 'reinterpret' it in a politically correct way.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

Sorry I meant to ask your thoughts on what it actually says. I did not mean to ask you to 'reinterpret' it in a politically correct way.

those are my thoughts on it freediver

if you don't like those thoughts then that is your problem not mine

how about you give your interpretation of it and then ask my thoughts on what YOU think it means

otherwise I'm not exactly sure what the hell you want from me

I meant to ask what your thoughts are on commanding women to obey their husband, as opposed to say, commanding them to 'respect his boundaries and wishes'.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

I meant to ask what your thoughts are on commanding women to obey their husband, as opposed to say, commanding them to 'respect his boundaries and wishes'.

if you mean obedience in the sense of total unquestioning submission- then no I'm not down with that- obviously

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 11:37am: So what are your thoughts on that quote Gaybriel? well- my thoughts are that it's pretty fair within the context of the time in which it was written.

As you well know, the koran is not, for the Mohammedans, a book to be read with "context of the time in which it was written" in mind. It is for all times, unchangably. It is supposed to be unalterably, concretely for you, now.
So your disclaimer refernce to historical time and the rest  of your post is dissembling.
Why do you do it?

004.034

YUSUFALI: 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).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 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 whom part you 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). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

August 16, 2008
The Sham of Women's Rights Under the Shari'a
By D. L. Perry

The United Kingdom is on taking a first step toward a parallel legal system for Muslims, and garnering applause for it.

Both the Guardian and the Telegraph have recently lauded a new Muslim marriage contract drawn up by a group of British Muslim organizations as a breakthrough in Muslim women's rights in the UK. Urmee Khan of the Telegraph announced with unabashed aplomb: "Hailed as the biggest change in Sharia law in Britain for 100 years, a married Muslim couple will now have equal rights." And the Guardian's Samia Rahman claimed that "A new Islamic marriage contract sets aside cultural practices, giving women the rights they are due under sharia law".


But if this new marriage contract was required to give Muslim women equal rights, how can these rights have already been enshrined in the shari'a? There are two important claims to distinguish here: that the shari'a gives women equal rights in marriage and divorce matters, and that this new contract is consistent with the shari'a in giving women these rights. But how valid are these bold assertions?


For Khan, equal rights include a requirement that the man drops his right to polygamy, since in Islamic law a man can have up to four wives. But, strictly speaking, the Muslim man is not dropping his right under Islamic law to have four wives. He is just acknowledging that under British law polygamy is not allowed. The marriage contract states:


The husband is not to enter into formal or informal nikah (Muslim marriage) contract in the UK or abroad with another woman, as it is unlawful under the laws of England and Wales as well as the Scottish legal system (emphasis added).


So this is not changing Islamic law, the shari'a. The shari'a cannot be changed so easily, since it is conceived by pious Muslims as the law of Allah, infallible and immutable. The man's right to four wives is, after all, based upon the Qur'an.


Khan also states that the contract "makes delegation of the right of divorce to the wife (talaq-i-tafweeed) automatic". Rahman concurs, claiming "it ensures that the right to divorce (talaq-i-tafweed), is automatically delegated to the wife, something that is practised [sic] in most Muslim countries". The very notion of a delegation to the woman of a right to divorce belies the reality that the right of divorce under the shari'a is a right enjoyed by men only. But more importantly, the contract does not say delegation is automatic.


The marriage contract identifies as a "special condition":


The husband delegates his power of divorce (talaq al-tafwid) to his wife.


But it also says:


Talaq-e-tafwid is [sic] delegated right to divorce given by [sic] husband to his wife. If and when the wife exercises this delegated right she does not lose her Mahr amount [i.e. her payment for marriage] (emphasis added).


Thus women are not automatically guaranteed the right to divorce. Men have not automatically given women this right. The husband chooses whether or not to, and there is nothing binding on him in the contract to do so. The marriage contract in effect gives the man the option to allow the woman to initiate the divorce proceedings, as consistent with the ‘Umdat al-Salik, a manual of shari'a law authorized by the highest learning authority in Islam, al-Azhar University in Cairo.


In this hefty tome the man has automatic rights to divorce without requiring the woman's consent. He can just utter the words "I divorce you" -- or even just allude to it -- and the deed is done. But there is no provision for the woman to initiate divorce. A wife needs the agreement of her husband, and needs to pay him a release fee, called a khul'.


The ‘Umdat al-Salik, as a manual of Islamic law, is based upon the Qur'an, believed to be the literal word of Allah directly revealed to Muhammad, and the Sunna, the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious biographers and transmitters. The Qur'an and the Sunna are both considered indispensable for the codification of the shari'a. This is recognized by the Islamic Shari'a Council, one of the leading advocacy organizations for the new Muslim marriage contract, which says

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_sham_of_womens_rights_unde.html

"All Sharia matters are referred back to the Qur'an and Sunnah which are the overriding authority on any individual or any faction's opinion".


Also lauded in the Muslim marriage contract is the entitlement of the wife to be repaid the value of the mahr[i] (the payment a man must make to marry her) if she is divorced at the instigation of the husband. But according to the ‘Umdat al-Salik, as authorized by the highest legal authority in Islam, The husband has no legal obligation to pay his wife the entire value of the mahr if he initiates the divorce. He is only required to maintain her until her idda (a waiting period of three menstrual cycles to ensure she is not pregnant) is over.


In fact, the ‘Umdat al-Salik states that "If the couple is separated ... because of an act on the husband's part ... then she receives only half of the marriage payment"[ii] (emphasis added). This might be taken to mean that the marriage contract is an improvement on the shari'a (of half the value of the mahr), though it is more accurate to say that this marriage contract is not really shari'a "compliant" at all, since the shar'ia does not compromise on the rights of men and women.


Some Muslim women are compelled under cultural and family pressures to go through the process of a non-legally-binding Muslim marriage in the UK. For these women, the right to receive the mahr in the case that the husband wishes for a divorce may be a welcome development. But this lacks a basis in the shari'a and is likely to be picked up by the male-dominated shari'a "councils" who arbitrate on Muslim divorces. The lack of a basis within Islamic law is likely to be used to justify the continued unequal treatment of women by "judges" in shari'a councils, which in any case have no obligation under British law to follow the guidelines of the marriage contract or the rulings of the Islamic Shari'a Council.


This was in effect acknowledged by one of the authors of the contract, Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, who told the Telegraph that the contract "is a challenge to various sharia councils who don't believe in gender equality". Shari'a councils don't believe in gender equality since sexism is inherent to Islamic law, and its sources, the Qur'an and Sunna[iii].


Siddiqui, also Director of the Muslim Institute, said "the world has changed and Islamic law has to be renegotiated" but he would know, of all people, that Islamic law cannot be "renegotiated" since within Islamic legal doctrine only Allah can dictate the law of the land and Allah's final message as a complete and perfect body of work to guide all mankind was given to Mohammad and subsequently coded into the shari'a. According to Islamic doctrine, Allah does not renegotiate. Consistent with centuries of scholarly consensus, the legal tenets of the shari'a have now become more or less fixed.

It is important to know this in order to combat the false information being published in the mainstream media about how progressive Islam is for women. It is not. Grounded in the Qura'n itself and supported by the Sunna, women have half the inheritance rights as men[iv], have half the value of testimony[v], are not allowed to leave the house unattended[vi] and are to fulfill a man's sexual needs on demand[vii].

It is particularly noteworthy that there is nothing in the marriage contract contravening the woman's role to sexually gratify the man. Even the good things in the contract, like the mutual respect for each others' property, are nothing "revolutionary" unless we acknowledge the problem within Islamic culture based upon the shari'a and make explicit reference to it in trying to combat practices which follow the inherent misogyny it contains within its immutable tenets.


Claiming that the shari'a is actually good for women is both false and dangerous. A better strategy than allowing pockets of shari'a to grow within the UK's legal system would be to make better effort in mainstreaming Muslim "culture" -- for example the required giving of the marriage payment (the mahr) to the bride-to-be -- within British law, not vice versa. It would also need to provide better outreach, counseling, social and legal support for Muslim women. The arm of British law needs to reach out to the Muslim population, not retract itself and allow misogynistic laws masquerading as "culture" run riot unimpeded.


Khan and Rahman's ignorance or dishonesty is dangerous for Muslim women since it is they that will be the first to suffer if shari'a really becomes a legal substitute for civil law in the UK in resolving marriage and marriage-related issues, such as divorce, custody, and inheritance. The existence of this marriage contract is a first step for shari'a to get its ugly foothold within the UK. If this contract becomes recognized into British law, and shari'a councils are bestowed with legal powers in enforcing it, an idea that Archbishop Rowan Williams and Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips would probably embrace warmly, the next step will be for Muslims to push for a reform of these nominally "Islamic laws" towards a more accurate reflection of the shari'a once it is already embedded within our legal system.


This would constitute a slippery slope to parallel legal systems and an inevitable clash of legal and political cultures. Indeed, as David J. Rusin has written this will only serve to "embolden radicals and marginalize moderates". It will also lead to further ghettoization of Muslim communities and intensify a growing detachment of British Muslims from the country's common law-based culture and political processes.


What is needed is not the introduction of the shari'a, even a watered down version, into British law, but, if anything, a strengthening of British law to protect women regardless of their religion, and reinvigorated advocacy for the values which underpin it.


A first step would be for the British Government to understand what the shar'ia is through an unapologetic, undelegated and rigorous study into its doctrinal sources and tenets. Its informal implementation in the UK below the radar of the British legal system and the impact on Muslim women also needs to be assessed if we are to get a glimpse of what formal adoption of the shari'a would look like, and to ensure that their interests as women are sufficiently met by British law.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_sham_of_womens_rights_unde.html

End Notes


[i] The mahr, what the Islamic Shari'a Council misleadingly calls "dowry", is defined in the ‘Umdat al-Salik as the "money or property a husband must pay a woman to marry her [i.e. his wife-to-be]" (m8.0, p.533).


[ii] ‘Umdat al-Salik, m8.7, p.534.


[iii] The misogyny of the shari'a is is embedded in the Qur'an. An example: Verse 4:34:


Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women).


This has been taken seriously by Muslim scholars throughout the centuries. Al-Tabari, the great Muslim historian, explains:


By this God (may He be highly praised) means that men are in charge of their women in chastising and restraining them regarding their obligations for God and themselves.


... Ibn Abbas narrated that he said, [Men] are commanders and [the woman] has to obey him in all that God commands her to obey him. Obedience to man is being good to his family.


(Muhammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami` al-bayan `an ta'wil al-Qur'an, ed. Mahmud Muhammad Shakir (Cairo, 1968), 5:57-8.)


[iv] The source for this is the Qur'an verse 4:11:


Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half ... These are settled portions ordained by Allah [i.e. unchangeable]; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise. (emphasis added).


This is supported by numerous Islamic scholars. From the renowned Islamic historian al-Tabari (d. 923 CE):


Ibn Abbas [Islamic scholar and jurist, d.796] narrated: "Both possessions and will belonged to the parents and the next of kin. God abrogated of this what He wished, and gave the male a double portion of the female. (emphasis added)


[v] Qur'an verse 2:282:


...get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.


And from the most venerated hadith collection, that of Bukhari, the reason why two female witnesses are required in the stead of one man:


Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:


Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."


[vi] From the ‘Umdat al-Salik:


Permitting One's Wife to Leave the House


m10.3   (A [commentary by Sheikh Abd al-Wakil Durubi]: A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin (def: m6.2) accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to.) ...


m10.4   The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home. (O: because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,


"It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband's house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse").


But if one of her relatives dies, it is preferable to let her leave to visit them.


[vii] If the man's right to sex seems like an exaggeration, check the al-Azhar-authorised ‘Umdat al-Salik:


The Wife's Marital Obligations


m5.1      It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when:



(a)          he asks her;


(b)          at home (O [commentary from Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat, d. 1890 CE]:


meaning the place in which he is currently staying, even if being lent to him or rented);


(c)          and she can physically endure it.


(d)          (O: Another condition that should be added is that her marriage payment (mahr, def m.8) has been received or deferred to a term not yet expired.
...


The Husband's Rights


m5.4     A husband possesses full right to enjoy his wife's person ... in what does not physically harm her. He is [also] entitled to take her with him when he travels.




This is based on the Qur'an, verse 2:223, which, for Muslim jurists and scholars, means that women's bodies are to be used by their husbands as their husbands seem fit:


Your wives are as a tilth [field] unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. (emphasis added)
on "The Sham of Women's Rights Under the Shari'a"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_sham_of_womens_rights_unde.html

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 7:17pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 12:00pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 11:37am: So what are your thoughts on that quote Gaybriel? well- my thoughts are that it's pretty fair within the context of the time in which it was written. As you well know, the koran is not, for the Mohammedans, a book to be read with "context of the time in which it was written" in mind. It is for all times, unchangably. It is supposed to be unalterably, concretely for you, now. So your disclaimer refernce to historical time and the of your post is dissembling. Why do you do it?

because I'm not muslim?

Quote:

because I'm not muslim?

No, you work for their neverending PR campaign. tough brief, can you imagine going to Saatchi & Saatchi and saying:

'Ok are clients are the leaders in orchestrated terror throughout the world. The settled beliefs of the doctrine require the destruction of all other governments save sharia, and the enslavement of the infidel populace under islamic clerics. The regimes using this system of government are the most corrupt, brutal, dictatorial in the world.

However, our brief is this - convince everyone in the infidel world it is a religion of tolerance and peace, and poses no threat to anyone? And they should support more islamic immigration to ensure their destruction. Any questions? Let's take the message to them.'

Unpaid brief I might add. Im sure they are glad you volunteer your services. Maybe you are hoping for a Dhimmi Cabinet post in the new Islamic Caliphate.

Quote:

No, you work for their neverending PR campaign. tough brief, can you imagine going to Saatchi & Saatchi and saying: 'Ok are clients are the leaders in orchestrated terror throughout the world. The settled beliefs of the doctrine require the destruction of all other governments save sharia, and the enslavement of the infidel populace under islamic clerics. The regimes using this system of government are the most corrupt, brutal, dictatorial in the world. However, our brief is this - convince everyone in the infidel world it is a religion of tolerance and peace, and poses no threat to anyone? And they should support more islamic immigration to ensure their destruction. Any questions? Let's take the message to them.'

That is pretty funny Calanen, and sadly relevant as well.

Yes I agree that Gaybriel does herself no favours by totally ignoring the massive problem of Islamist extremism, as if it is not one of the greatest threats to civilised countries that we have seen in our lifetimes.

And no, I don't think that I am overstating the matter.

On the flip side of that is the fact that I don't believe that the majority of muslims want to see the Islamists agenda succeed, but I also believe that they are not nearly active enough in working to see that it doesn't.

I see the continued separation of the muslim community from the mainstream, as problematic, where isolationist behaviour encourages the growing mistrust of all muslims.

I think the fanatical hatred by some westerners, of all things muslim, is counter productive, and merely aids the Islamists in recruiting younger muslims, who feel continuously attacked and ostracised by our own western extremists, we even have a few like that post here.

I see Gaybriel as one who wants to see people feel accepted, and included as part of our society, which will benefit us all, but I would like to see some muslims at least trying to offer the same consideration to the rest of us.

Quote:

On the flip side of that is the fact that I don't believe that the majority of muslims want to see the Islamists agenda succeed, but I also believe that they are not nearly active enough in working to see that it doesn't.

Not sure what this means really. You speak to most muslims, and they will tell you how decadent, horrible, evil the west is - women wear bikinis, young girls wear lipstick, prostitution, capitalism etc etc. I think that most of them want to see this fall. The other point to note that, whatever individual muslims believe, they can be counted on to line up at the direction of their islamic clerics against our society. So, people who are reasonably peaceful, suddenly will rise up once the trumpet for jihad plays.

People in Nigeria will tell you stories about how they lived side by side with their muslims neighbours, who then, when jihad came against christians, they were suddenly firing guns at them. Now in Nigeria, there are sharia courts and sharia law and islamic fiefdoms. That is coming here too.

Maybe people want Islamic law, Islamic fiefdoms, jihad/war. But they need to discuss the issue first, and with their eyes open, say this is what I want. Now, most people dont even know what Islam is, and think it is just like any other religion. It is not. It is a system of laws and government which seeks to destroy all around it and reign supreme wherever it goes. It is tolerant of nothing, and kills anyone in its way.

Islam is Religious Fascism - that should not be tolerated or promoted. It does not belong in our society in any form, and needs to remain in the primitive parts of the world from whence it came.

I get it with your Nigerian example, I gave a similiar one of a family I knew who lived in Iran at the time of the revolution, and had what they thought were friends and neighbours, turn on them like snakes in the grass, they felt lucky to escape with their lives.

What I mean about the average muslim is a bit like how all russians were vilified in the cold war, and how they considered all westerners to be decadent imperialist pigs.

Once they got out from under the influence of their evil overlords, they reverted to being normal decent people.

If Islam can extract itself from the shackles of Islamist fanatics, driving it's ideology and agenda, then normal people will have the chance to be average decent people again.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 12:58am:

because I'm not muslim?

You dissembe at length because you are not muslim?

Saudi court rejects divorcing eight-year-old girl

December 21, 2008, 5:47 pm

AFP © [Enlarge photo]

Related Articles

Head of Saudi morals police eases tone on cinema
December 21, 2008, 10:44 pm

RIYADH (AFP) - A Saudi court has rejected a plea to divorce an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man who is 58, saying the case should wait until the girl reaches puberty, a lawyer involved told AFP.

"The judge has dismissed the plea (filed by the mother) because she does not have the right to file such a case, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty," lawyer Abdullah Jtili told AFP in a telephone interview after Saturday's court decision.

The divorce plea was filed in August by the girl's divorced mother with a court at Unayzah, 220 kilometres (135 miles) north of Riyadh just after the marriage contract was signed by the father and the groom.

"She doesn't know yet that she has been married," Jtili said then of the girl who was about to begin her fourth year at primary school.

Relatives who did not wish to be named told AFP that the marriage had not yet been consummated, and that the girl continued to live with her mother. They said that the father had set a verbal condition by which the marriage is not consummated for another 10 years, when the girl turns 18.

The father had agreed to marry off his daughter for an advance dowry of 30,000 riyals (8,000 dollars), as he was apparently facing financial problems, they said.

The father was in court and he remained adamant in favour of the marriage, they added.

Lawyer Jtili said he was going to appeal the verdict at the court of cassation, the supreme court in the ultra-conservative kingdom which applies Islamic Sharia law in its courts.

Arranged marriages involving pre-adolescents are occasionally reported in the Arabian Peninsula, including in Saudi Arabia where the strict conservative Wahabi version of Sunni Islam holds sway and polygamy is common.

In Yemen in April, another girl aged eight was granted a divorce after her unemployed father forced her to marry a man of 28.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5226688/saudi-court-rejects-divorcing-eightyearold-girl/

[And remember folks, Judaism and Christianity are *much* worse for women's rights than Islam.]

But wait! That's not bizarre enough.
80 year old can't get married without her dad's OK!!
Who can take these people seriously?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bride-80-blocked-until-dad-says-yes-20081220-72o2.html

Bride, 80, blocked until dad says yes
Robert Tait
December 21, 2008
AFTER a life of spinsterhood, Setareh, an 80-year-old Iranian, assumed she was fated to see out her remaining days alone and was preparing to move into an old people's home for company.

When the boy-next-door from her youth suddenly reappeared and proposed, she thought her long-forgotten dreams of marriage were about to be fulfilled.

But Iran's laws require a father to give permission before a daughter can marry.

Now the lovestruck octogenarian has asked a Tehran court to establish whether her father, who abandoned her when she was two, is dead or alive so her wedding can go ahead.

The legal obstacle came to light when Setareh and her betrothed, Jamshid, tried to tie the knot at a registrar's office, only to be told she needed written agreement or proof of death of her father.

It was a cruel blow to the couple, who had been childhood sweethearts but were forced to scrap plans to wed after Setareh's mother protested that it would lead to her being left alone. Setareh resigned herself to living with her mother.

Appearing before Tehran's family court, Setareh, a former teacher, explained that Jamshid subsequently married another woman who had since died.

The pair rekindled their affair just before Setareh was due to move into a care home.

"Seeing Jamshid made my heart start beating faster and suddenly the passion of youth returned," she said.

"When I heard him proposing to me once again, I thanked God for the second chance because I had found another spur for the remaining days of my life."

Judge Mahmoud Baghal Shirvan asked officials to examine the father's status and pronounce whether he is dead or alive. If he is found to have died, the court is expected to permit Setareh to marry.

Her plight is an example of what campaigners say is systematic discrimination against women under Iranian law.

But the state-linked Iranian Women's News Agency said women need their father's permission to protect them from "emotional" marriage decisions.

GUARDIAN

Systematic discrimination against women under Iranian law? Shurely shome mishtake.

Quote:

And remember folks, Judaism and Christianity are *much* worse for women's rights than Islam

Yeh this really compares to the Biblical injunction which bestows the right on a father to actually slave his own daughter out to others...

The fact that most Jews or Christians don't follow it isn't relevant, that's what the religion teaches.