Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Consan.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174

Message started by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:39pm

Title: Consan.
Post by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:39pm
z

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:43pm
z

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by abu_rashid on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:59pm
Your repetitive and dubious claims of eugenic superiority are just a joke imperium.

Being the dominant political/economic civilisation _at present_ in the world does not mean one has a monopoly on IQ in their genes.

If it were the case, then we'd have to say Western Europeans would be pretty stupid, because for most of the world's history, they've been nothing but barbaric cavemen.

It wasn't until the crusades that they were exposed to refined culture in the Middle East and were actually taught how to wash and behave in a civilised manner.


Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:10pm
z

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by qikvtec on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:23pm

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:10pm:

Quote:
Your repetitive and dubious claims of eugenic superiority


What is 'eugenic superiority'? Please don't use words you don't even understand. When did I mention superiority once in that post?

[quote]Being the dominant political/economic civilisation _at present_ in the world does not mean one has a monopoly on IQ in their genes.


What? This has nothing to do with this thread; please post on topic.


Quote:
It wasn't until the crusades that they were exposed to refined culture in the Middle East and were actually taught how to wash and behave in a civilised manner.


This is nonsense; an unfair characterization of Medieval Europe as well as an absurd overinflation of the value of the Islamic Golden Age (which was itself the product of the preservation of Greek and Roman literature).. at any rate, this still has nothing to do with the topic. This is a significant problem in the Islamic world and should be properly looked into or addressed.

[/quote]

With any luck from significant height and at extreme temperature.

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by abu_rashid on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:38pm

Quote:
which was itself the product of the preservation of Greek and Roman literature...


The Islamic golden age rested on the shoulders of giants, as no doubt all civilisation does. That's what civilisation is all about, the accumulated knowledge and experience of humanity. Islamic civilisation benefited from Greek and Roman advances, as well as Babylonian, Indian and Chinese ones as well. There's nothing wrong with that, all civilisations do, none start from scratch, and your delusion that Western civilisation does is just laughable. The Western civilisation of today is heavily influenced by Islamic civilisation, this is a simple fact, that can't be denied, no matter how much you'd like to try. The scientific method, chemistry, algebra etc. were all fundamental to providing Western civilisation with the foundations it needed to get to where it is today.

As an example, we have modern firearms. Gunpowder was invented by the the Chinese about 2 millenia ago, but was not really used very effectively for military purposes. The Islamic civilisation then took it and built all kinds of weapons, cannons, muskets etc. and pioneered the use of gunpowder for weaponry. The Western civilisation then further refined it to make very precise and powerful weapons that we still use today. None of these 3 civilisations could've done any of this without the other. None is more 'responsible' for modern firearms than the other. It was a collective effort of humanity which brought it about.

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by qikvtec on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:47pm

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:38pm:

Quote:
which was itself the product of the preservation of Greek and Roman literature...


The Islamic golden age rested on the shoulders of giants, as no doubt all civilisation does. That's what civilisation is all about, the accumulated knowledge and experience of humanity. Islamic civilisation benefited from Greek and Roman advances, as well as Babylonian, Indian and Chinese ones as well. There's nothing wrong with that, all civilisations do, none start from scratch, and your delusion that Western civilisation does is just laughable. The Western civilisation of today is heavily influenced by Islamic civilisation, this is a simple fact, that can't be denied, no matter how much you'd like to try. The scientific method, chemistry, algebra etc. were all fundamental to providing Western civilisation with the foundations it needed to get to where it is today.

As an example, we have modern firearms. Gunpowder was invented by the the Chinese about 2 millenia ago, but was not really used very effectively for military purposes. The Islamic civilisation then took it and built all kinds of weapons, cannons, muskets etc. and pioneered the use of gunpowder for weaponry. The Western civilisation then further refined it to make very precise and powerful weapons that we still use today. None of these 3 civilisations could've done any of this without the other. None is more 'responsible' for modern firearms than the other. It was a collective effort of humanity which brought it about.


Why does that not surprise me?

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 8:48pm
z

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by abu_rashid on Sep 29th, 2010 at 9:34pm

Quote:
It is to bring to attention the deleterious social effects of centuries of inbreeding depression on Muslims in the Islamic world. This is a serious problem that has consequences that manifest on a host of physical and intellectual traits and to pretend that it has had no consequences for Islamic/Middle Eastern cultures is to ignore a severe problem that could actually be remedied or ameliorated with appropriate attention. If you really cared about the health and well-being of the progenetors of your treasured theology you would sit up and listen


Muslims married first cousins prior to the ascent of their civilisation, during it's peak and during it's decline... I don't see anything that suggests it effected any of these three stages. Also when Western civilisation began to rise, it's rates of cousin marriage were much higher than today. Also in most Muslim countries, rates of cousin marriages are declining.

I don't deny it's not a great idea to continually marry cousins generation after generation, but the idea it leads to low IQ's and a poor society just sounds ridiculous.

Islam permits it, but encourages marrying further afield.

An interesting fact for you:

Japanese on average have higher IQ's than Americans, yet Japanese have 4 times more marriages between cousins (per capita). Surely if the nonsense you're peddling were correct, then we'd expect to see the opposite would we not?

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by freediver on Sep 29th, 2010 at 10:33pm
Abu, is there a culture of inbreeding in the middle east?

I would imagine that making your women folk wear tents could do funny things to intersex relations.

Title: consan
Post by Imperium on Sep 29th, 2010 at 10:43pm
z

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Sep 30th, 2010 at 12:09am

Quote:
Abu, is there a culture of inbreeding in the middle east?


Middle Easterners do have high rates of first cousin marriages.


Quote:
I would imagine that making your women folk wear tents could do funny things to intersex relations.


This is just a ridiculous comment fd, and you only embarrass yourself by posting such nonsense. Unless of course you'd like to travel down the road of claiming that women's attire is directly responsible for the way males treat them? Likewise then the inverse should be true? Uncovered meat?  ;D

Intersex relations have always been quite healthy in the Middle East, you don't need to "whore out" your women folk to have "healthy intersex relations", contrary to your warped opinions.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 12:42am
Middle Easterners do have high rates of first cousin marriages.

- Abu

1st cousin marriages?? Today??? Such a practice is primitive and tantamount to incest IMO.

Regards

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 12:48am
.. we'd have to say Western Europeans would be pretty stupid, because for most of the world's history, they've been nothing but barbaric cavemen.

It wasn't until the crusades that they were exposed to refined culture ...

- Abu

You obviously know nothing about my ancestors .. the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Greeks.

Look them up one day ..  you may be surprised at what you might learn.

Regards

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 12:57am
The Islamic golden age rested on the shoulders of giants, as no doubt all civilisation does. That's what civilisation is all about, the accumulated knowledge and experience of humanity. Islamic civilisation benefited from Greek and Roman advances ..

- Abu

Oh .. seems you do know something about my ancient ancestors  after all.

But now we have another problem. You see .. you just said re Western Europe ..

for most of the world's history, they've been nothing but barbaric cavemen.

It wasn't until the crusades that they were exposed to refined culture ...

So which is it??

You can't have it both ways Abu??

Regards

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 1:17am
I don't deny it's not a great idea to continually marry cousins generation after generation, but the idea it leads to low IQ's and a poor society just sounds ridiculous.

- Abu

It may SOUND ridiculous .. but how about you look up genetic diseases .. focus particularly on Mediterranean regions.

A real eye opener!

Regards

Lisa


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 10:02am

Quote:
You obviously know nothing about my ancestors .. the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Greeks


And you obviously know nothing about basic geographic location.

I said Western Europeans, the Greeks and Romans were not Western Europeans. In fact they looked at the Western Europeans as barbaric cavemen, precisely as I described.

The Germanic peoples (my ancestors) were primitive cavemen for most of the last few millenia, during which the Middle East was a cradle of civilisation. Greeks and Romans were much more a part of the Middle Eastern world than they were a supposed European one.


Quote:
It may SOUND ridiculous .. but how about you look up genetic diseases .. focus particularly on Mediterranean regions


As I said, it's due to excessive first cousin inbreeding, generation after generation. And it's still not as severe as you make out.

First cousin marriages are no more likely to result in birth defects than if women wait till their late 30's to start families, something increasingly common in the West today, so perhaps you'd better worry about your own future and birth defects more.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 11:32am
You obviously know nothing about my ancestors .. the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Greeks

- ME to ABU

And you obviously know nothing about basic geographic location.

I said Western Europeans, the Greeks and Romans were not Western Europeans. In fact they looked at the Western Europeans as barbaric cavemen, precisely as I described.

- ABU's response to ME


Abu ... you do realise that the more you THINK YOU CAN DEFINE ASPECTS OF MY ANCESTRY FOR ME .... the more annoying it tends to make me feel.

Now .. let's get back to THE ACCEPTED AND RECOGNISED DEFINITION OF WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD (BAR ABU OF COURSE) .. officially defines WESTERN EUROPE AS:

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

Western Europe

Western Europe is composed of:

   * Andorra
   * Austria
   * Belgium
   * Denmark
   * Finland
   * France
   * Germany
  * Greece <----- NB ABU !!!
   * Iceland
   * Ireland
  * Italy <----- NB ABU !!!
   * Liechtenstein
   * Luxembourg
   * Malta
   * Monaco
   * Netherlands
   * Norway
   * Portugal
   * San Marino
   * Spain
   * Sweden
   * Switzerland
   * United Kingdom
   * Vatican City

You know .. you can be a very frustrating fellow at times Abu.

I am pleased however that on this particular occasion I was able to not only correct you .. I was also able to educate you.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Oh and may God bless you lol :P

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 12:41pm
I don't deny it's not a great idea to continually marry cousins generation after generation, but the idea it leads to low IQ's and a poor society just sounds ridiculous.

- ABU

It may SOUND ridiculous .. but how about you look up genetic diseases .. focus particularly on Mediterranean regions.

-ME to ABU

First cousin marriages are no more likely to result in birth defects than if women wait till their late 30's to start families, something increasingly common in the West today, so perhaps you'd better worry about your own future and birth defects more.

- ABU to ME


Ahhh as I thought .. your knowledge base is also found wanting where genetic disorders is concerned.

Abu .. it would be most advantageous for you to avail yourself of some basic learning material in this area before ASSUMING what issues may possibly affect me as a 39 yr old individual of Mediterranean descent in 2010.

As it so happens (and as you SHOULD know by now given the many times I've stated this on this forum) .. I am a 100% full blooded Mediterranean woman born and bred in Oz. My parents were migrants from Greece and Italy who came to Oz in 1960 as teenagers.

Fast forward to 2010 and here I am in Oz .. with a Mediterranean blood disorder .. thalassemia ... thanks to the primitive and antiquated Mediterranean custom of my WESTERN EUROPEAN ancestors who married their 2nd cousins and 3rd cousins all of whom were also neighbours BACK in history. NB NO 1st cousin marriages were ever allowed (thank God) and the practice of marrying 2nd and 3rd cousins stopped over a hundred yrs ago (again I say thank God).

I am VERY fortunate that I have been diagnosed with thalassemia MINOR (NOT MAJOR). Why am I fortunate? Because my blood disorder will never kill me.

I have provided this link for further information. I trust this may help educate you somewhat further.

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

Kind regards.

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:09pm
Abu .. I could produce further helpful links for you .. however on this occasion I've decided I'll do something different .. for there is much to be said for experiential knowledge my friend.

It's not easy being personally affected by this blood disorder in 2010 here in Oz on a/c of a cultural marriage practice which took place well over a hundred yrs ago in another part of the world.

In short .. being perpetually anaemic sux. Having an incessantly pale face and pale arms with no visible veins .. may look lovely perhaps even desirably Gothic for some .. however and I can personally attest to this .. it can have other repercussions on a young woman's health and will vitally affect her during her child bearing years. In addition it will affect the key decisions she makes in her life (insofar as minimizing its impact is concerned).  

As a toddler I mainly recall one thing ... my mother chasing me with spoonfuls of healthy meat, spinach, lentil soup .. and such like foods <-- those items were constantly thrust in my face. I was constantly told I HAD to eat iron enriched foods .. and that it was VERY IMPT I did this. So meh .. that is all I knew. I was never allowed to fill up on chips and sweets like all the other kids could because the constant focus was on iron rich foods.

Bottom line? To this day .. I HAVE to watch my diet closely. I have no choice really .. also I have to watch my fatigue levels etc  which is something most of us SHOULD be doing anyway I should imagine .. given the high impact of modern day society stress etc. I MUST take regular iron supplements and on occasions I also require injections from my GP as well as monthly blood tests (which I cannot tolerate well given I have very fine veins deep down in my arms and hands .. ie they don't appear at all .. and extracting blood from me takes forever and is thus a painful and long drawn out exercise). And no matter what I do .. my blood test results are always frustratingly the same insofar as low haemoglobin, iron etc levels are concerned.

Abu .. you mentiond the issue of age in your reply to me. Age is of no consequence insofar as THIS inherited genetic disorder is concerned .. because I've carried this disorder since birth and will carry it all my life. However .. even here .. as a child I was made aware of the issues which could potentially arise if I married and had children with another man of Mediterranean origin .. and the risk of bringing into this world an innocent child born with Thalassemia MAJOR (something I thankfully don't have .. and is serious as well as life threatening). I was constantly warned that this was something I needed to avoid at all costs.

Bottom line? I was so frightened and alarmed by all the warnings I was given .. that I sub consciously stayed away from Mediterranean men altogether. I only ever considered Anglo Celtic/Anglo Saxon/Anglo Norman men as potential partners/husbands. Needless to say .. my ex husband was Anglo Celtic .. and I've only ever dated Anglo Celtic/Anglo Saxon/Anglo Norman men.

Having said all this .. I STILL cannot imagine what it must be like for those poor sods who suffer from other more serious genetic blood disorders than me .. thanks to some antiquated cultural practice (or should that read SCOURGE) which involves cousins marrying cousins.

One last comment on this issue .. Imperium's statements in this topic have some merit.

Ok .. enough of such depressing matters. Life is short and all that. Oh and I do hope you don't mind me posting on your forum Abu .. (something tells me you don't lol).

Kind regards

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:21pm

Quote:
Intersex relations have always been quite healthy in the Middle East


So first cousin marriage is healthy?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:24pm
Thank you and well said Freediver!!

I can personally assure you it is NOT AT ALL HEALTHY for the descendants of such marriages even at 2nd and 3rd cousin level.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:30pm
Also, one of the muslims here was criticising middle easetern countries that practice the muslim tradition of polygamy because women were getting too expensive, forcing the men to have sex with each other instead (you know how they can't control themselves...).

Also, I don't think sex slavery and institutionalised pedophilia is very healthy either. Nor is beating your wife with a soggy miswak to humiliate her into submission. Nor is legalised rape within marriage.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:33pm
You're just perpetuating bullsh1t propaganda, FD.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:36pm
Which bit is BS?

Have you asked Abu about the soggy miswak? Have you asked him about the age of consent in Islamic law? have you asked him about rape within marriage? Have you asked him about polygamy? Have you asked him about the role of love in Islamic courtship? Have you asked him about slavery and having sex with your slaves (apparently this is not sex slavery...)

Ask him about these things, then get back to me with who is spreading 'propaganda'.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 2:48pm
Have you asked him about the Quran over 1400 years ago giving women the right to an education and a career when they were still viewed as chattel in the other two religions of the book? Or the right to keep every cent she makes in that career for herself? Or the right to divorce if she's not happy with her husband?  

The age of consent is when a girl reaches puberty. The religion doesn't force her to marry then, it just becomes permissable.

Love in Islamic courtship? How is that forbidden? It's against the religion to force a girl into marriage. If she doesn't want to get married because she's not in love, she doesn't have to.

There are reasons in Islam for the allowance of polygamy. I'm sure Abu has explained them.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 4:12pm
The age of consent is when a girl reaches puberty. The religion doesn't force her to marry then, it just becomes permissible.

- Annie


Thanks Annie for posting the above statement.

I'm a tad curious now .. does the above statement pertain to 2010 .. does it pertain to Oz .. and does the above statement concern you at all Annie?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 9:01pm

Quote:
Have you asked him about the Quran over 1400 years ago giving women the right to an education and a career when they were still viewed as chattel in the other two religions of the book?


Sure I have. I think the Quran comes out OK if you compare it to the social standards of a bunch of desert tribes from over a millenia ago. My problem is not with giving it credit for bringing law and order to that area, but with turing it into both a  religion and timeless universal law. For these desert people, it was the first attempt at a law that went above barbaric intertribal customs. That is the rational way to see it.


Quote:
The age of consent is when a girl reaches puberty. The religion doesn't force her to marry then, it just becomes permissable.


The religious laws and customs of islam make it almost inevitable that she will be forced. If your law permits people to turn 13 year old girls into sex slaves, it will end up happening. The rights of children need to be actively protected in order for there to be genuine protection, not given lip service.


Quote:
Love in Islamic courtship? How is that forbidden?


It is rejected, not forbidden. The idea is that the little girl falls in love with the dirty old man after he rapes her enough times. There are lots of other laws that prevent the falling in love bit by undermining every chance for it to happen long enough to get the girl married. Ask Abu about it if you don't believe me. It is simply not done that way in a 'proper' Islamic society. And this is the 'respected' muslim girls. Spare a thought for the sex slaves. (For Abu - by this I mean slaves you can have sex with, I know that you draw a clear distinction between this and sex slavery, even if no-one else can see it).


Quote:
There are reasons in Islam for the allowance of polygamy. I'm sure Abu has explained them.


Just like there are reasons for allowing wife beating. It is to humiliate the woman into submission. You seem to confuse reason with justification.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 9:48pm
Lisa,


Quote:
Abu ... you do realise that the more you THINK YOU CAN DEFINE ASPECTS OF MY ANCESTRY FOR ME .... the more annoying it tends to make me feel.


It's all well and good to look back on Greek and Roman history thousands of years later, and to claim them as "Western", but the simple fact was that in their time, they were quite clearly facing towards the Middle East, not towards Western Europe. They learnt their alphabet from the Middle East, they looked up to the Egyptians as the centre of civilisation in their time, they were quite clearly and obviously a part of the Middle Eastern centred civilisation, not of any Western civilisation, because Western European civilisation simply didn't exist back then. Western Europeans were barbaric cavemen who danced around stone altars, in animal skins chanting like primitives. This is simple historical fact. The Greeks even looked at the Romans as uncouth barbarians when they first came along.

This is nothing to do with ancestry, this is just simple historical fact. Trying to tie it into your ancestry and make it all emotional might sound quite powerful and awe-inspiring for you, but for anyone with an iota of logic in their body, it's just pathetic.


Quote:
Now .. let's get back to THE ACCEPTED AND RECOGNISED DEFINITION OF WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD (BAR ABU OF COURSE) .. officially defines WESTERN EUROPE AS:

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


Well if it's on wikipedia, then that settles it. Sorry to have suggested otherwise. I have now been corrected, and concede to the all-knowing and all-powerful wiki.  ;D

And if you actually bothered to read that article, you'd see that according to most definitions, Greece is not considered part of Western Europe. Also in case you hadn't realised, these definitions refer to _modern_ Europe, not Europe in the timeframe we were speaking about... don't let that little fact get in the way though. Just keep ploughing along with your emotional rant.

From your link:

Western Europe as defined by National Geographic Society:


Western Europe as defined by the United Nations Statistics Division (light blue):

Greece & Italy are both part of Southern Europe by this definition.

Either way, my statement was meant in reference to Western Europeans (Germanic peoples) who formed the basis of the modern Western world, and who were completely separate from the Greek & Roman civilisations, apart from the fact they occasionally bothered to campaign amongst them, and civilise them a little, or just massacre them, depending upon the mood they were in.


Quote:
Abu .. it would be most advantageous for you to avail yourself of some basic learning material in this area before ASSUMING what issues may possibly affect me as a 39 yr old individual of Mediterranean descent in 2010.


Right... so because you brought yourself as an anecdotal exhibit, therefore that proves that all the Middle East is suffering from genetic disorders... thanks for that. I'm glad we settled that one with clear evidence and knowledge and scientific methodology.

Great one.


Quote:
NB NO 1st cousin marriages were ever allowed (thank God) and the practice of marrying 2nd and 3rd cousins stopped over a hundred yrs ago (again I say thank God).


Right... and just to be as scientific as you to prove my position, I know of hundreds of people who are the product of generation after generation of first cousin marriages, and none of them have this disorder, therefore that proves that you are wrong and I am right.


Quote:
I'm a tad curious now .. does the above statement pertain to 2010 .. does it pertain to Oz .. and does the above statement concern you at all Annie?


That's the way God created us. He made us come to maturity at a certain age, just because Australia or any other country sets a specific age doesn't change the biological reality of our bodies. Just because the calendar ticked over to 2010 doesn't all of a sudden mean it changes the biological reality of our bodies does it?

Come on, your arguments are all based on emotionally-charged rants and nothing else. Not a scrap of evidence, not a hint of scientific methodology, just pure emotional nonsense.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 9:59pm
fd,


Quote:
Sure I have. I think the Quran comes out OK if you compare it to the social standards of a bunch of desert tribes from over a millenia ago. My problem is not with giving it credit for bringing law and order to that area, but with turing it into both a  religion and timeless universal law. For these desert people, it was the first attempt at a law that went above barbaric intertribal customs. That is the rational way to see it.


But the Qur'an didn't just come into a world of desert tribes. In fact one of the first civilisations it faced off against was the Christian Byzantine civilisation, and it was considered in it's time much more progressive than it. Hence the reason even many Christians from that time chose loyalty to Islamic civilisation over their own Christian civilisation, knowing full well it was treating them better and was far more enlightened.


Quote:
The religious laws and customs of islam make it almost inevitable that she will be forced.


No it doesn't. No more than Australian law makes it inevitable that 16 yo. girls will be forced into sexual relationships. Yes it does happen, but the law doesn't make it inevitable.


Quote:
It is rejected, not forbidden. The idea is that the little girl falls in love with the dirty old man after he rapes her enough times. There are lots of other laws that prevent the falling in love bit by undermining every chance for it to happen long enough to get the girl married. Ask Abu about it if you don't believe me.


Have to concur with Annie on this fd, you are filled to the brim with nothing but A grade cow manure.

Time after time, you continue to ridicule yourself and make a complete donkey of yourself by taking some statement I make, completely out of context, then make up your own claims about Islam based on it. As Islam does not even really fit into the Western model of relationships, there is no "courtship" so to speak. There is a period of time in which two people may express an interest in becoming married, and during that time they may get to know one another, but they certainly wouldn't be involved in any of the "try before you buy" crap that goes on amongst non-Muslims.

Therefore the entire claim is just shonky to begin with, since there's no "courtship" period in Islam.


Quote:
Just like there are reasons for allowing wife beating. It is to humiliate the woman into submission. You seem to confuse reason with justification.


You already stated above Islam only permits a disciplinary reprimand with a toothstick. So why make up this nonsense now about wife beating?

Title: Re: Islamic Inbreeding
Post by Karnal on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 10:47pm

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:43pm:
z


Now that's the smartest thing anyone's said here yet.

I agree.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 2nd, 2010 at 10:56pm
Yeh with a vocab like that, we can tell Imperium isn't inbred.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 8:14am

Quote:
Hence the reason even many Christians from that time chose loyalty to Islamic civilisation over their own Christian civilisation, knowing full well it was treating them better and was far more enlightened.


Abu I have read many of your attempts to rewrite history and they are far from convincing. You even claimed the Muslims entered Spain as welcomed liberators. I will defer to you on Islam, but that's about it.


Quote:
As Islam does not even really fit into the Western model of relationships, there is no "courtship" so to speak. There is a period of time in which two people may express an interest in becoming married, and during that time they may get to know one another


So you think I was wrong in my claims about love and courtship?


Quote:
You already stated above Islam only permits a disciplinary reprimand with a toothstick. So why make up this nonsense now about wife beating?


Tell us about the soggy miswak abu.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:51am
FD, the validity of Islamic marriage depends on the full consent of both the potential husband and wife.


Quote:
The religious laws and customs of islam make it almost inevitable that she will be forced.



I've already explained that there is a very clear law prohibiting forced marriages, so which religious laws and customs make it inevitable exactly?







Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 7:40pm

Quote:
FD, the validity of Islamic marriage depends on the full consent of both the potential husband and wife.


How much validity does that consent have if the husband is a powerful member of society and the girl has just reached puberty and is being pressured by a culture that rejects not just love in courtship, but courtship itself, and which is happy to whip girls or stone them to death for sexual misadventure?

We in the west have come to realise that the concept of such a girl giving consent when so much power is stacked against her is meaningless.

Annie, can you tell us what you think of a society that rejects courtship and love, puts medieval limitations on the interaction between young men and women, permits rape within marriage, permits polygamy, permits payment for young brides, permits sex slavery and permits the marrying of little girls to old men? Do you honestly think that would work out well for women? Do you think you can simply transpose our culture of respect for women on top of such a legal and social system without it getting eroded away into nothing?

Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their paretns try to sell them off to a dirty old pedophile?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 9:24pm
The age of consent is when a girl reaches puberty. The religion doesn't force her to marry then, it just becomes permissible.

- Annie

Thanks Annie for posting the above statement.

I'm a tad curious now .. does the above statement pertain to 2010 .. does it pertain to Oz .. and does the above statement concern you at all Annie?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 9:54pm

Quote:
Do you think you can simply transpose our culture of respect for women...


;D ;D ;D

Come on FD what bubble are you living in? Have you ever spent a Saturday night at your local footy/cricket club?

You obviously know very little about our culture, or you're deliberately obfuscating on this one. Aussie culture has little respect for women at all. Yeh sure "officially" we teach it in schools, but that's about as far as it goes. It doesn't make it far past the classroom door either. Disrespect for women begins in our culture as soon as they get into the school playground, and it just gets progressively worse from there on in.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:29pm
Come on FD what bubble are you living in? Have you ever spent a Saturday night at your local footy/cricket club?

You obviously know very little about our culture ..

- Abu to FD

OUR CULTURE ??

Of course you're referring to the Germanic/Saxon culture you profess to be descended from hey.

Hmmm???

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 4th, 2010 at 6:03am

Quote:
OUR CULTURE ??

Of course you're referring to the Germanic/Saxon culture you profess to be descended from hey.

Hmmm???


Our culture means Australian culture, I'm sure you can work it out. Australian culture has a 'special' place even amongst Anglo-Saxon cultures as being extremely misogynistic.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 4th, 2010 at 1:25pm

Quote:
Annie, can you tell us what you think of a society that rejects courtship and love, puts medieval limitations on the interaction between young men and women, permits rape within marriage, permits polygamy, permits payment for young brides, permits sex slavery and permits the marrying of little girls to old men?


Islam doesn't reject love and there is a form of courtship permitted - it's just different from what we consider to be normal here.

Most cultures put limitations on the interaction between young men and women. Islam is probably the strictest that I'm aware of, but that doesn't make it necessarily bad - just different. I can think of a lot of negatives about having sex before marriage, which is really what Islam is forbidding.

Polygamists don't really bother me if everyone is upfront and willing though I wouldn't live in a polygamous relationship myself.

I don't know where you get the "payment for young brides" thing. There is a dowry paid to the bride in an Islamic marriage which is hers to keep throughout the marriage or to help support her in case of a divorce. Incidentally, there's also a divorce payment that is agreed upon before the marriage which offers further security in the event of a marriage breakdown.

The marriage of young girls to old men (or anyone) is disgusting. So is slavery in all its forms.

If a man rapes a woman or another man under any circumstances he should be chemically castrated. Child molestors should be executed.


Quote:
Do you think you can simply transpose our culture of respect for women on top of such a legal and social system without it getting eroded away into nothing?




Muhammad said many times in different ways that the "best among you are those that are good to their wives." Respect for women is also mentioned in the Quran. Most Muslims  understand that because they seemingly have a right, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to exercise it.


Quote:
Do you think you can simply transpose our culture of respect for women on top of such a legal and social system without it getting eroded away into nothing?


I really do think Islam and the West are compatible. I don't necessarily think the all Muslims and the West are.


Quote:
Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their paretns try to sell them off to a dirty old pedophile?


Are you being serious with this?






Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Karnal on Oct 4th, 2010 at 9:35pm
Hang on, you can't remove posts that ask you to remove posts.

That's cheating.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 4th, 2010 at 10:52pm
Australian culture has a 'special' place even amongst Anglo-Saxon cultures as being extremely misogynistic.

- Abu


Huh????

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 4th, 2010 at 10:54pm
My humblest apologies Abu .. I understand now .. you're just expressing your own personal opinions irrespective of how they stack up against facts.

All good.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 5th, 2010 at 7:36am
You must've grown up in the same bubble as freediver I guess...

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 5th, 2010 at 11:22am
Abu .. what on earth are you going on about now???

I would so love to know what is the real agenda underpinning all this negative rubbish you keep posting about Oz culture.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Karnal on Oct 5th, 2010 at 2:16pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 5th, 2010 at 11:22am:
Abu .. what on earth are you going on about now???

I would so love to know what is the real agenda underpinning all this negative rubbish you keep posting about Oz culture.


I know exactly what's going on. Allow me to put it to you that Abu is trying to lower morale in the Australian Way whilst simultaneously waging a propaganda campaign for Militant Islam so that, once brainwashed, we follow Abu is his diabolical campaign to establish the Global Caliphate and take over as leader of the world.

Abu, do you have anything to say?

"Alright, I'll admit it! But I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those miserable kids!"

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 5th, 2010 at 6:57pm
Foiled again by Karnal and his band of mystery van mates.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 5th, 2010 at 6:59pm
Lisa,


Quote:
Abu .. what on earth are you going on about now???

I would so love to know what is the real agenda underpinning all this negative rubbish you keep posting about Oz culture.


No real agenda, just pointing out that Aussie culture is pretty nasty on women, and it's outright hypocritical to then speak about Islam, when Islam promotes nothing but respect and honour for women.

Collingwood players celebrating their grand final win anyone??

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 5th, 2010 at 10:13pm

Quote:
Islam doesn't reject love and there is a form of courtship permitted - it's just different from what we consider to be normal here.


It is so different, our resident Muslim cannot even bring himself to describe it as courtship, even a 'different' kind of courtship. It is not 'different', it is just not there.

From Abu:


Quote:
As Islam does not even really fit into the Western model of relationships, there is no "courtship" so to speak.


Remember, this is from the same response that Abu started with the following comment:


Quote:
Have to concur with Annie on this fd, you are filled to the brim with nothing but A grade cow manure.


So Annie, do you agree with Abu, or do you reject my reality and replace it with your own?


Quote:
The marriage of young girls to old men (or anyone) is disgusting. So is slavery in all its forms.


Yet Islam supports both of these things and you speak out in support of Islam? Do you understand now why Abu is so reluctant to engage in 'open and frank' discussion on topics like slavery in Islam, rape within marriage, sex with slaves (who according to Abu are not sex slaves just because of the coincidence that they are slaves and you can have sex with them), etc.


Quote:
If a man rapes a woman or another man under any circumstances he should be chemically castrated. Child molestors should be executed.


So tell me now Annie, what would you think of a law that specifically permits a man to marry a girl before she even reaches puberty, or a law that legalises rape within marriage? Could you bring yourself to ask Abu about these things, in an open and frank manner?


Quote:
Muhammad said many times in different ways that the "best among you are those that are good to their wives." Respect for women is also mentioned in the Quran. Most Muslims  understand that because they seemingly have a right, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to exercise it.


Except they do have a right, under Islamic law, protected by Islamic law. After all, what is a right, other than a legally protected priviledge? Are you suggesting that because then men may marry and rape little girls, but it is officially 'frowned upon', they don't actually have the right to do it?


Quote:
Are you being serious with this?


Yes I am. Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their parents try to marry them off to a dirty old pedophile? Because that is the extent of the protection offered to young girls in a 'proper' Islamic society.

Quote:
I would so love to know what is the real agenda underpinning all this negative rubbish you keep posting about Oz culture.


In order to make Islam seem attractive, he must replace genuine Aussie culture with the dregs of our society. A good demonstration is how he pretends that giving women freedom to choose for themselves means nothing more than western men taking advantage of that freedom.


Quote:
when Islam promotes nothing but respect and honour for women


So long as they do as they are told. Abu is it true that Muslim wives are required to ask permission from their husband before leaving the house?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:02pm

Quote:
So Annie, do you agree with Abu, or do you reject my reality and replace it with your own?


I think you're both playing with semantics on the courtship issue.



Quote:
Yet Islam supports both of these things and you speak out in support of Islam? Do you understand now why Abu is so reluctant to engage in 'open and frank' discussion on topics like slavery in Islam, rape within marriage, sex with slaves (who according to Abu are not sex slaves just because of the coincidence that they are slaves and you can have sex with them), etc.


Do you support every single aspect of democracy? You're condemning me for thinking critically about Islam and being able to point out the good as well as the bad. Whether you see it or not, Islam has a lot of beauty.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are many hadith that advocate the freeing of slaves and the religious rewards that doing so brings. Likewise with the Quran. One of the prophet's friends was an ex-slave called Bilal who was purchased and freed by the man who would later become the first caliph. If you're interested I can share the story here - it's beautiful.


Quote:
So tell me now Annie, what would you think of a law that specifically permits a man to marry a girl before she even reaches puberty, or a law that legalises rape within marriage? Could you bring yourself to ask Abu about these things, in an open and frank manner?


A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD. She can't be forced, but even if she could I've already made it clear that I think both forced marriages and rape in any form are wrong.

Incidentally, rape is punishable by death in Islam. As it should be. And yes, I could ask Abu about anything pertaining to Islam and I know he'd answer me with respect and sincerity because he knows I'm genuinely after information.



Quote:
After all, what is a right, other than a legally protected priviledge? Are you suggesting that because then men may marry and rape little girls, but it is officially 'frowned upon', they don't actually have the right to do it?


Islam doesn't protect the rights of rapists, FD.



Quote:
Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their parents try to marry them off to a dirty old pedophile? Because that is the extent of the protection offered to young girls in a 'proper' Islamic society.


I think that if the girls parents were practicing Islam properly this wouldn't be an issue. A woman in Islam should be sexually and mentally mature before marriage is permitted.



Quote:
In order to make Islam seem attractive, he must replace genuine Aussie culture with the dregs of our society. A good demonstration is how he pretends that giving women freedom to choose for themselves means nothing more than western men taking advantage of that freedom.


And in order for you to make Islam and Muslims seem barbaric and backward, you must drag up and rehash the same points ad nauseam.

The Quran says that a woman is the equal of a man, that a husband must treat his wife with love and kindness. In one particularly strong hadith, Muhammad said "The best among you are those that are the best to their wives."

Old men marrying young girls isn't exclusive to Islam. There's nothing in our law stopping a 16yr old girl from marrying a 70yr old man. Is that disgusting and perverted? Yes. Do I like it? No. Will I shun democracy because it allows it to happen? Of course not.



Title: Re: Consan.
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:47pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

Quote:
So Annie, do you agree with Abu, or do you reject my reality and replace it with your own?


I think you're both playing with semantics on the courtship issue.


[quote]Yet Islam supports both of these things and you speak out in support of Islam? Do you understand now why Abu is so reluctant to engage in 'open and frank' discussion on topics like slavery in Islam, rape within marriage, sex with slaves (who according to Abu are not sex slaves just because of the coincidence that they are slaves and you can have sex with them), etc.


Do you support every single aspect of democracy? You're condemning me for thinking critically about Islam and being able to point out the good as well as the bad. Whether you see it or not, Islam has a lot of beauty.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are many hadith that advocate the freeing of slaves and the religious rewards that doing so brings. Likewise with the Quran. One of the prophet's friends was an ex-slave called Bilal who was purchased and freed by the man who would later become the first caliph. If you're interested I can share the story here - it's beautiful.


Quote:
So tell me now Annie, what would you think of a law that specifically permits a man to marry a girl before she even reaches puberty, or a law that legalises rape within marriage? Could you bring yourself to ask Abu about these things, in an open and frank manner?


A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD. She can't be forced, but even if she could I've already made it clear that I think both forced marriages and rape in any form are wrong.

Incidentally, rape is punishable by death in Islam. As it should be. And yes, I could ask Abu about anything pertaining to Islam and I know he'd answer me with respect and sincerity because he knows I'm genuinely after information.



Quote:
After all, what is a right, other than a legally protected priviledge? Are you suggesting that because then men may marry and rape little girls, but it is officially 'frowned upon', they don't actually have the right to do it?


Islam doesn't protect the rights of rapists, FD.



Quote:
Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their parents try to marry them off to a dirty old pedophile? Because that is the extent of the protection offered to young girls in a 'proper' Islamic society.


I think that if the girls parents were practicing Islam properly this wouldn't be an issue. A woman in Islam should be sexually and mentally mature before marriage is permitted.



Quote:
In order to make Islam seem attractive, he must replace genuine Aussie culture with the dregs of our society. A good demonstration is how he pretends that giving women freedom to choose for themselves means nothing more than western men taking advantage of that freedom.


And in order for you to make Islam and Muslims seem barbaric and backward, you must drag up and rehash the same points ad nauseam.

The Quran says that a woman is the equal of a man, that a husband must treat his wife with love and kindness. In one particularly strong hadith, Muhammad said "The best among you are those that are the best to their wives."

Old men marrying young girls isn't exclusive to Islam. There's nothing in our law stopping a 16yr old girl from marrying a 70yr old man. Is that disgusting and perverted? Yes. Do I like it? No. Will I shun democracy because it allows it to happen? Of course not.

[/quote]


Thanks Annie.
You raise all good points.
Well put.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 6th, 2010 at 6:43pm

Quote:
I think you're both playing with semantics on the courtship issue.


Well the Islamic concept of pre-marital encounters does not resemble what most non-Muslims would label courtship. The only permissible interaction between a man and woman prior to marriage, for the purposes of initiating marriage, is visits to the family house in the presence of the families, usually of both parties. I guess you could call it a courtship in a sense, but I doubt fd would accept it as such.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 6th, 2010 at 7:00pm
Abu, does it have to be at the family home?

My in-laws - some of whom are quite religious - go out to dinner with their fiances all the time. They just have to have a chaperone that's also a maharam to the woman.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 6th, 2010 at 9:08pm

Quote:
Do you support every single aspect of democracy?


There is only one aspect to democracy - the will of the majority. Yes I support it.


Quote:
You're condemning me for thinking critically about Islam and being able to point out the good as well as the bad.


Sorry, I must have missed that bit. I would be interested to see an example of you pointing out the bad.


Quote:
A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD.


I believe we broached the issue of consent earlier. How much does the consent of a pre-pubescent girl mean?


Quote:
Incidentally, rape is punishable by death in Islam.


Unless it is of one of your brides or one of your slaves. Or a non-muslim, in which case it is effectively legal because Shariah courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims. Apparently they can't be trusted. And fellow Muslims are encouraged by islam to put a positive spin on anything a fellow Muslim does.


Quote:
And yes, I could ask Abu about anything pertaining to Islam and I know he'd answer me with respect and sincerity because he knows I'm genuinely after information.


Are you suggesting I am not genuinely after the information I seek? How do you know he would answer if you don't ask? How do you know he would give anything more than a BS deflection? It took me a long time to figure out some of the more subtle deceptions. Do you expect to somehow absord the reality of Islam by osmosis, even if you politely avoid the elephants in the room?


Quote:
Islam doesn't protect the rights of rapists, FD.


Yes it does. It institutionalises rape. And not just in the home. There are many circumstances where Islam specifically permits or encourages rape, and even more where it makes a prosecution for rape almost impossible, despite it being technically illegal. How is that not protecting the rights of a rapist?


Quote:
I think that if the girls parents were practicing Islam properly this wouldn't be an issue.


I think it would be, because it is the proper rpactice of Islam that is the problem. If you disagree, please explain how the proper practice would magically fix all the problems.


Quote:
A woman in Islam should be sexually and mentally mature before marriage is permitted.


Are you saying Islam should be changed, or are you saying that a pre-pubescent girl is sexually and mentally mature?


Quote:
And in order for you to make Islam and Muslims seem barbaric and backward, you must drag up and rehash the same points ad nauseam.


It doesn't just seem barbaric. It is barbaric. Which is why I bring them up. Would you suggest that if someone started promoting the legalisation of rape, I should politley mention it once then hold my tounge? Why is it somehow different if they blanket this barbarity in religion?


Quote:
The Quran says that a woman is the equal of a man


Then the Koran contradicts itself, because it makes women slaves to men. If a woman has to ask her husband or whatever male is in charge of her for permission to leave the house, how is that a basis of equality?


Quote:
that a husband must treat his wife with love and kindness


Ask Abu about the details of this love and kindness. It is not the love and kindness you would show to an equal. It is not even the love and kindness you would show a child. It commands men to love them in the same way a slave owner loves and protects his slaves.


Quote:
Old men marrying young girls isn't exclusive to Islam. There's nothing in our law stopping a 16yr old girl from marrying a 70yr old man.


What about a pre-pubescent girl? Like I said, statute is not the be-all and end-all of child protection. There is far more to it in our society. On the other hand, Islamic society actively promotes such marriages in the absence of love.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:12pm

Quote:
Abu, does it have to be at the family home?

My in-laws - some of whom are quite religious - go out to dinner with their fiances all the time. They just have to have a chaperone that's also a maharam to the woman.


Well that is a bit of a technicality I think.

This sounds like it is after the "katb al-kitab" (The writing of the book), which means that really in Islam they are married, but simply haven't moved in together. A lot of people (including myself), did this, and a maharam is not even required, although often preferred by the families. People refer to this as engagement, but in fact it is marriage.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:21pm

Quote:
Unless it is of one of your brides


See fd, here is just one classic example of how warped and twisted your distorted view of Islam is.

You claim that I've said rape is permissible in Islam, yet I've said nothing but the complete opposite. Rape is severely punished, with heftier punishments than in the West.

You draw wild conclusions like "Because a wife must fulfill her husbands needs, therefore rape in marriage is permissible", this is just nonsense. Islam does not say a wife must fulfill her husbands needs, it says BOTH partners must fulfill eachothers needs, unless they have a genuine reason to abstain. Quite obviously to avoid people going to forbidden things like adultery. Does this mean Islam legitimises women raping their husbands?

This is why you honestly don't deserve to be given the time of day with your questions. Time and time again, you ask questions, then merely discard the answer given, and make up what you think the answer was supposed to have meant, and then make accusations against Islam based on this.

I will draw it a little though, if only to demonstrate to others how futile discussing these things with you is.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:30pm

Quote:
There is only one aspect to democracy - the will of the majority. Yes I support it.


Do you support the will of the majority when it restricts your own freedom in a way that you don’t feel is fair?


Quote:
Sorry, I must have missed that bit. I would be interested to see an example of you pointing out the bad.


I think it’s bad to religiously allow a man to hit a woman (even as lightly as Islam permits) and I don’t agree with Islam’s stance on homosexuality. I find a lot of the interpretations of the meaning of Quranic verses to be biased and if I were a Muslim, I’d think twice before believing many Hadith.

I believe we broached the issue of consent earlier. How much does the consent of a pre-pubescent girl mean?

I think it was in the last post that I wrote a female must be of physical and mental maturity to be married. In Arabic, I think it’s called ‘rashood” or something similar. Abu will know. I guess it depends on your point of view, but a pre-pubescent girl is hardly physically or mentally mature.


Quote:
Unless it is of one of your brides or one of your slaves. Or a non-muslim, in which case it is effectively legal because Shariah courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims. Apparently they can't be trusted. And fellow Muslims are encouraged by islam to put a positive spin on anything a fellow Muslim does.


Rape is illegal under Shariah, period.


Quote:
Are you suggesting I am not genuinely after the information I seek?


Yes. I can’t think of a single answer Abu or I have given you that you have accepted.  Not agreed with – just accepted. I've seen Abu provide answers that you automatically disregard. You try and turn it all into something evil and corrupt when that’s not the case at all.


Quote:
How do you know he would answer if you don't ask?


Abu has answered me here many times. He’s answered you too.


Quote:
There are many circumstances where Islam specifically permits or encourages rape.


Can you show me where rape is permitted or encouraged in Islam?


Quote:
I think it would be, because it is the proper practice of Islam that is the problem. If you disagree, please explain how the proper practice would magically fix all the problems.


Love, tolerance and kindness are mentioned throughout the Quran. A Muslim has to be respectful. Killing innocents and suicide bombings are both forbidden –if Muslims followed this we wouldn’t have had 9/11 or Bali and Israel wouldn’t have an excuse to bomb the sh!t out of the Palestinian children. If a Muslim captures a prisoner of war, they have to be treated with kindness. Murder is forbidden, cruelty is forbidden, rape is forbidden. Under Islam, all races are equal. So are both sexes. Tyranny is against Islamic law.

Look at the 5 pillars of Islam – the main obligations: belief, prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage (if you can afford it). There’s nothing wrong with any of these things.


Quote:
Then the Koran contradicts itself, because it makes women slaves to men.


Where? I must have missed that verse.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:33pm
Abu, have you ever said on this forum that you support the 9/11 attacks?

I know a lot of Muslims don't believe that they were organised by Bin Laden, so that's not what I'm asking. I've been told that you said the attacks were warranted or deserved in some way and that doesn't fit with the little I know of you.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 7th, 2010 at 6:54pm
Annie,


Quote:
I think it was in the last post that I wrote a female must be of physical and mental maturity to be married. In Arabic, I think it’s called ‘rashood” or something similar. Abu will know. I guess it depends on your point of view, but a pre-pubescent girl is hardly physically or mentally mature.


Close, the word is raashid and means generally to be aware, and able to guide and lead others. It is a point at which someone becomes adult enough to be trusted to provide an accurate perspective on things.

What I find most ironic about fd's stance is that the age of puberty is not fixed, and so a girl could not begin her menstrual cycles until age 18 (in some cases), and yet for fd, it's acceptable for her to be married to a 70 yo. man, merely because he believes that the fixed age of consent is the ultimate law.

The idea of basing it on a case by case basis of when the boy or girl reaches the raashid age is the clearly more logical choice IMHO.

Another clear indicator of fd's bias in this discussion is his complete neglect of the fact a male can also be married when he becomes raashid. I've mentioned to him before of a friend of mine whose grandparents married when they were 12 (grandfather) and 26 (grandmother), yet he didn't seem interested in the least, since there was no propaganda value in it for attacking Islam.

Likewise he couldn't care less  if a man is required to fulfill his wife's needs, since it again doesn't serve his agenda.


Quote:
Abu, have you ever said on this forum that you support the 9/11 attacks?


No. As you mentioned above, Islam does not permit the deliberate targeting of civilians in suicide attacks.


Quote:
I've been told that you said the attacks were warranted or deserved in some way and that doesn't fit with the little I know of you.


Well this is a slightly different issue. As far as the American state deserving some of it's own medicine, nothing is more deserving than a taste of one's own medicine.

As for the individual civilians being the target of it, not really. But as voters in a democracy, they are in a sense responsible for the foreign policy of their governments which has led to the death and suffering of millions worldwide. Americans, like Albright, had no problem justifying the deaths of a million Iraqi kids from their interventions there in the 90's, on the basis that Saddam Hussein their leader was responsible for them (and he wasn't even elected), so what of those who elect their own leader to commit this kind of treachery on populaces around the world?

Probably what I've said is I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, after all the death, destruction, chaos, mayhem etc. they've caused to other nations in the world.

What goes around... does inevitably come around. Doesn't mean I necessarily support it though.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 7th, 2010 at 9:27pm
Abu:


Quote:
You draw wild conclusions like "Because a wife must fulfill her husbands needs, therefore rape in marriage is permissible", this is just nonsense.


No Abu. I draw that conclusion because a Muslim told me it is permissable.


Quote:
Islam does not say a wife must fulfill her husbands needs, it says BOTH partners must fulfill eachothers needs,


So the wife is obligued after all? Can you clarify this please?

Annie:


Quote:
Do you support the will of the majority when it restricts your own freedom in a way that you don’t feel is fair?


I do not see democracy as the be-all and end-all of civilised societies. I do not see it as perfect. I merely see it as the best available form of government.


Quote:
I think it was in the last post that I wrote a female must be of physical and mental maturity to be married. In Arabic, I think it’s called ‘rashood” or something similar. Abu will know.


I have no doubt that he knows. I do doubt that he will tell.


Quote:
I guess it depends on your point of view, but a pre-pubescent girl is hardly physically or mentally mature.


My understanding is that Islam permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, and the girl can be taken away to live with the husband, but they trust him not to have sex with her till she hits puberty. I don't think I have seen anything approach an open and frank discussion of this since Malik left.


Quote:
Rape is illegal under Shariah, period.


Not according to what I have been told - by Muslims. Sometimes they try to get around it by saying it is not rape because the man is permitted to have sex with the woman against her will, but it is specifically allowed in many circumstances. Ask Abu to list those circumstances.


Quote:
Yes. I can’t think of a single answer Abu or I have given you that you have accepted.


I know you have, but I hope you understand that I am going to take the word of a Muslim on this. If you want to follow this up, most of the claims on the wiki are backed up by links to explanations from Abu, Malik and a few others.


Quote:
I've seen Abu provide answers that you automatically disregard.


I suspect you are confusing me asking for clarification of an ambiguity with disregarding the answer given. Surely you can see how an answer can be completely correct but not actually answer the question asked?


Quote:
You try and turn it all into something evil and corrupt when that’s not the case at all.


So you don't think that stoning gays to death is evil?


Quote:
Can you show me where rape is permitted or encouraged in Islam?


http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

See the sections on Domestic violence, Women’s rights, War, Sex slaves, slavery. I should add a section on rape for clarity. Most of these should have links verifying them. I am not sure about some of them and have asked Abu to clarify them for me, but he refused.


Quote:
Killing innocents and suicide bombings are both forbidden


There have been a few famous cases of Muslim clerics making the same claim to the western media, then later preaching to their followers that no westerners/non-muslims are innocent.


Quote:
Murder is forbidden, cruelty is forbidden, rape is forbidden.


Again, muslims have contradicted you on this board. I have tried to get Abu to clarify some of these issues, but he refuses to.


Quote:
Under Islam, all races are equal. So are both sexes.


Again, actual Muslims openly contradict you.


Quote:
Tyranny is against Islamic law.


Tyranny is the only acceptable form of Islamic government.


Quote:
Look at the 5 pillars of Islam – the main obligations: belief, prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage (if you can afford it). There’s nothing wrong with any of these things.


It is Shariah law that is the problem.


Quote:
Abu, have you ever said on this forum that you support the 9/11 attacks?


He has spoken in their defence and refused to condemn them.

Abu:


Quote:
Close, the word is raashid and means generally to be aware, and able to guide and lead others.


Does this mean I am right in my claim that Islam permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls?


Quote:
merely because he believes that the fixed age of consent is the ultimate law


Please Abu, don't put words in my mouth. That is not true.


Quote:
But as voters in a democracy, they are in a sense responsible for the foreign policy of their governments


And therefor not innocent?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 8th, 2010 at 1:11pm

Quote:
I know you have, but I hope you understand that I am going to take the word of a Muslim on this.


Why ask questions about what I think if you're going to disregard my answers because I'm not a practicing Muslim?


Quote:
If you want to follow this up, most of the claims on the wiki are backed up by links to explanations from Abu, Malik and a few others.


I'll check them out tonight.


Quote:
So you don't think that stoning gays to death is evil?


Homosexuality is an issue that has caused a lot of debate between my Muslim husband and I, especially since we've reconciled. Debate is good because it motivates me to do my own research and from what I've read in the Quran, homosexuality is to be punished but the details of how that is to be carried out aren't clear. I believe the stoning idea comes from hadith, but has its roots in the time of the prophet Lot when God rained stones on the Sodomites.

But to answer your question, yes. I find the idea of stoning homosexuals or adulterers abhorrent.  




Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Karnal on Oct 8th, 2010 at 2:37pm
Some find the idea of stoned fruits abhorrent.

When making a cake, always remove the pips. Otherwise, you're likely to lose a tooth.

There is now historical proof that the stones God rained on Lot were meant for someone else.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 9th, 2010 at 10:08am

Quote:
Why ask questions about what I think if you're going to disregard my answers because I'm not a practicing Muslim?


I am not disregarding them. I am paying a lot of attention to the fact that you seem so certain of these claims even though Muslims contradict you. Also, I am trying very hard to get Abu to clarify the issue. I'm sure if you tried the same, we could wade through the apparent contradictions and come out with a better understanding of Islamic law.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 9th, 2010 at 11:08am
As far as I'm concerned, if a law is from the Quran then it's reliable. If it's from Hadith and makes sense (as in doesn't contradict the Quran) then I'd believe that's reliably Islamic law too.

If it's in a hadith but openly contradicts the Quran or is so important it should be in the Quran but isn't (like the implementation of the death penalty by stoning) then I don't believe it or at the very least, doubt its authenticity.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 9th, 2010 at 11:27am
My interest is not in establishing the 'real' Islamic law as Muhammed intended it, but in figuring out Islamic law as Muslims themselves define it, and how it would be implimented if they could get their poo together. I am not into telling people they don't understand their own religion.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 9th, 2010 at 11:34am

Quote:
I am not into telling people they don't understand their own religion.


I am. I tell my husband this all the time and funnily enough, I haven't been beaten with a miswak yet.

You have a lot of misinformation in your Wiki. For a start, female circumcision has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact there are many scholars and Islamic leaders who have forbidden it.


Quote:
Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Al Azhar University, the highest body of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa - or religious edict - in late 2007, clearly denouncing FGM.

He emphasised that FGM is a sin and forbidden in Islam.


http://www.yemenpost.net/60/InternationalNews/20081.htm

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 9th, 2010 at 12:25pm
FD,


Quote:
My interest is not in establishing the 'real' Islamic law as Muhammed intended it, but in figuring out Islamic law as Muslims themselves define it


Quote:
For a start, female circumcision has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact there are many scholars and Islamic leaders who have forbidden it.


It seems you're interested in how Islam is defined by Muslims ourselves (ie. the opinion Annie posted above about circumcision) when it would fit into your wiki, otherwise you're interested in 'real' Islamic law as Muhammed intended it.. right?

Tends to switch and change depending on the propaganda value... doesn't it?

Can you comprehend now why people find you a little less than sincere on the issue of understanding Islam?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 9th, 2010 at 3:31pm

Quote:
I am. I tell my husband this all the time and funnily enough, I haven't been beaten with a miswak yet.


Think yourself lucky our laws protect you from Shariah law, because if they had their way, you would not be joking about this.


Quote:
You have a lot of misinformation in your Wiki. For a start, female circumcision has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact there are many scholars and Islamic leaders who have forbidden it.


Again, actual muslims contradict you. I'll give you a hint - it depends on how you define circumcision. Most of the ambiguity around Islam stems from different meanings attached to common words. The wiki does actually make the distinction between FGM and circumcision that Islam does, though admittedly not in the circumcision bit. You will be pleased to know that if someone gets the circumcision wrong and oversteps the chopping required by Islam, the punishment is (surprise surprise) death by stoning.


Quote:
It seems you're interested in how Islam is defined by Muslims ourselves (ie. the opinion Annie posted above about circumcision) when it would fit into your wiki, otherwise you're interested in 'real' Islamic law as Muhammed intended it.. right?


No Abu. Stop making silly excuses for not answering basic questions about Islam.


Quote:
Can you comprehend now why people find you a little less than sincere on the issue of understanding Islam?


Were you sincere when you said you welcomed 'open and frank' discussion of Islam?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 9th, 2010 at 5:42pm

Quote:
Think yourself lucky our laws protect you from Shariah law, because if they had their way, you would not be joking about this.


I'm absolutely certain that my husband would never lay a violent hand on me regardless of the system of law we live under or the provocation. And I don't have any faith in law (Australian, Shariah or otherwise) to protect me when it gets dirty.

Before I met my husband I was in a violent relationship. My neighbours called the police when he pulled our entertainment unit down on top of me. My ex screamed at the police to bugger off and they did - they actually left me lying there bleeding.

I was 16 at the time and even though he put me in hospital twice with head injuries, I was too scared to leave him until he stabbed me in the tummy then the back when I was crawling away. Even then I had to turn to people like him to protect me because from experience I knew nobody else would.

I realise it's incredible and I'm sure you probably won't believe me, but it's true.


Quote:
I'll give you a hint - it depends on how you define circumcision. Most of the ambiguity around Islam stems from different meanings attached to common words.


Anything that is not a medical procedure and involves a sharp instrument and a girl's genital area is mutilation.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 9th, 2010 at 5:46pm
fd don't think you're going to wiggle your way out of that one so easily.

When Annie said to you Islamic law is really like so, you retorted that: "My interest is not in establishing the 'real' Islamic law as Muhammed intended it, but in figuring out Islamic law as Muslims themselves define it", then when she brought you something which shows Muslims don't believe in or practice something in your wiki, and you come back saying you prefer what is in the Islamic texts, not what people themselves define it as.

You flip flop back and forwards depending on what's more convenient for your agenda.

You obviously have very little, if any, integrity left.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 8:52am

Quote:
Anything that is not a medical procedure and involves a sharp instrument and a girl's genital area is mutilation.


You should check the link on the wiki - it is to an interesting discussion here about FGM in Islam. Would you want this happening to your daughter?


Quote:
then when she brought you something which shows Muslims don't believe in or practice something in your wiki, and you come back saying you prefer what is in the Islamic texts


Again Abu, you should stick to what I actually say. Every time you let your imagination steer you, it takes you up the garden path. The bit on circumcision is based on what a Muslims posted right here on this board.

Would you be open and frank enough to give your own view on circumcision in Islam?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 8:59am
Here you go Annie - here is an example of Abu being open and frank:


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

Quote:
The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims


If you actually did some proper research you'd find female circumcision is not the same as FGM, that's why they coined that acronym, to prevent confusion. Female circumcision as practised in Islam (which it's hardly even practised, those figures about Egypt are just ridiculous, perhaps amongst some tribal groups in the south) forbids the mutilation of the genital organs, and is just as safe and harmless as male circumcision.


Or at least close. Do you see now why he shys away from answering the difficult questions? It has nothing to do with me 'misrepresenting' what he says. His problem is that I present his own views more openly and frankly than he himself is willing to.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 10th, 2010 at 11:45am

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2010 at 8:59am:
Here you go Annie - here is an example of Abu being open and frank:


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

Quote:
The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims


If you actually did some proper research you'd find female circumcision is not the same as FGM, that's why they coined that acronym, to prevent confusion. Female circumcision as practised in Islam (which it's hardly even practised, those figures about Egypt are just ridiculous, perhaps amongst some tribal groups in the south) forbids the mutilation of the genital organs, and is just as safe and harmless as male circumcision.


Or at least close. Do you see now why he shys away from answering the difficult questions? It has nothing to do with me 'misrepresenting' what he says. His problem is that I present his own views more openly and frankly than he himself is willing to.


Abu is female circumcision in Islam a clitorectomy? Because if so, that's certainly not harmless. Can you show me a verse from the Quran or a Hadith where this is recommended?

FD, none of the women I know have been circumcised. If it was a common Islamic practice (and Abu says above it's not) then I'm sure it would have been mentioned when I had my own daughter, at which point I would have taken her and run a mile.

As your focus is not on what the religion actually says, but on how contemporary Muslims interpret and practice Islam, isn't FGM a moot point for you if the majority don't do it?


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:09pm

Quote:
FD, none of the women I know have been circumcised..... isn't FGM a moot point for you if the majority don't do it?


As Abu so points out so religiously, we do not live under Islamic law so the actions of Muslims are not a measure of Islamic law.

We do not stone gays to death. Does that mean it is a moot point to criticise someone who wants to introduce the practice?


Quote:
As your focus is not on what the religion actually says, but on how contemporary Muslims interpret and practice Islam


My focus is on what the religion actually says. It's just that I believe that Muslims themselves are the best judge of their own religion. Like I said, I am not into telling people they don't understand their own religion. After all, if Shariah law is ever implemented, it will be Muslims that do it, not 'the religion'.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:20pm
Annie,


Quote:
Abu is female circumcision in Islam a clitorectomy?


No it is not, and I've mentioned this in quite a bit of detail to fd before, and have quoted for him the sole hadith which mentions it, in which the Prophet (saw) heard of a lady who did it, and he said it's ok to make a small incision in the hood above the vulva, but not to cut too much that it causes discomfort or loss of pleasure for them.

As usual though, he's not interested in such things, and merely wishes to blur the lines between that and FGM to score a few propaganda points.


Quote:
Can you show me a verse from the Quran or a Hadith where this is recommended?


No because there are none. Only a hadith, as I mentioned above, which says it's ok if it's not done excessively. Nowhere is it recommended.

So fd is skating on very thin ice with this one, since it's not a practise required or even encouraged in Islamic law, nor is it a widespread practise of Muslims themselves. Those who do practise it probably do so out of cultural traditions that predate Islam in their region (mostly in Africa).

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:27pm

Quote:
As usual though, he's not interested in such things, and merely wishes to blur the lines between that and FGM to score a few propaganda points.


Again Abu, you substitute your fantasies for what I actually post. I have mentioned this distinction many times in this thread already. So again you agree with me but claim to be contradicting me.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:32pm
Abu, you claim I have some underhanded agenda with my questions, but you fail to see the obvious - that it is merely an attempt to clarify some important issues that you have hardly been clear on.

For example, can you explain this apparent contradiction:


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 6:37pm:
Circumcision is not the same as mutilation.

Circumcision is when small incisions are made which do not damage the function of the sexual organs, and Islam encourages this for both male and female, but not the mutilation some people do in Arican countries, which is what we know as FGM.



abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:20pm:

Quote:
Can you show me a verse from the Quran or a Hadith where this is recommended?


No because there are none. Only a hadith, as I mentioned above, which says it's ok if it's not done excessively. Nowhere is it recommended.


Is this why you don't want to answer questions any more, because you inevitably contradict yourself?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:35pm
Well there is some difference of opinion on whether it is recommended or not. But Annie asked for Qur'an or Hadith where it's encouraged, and it's not in either of them.

Hence my answer.

You see contradiction, but in fact it's just a different context.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:38pm
OK thanks. See how easy it is if you just answer the question? There is no need to spend 6 pages making excuses.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:52pm

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:27pm:
Again Abu, you substitute your fantasies for what I actually post. I have mentioned this distinction many times in this thread already.


FD, you're substituting your fantasies for the truth - at least when it comes to FGM.

Your Wiki states:


Quote:
Circumcision: Circumcision is required under Islam for both men and women


I've said it's not. Abu has also said it's not, though there is a Hadith that says it's permissable but certainly not required.

Will you change the Wiki to something more truthful?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 1:00pm
Sure Annie.


Quote:
Well there is some difference of opinion on whether it is recommended or not. But Annie asked for Qur'an or Hadith where it's encouraged, and it's not in either of them.


Abu, can you explain where it is recommended, or why Muslims disagree on whether it is recommended? This will help me to make my wiki a more accurate reflection of Islam.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by HigherBeam on Oct 10th, 2010 at 1:21pm
Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"
 

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 10th, 2010 at 1:38pm

Quote:
Abu, can you explain where it is recommended


Nope, I've just heard it from word of mouth that some legal scholars have stated in the past it's recommended.

In the absence of actual textual evidence, and with opposition to it from most Muslim communities, then as Annie said, it's moot.

I just find it weird fd that you (along with all other anti-Islamic goons) carry on about Islam and FGM, yet rarely mention the fact many Christians also practice it too. It seems you've completely neglected the fact your own religious background is steeped in this practice.

No propaganda value in that though is there?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 10th, 2010 at 2:36pm
I have updated the wiki. I have also added a section on rape and death by stoning. If you see any errors please let me know.


Quote:
I just find it weird fd that you (along with all other anti-Islamic goons) carry on about Islam and FGM, yet rarely mention the fact many Christians also practice it too.


If Australian Christians joined this forum and started preaching the resumption of FGM, I would criticise them just as much.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 10th, 2010 at 2:47pm
If Australian Christians joined this forum and started preaching the resumption of FGM, I would criticise them just as much.

- FD

Ok .. but I now have to ask the question .. why would ANY Christian (Australian or otherwise) preach in favour of FGM???

The Holy Bible recurringly forbids these types of practices.



Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 10th, 2010 at 4:12pm
fd,


Quote:
If Australian Christians joined this forum and started preaching the resumption of FGM, I would criticise them just as much.


And where did Muslims preach in favour of it?

Lisa,


Quote:
Ok .. but I now have to ask the question .. why would ANY Christian (Australian or otherwise) preach in favour of FGM???


Because it's a practice carried out by Christians.


Quote:
Even though FGC is practiced in mostly Islamic countries, it is not an Islamic practice. FGC is a cross-cultural and cross-religious ritual. In Africa and the Middle East it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics, to name a few.

Source: Female Genital Cutting Education Network


Quote:
The Holy Bible recurringly forbids these types of practices.


I very much doubt you know much about what's in the "Holy Bible". Do you know for instance that according to the "Holy Bible", if a girl is raped outside the city limits, the rapist is liable to marry her, pay her father a coupla shekels and can never divorce her? Or that parents can sell their kids into slavery? But only for 6 year terms mind you.

I think it's best you read your "Holy Bible" thoroughly before commenting about what is and isn't in it.

Especially considering that it does permit mutilation of the body, especially if part of your body "caused you to sin", like this poor misguided simpleton from the Phillipines.



Filipino Cuts Off Penis in Fit of Religious Fervor

BACOLOD, Philippines (Reuters) - A 32-year-old Filipino farmer who believed his penis was driving him to sin sliced it off with a machete in a fit of religious fervor, family members and doctors said on Friday.

Relatives said they found the former security guard lying on the floor, covered in blood and with a portion of his penis missing when they went to his hut on Negros island in the southern Philippines on Monday.

``He is a good son, and one of seven children, He indulged himself by reading the Bible,'' his mother told reporters in Bacolod City 306 miles south of Manila, where the man is now in hospital.

``His act was probably triggered by the book of Matthew 18:8,'' she said.

The verse, from the New Testament, reads ``If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.''

Family members said they rushed the man to a nearby hospital in Bacolod where doctors said they had stitched up and reconstructed his penis, although it is now 20 percent shorter.

Relatives said they were unable to find the severed portion.

Doctors said the man's penis showed several wounds, indicating that the man had hacked at it several times before it detached.

``The mere act of cutting his penis signifies that he is psychotic,'' the doctor said, but did not indicate whether the man would undergo psychiatric evaluation.

He is now in stable condition and his wounds were expected to heal in two and a half weeks, doctors said. The man will still be able to have children, the doctor added.

The man's mother said her son had been depressed and obsessed with the Bible since his wife moved to Manila to work as a housemaid, leaving their young child to live with her family.

``He said he wanted to be nailed to a coconut tree,'' the man's mother said. ``He had memorized the Bible and preaches with the pastors in our place.

``He also advised other people to remove nude photos from their walls so that small children will not become sex maniacs later,'' the mother said.

Today newspaper quoted the man as saying he had no regrets about cutting off his penis because it was driving him to sin.

Local radio and newspaper reports said the man had visualized his penis as a ``cobra'' drawing him toward women.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 10th, 2010 at 4:37pm
I very much doubt you know much about what's in the "Holy Bible".

Do you know for instance that according to the "Holy Bible", if a girl is raped outside the city limits, the rapist is liable to marry her, pay her father a coupla shekels and can never divorce her? Or that parents can sell their kids into slavery? But only for 6 year terms mind you.

- Abu

I very much doubt that you know anything about me quite frankly.

I've read the Holy Bible back to back over 12 times and I also taught the Bible for 15 yrs.

Oh and I know the OLD TESTAMENT laws (which you've partially quoted above) VERY well also.

Now Abu .. I've said this a few times to you .. do you think you could stop embarrassing yourself with the rubbish you insist on posting?

It would make a nice change ..

Kind regards

Lisa

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 11th, 2010 at 7:53pm

Quote:
And where did Muslims preach in favour of it?


For starters, there was Malik right here on this forum.

A more real world example is the Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), who say female circumcision is necessary for Muslims.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 11th, 2010 at 9:00pm
Please quote what Malik said.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 11th, 2010 at 10:09pm
Here is an example:


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 9:32pm:
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.

....


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.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 11th, 2010 at 10:24pm
And that's nothing different to what I've said either. Such a procedure, a small incision in the clitoral hood, which does not damage the girl's body is permissible in Islam.

Nowhere did he promote or encourage it as you earlier claimed.

Felt easier about attributing fabrications to him in his absence?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 11th, 2010 at 11:01pm
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.

- some ignorant id called Malik


Pure, unadulterated, bovine faecal matter!

Christianity DOES promote and encourage sex with one's wife and husband. This is BIBLE based.




Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 11th, 2010 at 11:16pm
And that's nothing different to what I've said either. Such a procedure, a small incision in the clitoral hood, which does not damage the girl's body is permissible in Islam.

- Abu


As a woman I would like to say that the above act is utterly disgusting and vile.

And your words : does not damage the girl's body is a lie!

The clitoral hood is a small and sexually sensitive area within the self cleansing vaginal region .. and enables a woman to enjoy sex and want more of it.

It's essential for a woman to enjoy sensational oral and vaginal sex and to climax to incredible heights of pleasure.

And as far as I am concerned .. there is NOTHING more pleasurable and satisfying than climaxing hard and loud in the arms of your soul mate! It's a beautiful satisfying and sensual journey which you both travel together .. thanks to what?? The clitoris which GOD has made perfectly well and has no need for any person to tamper with in any way!

It's an abominable disgrace and an insult when we finite minded human beings have the audacity to tell God our creator that HE GOT IT WRONG .. that we need to finish and perfect what God has created by cutting ourselves here and there.

The Holy Bible says and I quote:

Psalm 139:14 We are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 11th, 2010 at 11:31pm
And Abu .. how many times have I told you to get your act together and stop posting incessant rubbish of the highest order?

I'm tired of reprimanding and correcting you at every turn. Who do you think I am .. your wife???



Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:50am

Quote:
The clitoral hood is a small and sexually sensitive area within the self cleansing vaginal region .. and enables a woman to enjoy sex and want more of it.

It's essential for a woman to enjoy sensational oral and vaginal sex and to climax to incredible heights of pleasure.


So why are women paying large sums of money to have it done? Claiming it heightens sexual pleasure?

http://www.care2.com/news/member/198234727/696554

If anyone is sprouting bovine faeces here it would appear to be toi.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 12th, 2010 at 2:01pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:50am:

Quote:
The clitoral hood is a small and sexually sensitive area within the self cleansing vaginal region .. and enables a woman to enjoy sex and want more of it.

It's essential for a woman to enjoy sensational oral and vaginal sex and to climax to incredible heights of pleasure.


So why are women paying large sums of money to have it done? Claiming it heightens sexual pleasure?

http://www.care2.com/news/member/198234727/696554

If anyone is sprouting bovine faeces here it would appear to be toi.



Oh for goodness sake Abu .. you've provided a link to some obscure message board.

And as if that's not enough .. the vague link in question had nothing positive to say about FGM either!

There is a difference btwn taking a cursory glance and having a thorough look at something Abu.

In this instance I strongly suggest you take a much closer look at the clitoris issue.

And I stand by my earlier comment in which I stated ..


It's an abominable disgrace and an insult when we finite minded human beings have the audacity to tell God our creator that HE GOT IT WRONG .. that we need to finish and perfect what God has created by cutting ourselves here and there.

The Holy Bible says and I quote:

Psalm 139:14 We are fearfully and wonderfully made.



Abu .. wish you'd behave.  

Lisa


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:30pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

Quote:
So Annie, do you agree with Abu, or do you reject my reality and replace it with your own?


I think you're both playing with semantics on the courtship issue.


[quote]Yet Islam supports both of these things and you speak out in support of Islam? Do you understand now why Abu is so reluctant to engage in 'open and frank' discussion on topics like slavery in Islam, rape within marriage, sex with slaves (who according to Abu are not sex slaves just because of the coincidence that they are slaves and you can have sex with them), etc.


Do you support every single aspect of democracy? You're condemning me for thinking critically about Islam and being able to point out the good as well as the bad. Whether you see it or not, Islam has a lot of beauty.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are many hadith that advocate the freeing of slaves and the religious rewards that doing so brings. Likewise with the Quran. One of the prophet's friends was an ex-slave called Bilal who was purchased and freed by the man who would later become the first caliph. If you're interested I can share the story here - it's beautiful.


Quote:
So tell me now Annie, what would you think of a law that specifically permits a man to marry a girl before she even reaches puberty, or a law that legalises rape within marriage? Could you bring yourself to ask Abu about these things, in an open and frank manner?


A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD. She can't be forced, but even if she could I've already made it clear that I think both forced marriages and rape in any form are wrong.

Incidentally, rape is punishable by death in Islam. As it should be. And yes, I could ask Abu about anything pertaining to Islam and I know he'd answer me with respect and sincerity because he knows I'm genuinely after information.



Quote:
After all, what is a right, other than a legally protected priviledge? Are you suggesting that because then men may marry and rape little girls, but it is officially 'frowned upon', they don't actually have the right to do it?


Islam doesn't protect the rights of rapists, FD.



Quote:
Do you think that all that is required to protect the rights of children is to give them legal recourse if their parents try to marry them off to a dirty old pedophile? Because that is the extent of the protection offered to young girls in a 'proper' Islamic society.


I think that if the girls parents were practicing Islam properly this wouldn't be an issue. A woman in Islam should be sexually and mentally mature before marriage is permitted.



Quote:
In order to make Islam seem attractive, he must replace genuine Aussie culture with the dregs of our society. A good demonstration is how he pretends that giving women freedom to choose for themselves means nothing more than western men taking advantage of that freedom.


And in order for you to make Islam and Muslims seem barbaric and backward, you must drag up and rehash the same points ad nauseam.

The Quran says that a woman is the equal of a man, that a husband must treat his wife with love and kindness. In one particularly strong hadith, Muhammad said "The best among you are those that are the best to their wives."

Old men marrying young girls isn't exclusive to Islam. There's nothing in our law stopping a 16yr old girl from marrying a 70yr old man. Is that disgusting and perverted? Yes. Do I like it? No. Will I shun democracy because it allows it to happen? Of course not.


[/quote]

You are wrong on so many issues. For starters, the hadith you misquoted actually says the women who complain of being beaten are not the best among you:

"Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you." - Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2141

And looking at the text of the Qur'an as a whole, there is no way that women are considered the equal of men.

"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 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 most high." - Qur'an 4:34

"Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise." - Qur'an 2:228

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:45pm
Then there's the polygamy laws in the Qur'an (Qur'an 4:3), women’s testimony being worth half that of a man's (Qur'an 2:282) and half the inheritance in comparison to a man (Qur'an 4:11). Clearly the Islamic definition of equality differs from what most understand it to mean. Is a disobedient husband allowed to be beaten by a pious wife? And BTW the "miswak' or 'light beating' defense is not from the Qur'an.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:57pm

Quote:
For starters, the hadith you misquoted actually says the women who complain of being beaten are not the best among you:



I suggest you check your facts before you post. The hadith I correctly quoted says:

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The best among you are those who treat their wives in the best manner." - Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 217





Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:59pm

Quote:
"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 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 most high." - Qur'an 4:34


That's quite a bad translation.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 12th, 2010 at 7:26pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

Quote:
For starters, the hadith you misquoted actually says the women who complain of being beaten are not the best among you:


I suggest you check your facts before you post. The hadith I correctly quoted says:

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The best among you are those who treat their wives in the best manner." - Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 217


My apologies, and correction accepted. However it still conflicts with the hadith I quoted.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 6:59pm:

Quote:
"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 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 most high." - Qur'an 4:34


That's quite a bad translation.


Even if we do accept those few words have been mistranslated, claiming men and women are equal in Islam has been shown to be false.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:33pm
It is absurd to suggest that men and women are equal under Islam. I cannot understand how someone with even a basic understanding of Sharia law could claim that.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 11th, 2010 at 10:24pm:
And that's nothing different to what I've said either. Such a procedure, a small incision in the clitoral hood, which does not damage the girl's body is permissible in Islam.



Nor is it anything different to what I have said. I have acknowledged the distinction made by Islam. Once again you agree with me while claiming to contradict me.


Quote:
Nowhere did he promote or encourage it as you earlier claimed.


Yes he did. He explained the benefits of it.


Quote:
And BTW the "miswak' or 'light beating' defense is not from the Qur'an.


Can you explain this please Jibreel?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:34pm
Jibreel,

The Prophet (pbuh) said:  الناس مستوون كأسنان المشط

Just because one has authority over another does not mean they are not equal. There is equality and there is sameness, people are not all the same, but they are all equal in the broad sense of the term. Obviously one who has authority over another will enjoy different rights to them, but it doesn't mean they are more valuable or worthy to their creator, only their taqwa decides that.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:37pm

Quote:
Just because one has authority over another does not mean they are not equal.


Yes it does Abu.


Quote:
There is equality and there is sameness, people are not all the same, but they are all equal in the broad sense of the term.


How 'broadly' do you have to redefine equality to encompass the inequality of Islamic law?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 12th, 2010 at 9:03pm

Quote:
Yes it does Abu.


So Australia is not a society based on equality?

I am not equal to politicians, police officers etc??

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 12th, 2010 at 9:17pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:34pm:
Jibreel,

The Prophet (pbuh) said:  الناس مستوون كأسنان المشط

Just because one has authority over another does not mean they are not equal. There is equality and there is sameness, people are not all the same, but they are all equal in the broad sense of the term. Obviously one who has authority over another will enjoy different rights to them, but it doesn't mean they are more valuable or worthy to their creator, only their taqwa decides that.


As I've said, the Islamic definition of equality differs from what most understand it to mean. Equality between sexes is having the same rights regardless of your gender. Therefore women are not equal in Islam.


freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 8:33pm:

Quote:
And BTW the "miswak' or 'light beating' defense is not from the Qur'an.


Can you explain this please Jibreel?


Sura 4:34 says nothing of a “light” beating. Yusuf Ali added it to his popular translation in parenthesis. Generally other translation do not use it. There are rules and limits (for example; hitting your wife in the face is not allowed), but the miswak defense is not from the hadith literature. Thats simply from commentary by some scholars. And the definition of “light beating” itself is dependant on what Muhammad saw as light. In sahih narrations he allowed men to beat their wives until they were “green” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:02pm

Quote:
So Australia is not a society based on equality?


Australians value quality probably more than any other society on earth, to the point of looking down on someone because they achieve great things. It's part of our cultural baggage. I'm sure you are aware of this, seeing as you claim to have grown up with exposure to real Australian culture.


Quote:
I am not equal to politicians, police officers etc?


You can become a policeman or politician if you want. Unlike Islamic law, you will not be discriminated against based on sex or religion. That is what equality before the law means - not that the convict is equal to the president, but individuals have equal access to both positions. I am surprised you do not understand this, having grown up in western culture.


Quote:
As I've said, the Islamic definition of equality differs from what most understand it to mean.


What is the Islamic definition?


Quote:
There are rules and limits (for example; hitting your wife in the face is not allowed)


Is this because women are permitted to show their face in public?


Quote:
but the miswak defense is not from the hadith literature


Why do you refer to it as a defence? Because Muslims use it to 'defend' the public image of Sharia law?


Quote:
In sahih narrations he allowed men to beat their wives until they were “green” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)


Is this true Abu?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:11pm

Quote:
You can become a policeman or politician if you want. Unlike Islamic law, you will not be discriminated against based on sex or religion.


So it's not a society based on treating people equally, but on theoretically providing equal access for all to any position?

The simple fact is that most people will never be police officers or politicians, and don't say it's possible, because you know full well it's not, so in effect Australia is not a society based on equality, except in the theoretical sense.


Quote:
Is this because women are permitted to show their face in public?


Hitting anyone in the face is prohibited.

Nice example of how you try to twist everything to suit your agenda though.


Quote:
Is this true Abu?


I've never come across it before. Would need to investigate.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:23pm

Quote:
So it's not a society based on treating people equally, but on theoretically providing equal access for all to any position?


You judge people by their actions, not by their sex, sexuality, race, religion etc.


Quote:
The simple fact is that most people will never be police officers or politicians, and don't say it's possible, because you know full well it's not


This is true, but the reason is important. That is, it is not possible because they are not competent for the job, not because they are female, black, lesbian, non-Muslim etc. That is what equality before the law means Abu. It is commonly understood by westerners. Perhaps you have rejected western values without understanding them


Quote:
Hitting anyone in the face is prohibited.


So when you stone a little girl to death for cheating on the old man she was married off to, you bury her to her neck, leaving only the head exposed, but you are not allowed to hit her on the face?


Quote:
I've never come across it before. Would need to investigate.


I am very interested in this, given you avoidance of the soggy miswak issue and claims that wife beating is forbidden in Islam.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:45pm
The simple fact is that most people will never be police officers or politicians, and don't say it's possible, because you know full well it's not, so in effect Australia is not a society based on equality, except in the theoretical sense.

- Abu


As regards police officers .. why not? It's not as if the entrance exam results are high in Oz.

In fact.. back when I finished high school .. those students who FAILED their HSC went to Police College .. because they couldn't get into University.

Abu .. are you sure you're a born and bred Aussie?? I personally doubt that you are to be brutally honest.

If anything .. you sound like someone who has only been in Oz for a short time .. and I say this only because you're so VERY ignorant on many matters.

I'm beginning to think ignorance is at the core of your stupidity.

Oh and I just double checked the entry requirements for becoming a police officer today .. just as I thought .. not much in the way of HSC results at all.

Meh .. you sound just like my parents Abu .. they're migrants also!

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:54pm

freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

Quote:
As I've said, the Islamic definition of equality differs from what most understand it to mean.


What is the Islamic definition?


To be a good Muslim both sexes must follow Islam, thus they can both go to paradise by doing so.  In that sense they are equal and this is what they define as “equality”. However what is required of both sexes is not the same, so in reality they are far from being equals.


freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

Quote:
There are rules and limits (for example; hitting your wife in the face is not allowed)


Is this because women are permitted to show their face in public?


Muhammad instructed his followers not to do so in multiple narration. In my opinion, I would say “yes” this is the reason why he permitted beating women but not their faces.


freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

Quote:
but the miswak defense is not from the hadith literature


Why do you refer to it as a defence? Because Muslims use it to 'defend' the public image of Sharia law?


Yes. Some claim it is only meant as a symbolic tap, but Islamic texts do not agree with this.


freediver wrote on Oct 12th, 2010 at 10:02pm:

Quote:
In sahih narrations he allowed men to beat their wives until they were “green” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)


Is this true Abu?


Here's a link to it:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/072.sbt.html#007.072.715

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Imperium on Oct 13th, 2010 at 2:02am
how did this topic get so many posts

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2010 at 5:46am

Quote:
I'm beginning to think ignorance is at the core of your stupidity.


The only stupidity here seems to be emanating from you.

Nowhere did I state anything about the entry requirements for becoming a police officer, I merely mentioned the impracticality of everyone being a police officer.

Honestly you should hold your tongue a little more, because you are an embarrassment to yourself.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more, especially where it tells women to be seen but not heard.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:19am

Quote:
In sahih narrations he allowed men to beat their wives until they were “green” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)


Abu, even though this is attributed to Bukhari it's quite obviously not true because it contradicts the Quran.




Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 13th, 2010 at 10:57am
You're full of it, Jibreel. Where in this does it say Muhammad 'allowed' the beating?


Quote:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 11:04am
The only stupidity here seems to be emanating from you.

Nowhere did I state anything about the entry requirements for becoming a police officer, I merely mentioned the impracticality of everyone being a police officer.

Honestly you should hold your tongue a little more, because you are an embarrassment to yourself.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more, especially where it tells women to be seen but not heard.

- Abu

In short .. you're backpeddling again. You know full well .. you were attacking Western culture wrt to equality etc (a mere cursory glance at the context of the discussion you were having with FD gives that away).

Your deep seated ignorance of western culture is slowly unravelling Abu ...

I merely picked up another aspect of your ignorance .. the fact that you are not at all familiar with the entry requirements for becoming a police officer in Oz (which are as follows: essentially you may be either male or female .. and low academic achievements/results are ok).

Abu .. you're getting too predictable ... and now you're getting boring.

Oh and as regards the last sentence which you've conveniently made up ..  you know full well the Holy Bible promotes EQUALITY btwn the sexes.

If anything .. your last sentence tells me more about what YOU personally think/desire of women.

Not to worry .. it's all good my dear friend .. because .. I intend to be SEEN all over this forum :)

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 11:32am
Hitting anyone in the face is prohibited.

- Abu


Is that so Abu???

Then why are women STILL being openly and publicly hit with stones in Islamic countries .. hit with large stones in the face .. until they die .. RIGHT NOW .. IN THIS DAY AND AGE .. despite world wide condemnation???

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 11:38am
I expect to find another backpeddle driven response when I return ... in typical Abu fasion .. sighs.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 13th, 2010 at 6:45pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 13th, 2010 at 10:57am:
You're full of it, Jibreel. Where in this does it say Muhammad 'allowed' the beating?


Quote:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"


Aisha is protesting and Muhammad says nothing, even to the abusive husband. In fact he sides with the abuser. If you don't think thats allowing abuse, what is? Muhammad is the equivalent of a judge in that situation. What sort of a judge would do that? His indifference towards her suffering proves that her beatings were within the bounds of Islamic law.

How about this one where Abu Bakr informs Muhammad he slapped Khadijah’s daughter, and he responds by laughing and allows the mother of believers to be hit by the companions?


Quote:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy. (Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3506)


http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3506

And of course, I'm "full of it" and sahih narrations must be false when you don't like what they tell us.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by GH on Oct 13th, 2010 at 7:26pm
Qur'an (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 the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."  Allah telling Job to beat his wife.

From the Hadith:
Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her.  Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing.  Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission.  Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him.  According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them."  At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands.  Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'"  A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant.  Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:32pm

Quote:
Aisha is protesting and Muhammad says nothing, even to the abusive husband. In fact he sides with the abuser. If you don't think thats allowing abuse, what is?


Do you even know what the word "abuse" means? It doesn't mean ضرب that's for sure.

Nowhere in that hadith is permission given to abuse anyone. And unless you're a qualified muhaddith, then you don't have even the slightest authority to speak on what is or isn't authentic by narration.


Quote:
How about this one where Abu Bakr informs Muhammad he slapped Khadijah’s daughter, and he responds by laughing and allows the mother of believers to be hit by the companions?


The companions were permitted to hit the mothers of the believers were they?

You obviously have absolutely no idea about the relationships between these people, otherwise you wouldn't peddle this rubbish.


Quote:
And of course, I'm "full of it"


Seems to be...


Quote:
and sahih narrations must be false when you don't like what they tell us.


As I said, unless you can produce your credentials as a muhaddith, better to be silent than speak out of turn about things which you obviously have no knowledge.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:45pm
Hmm anyone else see a number of issues in the above response??

Seems Abu is totally unaware ... ahhh ... ignorance is such bliss.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:46pm
And Abu .. you were totally hammered on the previous page.

Lucky for you the page in this topic turned hey.

Guess you're hoping people won't turn back to see ..

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by bobbythebat1 on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:50pm
I am learning a lot.
Muhammad says it's ok to bash people up.
Maybe Islam is a violent religion?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:57pm

Quote:
To be a good Muslim both sexes must follow Islam, thus they can both go to paradise by doing so.  In that sense they are equal and this is what they define as “equality”. However what is required of both sexes is not the same, so in reality they are far from being equals.


So, only equal in the afterlife, so long as they follow unequal rules on earth? Abu is this what you also mean when you claim equality?


Quote:
Abu, even though this is attributed to Bukhari it's quite obviously not true because it contradicts the Quran.


Can you elaborate please Annie?


Quote:
Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you."


This is interesting Annie - Muhammed himself said this women must have sex with the man before she can go free. Also, I don't see anything in there where Muhammed forbids the man from beating her, even though that was apparently your intention with the quote. If anything it reinforces that Islam allows full-on wife beating.


Quote:
Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them."  At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands.  Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.


So this is abrogation? Muhammed initially forbade wife beating but changed his mind when the women got all uppity?


Quote:
Nowhere in that hadith is permission given to abuse anyone. And unless you're a qualified muhaddith, then you don't have even the slightest authority to speak on what is or isn't authentic by narration.


Can you offer your own view then Abu? It seems pretty clear that Islam allows far more than the soggy miswak stuff.


Quote:
As I said, unless you can produce your credentials as a muhaddith, better to be silent than speak out of turn about things which you obviously have no knowledge.


Come on Abu, surely you don't expect anyone to be satisfied with a response like that? That we are not entitled to think for ourselves? Is that really what Islam teaches you? Shoudn't you be setting the record straight, rather than trying to tell people they can't talk about it?


Quote:
Muhammad says it's ok to bash people up.


No bobby. Only women. And slaves. And non-Muslims. And people who break the myriad rules. And people who follow a slightly different form of Islam.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 13th, 2010 at 9:04pm


Bobby. wrote on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:50pm:
I am learning a lot.
Muhammad says it's ok to bash people up.
Maybe Islam is a violent religion?



Do you even know what the word "violence" or "bash" means?

Unless you can produce your credentials as a muhaddith, better to be silent than speak out of turn about things which you obviously have no knowledge.


apologies to all ..  but it had to be done.

sighs ...

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 13th, 2010 at 9:50pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

Quote:
Aisha is protesting and Muhammad says nothing, even to the abusive husband. In fact he sides with the abuser. If you don't think thats allowing abuse, what is?


Do you even know what the word "abuse" means? It doesn't mean ضرب that's for sure.


Turning your wifes skin “green” isn't abuse?


Quote:
Nowhere in that hadith is permission given to abuse anyone.


See above.


Quote:
And unless you're a qualified muhaddith, then you don't have even the slightest authority to speak on what is or isn't authentic by narration.


And you are?


Quote:
[quote]How about this one where Abu Bakr informs Muhammad he slapped Khadijah’s daughter, and he responds by laughing and allows the mother of believers to be hit by the companions?


The companions were permitted to hit the mothers of the believers were they?

You obviously have absolutely no idea about the relationships between these people, otherwise you wouldn't peddle this rubbish.[/quote]

By all means, enlighten us on this “rubbish”.


Quote:
[quote]And of course, I'm "full of it"


Seems to be...[/quote]

Oh the Irony.


Quote:
[quote]and sahih narrations must be false when you don't like what they tell us.


As I said, unless you can produce your credentials as a muhaddith, better to be silent than speak out of turn about things which you obviously have no knowledge.[/quote]

And who are you, my father? What gives you more right than anyone else to comment on something?

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 14th, 2010 at 5:41am

Quote:
Turning your wifes skin “green” isn't abuse?


Abuse means to use something in an incorrect manner, usually so it becomes damaged... I don't think the Prophet (pbuh) would commend such a thing. And the hadith does not in any way claim he did.

Also what does turning the skin green mean? I don't think it's very clear.


Quote:
And you are?


No, but contrary to you, I am not attempting to derive my own backyard fatwa from it either.


Quote:
By all means, enlighten us on this “rubbish”.


If you had even a fraction of the knowledge about Islam as you really should have to be commenting the way you are, then you'd know.


Quote:
And who are you, my father? What gives you more right than anyone else to comment on something?


There are different kinds of classifications other than Sahih, and there are more criteria for accepting the contents of a hadith than it merely being graded as Sahih. Just because something is in Sahih Bukhari doesn't make it a given part of Islam.

Nothing gives me more right to comment, but as I said above, I'm not attempting to derive my own backyard fatwa here.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 14th, 2010 at 6:39am

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 5:41am:
Also what does turning the skin green mean? I don't think it's very clear.


Haven't you ever seen a bruise? It means she was bruised by the beating her husband gave her.


Quote:
Abuse means to use something in an incorrect manner, usually so it becomes damaged...


The definition of a bruise:
(n) bruise, contusion (an injury that doesn't break the skin but results in some discoloration)
(v) bruise, contuse (injure the underlying soft tissue or bone of) "I bruised my knee"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bruise


Quote:
I don't think the Prophet (pbuh) would commend such a thing. And the hadith does not in any way claim he did.


I never claimed he commended it, only that he allowed it on this occasion


Quote:
No, but contrary to you, I am not attempting to derive my own backyard fatwa from it either.


No different than when a Muslim quotes a narration in defense of Islam. Regardless, striking your wife is permitted and it is abhorrent to any sane minded individual. Muslims here are doing what Asra Nomani (a Muslim herself) refers to as the "4:34 dance".


Quote:
If you had even a fraction of the knowledge about Islam as you really should have to be commenting the way you are, then you'd know.


Nice ad hominem


Quote:
There are different kinds of classifications other than Sahih, and there are more criteria for accepting the contents of a hadith than it merely being graded as Sahih. Just because something is in Sahih Bukhari doesn't make it a given part of Islam.


I'm no scholar, but I'm not ignorant. I'm aware of all this, especially all the maudu and da`if narrations that Muslims like to peddle to kaafir.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 14th, 2010 at 7:19am

Quote:
Haven't you ever seen a bruise? It means she was bruised by the beating her husband gave her.


Bruising does not necessitate abusing.


Quote:
I never claimed he commended it, only that he allowed it on this occasion


But there's nothing even in the hadith to indicate he allowed it. The woman was committing a crime against him also by slandering him, and so it seems they were considered to be "fair and square".

In fact the manner in which she was brought to the Prophet (pbuh) indicated she was going to be vindicated for her ordeal. But when it was discovered she was also guilty, then she lost her right to complain.


Quote:
No different than when a Muslim quotes a narration in defense of Islam.


If they attach the idea "It's therefore halal/haram to do such and such" to it, then no it isn't any different to what you've done I agree.


Quote:
Regardless, striking your wife is permitted


Yes it is, in certain circumstances.


Quote:
and it is abhorrent to any sane minded individual.


So you're saying it's permitted, yet it's abhorrent to any sane minded individual?


Quote:
Muslims here are doing what Asra Nomani (a Muslim herself) refers to as the "4:34 dance".


Which Muslims?


Quote:
Nice ad hominem


It's not wise to employ terms you clearly don't comprehend.

Nowhere in that statement did I attack you personally, I merely pointed out you have an obvious lack of knowledge, for your ignorant claim that the Prophet (pbuh) permitted the companions to slap the mothers of the believers.



Quote:
I'm no scholar, but I'm not ignorant.


Not doing a good job so far of convincing me of that.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 14th, 2010 at 9:19am
FD,

This is from surah an-Nisa in the Quran:


Quote:
O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.


The Quran clearly states that a man must live with a woman in kindness - beating a woman until she's 'green' can hardly be called kindness in anyone's book.


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 14th, 2010 at 11:12am
The previous page and this page are interesting to read.

Why???

Because I've never seen Abu backpedal so desperately.

I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for him now ...

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Annie Anthrax on Oct 14th, 2010 at 3:36pm
Abu hasn't backpedalled once. He clarifies what he meant because you keep misunderstanding him. You should be thanking him - he's been way more patient than I would have in his place.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 14th, 2010 at 5:15pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 7:19am:
Bruising does not necessitate abusing.


Earlier on you said “Abuse means to use something in an incorrect manner, usually so it becomes damaged”. The definition of “bruising” is enough to show that hitting causes damage and is certainly using the female body in an incorrect manner. And since when has beating your wife become non-abusive? Do Muslims have to attach a dual meaning to everything?


Quote:
But there's nothing even in the hadith to indicate he allowed it.


He said nothing of the abuse and he did not reprimand the husband for his actions. Therefore he allowed it. I'm sure you're aware that even the prophets silence on matters is important.


Quote:
The woman was committing a crime against him also by slandering him, and so it seems they were considered to be "fair and square".

In fact the manner in which she was brought to the Prophet (pbuh) indicated she was going to be vindicated for her ordeal. But when it was discovered she was also guilty, then she lost her right to complain.


I hope you realize that you have just justified abuse in Islam as a legitimate practice.


Quote:
Yes it is, in certain circumstances.


Yes, as you've already admitted above.


Quote:
If they attach the idea "It's therefore halal/haram to do such and such" to it, then no it isn't any different to what you've done I agree.


And you should also agree that the onus is on whoever disagrees with a sahih narration to prove its fault, and even one sahih narration is enough to form a part of shari'ah.


Quote:
So you're saying it's permitted, yet it's abhorrent to any sane minded individual?


Yes. I don't see any problems in that statement.


Quote:
Which Muslims?


Anyone who agrees that “Islam only permits a disciplinary reprimand with a toothstick”.


Quote:
It's not wise to employ terms you clearly don't comprehend.

Nowhere in that statement did I attack you personally, I merely pointed out you have an obvious lack of knowledge, for your ignorant claim that the Prophet (pbuh) permitted the companions to slap the mothers of the believers.


Its you who does not  comprehend the term. Argumentum ad hominem is an "argument against the man".


Quote:
Not doing a good job so far of convincing me of that.


That's surprising.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 14th, 2010 at 5:41pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 9:19am:
The Quran clearly states that a man must live with a woman in kindness - beating a woman until she's 'green' can hardly be called kindness in anyone's book.


The Qur'an also clearly states that a man can beat a women. Beating a women at all is hardly kindness or equality, but our definition of kindness or equality is irrelevant. Its Allah's and Muhammad's.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 4th, 2010 at 1:25pm:
I don't know where you get the "payment for young brides" thing. There is a dowry paid to the bride in an Islamic marriage which is hers to keep throughout the marriage or to help support her in case of a divorce. Incidentally, there's also a divorce payment that is agreed upon before the marriage which offers further security in the event of a marriage breakdown.


Are you also aware that if sexual intercourse has not taken place, then the payment must be returned to the man? Mahr is for all intents and purposes a payment for the use of your wifes vagina.


Quote:
Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saying to the invokers of curse: Your account is with Allah. One of you must be a liar. You have now no right over this woman. 'He said: Messenger of Allah, what about my wealth (dower that I paid her at the time of marriage)? He said: You have no claim to wealth. If you tell the truth, it (dower) is the recompense for your having had the right to intercourse with her', and if you tell a lie against her, it is still more remote from you than she is. Zuhair said in his narration: Sufyan reported to us on the authority of 'Amr that he had heard Sa'id b Jubair saying: I heard Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) saying that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said it. (Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3557)


http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3557


Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 2:02pm:
A woman has to consent to a marriage, FD. She can't be forced, but even if she could I've already made it clear that I think both forced marriages and rape in any form are wrong.


Just so others are aware. The Islamic definition of "consent" is different. A virgins silence is her consent.


Quote:
Narrated Abu Haraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "A lady slave should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted." The people said, "How will she express her permission?" The Prophet said, "By keeping silent (when asked her consent)." Some people said, "If a man, by playing a trick, presents two false witnesses before the judge to testify that he has married a matron with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage, and the husband is sure that he has never married her (before), then such a marriage will be considered as a legal one and he may live with her as husband." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 100)


http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/086.sbt.html#009.086.100

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 14th, 2010 at 6:56pm

Quote:
And since when has beating your wife become non-abusive? Do Muslims have to attach a dual meaning to everything?


Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.


Quote:
He said nothing of the abuse and he did not reprimand the husband for his actions


Yes, he was wise enough to enquire as to why.


Quote:
Therefore he allowed it


In this particular case he did not take action against the man for it, does not mean it's a permissible action. Assuming it was even abuse, which I don't think is established anyway.


Quote:
I'm sure you're aware that even the prophets silence on matters is important.


Yes, but he wasn't silent on it. He did not ignore her complaint, he investigated why it occurred.


Quote:
I hope you realize that you have just justified abuse in Islam as a legitimate practice.


I fail to see how.


Quote:
And you should also agree that the onus is on whoever disagrees with a sahih narration to prove its fault, and even one sahih narration is enough to form a part of shari'ah.


Singular narrations with no corroborating evidence can be used in some circumstances, not in all. Regardless, you've made a pretty poor attempt at supporting your claims the prophet (pbuh) permitted beating women until they're green, let alone on whether or not the source itself is authentic.


Quote:
Anyone who agrees that “Islam only permits a disciplinary reprimand with a toothstick”.


Which Muslims here claim that?


Quote:
Its you who does not  comprehend the term. Argumentum ad hominem is an "argument against the man".


Yes, and nowhere did I make an argument against you personally.


Quote:
Are you also aware that if sexual intercourse has not taken place, then the payment must be returned to the man?


Yes if the marriage is not consummated, then it is not fully considered to have been a marriage.

Not an idea unique to Islamic society, many cultures have reckoned the same kinda thing... Strangely enough.

"Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated." (Wikipedia: Consummation)


Quote:
Mahr is for all intents and purposes a payment for the use of your wifes vagina.


This is just garbage. Are you insinuating dowries are payment for use of genitals??? What kind of ridiculous claim is this?


Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Jibreel on Oct 14th, 2010 at 7:35pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14th, 2010 at 6:56pm:
Hitting need not be abusive.


In my opinion (and according to many others) physically disciplining anyone is abuse, even when done to a child.


Quote:
Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.


So the status of a women in a Muslim household is lowered to that of a child.

Maybe Muslims should stop claiming there is equality between the sexes in Islam? At the very least you should provide others with your faulty definition of equality.


Quote:
In this particular case he did not take action against the man for it, does not mean it's a permissible action.


I'm not going to keep repeating myself. We've covered this several times.


Quote:
Assuming it was even abuse, which I don't think is established anyway.


Already covered. Others will just have to decide for themselves


Quote:
I fail to see how.


You've just said “he was wise enough to enquire as to why” and  “He did not ignore her complaint, he investigated why it occurred”. Meaning you understand the situation justified the husbands actions.


Quote:
Singular narrations with no corroborating evidence can be used in some circumstances, not in all. Regardless, you've made a pretty poor attempt at supporting your claims the prophet (pbuh) permitted beating women until they're green, let alone on whether or not the source itself is authentic.


I don't think its poor . I think I explained myself pretty well, but I suppose that's down to whoever reads them to decide. And the source is sahih. Regardless of how it may be applied to shari'ah, to the best of our knowledge that incident occurred and it doesn't put Muhammad and the treatment of women in a good light.


Quote:
Which Muslims here claim that?


I thought it was you near the beginning of this thread, but I've only had a cursory read of this thread, and it doesn't really matter.


Quote:
Yes, and nowhere did I make an argument against you personally.


I'm not going to even justify this with an explanation. Please read up on logical fallacies. I'm sure most here are aware of what constitutes ad hominem.


Quote:
Yes if the marriage is not consummated, then it is not fully considered to have been a marriage.

Not an idea unique to Islamic society, many cultures have reckoned the same kinda thing... Strangely enough.


Tu quoque, and why do I care what westerners think? They're misguided kaafir, but shari'ah is from Allah.


Quote:
This is just garbage. Are you insinuating dowries are payment for use of genitals??? What kind of ridiculous claim is this?


Its your texts that insinuates this. Don't shoot the messenger.

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by Lisa on Oct 14th, 2010 at 7:39pm

Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/135#137


- Abu


Could someone frame this post please???

Title: Re: Consan.
Post by freediver on Oct 14th, 2010 at 8:22pm

Quote:
Abuse means to use something in an incorrect manner, usually so it becomes damaged...


So how badly do you have to beat your wife for her to become damaged, according to Islam?


Quote:
No, but contrary to you, I am not attempting to derive my own backyard fatwa from it either.


This is true. You are going to great lengths to avoid offering your own opinion.


Quote:
If you had even a fraction of the knowledge about Islam as you really should have to be commenting the way you are, then you'd know.


How much knowlege must one have before commenting?


Quote:
Nothing gives me more right to comment


You seem to be contradicting your other statement, quoted above. Can you clarify? If we were living under Islamic law, how would we be punished for speaking out of turn?


Quote:
Bruising does not necessitate abusing.


Abu are you saying men are allowed to bruise their wives?


Quote:
But there's nothing even in the hadith to indicate he allowed it.


Yes there is. I can't see any other rational interpretation. They complained about being beaten. Muhammed took no action. Even you are claiming it was 'justified'.


Quote:
The woman was committing a crime against him also by slandering him, and so it seems they were considered to be "fair and square".


Again you contradict yourself. If he didn't allow it, why also claim it was fair?


Quote:
In fact the manner in which she was brought to the Prophet (pbuh) indicated she was going to be vindicated for her ordeal. But when it was discovered she was also guilty, then she lost her right to complain.


So Islam forbids wife beating, but only if the wife has never done anything wrong?


Quote:
Yes it is, in certain circumstances.


What circumstances allow wife beating?


Quote:
So you're saying it's permitted, yet it's abhorrent to any sane minded individual?


I think he is implying that Islam is abhorrent to any sane person.


Quote:
The Quran clearly states that a man must live with a woman in kindness - beating a woman until she's 'green' can hardly be called kindness in anyone's book.


And yet even Abu the great deflector now admits that Islam allows wie beating under 'appropriate' circumstances. Do you have any idea what circumstances?


Quote:
Abu hasn't backpedalled once.


What do you call it when someone claims Islam forbids wife beating, then starts hinting at circumstances where it is permitted?


Quote:
He clarifies what he meant because you keep misunderstanding him.


Yes that is a nice change from refusing to answer any questions.


Quote:
Just so others are aware. The Islamic definition of "consent" is different. A virgins silence is her consent.


So a young girl can end up married without ever actually agreeing to it?


Quote:
Some people said, "If a man, by playing a trick, presents two false witnesses before the judge to testify that he has married a matron with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage, and the husband is sure that he has never married her (before), then such a marriage will be considered as a legal one and he may live with her as husband." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 100)


Can someone explain this please? Is it saying a man may forge his way into marriage?


Quote:
Hitting need not be abusive. Parents often hit their children to discipline them, and it's usually not abusive, even when it causes bruising sometimes.


What about wives abu? When is that permitted? Does the wife have the same status as a child?


Quote:
Assuming it was even abuse, which I don't think is established anyway.


If hitting your wife until she is 'green' is not abuse, what is?


Quote:
Regardless, you've made a pretty poor attempt at supporting your claims the prophet (pbuh) permitted beating women until they're green, let alone on whether or not the source itself is authentic.


But abu, you yourself admitted that it is allowed.


Quote:
Which Muslims here claim that?


Abu you have made the toothstick claim yourself. Were you attempting to decieve us by implying that was the extent of permitted beating when you knew otherwise?


Quote:
Maybe Muslims should stop claiming there is equality between the sexes in Islam? At the very least you should provide others with your faulty definition of equality.


I agree. It is hard to imagin how Abu might justify the claim of equality.


Quote:
This is just garbage. Are you insinuating dowries are payment for use of genitals??? What kind of ridiculous claim is this?


Abu, are you claiming those texts to be garbage?

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.